Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 8039

 1                           Tuesday, 26 October 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 2.24 p.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good afternoon to everyone.  Madam Registrar, would

 6     you please call the case.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Good afternoon

 8     everyone in and around the courtroom.  This is the case IT-03-69-T, the

 9     Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11             Before we invite the Prosecution to call its next witness, which

12     will be Mr. Theunens, I was informed that there were a few procedural

13     matters the Prosecution would like to raise.

14             Perhaps, Mr. Weber, I go through my list and see to what extent

15     that already covers some of your problems.

16             I do understand that the Prosecution wanted to tender only

17     selected portion of some of the documents in relation to Mr. Theunens,

18     and for that purpose has uploaded into e-court documents replacing the

19     ones earlier uploaded, and that would -- the exhibit numbers would remain

20     the same, but the 65 ter numbers would be the old ones, but then .1 added

21     to the original 65 ter number indicating that it's just an excerpt of the

22     original one, and this would be true for P1014, P1015, P1019, P1023,

23     P1027, P1031, P1032, P1074, P1177, P1376, and P1412.

24             The corresponding 65 ter numbers would be, and I follow the same

25     order:  65 ter 3847.1, 65 ter 3857.1, 65 ter 3852.1, 65 ter 3858.1,

Page 8040

 1     65 ter 1886.1, 65 ter 3853.1, 65 ter 3866.1, 65 ter 3845.1, 65 ter 4206.1

 2     65 ter 3829.1, and 65 ter 4117.1.

 3             Mr. Weber, was this one of the issues you wanted to raise?

 4             MR. WEBER:  Thank you very much for addressing it.  The numbers

 5     read in are correct, and yes.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Then Madam Registrar is invited and is

 7     permitted to replace the original 65 ter numbers related to these exhibit

 8     numbers by the .1 versions of those documents.

 9             Madam Registrar, is this sufficient information for you?

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, it is, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Then a second matter is that the

12     Prosecution has requested leave to add Mr. Theunens CV to its Rule 65 ter

13     exhibit list, which was filed on the 13th of August, 2010.  There are no

14     objections from the Defence, therefore leave is granted to add the CV of

15     Mr. Theunens to the 65 ter exhibit list.

16             Then I have two more items we should deal with before we hear the

17     testimony of Mr. Theunens.  These two items are related -- these are, as

18     a matter of fact, are elements in the history preceding the determination

19     by the Chamber of the date on which the Chamber would hear the testimony

20     of Mr. Theunens.

21             I put on the record that an e-mail was sent by Chamber's staff on

22     the 7th of September, 2010, informing the parties that the deadline for

23     responses to the Simatovic request for postponement of testimony of

24     Prosecution expert witness Reynaud Theunens, a request which was filed on

25     the 6th of September, 2010, that these deadlines had been shortened to

Page 8041

 1     close of business on the 10th of September, 2010.

 2             The second element in the history preceding the determination of

 3     the timing of the hearing of Mr. Theunens's testimony was an e-mail of

 4     the 17th of September, 2010, sent by Chamber's staff informing the

 5     parties that the Chamber had decided that the testimony of Mr. Theunens

 6     should not be bifurcated and should not take place before the last week

 7     of October 2010.

 8             These were the urgent items I had on my list to be dealt with

 9     before Mr. Theunens enters the courtroom.

10             Anything else, Mr. Weber?

11             MR. WEBER:  Yes, Your Honour.  Prosecution wanted to address a

12     couple of matters and also put some items on the record.  May I proceed?

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please do so.

14             MR. WEBER:  Over the weekend the Stanisic and Simatovic Defence

15     communicated the exhibits that will be opposed by each Defence from the

16     chart of exhibits for Mr. Theunens.  There are approximately 65 exhibits

17     being opposed by either one or both of the Defence teams.  If acceptable

18     to the Trial Chamber, the Prosecution is willing to defer discussion on

19     any objections to the opposed exhibits until after the testimony of the

20     witness and tender today only those exhibits which are not opposed by

21     either Defence.  This would be done in order to make optimum use of the

22     available court time this week.

23             That's the first matter.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, Mr. Bakrac.

25             MR. JORDASH:  In principle I see the good sense in that.  On the

Page 8042

 1     other hand, I think it would be important for Your Honours to appreciate

 2     with certain exhibits what our objection is before we launch into

 3     cross-examining Mr. Theunens on the basis of those objections.  I think

 4     Your Honours will be guided by a very brief description.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  So what we now have is we have a series of

 6     documents, a small portion of them contested, Mr. Weber says I will not

 7     tender them at this moment.  Now, you'd say you would like to raise -- at

 8     least raise matters in relation to those exhibits.  So that's part of the

 9     contested ones, not all of them.

10             MR. JORDASH:  We've only -- the Stanisic Defence have only

11     objected to around, I think, ten exhibits, and --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Could you please identify those ten.  If you

13     just write down the numbers on a little piece of paper then I take it

14     that Mr. Weber, if -- may I take it if you want to cross-examine the

15     witness on them that they have to be in evidence.

16             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You're not saying it's -- because you also

18     could, of course, examine the witness just on matters of relevance and

19     say it's totally irrelevant.  Do you not agree, Mr. Theunens?  And then

20     say therefore they should not be admitted but --

21             MR. JORDASH:  Well, Your Honour, perhaps I should be careful

22     about what I say.  We do object to the admissibility of around ten.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

24             MR. JORDASH:  And we say the Court should exclude them without

25     further consideration, at least some of them.  And we indicate that.

Page 8043

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  So what we now have a list of those documents

 2     uncontested tendered by Mr. Weber, which therefore I take it are ready

 3     for being admitted, and then we have a number which perhaps we -- I think

 4     the others are -- numbers are assigned and not yet marked for

 5     identification, but if we would know which ten they are then we could

 6     mark them for identification, and if you give the numbers to Mr. Weber

 7     then he could --

 8             MR. JORDASH:  He has them.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  He has them.

10             MR. WEBER:  The exhibits are -- part of the exhibits are

11     presently marked for identification.  The Prosecution appreciates the

12     position of the Defence and believes that they should have an opportunity

13     to state their objections for the record, and also have the opportunity

14     to cross-examine on them.  We're just proposing this measure for the sake

15     of the scheduling and for convenience.  We would obviously like to be

16     heard also eventually on the objections.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  If the objections if you have raised them during

18     cross-examination, and I take it that Mr. Weber would have an opportunity

19     to further explain that, because -- but let's not do that out of the blue

20     but on the basis of knowing what the objections are.

21             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, yes.  May I while I'm on my feet

22     introduce Mr. Gosnell to the Court who is presently our consultant but

23     hopefully more very soon.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Gosnell, welcome in this courtroom.

25             Mr. Bakrac, any response to the suggestion made by Mr. Weber?

Page 8044

 1             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Well, no, Your Honour.  I have heard

 2     your position now, and I am going to adjust to that, of course.  I just

 3     don't understand one thing, Mr. Weber got to the number of the document

 4     that we disagree with, that is 59 -- or, rather, 62.  That is what is in

 5     dispute, and we have to check three documents with our client, and we

 6     need to check something as well.

 7             I'm going to submit a list to you.  I provided it to Mr. Weber on

 8     Friday, and I'm going to give you a list of these documents that are in

 9     dispute.  I'll try to do that during the next break, and then during the

10     examination we are going to deal with these documents that are still in

11     question.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, you'll understand that I don't like

13     reading long lists of numbers, but I'm certainly not going to read the

14     very, very long lists of numbers.  So therefore, could the parties

15     provide to Madam Registrar already the list indicating which ones are the

16     tendered ones, the contested ones, and contested by which party so that

17     we have an overview of that, and then we will later find a way of putting

18     this appropriately on the record by other means than by reading those

19     lists.

20             Anything else, Mr. Weber?

21             MR. WEBER:  Yes, Your Honour.  Two other matters that we'd like

22     to put on the record.

23             On the 22nd of October, 2010, the Prosecution provided

24     Mr. Theunens with a binder containing an unmarked copy of his report

25     dated 30 June 2007 with exhibit numbers in the footnotes.  It is the

Page 8045

 1     understanding of the Prosecution that the witness has placed tabs, made

 2     highlights, and made notations of cross-references within the report.

 3     Prosecution has not reviewed these markings.  The witness has this binder

 4     with him and has indicated that it would facilitate and expedite his

 5     testimony before the Trial Chamber.  Apparently this approach has been

 6     done in the past with this witness.

 7             The Prosecution has also provided the witness with two binders

 8     containing exhibits for the witness to review at the request of the

 9     Stanisic Defence.  The next matter that the Prosecution want to place on

10     the record was just that we provided the Chamber and Defence prior to the

11     testimony of the witness with binders containing the report of the

12     witness with exhibits -- exhibit numbers in the footnotes, the curriculum

13     vitae of the witness, and a chart of the exhibits which was filed last

14     week.

15             The Prosecution will be referring to these materials during the

16     testimony of Mr. Theunens.  If anyone in the courtroom would like another

17     copy or a copy of this binder, the Prosecution does have extra binders

18     available.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Now, one final matter is about the CV of

20     Mr. Theunens.  We just decided that leave was granted to add it to the

21     65 ter list, but it has no exhibit number yet, does it?

22             MR. WEBER:  It does not.  The Prosecution has uploaded it under

23     65 ter 5812.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  5812.  And since there were no objections against

25     adding it to the 65 ter list, may I also assume that there is no

Page 8046

 1     objection against the admission into evidence of 65 ter 5812?  Then,

 2     Madam Registrar, 65 ter 5812 receives.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P1574, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  P1574, Mr. Theunens's CV is admitted into evidence.

 5             Then -- yes.  One issue totally related to what we've dealt with

 6     until now.  Mr. Jordash, did you have an opportunity to speak with

 7     Mr. Stanisic about scheduling of tomorrow afternoon?

 8             MR. JORDASH:  I did Your Honour, and his preference would be to

 9     return to the UNDU if possible, please, between the break -- or in the

10     break.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And he does not oppose against having at the

12     most two sessions in the afternoon, a little bit of a late start, because

13     tomorrow morning we'll have available until 11.30, which means that we

14     will sit from 9.00 to 10.00, have a break from 10.00 to 10.30 and then

15     sit from 10.30 to 11.30.  That would be the moment where transportation

16     back, and I know that that takes some time, could be arranged for.  We

17     would then -- I would prefer to start a bit later so that we have more

18     time over the lunch break where Mr. Stanisic will be during I think at

19     least one hour will be in his cell, then to start for example at 3.00

20     until 4.15, and then from quarter to 5.00 to 6.00, leave it two sessions,

21     which would mean in the whole of the day four and a half hours effective

22     court time.

23             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, yes.  Thank you.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Then -- yes.  I was just informed, Mr. Weber, that

25     the Prosecution was not yet informed about these plans.  No final

Page 8047

 1     decision has been taken.  The reason why you have not been informed is

 2     that we first wanted to find out what practical problems there might be

 3     at all.  Second thing we wanted to find out is whether the condition of

 4     Mr. Stanisic would oppose to any such thing, and it's only since one

 5     minute now that I know that after Mr. Jordash has consulted with his

 6     client that there is no opposition from the Stanisic Defence that now I

 7     address the Prosecution and the Simatovic Defence where we are,

 8     unfortunately, limited in time tomorrow morning.  It's not the Chamber's

 9     decision, but there's no other possibility, to have a session between

10     3.00 and 6.00 tomorrow in the afternoon.

11             MR. WEBER:  The Prosecution understand.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac.

13             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] The Simatovic Defence also

14     understands.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Then hereby Madam Registrar is invited to inform all

16     the units, sections, whoever has to make this all possible, to inform

17     them that as far as the Chamber is concerned, we would sit from 9.00 to

18     11.30, and then from 3.00 to 6.00.

19             It was of no use to inform you any earlier if for other reasons

20     it would not have worked anyhow.

21             Having dealt with all these practical matters, anything else to

22     be raised before Mr. Theunens enters the courtroom?  No?  Then could the

23     usher please escort Mr. Theunens into the courtroom.

24             I add immediately to what I earlier said is that there is some

25     conflict in the scheduling of the Judges as well.  So it all depends

Page 8048

 1     whether this will finally work or not whether the Chamber would finally

 2     decide for the afternoon whether it would be appropriate to sit under

 3     Rule 15 bis.  That's one of the remaining issues.

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5                           WITNESS:  REYNAUD THEUNENS

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Good afternoon.  Usually I start by saying

 7     Mr. Theunens, I presume, but let's be fair.  I've seen you before,

 8     Mr. Theunens, so therefore, good afternoon, Mr. Theunens.  Before you

 9     give evidence, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require you to make a

10     solemn declaration.

11             THE WITNESS:  I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

12     whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please be seated, Mr. Theunens.

14             Mr. Theunens, before we start your testimony, I'd like to inform

15     you about some scheduling issues.  We intend to sit this afternoon.  We

16     intend to sit on Thursday in the afternoon and on Friday in the

17     afternoon.  However, tomorrow, Wednesday, the 27th, in order to use as

18     much time as possible, and since we are facing all kind of practical

19     problems, it is for certain that we'll sit in the morning hours, that is

20     from 9.00 to 11.30, and it is likely that we sit in the afternoon from

21     3.00 to 6.00, but this has not yet been finally determined.  Just for

22     your information.

23             Mr. Weber, are you ready to start your examination?

24             MR. WEBER:  Yes, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Theunens, you'll now first be examined by

Page 8049

 1     Mr. Weber, who, it may not come as a surprise, is counsel for the

 2     Prosecution.  Please proceed.

 3             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P1574 in

 4     evidence.

 5                           Examination by Mr. Weber:

 6        Q.   Mr. Theunens, while the exhibit is being brought up before you,

 7     could you please introduce yourself to the Trial Chamber.

 8        A.   Good afternoon, Your Honours.  My name is Reynaud Theunens.

 9        Q.   Mr. Theunens, does the CV that now appears before you correctly

10     indicate your personal information on the top of page 1?

11        A.   Yes, it does, Your Honours.

12        Q.   Does this CV also accurately represent your educational

13     background?

14        A.   Yes, indeed.

15        Q.   With respect to your position with UNIFIL from April 2009 onward,

16     does this CV accurately describe your present responsibilities?

17        A.   Yes, it does.

18             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of this

19     exhibit shown to the witness.

20        Q.   With respect to your past positions as an intelligence analyst

21     with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia,

22     Office of the Prosecutor, the Belgian Ministry of Defence, and the

23     Belgian Armed Forces, does this CV accurately describe your past

24     responsibilities and duties in these positions?

25        A.   Yes, it does, Your Honours.

Page 8050

 1        Q.   What do the acronyms SGRS, and IE represent?

 2        A.   Your Honours, SGRS stance for Service General du Renseignement et

 3     de la Securite, which in English means general service for intelligence

 4     and security, and IE stands for the I for intelligence or information,

 5     and the E for exploitation.

 6        Q.   Your curriculum vitae indicates that between September 1992 and

 7     June 1999, you were a Balkans analyst at the SGRS and performed

 8     assessments of political, military, and economic developments in the

 9     former Yugoslavia at both the operational and strategic level.  Could you

10     please explain these assessments along with their frequency and scope?

11        A.   Your Honours, together with my colleagues we prepared daily

12     analysis of the events of the past 24 hours.  They were intended for the

13     operations staff in order to assist them in planning the operations of

14     Belgian peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia.  We also prepared weekly

15     analysis, written analysis, in addition to this daily and written --

16     excuse me, to these daily and weekly written analysis we would also

17     prepare ad hoc documents.  For example, the Ministry of Defence would

18     attend meetings with colleagues of neighbouring countries or on a

19     multilateral level his office would request such a document.  It would

20     also prepare on the basis of these written analyses oral briefings on a

21     daily, weekly and ad hoc basis for the same addressees.

22             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 3 of this

23     exhibit.

24        Q.   Mr. Theunens, most of your previous testimony before this

25     Tribunal as an expert witness is listed under section 7 of your CV.

Page 8051

 1     Could you please briefly explain the scope of your expert analysis and

 2     testimony in the five cases that are listed under section 7?

 3        A.   Your Honours, for four of these five cases the testimony and the

 4     underlying report dealt with senior Serb suspects, by my role consisted

 5     of providing an overall background focused on doctrine JNA SFRY Armed

 6     Forces, and then to look at -- I mean to study on the basis of the

 7     written evidence that was available to study and analyse to what extent

 8     this de jure doctrine was applied in practice, and also to identify other

 9     relevant issues as defined by the senior trial attorneys who would issue

10     the tasking to me.  The fifth report, the case of Ante Gotovina,

11     Ivan Cermak, and Mladen Markac, the tasking was similar but in this case

12     it applied to senior members of the Croatian Armed Forces.

13        Q.   Have you recently testified in any cases before this Tribunal and

14     if so could you please tell us the case name.

15        A.   Your Honours, two weeks ago I testified in the review hearing in

16     the so-called Vukovar case, review hearing concerning

17     Mr. Veselin Sljivancanin.

18        Q.   Did you complete a military analysis in this case?

19        A.   Yes, indeed.  Your Honours, I prepared a report which is now in

20     front of us.

21        Q.   What was the scope of your analysis in this report?

22        A.   The scope, Your Honours, is -- is discussed in the first section

23     scope and executive summary, and basically I have tried to do two things,

24     first of all to provide the military background, as I mentioned earlier

25     today what I would call due Jure, i.e., SFRY doctrinal armed forces

Page 8052

 1     doctrinal issues which I considered relevant in the context of this case

 2     as well as look at how this doctrine was implemented, call that the de

 3     facto aspects, and in addition to that I then analysed the military

 4     role -- or the military aspects, I'm sorry, the military aspects of the

 5     role of Mr. Jovica Stanisic and Mr. Frenki Simatovic during the time

 6     period that was given to me, i.e., from, say, early 1999 -- 1991 to

 7     December 1995.

 8        Q.   Does your report analyse the organisational structure of the

 9     Ministry of Interior of Serbia?

10        A.   No, Your Honours.  My report does not look into that aspect.

11        Q.   What methodology did you apply to the review and selection of

12     documents in this case?

13        A.   The methodology I applied is generally known as the intelligence

14     cycle whereby there are four discrete phases, direction, collection,

15     processing, and dissemination, and whereby in the processing face which

16     is often defined as the analysis phase, there are five steps.  I mean, I

17     can give them.

18        Q.   Mr. Theunens, the Prosecution would like to discuss this with

19     you.  What occurred during the direction phase in this case?

20        A.   Basically direction consists of determining the focus of the

21     analysis or of the research project, and there I was tasked by

22     Ms. Brehmeier in the course of spring 2007 to prepare a military report

23     for this case.  I -- in response I prepared a draft table of contents

24     which was basically -- which was mainly based on -- on reports I had done

25     for other cases involving senior Serb suspects.  I tried to expand it and

Page 8053

 1     also to focus it on the specific aspects of this case.

 2             I submitted a draft table of contents to Ms. Brehmeier, she

 3     agreed, and I used that then as the direction for my further research.

 4        Q.   Could you please explain how you completed the collection phase

 5     of your analysis in this case?

 6        A.   Your Honours, during the collection I gathered information

 7     whereby I confined myself to written information, i.e., again, looking at

 8     the scope doctrinal regulations, military orders, military reports, open

 9     sources, and any related documents, and I conducted searches in the

10     databases that were available in the Office of the Prosecutor, as well as

11     in some case on the internet in order to identify or to obtain additional

12     information.

13        Q.   Were any limits placed on your access to materials by the Office

14     of the Prosecutor?

15        A.   No, Your Honours.  The Office of the Prosecutor did not impose or

16     place any limits to my access to material.

17        Q.   How were open-source materials in the form of books, news

18     articles, and recorded public statements relevant to your analysis?

19        A.   I mean, traditionally in intelligence it is said that 80 per cent

20     of the material originates from open sources.  Of course when dealing

21     with open sources one has to be very careful, and again that is also part

22     of the process I explained earlier, the intelligence cycle, because

23     obviously there is the risk of barriers and so on and so on, but also in

24     this particular context of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, many

25     senior officials who played, yeah, an important role during the conflict

Page 8054

 1     published memoirs or other books that covered their activities.  Of

 2     course, and again this is part of the process, when dealing with such

 3     information one looks for, among other things, for corroboration from

 4     other material, and there I think in the Office of the Prosecutor we are

 5     in a privileged report because we have access original documents and

 6     original reports, i.e., not secondary sources but original documents and,

 7     yeah, open source can also provide context and they can provide lead

 8     material.

 9        Q.   Could you please explain the processing phase and the steps you

10     utilised to select and categorise materials for your report.

11        A.   In the processing phase basically there are five steps

12     identified.  The first one is collation.  Just means that you organise

13     the material that you have available in a manner that it's easy to be

14     consulted.  Can be that you make separate databases, spreadsheets,

15     binders, whatever.

16             Next and in my view much more important is the evaluation

17     phase -- sorry, the evaluation step where we look at two aspects, the

18     reliability of the source and the credibility of the information.

19             Obviously -- oh no, it's important -- sorry, it's important

20     notice that a reliable source can provide information of low credibility

21     and vice versa, and again this comes back to what I said earlier with the

22     corroboration.

23             After the evaluation, we're going to analyse the material, which

24     means that we're going to subject the information we have in front of us

25     to a mental process in order to identify relevant facts for subsequent

Page 8055

 1     interpretation.  This interpretation means that you will confront what

 2     you know with the new information, and it could be that it basically says

 3     the same or that it shows something different, and then at the end in the

 4     integration phase a step -- excuse me, it's a step you're going to

 5     combine the two and you draw conclusions.  So interpretation basically

 6     you're going to say, well, so what.  What does it mean?  What does this

 7     new information mean?  And then of course then it will have an impact or

 8     it will change your body of knowledge.

 9        Q.   How did you assess the reliability of the materials that you

10     selected and cited in your report?

11        A.   Reliability applies to the source, and again I think -- I mean

12     it's the same as research -- other academic research or academic research

13     is concerned, i.e., you're going to look at for example what is the

14     reputation of a source.  If you have a source where there's doubtful

15     reputation, well you may handle the information provided by that source

16     with care.  If you have a source with a good reputation, you may have

17     more trust in the information that source provide but as I said before, a

18     reliable source can still provide information of low credibility.

19             A second aspect would be what is the relation between the source

20     and the fact or the event that is included in the information?  If you

21     have, for example, in this situation if you have -- if you have

22     information provided by what I would call the opposing side, you may

23     handle that with more care than when a unit commander is talking about

24     the activities of his own units.

25             The relation may also be -- may also cover the time aspects,

Page 8056

 1     i.e., is it contemporaneous information or information has become

 2     available much later.  Is the source the first source or is he or she

 3     basing himself on what somebody else has reported and so on and so on.

 4     So there are various criteria you apply to determine the reliability of a

 5     source.

 6        Q.   Could you please explain the dissemination phase of the

 7     intelligence cycle.

 8        A.   Dissemination basically means that you submit the product of your

 9     work, i.e., your analysis in this case in written form to the one who has

10     requested that for you -- from you.

11        Q.   Prior to the completion of the dissemination phase of your report

12     in this case, did the Office of the Prosecutor instruct you to revise or

13     include any analysis contained in your report?

14        A.   No, Your Honours.  The only kind of guidance I received is that

15     there were certain aspects where I wasn't sure whether that was -- I was

16     expected to cover that or the MUP expert was expected to cover that.  So

17     I asked Ms. Brehmeier whether I would have to cover it or whether

18     somebody else did it and okay then I received an answer to the question,

19     but there was no intervention in the contents of the report.

20        Q.   You mention that you have a binder here today in court.  Does

21     this binder contain a copy of your report and would this assist you and

22     facilitate your testimony before the Tribunal?

23        A.   Yes, Your Honours.  It's a copy of my report I received from the

24     Office of the Prosecutor with exhibit numbers or P numbers MFIs added,

25     and since I arrived here I have been reading and marking it up to

Page 8057

 1     facilitate my testimony.

 2        Q.   The Prosecution requests that during the course of your testimony

 3     that you refer to the exhibit numbers as much as possible when you're

 4     referring to an exhibit in order so that we could have a clear record of

 5     the exhibit that you're referring to.  You've explained the overview and

 6     executive summary already in your report.  Following the executive

 7     summary, there is a table of contents.  Could you please explain how

 8     you'd structure your report using the table of contents.

 9        A.   Yes, Your Honours.  It refers to what I explained earlier to the

10     scope so that the report stands with the background section which focuses

11     on the main doctrinal issues of SFRY Armed Forces, the JNA, consisting of

12     the JNA and the TO as well as volunteers.  I also have a very briefly

13     touched upon armed forces of the Republic of Serbia.  And in the second

14     part I discuss the military aspects of the role of Mr. Jovica Stanisic

15     and Frenki Simatovic in the conflict in Croatia, and the third part

16     discusses the same role, however for the conflict or what

17     Bosnia-Herzegovina is concerned.

18             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution tenders the

19     report of Mr. Theunens.  We are willing at this time to tender into

20     evidence.  We've uploaded it under 65 ter 5811.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash.

22             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, at this stage we would invite the

23     court to MFI it until after cross-examination, and then we might have

24     submission at that stage as to its admissibility depending upon what

25     Mr. Theunens says.

Page 8058

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac.

 2             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Likewise.  The Simatovic Defence

 3     proposes the same thing.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, could you live with a solution in which

 5     we do not start arguing about admissibility until after we've heard the

 6     testimony of Mr. Theunens and that we for the time being MFI the report.

 7             MR. WEBER:  That's fine, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  And 5811, is that the copy of the report where the P

 9     numbers are included?

10             MR. WEBER:  It is.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So the newest version with the blue P numbers,

12     at least on the screen they appear to me as blue.  Madam Registrar,

13     65 ter 5811 would be MFI'd under what number?

14             THE REGISTRAR:  That would be number P1575, Your Honours.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  P1575 keeps the status of marked for identification.

16             Please proceed.

17             MR. WEBER:

18        Q.   In sections 1 and 2 on pages 2 to 79 of part 1 of your report,

19     you analyse the legislative and doctrinal framework of the armed forces

20     of the SFRY between the years of 1974 to 1990, and also the Republic of

21     Serbia between 1990 and 1991.  Could you please explain how the materials

22     you analysed in these two sections relate to your subsequent analysis of

23     events which occurred between 1991 and 1995?

24        A.   This -- I mean, doctrine or military doctrine is defined as the

25     set of rules according to which armed forces operate or are supposed to

Page 8059

 1     operate, and in this regard -- in context of this report for me, and

 2     again this was not the first time I looked at it, I started with it --

 3     with this when I arrived at -- I'm sorry, I started to include these

 4     aspects in expert reports here within the OTP already from the first

 5     report I drafted, report for the trial of Mr. Slobodan Milosevic.

 6             I considered this doctrine essential in order to understand the

 7     subsequent events that are discussed in part 2 and part 3, i.e., to

 8     understand what are these armed forces, what is their mission, what --

 9     how is command and control organised, what are their duties in relation

10     to international humanitarian law.  Something like volunteers is a

11     concept that is popping up or is appearing systematically throughout the

12     conflict.  I thought it was important to see whether there was any legal

13     basis for this concept, and if yes what was this legal basis.  And I then

14     used this doctrinal and legal basis to review the actual events on the

15     basis of military reports, military orders, reports from the Ministry of

16     Interior of the Republic of Serbia, instructions from the republic from

17     the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia as well as other

18     documents in order to describe and analyse the activities of a number of

19     units and groups during the conflict in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

20        Q.   What is an ad hoc formation?

21        A.   With ad hoc I mean that the formation or the -- or the unit or

22     the group is established for a specific mission.  I should rephrase that.

23     Is established to carry out a specific mission in a specific area during

24     a specific time period, and it is established because it consists of

25     several sub-units or elements which outside the framework of the specific

Page 8060

 1     mission do not necessarily operate together.

 2        Q.   According to JNA military manuals, in the 1981 JNA military

 3     lexicon how were these ad hoc formations designated?

 4        A.   I mean, it's not only in the lexicon because the lexicon is just

 5     a dictionary without, I would say, legal implications for military

 6     officers but also the regulations I reviewed, and you can find them back

 7     in the first part, they define even strategic groupings, but I haven't

 8     addressed them in my report because they are in my view not relevant for

 9     the -- in the context of this report but there are strategic groupings.

10     There are operational groups.  There are tactical groups, assault

11     detachments and assault groups, and the names obviously -- or the how you

12     call it categorisation depends on the size and the composition of these

13     ad hoc units, but they all have in common that they're established for a

14     specific mission in a specific area during a specific time period.

15        Q.   Directing your attention to section 2 of part 1 on page 70, you

16     state on this page of your report that:

17             "Article 118 of the 1991 Law on Defence of the Republic of Serbia

18     implies that the Serbian volunteer paramilitary formations, including

19     groups led by Dragan and Arkan, or other formations that were controlled

20     by or linked otherwise to the MUP of Serbia could only be set up,

21     including recruitment of their members, and exist with the authorisation

22     and approval of the Serbian authorities in general and the MUP of Serbia

23     in particular."

24             My question to you is how did you reach this conclusion?

25        A.   Your Honours, this conclusion is based on the material I reviewed

Page 8061

 1     during the preparation of this report, and in addition, of course, to all

 2     the documents you can find in part 2 and part 3 when I discuss the

 3     activities of -- of these groups in particular Dragan's people and

 4     Arkan's people as well as other groups which are discussed in part 2 and

 5     part 3, and when I looked at -- at those documents in -- in one hand --

 6     or one side and on the other hand Article 118, which is very

 7     straightforward, it means that these volunteers/paramilitary - and just

 8     to clarify I use paramilitary here as formations not foreseen by the law

 9     which act in a military manner or are organised in a military manner or

10     conduct operations that -- or conduct military operations, sorry - that

11     they were established, and since based on the material I -- I reviewed

12     they existed for several years and after they were involved in Croatia

13     and their involvement was very much publicised, they became also involved

14     in the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina implied for me that there was an

15     approval of their existence over several years, and again based then on

16     the -- on the duty of the ministry interior as well as other ministries

17     in the republic of Serbia to enforce the law, and again that would also

18     imply enforcing Article 118, I could only conclude that the ministry

19     of -- that the authorities at Republic of Serbia as well as the Ministry

20     of Interior approved not only the establishment but also the existence of

21     such groups.

22        Q.   Turning to section 3 on pages 80 to 120 of part 1 of your report,

23     in this section you discuss the legal and factual background of Serbian

24     volunteers and paramilitaries.  Did you reach any conclusions as to which

25     volunteer or paramilitary units were controlled by or related otherwise

Page 8062

 1     to the Ministry of Interior of Serbia?

 2        A.   Yes, I did, and maybe just to clarify I think the word "control,"

 3     I haven't used it in a strict military sense, but since we were looking

 4     at the situation which I would qualify as very much ad hoc, i.e., that

 5     the existing legislation, I'm talking about legislation that existed

 6     prior to August 1991, did not foresee the existence of such units, i.e.,

 7     nonmilitary units carrying out military operations.  We can see and again

 8     that's discussed further on in that section that both on the level of the

 9     Republic of Serbia as well as on the level of the SFRY, additional

10     decrees or laws are adopted to legalise the existence of these

11     volunteer/paramilitary groups.

12             And again looking at the material that is included in part 2 and

13     3, I could only conclude that these groups existed with the approval --

14     and when I say these groups, okay, the focus is here on groups like

15     Dragan and Draganovci, Arkan and the Serbian Volunteer Guards, as well as

16     a group that became known as the Special Purpose Unit of the Ministry of

17     the Interior of the Republic of Serbia, often identified as -- as Red

18     Berets, yeah, obviously that these groups existed -- that these groups

19     existed with the -- sorry, with the knowledge and the approval of the

20     ministry of interior, and even more that they were controlled or linked

21     otherwise by the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia.

22        Q.   The Prosecution would like to discuss some examples of documents

23     which you reference in your report.  Could the Prosecution please have

24     the first page of P1062 marked for identification shown to the witness.

25     The Prosecution requests that this document not be broadcast to the

Page 8063

 1     public.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, in order to avoid whatever conclusion,

 3     when you earlier referred to section 3 starting on page 80, you had on

 4     your mind the page numbered 80 of the first part of the report.  Is

 5     that -- that means that the -- more or less the summary has its own

 6     numbering.  Then we are talking here about the -- about one of the

 7     report, because the numbering of part 2 and part 3 is different.  We

 8     often refer to e-court page numbers, but this certainly is not an e-court

 9     number.  So could you -- if you use actual page numbers in the hard

10     copies, could you always indicate in what section were the first, the

11     second, or the third we are so that we -- that those who will read the

12     transcript are able to find what we are talking about.

13             MR. WEBER:  I will, Your Honour.  I will try to make clear at

14     least for the time being the page number within the section and part of

15     the report, and as I go on, I will try to incorporate the e-court pages

16     if it's okay.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's -- which would then result in second

18     part or hard copy, second part, page so-and-so, e-court page so-and-so,

19     because the e-court numbering goes on to 426.

20             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, of course I could read out the ERN

21     number of the page if that --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, for purposes of searching, I think e-court and

23     hard copy pages are of assistance, whereas ERN numbers may be of less

24     assistance.

25             Please proceed.

Page 8064

 1             MR. WEBER:  Mr. Theunens, the document that is now before you is

 2     Exhibit P1062, marked for identification.  What is this document?

 3        A.   Your Honours, this is a report, information report drafted by the

 4     security administration of the SFRY Armed Forces with the title "Some

 5     Information on Daniel Snedden, Australian Citizen, alias Captain Dragan,"

 6     and it's sent to the federal secretary for peoples or for national

 7     defence army general Veljko Kadijevic, and as well as a number of other

 8     addressees but they are not visible on e-court.

 9        Q.   What information is contained in the first paragraph of this

10     report which describes a relationship between Daniel Snedden, aka

11     Captain Dragan, and the MUP of Serbia?

12        A.   The first paragraph, Your Honours, discusses the role of Dragan

13     in the training of what is called a special unit of the SAO Krajina MUP

14     in Golubic, and -- and there's also reference to his alleged connections

15     with the -- with organs of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic

16     of Serbia who are engaged in the same mission.

17        Q.   If we could please have the footnote on the bottom of this page.

18     Which individuals from the MUP of Serbia are in this footnote which the

19     text states were engaged in the same mission as Captain Dragan?

20        A.   Your Honours, two individuals are mentioned.  First Franko

21     Simatovic, also known as Frenki, and secondly, Dragoljub Filipovic also

22     known as Fico.

23        Q.   Do you know how Dragoljub Filipovic was also known as based on

24     the other materials you reviewed in your report?

25        A.   Your Honours, I have seen Fico and Fica.

Page 8065

 1             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 2 in the

 2     English and B/C/S versions of this exhibit.

 3        Q.   Does this report indicate how the DB of Serbia initially made

 4     operative contact with Captain Dragan?

 5        A.   Yes, it does, Your Honours.  It indicates that they were first

 6     monitoring his behaviour and that subsequently afterward, after he

 7     altered his previous orientation they established operative contact with

 8     him.

 9        Q.   The Prosecution would now like to show you Exhibit P992 in

10     evidence.

11             This document that is now before you, could you please identify

12     it.

13        A.   Your Honours, this document is a request by Captain Dragan to the

14     Ministry of Interior -- excuse me, to the command of the Territorial

15     Defence of the Republic of Serbia.

16        Q.   In this document, it refers to the Bubanj Potok centre.  Do you

17     know where this is located?

18        A.   The Bubanj Potok centre is located near Belgrade in Serbia.

19        Q.   How does Captain Dragan define his status according to this

20     request?

21        A.   Yeah, Dragan expresses a request, I think, to kind of maintain

22     the image he had maintained by then, I mean by the date of the document,

23     and he refers to what he identifies as obligations towards the state

24     security of the Republic of Serbia whereby he underlines that his

25     activities in relation with the TO of the Republic of Serbia should be

Page 8066

 1     fully in accordance with these obligations.

 2             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have P1069 marked for

 3     identification shown to the witness.  This document is referred to in

 4     e-court pages 120 to 121.

 5        Q.   Mr. Theunens, these are the minutes of a meeting between

 6     ministers of defence of the Republic of Serbia Tomislav Simovic and

 7     Captain Dragan.  What topics were discussed at this meeting between

 8     Captain Dragan and Minister Simovic?

 9        A.   Yeah.  I mean there are three topics which are identified on the

10     first page.  The work of the Captain Dragan Fund, last engagement of

11     Captain Dragan, and his -- the possibilities of his further engagement.

12             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of the

13     minutes in both English and B/C/S.

14        Q.   Mr. Theunens, directing your attention to the middle of page 2 of

15     the English version, does this document also indicate who invited

16     Captain Dragan to Serbia?

17        A.   Yes.  According to this document he was invited by the state

18     security of the Republic of Serbia to Serbia.

19        Q.   According to these minutes, who was Captain Dragan collaborating

20     with in -- when he came to the Republic of Serbia?

21        A.   According to the document, there is mention of a Stanisic.  Now,

22     based on -- on the context we are talking about, I concluded that this is

23     Mr. Jovica Stanisic, as well as Radmilo Bogdanovic, who is also a

24     minister of interior.

25        Q.   Does this document continue to describe any assignment that

Page 8067

 1     Captain Dragan had after he arrived?

 2        A.   Indeed.  Reference is made to the training of volunteers as well

 3     as activities in co-operation with Milan Martic.  So the minister of the

 4     interior of the SAO Krajina at the time and Milan Babic the prime

 5     minister of the SAO Krajina at the time, and these activities as they are

 6     described here are coherent in what we see in other documents that are

 7     discussed in my report when I discovered this document here.

 8        Q.   Based on the content of these minutes and other exhibits you

 9     reference in your report, can you determine the approximate date of this

10     meeting?

11        A.   Your Honours, in my report, and this is part 1, page 99, footnote

12     278, I state that this meeting must have taken place before December

13     1991, because on the previous page in P1066, Mr. Simovic -- I mean

14     General Simovic, who was then the minister of defence of the Republic of

15     Serbia, provides a written answer to a question by Vojislav Seselj, a

16     question he asked in his position as member of the Assembly, on the

17     activities of Dragan, and this is P1066 MFI.  There Simovic refers to his

18     proposal that Dragan would train volunteers, Serb Krajina volunteers, in

19     Bubanj Potok within the existing system.

20             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 3 of this --

21     of the English version.  Excuse me.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Meanwhile, Mr. Weber, could you also have a look at

23     the clock and find a suitable within the next two or three minutes to

24     have a break.

25             MR. WEBER:

Page 8068

 1        Q.   What conclusion was reached by Minister Simovic at the end of

 2     these minutes?

 3        A.   Yeah.  The conclusion is that -- I mean, for the minister that

 4     it's not a question whether Dragan should be engaged, i.e., in the

 5     training of volunteers, or -- but actually how this should be done, and

 6     he refers to the need for additional consultations on this issue.

 7             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, if it's okay with the Trial Chamber,

 8     this would be a suitable time.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We will have a break, and we will resume at

10     4.00.

11                           --- Recess taken at 3.31 p.m.

12                           --- On resuming at 4.10 p.m.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Apologies for the late start.  Please proceed,

14     Mr. Weber.

15             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit D31 in

16     evidence.

17        Q.   Mr. Theunens, on pages 105 to 107 of part 1 of your report,

18     e-court page 128 to 130, in your analysis of Arkan's relationship to the

19     MUP of Serbia, you discuss intelligence reports from both the JNA and VJ

20     security organs.  These are exhibits P327, P328, D31 in evidence, and

21     P1061, P1077, P1078, and P1079 marked for identification.

22             Directing your attention to Exhibit D31 which is now before you,

23     could you please identify this document.

24        A.   Your Honours, this is a report or information by the security

25     organ of the 1st Military District dated the 19th of October, 1991, which

Page 8069

 1     is submitted to three addressees identified at the top of the page.  The

 2     first department of the security administration, the third department of

 3     the security administration, as well as the security organs of the 1st

 4     Military District.

 5             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have the lower portion

 6     of the English translation.

 7        Q.   Does this report indicate who is supplying Arkan with weapons and

 8     ammunition?

 9        A.   Indeed.  According to this report, weapons, ammunition, and mines

10     and explosives are, according to what Arkan stated to the -- the person

11     who was in contact with him, supplied by the Ministry of the Interior and

12     the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia.

13        Q.   According to this report, what is Arkan doing with those weapons

14     and ammunition that are being supplied to him?

15        A.   Arkan is reportedly distributing them to local Serb TO staffs in

16     a number of municipalities in Eastern Slavonia, Erdut, Sarvas, and Borovo

17     Selo.

18        Q.   You just stated on page 30, lines 15 and 16, according to the

19     person who is in contact with him.  According to this information here,

20     who is the source of the information about these weapons and ammunition?

21        A.   I think I answered the question that the weapons and ammunition

22     originate from the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of the Interior

23     of the Republic of Serbia.

24        Q.   Yes, but according to this report, who is the source of the

25     information?

Page 8070

 1        A.   Ah, I'm sorry.  It's 2nd Lieutenant Goran Blagojevic, who is a

 2     security organ in the Savska Venac local TO staff, and okay the

 3     Bratsvo Jedinstvo Bridge is one of the three bridges -- I mean, it's not

 4     in the document but I was stationed during a certain time period in

 5     Eastern Slavonia, it's one of the three passages over the Danube

 6     separating Slavonia, Branjevo, Western Srem from Serbia.

 7        Q.   Actually, directing your attention to the paragraph that begins

 8     "during several consecutive contacts with Arkan he stated."

 9        A.   Mm-hmm.

10        Q.   Does -- what does this statement indicate to you as to the source

11     of the information as contained in this report?

12        A.   That Arkan provided information to the -- I mean, I oversaw that,

13     that Arkan provide the information to the 2nd lieutenant.

14        Q.   What relationship, if any, did the Ministry of Defence of Serbia

15     have with the JNA or the VJ?

16        A.   I have not analysed that for this report, but when I prepared a

17     similar report for the trial of Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, basically the

18     Ministry of Defence acted as a -- as a facilitator to assist the local

19     Serbs in Krajina and also Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem with

20     organising or setting up arms structures, as well as recruiting

21     volunteers whereby requests were regularly sent by these local Serbs to

22     the Ministry of Defence, who would then -- of the Republic of Serbia, I'm

23     sorry, who would then forward them to I think that some kind of a

24     co-ordination body was organised which would then forward them to the

25     JNA.  And some of these requests may also have been forwarded by the

Page 8071

 1     republic of -- excuse me, by the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of

 2     Serbia to the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia.

 3             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P1077

 4     marked for identification.  The Prosecution requests that this document

 5     not be broadcast to the public.

 6        Q.   Mr. Theunens, with respect to the next exhibit, could you please

 7     not refer to the name of the source of the information in this report.

 8             Could you please identify the exhibit and the subject matter of

 9     the report that now appears before you.

10        A.   It's another information report compiled by security organs.

11     It's identified there as -- I mean at the top left corner is 1st Army,

12     but it should actually been -- oops -- the 1st Military District,

13     security organ, 19th of November, 1992, and it is sent to a number of

14     addressees in the Main Staff -- or actually it should be the General

15     Staff of the Yugoslav Army, as well as security organ of the 1st Army.  I

16     think there is some -- some confusion at that time, because I remember

17     the VJ was restructuring from military districts to armies and that's why

18     there seems to be some confusion with the author whether it's a military

19     district or an army.  I mean, it's just a detail but it deals with or it

20     covers indications re: the establishment of what is defined as a

21     Serbian Army centre as well as criminal activities.

22             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of the B/C/S

23     original and page 3 of the English version of this exhibit, specifically

24     the top half the page.

25        Q.   Mr. Theunens, what is discussed in the first paragraph of the

Page 8072

 1     English version on this page?

 2        A.   The first paragraph discusses criminal activity conducted on the

 3     territory of SBWS as well as Vojvodina by a number of people who are

 4     identified as registered criminals and smugglers and who, according to

 5     the document, have call it links or connections with leaders of the MUP

 6     of the Republic of Serbia, and then the names of these people are given,

 7     as well as officials in the government of the RSK, SBWS, and UNPROFOR and

 8     the VJ.

 9        Q.   Could you please read out the names of the individuals who are

10     identified in the sentence, "They are closely connected with top leaders

11     of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia."

12        A.   The names are Stanisic, Loncarevic, Prica, and Kostic, Radoslav.

13        Q.   And respect to the government of the RSK in the Serbian region of

14     Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, could you please identify those

15     individuals that are contained in this document.

16        A.   Goran Hadzic, who was at the time the president of the RSK;

17     Ilija Kojic, then last names are given, Zivanovic, Radlovic, Spanovic,

18     and Milanovic.

19             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have the lower portion

20     of this document.

21        Q.   In the footnote on this page does it identify who the registered

22     criminals are that are being refer to?

23        A.   Indeed, I mean, a number of names are given there, Arkan, the

24     Dimitrije brothers, Zika Ivanovic, and then yeah, additional names are

25     given.

Page 8073

 1        Q.   What are the additional names?

 2        A.   A Bozovic and a Loginov.

 3        Q.   And what does this footnote continue to state about those

 4     individuals?

 5        A.   The footnote states that they have SDB State Security Service

 6     membership cards and that they go to the territory of the Republic of

 7     Croatia.

 8        Q.   Mr. Theunens, please go ahead and continue explaining the

 9     footnote.

10        A.   Okay.  There's also a reference to an aka Cope, who is owner of a

11     few private companies in Belgrade.  I mean that's -- I think this refers

12     again to the criminals or the term "criminals."  There's aka Frenki, aka

13     Carli, Lainovic Branko and Ranko who are smuggling drugs and goods from

14     it says there Western Bosnia.

15        Q.   In this footnote it mentions Zika Ivanovic.  Based on your

16     analysis in this case do you know who this individual is and what other

17     names he is known by?

18        A.   I have seen, I mean, Zivojin Ivanovic, and he was mentioned in

19     connections to units identified as special -- unit -- a unit, excuse me,

20     as a Special Purpose Unit of the MUP of Serbia and that was also -- I

21     mean, his name was then -- not an aka, it was -- or an aka was Crnogorac

22     which means Montenegrin.

23             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P1075

24     marked for --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I perhaps seek first some clarification.

Page 8074

 1     Apparently what we see in the footnote, Mr. Theunens, is the listing of

 2     the criminals.  Is that, I have to understand it, Arkan, the Dimitrije

 3     brothers, all closely related to?

 4             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honours, because if we would move back to

 5     the top of the page we see that this asterisk or the star --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 7             THE WITNESS:  -- is put there after the word criminal so --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9             THE WITNESS:  -- they are specified in the footnote.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, I find in the footnote the name of

11     Loginov and Loginov further in the text is referred to as someone in the

12     UNPROFOR as apparently a person with whom the criminals had close

13     contact.  Is that -- now, I find him both on the list of the criminals

14     and on the -- apparently the important persons these criminals had links

15     to.  That confuses me, but --

16             THE WITNESS:  Could we go in closed session, Your Honours?

17             JUDGE ORIE:  We can go into closed session.  We move into closed

18     session, and you explain in closed session why we have to be in closed

19     session.

20             Private session will do, I take it.

21             THE WITNESS:  Or private, yeah.  Something that is not public.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  At least the content.  They will still see you.  One

23     second.  One second, please.

24                                [Private session]

25   (redacted)

Page 8075











11 Pages 8075-8076 redacted. Private session.















Page 8077

 1                           [Open session]

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.  Mr. --

 4             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honours, it would be our position that that

 5     could be and should be evidence that's in a public session.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  The evidence as we have heard it until now --

 7     perhaps not to discuss this in open session, Mr. Jordash.  That's --

 8     because it then goes to the details.  Let me -- let's return for a second

 9     into private session.

10                           [Private session]

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 8078











11 Pages 8078-8079 redacted. Private session.















Page 8080

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20                           [Open session]

21             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

22             MR. WEBER:  May I continue, Your Honour?

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Continue.  Mr. Weber, please proceed.

24             MR. WEBER:  Thank you.  Could the Prosecution please have P1075

25     marked for identification.

Page 8081

 1        Q.   Mr. Theunens, this exhibit is referenced in parts 1, 2, and 3 of

 2     your report and discussed on pages 101 and 102 of part 1.  The e-court

 3     page is page 124 and 125.

 4             Directing your attention to the first few lines of this document,

 5     are you able to determine which security organ was the originator of this

 6     report?

 7        A.   Your Honours, it was my -- my conclusion that this document had

 8     been compiled by a member of the security organs of the VJ.

 9        Q.   What is the subject of this report?

10        A.   The subject is -- it's a report on the formation of the JCO, a

11     special operations unit of the RDB, republican state security of Serbia,

12     and interesting data for security.

13             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 9 of the

14     English version and page 6 of the B/C/S original.

15        Q.   Are you able to determine the approximate date of this report

16     based on its contents?

17        A.   Yes.  We can see in title 5 that reference is made to an event

18     that took place on the 4th and the 13th of May, 1996, which means that

19     the report has to date from after the 13th of May, 1996.  I think there's

20     also another reference in the document to May 1996.

21        Q.   What is discussed in section 5 of this report?

22        A.   It discusses an award ceremony by people or members -- no.

23     Sorry.  People receive awards from the Ministry of Interior and the

24     Republic of Serbia state security.

25        Q.   Does this report indicate whether or not there is a laying of any

Page 8082

 1     wreath?

 2        A.   Indeed, Your Honours.  In the second and the third line following

 3     title 5, there is reference to a wreath which is laid in the centre in

 4     Kula at the monument of Mr. Radoslav Kostic, and he is then identified.

 5             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 10 of the

 6     English translation and remain on the same page of the B/C/S original.

 7        Q.   Does this page indicate anyone who were award recipients at this

 8     ceremony?

 9        A.   Yes.  A number of names are given, Milorad Ulemek also known as

10     Legija, who is then described as Arkan's general; Predrag Baklajic, also

11     known as Baklaja, who is identified as the head of a terrorist group in

12     Kordun, and apparently he has been liquidated.  And then also a

13     Milan Letica who has, according to the document, also been liquidated in

14     a mutual showdown in Eastern Slavonia.

15             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 3 of the

16     English translation of this document and page 2 of the B/C/S version

17     shown to the witness.  If we could please have the bottom half of the

18     English translation.

19        Q.   What is discussed in section 2 of this report?

20        A.   Section 2 discusses as the title states paramilitary units and

21     groups and their connection with the special units of the republican

22     state security and the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of

23     Serbia.

24        Q.   What does this section say about those groups?

25        A.   It identifies a number of these groups and then discusses in

Page 8083

 1     general terms their activities in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, i.e.,

 2     the territory of the RSK and RS during which -- I mean during these

 3     activities according to the document they remained in direct contact with

 4     the republican state security and the Ministry of the Interior of the

 5     Republic of Serbia.

 6        Q.   Which groups are identified?

 7        A.   It starts off with the SDG, so the Serbian Volunteer Guard, under

 8     Zeljko Raznjatovic, Arkan, and then the special unit of the Ministry of

 9     Interior which is under the command of someone who is described as the

10     self-appointed Colonel Vasilije Mijovic, the Red Berets, and then a

11     special under the command of Zika Ivanovic, also known as Crnogorac,

12     excuse me, Crnogorac, and then a unit described as the paramilitary unit

13     of Slobodan Medic, also known as Boca.

14        Q.   Based on your review of materials in this case, were any of these

15     units ever brought together for any combat operations?

16        A.   I don't have an exact recollection that they were all present at

17     the same time in one particular location, but for example -- I mean, one

18     good example which I've discussed in my report is the Pauk command which

19     is established in the course of November 1994 in Western Bosnia

20     Herzegovina.  There we see that a number of these individuals and the

21     corresponding groups operate together under a -- a Joint Command in a

22     co-ordinated manner with units of the VRS and the SVK.

23             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, the Prosecution has completed its

24     examination of part 1 of the Theunens report, and at this time the

25     Prosecution would tender exhibits from this part.  We are able to go

Page 8084

 1     through these in certain ranges if it's easier for the Chamber to

 2     facilitate the tendering.  The exhibits being tendered are those to which

 3     there is no objection by either the Stanisic or the Simatovic Defence.

 4             The Prosecution tenders Exhibits P1010 to P1047, and we request

 5     that P1046 and P1047 remain under seal.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Does this -- the numbers reflect the documents which

 7     are not opposed to.  Then --

 8             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Before I make a mistake, P1010, up to and including

10     P1047 are admitted into evidence.  P1046 and P1047 under seal.

11             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, the Prosecution tenders P1051 to 1052,

12     P1054 to P1057 requesting that Exhibit P1051 remain under seal.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Again looking at the Defence, apparently no

14     objections.  P1051, P1052, P1054, P1055, P1056, and P1057 are admitted

15     into evidence.  P1051 under seal.

16             MR. WEBER:  The Prosecution tenders P1062 to P1064, P1066, P1074,

17     and P1076 to P1079, and we request that Exhibits P1062, P1064, and P1076

18     to P1079 remain under seal.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  P1062 up to and including P1064 are admitted into

20     evidence, the first and the last under seal.  P1063 as a public document.

21     P1066, P1074 are admitted into evidence.  P1076 up to and including P1079

22     are admitted into evidence, all four under seal.

23             MR. WEBER:  May I continue, Your Honour?

24             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  I'm a bit.  There is some confusion, Mr. Weber.

25     I think I heard you say, that's at least what we find on the record,

Page 8085

 1     P1054 to P1057, which would include P1055, is that correct?

 2             MR. WEBER:  Correct.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Then this resolves confusion between the Chamber and

 4     registrar.

 5             MR. WEBER:  The last --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Have I dealt with everything, Mr. Weber?

 7             MR. WEBER:  There is one last segment of exhibits from part 1.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9             MR. WEBER:  It's P1081 to P1082, P1086 to P1089, and

10     Exhibit P1091.  We are requesting that -- and all those can be admitted

11     as public exhibits.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  P1081, P1082, P1086 up to and including

13     P1089 and P1091 are admitted as public documents.  Then later I take it

14     that we get a list of the documents which should -- are not tendered yet

15     and which will -- there will be further submissions.  Please proceed.

16             MR. WEBER:

17        Q.   Mr. Theunens, in part 2 of your report you discuss the contextual

18     developments throughout the conflict in Croatia.  Today the Prosecution

19     will first focus on particular developments and aspects of the conflict

20     in the Serb Autonomous Region of the Krajina and then the SAO SBWS.

21             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P1101,

22     marked for identification.

23        Q.   While the exhibit's --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, one short remark.  The last document we

25     had on our screen on which you asked questions has bit of an odd way of

Page 8086

 1     translating.  Sometimes abbreviations such as SRK are translated by SRK.

 2     Sometimes when you find in the original MUP you'll find not an

 3     abbreviation in the translation but -- or RDB is not transposed as RDB

 4     and then with an explanation but just gives the full explanation of the

 5     text, and it's the way in which that document is translated is not very

 6     consistent, and I would like you to have a look at those inconsistencies.

 7             MR. WEBER:  Thank you for mentioning that and I understand, Your

 8     Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please proceed.

10             MR. WEBER:

11        Q.   Prior to the commencement of hostilities, were there any changes

12     in the structure of the police and the Territorial Defence in Croatia?

13        A.   Your Honours, as a very general conclusion, one can say that

14     starting in the spring 1991, local Serbs start to set up their own

15     structures, own police and/or Territorial Defence structures in areas

16     where they have a significant presence.  In some areas they do it

17     themselves.  In other areas they remove the Croats or -- in -- in other

18     areas the Croats abandon the existing structures themselves.  And there

19     are examples listed in the document -- in the report, I'm sorry, to

20     explain how this affects the creation of a local Serb TO in an area which

21     became known as the SAO Krajina, as well as the SAO SBWS and the SAO

22     Western Slavonia.

23        Q.   Turning your attention to the exhibit that is now before you

24     which is discussed on page 22 of part 2, e-court page 165, could you

25     please tell us what this document is?

Page 8087

 1        A.   This document is -- is a -- I mean, as the title says, an order

 2     issued by Dr. Milan Babic, who is the President of the Executive Board of

 3     the Serbian Autonomous Region of Krajina.  This is at the very early

 4     stages.  It's from April -- the 1st of April, 1991.

 5        Q.   Under the conclusion, are there any requests that are contained

 6     in this document?

 7        A.   Milan Babic requests the government of the Republic of Serbia

 8     that forces of the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia provide

 9     technical and personnel support to the secretariat of interior of the

10     Serbian Autonomous Region of Krajina.

11        Q.   On this same day, that being the 1st of April, 1991, were there

12     any other decisions issued by the SAO Krajina Executive Council?

13        A.   I think further on in my report -- I thought I put a note here,

14     but there's also a decision to include the Serb autonomous region of

15     Krajina into the Republic of Serbia, and I'm trying to -- yeah.  It's on

16     page 26 basically.  It's P1107.  Page 26 of part 2.

17             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P426 into

18     evidence.

19        Q.   This exhibit is referenced on page 65 of part 2 of your report,

20     which is e-court page 208.

21             Mr. Theunens, this is a proposal to set up a new training centre,

22     dated 27 May 1991.  Who is this proposal from?

23        A.   We would have to go to the end of the document.

24             MR. WEBER:  If we could please have the next page briefly.

25             THE WITNESS:  It's -- as we can see it at the bottom it's sent by

Page 8088

 1     Captain Dragan Vasiljkovic to a number of addressees.

 2             MR. WEBER:

 3        Q.   While we are on this page, could you please tell us who the

 4     addressees on this document are.

 5        A.   They're not -- I mean, they are titles, but the names of the

 6     persons are not given, so it's the president of the Municipal Assembly,

 7     which would most likely be the Municipal Assembly in Knin.  The secretary

 8     of the SUP, which would most likely be Mr. Milan Martic.  The security

 9     service.  It's -- I know that there was a -- a kind of a -- of a State

10     Security Service in the Krajina at the time, but it was not fully

11     organised.  So it's not -- not possible for me to be more precise there.

12     And then the commander of the Territorial Defence, which at least

13     according to the document should have been Milan Babic at the time.

14             MR. WEBER:  Could we please return to the first page.

15        Q.   Does Captain Dragan discuss any special units of the SAO Krajina

16     in this proposal?

17        A.   Yes, he does, in the -- in the second paragraph on the first

18     page.

19             MR. WEBER:  Could we please have the lower portion of the first

20     page of this document.

21        Q.   What is the proposal?

22        A.   It's twofold.  I mean, Dragan proposes how the unit should be

23     composed.  I mean, active and activated or reserve members.  And he also

24     gives a number of tasks in relation here more specifically the training

25     centre and the fortress.

Page 8089

 1        Q.   According to this proposal, where would the training of these

 2     special units take place?

 3        A.   It would take place in Golubic, which is near Knin Krajina.

 4             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P1117 in

 5     evidence.

 6        Q.   Mr. Theunens, the next exhibit is a decision to form Special

 7     Purpose Police Units of the SAO Krajina dated 29 May 1991.  According to

 8     this decision, which is now appearing before you.  Who had authority over

 9     these newly formed Special Purpose Units of the SAO Krajina MUP?

10        A.   As you said in the third line under decision they would be under

11     the authority of the Ministry of Defence, and I've highlighted that in my

12     report.  It coincides with the appointment of Milan Martic, who was

13     already secretary of the interior.  Here now he's appointed minister of

14     defence on the same day.

15        Q.   Is this decision on the election of Milan Martic as the minister

16     of defence, dated 29 May 1991, if you can confirm if that's P1116, marked

17     for identification.  I believe this is on page 33.

18        A.   Yeah.  P1116.  Yeah, indeed.

19        Q.   Did Milan Martic maintain any other positions throughout 1991

20     besides the one listed on this document, or in P1116?

21        A.   Yes.  I mean, he was -- as I mentioned, he was first secretary of

22     internal affairs and then because the names were changed, this happened

23     also in Serbia, after he was elected secretary of internal affairs, which

24     is P1119, on the 27th of June, 1991, he was -- I put it as re-elected

25     minister of interior of the SAO Krajina, and that is P1118.  And this is

Page 8090

 1     discussed on page 34 of part 2 of my report.

 2             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P1179

 3     marked for identification.

 4        Q.   Mr. Theunens, the exhibit that is being brought up before you is

 5     discussed on pages 67 and 68 of part 2 of your report.  This is e-court

 6     page 210 to 211.  Could you please tell us what this document is.

 7        A.   This is a note, and I think on the bottom it will be marked -- it

 8     is marked that it was sent by -- or compiled by Dragan Vasiljkovic.

 9             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of the

10     English version.

11        Q.   Are you able to determine the approximate date of this note based

12     on its contents and your review of other documents referenced in your

13     report?

14        A.   Yeah.  On this page one can see under the third line says, "I

15     suggest," and then there is a heading 1.  Dragan uses the future tense

16     for the date of the 23rd of June, which would mean that it has been

17     compiled prior to the 23rd of June, 1991.

18        Q.   Based on the content of this note, did you reach any conclusions

19     as to which state security department it was sent to?

20        A.   Well, Your Honours, I looked at this document in the context of

21     the other documents, and some of them we have discussed this afternoon,

22     and my conclusion is that this document is sent to the state security of

23     the Republic of Serbia.  And again also looking at the contents where he

24     talks about, for example, Milan Martic, Frenki, I considered it again in

25     the context of the other documents unlikely that he would address Milan

Page 8091

 1     Martic -- or address, I mean -- discuss Milan Martic in a document sent

 2     to the state security of the SAO Krajina.

 3        Q.   What does Captain Dragan suggest as a programme for further

 4     training for special units on this page?

 5        A.   Yeah.  He makes a suggestion -- I mean, I can read it out if you

 6     want, but he makes a suggestion on how the structures -- I mean the

 7     instructors should be used.  He also, I mean further on, suggests that

 8     he, Milan Martic and Frenki and what he describes as influential Specials

 9     should give advice to the units in the field about -- in relation to

10     future development -- further development.  Yeah, I mean I discuss it on

11     page 67 in my report.  So I'm just referring to that now if there's

12     anything I want to add.  No.

13             MR. WEBER:  Okay.  Could the Prosecution please have

14     Exhibit P1186, marked for identification.

15        Q.   Mr. Theunens, the Prosecution will now show you three exhibits

16     and then ask you about what these documents demonstrate.  The first

17     exhibit which is now before you is Exhibit P1186.  It is a 19 July 1991

18     report from Glina which is discussed on page 70 of part 2, which is

19     e-court page 213.  Could you please tell us what information is contained

20     in this report?

21        A.   Dragan provides an overview of the -- of the current situation in

22     Glina where he gives an overview of the incidents and other events that

23     have happened in the previous days -- or in the past.

24             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of the

25     English translation.

Page 8092

 1        Q.   Directing your attention to the bottom of the original document

 2     which is on the top of the English translation, could you please tell us

 3     who is on the addressee list of this exhibit?

 4        A.   Dragan has -- or included five addressees.  The first is the

 5     secretary of the SUP of the SAO Krajina which -- who is -- I mean which

 6     is Milan Martic.  The commander -- the second is the commander of the SAO

 7     Krajina TO, which would be Milan Babic.  The second -- the third, I'm

 8     sorry, third is identified as Frenki, then fourth we have Major Fica,

 9     Fica, I'm sorry, and then there is a security officer.  Now, it's not

10     clear what he means by "security officer."  And, okay, the Major Fica in

11     my conclusion is the same -- is the Fico we saw earlier in the SSNO

12     security organs document from August 1991, Dragan Filipovic.

13             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have P1121, marked for

14     identification.

15        Q.   Exhibit P1121 is a report of the SAO Krajina TO staff, dated 19

16     July 1991.  It is referenced on page 71 of part 2 of your report, e-court

17     page 214.

18             Could you please tell us who are the addressees on this report.

19        A.   It starts with the president of the council of the People's

20     Committee of the SAO Krajina.  I have to confess that I didn't look into

21     detail into that title.  It's my understanding that this is Milan Babic.

22     Then there's the secretary of the SUP for the SAO Krajina, aka

23     Milan Martic.  ODB could stand for Odoljenje [phoen] DB, or DBTBs and the

24     state security.  The commander of the TO SAO Krajina, which was also

25     Milan Babic at the time because there was no staff yet, military staff

Page 8093

 1     for the TO of the SAO Krajina.  And then Frenki.

 2             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P1122,

 3     marked for identification.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we continue, Mr. Theunens, you said ODB could

 5     stand for.  Does it stand for, and if it stands for DB, is that state

 6     security, and what stands the O for?  We have no -- because in the

 7     translation we see that the abbreviation is unknown to the translator,

 8     and I would like to abuse your presence or perhaps the parties could even

 9     agree on what ODB exactly stands for.

10             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.  I'm not sure whether I was confused, whether

11     we still have the same --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  We have a different document now --

13             THE WITNESS:  But it explains --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but the abbreviation, one of the -- was the

15     ODB.  Now -- oh, here we have -- yes.  Yes, because here apparently the

16     interpreter knows what ODB stands for.

17             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.  It's a pity --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  State security department.

19             THE WITNESS:  It should have clarified that before, but ...

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, in the previous document the ODB is apparently

21     an unknown abbreviation which surprised me a bit, but --

22             MR. JORDASH:  If it assists, we agree.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Everyone agrees.  Yes.  So it not only could stand

24     for but it does stand for.  Okay.

25             Please proceed.

Page 8094

 1             MR. WEBER:

 2        Q.   What is the document that now appears before you?  The

 3     Prosecution brought it up as P1122.

 4        A.   Okay.  It's another -- it's a situation report.  I mean, you can

 5     see at the bottom of the screen situation report covering the situation

 6     5, 6 of August 1991, compiled by -- okay, a body known as the SAO Krajina

 7     TO staff, but again I explained in my report a military commander is only

 8     appointed in September, and this is dated the 6th of August, 1991.

 9        Q.   Who is on the addressee list for this document?

10        A.   The term Supreme Commander SAO Krajina TO is used, who is Milan

11     Babic.  The secretary of the SAO Krajina SUP, Milan Martic.  The ODB, as

12     discussed.  The commander of the TO where I'm not able to -- to identify

13     him because I'm not sure at which level we're talking.  And then Frenki.

14        Q.   Okay.  What do the last three exhibits demonstrate about the

15     reporting system that may have existed between the individuals listed on

16     these reports?

17        A.   Well, the documents show that attempts are made to establish and

18     to have a reporting system function and that the reports are sent to a

19     number of people.  And as I mentioned earlier in the reports, such

20     reports are sent on a need-to-know basis, i.e., they are sent to people

21     who have a need to know the information in order to prepare their

22     decision making and planning and that -- okay, Milan Babic, Milan Martic,

23     as well as Frenki are among these people.

24        Q.   What co-ordination if any, do these documents illustrate?

25        A.   It's difficult to answer.  I mean, the question, it shows -- the

Page 8095

 1     documents showed that, I assume you're referring to Frenki, that Frenki

 2     has a need to know what is happening in the Krajina, what the units of

 3     the SAO Krajina are doing, and over a longer time period.  I mean, we

 4     have seen documents covering different time periods.

 5        Q.   On pages 24 and 25 of part 2, this is e-court page -- pages 167

 6     and 168, you discuss Exhibit P1105, a decision to apply the law of

 7     defence of the Republic of Serbia on the territory of the SAO Krajina.

 8     Pursuant to Article 5 of this decision, what units officially constituted

 9     the armed forces of the SAO Krajina as of the 1st of August, 1991?

10        A.   The armed forces of the SAO Krajina as explained in Article 5 of

11     P1105 consists of the SAO Krajina Territorial Defence and the Special

12     Purpose Units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the SAO Krajina.

13        Q.   On page 45 of part 2 of your report, e-court page 188, you state

14     the following opinion:

15             "In many parts of the combat zone in Croatia, the JNA established

16     operational OG and tactical groups and in some areas also assault

17     detachments JOD and assault groups to create the conditions for or

18     restore and maintain (and unified) command over all forces involved in

19     combat operations."

20             My question to you is what do you mean by the word "restore" in

21     this opinion?

22        A.   I mean by this that single authority is one of the three

23     principles of command and control in the SFRY Armed Forces.  Now, since

24     in an earlier question you asked -- we see that local -- the local Serbs

25     or the Serbs in Krajina as well as Western Slavonia and SBWS established

Page 8096

 1     their own structures.  This doesn't happen everywhere as smooth as it was

 2     maybe intended to happen, and so it means that -- I mean, the

 3     implications are there are different groups existing at different times,

 4     and since we are -- or there are combat operations ongoing and they are

 5     intensifying after summer 1991, there is a need to bring all these units

 6     which may not have existed before, to bring all these units under single

 7     command or single authority.  Yeah, single command and control.

 8        Q.   The Prosecution does not have a substantial number of further

 9     questions for you today regarding the events in the SAO SBWS.  The

10     Prosecution's next questions will mainly relate to your analysis of the

11     relationship between Arkan and the SDG to the JNA in this region.

12     According to the materials referenced in your report, are there

13     indications that Arkan and the SDG were subordinated to operational

14     groups of the JNA during combat operations in the region of the SBWS.

15        A.   In my report I explain that the JNA was organised in two

16     operational groups during the combat in Slavonia, Baranja -- yeah,

17     Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem.  There was an Operation Group North

18     and an Operational Group South with the Vuka River which cuts Vukovar

19     into being the -- the boundary between the two operational groups, and

20     Arkan during combat operations acted under the command of Operational

21     Group North.  I don't have any specific documents on his subordination

22     during combat operations led by OG North, but I have a reference in the

23     second part of my report on page 94 to a speech, the command of

24     Operational Group North General Andrija Biorcevic made in January 1992

25     where he -- I mean the wording he uses indicates subordination of Arkan

Page 8097

 1     to OG North-led combat operations at the time.

 2             The other documents I discuss in my reports -- report, and these

 3     are mainly reports by security organs of the 1st Military District,

 4     indicate that there is -- that Arkan is doing a number of things without

 5     being subordinated to the JNA.

 6             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P327 in

 7     evidence.  The Prosecution requests that this document not be broadcast

 8     to the public.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, I notice that one of the -- one of the

10     previous documents bears the stamps of under what number they are

11     admitted in other case, and that's something we try to avoid, as you may

12     be aware of.  So therefore, if a better copy could be uploaded.

13             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I see that also.  And just so it's on

14     the record, it's Exhibit P1122 and we will look into that over the next

15     recess.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, because otherwise it leads to all kinds of

17     confusion, at least that's a risk.

18             Please proceed.

19             MR. WEBER:

20        Q.   On page 89 of part 2 of your report you reference this exhibit.

21     It's e-court page 232.  Could you please identify this exhibit and tell

22     us the subject of the report.

23        A.   This is a report compiled by a security organ of a logistic

24     sector.  It's not specified but it should be logistic sector or the

25     logistic centre of the 1st Military District of the JNA, and it's

Page 8098

 1     information on Zeljko Raznjatovic, also known as Arkan, with a number of

 2     observations which they then send to the security administration OB, so

 3     at the level of the SSNO, security which is also at the SSNO, and

 4     indeed -- that's it is.

 5             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of the

 6     English translation.

 7        Q.   Mr. Theunens, the Prosecution's question to you relates to the

 8     top paragraph.  How does this report describe Arkan's relationship with

 9     the 51st Motorised Brigade?

10        A.   According to the report, Arkan behaves cynically and tyrannically

11     towards the members of the 51st Motorised Brigade, whereby he actually

12     also kicked two officers of that brigade out of the office.

13        Q.   Now, continuing to the next paragraph, does this report describe

14     any independent actions taken by Arkan and his group?

15        A.   It does.  It has to be -- I mean, just to provide some context,

16     by the 1st of October large parts of the AO, the area of responsibility,

17     sorry, of OG North are fully under JNA control.  There is no more

18     fighting, so there are no more combat operations.  And as this document

19     indicates, Arkan and his group are active there independently and doing

20     certain things.  As is explained here they are visiting Croatian houses,

21     interrogating the inhabitants there, and according to the document, they

22     are committing crimes against them.

23        Q.   If I could please have the lower half of the English translation.

24             In the second paragraph from the bottom of the translation, does

25     this report indicate who the JNA members think is supporting Arkan?

Page 8099

 1        A.   Yes, according to the document JNA members think that Arkan is

 2     doing what he's doing, or as described in the document, with the full

 3     support of the SDB, the State Security Service of Serbia.

 4             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, this completes the Prosecution's

 5     examination of part 2 of the report.  Whatever Your Honours would like me

 6     to do.  I can continue and tender all the exhibits from this, or if you

 7     would just like me to go through one larger tendering process after

 8     part 3, I could continue.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps you could do it all together.  If you would

10     prepare it in a little note, then you could just follow so that we don't

11     have to do it twice, your reading it first and then me reading it again.

12     So if you would -- and then show it to the Defence first to see whether

13     they agree with the list and then --

14             MR. WEBER:  Of course.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then I am looking at the clock.  Perhaps this

16     would also be a suitable moment for having a break, and we will resume at

17     10 minutes to 6.00.

18                           --- Recess taken at 5.20 p.m.

19                           --- On resuming at 5.57 p.m.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  We move for a moment into private session.

21                           [Private session]

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 8100











11 Pages 8100-8102 redacted. Private session.















Page 8103

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18                           [Open session]

19             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

21             Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

22             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honours.

23        Q.   The Prosecution's examination today on part 3 of your report will

24     focus on the presence of particular individuals and aspects of events

25     that occurred in five specific municipalities.

Page 8104

 1             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P1381,

 2     marked for identification.

 3        Q.   Mr. Theunens, while the exhibit is being called up, on pages 55

 4     to 54 of part 3 of your report, e-court pages 336 to 355, you discuss

 5     events which occurred in the municipality of Zvornik.  The Prosecution

 6     will show you three exhibits in relation to this municipality.

 7             Directing your attention to the exhibit now before you, which is

 8     discussed on page 58 of part 3, e-court page 339, could you please tell

 9     us what this exhibit is?

10        A.   Your Honours, this is a situation report compiled by the command

11     of the 17th corps, i.e., the JNA unit at the time in north-eastern

12     Bosnia-Herzegovina, discussing the situation in its zone of

13     responsibility.

14             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have paragraph 3 focused

15     upon.

16        Q.   In paragraph 3 does this report provide any description of the

17     situation in Zvornik as of the 6th of April, 1992?

18        A.   Yes, Your Honours.  At the end of the paragraph it states that

19     the situation in Zvornik municipality is "explosive and likely to grow

20     into a large conflict, because Serb and Muslim TO were mobilised."

21             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of both

22     English and B/C/S of this document.

23        Q.   Directing your attention to paragraph 5 of the situation report.

24     Does this report describe the command and deployment of JNA units in the

25     zone of responsibility of the 17th JNA Corps?

Page 8105

 1        A.   Indeed.  I mean, we also have the commander, the name of the

 2     commander, Major-General Savo Jankovic.  He explains to the addressee,

 3     which should be the 2nd Military District, what his units are doing and

 4     where they are -- I mean, he explains that units are primarily deployed

 5     to secure military facilities, control the territory, prevent -- and

 6     prevent conflicts as well as, yeah, further issues.

 7             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P1380,

 8     marked for identification.  It is a cable to General Jankovic, dated 8

 9     April, 1992.

10        Q.   Mr. Theunens, if you could, please tell us what is communicated

11     to General Jankovic in this cable?

12        A.   It's the director of the state-owned or the public construction

13     company Izet Mehinagic.  He communicates his concern about the situation

14     in Zvornik, including what he describes as the issuance of an ultimatum,

15     and he wants General Savo Jankovic to intervene.

16        Q.   Are any negotiations discussed in this cable?

17        A.   Yes, he talks about negotiations in Mali Zvornik which is located

18     on the Serbian side of the border where according to Mehinagic Arkan is

19     the chief negotiator which representatives of the Zvornik -- I mean

20     Bosnia-Herzegovina municipality.  He also mentions the attendance of a

21     Captain Dragan Obrenovic who is a JNA officer, and then three other

22     people, an Alija, an Abdulah, and a Jovo Mijatovic.

23             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have P1390, marked for

24     identification.  It is 2nd Military District JNA situation report, dated

25     10 April 1992.

Page 8106

 1             Your Honour, if I could just please have a moment.

 2        Q.   In section 3 of this document entitled "Situation in the

 3     Territory," does this report describe the situation in the Zvornik

 4     municipality as of the 10th of April, 1992?

 5        A.   It does.  I mean, the 2nd Military District covers the largest

 6     part of Bosnia-Herzegovina except for a small part in eastern

 7     Bosnia-Herzegovina, and so the situation in a number of municipalities

 8     all over Bosnia-Herzegovina as -- including Zvornik is discussed.

 9        Q.   And how does it describe the situation as of the 10th of April,

10     1992, and does it communicate any concerns?

11        A.   It states that the situation is getting more intensified,

12     specifically in the areas of Visegrad, Zvornik, as well as Jajce and

13     Sarajevo, and then he talks also about the attitude of the population

14     towards the JNA.

15             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of the

16     English and B/C/S of this document.  And if we could particularly have

17     the section that is entitled "17K."

18        Q.   Mr. Theunens, could you please tell us if this report describes

19     the deployment of JNA forces in and around Zvornik as of the 10th of

20     April, 1992, under the section that starts with 17K?

21        A.   Indeed.  Now we're in the activities of the subordinate units of

22     the 2nd Military District, and this is the 17th corps, and it mentions

23     that the units are fully engaged in arranging the preparation of

24     mobilisation.  They are securing traffic on the main roads and they are

25     monitoring the situation in the crisis points or crisis areas in the zone

Page 8107

 1     of responsibility.  And then he provides details on the situation in

 2     Zvornik and Visegrad.

 3        Q.   What are the details in relation to the municipality of Zvornik?

 4        A.   According to the document, Serb paramilitary formations are

 5     holding about 3.000 Muslims under ultimatum in the Kula area.  And in the

 6     afternoon, 20 buses without Muslims -- Muslim paramilitary soldiers

 7     proceeded from Tuzla to Zvornik.  I mean, that's all for -- for Zvornik.

 8        Q.   Based on the last three exhibits, how would you describe the

 9     level of engagement of JNA forces between the 6th and the 10th of April,

10     1992, in and around the Zvornik municipality?

11        A.   Your Honours, we know from -- from the other documents that

12     between 8 and 9 April or during 8 and 9 April Serb forces take control of

13     Zvornik, and these forces are specified in my report, and based on the

14     report of the 17th corps, the 17th corps is not actively participating in

15     this takeover.  They are focusing, as we saw in the previous report, on

16     protecting military facilities, they're manning or they're securing

17     traffic on the main roads, and they are monitoring the situation but

18     they -- at least on the basis of these documents and other documents I

19     reviewed, they're not actively involved in the takeover the control of

20     the municipality of Zvornik.

21        Q.   Mr. Theunens, I know this is in your report, but since you've

22     mention it, who are the Serb forces that are involved in the takeover of

23     Zvornik?

24        A.   I discussed that in the section on Zvornik.  There are members of

25     the Territorial Defence of Loznica, which is a municipality in Serbia.

Page 8108

 1     There are -- I mean, according to these JNA documents we saw Arkan is

 2     involved, and there's also a paramilitary group which became known as the

 3     Yellow Wasps involved.  And then there is information provided by

 4     Vojislav Seselj that also members of the Special Purpose Unit of the

 5     ministry of the interior of the Republic of Serbia is involved.

 6        Q.   Based on your analysis, was there any subordination of Arkan and

 7     the SDG to the JNA between the 6th and the 10th of April, 1992?

 8        A.   I mean, as far as Zvornik is concerned, I haven't seen any

 9     documents that would suggest that.  Again, as I mentioned, the documents

10     I've seen indicate that JNA units in the area adopted a passive [Realtime

11     transcript read in error "positive"] posture and were not actively

12     involved in the takeover.

13        Q.   On pages 74 to 79 of part 3 of your report, you discuss events

14     which occurred in the municipality of Bosanski Samac.  This is on e-court

15     pages 355 to 370.

16             In this section, you discuss an individual by the name of

17     Dragan Djordjevic, also known as Crni.  Could you please tell us if Crni

18     participated in combat operations --

19             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry to get to my feet.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21             MR. JORDASH:  I heard a word before posture at, Your Honours,

22     line 5, and I didn't hear that word.

23             THE WITNESS:  Indeed.  I'm sorry I forgot to check the

24     transcript.  It should be they didn't adopt -- they adopted a passive

25     posture, not a positive posture.  Thank you.

Page 8109

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Which brings me to another matter.  Your

 2     answer was focusing on the attitude of this JNA rather than on what was

 3     the question, whether there was only subordination.  I can keep my own

 4     troops quiet and passive, and at the same time have some other units

 5     subordinated and doing the takeovers.  So I had some difficulties in

 6     finding the direct answer to the question that was put to you.

 7             THE WITNESS:  I apologise for that, Your Honours.  I -- as I

 8     tried to explain, I haven't seen any documents indicating that Arkan

 9     during the takeover of Zvornik was subordinated to the JNA.  And

10     actually, the reason why I refer to JNA was that the documents I have

11     seen do not indicate any JNA involvement either in the takeover.  That

12     was --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So it was a double answer.

14             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  You didn't see any subordination in documents and

16     also no active involvement of the JNA.  Now, SDG was part of the question

17     as well.

18             THE WITNESS:  Well, Arkan SDG stands for the Serbian Volunteer

19     Guard which is another name for Arkan's unit.  So the same applies.  I

20     have not seen any document indicating a subordination of the SDG to the

21     JNA during the takeover of Zvornik.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

23             MR. WEBER:

24        Q.   Returning to my question about Bosanski Samac.  As I indicated,

25     you discuss an individual by the name of Dragan Djordjevic in this

Page 8110

 1     section.  Could you please tell us if Dragan Djordjevic, also known as

 2     Crni, participated in combat operations in and around the municipality of

 3     Bosanski Samac between April and June 1992.

 4        A.   Yes, Your Honours.  Dragan Djordjevic, also known as Crni, was

 5     commander of a detachment or a group of military personnel which was

 6     subordinated to the JNA-led Tactical Group 17 during the takeover of

 7     Bosanski Samac and as such participated in the takeover.

 8        Q.   Based on your analysis, what relationship did Crni have with the

 9     MUP of Serbia in 1992?

10        A.   I discussed that on page 78 of part 3 of the report.  According

11     to statements Crni or Dragan Djordjevic made himself, he was an official

12     of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia in 1992.

13        Q.   Is there any information that you reviewed as to where Crni had

14     trained during the course of 1992?

15        A.   Yes, I've included information according to which he was an

16     instructor at the Pajzos training facility in Eastern Slavonia, which was

17     as other documents in my report indicate was used by members of the

18     Special Purpose Unit of the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of

19     Serbia to train volunteers.

20        Q.   On pages 99 to 107 of part 3 of your report, you discuss events

21     which occurred in the municipality of Doboj in 1992.  This is e-court

22     pages 380 to 388.

23             In this section, you discuss an individual by the name of

24     Raja Bozovic.  What could you determine about the relationship between

25     Raja Bozovic and the MUP of Serbia based on your review of documents?

Page 8111

 1        A.   Raja Bozovic, the name appears several times when discussing -- I

 2     mean, events I discuss in the report.  And in addition to the documents

 3     that I've included in the Doboj section where link -- link is established

 4     between Bozovic and Red Berets or unit identified as Red Berets, we also

 5     know that he was a commander of a subordinate unit, a tactical group, I'm

 6     not sure Tactical Group 2 or Tactical Group 3, in the Pauk command which

 7     was active in western Bosnia-Herzegovina between November 1994 and August

 8     1995.  And as - just to answer the question - as is discussed in the

 9     report, Pauk was predominantly manned by members of the Ministry of

10     Interior of the Republic of Serbia, including members of the Special

11     Purpose Unit.

12             There is also information indicating that he was involved in

13     Skelani, as again in charge of a Red Beret unit, and this is P1441 and

14     P399 that indicate that.  And this refers to 1992 -- end of 1992, early

15     1993.

16             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have P1452 marked for

17     identification.

18        Q.   While the next exhibit's being called up, on pages 120 to 129 of

19     part 3 of your report, you discuss events which occurred in and around

20     Trnovo during June and July 1995.  These are e-court pages 401 to 410.

21             Directing your attention to the RS MUP dispatch dated 1 July 1995

22     that now before you, does this exhibit refer to any units of the Serbian

23     MUP who participated in combat operations near Trnovo?

24        A.   Indeed, Your Honours, it does.  It talks about a Kajman

25     Detachment which consists -- or which includes two platoons, more

Page 8112

 1     specifically the Plavi and the Skopje platoon, and the Kajman Detachment

 2     is identified as a unit of MUP Serbia.

 3        Q.   With respect to this report, does it indicate whether or not any

 4     members of the Serbian MUP forces were injured during combat operations?

 5     Please let us know if you need us to read on -- or scroll down?

 6        A.   Yes, if we could scroll down.  Yes.  Sorry -- eight lines from

 7     the bottom there is a reference to yesterday's fighting or clashes, and

 8     during those clashes three members of the MUP Serbia were lightly

 9     wounded.

10        Q.   And when did this fighting take place?

11        A.   This should have -- I mean, taking into account the date of the

12     report, which is the 1st of July, it should have been on the 30th of

13     June, 1995.

14             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P1454,

15     marked for identification.  It is a 1 July 1995 response from

16     General Mladic.

17        Q.   Mr. Theunens, what is the subject of this response from

18     General Mladic?

19        A.   General Mladic responds to a telegram of the anti-terrorist unit

20     of the MUP Serbia from the day -- the day before, and he deals with the

21     evacuation -- or the use, excuse me, the use of helicopters from the VRS

22     for the evacuation of members of MUP Serbia who are participating in the

23     fighting in the Trnovo area.

24        Q.   According to the -- this response, does General Mladic authorise

25     this use?

Page 8113

 1        A.   Indeed.  And -- and -- I mean, from the contextual point of view,

 2     this is an important document to highlight the level of co-ordination

 3     that is required to organise the involvement of call it nonorganic, i.e.,

 4     non-VRS forces, in this case MUP Serbia forces in joint operations with

 5     the VRS.

 6        Q.   Where is the basis of that opinion?

 7        A.   Well, the basis -- sorry.  The basis of that opinion is that it

 8     requires the authorisation of the chief of the VRS Main Staff in order to

 9     allow injured members, I mean in this specific matter, injured members of

10     the MUP Serbia units fighting in -- participating in the fighting in

11     Trnovo to make use of a VRS helicopter.

12             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of the

13     English translation.

14        Q.   How does this response indicate officials from the MUP of Serbia

15     should be notified?

16        A.   Well, General Mladic states that the MUP of the RS should inform

17     I mean representatives of the MUP Serbia, and then a Colonel Golic of his

18     decision pertaining to the use of the helicopters.

19             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P1469,

20     marked for identification.

21        Q.   On page 128 of part 3 of your report, e-court page 409, you

22     reference this dispatch dated 22 July 1995.  What does this document

23     indicate as to who the Skorpion Unit belongs to?

24        A.   More or less in the middle of the document we can see that -- I

25     would say ten page -- ten lines from the top that the Skorpions are

Page 8114

 1     identified as a unit of the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of

 2     Serbia.

 3        Q.   What activities are the Skorpions engaged in according to this

 4     dispatch?

 5        A.   The Skorpions are holding a defence line.

 6        Q.   Does this dispatch indicate when the forces of the MUP Serbia

 7     would be leaving the battlefront of Trnovo?

 8        A.   Yes.  Four lines lower, it stated that the units -- or the MUP of

 9     Serbia forces will be leaving on the 22nd and the 23rd of July, and this

10     is highlighted by the commander as -- as a problem.

11             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of

12     Exhibit P289 in evidence.

13        Q.   On pages 130 to 134 of part 3 of your report, you discuss events

14     which occurred in Sanski Most in September 1995.  This is e-court pages

15     411 to 415.

16             MR. WEBER:  If we could also please have the page 2 of the B/C/S

17     version.

18        Q.   Before you is a dispatch dated 23 September 1995 from

19     General Mladic.  Does the first paragraph of this exhibit indicate

20     whether Arkan and his SDG formations are under the command of the VRS up

21     until the 23rd of September, 1995?

22        A.   It indicates that they are -- these SDG formations are present in

23     the area of responsibility of the 1st Battalion or the 1st Brigade of the

24     2nd Krajina Corps, but according to Mladic they are not subordinated to

25     the VRS, and he explains the basis for his conclusion.

Page 8115

 1        Q.   What is the basis that he explains?

 2        A.   Okay.  They haven't -- they have not taken part in any combat

 3     operations.  They are not part of any formation unit, and they have not

 4     reported, i.e., presented themselves to any of the commands,

 5     battalion-level commands, of the VRS, and they haven't, yeah, present

 6     themselves to the Main Staff of the VRS either.  So they haven't received

 7     any assignments from the VRS.

 8        Q.   Directing your attention to the middle paragraph on this page.

 9     Does this exhibit indicate how VRS members are being recruited into the

10     SDG and how their salaries and benefits would be paid if they joined?

11        A.   Indeed.  That is explained in -- in this paragraph.

12        Q.   What does it say?

13        A.   It says in the third paragraph that they are being promised

14     money, 600 dinars, 10.000 dinars -- excuse me.  They are presented a

15     salary of 600 dinars and a compensation of 10.000 dinars in case they

16     are -- get wounded, as well as unemployment and health insurance through

17     the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia.  That is what

18     members of the SDG promised to this -- to people they tried to recruit

19     from the VRS.

20        Q.   Does the following paragraph describe any crimes being committed

21     by the SDG in and around Sanski Most?

22        A.   Yes, it does.  I mean, mention is made of liquidation of a

23     certain number of what are described as loyal Muslim citizens, including

24     relatives of a VRS serviceman.  And, okay, there's justification given.

25             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 3 of the

Page 8116

 1     English version of this document.

 2        Q.   Under number 2, does General Mladic in this dispatch make any

 3     proposals to the organs of the MUP?

 4        A.   Yeah.  He requests and proposes that the organs of the MUP take

 5     measures within their jurisdiction against Raznjatovic and his formations

 6     for the crimes they have committed against VRS members and civilians, and

 7     he much bases that on the fact that Arkan has identified himself as a

 8     member of the MUP of Serbia and MUP of VRS.

 9             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, at this time this completes the

10     Prosecution's examination-in-chief of Mr. Theunens.  We did provide a

11     list of documents -- or list of exhibits that are not being opposed by

12     either Defence teams, and at this time we would ask to tender those

13     exhibits.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I have received a list.  Have the Defence

15     teams received that same list, documents for which admission is sought?

16             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, yes.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  And it reflects that these are the documents not

18     objected to by the Defence; is that correct?  I'm also looking at you,

19     Mr. Bakrac.  Apparently it is.  Then I'll try to go through it rather

20     quickly, and I -- P1092 and P1093 are admitted into evidence.  P1095, up

21     to and including P1158 are admitted into evidence.  Among these, P1096

22     and P1131 are admitted under seal, the others as public documents.

23     P1161, P1162 both admitted into evidence.  P1165 up to and including

24     P1173 are admitted into evidence.  1165 to 1167, 1169, 1170, and 1172

25     under seal.  P1175 up to and including P1176 are admitted into evidence.

Page 8117

 1     P1180, P1182, P1183, P1184, and P1185 are admitted into evidence.  P1187

 2     up to and including P1191 are admitted into evidence.  P1188 under seal.

 3     P1195 up to and including P1208 are admitted into evidence.  P1200 under

 4     seal.  P1211 to P1216, and I said to, including also P1216, are admitted

 5     into evidence.  P1218 and P1219 are admitted into evidence.  P1221 to

 6     P1247, including that last number, are admitted into evidence.  P1249 up

 7     to and including P1281 are admitted into evidence.  Among them, P1254 and

 8     P1260 admitted under seal.  P1283 up to and including P1284 are admitted

 9     into evidence.  P1286 up it and including P1301, as well as P1303 are

10     admitted into evidence.

11             I now move to the documents related to part 3.  P1306 up to and

12     including P1338 are admitted into evidence.  Among them, P1319 under

13     seal.  P1340 to P1343 are admitted into evidence.  P1347 up to and

14     including P1367 are admitted.  Among them, P1346, P1347, and P1349 under

15     seal.  P1369 up to and including P1373 are admitted into evidence.  P1378

16     up to and including P1381 are admitted into evidence.  P1383 up to and

17     including P1395 are admitted into evidence.  P1389 under seal.  P1397 to

18     P1398 are admitted.  P1403 up to and including P1411 are admitted into

19     evidence.  P1413 up to and including P1421 are admitted into evidence.

20     However, P1417 under seal.  P1423 is admitted.  P1425 to P1434, the last

21     number included, are admitted.  P1427 under seal.  P1436 up to and

22     including P1437, P1440 [Realtime transcript read in error "P1444"] up to

23     and including P1442 are admitted into evidence.

24             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I'm sorry to interrupt you.  Was it

25     P1440?

Page 8118

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  It was P1440, yes, yes, because otherwise we would

 2     count back.

 3             MR. WEBER:  Yes, I believe the transcript on --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it says P1444.  And it was meant to be one

 5     sentence, which means that 1436 and 1437 are included in the admission.

 6     Then followed by P1440 up to and including P1442.

 7             The next series:  P1444 up to and including P1449 are admitted

 8     into evidence.  P1444 and P1445 under seal.  P1451 and P1452 are

 9     admitted, as well as P1454 up to and including P1479.

10             First of all, I would like to thank you for your patience for

11     listening to this reciting of a list, but I hope everyone has carefully

12     checked that we have the right numbers now in evidence.

13             Thank you, Mr. Weber.

14             Who is the first to cross-examine the witness?  Mr. Jordash, it

15     will be you.

16             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, yes.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Theunens, you will now be cross-examined by

18     Mr. Jordash.  Mr. Jordash is counsel for Mr. Stanisic.

19             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you, Your Honours.

20                           Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash:

21        Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. Theunens.

22        A.   Good afternoon Mr. Jordash.

23        Q.   In the little time that we have left today, I would like to just

24     try to understand before we launch into the body of the report the

25     precise conclusions that you reached concerning the relationship of the

Page 8119

 1     Serbian MUP to the paramilitaries.

 2             You effectively divide the relationship into two types.  Is this

 3     right?  On the one hand, Arkan, Captain Dragan, and the Red Berets were

 4     controlled by the Serbian MUP.  Is that correct?

 5        A.   That is not correct.  I mean, it doesn't reflect what I tried to

 6     write in the report.  When I first address volunteers/paramilitary groups

 7     controlled to -- controlled by, I'm sorry, or related otherwise to the

 8     Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia, I start off with Dragan

 9     and the people he operated with.  Secondly, I talk about Arkan; and

10     thirdly, I talk about other groups whereby these other groups are then

11     further defined.

12             As I mentioned earlier, the material that was available to me did

13     not allow to draw a -- what I say a complete conclusion as to what was

14     the exact nature of the relations between the various groups and the

15     Ministry of Interior.  I mean, the documents I have included in

16     particular when I discussed the involvement of these groups, and I'm

17     talking now about all of them, Dragan, Arkan, as well as the other

18     groups, for what -- their involvement in the conflict in Croatia and

19     Bosnia-Herzegovina is concerned show a number of things that allowed --

20     led me conclude that there was a degree of control, i.e., influence over

21     the activities of these various units.

22        Q.   Could I ask you, please, to turn to the executive summary of the

23     report, page 6, and it's paragraph 9, e-court page 6.  And at paragraph

24     9 -- sorry.  Exhibit P1575, MFI'd.  Because -- perhaps it's my reading,

25     Mr. Theunens, but it seemed that in the report you were a little more

Page 8120

 1     definite in the way that you looked at the paramilitaries.

 2             At page 9 -- sorry, page 6, paragraph 9:

 3             "The SFRY Supreme Command, the JNA, and the government of the

 4     Republic of Serbia, in particular the ministry of interior and ministry

 5     of defence, were aware of the existence of extra-legal voluntary --

 6     volunteer/paramilitary formations participating in the conflict in

 7     Croatia as well as the role of Serbian nationalistic political parties in

 8     the recruitment of these volunteers and encouraged these groups or

 9     supported them otherwise."

10             And then you move on -- if we of move to the next page, page 7 in

11     e-court, to paragraph 10, you note:

12             "At the same time, there were also volunteer/paramilitary groups

13     such as Arkan's Tigers ... and individuals operating under the command of

14     Dragan or other groups including a group which became colloquially known

15     as the Red Berets which were controlled by the Ministry of Interior of

16     the Republic of Serbia, the latter through Jovica Stanisic and

17     Franko Simatovic, aka Frenki."

18             Are you not making a distinction here?  And you're saying, well,

19     there are on the one hand there is the groups which were formed by

20     nationalistic parties, and on the other hand there's Arkan's, there's

21     Captain Dragan's and the Red Berets, and I am asserting that the Red

22     Berets were in fact controlled directly by Stanisic and Simatovic?

23        A.   That is correct, and I apologise if I misunderstood your initial

24     question but I didn't see any reference to the nationalistic political

25     parties in your initial question.  I understood from your initial

Page 8121

 1     question that you believed that I had made a distinction within -- I mean

 2     between Arkan, Dragan, and others within the Ministry of the Interior.

 3     So I mean I stand by what I wrote in my report because the

 4     misunderstanding's clarified now.

 5        Q.   So just so that I'm clear, you're -- you effectively concluded

 6     that there were on the one hand paramilitary groups created by the

 7     political parties such as the White Eagles - and we'll come to the list

 8     in a moment - they were, is this correct, tacitly authorised by the

 9     government of the Serbia, including the Serbian MUP.  On the other hand,

10     Arkan's Men, Captain Dragan's men, and the Red Berets were controlled by

11     the Serbian MUP with direct control of the Red Berets by Stanisic and

12     Simatovic.  Is that a fair summary?

13        A.   I didn't include the word "direct," but otherwise, I mean that's

14     a fair summary.  I mean, we can talk about control.  I didn't use the

15     word "direct" in -- in my report.

16        Q.   But you did make the distinction between Dragan and Arkan on the

17     one side and the Red Berets on the other, attaching Simatovic and

18     Stanisic to the Red Berets with a more intimate relationship than that to

19     Arkan or to Captain Dragan.  Does that make sense?

20        A.   I -- I don't think I did that.  I mean, I didn't have the

21     material that would allow me to do so.  My conclusion was that all three

22     of them -- I mean, if you say Arkan, Dragan, the Red Berets, they were

23     all controlled -- and again the word "control" has to be taken in its --

24        Q.   We'll come to the word control in a minute.

25        A.   Okay.

Page 8122

 1        Q.   But you do say, sorry to interrupt --

 2        A.   Yep.

 3        Q.   -- but you do say the latter through Stanisic and Simatovic as

 4     if -- and doesn't the latter relate to Red Berets?

 5        A.   Okay.  Now I understand, I'm sorry.  Yeah.

 6        Q.   So you do in the executive summary at least make a distinction;

 7     correct?

 8        A.   No, that's true.  That's correct, I'm sorry.

 9        Q.   So you had in mind --

10        A.   I wasn't concentrate.

11        Q.   -- in terms of the two accused that their relationship to the

12     Red Berets was closer than it was to or Arkan and Dragan?

13        A.   That is indeed what the documents I reviewed indicate.

14        Q.   Well, that was your conclusion on the basis of all the documents

15     you saw and relied upon in your report.

16        A.   Yes, that's correct.

17        Q.   Now, going back to the first group, the tacit authorisation

18     group, if I can refer to them as that, you include in that, and I want to

19     try to be as specific as possible, the White Eagles, Dusan Silni,

20     Srpska Garda, the Vuk Draskovic group, and the Serbian Chetnik movement

21     SRS/SCP.  And I'm looking at page 85 of part 1, and in e-court we need

22     page 81.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  That's almost impossible because the numbering in

24     e-court is usually higher.

25             MR. JORDASH:  This point was confusing me.

Page 8123

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So perhaps you should check that first.

 2             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, it's 108, e-court 108.  I do apologise.

 3             THE WITNESS:  To answer the question, I mean, as I said in the

 4     executive summary it goes beyond tacit authorisation.  There is also

 5     active support, and okay the names you have given I identify them as the

 6     best known volunteer/paramilitary groups.

 7             MR. JORDASH:

 8        Q.   So your conclusion is that the failure to abide by the duties

 9     placed upon the Serbian MUP led to tacit authorisation of every

10     paramilitary group within the indictment frame?

11        A.   Can you show me where I conclude that in my report?

12        Q.   Well, the -- the evidence you've just given is that the tacit

13     authorisation related to the groups which are listed at paragraph -- on

14     page 85, but also other groups.  Am I misunderstanding you?

15             I'm trying to get some specificity so I know what I'm dealing

16     with over the next few days as to which groups you say were tacitly

17     authorised by the failure of the Serbian MUP to fulfil its legal duties.

18        A.   I mean, what -- what we see is that as I put it in the report,

19     this is page 85 under title B, that a number of political parties in

20     Republic of Serbia establish paramilitary groups, i.e., illegal groups or

21     privately controlled groups that act in a military way with weapons and

22     uniforms and participate in the fighting.

23             Of course, over time efforts are done to legalise that situation

24     on the field as well as in Serbia itself.  On the field through

25     establishment, for example, of operational groups and tactical groups, as

Page 8124

 1     well as other ad hoc units to ensure single authority.

 2             In Serbia we see that a number of -- I mean, that is discussed

 3     further on -- legal measures are taken.  First of all we see that Article

 4     118 --

 5        Q.   Yes, I'm sorry, Mr. Theunens.  I just want to keep us both

 6     focused if I can.

 7        A.   Okay, but I --

 8        Q.   Which groups are we talking about that you say were tacitly

 9     authorised by the failures of the Serbian MUP?

10        A.   Maybe -- I have difficulties to understand your question, because

11     you're moving to Serbian MUP groups, then you're going back to other

12     groups.

13        Q.   Let me be clearer then if I can.

14        A.   Yeah.

15        Q.   Let's put aside what you said about Dragan --

16        A.   Okay.

17        Q.   -- Arkan and the Red Berets.  Let's deal with all other

18     paramilitary groups that you had in mind --

19        A.   Yep.

20        Q.   -- when you concluded that the Serbian MUP's failures gave rise

21     to tacit authorisation.

22        A.   The -- I mean, the failure lays in the fact that the existing

23     legislation --

24        Q.   I'm sorry.  I'm not asking you -- and we'll come to --

25        A.   Yeah, but I don't understand the question.  I'm sorry.

Page 8125

 1        Q.   We'll come to what the failures --

 2        A.   Yeah.

 3        Q.   -- may or may not have made --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  But if the failures are part of your question --

 5             MR. JORDASH:  If --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Then of course if the witness does not fully

 7     understand what you mean by that, then you should clarify that.  So even

 8     if you want to go in further detail about the failures at a later stage,

 9     your question was whether the witness concluded that the Serbian MUP's

10     failures gave rise to authorisation.  So that needs an understanding of

11     whether you, when you're talking about the failures, whether the witness

12     understands what you mean, and I got the impression that he's trying to

13     find out whether your understanding of the failure was exactly what --

14             MR. JORDASH:  Well --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Whether he understood well what you meant by the

16     failure, and therefore wanted to expound a bit on that.

17             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, if Mr. Theunens wants to, then I take

18     Your Honour's point.

19        Q.   Mr. Theunens, please.

20        A.   I mean, I will try my best to --

21        Q.   Sorry, Mr. Theunens.  Maybe I could --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps I could try to assist both of you.

23             The failure of the MUP, would that, as understood by Mr. Jordash,

24     you can verify whether you have the same understanding, would that

25     automatically include tacit -- what was the word?

Page 8126

 1             THE WITNESS:  Authorisation.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Tacit authorisation.  Is that what you --

 3             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, I can take you to the section in the

 4     report.  Perhaps this is the best way.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Fine.  Then we go first to the failure and

 6     then to the -- okay.

 7             MR. JORDASH:  Please could we go to paragraph -- sorry page 80 of

 8     part 1, and it is e-court 57.  Sorry, it's 103.  And the paragraph I'm

 9     concerned with, Mr. Theunens, is paragraph C.

10        A.   Okay.

11        Q.   "During the conflict in Croatia, nationalist political parties in

12     Serbia were allowed to organise the recruitment, training, and

13     dispatching of volunteers to the conflicts zones in Croatia or even set

14     up their own volunteer paramilitary formations with the tacit

15     authorisation of the government Republic of Serbia."

16             Paragraph D:

17             "The SFRY Supreme Command, the JNA, and the government of the

18     Republic of Serbia, in particular the ministry of interior (MUP) and the

19     ministry of defence (MOD), were aware of the existence of extra-legal

20     volunteer/paramilitary formations participating in the conflict in

21     Croatia and the role of nationalistic political parties in the

22     recruitment of volunteers and encouraged these groups or supported them

23     otherwise."

24             Now, what I'm trying to clarify is which groups do you say were

25     tacitly authorised and thereby encouraged by the failures of the Serbian

Page 8127

 1     MUP?

 2        A.   Thank you for the clarification.  Now, I'm not in a position -- I

 3     wasn't able to identify which specific -- I mean, the name of the group,

 4     but we can say that these nationalistic parties established groups, and

 5     then as the government of the Republic of Serbia whereby the Ministry of

 6     Defence and the Ministry of Interior have specific responsibilities in

 7     enforcing the law did not act against these groups as a whole.  We know

 8     that later on there are selective actions against certain groups, but I

 9     cannot answer your question whether the Ministry of Interior specifically

10     authorised group A or group B or group C.  I also want to emphasise that

11     this is a paragraph out of an executive summary which basically

12     summarises what follows in the report --

13        Q.   Sorry, this isn't a part of the executive summary.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps you would take the --

15             THE WITNESS:  Summary.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  No, it's not the summary.  It's page 80 of the first

17     part.

18             MR. JORDASH:

19        Q.   Section 3, Mr. Theunens, labelled Serbian

20     volunteers/paramilitaries?

21             JUDGE ORIE:  No, it's not [overlapping speakers] --

22             THE WITNESS:  Yeah, but it's -- [overlapping speakers]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  -- I do agree we have two kind of summaries.  We

24     have the summary at the beginning of the report as a whole, and here we

25     have a section 3 Serbian volunteers/paramilitaries starts with a summary

Page 8128

 1     of what then follows.  Yes.  So to that extent it is a summary, and

 2     therefore if Mr. Theunens could find where this is further explained at a

 3     later stage, he may include that in his answer.

 4             MR. JORDASH:  Well, perhaps if we go to page 85 --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  As a matter of fact, looking at the clock --

 6             MR. JORDASH:  I noticed.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  I think that's -- you've heard the question,

 8     Mr. Theunens.

 9             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  You have a lot of time to think about an answer and

11     to go through the report and find perhaps an answer in the part which is

12     not a summary.  I apologise, but you have several levels of summaries,

13     and I first ignored that.

14             Mr. Theunens, we'll continue tomorrow, but I'd first like to

15     instruct you that you should not speak with anyone about your testimony

16     either already given or still to be given tomorrow.  If I say not to

17     speak, that includes all kind of communication.  Perhaps it would even be

18     wise, knowing your background, to perhaps spend the evening in such a way

19     that no one could even think of you discussing the matters with others.

20             Therefore, we'd like to see you back tomorrow, and our schedule,

21     as far as matters stand now for tomorrow, is that we start at 9.00 in the

22     morning in this courtroom, II, until 11.30, and that in the afternoon

23     we'll sit from 3.00 in the afternoon in Courtroom I, up to 6.00.

24             We stand adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday day, the 27th of

25     October, 9.00, the same courtroom, II.

Page 8129

 1                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.06 p.m.,

 2                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 27th day

 3                           of October, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.