1 Wednesday, 22 June 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
7 IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
9 Before we continue hearing the evidence of the witness, I was
10 informed that the Prosecution would like to raise a procedural matter.
11 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I would just ask that we return to the
12 discussion yesterday about prior statements. At least with respect to
13 this particular witness because he had been interviewed on several
14 occasions, I would like to have notes, if there are any, of the earlier
15 conversations before I do my cross-examination.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Earlier conversations you would say on from January
17 on this year because --
18 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. He was interviewed --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, there are three dates [Overlapping speakers].
20 MR. GROOME: -- three different dates. If notes exist from those
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And we have only one consolidated statement of
24 MR. GROOME: That's correct, yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
1 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, in relation to the legal argument, I
2 was hoping to be able to make it after the witness had finished. The
3 research was done overnight. I'm going to review it and would be in a
4 position to address you at that point, but in relation to this witness,
5 there are no notes other than this statement. It was a statement which
6 was compiled incrementally. Everything went into the statement.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see. Does that mean that you started writing
8 the statement as it is now in the first meeting in January? Did you not
9 make any notes?
10 MR. JORDASH: The notes went into the statement. I took this --
11 I was primarily involved in taking this statement. We started in
12 January. I started typing the notes. The witness came to be interviewed
13 on the occasions indicated. On the final date, the witness took
14 statement, looked at it himself, made whatever amendments he wanted to
15 make and brought it back. That was the process. There was no need to
16 make ancillary notes since everything was going into the statement, into
17 the laptop as he said it.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
19 MR. GROOME: I accept Mr. Jordash's representation in this
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll leave it to that at this moment. Perhaps
22 it's better then to proceed at this moment than later hear your response
23 to the submissions made by Mr. Groome yesterday on a more general level,
24 not specifically related to this witness.
25 We move into closed session.
1 [Closed session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of the Chamber]
11 Pages 11707-11713 redacted. Closed session.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jordash. I just would like to put on
20 the record that we're on page 9, line 4. Mr. Jordash, you called for
21 65 ter 1D01055, that that has meanwhile received exhibit number D246,
22 marked for identification.
23 MR. JORDASH: There are a couple more I was going to -- but I was
24 going to do that at the end, but I can do it now, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think it's important because if anyone wants
1 to review at a later stage these documents, then it's better to have
2 their -- the final numbers assigned to them. If you can do it quickly,
3 then please -- or if you want prepare, you can do it a later moment as
5 MR. JORDASH: No. I apply to tender 1D01 -- I'll do it later if
6 I may.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Yes, you may.
8 Mr. Bakrac, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?
9 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Witness DST-051, you'll now be cross-examined by
11 Mr. Bakrac. Mr. Bakrac is counsel for Mr. Simatovic.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Good
14 morning to everyone in the courtroom.
15 Cross-examination by Mr. Bakrac:
16 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. DST-051. My learned colleague
17 asked you a while ago about the demonstrations in Belgrade on the 9th of
18 March, 1991. I should just like us to try and highlight some aspects of
19 it for the Chamber and for the Prosecutor. These were demonstrations
20 which were then led by the SPO, the then strongest opposition party and
21 aimed at ousting President Milosevic; is that right? The SPO party also
22 had its Serbian Guard, and it was monitored by the service in respect of
23 extremism; is that right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Please make a pause so that the translators would be able to
1 translate. It would be best if you follow the questions and answers on
2 the screen.
3 Mr. DST-051, we could see that you worked in the service for a
4 long time. I should like to know whether you are aware of the fact that
5 the State Security Service of Serbia, up until the 9th of March, 1991,
6 had had the task to protect the prime minister, the speaker of the
7 Assembly, and the president of the republic.
8 A. The State Security Service had task to protect the president of
9 the republic, the prime minister, the president of the Assembly, in terms
10 of counter-intelligence activities as well as a number of other
11 officials, according to the rules applicable in that period.
12 Q. Is it fair to say that after these demonstrations on the 9th of
13 March, 1991, President Milosevic decided that the State Security Service
14 should no longer protect him and that that special unit was set up from
15 within the Public Security Service to escort him, provide security for
16 him, and protect him?
17 A. This entire procedure related to the provision of security for
18 important personages, including the president of the republic, as you
19 rightly say, was in course after the 9th of March, 1991; namely, an
20 initiative was launched by the chief of the Public Security Service,
21 Mr. Stojicic to the effect that the provision of security to VIPs and
22 counter-intelligence and the physical security for them should be blended
23 in one entity and that unit, following various consultations and
24 agreements, was indeed set up as part of the Public Security Service;
25 that's correct.
1 Q. When you say Badza, you mean Radovan Stojicic?
2 A. I did say Radovan Stojicic, aka Badza.
3 Q. Milenkovic, called Sentan, was the personal body-guard of
4 Mr. Milosevic, and the acronym of this unit was SIB.
5 A. This is not his nickname. His name was Sentan and he was the
6 chief of the overall security provided to Mr. Milosevic.
7 Q. Are you able to tell us as you worked in this -- this, do you
8 consider that to have been a reflection of President Milosevic's mistrust
9 in the service?
10 A. Certainly, yes. The counter-intelligence protection of the
11 president of the state and of other VIPs was normally to have been
12 provided by the State Security Service. As this was not the case, I
13 believe that this reflected great mistrust of the service, and this was
14 particularly reflected on the -- on Zlatko Radnic, the former chief of
15 the Sixth Administration. It is not Radonic, it is Radnic, R-a-d-n-i-c.
16 This was a top professional, and the sole reason why Mr. Radnic was
17 replaced was the fact that he was of Croat ethnicity. The then chief of
18 the service, Janackovic treated him and all others who had any relations
19 or kinship of that ilk, he actually greatly mistrusted them, and this was
20 also reflected on Mr. Milosevic's attitude towards the service.
21 Q. Thank you. Do you know that when Mr. Stanisic, when he assumed
22 the post of chief of the State Security Service, actually reinstated the
23 same Zlatko Radnic in his position?
24 A. Yes, he did, and he was the chief of that Administration until
25 the period when -- as long as Jovica Stanisic was the chief, was the head
1 of the service.
2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, I see my colleague is on his
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
5 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, Mr. Bakrac has been asking a number of
6 leading questions and many of them have dealt with background information
7 and I haven't objected, but it seems to me that we get into a -- what
8 seems to be a very important piece of information, that the reasons or
9 the rationale underlying the ability to cross-examine, to ask leading
10 questions, and ask non-leading questions, it seems that the inquiry's
11 best served by Mr. Bakrac not leading the witness on such matters.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, as a general rule, leading questions are
13 allowed in cross-examination, but the basic underlying rationale for that
14 is that the cross-examination deals with matter which were touched upon
15 in chief. Now, as we all know that under Rule 90(H) that you're allowed
16 in cross-examination also to elicit evidence which supports your own
17 case, of course under those circumstances, but if the parties disagree
18 with that, then I'd like to know that. That if you are touching upon
19 matters which were not directly touched upon, so if you're not
20 challenging the testimony given in chief, there of course you're supposed
21 not to lead, but again I'm not from a common law background, if my
22 understanding of these subtleties of what is allowed in cross-examination
23 is not agreed upon by the parties, I'd like to know.
24 But I always did understand that to the extent cross-examination
25 is -- real cross-examination on matters challenging the testimony given
1 in chief, that then of course you can ask leading questions, but if you
2 want to elicit evidence which would support your case on matters which
3 are not touched upon in chief, then that's different, and there you
4 should then refrain from leading because it's to some extent eliciting
5 evidence from the witness as if the witness was your own witness.
6 Now, I see meanwhile Mr. Jordash was able to restore the
7 technical facilities. If there's any disagreement about this
8 understanding of the law of procedure, I'd like to know. If not, then
9 I'd like you to -- to take notice of what Mr. Groome said and to act in
10 accordance with that.
11 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour. I do not
12 come from the Anglo-Saxon system. I know that there are nuances there.
13 I know about this rule that when cross-examination is in question, I do
14 have this possibility of asking leading questions, but I shall certainly
15 abide by your instructions and by your leave I should like to continue.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
17 MR. JORDASH: Well, I am from the common law system.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. JORDASH: I've never heard an objection such as that just
20 made by Mr. Groome. I've also worked in the various tribunals, and I've
21 never seen that objection taken in any of the international tribunals or
22 upheld in any of the International Tribunals.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I took you back to that basic understanding of -- of
24 cross-examination, the Rule 90(H), which of course deals with two
25 different kind of questions, the ones where you -- and I have to look at
1 the Rule exactly how it's phrased, but a distinction is made between --
2 let me see.
3 "Cross-examination shall be limited to the subject matter of the
4 evidence in chief." That's what I refer to. "And matters reflecting the
5 credibility of the witness, and where the witness is able to give
6 evidence relevant to the case for the cross-examining party to the
7 subject matter of that case."
8 Now, I see that there are two -- as a matter of fact, there are
9 three distinct categories. Let's leave alone for a second, that's
10 credibility. The one is subject matter of the evidence in chief.
11 It's -- I think -- it's my understanding of the rationale that where in
12 chief you should not lead the witness and to receive his evidence as he
13 spontaneously gives it, I'm not talking at this moment about proofing
14 sessions, but which might relate a bit that Rule, but that if you want to
15 elicit evidence from the witness for your own case, you should treat him
16 more or less as if you were examining him in chief. But if there's any
17 dispute about this, Mr. Bakrac said he would like to -- he would follow
18 my guidance.
19 You say you've never heard of this before. Now, I do not know
20 exactly to what extent Rule 90(H) appears in a similar way in all or many
21 of the common law oriented systems. Perhaps you should give it some
22 thought. Apparently Mr. Bakrac said at this moment no major problems in
23 following my guidance.
24 For me, it's my way of understanding the rationale, but
25 Mr. Bakrac and myself, we both have to -- still have to learn a lot, and
1 we would be -- we would applaud to be assisted by you in this respect.
2 MR. JORDASH: Well, I would -- I certainly wouldn't agree with
3 that analysis.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I feel at least, I can't speak for Mr. Bakrac, but I
5 still have to learn a lot, and therefore I rather make it explicit what
6 my understanding is, also in relation to what Mr. Groome said. I don't
7 know, Mr. Groome, whether what I said is more or less at the basis of
8 what you meant to raise when you, although gently, started making an
10 MR. GROOME: That's exactly it, Your Honour. It's -- it's the
11 purpose behind the question, the idea of cross-examination or leading
12 questions or where the witness is hostile or not inclined to give the
13 examiner the answers that he seeks. Mr. Bakrac is eliciting evidence
14 which he seeks from the witness, there's no evidence that the witness is
15 anything but fully co-operative with him, so it really shouldn't need to
16 resort to cross-examination.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I suggest that rather than educating ourselves
18 at this very moment, I leave it alone who should be educated by whom,
19 that certainly the witness would perhaps learn a lot, but that's not the
20 purpose of our presence at this moment. If there's any need for any
21 further discussion on this matter, I would say start that at tea time and
22 continue it if it's not resolved in this courtroom.
23 Meanwhile, Mr. Bakrac, you're invited to proceed.
24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I certainly can say
25 that I'm learning every day, and I shall be learning every day a lot
1 about the common law system. I shall certainly abide by your system --
2 by your instructions, but I shall -- I have to say that what I heard
3 Mr. Jordash say is something which definitely makes sense to me, but we
4 shall try to abide by your instructions and to avoid misunderstandings of
5 this kind.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the main thing Mr. Jordash said is that he
7 never heard of it, not much more. So if you say that makes sense, then
8 we leave it to that. Let's proceed.
11 Pages 11723-11741 redacted. Closed session.
14 Q. Witness, I just wanted to clarify this, and it will be dealt with
15 by our police expert. Let us take a look at 2D760.
16 While we're waiting, I would like to remind everybody of
17 something. You said in your statement that the administrations were
18 rather isolated and that there wasn't good communication among them.
19 Document 2D760. 760.
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it seems that this is
21 a wrong reference. We will call up the correct document in a second.
22 Your Honours, it's a document from a book. We have it in hard
24 Q. Take a look at the heading, Witness. It says: "Republic of
25 Serbia, Ministry of the Interior, State Security Service. Second
1 Administration - Branch Novi Sad."
2 A. I don't have it. It says "Zijacar [phoen]."
3 Q. No, the document under that. I apologise. This is an Official
4 Note drafted by the Second Administration at the Novi Sad branch. Do you
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Let us take a look at the last page of this document where we see
8 to whom this was distributed.
9 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we scroll down, please.
10 Q. Distributed to: The First Administration, your Administration,
11 the Third, then the Fifth Administration, the documentation fund CRDB
12 Novi Sad, and the one in Sombor as well as one copy for operative
14 Does this document show that there was co-ordination,
15 co-operation between the administrations -- or, rather, the Second
16 Administration and the other administrations after all? And I mean
17 co-operation, co-ordination with regard to the most complex
18 intelligence-related issues?
19 A. I think that you misunderstood me, that there was no mutual
20 co-operation between the -- the different administrations of the State
21 Security Service. The point is that everybody did their job, and the
22 heads of the administrations assessed what they would assign as a
23 document to a specific administration.
24 In this case, the chief of the intelligence branch of the Second
25 Administration in Novi Sad says that the date in the Official Note which
1 referred to some extremists was something that in his view should --
2 should be submitted to the First Administration and to the Third
3 Administration of the State Security Department. That was his
4 assessment, that the information was associated with something that the
5 counter-intelligence staff and the workers working on countering
6 extremism should be informed of. So there was always co-ordination
7 between the administrations, between the units. They always co-operated
8 in countering all forms of extremism.
9 Q. Witness, thank you very much for your answers and for your time.
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm done questioning
11 this witness. I apologise if I exceeded my time, and thank you for that
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if the last few minutes would have been
14 useful, Mr. Bakrac, there would have been less reason to apologise. What
15 I now know is that there was a document of which I've got no idea of what
16 it is about. Apart from that, it's an Official Note and that there is a
17 hard copy available, that it was sent to certain administrations, and
18 that that -- we should conclude on the basis of that that there was
19 co-ordination. It is a chaotic way of presenting evidence, not assisting
20 this Chamber on these matters, but let's move on as quickly as we can.
21 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
23 MR. JORDASH: I apologise for taking up the time of the Court,
24 but may I raise just two very quick matters. The first matter is
25 relating to the discussion we had yesterday about documentation relating
1 to the --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. JORDASH: -- commission. I have to be careful what I say,
4 but we have found the documentation. It somehow slipped between the
5 cracks of our administration. It's about -- it's quite voluminous. I've
6 informed the Prosecution about it. It's in B/C/S.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. JORDASH: A member of my team is reviewing the document at
9 this point.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Very surprising that, apparently in the response to
11 two RFAs, even going into specific matters, that no one in Belgrade
12 seems -- in the government circles seems to have anything, whereas you
13 say you have voluminous material.
14 MR. JORDASH: We obtained it from Mr. Stanisic, who obtained it
15 at the time. We -- that's why -- one of the reasons why -- well, we were
16 surprised that the National Council had come back and claimed that no
17 such documentation existed.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Twice as simple. We don't have it. That's all.
19 MR. JORDASH: Yes. We are hitting a brick wall, likewise the
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. That's good. I take it that you first
22 want to -- well, to disclose it to the Prosecution --
23 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: -- so that you, the parties, at least know what's
25 there, and then the Chamber will hear whether you need any further
1 assistance or whether there is any challenge to the authenticity, but I
2 can say that it's a big puzzle in this context.
3 MR. JORDASH: It's a puzzle which we've encountered on a number
4 of occasions, and we're mulling over what to do in relation to a number
5 of requests we've made to the National Council.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It raises at least issues as far as the
7 co-operation of the government of Serbia is concerned. I'm not going any
8 further, that it raises issues.
9 MR. JORDASH: I've discussed with Mr. Groome very briefly and at
10 the moment there is a prospective proposal, that we ask the witness to
11 come back tomorrow to authenticate the documents, but I can inform the
12 Chamber and the Prosecution later on if that's something that we will
14 JUDGE ORIE: But then, at least, we should ask the witness
15 whether he has seen any documents, because at least the report -- I don't
16 know whether this report is among the documents.
17 MR. JORDASH: It is.
18 JUDGE ORIE: It is. The witness told us that he has never seen
19 it, so to authenticate a report which you've never seen might need
20 some --
21 MR. JORDASH: He may be able to authenticate the details
22 sufficiently to satisfy [Overlapping speakers] --
23 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] Or perhaps the stamps could
24 be. Yes. Let's keep your request in the back of my -- or I should say
25 collectively on our minds.
1 MR. JORDASH: The --
2 JUDGE ORIE: And let's first then hear the cross-examination.
3 But that was the one issue you wanted to raise --
4 MR. JORDASH: The second --
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- and now the second one is?
6 MR. JORDASH: -- which may be more problematic. I wanted to seek
7 leave to ask one further question not based on the Simatovic
8 cross-examination but based on an issue that the Defence would like to
9 ask Mr. DST-051 about.
10 MR. GROOME: I do not object, Your Honour.
11 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
12 JUDGE ORIE: If the Simatovic Defence would feel the need to
13 further cross-examine the witness on the one additional question, then of
14 course you will -- we'll hear from you.
15 Mr. Jordash, you can ask this one additional question.
16 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jordash.
4 Mr. Groome, Ms. Marcus? Whom to address at this moment. Yes.
5 Mr. Groome, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?
6 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: You'll now been cross-examined Witness DST-051 by
8 Mr. Groome. Mr. Groome is counsel for the Prosecution.
9 Could you give us a time estimate, Mr. Groome before you start?
10 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I had estimated two and a half hours
11 before I saw the chart with 35 documents and the associated exhibits. I
12 think it may take me about an hour to deal with those -- questions from
13 those, so I believe 3.5 hours in total.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could you try to be as efficient as possible so as
15 to use our time in the best possible way. Please proceed.
16 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
17 Cross-examination by Mr. Groome:
18 Q. DST-051, I want to ask you something about what you said
19 yesterday. At page 7 of yesterday's transcript, when you were talking
20 about your security concerns you said:
21 "My wife's mother lives in Croatia. Until now, she was unaware
22 of what I did between 1974 and 2001."
23 That would mean that for 27 years your mother-in-law did not know
24 that you worked for the state security. Did I understand you correctly
1 A. I think that I responded to a similar question yesterday. My
2 mother-in-law did know throughout all those years, and she knows today,
3 that I worked in the Ministry of Interior the Republic of Serbia.
4 According to the principles which obtained in the State Security Service,
5 members of the service never told their families or their relatives what
6 they were exactly doing in those services. In other words, my
7 mother-in-law did know that I was a member of the Ministry of Interior,
8 but nothing more than that.
9 Q. And is this situation that you're describing common with other
10 member of the State Security Service? Is it the common practice to let
11 family and friends know that they work in the Ministry of Interior but
12 nothing more specific than that?
13 A. Yesterday, I said that there were basic principles and tenets
14 governing the work of every service. We, members of the State Security
15 Service, were members of the Secret Service. At the start of our work in
16 that service, we had to sign a statement to the effect that outside the
17 service and outside the remit of our work, we were not to tell anyone,
18 including family members, anything about the work that we did. Even
19 today after retirement, I still have this statement that I signed which I
20 abide by, namely that I cannot speak about the work which I did which
21 work fell within the -- within the -- was a state secret.
22 Q. Now, thank you for that. Yesterday, Mr. Jordash showed you a
23 D239, and it was the Rules governing activities of the State Security
24 Service published on the 21st of July, 1990. We can call it back to the
25 screens if you need to, but I want to ask you a particular question about
1 the first sentence in item 9 which said:
2 "Service associate is a person who is a conscious secret,
3 organised, and continued manner, collects data and information or carries
4 out other tasks for the need of the service."
5 My question for you is: Is the policy of secrecy that you've
6 just described, did that also apply to the associates and the
7 collaborators that worked with members of the service?
8 A. The rules governing the activity of the service themselves, in
9 then the confidentiality rule, first of all, applies to the secret
10 application of operative technical measures and means, and sacrosanct in
11 every service, including ours, was the network of associates. Anything
12 else could be actually disclosed, but if the network of collaborators was
13 busted that would mean immediate dismissal of the person responsible. So
14 this, yes, did apply to all collaborators and to all associates within
15 the associates' network.
16 Q. Now, with respect to regular members of the service working with
17 collaborators and associates, would the regular member of the service
18 always tell the associate what particular administration or what
19 particular division of the State Security Service they were working with,
20 or would that be kept from the associate?
21 A. The associate had to be informed in which service the member
22 recruiting him worked, and he could gather -- actually, the associate
23 could gather from the questions by the member where he worked. This was
24 done in complete confidentiality under codes.
25 Q. In the chart of the documents you reused -- reviewed, you
1 repeatedly used the acronym CRDB. Just so we're clear about what that
2 means, could I ask you to tell us what does CRDB stand for?
3 A. CRDB stands for State Security Department Centre. State Security
4 Department Centre of the Republic of Serbia.
5 Q. And am I correct in believing or thinking that this refers to the
6 regional centres of the State Security Centre in the different locations
7 around Serbia?
8 A. The level of the headquarters -- first of all, we have the State
9 Security Department. As part of that department, their administration,
10 of which there were eight, and the regional organisation involves centres
11 of the State Security Department and at the time of Mr. Stanisic there
12 were 18 such centres in the territory of the Republic of Serbia.
13 Q. Thank you. Now, several times today you said that
14 Mr. Simatovic's, I think, principal responsibility was to counter the
15 activities of American intelligence services. Would Mr. Stanisic as his
16 superior have also borne responsibility for protecting against the
17 activities of American intelligence services?
18 A. Over a long period of time Mr. Stanisic was at the level of the
19 headquarters of the State Security Department. He was the assistant head
20 dealing with the countering of the work of foreign intelligence services.
21 As such, he was familiar with most of the activities of the operatives of
22 the counter-intelligence administration aimed at combatting foreign
23 intelligence activities. That was his position according to the
24 hierarchy that obtained there.
25 Q. Now, there have been numerous reports in the media claiming that
1 Mr. Stanisic had a very close relationship with the CIA, the American
2 intelligence service and in fact gave them substantial assistance on
3 several occasions. Can you please help us understand what appears to be
4 a contradiction, the need to counter the activities of American
5 intelligence services and allegations or claims that Mr. Stanisic
6 co-operated quite closely with them?
7 A. I'm in no position to interpret the writing in the media,
8 especially the media in the Republic of Serbia or in the former
9 Yugoslavia. In the period when we worked in the State Security Service,
10 the media wrote all kinds of things.
11 There is one thing which I shall tell you. Mr. Jovica Stanisic
12 was not able to co-operate with the US intelligence service or any other
13 foreign intelligence service in the way described in the media.
14 Mr. Stanisic as the chief of the State Security Department, together with
15 a branch or -- I'm not sure what its name was, was in a position of
16 having encounters or contacts with different services. This is normal
17 and is done by all services in the world. He had official formal
18 communications, contacts with not only the US service but also with other
19 foreign services, but official contacts.
20 Q. According to your knowledge, has Mr. Stanisic ever given concrete
21 assistance to the CIA?
22 A. I have no way of knowing that, but the team which engaged in
23 official contacts with foreign intelligence services I suppose has
24 documentation in reference to the context established by Mr. Stanisic and
25 his associates with such services, which was official communication.
1 Q. Now, DST-051, my understanding from you yesterday was that one of
2 the most important functions of the State Security Service was to
3 preserve the constitutional order of the state of Serbia; is that
5 A. Yes.
11 Page 11754 redacted. Closed session.
14 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that 65 ter 6207 be brought to our
15 screens. It is a series of stills from P61. Next to each still is the
16 time code from P61 from which it was taken.
17 If we could please focus in on the top, I'll move from row to
19 Q. Now, if you take a look at what's on the screen, 65 ter 6207, we
20 see a still taken from 19:55 of the entire video. It shows what appears
21 to be a number of memorials to young men containing their photos with
22 inscriptions below and the flags of Croatian and Bosnia military units.
23 Do you recall seeing this when you were at Kula?
24 A. No. I'm not sure about this detail.
25 Q. Can we look down at the next item. This still is from 20:29 of
1 the same exhibit, and it shows what appears to be a certificate with some
2 emblems and writing. Do you recall seeing this?
3 A. I think that this is the memorial room of that unit. We, members
4 of the service, as far as I remember, didn't go there because there were
5 many guests. This was a small room, and I suppose that only those guests
6 went there who were unfamiliar with these things. I'm not sure I saw
8 Q. I ask that we move down to the next still taken from 21:25 of the
9 video. It depicts a kind of metal sculptural map hanging on the wall.
10 Did you see this when you were there?
11 A. No.
12 Q. I ask that we move --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, could I ask one additional question.
14 You said you didn't go into that room because that was for guests
15 who were unfamiliar with those things, and you said, "We members of the
16 service." What was your familiarity with what you just saw? What do you
17 know about it, because you said you didn't go there because it was
18 familiar to you. Could you then tell us what it is, what you see on this
19 picture and which, as you said, was the kind of stuff that you are
20 familiar with?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In 1997, on the 4th of May, I was
22 there for the first time. Before that, I was not familiar with any
23 aspect of this special operations unit. I think I didn't enter because
24 there was a crowd. Possibly didn't show much interest because it was a
25 small space, and most members of the service didn't go to that room.
1 JUDGE ORIE: This is an explanation which is a bit different from
2 what you told us before, that is, that the members of the service were
3 familiar and for that reason gave priority to the guests, whereas I now
4 understand that you're not familiar with what could be seen there.
5 Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
6 MR. GROOME:
7 Q. Sir, let me move to some stills taken from outside this room.
8 Can we go to the next still, and it's taken from 26:19 of the video.
9 It's just down on the next page. We could zoom in on that top
10 photograph, please.
11 Now, this shows what appears to be military vehicles with some
12 type of rocket launcher on the back. The video also depicts a truck
13 converted into a field hospital, helicopters, armoured vehicles, and at
14 least one tank. Did you see this equipment while you were at Kula in
16 A. We saw that equipment, all of us.
17 Q. And did this equipment appear to be genuine military hardware?
18 A. I must admit that I was never a weapons buff, and I'm not in a
19 position to distinguish police hardware from military hardware by looking
20 at this photograph.
21 Q. Well, it seems that you've been a member of the MUP for a quarter
22 of a century. Had you ever seen equipment like this before in any kind
23 of function or drill or operation conducted by the Serbian MUP?
24 A. No.
25 Q. If we could move down to the next still. It's also from the
1 outside. It is from 08:37 of the video. It shows what appears to be a
2 memorial or sculpture depicting Rade Kostic. Do you recall seeing this
3 memorial in Kula in 1997?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And finally the last still I'd ask you to look at is from 03:42
6 of the video and shows what appears to be a memorial -- I'm sorry,
7 appears to be a formation of uniformed soldiers being reviewed. Do you
8 recall seeing these soldiers?
9 A. Yes. It was a review, a review of that unit. The footage that I
10 saw on TV later on showed all of us on the stand from which we looked at
11 the review.
12 Q. Did you see yourself on that footage, or in other words, if we
13 were to look at the video, would we see you on the stand?
14 A. Yes, on TV.
15 Q. Now, when a review is conducted, it's usually the highest-ranking
16 officer who does the review. Did you see who did the review on this
18 A. If you could show me the footage I could point to that person,
19 but right here and now I don't remember who it was.
11 Pages 11759-11763 redacted. Closed session.
8 MR. GROOME:
9 Q. DST-051, I want to return to the topic of the speech that
10 Mr. Simatovic gave. What, if any, assistance that you know of did he
11 receive in writing that speech, either by Mr. Stanisic or others?
12 A. This visit and celebration in 1997, that is the first time I ever
13 saw that unit.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Do you know anything about whether Mr. Simatovic,
15 who delivered the speech, got any assistance in preparing or writing that
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't, in fact, remember that
18 Mr. Simatovic delivered a speech before all present. It is possible that
19 he said something in this memorial room where there were only a few
21 JUDGE ORIE: Witness DST-051, you say you don't remember the
22 speech. Do I understand that therefore you have no knowledge whatsoever
23 on who wrote that speech?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
11 Pages 11765-11772 redacted. Closed session.
9 Could I ask that P630 be brought to our screens, and I'd ask that
10 e-court page 3 in the translation and page 2 in the original be
12 Now, before you is a transcript of an intercepted telephone
13 conversation between Mihajl Kertes and Radovan Karadzic on the 24th of
14 June, 1991. It's an exhibit that Mr. Jordash asked you to look at in
15 preparation for your testimony and some of your comments related to this
16 are on that chart.
17 My first question to you is: Did you listen to the intercept or
18 read a transcript of it?
19 A. I did not listen to that conversation. I read it for the first
20 time when I got the transcript from the Defence.
21 Q. And did you read the entire transcript?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. First let me ask you, did it strike you as unusual that
24 Mihajl Kertes and Radovan Karadzic are having a conversation about the
25 working relationship between the head of the Serbian State Security
1 Service and his deputy, between Janackovic and Stanisic?
2 A. To my mind there's nothing unusual about that. Mr. Kertes was
3 considered one of Slobodan Milosevic's trustees. He worked at his
4 office, and it's not unusual for Mr. Kertes, who knew Mr. Stanisic, to
5 speak about this topic with Karadzic or any other politician.
6 Q. Can I draw your attention to the second page in the original
7 language and the third page of the English translation. If you look in
8 the middle of the page, you will see Mihajl Kertes say the following to
10 "Slobo has given Jovica and me carte blanche."
11 Do you still maintain after reading this part of the intercept,
12 do you still maintain that there was no close relationship between
13 Jovica Stanisic and Slobodan Milosevic?
14 A. I still maintain that there was a close relationship in 1991
15 between Kertes and President Milosevic, and I'm certain that then or
16 later there were -- there was no close relationship between Mr. Stanisic
17 and Mr. Milosevic.
18 Q. So is it your belief that Mr. Kertes is mistaken when he says
19 Slobodan Milosevic gave Jovica Stanisic carte blanche? Is that your
21 A. I cannot tell, but I also cannot be certain that the transcript
22 is a -- is an accurate record of what Mr. Kertes discussed with
23 Mr. Karadzic.
24 Q. Would you appreciate an opportunity to actually listen to the
1 A. I could, but I don't have to. I will still maintain that in
2 1990, 1991, and even later than that judging by how Minister Bogdanovic
3 and the head of the State Security Service, Mr. Janackovic, treated
4 Mr. Stanisic, it is practically impossible that the president of the
5 republic launches a serious operative action against Jovica Stanisic
6 considering him almost an enemy of the state should be -- should have a
7 close relationship with the same Jovica Stanisic.
11 Pages 11776-11782 redacted. Closed session.
22 MR. GROOME: Can I ask that we call up 65 ter 6202 to the screen,
23 and if we could go to e-court page 2 in the original and the English
25 Q. You'll see before you in a few moments a payment list for the PJM
1 in Belgrade dated December 1992. Can I draw your attention to the person
2 who is number 5 on the list and ask you, do you recognise that name?
3 A. Number 5?
4 Q. Yes, sir.
5 A. Jovica Djordjevic.
6 Q. Yes, sir.
7 A. I recognise the name.
8 Q. Can you tell us who he is?
9 A. Jovica Djordjevic was an operative worker of the State Security
10 Services centre at Leskovac.
11 Q. Now, during your activities at the Federal Ministry of the
12 Interior, were you responsible for taking buildings or taking documents
13 out of the building?
14 A. I was the person who on those days was present in the federal MUP
15 building, and I state with full certainty that no documents were taken
16 out of that building, and nobody can say that any documents were taken
17 out of the federal MUP, because most of the documents had already been
18 taken by some other bodies.
19 Q. Had those documents not been taken, was it your intention to take
21 A. If you had allowed me to explain the reasons why we took over the
22 building of the federal MUP, you would probably have a clear
23 understanding that there was no intention to take out documents from that
24 building. On the contrary. We needed room for our people and the newly
25 established administrations. We were in a facility that could sit 150 to
1 200 people.
2 Q. So do I understand that the -- the primary reason for the
3 takeover was simply to gain additional office space? Is that a summary
4 of the reason why the building was taken over?
5 A. Exactly.
6 Q. Were you in charge of the takeover?
7 A. I was a member of the team that took over the federal MUP
8 building. I wasn't the only one. But I was on the team in the spring of
9 1992, a team headed by Mr. Stanisic's deputy, Milan Tepavcevic, that had
10 conversations and made plans with the then minister of the interior --
11 Federal Minister of the Interior Mr. Gracanin, and the chief of the then
12 federal service and another person whose name I forget. We had been --
13 we had drawn up plans and there was no intention of ours to take out any
14 documents. On the contrary, we wanted to put our documents there.
15 Q. The person that's number 5 on the screen has provided information
16 to the investigators of the OTP a few years ago, and it differs somewhat
17 from what you've told us now, so I want to read it to you and see which
18 parts of it you contest. He said the following:
19 "In the first couple of days after the takeover, relevant
20 documents were taken away from the building. I think," your name, I
21 won't say it, "was the one taking the documents away." And he says your
22 first and last name. "When we started the security of the building,"
23 your first and last name, "had a meeting with us and introduced himself
24 as in charge of the takeover operation. During the period I asked what
25 to do if an officer of the federal SUP would try to be enter the building
1 by force." Again your first and last name, "told us that our task was to
2 secure the building by all means."
3 Do you dispute the description of your role given by this person
4 number 5 on that list before you?
5 A. Absolutely. That is completely false. The person under number 5
6 was tasked with the physical security of the building. We're talking
7 about 24 persons who were on duty at the entrance to the building, and
8 they belonged to various branches of the State Security Service. It
9 wasn't their role to check people, to search them, and I being one of
10 those who entered the building had nothing to discuss with them as
11 regards what we were up to. They were only to provide physical security.
12 I don't know what kind of man that is who tells you stories like
14 Q. DST-051, have you ever been accused of destroying official
15 documents contained in archives belonging to the government of Serbia?
16 A. Never.
17 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that 65 ter 6205 be brought to our
19 Q. This is an article by Dejan Anastasijevic, a freelance author for
20 Time magazine and a regular journalist for "Vreme," a Serbian newspaper.
21 He published an article concerning the destruction of documents. He
22 included with the article a reproduction of a state security report dated
23 the 15th of March, 2001, which describes a meeting held in Nis on the
24 29th of September, 2000, which was attended by you and Milos Teodorovic.
25 Do you deny that you were at that meeting?
1 MR. GROOME: We could -- we could please go to e-court page 7.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sir, you asked me if I had ever
3 been accused of destroying state security documents.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome may not have been very precise in his
5 formulation. Was it ever alleged that you had destroyed, may have been
6 included in what Mr. Groome intended to ask you. Is that true,
7 Mr. Groome?
8 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The word "accused," of course, could be
10 understood as a formal application, being an accused in court
11 proceedings. Let's not focus on that. Let's focus on the substance.
12 And could you -- I do understand that you may have misunderstood that
13 question. The question now put to you is whether you attended such a
14 meeting, yes or no. Could you please answer that question.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the first thing is there's
16 never been such a meeting. These are false accusations. No judiciary
17 body of the Republic of Serbia has ever accused me of destroying
18 documents. I cannot comment newspaper articles.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's one thing you earlier said, and then you
20 started giving your comments on publications and the media.
21 If I do understand you well, you are not aware of any such
22 meeting, and you are giving as your evidence that you certainly never
23 attended such a meeting. Is that well understood?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the State Security Service there
25 are various meetings daily, meetings about the activities the service has
1 in some areas. I was in a position to have meetings with people who were
2 supposed to assist us to carry out some task.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to keep matters simple. This newspaper
4 article refers to a meeting on the 29th of September, 2000, and claims
5 that you had attended together with Milos Teodorovic that meeting.
6 First question. Do you know whether such a meeting took place
7 irrespective of whether you were present or not?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot see the date of that
9 alleged meeting.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
11 MR. GROOME: Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 7 October.
14 MR. GROOME: If I might, we only have about seven minutes left in
15 today's session, and it is important for the Prosecution to return to the
16 issue of statements with respect to the next witness. Could I ask that I
17 provide the witness with the seven-page article to read overnight and
18 then I think it may expedite matters in the morning -- or tomorrow
20 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that there are no objections to that?
21 No objections. The witness can be provided with the document. Could the
22 usher assist Mr. Groome.
23 Witness DST-051, you're invited to read them this afternoon or
24 tomorrow morning. At the same time, I add to that you're supposed not to
25 discuss it with anyone.
1 Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
2 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, if we could -- if I can finish with the
3 witness now and maybe devote the last five minutes to that discussion.
4 Mr. Jordash said he would be prepared to address the Chamber. Again,
5 it's important for the witness tomorrow.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
7 MR. JORDASH: It will take more than five minutes I feel.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- let's -- if you start with the executive
9 summary and then -- that's how we usually start, isn't it, and then if we
10 need further details we might spend time on that tomorrow depending on
11 what we find in the executive summary.
12 Witness DST-051, we will adjourn for the day. We will continue
13 tomorrow, tomorrow in the afternoon, quarter past 2.00 in this same
14 courtroom. I'd like to give you the same instructions as I did
15 yesterday, that is that you should not speak or in any other way
16 communicate with anyone about the testimony, whether testimony given
17 today or yesterday or still to be given, and we would like to see you
18 back tomorrow.
19 Mr. Usher, could you escort the witness out of the courtroom.
20 [The witness stands down]
21 JUDGE ORIE: We turn into open session.
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
25 Mr. Jordash, could you give us your executive summary of the
2 MR. JORDASH: Well, the application's opposed. We submit that
3 the Prosecution's application is an attempt to impose disclosure
4 obligations on the Defence which are precisely the same as those -- or
5 indistinguishable from those that are imposed on the Prosecution. The
6 Prosecution rely upon three authorities. Two are effectively dicta the
7 Lukic comments by Judge Robinson and the comments by the Judge in
8 Djordjevic, comments made by a single Judge during trial proceedings with
9 no apparent or no indication that the other Judges even agreed with it,
10 but no decision as such in support of those judicial comments. And then
11 the third principle basis from which the Prosecution rely upon is that
12 from the Niyitegeka case at the ICTR Appeals Chamber, which is firmly and
13 squarely concerning Rule 66 disclosure and discussions had within the
14 context of defining what Prosecution disclosure is and what it should be.
15 The fact that the Prosecution rely and can rely on such paucity
16 of authority after 15 years of practice at the ICTY indicates the
17 strength of their argument. We submit that there is a good reason that
18 this Tribunal has always distinguished Prosecution disclosure from
19 Defence disclosure and imposed a greater obligation on the Prosecution.
20 Firstly, Article 20, the trial should be fair. Article 21, a
21 presumption of innocence, and Article 21(G)(iv) that the accused should
22 not be compelled to testify against himself or confess guilt.
23 Any interpretation of Defence disclosure obligations pursuant to
24 67(A)(ii) has to be made with those fundamental rights in mind,
25 fundamental rights which clearly do not apply to the Defence -- the
2 There are authorities I would like to rely on which I don't have
3 copies for Your Honour at the moment.
4 JUDGE ORIE: If you provide the sources then most likely, unless
5 they are unfindable sources, then the Chamber is certainly able to get
6 access to that.
7 MR. JORDASH: I would refer Your Honours to, first of all, a case
8 which the President is familiar, Tadic, and the principles laid out in
9 1996 at a time before Rule 67, but nonetheless, the principles enunciated
10 there concerning why disclosure for the Defence is different to the
11 Prosecution are --
12 JUDGE ORIE: That's November 1996, given the reasons for a
13 decision which was given well in advance of that so they --
14 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: -- needed a lot of time to think about it. Is
16 that --
17 MR. JORDASH: 27th of November, 1996.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you. Please proceed.
19 MR. JORDASH: And this authority makes quite clear the importance
20 of respecting those fundamental rights and why disclosure may well
21 impinge upon those rights.
22 Secondly, we would ask Your Honours to look at Blagojevic, 13th
23 of June, 2003, decision on the accused's expedited motion to compel the
24 Prosecution to disclose its notes and in that case on page 4, the Court
25 notes that Rule 70(A) aims to protect work product from disclosure as it
1 is in the public interest that information related to the internal
2 preparation of a case, including legal theories, strategies, and
3 investigations, shall be privileged and not subject to disclosure to the
4 opposing party.
5 And if I can just sum up with time being short, we submit that
6 Rule 67 must be interpreted to give due protection to the accused's
7 rights, one presumption of innocence, two the right not to incriminate
8 himself, and three it must be interpreted, we submit, in light of
9 Rule 70(A), which provides that legal theory, strategies, and
10 investigations shall be privileged. I would add to that four, that it
11 must also be interpreted to give voice to legal privilege between counsel
12 and client.
13 Those are the rights, and they lead to particular practical
14 problems with the Prosecution's suggestion. First of all, if the
15 Prosecution are right, then we submit the Defence are entitled and in
16 fact must redact everything which might indicate a legal theory, anything
17 which might indicate a strategy, and anything which indicates an
18 investigation. More than that, we submit, if Your Honour looks at also
19 the authority relied upon by the Prosecution, which is the Appeals
20 Chamber decision from the ICTR, at paragraph 33 and 34, in that case the
21 Court decided that the Prosecution have an obligation to disclose
22 pursuant to 66 questions put to the witness.
23 Now, in our submission that clearly indicates why that authority
24 is not apposite when considering disclosure to the -- disclosure
25 obligations of the Defence, because the notion that we would have to
1 disclose what questions we put to a particular witness clearly, in our
2 submission, would trample on the right to -- rights against
3 self-incrimination and, importantly, legal privilege. It would disclose
5 So in short, principally -- on fundamental principle we oppose
6 it, but in terms of practice, and indeed if -- if the Prosecution are
7 right, in our submission the Trial Chamber would find itself in huge
8 difficulties at the end of this case, because Your Honours would have
9 evidence perhaps emerging from those disclosed statements which then
10 Your Honours might want to use as a basis for conviction, but you would
11 have to engage in mental gymnastics to try to work out whether you're
12 entitled to because you would be balancing the right against
13 self-incrimination against the use of that statement, and that's why the
14 disclosure obligations are different. Because to interpret it in the way
15 the Prosecution suggests would be to place yourselves, in our submission,
16 in a difficult situation, but it would place us in a situation of not
17 knowing what quite to redact from the statements that we are being asked
18 to give to the Prosecution and to -- could I just have one sentence.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, one sentence.
20 MR. JORDASH: That is why we have disclosure pursuant to 65 ter.
21 The right approach is for the Prosecution to argue that they have
22 insufficient disclosure pursuant to the 65 ter list and to receive
23 further disclosure if Your Honours decide that's correct. That way,
24 these fundamental rights of the accused are protected. We avoid the
25 practical difficulties of redacting and the practical difficulties which
1 Your Honours would be in at the end of the case.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Jordash. I'm aware that if --
3 if more time is needed for these matters, which are really of a
4 fundamental nature, we'll -- we'll have a look at it and see whether we
5 can grant such additional time. At least the Chamber has some homework
6 now, the sources being there.
7 If you would be kind enough to confirm in an e-mail the exact
8 dates, et cetera, of the -- of the decisions.
9 Mr. Groome, I do not remember whether yesterday in court you were
10 so precise as far as dates, et cetera, but you're also invited to briefly
11 confirm in an e-mail to the Chamber's staff what exactly the authorities
12 are you rely upon, and then Mr. Petrovic would like to send us an e-mail
13 as well.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we would also like
15 to make a brief submission about this, but at the moment it seems
16 impossible. We only need something like five minutes to do so, but we
17 can do it first thing in the morning tomorrow, if Your Honours agree.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I take it that you share the position
19 taken by the Stanisic Defence?
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: We could already see to what extent on the basis of
22 what we've heard now, whether we could reach any conclusion. If not,
23 then of course we would hear further submissions by the parties --
24 MR. JORDASH: Could I just -- can I just indicate just so that
25 the Chamber's on notice, we would most certainly be seeking certification
1 for appeal if we --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Certainly, Mr. Jordash, perhaps I was not very
3 precise in what I said. Mr. Groome has raised the issue. It is a
4 fundamental issue. You are limited in your time to respond to that. We
5 have not limited Mr. Groome in raising the issue. Therefore, I would not
6 easily expect that the Chamber would grant the request without having
7 given an opportunity to the other parties to further elaborate.
8 Another decision might -- I would with, less certainty, exclude a
9 decision in another direction without giving additional opportunity for
10 the parties; although, we might consider to hear further from Mr. Groome
11 in that respect as well.
12 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: So the chance that we would give a decision on the
14 basis of what have we heard now may be very limited, but if that would be
15 the case then, of course, we could proceed whether or not with an appeal
16 depending on what the decision will be.
17 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day. We will resume tomorrow,
19 Thursday the 23rd of June, quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon, in the
20 same courtroom, II.
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.52 p.m.,
22 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 23rd
23 day of June, 2011, at 2.15 p.m.