110622ED

Page 11715

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

4 well.

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

Page 11716

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.

Page 11717

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

Page 11718

1 of the service.

2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, I see my colleague is on his

3 fight.

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

Page 11719

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

Page 11720

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

Page 11721

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

9 objection.

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

Page 11722

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.

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

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 11723

11 Pages 11723-11741 redacted. Closed session.

Page 11744

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

12 also.

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

Page 11745

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

20 Prosecution.

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

Page 11746

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

13 require.

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.

Page 11748

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

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

25 yesterday?

Page 11749

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

Page 11750

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

Page 11751

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

Page 11752

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.

Page 11753

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

4 correct?

5 A. Yes.

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 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 11754

11 Page 11754 redacted. Closed session.

Page 11755

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 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

18 row.

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

Page 11756

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

7 this.

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.

Page 11757

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

15 1997?

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

Page 11758

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

17 occasion?

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.

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 11759

11 Pages 11759-11763 redacted. Closed session.

Page 11773

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

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

11 displayed.

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

Page 11774

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

9 Karadzic:

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

20 evidence?

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

25 intercept?

Page 11775

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.

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 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 11776

11 Pages 11776-11782 redacted. Closed session.

Page 11783

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 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

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

24 translation.

25 Q. You'll see before you in a few moments a payment list for the PJM

Page 11784

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

20 them?

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

Page 11785

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

Page 11786

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

13 this.

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

18 screens.

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?

Page 11787

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

Page 11788

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

19 afternoon.

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.

Page 11790

1 argument.

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

Page 11791

1 Prosecution.

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

Page 11792

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

Page 11793

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

4 instructions.

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

Page 11794

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

Page 11795

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.