1 Wednesday, 29 June 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.10 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is the case
8 IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 The Chamber regrets that we have such a late start this morning.
11 We turn into closed session and could the witness be brought into
12 the courtroom once we are in closed session.
13 [Closed session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of the Chamber]
11 Pages 12045-12057 redacted. Closed session.
11 MS. MARCUS: Could I have page 11 in English and page 22 in
12 B/C/S, please.
13 Q. Witness DST-032, the document you see before you is from one of
14 the personnel files that you were talking about earlier. This particular
15 document in the personnel file pertains to details of operations of the
16 unit on the ground in and around Pajzos, Ilok.
17 Now as can you see the report is entitled "Unit Commanders's
19 I'll give you a few moments to have a look at the beginning of
20 the document and then I'll ask you to answer a question about it.
21 Just -- I'm not asking you about the contents of the events. I'm only
22 going to ask you, based your experience, about this kind of document.
23 So if you could have a look at the top and maybe the first couple
24 of paragraphs.
25 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, the document is, as can you see, not
1 very clear. I've printed out a hard copy in B/C/S for the witness,
2 unless the Defence has any problem with it. It's this document I'm going
3 to be showing. It's four pages. And perhaps the usher could give the
4 witness a copy of the B/C/S version on paper, just to make it easier for
6 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that there are no objections.
7 The document may be shown to the witness, unless the parties
8 would wish to ...
9 MS. MARCUS:
10 Q. Now, DST-032, based upon your experience with DB documentation,
11 would you consider this document to be a primary document, as you
12 described in paragraph 34 of your statement?
13 A. I wouldn't.
14 Q. What kind of a document would you say this is?
15 A. This resembles a military report. It's a report from the unit
16 commander, meaning a lower-ranking unit, because the word is "Komandir."
17 Had it been a higher level unit it would have said "Komandant." So unit
18 commander's report, well, it resembles a military report. There's a
19 mention made of anti-personnel mine. I wouldn't call it a primary
20 document because it doesn't have the format that is necessary. It only
21 says the "Republican SUP of Serbia, special-purposes unit." Even without
22 reading the whole thing, I don't see the elements that would be required
23 for it. I understand that this is a report drafted by the unit
24 commander, but I don't see any mention of the SDB, for example, since it
25 is 1991. I wouldn't call this a primary document.
1 Primary documents of the service could only be drafted by
2 authorised members of the service, not all members. Only those who were
3 part of the operative part of the unit, enjoying the status of authorised
4 official who can interview citizens and institute measures. People who
5 worked, say, on processing information were not authorised personnel.
6 They could never author a document called "associate report." It could
7 be only drafted by those who had IDs proving that they were authorised
8 officials of the service. It is for that reason that I would not
9 classify this document as primary.
10 Q. What kind of ID would an authorised official have that would
11 suggest they can author certain reports? What kind of ID are you talking
13 A. I'm afraid your question was not interpreted to me the right way.
14 What I heard was what kind of official ID would an associate have, in
15 order to draft an information report.
16 Q. Okay. To make sure I get the terminology right, what you said
18 "Only those who were part of the operative part of the unit,
19 enjoying the status of authorised official who can interview citizens and
20 institute measures."
21 A document -- okay. Then you talked about documents called
22 associates' reports. You said:
23 "That could only be drafted by those who had IDs proving that
24 they were authorised officials for the service."
25 Now I have a number of questions stemming from that answer. The
1 first question is: What kind of ID are you referring to?
2 A. Yes, but one small correction. At the beginning of your question
3 you said "parts of the unit" and certain members of the unit. What I
4 said certain members of the service. I am only discussing the service,
5 or, in this period of time, it was actually called "department."
6 The department had their operative workers who comprised a
7 smaller portion of the overall number the employees. We said that such
8 operatives could create primary documents, and they were in possession of
9 official IDs, confirming that they were authorised officials. Those
10 official IDs belonging to authorised officials were issued to us, once
11 our traineeship had been completed, and once we passed all the necessary
12 exams. I received a new ID in 1976, when we got a new ID format. There
13 were several chiefs of service during whose tenure we did not change the
14 format of IDs. And then the next change of ID format took place in 2000.
15 The official IDs of authorised officials were a sort of booklet.
16 They were of dark blue colour with the coat of arms of the Republic of
17 Serbia, and it said official ID of an authorised official. You opened
18 the cover page, and then you find a photograph, signature of the person
19 in question, as well as the signature of the chief of service.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, were you really seeking all these
21 details, such as the colour of the booklet. I thought that you were
22 interested to know what kind of ID it was, and I do understand it was an
23 ID which was issued after the training had been completed, where the
24 members of the service apparently could do certain things.
25 And we end up after half a page in details which I wonder whether
1 you need them. It's not clear to me yet whether it assists us without
2 further explanation.
3 Please proceed.
4 MS. MARCUS: Understood, Your Honour.
5 Q. DST-032, was this a DB ID? Did it say "Drzavna Bezbednost" on
7 A. No.
8 Q. Who issued the ID?
9 A. At the top, it stated the "Republic Secretariat," or, rather,
10 "Ministry of Interior of Republic of Serbia." The members of both state
11 and public security departments had identical official IDs.
12 Q. Thank you. Now with respect to the document we've been looking
13 at, this document was found in the personnel file of an employee of the
14 DB. Now, how -- who was it who would decide where else a copy of this or
15 another version of this would be saved, if at all?
16 A. I personally believe that a document with such a heading should
17 not be placed in a personnel file.
18 Q. I'm sorry, we didn't receive the translation of the last line.
19 Mr. Witness, could you repeat your last answer.
20 A. I said that I personally would never file a document like this
21 into a personnel file of a member.
22 If I may add, it would be the same as filing a report by an
23 associate into my personnel file. It shows that people who did this were
24 not really experts, professionals in their field of activity. This is
25 mixing up incompatible things.
1 Q. And who would have been the person who decided to put this into
2 the personnel file? Or the position of the person.
3 A. My impression is, and I'm not 100 per cent sure, but my
4 impression is that people may have filed things anywhere. If a thing
5 like this could be found in a personnel file, that means that there is
6 nobody there who would be giving uniform instructions as to how to do
7 things. What they did was just sought for a first place where a document
8 could be filed, and God knows where other documents were filed. I'm
9 saying this publicly. If something like this could be found in a
10 personnel file, God knows where you could find other documents.
11 Q. Now this report itself contains certain information regarding
12 communications with the DB HQ in Belgrade. Now, again, I'm not going to
13 ask you about the contents of this report. I'm going to ask you: In
14 such a situation where a report such as this contains information on
15 communications with the DB HQ in Belgrade and orders received from the
16 DB HQ in Belgrade, would that content mean that, then, a copy of this
17 report would have been sent to the DB HQ and stored in the DB HQ files?
18 A. I believe, first of all, that this was drafted by someone who had
19 never worked in the department -- State Security Department. The person
20 is not familiar with the formats, with the content, type, date is on the
21 right-hand side towards the middle. At least that's my impression of the
23 MS. MARCUS: Could I have page 13 in English and page 24 in
24 B/C/S, please.
25 Q. Now, DST-032, this corresponds to, I believe it's the third page.
1 Yes. The third page in the hard copy, please.
2 Do you see the part which says:
3 "I finished the aforementioned chores by 1330 hours."
4 It's somewhere near the top. It is maybe the third
5 paragraph from the top.
6 "And with the same group I dropped by the Fruska Gora hotel in
7 Lezimir to see the rest of the unit and stayed there for about
8 20 minutes. I would have stayed longer had I not received a telephone
9 message from the Belgrade headquarters that I should sound a combat
10 movement alert to all members of the unit at Pajzos and the remaining
11 able-bodied members in Lezimir."
12 Does that portion?
13 A. Yes, I can see it.
14 Q. Okay. And before I ask you my question, I will just point to one
15 more part a bit further down on the page, where it says:
16 "After 15-minute preparations for movement, instructor
17 Damir Vladic arrived from Lezimir in our all-terrain Lada Niva. He is in
18 charge of training and drilling gunners for the RRB ... and Zoljas. He
19 came with junior instructors Nikola Pilipovic and Nikola Pupovac, who
20 informed me about a new order from the Belgrade headquarters to end the
21 alert, but keep the unit mobile and ready for possible movement."
22 Do you see that portion?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. I'd like to ask you just one more time, where there is a report
25 which contains information on orders on communications coming from
1 Belgrade, if somebody responsible in the DB would have seen this kind of
2 report, would this have been the kind of report, based upon its contents,
3 that would have or should have been stored in the DB HQ as well?
4 A. It should have been, yes. Should have been.
5 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, this is part of the personnel file of
6 somebody named Borjan Vuckovic. We received this on the 14th of October,
7 2010, in response to RFA 1887A. We'd like to have -- I'd like to request
8 that the personnel file which is uploaded as 65 ter 6208 be MFI'd for the
9 time being. That is because we seek to tender it ultimately, but it
10 still contains redactions, and we are in the process of negotiating with
11 the Serbian authorities to receive the unredacted version.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections?
13 MR. JORDASH: Can I just inquire as to whether it's been
14 translated. As far as I understand it, only part of it's been
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
17 MS. MARCUS: Yes. This part that I referred to has been
18 translated and several other portions. But Mr. Jordash is correct that
19 not the entire thing has been translated. That's another reason to MFI
20 it, and as soon as the full translation is there, we will let you know.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because in the original it is 27 pages,
22 whereas the translation covers only 15 pages.
23 MR. JORDASH: Yes. We would object in any event to the admission
24 of a full personnel file without any further explanation as to its
25 relevance to the case.
1 Now I understand, of course, the relevance of this document, but
2 I don't understand the relevance of the remainder of the document,
3 especially the untranslated bits.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, of course, then Ms. Marcus, once she has
5 received a translation, I take it that she could express her views on the
6 relevance of the remainder of the document, of the file.
7 MR. JORDASH: But I would still object until the Prosecution
8 indicate to the Defence what the relevance is at this stage, rather than
9 using the MFI list as a way of putting on documents into the Court,
10 starting the process of administration, but without any explanation to
11 the Defence.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
13 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, maybe the best way to resolve this
14 is to tender this report as an excerpt since Mr. Jordash does not object
15 to that. As far as we are concerned, we can tender it into evidence, and
16 then when the unredacted version is received, upload that, replace that.
17 It is only the signature at the end that remains redacted but that -- I
18 leave that in Your Honours' hands, but since there is no objection,
19 perhaps the best thing is to --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could we perhaps proceed in the following way.
21 Ms. Marcus, as matters stand now, you can tender a document without
22 redactions apart from the signature of the person who signed it. And
23 then that you reserve your right to replace it later by an unredacted
25 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour, yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: That seems to be the most practical way of dealing
2 with it.
3 MR. JORDASH: Your Honours, my only concern is this, that we know
4 the Prosecution have perhaps thousands of pages of personnel files, DB
5 documents, Serbian MUP documents, obtained from different places relevant
6 to different aspects of the Serbian MUP's work, and what I'm concerned
7 about is that over the next four months what we're going to have is a
8 complete subversion of the 65 ter process, that exhibits the Prosecution
9 haven't applied to admit during their case or exhibits which they have
10 yet to decide whether to use and so on and so forth are going to be
11 effectively admitted during the Defence case. We could be talking
12 hundreds, if not thousands of additional pages. Evidence which the
13 Prosecution have had for some time. Evidence which they could have
14 introduced during their case. Evidence which we will have lost the
15 opportunity to challenge during the Prosecution case. In our submission,
16 we are heading into a situation where, effectively, it has been ambushed
17 with evidence --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. All based on all kind of assumptions. If I
19 understood Ms. Marcus well, that where this witness explained how
20 documents would be processed, would be filed, would be archived,
21 et cetera, that she wonders on the basis of this example how that -- how
22 that worked in practice. Whether she is going to tendered for similar
23 purposes hundreds of documents, I do not know. Let's see whether that
24 will be the case, because I would understand that if, through the back
25 door, Ms. Marcus would introduce all kind of personnel files where would
1 you have expected her to do so in the case presentation by the
2 Prosecution, let's see what happens.
3 But this is one example. And for me at least, this is how I
4 understand the purpose of this exercise, Ms. Marcus, if I'm correct.
5 MS. MARCUS: That's correct, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. JORDASH: Then I would submit that the document should be
8 admitted for the limited purpose of demonstrating process rather than for
9 the truth of its contents.
10 JUDGE ORIE: The witness has not said anything about the content.
11 And Ms. Marcus specifically asked him to refrain from any comment on that
12 and, of course, we'll consider that when -- when evaluating the document.
13 The problem with your suggestion, Mr. Jordash, is that if a later
14 witness says something about it, then suddenly the admission which is
15 limited then should be changed accordingly, and there's a fair chance
16 that in a system where we have admitted or not admitted, that we would
17 easily lose track of that. And if the Chamber considers this document
18 as -- in evidence, then, of course, we always put that in the context for
19 ourselves in which it was presented and then it would be clear.
20 But I'll -- I have heard your objections, and -- well, I have
21 heard your request to have it admitted for specific purposes. I'll just
22 check with my colleagues.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber decides that it will admit this
25 document, not the whole of the file.
1 At the same time, before we proceed, this might create one
2 problem. We've seen the document on our screen, and our computers allow
3 to us look at other pages as well to have at least some idea of the
4 context. There has been -- well, not a debate but at least some
5 observations were made as to what this document should do in a personnel
6 file. And if you look at the context of it, apparently it describes the
7 events of an accident which took place and apparently family members are
8 seeking financial compensation for what happened at least, any financial
9 reward for the loss of a person's life.
10 Now that, of course -- this has not been put to the witness, this
11 context, and, therefore, of course, I wonder how to understand and how to
12 evaluate the critical remarks of the witness, what is this document doing
13 in a personnel file, where if you look at the other parts of the file, it
14 seems not totally illogical that a document in which -- the way in which
15 an accident happened is described may cast some light on whether or not
16 there are any obligations to pay family members for the loss of their
17 relative. And, Mr. Jordash, it might even be counter-productive, to some
18 extent, because we'd be better able to understand the answers of this
19 witness why is this in the personnel -- it looks as if something
20 irregular happens, if we listen to the answers of the witness. Whereas
21 in knowledge of the context, we'd say, well, that the witness did not
22 understand what may have been the reason, if you look at the context of
23 the document, it may be very logical.
24 MR. JORDASH: Well, one of the difficulties is that we have very
25 little evidence from the Prosecution concerning its actual origin. Where
1 it was found, in whose personnel file, in which circumstances it was
2 discovered, what else was discovered alongside it. These are, in our
3 submission, essential facts which would assist --
4 JUDGE ORIE: We had decided on the basis of the submissions that
5 we would admit this document into evidence, and we'll consider any
6 further request for contextualisation and having more of the same file in
7 evidence, you oppose strongly against that. We follow you in that
8 respect. We do not follow you in a limited purpose of admitting it into
9 evidence and whatever would then remain, either from your side or from
10 your side, to be added to better understand this piece of evidence, we'll
11 hear that.
12 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, and I'd invite the Prosecution to now
13 provide that information so that any re-examination can be on that basis.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It is almost time for -- do you drink tea or
15 coffee in the morning, Mr. Jordash?
16 MR. JORDASH: Like Ms. Marcus, coffee, I think.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay. That's good to hear you have the same
19 Madam Registrar, this specific part of this document, and that
20 is - let me carefully look at it - it is the -- in the English version,
21 it is e-court pages 11, up to and including page 14; and the B/C/S would
22 be e-court pages 17 and 18, if I'm not mistaken, Ms. Marcus.
23 MS. MARCUS: Yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What number would these pages in English and
25 the original receive?
1 THE REGISTRAR: These pages will receive number P2984,
2 Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And they are admitted into evidence under seal.
4 MS. MARCUS: Excuse me, Your Honour. I'm sorry to interrupt.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MS. MARCUS: The B/C/S pages in e-court would be pages 22, 23,
7 24, and 25.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see. Then I made a mistake.
9 MS. MARCUS: There is another document in the file that looks
10 like this.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it was a bit short compared to -- I'll just
13 You are right, but -- yes.
14 Yes, you're right. I made a mistake. Madam Registrar --
15 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
16 JUDGE ORIE: We assign a number. It is admitted into evidence
17 under seal, but you need to upload a separate copy of these pages alone,
18 because that would then be Exhibit -- that would be Exhibit P2984.
19 MS. MARCUS: We'll do that, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
21 Ms. Marcus, I think it's time for the break. Could you give us
22 an adjusted assessment of the time you would still need.
23 MS. MARCUS: I would say I'll take the full next session,
24 Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Try to be as focussed as possible so that we do not
1 finally know whether the booklets are light blue or dark blue.
2 MR. JORDASH: May I just indicate that I think -- and we don't
3 have an absolute record, but I was present and I think we showed the
4 witness P440. This is the going back to the issue of the assignment to
5 the JATD. We showed the witness P442, P528, P548, and P2805, and P2807,
6 and P475.
7 These are employment decisions in the main for the JATD.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, you know that the relevance of the
9 documents are to be discussed over a cup of coffee.
10 We take a break and we resume at 11.00.
11 [The witness stands down]
12 --- Recess taken at 10.28 a.m.
13 --- On resuming at 11.04 a.m.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, you may proceed.
15 MS. MARCUS: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. Mr. Witness, I want to be sure that I didn't mislead you in any
17 way. It was certainly not my intention. This -- as His Honour
18 commented, this unit commander's report that we were looking at is
19 describing the death of the person whose personnel file it was, so the
20 personnel file is of Borjan Vuckovic and this is the description of the
21 incident which resulted in his death. Does this make more sense to you
22 why this report might be in his personnel file?
23 A. Well, this is now a very different situation. I didn't know that
24 such a case had happened. You told me not to read the document, and I
25 didn't. But now there's a justification if the man got killed, as you
2 Q. And I apologise for that.
11 Pages 12074-12078 redacted. Closed session.
7 A. Well, I see that this is tossed all over the place. It isn't
8 orderly. I can't even suppose what's in there.
9 I don't know about this.
10 Q. Based on your experience, who would have had the authority to
11 order that certain documents or files be removed from the DB archive or
12 files and put into a container, such as this?
13 A. I don't know who could have done this. But certainly somebody
14 from a higher level. That's my assumption. A lower level couldn't have
15 done this. They wouldn't be even aware of this.
16 I didn't know about this.
17 Q. Sir, there's a document referred to as the decision on the
18 formation of the anti-terrorist and combat operations unit within the DB
19 of the MUP of Serbia, dated the 4th of August, 1993. Now, that document
20 would, no doubt, have also been stored under the strict system that you
21 have described. Would you say that would be accurate?
22 A. Yes. The rule-book on the organisation and job classification,
23 whatever its name was, yes, certainly. Those are the so-called systemic
24 documents, such rule-books, such as the one on organisation and the job
25 classification from 1990 or from 1992, the amendments from 1993, these
1 are systemic documents. They differ from other individual documents.
2 Q. The document I was asking you about is a decision. I don't know
3 if it's "resenje" or "odluka," but it's a decision on the formation of
4 the anti-terrorist and combat operations unit. I just want to be sure
5 that your answer is pertaining to that document that I asked you about.
6 A. I have never seen the document. I wasn't aware of its existence.
7 I don't know if it was found or not. Now I understand that you haven't
8 found it, or at least that's how I understood what you said.
9 And just before the break, I spoke about the document on
10 assignments which refers to the amendments of the rule-book on job
11 classification and was applied to the JATD. And you mentioned that.
12 Q. So by this logic, this document should have been stored within
13 the archiving system, the storage system, that you have described. The
14 decision on the formation of the JATD.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you know where this document or others pertaining to the JATD
17 or the JSO would have been stored?
18 A. I don't know.
19 Q. And who would have made a decision on where to store them?
20 A. I think that no decision was necessary to have the document filed
21 somewhere or stored. I never heard of anyone making a decision to store,
22 say, the rules on job classification or organisation or its amendments.
23 I've never heard of any such decisions to store that.
24 Q. Perhaps my question was -- was misphrased.
25 Who would have had the authority to decide how that particular
1 document or how the documents on the JATD or the JSO would have been
2 copied, processed, stored?
3 A. I don't know about the JSO. I can only speak to the other
4 rule-books I could see and that I used. Defence made it possible for me
5 to peruse them when I drafted my statement, in order to be able to refer
6 to the numbers of articles. I also noted the designations of
7 copy number 1, copy number 2, et cetera. They contained signatures.
8 As for the JSO, I didn't see any such documents. I don't know
9 where they are, who made the decision to put those documents there. I
10 really don't know.
11 Q. Thank you. DST-032, can you confirm that in 2002 you were a
12 member of a committee which was formed to draft the future Law on the
13 State Security Services?
14 A. In 2002, a future Law on the State Security Service? I'm not
15 certain it was in 2002. I think it was done in 2003. In 2003, I was
16 head of a commission which -- and let me try to be precise. Which
17 drafted a working version -- it wasn't a plan --
18 Q. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Just if you would please oblige me
19 to just answer briefly. There is only a very small aspect of this that I
20 wanted to ask you about, sir.
21 So you do confirm that, although the year I had was wrong, that
22 you were the president of the committee formed to draft this future Law
23 on the State Security Services. Is that correct?
24 A. Not about the State Security Service. It was about all
25 information intelligence services. This is what the title of our working
1 material was. It was -- it was our working terminology we relied on
2 until we decided on the final title.
3 In any case, intelligence services, yes; 2003, yes; and head of
4 commission, yes.
5 Q. Thank you. Now as far as we are aware - please correct me if I'm
6 wrong - one of the ways in which this law was to be drafted was to allow
7 for democratic and civil control of the intelligence service; namely,
8 government, judiciary, parliamentary and public controls were to be
9 included. Is that accurate?
10 A. That is accurate. There was another part which implied not only
11 control but supervision as well. So the government was supposed to be in
12 control, whereas certain bodies were supposed to supervise.
13 In any case, what I wanted to say was that the draft version was
15 Q. Why was it rejected?
16 A. It's not clear to me to date. And some people still owe me an
17 answer. And I can speak freely. I have in mind Dr. -- director
18 Rade Bulatovic, who kept putting it off. He said, We'll see about it,
19 we'll think about it, referring to this plural construct. It never came
20 about. This is my personal comment. I believe the working material we
21 put together was a solid one and it would have worked, in my view.
22 Q. Now in the Stanisic Defence pre-trial brief, at paragraph 124,
23 they stated:
24 "The accused," meaning Mr. Stanisic, "ensured that, in addition
25 to the ministerial approval of activities of the DB, a system of
1 supervision existed which was overseen by the president of the
2 Serbian Supreme Court. The rationale for this additional judicial review
3 system was to protect the integrity of the DB against all forms of abuse
4 of its process."
5 This assertion seems to suggest that controls did exist prior to
6 the time that you were drafting with the minister of the interior and the
7 judiciary involved in such controls.
8 Can you confirm this close involvement of the minister of the
9 interior in the activities of the DB prior to the time you were drafting
10 the new law?
11 A. These are two different situations. As the commission we began
12 our work in 2003. At the time, the BIA, pursuant to the law, became a
13 separate organisation. As of July 2002, it became independent of the
14 Ministry of the Interior. That is as regards the version of the law I
15 explained in more detail in my previous answer. At the time the BIA was
16 a separate organisation and a law on its establishment was promulgated in
17 July 2002.
18 As regards your question, the minister, of course, had the right
19 of control, and I'm talking about the RDB, which was an internal
20 organisational unit of the MUP.
21 In addition to that, as I stated in the statement, we received a
22 signed instruction from the minister in November 1991, if that is what
23 you had in mind. It introduced a new system of going about things with
24 regard to the previous system. Before that, the entire procedure ended
25 within the MUP, because, in order to apply said operative technical
1 measures, decisions were made by the minister of the interior.
2 As of late November, 1991, when the minister signed the
3 instruction, any application of such measures fell within the competence
4 of the president of the Supreme Court in Serbia, that is to say, the
5 highest judicial body in Serbia. Only he or she could approve the use of
6 such measures which means deviating from the rule of inviolability of
7 communications and other rights guaranteed by the Serbian constitution,
8 as of 1990. Two articles in particular, one deals with security; and the
9 other with defence.
10 In the absence of a decision made by the Supreme Court president,
11 no one could apply any operative technical measures such as surveillance,
12 wire-tapping, et cetera. In my deep conviction, it represented a
13 significant qualitative step forward, usually I refer to it in informal
14 conversations as the crossing of the Rubicon.
15 Q. Now the law that you drafted that you said was never accepted,
16 did that include greater controls than previously?
17 A. It envisaged greater control and supervision. Not only for the
18 sake of control or supervision alone because they have to be exercised in
19 keeping with the authority assigned to members of the service. They have
20 to be proportionate. If one has less authority, one also has less
21 control or supervision, and vice versa. It is my deep conviction that
22 everything you mentioned needs to be in place concluding with public
23 control which is one of the principles of being active in the public.
24 We looked at a number of different legal solutions from different
25 states, which we used as peer states. We referred to a -- our
1 neighbouring countries, world powers, and we also looked at the work of
2 other such services in Europe and elsewhere.
3 Q. Thank you. Now, DST-032, there's a rule, isn't there, which
4 provides that DB personnel must hand over any and all internal documents
5 upon their departure from the service. Is that accurate?
6 A. Yes, it is.
7 Q. And am I correct that this rule would apply regardless of whether
8 the DB officer was dismissed or retired?
9 A. If a person stopped working for any reason, he or she had to hand
10 over complete documentation, as well as all other items he or she may
11 have been entrusted with, say, a business phone, vehicles, weapons,
12 et cetera.
13 Q. And would that rule have applied regardless of the level of the
15 A. It would have applied to all members. It's difficult to speak of
16 the officials, though. I don't know that. It was only on one occasion
17 that I was present to draft a record of hand-over between two officials,
18 when they invited me to do so. It was when a director was leaving his
19 office and another one was coming in. They invited me to get there and I
20 drafted the document. So from that specific situation, I know that
21 everything that was in the safe was handed over.
22 Q. And what I was trying to ask you was: Would this rule of
23 hand-over apply to the DB chief, and to the chiefs of administrations,
24 et cetera, to the highest-level DB officials?
25 A. I don't know about the executives or appointees. As I said, it
1 is in the realm of politics. They are appointed by the government, and I
2 don't know what kind of relationship they have with the government. I
3 can't speak to that. I was never one, and I don't know.
4 As for any other level up to executive, I know that -- that there
5 is obligation to hand over everything.
6 Q. To your knowledge, was there a hand-over commission established
7 when Mr. Stanisic left the DB?
8 A. I don't know. I wasn't in Belgrade at the time. I'm sorry.
9 Q. To your knowledge, was there ever a hand-over commission
10 established when Mr. Simatovic left the DB?
11 A. I don't know.
12 Q. To your knowledge, has there ever been a DB or BIA ^
13 investigation into whether Mr. Stanisic has illegally retained documents
14 qualifying as state secrets in violation of the DB rules?
15 A. I'm not familiar with that. I did hear of a single document, if
16 that is what you have in mind. You don't even need to tell me.
17 Let me try to remember what year it was. 2002, I believe. I was
18 called by the then-chief of the RDB, Professor Savic, who was a head,
19 actually. I believe -- he asked me if I archived a decision by
20 President Milosevic to have the RDB excluded from the MUP, and I answered
21 immediately that I did not. I had never seen such a document. He asked
22 me again if I was certain, and I replied positively. I would have
23 remembered such a document.
24 Q. Do you remember the year of that decision?
25 A. As far as I recall, it was in the first half of 2002.
1 Q. Yes. What I'm referring to is not the -- the commission but,
2 rather, the decision by Milosevic that was the subject of that inquiry.
3 Do you remember the date of that decision?
4 A. No, I don't.
5 Later on, I did see a photocopy of that document, which was found
6 but not in the archives. It's a sheet of paper. I can't recall the
8 Q. Can you tell us where you saw -- where you saw that decision?
9 Where were you, or who showed it to you, in what context, et cetera.
10 A. Mr. Savic, a head in the sector, he showed me a photocopy and he
11 said, This is what I was looking for. And I said, Yeah, you were right,
12 but it is not in the archives.
13 He showed me a copy but I didn't keep it. I didn't need it for
14 the archives.
15 Q. To your knowledge, has there ever been a DB or BIA investigation
16 into whether Mr. Simatovic retained documents qualifying as state secrets
17 in violation of the DB rules?
18 A. I don't know of any investigation conducted by either the DB or
19 the BIA.
20 Q. What would be the consequences of a determination that a former
21 DB official had kept the only remaining version of a DB-generated
23 A. I don't know what the consequences would be. I do know that a
24 member of the DB took his diary, which he kept for a longer period of
25 time, say, two years. He took it to his apartment. He was told he could
1 do so because NATO air-strikes were under way and they emptied the
2 offices. However, once the strikes ceased, he didn't return it. It was
3 left behind in his apartment, and then members of the RDB entered his
4 apartment with a court warrant and they found the diary. That person was
5 convicted by a court in Belgrade to a sentence of about 15 months in
7 In any case, he was convicted because of that diary.
11 Pages 12089-12094 redacted. Closed session.
9 Q. DST-032, I only have a few more questions.
10 Yesterday during your testimony, I asked you about the process
11 for sending reports out of the DB to external information, for external
12 addressees. You told us that the information could only be sent out of
13 the DB externally upon the approval of one of the executives, which you
14 said meant the number one or number two man.
15 Do you recall saying that?
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. Are you familiar with a ceremony which took place at Kula in
18 May of 1997?
19 A. I saw that on TV when I was already in retirement. Maybe a few
20 minutes of footage on several stations.
21 Q. Well, I'm going to ask our Case Manager, Mr. Laugel, to play a
22 clip from a video that was taken at that ceremony. This entire video is
23 admitted in this case as P61.
24 MS. MARCUS: Could I ask the Case Manager, Mr. Laugel, to please
25 play the clip.
1 [Video-clip played]
2 "[Voiceover]: Mr. President, veterans of the special operations
3 units of the Republic of Serbia State Security are lined up for
4 inspection. Colonel Zika Ivanovic reporting.
5 "Mr. President, allow me to introduce the unit's veteran
7 "Mr. President, Colonel Radojica Bozovic.
8 "Hello, Bozovic. I read those reports of yours.
9 "Thank you. God forbid there should be more of them."
10 MS. MARCUS:
11 Q. DST-032, in this clip we saw Mr. Milosevic greet Radojica Bozovic
12 and inform him that he has read his reports. Milosevic appears to
13 recognise Bozovic's name from having read his reports. If we accept your
14 evidence as truthful and reliable, that would mean that Bozovic's reports
15 would have had to pass through Jovica Stanisic's office in order to get
16 to the president of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic. Is that correct?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
18 MR. JORDASH: There are a number of presumptions there. The main
19 one being that --
20 JUDGE ORIE: There are -- indeed, it is a composite question.
21 Could you please take this question element by element and to make clear
22 that any assumption clearly appears as such so that the witness is able
23 to comment on them.
24 MS. MARCUS:
25 Q. DST-032, do you agree with me that what we have seen is
1 Mr. Milosevic greeting Radojica Bozovic and informing him that he has
2 read his reports?
3 A. Yes. And I did see that, and I did hear that.
4 I would like just to add that this clip was also broadcast in a
5 show that I have seen in the period since I retired. This part about the
7 Q. So now, if -- if your evidence is truthful and reliable, that
8 would mean, would it not, that the reports referred to in this clip --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, I'm going to interrupt you.
10 MS. MARCUS: Yes, sir.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have any knowledge of whether Mr. Milosevic
12 knew Mr. Bozovic?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I'm not familiar
14 with that.
15 JUDGE ORIE: So whether it -- he may have known him by face or he
16 may have known him, you just don't know?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I didn't know any of
18 the two men. I haven't seen any of them ever in my life.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, I think that the reason why I put this
20 question may be clear to you. Yes? That was one of the assumptions.
21 Please proceed.
22 MS. MARCUS: Thank you.
23 Q. Now, based upon what you've told us here about external
24 reporting, the reports that Bozovic wrote, that President Milosevic saw,
25 would have had to have passed through --
1 MR. JORDASH: Sorry. We are again in the realm --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Next question is: Do you have any knowledge
3 whether the knowledge of President Milosevic, as expressed during this
4 ceremony, was based on having read those reports or being acquainted with
5 these reports in any other way?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know anything about that.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, by making these elements of your
8 question explicit, we avoid that we get yeses or nos, which are based
9 upon a -- based upon the composite character of the question and not
10 recognising exactly what assumptions, suggestions, are in there. That is
11 the reason why I asked you to carefully split it up.
12 And I've now given two examples of matters that need to be
13 addressed before you can put such a question.
14 Please proceed.
15 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: One second.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: I have to correct myself to the extent of the
19 reading. At least Mr. Milosevic, true or not, but at least said that he
20 read the reports. To that extent I might not have been sufficiently
21 analytical myself, Ms. Marcus. Please keep that in mind, and although
22 understand this observation as a correction made by myself at the
23 instigation of one of my colleagues.
24 Please proceed.
25 MS. MARCUS: So may I proceed with my question?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I -- but you know that we are looking at every
2 single letter of the words you're using.
3 Please proceed.
4 MS. MARCUS:
5 Q. DST-032, in this clip we saw, as His Honour has just said,
6 President Milosevic said that he read the reports from Bozovic. Now, if
7 that is the case, those reports, based on your description and your
8 knowledge of how external reporting was systematised, those reports would
9 have had to pass through the office of Mr. Stanisic; is that correct? Or
10 am I wrong?
11 A. I apologise. What reports are you talking about? You're talking
12 about reports that were being sent to external clients?
13 Q. I'm --
14 JUDGE ORIE: What Ms. Marcus is asking you is the following:
15 What you told us about documents to be given to outsiders, outside the
16 service, whether, on the basis of your testimony, that it is true that
17 those reports, apparently received or read by Mr. Milosevic, should have
18 passed through Mr. Stanisic's office in order to -- to come into the
19 hands of Mr. Milosevic.
20 That's the question.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, of course. I did say yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Next question, please, Ms. Marcus.
23 MS. MARCUS:
24 Q. Thank you very much, DST-032.
25 MS. MARCUS: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Marcus.
2 I think it's time for a break. Could I inquire as to how much
3 time you would need for re-examination, Mr. Jordash?
4 MR. JORDASH: 30 minutes, please.
5 JUDGE ORIE: 30 minutes. Mr. --
6 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Up to 15 minutes, Your Honours. I
7 did shorten my examination for half an hour, that's true. But Ms. Marcus
8 raised some issues that make me add a few more questions to my
9 re-examination. Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have one hour after the break. I would not
11 waste any time. Perhaps with the next witness we might have to deal with
12 a few matters, preliminary matters before his testimony, so 45 minutes
13 would still allow us some time on that.
14 Could I already ask the witness to be escorted out of the
15 courtroom. We'll see you back in approximately half an hour,
16 Witness DST-032.
17 [The witness stands down]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, you yesterday announced a further
19 submissions for the protective measures of the next witness. I don't
20 think I've seen them, but are they filed? Then I'll certainly have a
21 look at it.
22 MR. JORDASH: No, they're not filed. I was hoping -- sorry, I
23 should have made that more clear yesterday. I was hoping to address you
24 orally, which is why I raised the point yesterday.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then perhaps we could do that during the last
1 portion of the time.
2 Could I ask the parties to be as efficient as possible so that we
3 really have at least 15 minutes, if not more, for the next witness, to
4 start dealing with these preliminary matters.
5 We adjourn and we resume at quarter to 1.00.
6 --- Recess taken at 12.21 p.m.
7 --- On resuming at 12.51 p.m.
8 JUDGE ORIE: We'll continue with the re-examination.
9 I remember that last time Mr. Bakrac specifically asked to be
10 allowed to put further questions first and -- or that you asked for it,
11 Mr. Jordash, that we reverse the order.
12 Would that be the same at this moment?
13 MR. JORDASH: Yes, please.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections, Ms. Marcus?
15 MS. MARCUS: No, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed, Mr. Bakrac.
17 Mr. Bakrac will have some further questions for you.
18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
19 Further cross-examination by Mr. Bakrac:
20 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, sir, again. There was a lot of
11 Pages 12102-12124 redacted. Closed session.
24 [Open session]
25 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
2 I will in open session apologise for the 11 minutes we took too
4 We resume tomorrow, the -- Thursday, the 30th of June, at 9.00 in
5 the morning, in this same courtroom, II, although it has to be expected
6 that we would immediately turn into closed session again.
7 We stand adjourned.
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.55 p.m.,
9 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 30th day of June,
10 2011, at 9.00 a.m.