1 Monday, 11 July 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.21 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everybody. Madam Registrar, would
6 you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case
8 IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 I'd like to deal with a few procedural matters before we further
11 hear the evidence of Witness DST-034. The first one, the first
12 procedural matter I would like to briefly raise, is the documents to be
13 provided by the Republic of Croatia.
14 Mr. Jordash, I think, I'm specifically addressing you. You asked
15 for an order then that the document -- providing the document was then
16 apparently resolved but there was still a financial issue remaining -- or
17 is it Mr. Bakrac? I'm sorry. Then there was a financial issue remaining
18 that you would need to have to pay a lot of money for it.
19 Now, we do understand, or at least we got some information which
20 we are seeking confirmation of, that also the financial part has been
21 resolved. I think the Registry played a role in that. Is that true?
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. That is
23 completely accurate. On Friday we received information from Ms. Hellman
24 who's in charge of the case that the issue has been dealt with and that
25 no compensation will be sought.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps the wisest would be to wait until it
2 all has materialised but that the Chamber at this moment takes no further
4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, I don't think so.
5 We expect to receive that. And should there be any difficulties, we will
6 not hesitate to notify you accordingly.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then we are fully informed about the present state
8 of this matter and at the same time we'll not further act until we've
9 heard from you.
10 Then I'd like to move into private session.
11 [Private session]
11 Pages 12550-12564 redacted. Private session.
25 [Closed session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of the Chamber]
11 Page 12566 redacted. Closed session.
3 [The witness takes the stand]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Witness DST-034. I would like to
5 remind you that you are still bound by the solemn declaration you've
6 given at the beginning of your testimony. Mr. Weber will now continue
7 his cross-examination.
8 Mr. Weber, you may proceed.
9 WITNESS: DST-034 [Resumed]
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 Cross-examination by Mr. Weber: [Continued]
12 Q. Good afternoon, DST-034.
13 A. Good afternoon.
14 Q. On page 12538, you stated that:
15 "I had only heard of Mr. Frenki's first and last name. Although
16 we were in a similar line of work, this was the first time I saw him,
17 now, in the courtroom."
18 Do I understand correctly that this statement means that you did
19 not attend the Kula awards ceremony in 1997 and have not seen the video
20 of Mr. Simatovic's speech at the ceremony?
21 A. No, I was not present there and had not seen the footage.
22 Q. Was the first time that you saw this speech when you were
23 provided it by the Defence prior to your testimony?
24 A. As far as I recall, I didn't see the footage and hear the speech
25 held on that occasion. The Defence did not present that material to me.
1 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 6216. It is
2 a still image from Exhibit P61, at 15 minutes, 51 seconds. This image is
3 taken from the portion of the video where Mr. Simatovic is speak.
4 Q. Sir, directing your attention to the gentleman standing on the
5 far left of this photograph wearing a white shirt and tie, do you see
6 that individual and do you recognise this person as Peter Gracanin?
7 A. All the way to the left, well, I would say that person is him,
8 although the image is quite blurry. I can't say with 100 per cent
9 certainty that it is him, although the person here does resemble him.
10 I'm not convinced it is him.
11 MR. WEBER: Could I please have the Court Officer provide the
12 witness with a pen.
13 Q. And just so we're clear on the person we're talking about: Sir,
14 I'm going to ask you to circle or -- yeah, just circle the individual
15 that you're talking about.
16 A. [Marks]
17 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution would tender this exhibit into
18 evidence at this time.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be ...
20 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P2993, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that there are no objections and it
22 can be admitted as a public document. P2993 is admitted into evidence.
23 MR. WEBER:
24 Q. DST-034, do you recall that I showed you an exhibit on Thursday
25 which discussed the delivery of weapons to the Krajina and was signed by
1 Milan Tepavcevic? The date of the Official Note was the
2 12th of April, 1991.
3 A. Yes, I do recall that.
4 Q. Sir, you made the following comment with respect to that
5 document. This is on page 12499:
6 "Having the territory of the Serb Krajina in mind, the three
7 truck-loads of weapons is the minimum, the bare minimum, that should have
8 arrived in the Krajina."
9 Do you remember that evidence?
10 A. Please repeat that answer one more time.
11 Q. Sir, I asked you:
12 "In the context of Minister Martic's statement on 1 April 1991,
13 which was three days before the first convoy, does this evidence show
14 that the Serbian MUP carried out Mr. Milosevic's promise to deliver arms
15 to the Krajina?"
16 You answered:
17 "Having the territory of the Serb Krajina in mind, the three
18 truck-loads of weapons is the minimum, the bare minimum, that should have
19 arrived in the Krajina."
20 Do you remember providing that evidence?
21 A. What I said was that three truck-loads would be the minimum of
22 assistance that would be required for the Krajina, a bare minimum.
23 Having in mind the size of the Krajina, this kind of assistance would
24 amount to minor assistance. That's what I was trying to say. I'd like
25 to add that, as you said, it was signed by Mr. Tepavcevic.
1 Q. Sir, I put it to you that in fact there were at least
2 5.000 soldiers that were engaged in battles in the fall of 1991 in the
3 Krajina that were supplied weapons by the State Security Service of
5 A. Is that a question or an assertion on your part? I don't
7 Q. It is a question, sir.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Well, not clearly phrased as such.
9 What Mr. Weber does, he says what his position on this matter is.
10 He puts that to you and you can comment on that, whether you agree or
11 whether you disagree.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If it is your position, as far as I
13 understand it, that the Serbian MUP or the State Security Service armed
14 5.000 men in 1991 in the Krajina, then I can only say that it is not
15 true. I deny that. The TO and the fighters of the Republic of the Serb
16 Krajina were armed by the army in late 1991, actually in September 1991.
17 There's another thing --
18 MR. WEBER:
19 Q. Sir, that answers my question.
20 I put it to you, and --
21 JUDGE ORIE: If the matter is directly related, the witness may
23 Not to enter a new subject, but if it's directly related to the
24 question Mr. Weber has put to you, you may add what you intended to add.
25 But you are not expected to deal with other matters which have not a
1 direct connection with the question.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is something I need to add to
3 clarify my answer. You asserted that 5.000 people were provided with
4 weapons in the Krajina. I repeat: At the time I was there, I didn't see
5 the 5.000 people, and I was in the field. That's the first thing.
6 Another thing: To provide weapons for such a large group of
7 people, that is something that the Serbian MUP was unable to do. It
8 couldn't arm and equip 5.000 people.
9 MR. WEBER:
10 Q. Sir, I put it to you that the forces that were armed in the
11 Krajina, that the State Security Service armed these people or the
12 Serbian MUP through the use of convoys, as you've seen, and also the use
13 of helicopters.
14 A. I didn't see any such use of convoys save for the three trucks
15 you used as an example. And I reiterate: It was a negligible amount. I
16 have to stress yet again that the Army of the Republic of the Serb
17 Krajina as well as the TO in its territory were equipped and armed by the
18 JNA. I knew that for certain. We know exactly how it took place.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps the helicopters have not been
20 addressed. Could you tell us whether you know anything about helicopters
21 being provided or being used?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] During my stay in the Krajina,
23 helicopters and aeroplanes were used but they were in the possession of
24 the army. It was their property. They had both helicopters and
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
2 MR. WEBER:
3 Q. Sir, on Thursday I also asked you about comments that you made on
4 an exhibit which indicated that Zeljko Raznjatovic was selling weapons
5 that were provided by the MUP of Serbia. Do you recall that evidence?
6 A. I recall the question but I am no longer certain what my answer
7 was, please remind me.
8 Q. Do you also -- I'm just providing context --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash is --
10 MR. JORDASH: Well, I think -- the only reason I'm standing up is
11 because my recollection of that exhibit, the way in which the MUP of
12 Serbia is incriminated is critical to a fair appraisal of that exhibit,
13 and I'd ask my learned friend to put that aspect of it to the witness to
14 remind him.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, are you willing to follow the suggestion?
16 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, if you'd like me to, I'm happy to. I'm
17 just trying to provide a context for eventually just putting a
18 proposition to the witness.
12 Do you also recall that I showed you a newspaper -- or, excuse
13 me, a magazine article containing a quote of Veselin Sljivancanin on
14 Thursday? This was Exhibit P2992. In this article it's stated that they
15 did not control them.
16 A. When you say "they," who do you mean?
17 Q. Excuse me, I'll give you the exact quote, sir. In this article,
18 Mr. Sljivancanin states:
19 "We had no control over them. All of the weapons of the
20 White Eagles, the Tigers, and Seselj's Radical Party came from the
21 Serbian MUP, there were criminals and even Albanians among them who only
22 looted and got in our way. And that was even fighting between our forces
23 even them. When I complained about that, I was ordered by Jovic's office
24 to offer logistical support to the paramilitary formations because that
25 had been agreed to among the Presidency, the General Staff, and the MUP.
1 I think that everything at the MUP was organised by Jovica Stanisic."
2 Sir, at this time I'm just asking: Do you recall being shown
3 this article?
4 A. Yes, I remember the article. And again my comment is that the
5 article indicates that Mr. Sljivancanin thought that the MUP and
6 Jovica Stanisic were behind this.
7 Q. Sir, I put it to you that your comments on Exhibit D273 are
8 incorrect and that the Serbian MUP, specifically the State Security
9 Service, supplied weapons to Zeljko Raznjatovic, also known as Arkan, who
10 participated in combat operations in the fall of 1991.
11 A. In what area? I'm sorry.
12 Q. Combat operations in the fall of 1991 in the territory of the
14 A. As I said, in 1991 I was in the Knin Krajina. That was until
15 October of 1991. I wasn't present either in Slavonia or in Baranja and I
16 cannot comment on this statement of yours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just -- sometimes even if I've not been at a
18 certain location I sometimes know through other sources what happened in
19 that location or at least that I have information. Now, if you say, I
20 don't know because I wasn't there, fine. But the mere fact that you
21 weren't there does not mean that you would have no knowledge, perhaps
22 indirect knowledge, about the events. So, therefore, if you say, Not
23 even through such channels I know anything about it, fine. But just to
24 say, I'm not there, therefore I cannot comment, that's a bit too simple.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you're interested in my indirect
1 knowledge, I can share it with you. But let me highlight, this is
2 indirect knowledge, issues that I heard from my colleagues. This isn't
3 something I personally experienced or participated in.
4 Firstly, I would like to emphasise that I'm sure that
5 Mr. Jovica Stanisic is not implicated in the dealings with Arkan and
6 other criminals mentioned here. I know this from other sources and from
7 conversations with my colleagues. That's number one.
8 Number two, it would happen very often that many criminal groups
9 and the so-called paramilitary units would refer to their connections
10 with the State Security Service, references which were later proved
11 untrue. That is my indirect knowledge. Secondly, I would like to remind
12 you that I received indirectly information to the effect that in early
13 1991 up until June 1991 Mr. Jovica Stanisic was put on ice, as it were.
14 In other words, he had difficulties in his work for the republican DB.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you give us one example of what you
16 heard that people were referring to the -- would refer to their
17 connection with the State Security Service which were proven to be
18 untrue. That's what you told us, you said that's what happened, I heard
19 of that, but it was proven not to be true. Could you give us one
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was one specific example
22 involving Ivanovic, also known as Crnogorac. He was the head of this one
23 group that I can't recall the name of. He referred to his connections
24 with the MUP. But again I would draw this very important distinction
25 between the MUP, the Ministry of the Interior, and the State Security
1 Service. These were two different organisations. Almost all the
2 criminals present there referred to their connections with the MUP, the
3 public security branch of the Ministry of the Interior. Later on, these
4 statements were proved untrue as well. That's one thing I know of.
5 The other example is that in late 1991 Arkan was not connected to
6 any member of the state security either of the federal MUP or the
7 republican DB of Serbia. This is the indirect knowledge that I have. My
8 indirect knowledge tells me that Arkan had certain dealings with the
9 Montenegrin DB.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you, you said it was proven to be
11 untrue, what was then proven to be true in relation to Mr. Crnogorac?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Frankly, I wasn't interested. It
13 was purely a matter of public security. I didn't even ask for
14 information from Davidovic or our team.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Now, if you say people were referring to the links
16 with - and then you say but they were proven to be untrue, my question,
17 since you give this as an answer, is: In relation to Mr. Ivanovic, also
18 known as Crnogorac, what was proven to be true? Because if you prove
19 that a matter is untrue, you usually do that by establishing what is the
20 truth because that's what allows you to establish that what he said was
21 not true. So, therefore, I'm asking you what exactly was proven to be
22 the case not in line with what he said?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I remember, on the
24 document you've shown me, Ivanovic referred to his co-operation with the
25 MUP of Serbia. Nowhere was it stated that he had dealings with the
1 State Security Service of Serbia or that of the federal SUP. As for the
2 federal service, I can tell you that he had no connections with us, and
3 indirectly it was shown that he didn't have any connections with the DB
4 of Serbia either. I wasn't interested to take the matter further and see
5 how things stood in general.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, please proceed.
7 MR. WEBER:
8 Q. DST-034, were you ever formally employed by the State Security
9 Service of the Republic of Serbia?
10 A. Yes. I said at the outset that when I was admitted into the
11 service in 1970, my first regular duty was that of an operative in the
12 State Security Service of Serbia in the Belgrade centre.
13 Q. And could you please tell us between which years you worked for
14 the State Security Service of the Republic of Serbia?
15 A. From the 1st of October, 1970, to the 1st of October, 1976.
16 Q. I'd like to change topics. This is a more general question. If
17 there were any amendments to rules governing the internal organisation of
18 a state security department, would those amendments need to be reviewed
19 and approved by the chief of state security?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. In particular, the chief of state security, would he need to
22 authorise any change in the responsibilities of the security service?
23 A. I don't think I've understood your question. The responsibility
24 of all the members of the State Security Service was the same, and it
25 arose from the law. There were no exceptions to that.
1 Q. If there were changes in this law that affected the internal
2 organisation of the security service and the responsibilities of
3 individuals in the service, would the chief of state security need to
4 approve those changes?
5 A. If you're asking me about the organisation of the State Security
6 Service, it was always addressed at the level of the ministry. Let me
7 remind you that at the time the State Security Service was part of the
8 Ministry of the Interior just as the federal service was part of the
9 federal ministry, and, therefore, the issue was resolved at the level of
10 the ministry. No part of the service could be re-organised if not in
11 agreement with the ministry and the government.
12 Q. And the chief of the State Security Service would be a part of
13 this decision-making process; is that correct?
14 A. Well, the chief would certainly participate in the stage of
15 drafting rules for the State Security Service. It would only be natural
16 for him to be part of the commission charged with this.
17 Q. Would you agree that the federal State Security Service was
18 required to carry out state administration tasks relevant for the
19 protection of the security of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the
20 prevention of activities aimed at undermining or destroying the
21 constitutionally-established order of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
22 on the territory of the republic?
23 A. Yes, this was an obligation on the part of the federal service.
11 Page 12579 redacted. Closed session.
3 MR. WEBER: No further questions. The Prosecution just would
4 note that there's two outstanding exhibits marked for identification,
5 P2989 and P2992. We just would formally be seeking those exhibits for
6 admission. I understand that there might be issues that need to be
7 resolved by the Chamber in relation to them.
8 JUDGE ORIE: P2989, any objections against admission?
9 MR. JORDASH: Could I just have a look at that over the break,
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then the same, I take it, is for P2992 --
12 MR. JORDASH: Yes, please.
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- which was marked for identification already also.
14 Could I encourage you, Mr. Weber, to -- during the break to
15 briefly confer with Mr. Jordash to see whether he has any remaining
16 issues. I noticed that you carefully tried to follow his suggestions and
17 to -- for -- perhaps only for practical purposes followed his
18 interpretation of what Rule 90(H) obliges you to do. If there would be
19 any remaining matter, then we would rather do that immediately after the
20 break before we ...
21 MR. JORDASH: Could I just make the point so it's on the record,
22 Your Honour, that I noticed, as most everybody in the courtroom, a clear
23 difference between the way the Prosecution put their case to this witness
24 on the issues I indicated were significant, and I'll leave it at that.
25 If that's the Prosecution position, that's the Prosecution position.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know whether Mr. Weber agrees with you or
2 not, but at least I think it would assist the Chamber if the matter would
3 be resolved as quickly as possible and rather than to quarrel about it
4 for another six months. That's the only thing I would like to say about
5 it at this moment. The break may be short, for coffee or tea, but it
6 would be encouraged.
7 Then we take a break.
8 Mr. Jordash, could you give us any indication, apart from the
9 time Mr. Weber might still need, how much time you would need? Or
10 perhaps first Mr. Petrovic or --
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we will need up to
12 ten minutes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Ten minutes for the Simatovic Defence.
14 Mr. Jordash?
15 MR. JORDASH: 45 minutes, please.
16 JUDGE ORIE: 45 minutes. Which just leaves then hopefully
17 sufficient time for me to read a few decisions. I will hear from you
18 after the break about P2989 and P2992.
19 We have a break and we resume at 4.00.
20 --- Recess taken at 3.37 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 4.06 p.m.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, I hardly dare to ask, but any further
23 questions for the witness after the tea or coffee you may have had with
24 Mr. Jordash?
25 MR. WEBER: No further questions.
1 JUDGE ORIE: No further questions.
2 Mr. Bakrac, are you ready?
3 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I am, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Bakrac:
7 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon to you again, witness. I only
8 have a couple of questions for you and I don't think it will take us more
9 than ten minutes.
10 Let us fist clear up one issue. I have today's transcript's
11 page 23, lines 12 and 13, in front of me. My learned friend Mr. Weber
12 put it to you that convoys of the Serbian MUP carrying weapons were
13 travelling to the Krajina. Your answer was that you had not seen any
14 convoys there and the transcript reads, Save for the three trucks which
15 you showed me evidence of.
16 This is my question: Based on the document you saw over there,
17 is it the case that you in fact saw the three trucks carrying weapons out
18 in the field?
19 A. Well, perhaps my answer was misunderstood or misinterpreted. I
20 didn't see a single truck in the Krajina area, and I'm referring to Knin,
21 Zadar, and Sibenik, the areas I visited, and I never saw three trucks
22 there. My statement was: If there had indeed been these three
23 truck-loads of assistance, they would have made up for negligible aid
24 under the circumstances. But I repeat: I did not see those trucks.
25 Q. Thank you. You were asked about your stay there. While you were
1 present in Knin, did you visit the Golubic camp or centre?
2 A. I wasn't along with Lieutenant Pecanac --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
4 MR. WEBER: Outside the examination.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Was this in any way raised in the cross-examination
6 by Mr. Weber?
7 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, Golubic was not
8 mentioned specifically but in a more broader picture. The witness was
9 asked about the events in the field, arming of men. There was the
10 discussion about 5.000 men and members of the State Security Service.
11 Golubic was not mentioned specifically, but in a more broader context, it
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 MR. BAKRAC: [No Interpretation]
15 JUDGE ORIE: One second. The Chamber will not prevent the
16 question. But at the same time, Mr. Bakrac, your defence against the
17 objection was very weak. You should have raised the matter before. One
18 or two questions, fine, but then please proceed.
19 So the question was whether you went to the Golubic training
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With Lieutenant Pecanac.
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. And how many times?
24 A. Once during my stay there in May and June and once more sometime
25 in the month of August.
1 Q. How many individuals did you see in training there at the time?
2 A. Between 60 and 70.
3 Q. Did you at any time while you were there see Mr. Franko Simatovic
4 in Golubic?
5 A. No, never.
6 Q. Witness, I have two more questions for you, I believe, or three.
7 Last week -- my apologies.
8 Before I leave this topic, one more question: What was the
9 purpose of your visit to the Golubic camp or centre?
10 A. We were prompted by information that we heard of special -- of
11 the so-called special units of the SAO Krajina being trained in Golubic.
12 I myself asked Mr. Tolimir to make arrangements for our visit to the camp
13 there. That's why Lieutenant Pecanac accompanied me, together with two
14 more members of the special unit of the federal MUP. I'm not an expert
15 in special units, but what we saw there at the time was far from a
16 special unit.
17 Q. To make the transcript fully clear: Mr. Tolimir and Mr. Pecanac
18 are military servicemen of the Knin Garrison?
19 A. I think Mr. Tolimir was a captain and he was the head of the
20 security of the Knin Garrison. Pecanac was part of the same security
21 service and held the rank of lieutenant.
22 Q. Thank you, witness. Last week you were asked about reports sent
23 from the field to the Federal Secretariat of the Interior. Did the
24 Federal Secretariat of the Interior have separate public security and
25 state security departments?
1 A. Yes, there were two separate departments.
2 Q. The police brigade which was deployed by way of assistance to the
3 police of Bosnia-Herzegovina, did it belong to the public security
4 department of the secretariat?
5 A. Yes, they were part of the public security department.
6 Q. Therefore any reports that they may have sent would have been
7 sent to the public security department?
8 A. Yes, directly to the assistant minister for public security and
9 the minister for the interior.
10 Q. Would a copy -- or was a copy sent to the state security
11 department of the federal secretariat?
12 A. It depended on the federal secretary or federal minister. If he
13 found that the report contained information of interest for state
14 security, it was within his discretion to make adequate directions for
15 certain reports to also be copied to the State Security Service.
16 Q. Am I right in saying that if assistant minister or the minister
17 himself felt that a given piece of information was reliable and relevant
18 it would also be sent to the state security department?
19 A. Yes, it would also be forwarded to the service I worked for.
20 Q. Witness, you were asked last week about certain IDs. There was a
21 document which was the basis for questions, although it was decided that
22 it not be put to you. The question had to do with official
23 identification papers, and then it was said that there were individuals
24 who had IDs belonging to the Krajina and to the federal SUP. Are you
25 familiar with Dragan Malesevic, Tapi, the late Dragan Malesevic, Tapi?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. While you were an operative, were you aware of his connections
3 with certain criminal groups in Belgrade?
4 A. Yes, I was aware of it.
5 Q. Can you explain for us in what sense and in what capacity was
6 Mr. Tapi tied in with these groups?
7 A. Mr. Malesevic, Tapi is his nickname, was known in Belgrade and I
8 think he was known abroad as a forger, a falsifier. He represented
9 himself as a painter, he even had a collection of paintings in Belgrade,
10 but he was a forgerer. This was known for a while and he would produce
11 forgeries, fake paintings, for criminals across Yugoslavia.
12 Q. When you say forgeries, you mean what exactly?
13 A. Well, from documents, passports, personal identity cards,
14 official IDs, any sort of official documentation, including driver's
15 licences, et cetera, everything that a person needs to properly identify
17 Q. Did you come by this information as an ordinary citizen or
18 through your intelligence work?
19 A. Both.
20 Q. This is my last question for you, witness. My learned friend
21 Mr. Weber showed you a newspaper article featuring Mr. Sljivancanin's
22 interview from 1996, unless I'm mistaken. This is my question: Did you
23 know that in November of 1995 the indictment against Mr. Sljivancanin and
24 the so-called Vukovar group was made public?
25 A. I wouldn't be able to give you a date or confirm what you just
1 said. I really don't know when it was made public. I don't know.
2 Q. Can you tell me who was the chief of the military security during
4 A. They changed frequently. I wouldn't be able to tell you now.
5 There were several in that period. I can't recall their names. I could
6 probably confirm for you who the chief of military security was if you
7 gave me their names.
8 Q. Was Mr. Sljivancanin a member of a security organ at the time?
9 And I mean military security.
10 A. I don't know what his role was at the time. I can tell you that
11 none of us had heard of Mr. Sljivancanin until we -- until his appearance
12 on the TV because of his infamous quarrel with representatives of
13 Médecins Sans Frontičres. Before that, nobody had heard of him.
14 Q. This is truly my last question: Since you worked in these
15 structures, first in the Belgrade centre and then in the Federal
16 Secretariat of the Interior, specifically the state security branch, was
17 there animosity and blame shifting from the military security service to
18 the republican civilian state security and vice-versa?
19 A. For as long as there was peace and a united Yugoslavia, their
20 co-operation was good. As conflicts broke out, we realised that the
21 military security service did not report to us all the information they
22 had. It was at that time roughly that the military security service and
23 the republican and federal State Security Service had sour relations
24 which came to a head as the conflict broke out in Croatia and Bosnia.
25 And quite a few of the accusations that were levelled against republican
1 and federal state security services originated from the military security
3 Q. Thank you, witness.
4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] And thank you, Your Honours, for the
5 time that I seem to have exceeded somewhat.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Bakrac.
7 Mr. Jordash, are you ready?
8 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes. Thank you.
9 Could I just indicate that in relation to 2989 and 2992 we
10 maintain the objection until the prerequisite in the authority which
11 we've handed to your authority have been adjudicated upon.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you're referring to the Prlic decision by
13 the Appeals Chamber?
14 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
16 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, if there's just any need for the
17 Prosecution to make further submissions on the matter, the Prosecution's
18 available to do so.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we'll -- as I said before, we'll first read it
20 and then -- and I'm halfway.
21 Please proceed.
22 Re-examination by Mr. Jordash:
23 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Witness. You, at page 1 --
24 A. Good afternoon.
11 Page 12589 redacted. Closed session.
19 Q. Okay. I'll leave that point there then.
20 You testified, again on the 7th of July, in relation to a speech
21 which -- or a conversation that had been recorded between Mladic and an
22 army officer, and in that speech, if you'll recall, he, Mladic, had made
23 various threats about killing civilians.
24 MR. JORDASH: And, Your Honours, page 12493.
25 Q. You, at the bottom of the page, line 23, you said: "But this
1 cannot be looked at when you are searching for a reflection of what
2 Ratko Mladic's Yugoslav attitude may be."
3 Do you recall that?
4 A. Yes. I recall that during a conversation with an officer he
5 issued some threats against Croats that --
6 Q. Mr. Witness, I'm going to try to keep you fairly short in your
7 answers because I want to get through quite a few things. That's the
8 conversation we're discussing. You suggested that that was not a way of
9 judging Mladic's attitude towards Yugoslavia. What did you mean by that
10 and what would you suggest, in terms of facts, that would reflect
11 Mladic's attitude?
12 A. I think I explained that at that time Mladic's Yugoslav attitude
13 was something that could not be questioned in my view. This conversation
14 reflected his usual manner of discussion when confronted with Croatian
15 representatives or when commenting certain events. In any case, that was
16 not his position. I don't believe he ever intended to see those threats
17 come to life.
18 Q. But the question was: What facts would you suggest did indicate
19 his attitude to Yugoslavia?
20 A. Given the fact that I was frequently in the field with him, I
21 could observe directly his conduct and his treatment of Croatian citizens
22 who happened to be in the territory the army came to. On the other hand,
23 he also would not allow any other symbols or presence of any paramilitary
24 units in the area of his command or his area of responsibility.
25 Q. Thank you. Now, moving on to the next subject and Simovic, the
1 minister of defence in 1991. At page 12496, 7th of July, 2011, you were
2 asked by the Prosecution about Simovic and the fact that he had -- the
3 question was whether he had any authority over the JNA in 1991. You
4 answer, at line 10:
5 "No, he had no authority over the JNA. But he was a member of
6 the inner collegium of the General Staff of the JNA."
7 What was the inner collegium of the General Staff of the JNA?
8 A. I don't know exactly who comprised the collegium. In any case,
9 in addition to the federal minister of defence, the Chief of the
10 General Staff, and his deputies and assistants. I believe the Serbian
11 minister of defence was included as well. I can't say how many people
12 were members of the collegium though.
13 Q. Do you know what its purpose was, what authorities it had?
14 A. I suppose they analysed all the events taking place at the time
15 across Yugoslav territory and primarily in Bosnia and Croatia. They also
16 assessed security situation from the point of view of the army and their
17 security. I believe that must have been one of their tasks. They were
18 also in charge of regular reporting of the then SFRY Presidency about the
19 situation in the field as well.
20 MR. JORDASH: Could I have P1050 on the screen, please. Page 11
21 of the English and 39 of the B/C/S.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
23 MR. WEBER: Did the Prosecution get notice of this document?
24 MR. JORDASH: Notice should have been sent today in relation to
25 re-examination and it was.
1 MR. WEBER: Object. The Prosecution did not have notice prior to
2 its examination. It deprived us of the opportunity to seek evidence with
3 respect to this.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that notice was given.
5 MR. JORDASH: This morning.
6 JUDGE ORIE: This morning.
7 MR. JORDASH: In relation to the cross-examination that took
8 place on Thursday.
9 MR. WEBER: If I could please have the time of the e-mail, just
10 because I've received a lot today. I have actually a e-mail at
11 2.04 p.m., I'm sorry I've not had an opportunity to check yet, which does
12 include this exhibit. We would still be objecting to notice as not
13 coming prior to the examination of the witness.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I have 11 of July, 2.04.
15 MR. JORDASH: That must be the one.
16 JUDGE ORIE: That must be the one.
17 MR. JORDASH: It's a Prosecution exhibit produced by the
18 Prosecution, adduced by the Prosecution.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, which means that at least they know the
20 exhibit, not necessarily introduced by Mr. Weber. Let's -- Mr. Weber, I
21 have no recollection whatsoever what the document is about, to be quite
23 MR. JORDASH: It's the book by --
24 MR. WEBER: If we could not have testimony --
25 JUDGE ORIE: One second.
1 MR. WEBER: -- comments in front of the witness.
2 MR. JORDASH: Well, it's a book by --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes. Okay, that's just a description of the
4 document, I take it, and that it's not --
5 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: -- dangerous yet for you, Mr. Weber.
7 MR. JORDASH: It's a book by Simovic's secretary, Glisic.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, if you introduce a book, of course, in
9 evidence, that doesn't mean that I don't know whether these portions of
10 the book were specifically addressed when the document was admitted into
11 evidence, so ...
12 MR. JORDASH: Let me deal with it in a different way, if I may.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I had not ruled on it yet, but if Mr. Jordash
14 offers this, Mr. Weber, perhaps it might be wise to let him proceed and
15 then see what happens.
16 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour. We'll reserve our objection based
17 on how it proceeds.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
19 MR. JORDASH:
20 Q. Are aware of any connection between Simovic and Arkan in 1991,
21 the time that you're describing?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Are you aware of any connection between Bogdanovic and Arkan at
24 the time we're describing?
25 A. No. I must say that the federal security service did not get
1 involved in such matters. Some of my knowledge, as I said, is indirect.
2 The federal State Security Service did not engage in verifying whether
3 Arkan or any other criminal had any relationship with anyone from the
4 Serbian security service or the army.
5 Q. Are you aware of any connection between Arkan and the federal DB
6 prior to and up to 1990 and 1991?
7 A. The only connection I know of between Arkan and the federal DB,
8 or, rather, the federal MUP, including the State Security Service, is
9 something that refers -- that goes back to 1981, I believe. At the time,
10 the federal minister of the interior was Mr. Stane Dolanc. He was
11 appointed at that time and he discussed it openly.
12 Q. Did you ever here of Zdravko Mustac?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. WEBER: I'm going to object to this as outside the scope of
15 initial examination and cross-examination. This is an individual there's
16 not been proper events related to him.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, out of the scope.
18 MR. JORDASH: Well, the Prosecution have put that Arkan is
19 connected or was connected to the Serbian DB and that relationship was
20 pivotal to the activities of Arkan. And so I'm clarifying whether the
21 witness is aware of any other connections which would clarify whether
22 that proposition is a reasonable one.
23 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, that can be done in an open-ended way.
24 If the witness offers a name and there's further clarification needed,
25 then proper way of doing it is to introducing it, if that's what
1 Mr. Jordash is seeking to do, through essentially suggesting a name and
2 then connecting it to a topic.
3 JUDGE ORIE: That's a -- that's a different objection, Mr. Weber.
4 You have changed the reason halfway. And for that reason I rule on your
5 initial objection, and that's denied.
6 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: If you want to raise the other one, I would not
8 encourage you to do it, but if you want to do it, I'll rule on that as
10 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Yes, you have heard of Zdravko Mustac. Who was he and was he
12 connected in any way to Arkan?
13 A. Zdravko Mustac was Croatian cadre who arrived to the federal MUP.
14 He became the federal chief -- the federal MUP chief of security. It was
15 in 1987 or 1988. He was part of the Croatian cadre personnel. I think
16 he left Belgrade in 1991. As far as I know, Mr. Zdravko Mustac was never
17 in any contact with Arkan, although this too would be indirect knowledge
18 on my part.
19 Q. Okay. Let's move on. You were asked about an interview that
20 Martic gave on the 7th of July, 1991; do you recall that?
21 A. Yes, I do. Although, if possible, I'd like to see it on the
23 MR. JORDASH: Could we have, please, P2991. Your Honours,
24 page 1250. P2991.
25 Q. Do you recall that?
1 A. Yes. Could you please zoom in, as I can't read it like this.
2 MR. JORDASH: Could we have the second -- or could we go to the
3 bottom of the English page, please. And the second page of the English.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Apologies, I'm looking at something
5 else, something that has to do with Glavas.
6 MR. JORDASH:
7 Q. This should be an interview, I think, that Martic gave, and
8 there's a photograph of him there, so I think it is the right one.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And it was suggested to you that Martic's references to weapons
11 supplies in that document was a reference to an April supply by
12 Bogdanovic and Tepavcevic. Do you recall that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, if we go to page 3 of the English, and we can just see the
15 precise portion that the Prosecution put to you in relation -- and it's
16 at the bottom. And Martic claims there:
17 "With the acquisition of more modern and heavier weapons, our
18 combat operations have been considerably expanded."
19 And he also makes the point there that he says already a number
20 of assault helicopters are ready for action.
21 Did you ever see Martic with assault helicopters?
22 A. We left Knin on the 30th of June or the 1st of July. I claim in
23 full responsibility that Martic's units, if one could call them that,
24 were poorly armed, unorganized, and frequently without proper and
25 complete uniform sets. Therefore, this entire interview, the text we are
1 looking at, is something that I can only interpret as propaganda or
2 raising the morale of the people in the territory.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, there was a very simple question: Whether
4 you ever saw Martic with assault helicopters. What you are doing, you
5 are describing how they were dressed. You are going -- please answer the
6 question. Did you see Martic with assault helicopters?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I'm saying is that I never saw
8 him with any helicopters or any heavy weaponry mentioned in the article.
9 And I provided a broader explanation so as to illustrate their situation.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What needs illustration or not is left to
11 Mr. Jordash at this moment.
12 Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
13 MR. JORDASH:
14 Q. Now, so the Chamber understand, this was an interview the
15 Prosecution relied upon that Martic gave on the 7th of July. Martic gave
16 another speech on the 7th of July, and I want to show it to you.
17 MR. JORDASH: Could we have 65 ter 1898, please.
18 Q. It's an interview which was published in a publication called
19 "Pobjeda," 7th of July, 1991. "We are prepared for war," an interview
20 with Martic.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
22 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Prosecution just has this as D312
23 marked for identification.
24 MR. JORDASH: I beg your pardon. That's right, yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: So we are looking at D312. Please proceed.
1 MR. JORDASH:
2 Q. Just have a look through this if you would, Mr. Witness, just to
3 familiarise yourself with it.
4 MR. JORDASH: I will just take instructions, Your Honour, if I
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
7 [Defence counsel and Accused Stanisic confer]
8 MR. JORDASH:
9 Q. Are you familiar with this interview, Mr. Witness?
10 A. Yes, I am. There were several such interviews, I think. I don't
11 know whether I read this very interview or a similar one, but I remember
12 reading some such things.
13 Q. Well, as you can see, he's asked the question on the
14 7th of July, 1991 -- or questions, I should say, concerning his
15 relationship with the JNA. And as you can see, he notes that the
16 co-operation with the army is excellent. And if you find the heading:
17 "Military hardware, weapons, and equipment - are they joint as
19 Martic answers:
20 "Yes, at the given moment, they are joint as well, since we know
21 our mutual enemy is this Ustasha state which does not wish us or the JNA
22 any good. Otherwise, we are not short of weapons."
23 Does that reflect what you found in the Knin or the Krajina?
24 A. No, it does not. His words do not reflect the situation I
25 observed during my stay in Knin. I can expand if necessary, but in
1 short, my answer is no, this statement of his does not reflect the
2 situation in the field.
3 Q. Please expand shortly, please.
4 A. As I said, I found there the Martic's so-called units who were
5 poorly equipped. They had some side-arms and long-barrelled weapons
6 including automatic rifles and some trophy pieces. Their uniforms were
7 not as they should have been. Some of it was torn and some people were
8 even in civilian clothes. The police he organised in some villages in
9 the Serbian part sported only private side-arms and hunting rifles. This
10 was as far as his equipment and ability to defend themselves in that
11 territory goes. This was merely propaganda. It does not reflect the
13 MR. JORDASH: May I tender this as an exhibit, Your Honour,
15 JUDGE ORIE: No objections.
16 Madam Registrar, the number would be ...
17 THE REGISTRAR: This is already D312 --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we have it already --
19 MR. JORDASH: Oh, yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: -- MFI'd as D31 -- no, not only MFI'd. Let me
22 D312 is marked for identification, Madam Registrar? Yes, and is
23 hereby admitted.
24 No need to have it under seal, Mr. Jordash?
25 MR. JORDASH: No, thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: It's admitted as a public document. Please proceed.
2 MR. JORDASH: Could we have P2990 on the screen, please.
3 Q. This is the exhibit, Mr. Witness, which shows Tepavcevic and
4 Bogdanovic engaged in a weapons and ammunitions supply. I just want to
5 remind you of it.
6 Now, at the time of this, I'm right, aren't I, Janackovic was the
7 chief of the DB?
8 A. Janackovic was.
9 Q. Are you able to cast any light on how and why Bogdanovic would
10 bypass the chief and go straight so Tepavcevic in relation to such
12 A. As I said, this is my indirect knowledge. And let me note that
13 the federal State Security Service did not deal with the situation of
14 security within a republic. I got this information from my colleagues
15 working for the Serbian State Security Service, that in this period of
16 May/June 1991 Jovica Stanisic was not a favourite of anyone, that he had
17 difficulties in work, and that measures were applied against him, that's
18 to say monitoring measures. Now, why did Bogdanovic apply to Tepavcevic?
19 Because Tepavcevic was assistant chief to Janackovic.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
21 MR. WEBER: I'm just going to object on notice. This is outside
22 the witness summary for this witness, what he's now going into.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, of course, the document has been used and you
24 say the area in which he's going takes him out of the 65 ter region.
25 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour. The -- it's the Prosecution's
1 position that the Stanisic Defence at this time is trying to elicit
2 testimony about a timing matter that was not provided notice on. We
3 objected originally during the direct examination of this, going into the
4 matter that is now being commented on by the witness, and Mr. Jordash
5 indicated that he was not going to go into this topic with the witness.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let's see. If I look at the question, it seems
7 not specifically aiming at doing that. What direction the witness
8 exactly goes, of course, is to some extent still to be guessed.
9 Mr. Jordash, in view of the exception -- of the objection made,
10 could you please try to keep the witness focused on what you would like
11 to hear from him.
12 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
13 Q. Please listen to the question, Mr. Witness, because I really need
14 you to address it directly. Time is short. How did, how was it, or why
15 was it, if you can assist us with this, that Tepavcevic was able to --
16 or, let me rephrase that, that Bogdanovic was able to bypass the chief of
17 the service, Janackovic?
18 A. Listen, it all depended on who was charged with certain duties.
19 I don't know what Mr. Tepavcevic was charged with specifically as
20 assistant chief of the DB of Serbia. It is also possible that
21 Mr. Janackovic was aware of it and that Mr. Tepavcevic was charged with
22 certain duties. It was down to the DB. I cannot really comment on with
23 their mutual relations may have been.
24 Q. Fair enough. You've described this as -- in a variety of ways
25 but as only minor assistance and negligible aid. Could you very briefly
1 quantify or explain why you quantify it in that way?
2 A. What I can tell from the text, there's reference to three trucks
3 and two Puchs or jeeps. 1.400 barrels of various weapons were supplied,
4 probably automatic weapons, and there's also mention of ammunition of
5 various calibre, flak jackets, et cetera. In view of the situation as I
6 was able to see it out in the field in terms of the equipment that
7 Martic's men had, the assistance as listed here was negligible because
8 Martic's police was inadequate. It lacked training and equipment as a
9 proper police force would have. Another thing is that I don't know
10 whether this convoy in fact reached Knin or some other destination in
12 JUDGE ORIE: Again you're going beyond what is asked.
13 Now, Mr. Jordash, I mean, if we read 45 helmets, this Chamber is
14 able to approximately establish that approximately double the number of
15 people in this courtroom could have a helmet if 45 helmets are sent, so
16 to that extent, if --
17 MR. JORDASH: I'll move on.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps that might be ... I mean, we -- of
19 course we do understand more or less what 45, 48 means, and the same is
20 true for 60.000 rounds. Please proceed.
21 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
22 Q. In relation to when you discuss and testify to Martic's police,
23 do you include within Martic's police the Knindzes?
24 A. Well, I don't know how they styled themselves at that point in
25 time. They did consider themselves as part of Martic's police, as a
1 special unit of Martic's police. Martic was head of the police force at
2 the time and the unit was called the special unit of the Krajina police.
3 Under the regulations and rules, it would have to be part of the
4 establishment of the SAO Krajina police force.
5 Q. Do you include them when you assess Martic's police as a
6 negligible force?
7 A. Well, as I said, I saw them two or three times when I was there.
8 Since I was accompanied by two of our specialists from the federal MUP,
9 Neso Maric, Martic's body-guard and man of confidence, tried to ask the
10 two specials who were with me to help in the training of the Knindzes,
11 their special unit. This was reportedly denied, this assistance. But
12 they didn't seem to me to be a threat to anyone. From what I was able to
13 see, what was said here was more in the line of propaganda and morale
14 boosting of the population in the Krajina.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, the witness again moves away from the
17 Could you please carefully listen to the questions and answer
18 those and not to give your general views on matters which may be related
19 in one way or another to what is the background of Mr. Jordash's
21 When we are talking about negligible force, I think Mr. Jordash
22 was mainly interested to know about the composition, the size of the
23 units, numbers, rather than whether what we read is propaganda or not.
24 Please proceed.
11 Pages 12605-12617 redacted. Closed session.
1 [Open session]
2 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
4 First of all, Judge Picard is, for urgent Tribunal matters,
5 unavailable to sit with us at this moment. Judge Gwaunza and myself have
6 decided that it would be in the interest to proceed in her absence, so
7 we'll sit under Rule 15 bis at this moment.
8 I further put on the record that since we are dealing with
9 practical matters, that before we took a break that the Chamber had
10 explained to both accused that it would fully understand if the accused
11 would prefer to return to the UNDU rather than to wait for half an hour
12 and then to deal for 15 or 20 minutes with procedural matters. I
13 establish that the accused are -- have waived their right to be present.
14 Before I read three decisions, there's one remaining issue which
15 is about D56, which is marked, not admitted, I think. It is a order by
16 Gracanin. There was -- we are still waiting for the result of further
17 inquiries by the Stanisic Defence about the background and the origin of
18 this document. Although you have withdrawn it, I think for very
19 practical reasons, at a certain moment and then it was tendered now by
20 the Simatovic Defence, it formally still has the status of marked, not
22 Mr. Jordash, any news to be reported?
23 MR. JORDASH: No news, but I will deal with that straightaway and
24 come back to Your Honours tomorrow, if that's acceptable.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we'll then wait for your further information.
1 Then I have a few decisions to read, at least the reasons for the
3 The first one is reasons for the Chamber's decision granting
4 trial-related protective measures for Witness JF-024.
5 On the 14th of October, 2009, the Prosecutor requested protective
6 measures of pseudonym and face and voice distortion for Witness JF-024.
7 The Defence did not oppose this request. On the 2nd of February, 2011,
8 the Prosecution requested the additional protective measures of
9 closed-session testimony for the witness. The Stanisic Defence did not
10 oppose the additional request. The Simatovic Defence expressed an
11 interest in obtaining further details but did not ultimately object to
12 the request either. All of this can be found at transcript pages 10983
13 through 10990.
14 On the same day, the Chamber granted the application for
15 protective measures for Witness JF-024, with reasons to follow. On the
16 3rd of February, the Chamber clarified its ruling, holding that the
17 witness would testify with the protective measures of pseudonym and
18 closed session. And this can be found at transcript pages 10995 and
20 The Chamber has set out its test for granting protective measures
21 to witnesses in previous decisions. In this respect, the Chamber refers
22 the parties to the reasons for its decision to grant protective measures
23 for Witness C-1118, which can be found at transcript pages 3690 to 3693.
24 Apart from concerns for his own safety, the witness reported that
25 the members of his extended family had received threats which were, at a
1 high level of probability, motivated by his co-operation with the
2 Tribunal. It is further likely that the same source which issued these
3 threats took action against the family member because of the witness's
4 provision of evidence to the Tribunal.
5 The Chamber found that the threats made against the witness and
6 his family amount to an objectively-grounded risk to the security or
7 welfare of the witness or the witness's family should it become known
8 that the witness has given evidence before the Tribunal.
9 The Chamber further found that the witness would not be able to
10 provide evidence without compromising his identity if closed session was
11 not granted. Considering all the circumstances noted above and the fact
12 that the Defence did not object to the request, the Chamber granted the
13 protective measures of pseudonym and closed-session testimony to
14 Witness JF-024. And this concludes the Chamber's reasons.
15 The next decision concerns protective measures for
16 Witness JF-052.
17 The Chamber has not yet communicated the reasons for its oral
18 decision of the 28th of October, 2010, granting an augmentation of
19 trial-related protective measures for Witness JF-052. This decision can
20 be found at transcript page 8271. And the witness testified in closed
21 session on the 3rd of November, 2010. The Chamber will give its reasons
23 On the 11th of October, 2010, the Prosecution submitted a motion
24 for a variation of protective measures of Witness JF-052. It requested
25 that the measures granted to the witness, namely, pseudonym and face and
1 voice distortion, be augmented. Specifically, the Prosecution requested
2 that the witness's testimony be received in closed session.
3 On the 13th of October, 2010, the Chamber instructed the Defence
4 to file a response, if any, by the 15th of October, 2010. In this
5 respect, the Chamber refers to transcript page 7885. On the
6 15th of October, the Stanisic Defence informally communicated to the
7 Chamber that it did not take a position on the Prosecution's motion. On
8 the 28th of October, 2010, in court, the Stanisic Defence and the
9 Simatovic Defence submitted that they had no objections to the motion.
10 This can be found at transcript pages 8270 and 8271. Acting in
11 accordance with Rule 75(I), the Chamber decided the motion pursuant to
12 Rule 75(G)(ii).
13 As far as the applicable test and the applicable law, I refer to
14 what I just read in relation to Witness JF-024, which applies in this
15 case as well.
16 In its motion, the Prosecution submitted that the witness was
17 fearful that should it become known that he would testify in this case,
18 he and his family would be harmed. The Prosecution provided a signed
19 declaration from an investigator who interviewed the witness. The
20 Chamber considered that, in light of the investigator's declaration and
21 considering the subject matter of the witness's testimony, it was likely
22 that protective measures in place for the witness would not sufficiently
23 guarantee the security of the witness and his family. It further
24 considered that the Defence did not oppose the request for closed
1 Considering all the aforementioned circumstances and balancing
2 the risks that the witness and his family may face after testifying
3 before the Tribunal and the accused's right to a public trial, the
4 Chamber granted the requested variation of the protective measures of
5 Witness JF-052.
6 And this concludes the reasons for the Chamber's decision.
7 The last reasons to be read relate to the Chamber's decision
8 denying postponement of Simatovic's opening statement.
9 These are the reasons for the decision of the 8th of June, 2011,
10 denying the postponement of the Simatovic Defence's opening statement.
11 On the 2nd of June, 2011, the Simatovic Defence informed the
12 Chamber that it had not completed its preparations for the Defence case
13 and requested, accordingly, to be allowed to give an opening statement
14 prior to its own presentation of evidence. The Simatovic Defence also
15 pointed out that in the past some other Chambers in this Tribunal had
16 allowed Defence teams to make opening statements at the beginning of
17 their respective cases.
18 On the 3rd of June, 2011, the Prosecution opposed the
19 Simatovic Defence's request. The Prosecution argued that the basis of
20 the request relates to matters raised before, and dismissed by, the
21 Appeals Chamber in its decision of the 27th of May, 2011, in this case.
22 It submitted that postponing the opening statement would also vitiate the
23 notice requirements of Rule 65 ter (F) and (G), which are necessary for a
24 fair trial.
25 On the 8th of June, 2011, the Chamber denied the
1 Simatovic Defence's request and informed the parties of this through an
2 informal communication. The Chamber considered that it would be assisted
3 by hearing both Defence opening statements immediately after the
4 Pre-Defence Conference so as to gain an overview of and be able to better
5 monitor possible overlaps between the two Defence cases. The Chamber
6 also considered that hearing both opening statements before the
7 presentation of Defence evidence would be conducive to an expeditious
8 trial by providing notice to the other parties and leading to more
9 focused examinations of witnesses. Finally, the Chamber considered that
10 an opening statement by the Simatovic Defence before the presentation of
11 any Defence evidence would assist the Bench in its questioning of Defence
12 witnesses. And for these reasons the Chamber denied the Simatovic
13 Defence's request.
14 And this concludes the reasons for the Chamber's decision.
15 If there's no other matter to be raised, we will adjourn for the
16 day. And we resume tomorrow, the 12th of July, quarter past 2.00 in this
17 same Courtroom II
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.18 p.m.,
19 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 12th day of
20 July, 2011, at 2.15 p.m.