1 Thursday, 14 July 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case. And could,
7 meanwhile, the witness be brought into the courtroom.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
9 IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 Ms. Marcus, perhaps a question: Were you able to digest, more or
12 less, the material which you initially said were 85 pages and then a few
13 hundred pages?
14 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, we have had -- I've had a team of
15 people working on it. It seems to me -- and I will know before the end
16 of my cross-examination, it seems to me that it might be okay, in other
17 words that we might not need to, but I'm just waiting for that absolute
18 final confirmation. I'm quite optimistic.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that, because you needed two sessions
20 today, was it?
21 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 [The witness takes the stand]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, you were on your feet but not anymore.
25 May I take it that --
1 MR. JORDASH: Peremptory.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 Good morning, Mr. Bosnic, I'd like to remind you -- can you hear
4 me in a language you understand?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, yes, I can.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm always inclined also to say "dobro jutro,"
7 but then of course we do not know whether the translation is functioning.
8 Mr. Bosnic, I'd like to remind you that you're still bound by the
9 solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony, and
10 Ms. Marcus will now continue her cross-examination.
11 Ms. Marcus, please proceed.
12 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 WITNESS: MILE BOSNIC [Resumed]
14 [Witness answered through interpreter]
15 Cross-examination by Ms. Marcus: [Continued]
16 Q. Good morning, Mr. Bosnic.
17 A. Good morning.
18 Q. In paragraph 26 of your statement, you said that at meetings you
19 did in fact discuss asking the federal government for political support
20 but you did not discuss asking them for weapons. Then you state that you
21 know that Babic went to Belgrade at the end of 1990 and beginning of 1991
22 and discussed the possibility of them providing economical support. Do
23 you know the details of these conversations which Babic had in Belgrade?
24 A. I do not know the details.
25 Q. Do you know what sort of financial support they were discussing?
1 A. They were discussing monetary assistance, and the linking of
2 federal organs with the municipal organs because Croatia had stopped
3 subsidizing the municipalities there, so we wanted it to be made possible
4 for us to pay the municipal taxes into the federal budget and in that way
5 for resources to be returned to the areas of the municipalities in
6 question. We also wanted enterprises and firms from those municipalities
7 if they were not in contact with enterprises in the rest of Yugoslavia to
8 link -- be linked with them and start co-operating with them, because
9 co-operation with firms, with enterprises in the area of Croatia, had
10 been severed.
11 MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer please call up P1101. This
12 is a public document.
13 Q. Mr. Bosnic, the document you're going to see now on the screen in
14 front of you was shown to you prior to coming to Court and you provided
15 some comments on your comments chart in relation to this document, which
16 is P1101. What you say about the document in your chart is that:
17 "It was a strategy of political leaders of SAO Krajina to request
18 assistance from the Republic of Serbia, as it would be difficult to
19 explain to the Serbian people in Serbia if they denied these requests."
20 My question to you is: How many such requests for assistance
21 from Serbia are you aware of?
22 A. I cannot say the exact number now, but the idea was in those
23 crisis moments for us to turn to Serbia for assistance, because the
24 citizens of Serbia could see that they were having a very hard time,
25 especially after the raid of Petrinja, the incursion into Petrinja in
1 September 1990, or October, I'm not quite sure, when Special Police
2 forces raided the place and over 150 people were arrested. That was the
3 first incident.
4 From that moment on we started discussing in what way we would be
5 able to protect us from incursions by Special Police Units, and this
6 was -- that was the concrete cause of this particular raid by Croatian
7 special units, i.e., forces in Plitvice. We could then see that our
8 police and our village guards were simply unable to withstand, to resist,
9 the Croatian Special Police forces.
10 Q. Was it an effective strategy, this strategy of requesting
11 assistance from the Republic of Serbia? Was it effective?
12 A. Initially, no. But later it became evident that there were
13 certain results, that some headway had been made. This training camp was
14 set up and subsequently through the federal organs or, more specifically,
15 the federal Secretariat of National Defence, at the request of Mr. Babic,
16 schooled officers started arriving, retired officers who hailed from the
17 Krajina. They came to our Territorial Defence zone staffs in order to
18 assist us as professionals. And later when the JNA barracks were
19 surrounded, when the water-supply was cut off, et cetera, the JNA also
20 became involved in dealing with these problems.
21 Q. Mr. Bosnic, I have quite a lot of material to cover. I'm going
22 to ask you respectfully to limit your answers. And if we need further
23 clarification, we will ask you.
24 Now, during your testimony you spoke about a meeting between
25 Babic and Milosevic which Babic told you about afterwards. You said:
1 "Milan Babic went to Belgrade for discussions with
2 Slobodan Milosevic. While in Belgrade, he placed a call to the party
3 head office asking that an Assembly be convened which was supposed to be
4 the constituent Assembly of the Serbian Republic of the Krajina."
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Is this the same meeting or a different meeting than the one you
7 just described before?
8 A. No, these events took place later. That was December 1991.
9 Q. How many of these meetings in Belgrade did you attend with
10 Mr. Babic?
11 A. I didn't count.
12 Q. Can you give us an approximation? Was it one or two, ten or
13 twenty, et cetera?
14 A. Let's say five or six. I attended five or six meetings, but I
15 was often with Babic in Belgrade on other business.
16 Q. And over what period of time would you say those five or six
17 meetings took place?
18 A. Approximately from November 1991 to 1994 or 1995.
19 Q. Are you aware of any meeting involving Milan Babic, Milan Martic,
20 and Jovica Stanisic in a cafe between Knin and Golubic at the end of
21 August 1990?
22 A. No, I'm not.
23 Q. Are you aware of any meeting involving Milan Babic,
24 Radmilo Bogdanovic, and Jovica Stanisic in Belgrade in January of 1991?
25 A. No, I'm not.
1 Q. Are you aware of any meeting involving Slobodan Milosevic,
2 Radmilo Bogdanovic, Milan Babic, and Jovica Stanisic in Belgrade at
3 President Milosevic's office at the end of March 1991?
4 A. No, I'm not.
5 Q. So I take it you are also not aware of a meeting between
6 Milan Babic, Jovica Stanisic, and Franko Simatovic in Babic's apartment
7 in Knin in April of 1991?
8 A. I'm not aware of it.
9 Q. What about a meeting between Milan Babic, Dusan Orlovic,
10 Milan Martic, and Jovica Stanisic in August of 1991?
11 A. I'm not aware of it.
12 Q. Do you concede that it is possible that Babic might not have
13 informed you of his ties with Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic?
14 A. Well, it is possible, but it would have been surprising, in fact,
16 Q. Mr. Bosnic, a couple of times in your statement you speak about
17 humanitarian funds. What do you mean when you say "humanitarian funds"?
18 A. I mean food supplies, clothing, footwear, medical supplies.
19 Q. Are these supplies for the military or for the population,
20 generally, or for the police?
21 A. The civilian authorities requested this for the civilian
22 population and through the Territorial Defence for the requirements of
23 the Territorial Defence.
24 Q. Mr. Bosnic, are you familiar with someone named Dusan Momcilovic?
25 A. I cannot remember that.
1 Q. The Prosecution's case is that Mr. Dusan Momcilovic was sent by
2 the Serbian DB to the RSK. Were you familiar with other individuals sent
3 by the Serbian DB as volunteers to the RSK?
4 A. I don't know them. I never met them.
5 MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer please call up 65 ter 6227.
6 Q. Mr. Bosnic, what I'm showing you are a couple of pages from this
7 person Dusan Momcilovic's Serbian DB personnel file.
8 MR. JORDASH: Sorry.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Jordash.
10 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, I should have been up on my feet more
11 quickly, but there's an objection to the use of this document, based on
12 the Prlic appeal decision, which I'd like to argue, if Your Honours --
13 JUDGE ORIE: The one you gave us yesterday or one of these days,
15 MR. JORDASH: Yes, we do have copies here.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you distributed copies already, isn't it?
17 MR. JORDASH: Yes, that's right.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So there's no need to do it twice.
19 MR. JORDASH: Whilst that's --
20 JUDGE ORIE: We've read that. How much time would you need for
21 that? Do we -- should we do it in the presence of the witness?
22 MR. JORDASH: Well, could I ask that the document be removed from
23 the screen, please, until we deal with this issue, with Your Honours'
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Just for my recollection, I remember that the
1 decision on a specific document was not the subject of an appeal, it was,
2 rather, the general approach, the ruling on how to, in more general
3 terms. And from what I remember, but I'm summarising now perhaps too
4 much, is that the Appeals Chamber said that there was no legal error in
5 the decision made and that these kind of decisions could be made, as was
6 also emphasised by the Trial Chamber, I think, on a case-by-case basis,
7 but under this general guidance which was not in violation of any rule.
8 MR. JORDASH: I think that sums it -- the situation. In
9 principle, and this is the position we've been advancing since the
10 beginning of the Defence case, that in principle there is nothing wrong
11 with allowing the Prosecution or party to admit documents after the close
12 of their case, but under certain threshold conditions.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. JORDASH: And obviously the more that is sought to be done by
15 the Prosecution, the more the concern must arise. The starting point
16 being that the Prosecution must serve their case before the beginning of
17 it, except under certain limited circumstances. In fact, one could argue
18 that most of the interlocutory jurisprudence is premised on that simple
19 fact. And the Prosecution must know their case, they must serve it at
20 the beginning of it, and then there are various ways in which exceptions
21 are made, whether additional evidence or additional witnesses, so on and
22 so forth. But as the Prlic Appeal Chamber makes clear, the Prosecution
23 can add to their case only in exceptional circumstances. And so --
24 JUDGE ORIE: At least, if -- I think the Appeals Chamber said
25 that if you -- if a Chamber takes as a -- as a general line that it can
1 be done only in exceptional circumstances, that that doesn't show any
2 error in law. But let's --
3 MR. JORDASH: Yes, I think that's precisely right.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which is not exactly the same as what you
5 said. And that has got something to do with the role of an appellate
6 authority. But please proceed.
7 MR. JORDASH: I beg your pardon, Your Honour. I don't understand
8 the distinction that Your Honour makes and I'd like to understand it so I
9 can address it.
10 JUDGE ORIE: If a Chamber adopts a position that something can be
11 done only in exceptional circumstances, and if that position is that
12 decision is not quashed as showing any legal error, that does not
13 automatically yet mean that the exceptional circumstances are always
14 required by the appellate authority. The review is not a
15 hundred per cent a full one on appeal on these kind of matters. But
16 we'll reread it anyhow --
17 MR. JORDASH: I think that your argument's too sophisticated for
18 me. I don't quite grasp it.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, that's -- or it could be wrong as well, or not
20 clear. Please, yes.
21 MR. JORDASH: Oh, I think I understand Your Honour's point. It's
22 in paragraph 24 of the decision.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I don't have it here but I have it on my desk, yes.
24 MR. JORDASH: Where it notes the Appeals Chamber is satisfied
25 that this careful approach, establishing a high threshold for the
1 admission of fresh evidence, duly mindful of Rules 89(C) and (D) of the
2 rules, may be justified depending on the specific circumstances of the
4 I mean, to summarise: In principle, the Prosecution can do it,
5 but it comes with dangers, and the principal danger is that the accused
6 has a fundamental right to know the case that he must meet. And the more
7 that a party is allowed to make inroads into that, the more the
8 Prosecution are allowed to make inroads into that, the more dangers there
9 are to that fundamental right. And my learned friend is sitting on a
10 file with, I think, ten new documents for one single witness. I think we
11 counted recently and we're already into the double figures of new
12 documents introduced during the Prosecution case. At this rate we will
13 be well into the hundreds by the end of the Defence case. And in our
14 respectful submission that's why the threshold criteria at this stage
15 must be applied as strictly as possible and that's why the Prosecution
16 must justify their position and justify why they are seeking to make
17 inroads into a fundamental right.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's clear. Any specifics about this
19 document? Because --
20 MR. JORDASH: Yes, they --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Because we -- you were talking about quantity; of
22 course quality may play a role in every single decision as well.
23 MR. JORDASH: Well, I would answer it in this way: First of all,
24 the Prosecution are in possession of thousands of documents in B/C/S and
25 what they're doing is they're using their vast resources to sit and sift
1 through that material, pick out what they think is useful, and then use
2 it against the accused, knowing full well the Defence does not have the
3 resources to go through those thousands of documents, knowing full well
4 we do not have the language resources to do that, knowing full well that
5 is a breach of Rule 66, to be using -- and this is the real problem here.
6 Rule 66 requires them to serve the evidence that they rely upon at a
7 certain time, but also in a certain form: in English. What the
8 Prosecution are doing is simply drawing on their vast database, which is
9 in B/C/S, at the last minute disclosing it to the Defence in English, at
10 a time where we cannot possibly go through our database and look to
11 contextualise the evidence that they're seeking now to add in the case.
12 It's, in short, it's a trial by --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but are you -- I asked you whether you had any
14 specifics for this document.
15 MR. JORDASH: That's the general objection we have to the
16 approach. In relation to the specific objection, I don't know what the
17 Prosecution want to do with this document and --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Neither do I.
19 MR. JORDASH: I can only formulate a specific objection when the
20 Prosecution indicate what is the document, what do they say is its
21 probative value, why do they say they should be allowed to use it at this
22 stage, why didn't they use it before.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
24 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour. The Prlic Appeals Chamber
25 decision circulated by the Stanisic Defence sets out certain guiding
1 principles in relation to the presentation of evidence by the Prosecution
2 in cross-examination where this evidence has not been presented during
3 the Prosecution's case in chief. According to the Prlic decision, the
4 Chamber has discretion to admit fresh evidence under Rules 89(C) and (D),
5 taking into account the probative value of the evidence and the need to
6 ensure a fair trial.
7 The Chamber can consider, in seeking to strike this balance, the
8 mode of disclosure, the purpose of admission, and any other factual
10 As you are aware, Your Honours, and as Mr. Jordash has said, the
11 Prosecution is in possession of hundreds of DB personnel files which were
12 received at different times and always pursuant to an RFA to the Serbian
13 authorities. These personnel files have all been disclosed to the
14 Defence, some several times.
15 The personnel files are all relevant to this case. However, the
16 Prosecution made selections of personnel files or documents from
17 personnel files to tender in its case in chief, some through bar table
18 motions and some through witnesses. We stand by that selection and in
19 our view we met our burden in our case in chief by the tendering of the
20 personnel files and documents from those files which we chose.
21 Now the Defence case is being presented and the Defence witnesses
22 are bringing their evidence. The Prosecution is responding and
23 challenging the evidence of these witnesses. It is the choice of the
24 Defence to bring the witnesses they bring. And if the witnesses present
25 certain evidence, other evidence relevant to the Prosecution case and
1 directly contradicting the evidence of Defence witnesses will be selected
2 for use in cross-examination of those witnesses.
3 If the Defence brings evidence that there was no DB involvement
4 in the Krajina, the Prosecution must be permitted to put to the Defence
5 witness evidence of DB involvement in the Krajina, and to select evidence
6 which is particularly within the area of familiarity of that witness.
7 Dusan Momcilovic was a DB operative since 1991 who held positions
8 in Glina --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm -- just before you proceed, is this to be
10 presented in the presence of the witness? Or I'm also looking at -- or
11 should we ask the witness just to -- if you go into much detail, then of
12 course it might not be wise to do that in the presence of the witness and
13 then ask him questions about it.
14 MS. MARCUS: Okay. I'll leave out the part about this particular
15 document then, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you say but it's relevant in this context and
17 this witness could -- would know about --
18 MS. MARCUS: Directly relevant to this witness's evidence, yes,
19 Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MS. MARCUS: Just a few more general points on the submission
22 made by Mr. Jordash.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MS. MARCUS: The Defence has themselves conceded the relevance of
25 the personnel files. They tendered the personnel file of JF-048, they
1 tendered a photograph from the personnel file of another individual as
2 D261, they uploaded one other whole file - I'll leave out the names for
3 now - as 2D268, and other entire file as 2D269, although they did not
4 tender those whole files. In the course of the beginning of the Defence
5 case, the Defence has dropped their objections to P179 and P473, both
6 personnel files. And following objections to yet another personnel file,
7 just last week or the week before perhaps, the Defence decided to drop
8 its objections and seek the tendering of the entire personnel file when I
9 had tendered only a portion of it.
10 Many of the personnel files contain similar documents and the
11 parties and the Chamber have no doubt become increasingly familiar with
12 these documents and the contents. The Defence appears to have come to
13 the conclusion that at least in certain instances the personnel files are
14 relevant to their case as well --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Can the counsel please read more slowly for the
16 sake of the interpreters. Thank you.
17 MS. MARCUS: The Defence --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Wait.
19 MS. MARCUS: Yes, sir. Thank you.
20 This is evident from the recent dropping of objections by the
22 Now, Your Honours, as the Defence witnesses testify, other
23 portions of personnel files or, in fact, of other documents in the
24 possession of the Prosecution will become relevant specifically to the
25 evidence presented by those witnesses. The Prosecution would like to
1 avoid lengthy debates in court about the admissibility of these
2 documents. Of course, it's always open to the Defence to generally
3 concede the relevance to the truth-seeking process of the DB personnel
4 files, for example, as a category, rather than making heated objections
5 only to drop them later.
6 Finally, with respect to this witness in particular, Your Honour,
7 the Defence has stated that due to the dropping of another witness who
8 could give evidence -- who could give evidence in relation to the
9 Krajina, they wanted to add additional areas of examination of this
10 witness. We did not object on grounds of lack of notice. Our submission
11 is that this has opened the door even wider with respect to this witness
12 and the Prosecution cannot now be disabled in its ability to put to this
13 witness evidence which is directly relevant to his testimony, including
14 in its expanded form.
15 I've noticed, yes, approximately ten documents to put to this
16 witness. These are non-admitted, say, fresh evidence documents, many of
17 which come from personnel files, some of which come from RFA responses.
18 All of which, I submit, meet the requirements under the rules of
19 relevance and probative value and all of which are now being specifically
20 tendered as a direct result of the evidence presented by the Defence.
21 Thank you.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Before I give you the opportunity,
23 Mr. Jordash, to briefly respond, I already make one observation.
24 Sometimes I think your objections did not stand but mainly because the
25 document was in part admitted and then you said, Okay, but then I'd like
1 to have the whole document in.
2 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's clear that's not true for all of them,
4 but that's -- I noticed this already so that that's on my mind.
5 Any other brief comment.
6 MR. JORDASH: And of course there will be circumstances where the
7 Prosecution wish to admit document and we don't object to it because
8 we're not taking the position that the Prosecution should never be
9 allowed to introduce new evidence. That's obviously not the position
10 taken by the Prlic Appeal Chamber and it's not a position which is
11 founded, we submit, in common sense. But nonetheless, there ought to be
12 a process by which these issues are decided, and the process does not
13 begin and end with relevance. With an indictment such as this, many,
14 many, many things could be relevant. That simply cannot be the only
15 threshold criteria because then we move from a trial into a truth and
16 reconciliation commission.
17 And I note that my learned friend's submission has not once
18 mentioned the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
19 charges. For the Prosecution it's about relevance to what they say is a
20 truth-finding process. Well, as Your Honours know, this is a trial, and
21 that comes with certain procedural guarantees and certain procedural
22 regularities. That is all we're requesting here, that the Prosecution
23 meet those procedural threshold criteria as indicated by the
24 Prlic Appeal Chamber.
25 Those are our submissions.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber denies the objection as made in relation
4 to the document presented. The Chamber will very likely come with a
5 broader guidance relatively soon. And up until that moment we'll decide,
6 of course, on any fresh evidence presented by the Prosecution. Also, in
7 view of the broader guidance with the reasons for that to be given, the
8 Chamber refers already now for the reasons why it denied the objection.
9 There is another matter, I think in the Prlic decision also it's
10 required to tell the parties for what purpose the evidence is admitted.
11 I think it would be here not to impeach the witness but, rather, to
12 present to the witness, also for the truth of the contents, certain
13 material so that he can -- he can reconsider perhaps whether he can
14 refresh his memory or further consider whether he has any comments on it.
15 MS. MARCUS: That's correct, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. JORDASH: May I just add for the record, and in no way am I
18 seeking to go behind Your Honours's ruling, but I have never heard -- and
19 I've consulted with my team, I've never heard of Dusan Momcilovic being
20 part of the Prosecution case. I have no idea what that is about. We've
21 looked at disclosure in the time that we've had, and we don't know. But
22 I put that on the record. And as I say, I don't go behind Your Honours'
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 Ms. Marcus, you may proceed. And perhaps the last observation by
1 Mr. Jordash you would keep that in mind also for any other evidence you
2 may wish to present as fresh evidence. Please proceed.
3 MS. MARCUS: I think Your Honours will see the evidence that we
4 have presented with respect to this individual.
5 Now, could I please have again, and perhaps it should not be
6 broadcast to the public, 65 ter 6227. Can I suggest that maybe we just
7 expanded the B/C/S, the original. It's legible if it's expanded, with
8 Your Honours' leave.
9 Q. Now, Mr. Bosnic, what you see before you is a document from the
10 personnel file of a man named Dusan Momcilovic. What I'm going to do is
11 show you a few entries from this file and then I'll ask you a few
12 questions about what we have seen. On this page I'd like to call your
13 attention to where it says that Dusan Momcilovic was employed in the MUP
14 of the Republic of Serbia from August 1991 into 1994. Do you see what
15 I'm referring to on the left side of the page?
16 A. Yes. Yes.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer now please turn to page 2.
19 And maybe in this case we can also have the English.
20 Q. What you see before you is the biography written by
21 Dusan Momcilovic himself. If you look at the third paragraph, you will
22 see that he says that from 1991 --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
24 MS. MARCUS: Yes, sir.
25 JUDGE ORIE: If I just may briefly interrupt you. Could we go
1 into private session.
2 [Private session] [Confidentiality lifted by order of the Chamber]
3 THE REGISTRAR: We are in private session, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: First, when you called for this document the first
5 time, it was shown to the public, which it should not. Now, we go into
6 the content of this document and usually these personnel files are
7 confidential because it would reveal who worked for the service, and they
8 may still be working for the service. So therefore, just not showing the
9 document and then ask all the questions with the names and functions
10 would not provide the protection which is granted, wouldn't it?
11 MS. MARCUS: I understand, Your Honour, and I apologise.
12 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, if you would please put those
13 questions in private session to the witness and we'll try to see whether
14 the first showing on the screen can be made -- can be undone.
15 Madam Registrar is working on that.
16 I would like now to proceed. If everyone has finished his -- on
17 all sides of the room their consultations, then let's proceed.
18 MS. MARCUS: I've just been informed, Your Honour, that this was
19 already redacted. In other words, that the redactions were the proposed
20 protected measures on the document, but Ms. Friedman is going to confirm
21 that for me and then we can come back to Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's move on.
23 MS. MARCUS: Yes.
24 Q. Now, if you look, Mr. Bosnic, at this biography written by
25 Dusan Momcilovic, you will see that he was -- he says that from 1991 he
1 was a member of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia, RDB, JSO, employed in
2 the field in the "Krajina" as a member of the Glina SUP from 1991 to
3 1993; commander of the 24th Brigade of the VRS in 1994 to 1995; and in
4 1995 he was the commander of the special unit of the RSK MUP. One last
5 page before I put my questions to you.
6 MS. MARCUS: Could we please turn to page 3.
7 Now, Your Honours, on this page I didn't see any need for it to
8 be submitted for translation, but if Your Honours deem that it should, I
9 will certainly do so.
10 I'd like to focus on the bottom photograph, bottom entry.
11 Q. Mr. Bosnic, you can see this is Dusan Momcilovic's driver's
12 licence and it says MUP of Serbia. Now, my questions to you are as
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could I -- it does not only say MUP of Serbia, but
15 it says "Izdate od," and I'd like to know what that means. Perhaps you
16 can ask the witness.
17 MS. MARCUS:
18 Q. Mr. Bosnic, what does it mean "Izdate od" MUP of Serbia?
19 A. This means that it was issued to him by the MUP of Serbia. In
20 other words, issued by the MUP of Serbia, in their offices by the body
21 competent to issue driving licences.
22 JUDGE ORIE: That would be my next question, Ms. Marcus, whether
23 the MUP of Serbia is the general authority to issue driving licences to
24 anyone who wants to drive on public roads.
25 Is the MUP of Serbia also issuing driving licences to dentists
1 and greengrocers?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To all those who have passed a
3 driving test. They receive a certificate on the basis of which the MUP
4 will issue them with a driving licence. Whether it was the MUP of Serbia
5 or the MUP of Croatia, the procedure was the same for all.
6 JUDGE ORIE: And the same would be true for policemen, civilians,
7 whomever? Is that how I --
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.
10 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Could we please go back to page 2 for my questions.
12 Q. Now, Mr. Bosnic, were you aware -- now, I asked you if you knew
13 Dusan Momcilovic, has any of this refreshed your memory of this person
14 named Dusan Momcilovic?
15 A. No. I probably did meet him at some of these meetings, but the
16 photograph does not refresh my memory of him and of meeting him at any
17 given point.
18 Q. At the meetings that you're talking about where you may have met,
19 but you're not sure, Dusan Momcilovic, were you generally informed of
20 individuals such as Mr. Momcilovic who had a dual employment, who were
21 sent by the Serbian MUP to field operations in the Krajina? Were you
22 aware of such individuals?
23 A. No, I didn't know that there were such people around.
24 Dusan Momcilovic is from Krajina who came to Glina from Zagreb, and it is
25 true that they would introduce individuals to us at the meetings that I
1 attended, but at no point was anyone introduced as a member of the MUP or
2 the DB and as having been from the area of Krajina. So I mean chief of
3 SUPs, commanders of units, commanders of TOs, of TO units, presidents of
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I've just been informed by
7 Ms. Friedman that we can use this redacted version, that
8 Dusan Momcilovic's name was not redacted in the proposed redactions by
9 Serbia therefore this can be public and all this testimony that's been in
10 private session, with Your Honours' leave, can be put into public. I'd
11 also like to tender this -- these pages as a public exhibit,
12 Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections?
14 Mr. Petrovic.
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would object
16 insofar as on page 1 of this document we can see that it's an excerpt
17 from his work record booklet, but we don't see who the booklet belongs to
18 because we don't see the name. And as a rule, the booklet should also be
19 certified. There is no evidence of that. There is no evidence of who
20 the booklet belongs to. And whomever it may belong to, it has not been
21 certified and stamped.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
23 MR. JORDASH: And we object for the same reasons and also for
24 lack of notice reasons.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
1 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Specifically on -- I mean, the lack of notice, that
3 is clear. That's on the basis of your previous submissions.
4 Now, authenticity and insufficient indicia of -- could you please
5 respond to that.
6 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. We -- this -- these are pages
7 from this individual's DB personnel file that we received from the DB.
8 I'm perfectly happy to go through this and see what other pages are in
9 there and to show them perhaps informally to Mr. Petrovic so that he can
10 maybe see the stamp. Perhaps we have a better copy of it, et cetera.
11 The copy I reviewed before looked more clear than the one that we saw
12 here on the screen. So I'm happy to deal with that out of court.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Now, apart from how clear the copy is, what we see
14 on the first page of this document are pages 7 and 8 of a document. And
15 perhaps it could be matched to the biography. I have not even made an
16 attempt to do so. But perhaps it would be good if you look again at the
17 material you received and that it will be marked for identification
18 first, because if these documents are three pages from a file, then, of
19 course, if it is not a complete file, then it should at least be
20 established that all the pages relate to the same person. And that's, as
21 far as I can see, not yet the case for the first page, being pages 7 and
22 8 of the booklet.
23 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, we will look for that and then we
24 will propose -- perhaps discuss with the Defence whether more pages
25 should be tendered and propose to Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 Madam Registrar, the number for this document to be MFI'd would
3 be ...
4 THE REGISTRAR: The number would be P2995, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: And keeps that status for the time being.
6 Please proceed.
7 MS. MARCUS: Thank you.
8 Q. Mr. Bosnic, in your statement in paragraph 45 you talk about
9 humanitarian help. This was what I meant to ask you -- this is what I
10 was referring to earlier. I'll read you one line. It says one part --
11 perhaps I would go back a line for the context:
12 "At this time the general budgets were coming from the income of
13 the municipalities. One part of this was coming from the federal
14 government as humanitarian help for the Krajina. This help was received
15 up until the time I was in the government, which was in 1994. I do not
16 know how much this was in 1991. In November 1991, this amounted to
17 15 per cent of the total budget of the SAO Krajina."
18 In the next paragraph, in paragraph 46, you say:
19 "The aid provided by the federal government was also used to pay
20 for salaries and other things, in Kordun and Banija, this was from late
22 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, could the witness be shown the statement.
23 MS. MARCUS: Yes, sure.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MS. MARCUS: It's D313.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And while we are waiting, Ms. Marcus, in view of the
2 questions that were put in relations to the pages 2 and 3 of the
3 document, I think it would be necessary to have a translation of --
4 especially of page 3 as well.
5 MS. MARCUS: We will do that, Your Honour. Thank you. So I'm
6 referring -- oh, Your Honours, can we turn to open session, please.
7 JUDGE ORIE: We return into open session.
8 [Open session]
9 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.
12 MS. MARCUS:
13 Q. Now, Mr. Bosnic, what -- I'll ask you again, then: The use of
14 the term humanitarian help is the one I'd like you to clarify. You said
15 earlier that what you meant was supplies for the civilians, but in
16 paragraphs 45 and 46 it appears you're talking about funding for
17 salaries, and I'd like to understand what you mean by "humanitarian
19 A. As I said, I mean, what I already said, and the other part which
20 was also -- dealt with the budget were financial resources to pay the
21 workers in the health, education, and other sectors which were financed
22 from the budget. Pensioners, for instance.
23 Q. Have you ever heard of the Captain Dragan Fund?
24 A. I heard about it in Belgrade after we fled.
25 Q. What did you hear about it?
1 A. I heard that Captain Dragan had set up a fund and was collecting
2 monies, resources, in order to assist wounded fighters from the areas
3 which were gripped by the war and who did not have adequate assistance.
4 Q. Did you -- were you aware of individuals applying to the
5 Captain Dragan Fund for financial support?
6 A. Well, I suppose that they did apply, otherwise the fund would not
7 have had a purpose. I was not a member of that fund nor did I apply for
8 anything from them.
9 MS. MARCUS: Could I have 65 ter 6217, please.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
11 MR. JORDASH: The same objection. We submit the Prosecution must
12 tell us what they're doing, why they're doing it, and why they're doing
13 it so late.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, any specifics in that respect?
15 MS. MARCUS: Perhaps the witness could take off his headphones
16 for a moment.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's first ask: Do you understand the
18 English language?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, I studied German and
20 Russian. I definitely do not understand English.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then could you take off your earphones.
22 Yes, Ms. Marcus.
23 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, as I mentioned earlier, it's the
24 Prosecution's case that Dusan Momcilovic is one example of a DB operative
25 who was functioning in the field in the RSK specifically in the areas and
1 at the time period that this witness is talking about. This is an
2 application to the KDF fund by Dusan Momcilovic. I was planning to show
3 two pages from this document. And then I was planning to show an
4 intercept where Milan Martic and Toso Paic speak about Dusan Momcilovic.
5 And then I was planning on showing the Kula video where Dusan Momcilovic
6 receives an award directly from Mr. Stanisic. So Dusan Momcilovic is one
7 of the unit members in the Kula video who -- now, I was planning to show
8 this to Mr. Bosnic and to demonstrate to him, to see whether he agrees,
9 that there may have been quite a lot of DB involvement, in fact, in the
10 Krajina without him being aware of it.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but always about the same personal, if I
12 understand you well?
13 MS. MARCUS: Until the Kula video, yes, Your Honour. Up to and
14 including the Kula video, sir.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, you can start with the first document.
18 The Kula video, the Chamber is it not yet convinced that that adds
19 anything at this moment, that showing it to the witness would assist us
20 any further. The first document is fine, then we'll see how matters
21 develop, and then we'll decide on the intercept.
22 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour. The mention of the Kula
23 video was also in response to Mr. Jordash's claim that they never heard
24 of Dusan Momcilovic before.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but do we need the witness to establish that,
2 MS. MARCUS: No, sir, I take your order, yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
4 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, I didn't say I hadn't heard of him before.
5 I said I didn't understand what part he played in the Prosecution case,
6 and I stand by that objection.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's proceed.
8 MS. MARCUS:
9 Q. Now, Mr. Bosnic, what you see before you, as I mentioned --
10 MS. MARCUS: Oh, perhaps he should put his headphone on.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please --
12 Yes, we proceed.
13 MS. MARCUS:
14 Q. What you see before you is a page from an application by this
15 same Dusan Momcilovic to the Captain Dragan Fund that we were just speak
16 being. I'm going to show you two pages from this and then ask you some
18 MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer please turn to page 2 in
19 English and in B/C/S.
20 Q. As you can see here, Mr. Bosnic, under the section where it says
21 "data on injury" Dusan Momcilovic states that he was commander of the
22 unit of the Special Police Unit for Krajina as of 16th of June, 1991. He
23 took part in the Corridor Operation, he says. Are you familiar with the
24 Corridor Operation?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Can you tell us, just in one line, what that operation was?
2 A. When the war broke out in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of
3 the Serbian Krajina and the area around Banja Luka could no longer
4 establish or have physical contact with Serbia. That is why the corridor
5 problem arose, in order to have access to Serbia.
6 Q. Were you aware of other individuals who took part in the
7 corridor operation?
8 A. Yes, I was.
9 Q. So am I correct when I ask you -- when I say that your evidence
10 is that you know that people applied to the Captain Dragan Fund for
11 financial support but this is the first time you're seeing an actual
12 application; is that accurate?
13 A. Yes.
14 MS. MARCUS: Could I have page 5, please.
15 Your Honours, I was just informed, unfortunately, that the
16 English translation is not yet available for this page. I will certainly
17 only seek its marking for identification from Your Honours. I do
18 apologise for that, and we'll fix that as a matter of urgency.
19 Q. Mr. Bosnic, what you see in front of you is another page from
20 this same application to the Captain Dragan Fund. This page is signed by
21 Djure Ljiljak, secretary of the Glina SUP. Are you familiar with
22 Djure Ljiljak?
23 A. The last name does ring a bell, and we probably or certainly met
24 at meetings. There was a secretary in the Glina SUP by that name.
25 Q. Were you aware that Djure Ljiljak was also a member of the
1 Serbian DB?
2 A. No, I wasn't.
3 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I would like to tender this, I suppose
4 marked for identification pending the translation of the third page.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I take it objection, the same, Mr. Jordash. That's
6 on the record.
7 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: The document will be marked for identification.
9 The number, Madam Registrar, would be ...
10 THE REGISTRAR: This would be P2996, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: P2996.
12 Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.
13 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Could I please have 65 ter 6218.
15 Q. Mr. Bosnic, what is loading on the screen before you is a
16 transcript of an intercepted conversation --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
18 MR. JORDASH: Same --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, could we ask the witness to take his earphones
20 off for a second.
21 Ms. Marcus, what are you going to elicit as evidence in relation
22 to this document from the witness?
23 MS. MARCUS: This is an intercepted conversation between
24 Milan Martic and Toso Paic where the unit commanded by Dusan Momcilovic
25 is described. Now, the witness has given quite a lot of evidence about
1 Milan Martic and Toso Paic. This links Dusan Momcilovic into the --
2 directly into the evidence that the witness gave, and I'm going to ask
3 him what is the role of the Special Police brigade that Dusan Momcilovic
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. First of all, I take it whether he has any
6 knowledge of such a unit, because if he doesn't have that -- why not ask
7 him first these questions before, whether he -- because if he doesn't
8 know anything, then I do not expect that by listening to an intercepted
9 telephone conversation that that will in any way add -- assist him in --
10 at least unless if you have good reasons to believe that this might
11 really refresh his memory and suddenly everything becomes clear to him.
12 MS. MARCUS: I will ask him about his knowledge, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let's then start with that.
14 MS. MARCUS: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed. And perhaps you take off the screen
16 for a moment the document you asked to be shown. Please proceed.
17 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, could we ask the witness, please, to
18 put back on his ...
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MS. MARCUS: Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, please proceed.
22 MS. MARCUS: Yes, sir, thank you.
23 Q. Mr. Bosnic, are you aware of a Special Police brigade in the
25 A. Yes, there was one.
1 Q. And are you aware that this was commanded by Dusan Momcilovic in
3 A. No, no.
4 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I'd like to show him the intercept to
5 see if it might refresh his memory.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
7 MR. JORDASH: I just would like to make the point that this, the
8 introduction of this document, creates potentially tens and tens of legal
9 hours of work - checking authenticity, calling evidence to challenge
10 authenticity, if that's the result of the preliminary inspection. Trying
11 to meet evidence like this this late in the day is an uphill struggle.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my objection differs
14 on what -- from Mr. Jordash's objection. The Defence of Mr. Simatovic
15 tried to present the same type of documents many times during the
16 Prosecution case and the comment of our learned colleague from the
17 Prosecution was that these were documents obtained from Croatia, that
18 they had not been fully authenticated, that they were a retold intercept,
19 in fact.
20 If the Prosecution has changed their position, if they now feel
21 that such a type of document is acceptable and suitable for use in the
22 courtroom and for being tendered as an exhibit, so if they have changed
23 their position, I should like to ask that that be noted and that that
24 also refer to the intercepts that we have proposed and we'll seek to
25 tender in the future and which belong to the same collection of
2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
3 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. At transcript page 12734 on to
4 12735, Mr. Jordash asked the witness whether he was aware -- whether he
5 might have been -- might have expected to hear about the existence of
6 more than one unit. "Please give a selection of people who you might
7 have expected to hear that from but didn't." The witnesses answer was:
8 "For the area of Kordun, I would certainly have heard it from
9 Milos or Toso Paic, from the commanders of TO staffs, or representatives
10 of the JNA at the meetings I attended."
11 Now, this was -- this, what I was going to put to the witness,
12 was directly in response to that with respect to the Special Police
13 brigade. The witness has now said that he knows about the Special Police
14 brigade --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Again, no one asked the witness to take his
16 earphones off. Could you also respond to the authenticity concern
17 Mr. Petrovic expressed.
18 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, we received the transcript of this
19 intercepted conversation from the Government of Croatia, but that is the
20 information that I have on the origin of it, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but Mr. Petrovic has said that you had objected
22 against documents obtained from Croatia. Now, I do not have a clear
23 recollection on what exactly he is referring to. Is there any -- apart
24 from that you obtained it from Croatia, is there any further evidence on
25 the authenticity and the accuracy of the --
1 MS. MARCUS: I don't have any additional information,
2 Your Honours. I would say that this would go to the weight, due to the
3 very clear import and relevance of this document directly to contradict
4 what the witness said. If Mr. Petrovic is referring to the book of
5 documents from Croatia, we objected to a book, not to the underlying
7 JUDGE ORIE: That's an entirely different matter. If you were
8 referring to the book which presents the number -- but that's not what
9 you're referring to?
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, no, no, I did not refer -- I
11 was not referring to the book. It is a document of the same type from
12 the same collection.
13 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is granted.
16 You may proceed, Ms. Marcus.
17 Well, let's have a look at the clock. It's time for a break,
18 approximately. There is one issue I would very briefly like to put on
19 the record. P2993 was assigned twice, first to 65 ter 1441 which was
20 tendered by the Prosecution through Witness DST-034 on the 7th of July,
21 and then again to 65 ter 6216 which was marked in court by
22 Witness DST-034 on the 11th of July. Therefore, the second document I
23 mentioned needs another number to be assigned to it. 6216, a document
24 marked in court by Witness DST-034 on the 11th of July and saved as
25 IC00-0032 now receives the new number P2994, and that also explains why
1 Madam Registrar today started assigning new numbers 2995.
2 We take a break, and we resume at ten minutes to 11.00.
3 --- Recess taken at 10.24 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, are you ready and are you still on
7 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I was -- I was informed that the time
8 that I've used thus far is one hour and 30 minutes -- just one hour.
9 Okay. I'm going to do my best, Your Honour. I have cut quite a lot. I
10 will do my very best. It may be that I have to go somewhat into the
11 third session. I'm very conscious of the witness's limitation,
12 Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
14 MS. MARCUS: Thank you.
15 Q. Mr. Bosnic, have you had an opportunity to think of the names of
16 any other individuals who are deployed from Kordun to Golubic for
17 training either in the first group or in the group which stayed behind to
18 continue the training?
19 A. I've told you some of the names. I'm very glad that you hold me
20 in such high esteem, actually, that you believe that I have the capacity
21 of recalling many things and events that transpired from 1990 up to this
22 point in time. I have recalled all the names that I could, so that I
23 believe any further effort on my part would be an exercise in futility.
24 I've told you all the names that I remember.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bosnic, we are short in time. So if you would
1 have said "I do not remember any other names than I gave already," that
2 is one line; whereas now it is ten lines. Could you please try to assist
3 us also in taking care that you will be able to leave in time.
4 Please proceed.
5 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. In your statement in paragraphs 58 and 59, you describe the
7 training at Golubic under Captain Dragan. In paragraph 56 you state that
8 after the first group was trained in Golubic, part of that group remained
9 at Golubic to continue to train others. You say:
10 "This group was known as the Knindzes and became a special unit
11 of the police."
12 You then say that members of the Knindzes participated in an
13 operation in Glina in 1991. Were you present at the planning meetings
14 prior to the deployment of the Knindzes to the Glina operation?
15 A. No, I wasn't.
16 Q. Your statement lists the date at September 1991. The information
17 we have is that it was in July 1991. Is that -- can you comment on the
19 A. It was actually the end of July 1991. The last week of
20 July 1991.
21 Q. So we'll take that as a correction to your statement to the
22 noting of September; is that right?
23 A. Well, if that is what I stated in the statement, then, yes, this
24 is a correction. I mixed up the dates.
25 Q. Yesterday at transcript 12729 to 12730 you were asked:
1 "Did Captain Dragan, as is claimed here, have units, in the
2 plural, or just a unit, as far as you're concerned, as far as you were
4 Your answer was:
5 "As far as I'm aware, Captain Dragan had just this one unit which
6 was called the Knindzes and which had specific patches, the Serbian coat
7 of arms with the four Ss turned upside down or in the other -- facing the
8 other direction from the regular one."
9 You then were asked by Judge Orie:
10 "How do you know about their patches?"
11 Your answer was:
12 "I never saw them in action, but these men who completed their
13 training and returned to the area of Kordun wore the uniforms of the
14 Krajina milicija. And I saw Captain Dragan in Knin and I also saw a man
15 by the name [sic] of Cigo and I saw the commander of the armoured train,
16 his name was Blagoje Guska, and they wore these uniforms and they had red
18 Mr. Bosnic, were you aware that Nikola Simic, aka Cigo or Ciga,
19 participated in the operation in Glina?
20 A. You've just reminded me of his last name. I knew him as Cigo. I
21 don't know that he participated in that action.
22 MS. MARCUS: Would the Court Officer please call up
23 Exhibit P2875.
24 Q. Mr. Bosnic, what you're going to see is a report written by
25 Nikola Simic, also known as Cigo, as you say, about the operation in
2 Now if I could call your attention to the top of the page. You
3 see the heading on the report says "The Special Purposes Unit of the
4 Republic of the Serbia SAO Krajina." Do you know if this was the special
5 purposes unit you referred to earlier as the Special Police Unit or the
7 A. Yes, Cigo was in that unit.
8 Q. As you can see here in the first line, Nikola Simic says he was
9 stationed in Glina with the special unit. Could I draw your attention to
10 a bit further down the page where it mentioned someone named
11 Sasa Medakovic. Do you know Sasa Medakovic?
12 A. No.
13 MS. MARCUS: Could I have 65 ter 6230, please, and could it --
14 well, perhaps in an abundance of caution we should move into private
15 session, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
17 [Private session]
11 Pages 12838-12842 redacted. Private session.
2 [Open session]
3 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
5 MS. MARCUS:
6 Q. Mr. Bosnic, in paragraph 25 of your statement you state that you
7 put pressure on Toso Paic to accept Milan Martic. In your testimony
8 before this Chamber, you said that you were the one to suggest Toso Paic
9 to Milan Babic as his deputy for Kordun in February 1992. Were you aware
10 that Toso Paic was an advisor to the Serbian DB chief in February 1992?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Do you have any knowledge about what Toso Paic's role was prior
13 to February 1992?
14 A. What I know from the field is that he was one of the heads of the
15 police in Kordun. From my conversations with him and Milos Pajic, I know
16 that previously he had worked in our representation offices in France
17 and, I believe, in New York.
18 Q. What was it about Toso Paic that Milos Pajic said which convinced
19 you to support Toso Paic's candidacy?
20 A. I wanted to propose Milos Pajic, who told me that instead he has
21 someone better to suggest, namely Toso Paic, as he was the most highly
22 qualified policeman in our parts of the world.
23 Q. Milos Pajic was the one who told you that Toso Paic was the most
24 highly qualified policeman or you obtained that information from other
1 A. No, that's what Milos Pajic told me. I wasn't bent on
2 double-checking that information, nor did I have the means to.
3 Q. Were you aware of any affiliation between Milos Pajic and the
4 Serbian DB?
5 A. When we fled to Serbia, I knew that Milos Pajic had become a
6 member of the DB or that he had started working for the DB in a location
7 close to Novi Sad. DB of Serbia.
8 Q. Were you aware of Milos Pajic and Toso Paic reporting on the
9 security situation in Banija and Kordun to Jovica Stanisic?
10 A. No, I wasn't interested in that.
11 MS. MARCUS: Could I have 65 ter 4432, please.
12 Q. Mr. Bosnic, when the document comes up I'm going to give you a
13 few moments to look at it and then I will ask you a few questions about
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
16 MR. JORDASH: Same objection, with the --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, could the witness take his earphones off.
18 Could you take your earphones off for a moment.
19 Ms. Marcus.
20 MS. MARCUS: This document talks about the witness. It came up
21 when we did a search.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but --
23 MS. MARCUS: Yes, sir.
24 JUDGE ORIE: -- how would I know? I mean, Mr. Jordash raises an
25 objection and you say, as if I would have read it in a second, what it's
1 all about. You say it's about this witness.
2 MS. MARCUS: Yes, I'm sorry, Your Honour. I didn't mean to imply
3 that you would have known. That's the reason for --
4 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, I have to rule on an objection, you see.
5 MS. MARCUS: Yes.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Objection is denied.
8 Please proceed.
9 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. Mr. Bosnic, have you ever seen this document before?
11 A. Can you please repeat the question. I didn't have my headphones
13 Q. Yes, my apologies. I asked you if you have ever seen this
14 document before.
15 A. No.
16 Q. In the first paragraph of your statement you speak of your
17 establishment of a Serb cultural organisation called Sava Mrkalj. The
18 "Srpski Glas" newspaper was launched by you and the other organisers of
19 Sava Mrkalj according to this article, according to this document. Is
20 that correct?
21 A. Yes, I was one of 14 or 15 founders of the Serbian cultural
22 society Sava Mrkalj and behind the launching of the first bulletin or
23 newspaper in Cyrillic script in 40 or 50 years.
24 Q. What was the aim of the publication of this article about war
25 profiteering from the time when Milan Martic was minister in 1993?
1 A. I was not active in Sava Mrkalj at the time, so I truly wouldn't
2 know either the sources or the reasons why the newspaper was published.
3 I know the author because I took him over into the "Srpski Glas"
4 editorial board after he had fled Zagreb.
5 Q. So if you were not aware of this report mentioning you, which was
6 prepared by Dusan Orlovic, you were also, I presume, not aware that
7 Franko Simatovic was receiving a copy of reports -- receiving a copy of
8 this report prepared by DB operative Dusan Orlovic?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Now, the name "Dusan Orlovic" also appeared in a report which was
11 shown to you by Mr. Jordash which is now MFI'd as D302. Can I ask you,
12 did you yourself hold any position within any intelligence agency during
13 the time you held your official government positions within the RSK?
14 A. Never. Ever since I came of age, to this day, have I worked for
15 any agency or service of anyone's of state security.
16 Q. Were there any other officials within the RSK whom you knew to be
17 carrying out covert operations with intelligence organisations such as
18 the DB?
19 A. I don't know who conducted covert operations, nor do I know of
21 MS. MARCUS: I would like to note for the record that
22 Dusan Orlovic is introduced by Mr. Stanisic to Mr. Milosevic in the
23 Kula video P61 at minutes 9:02 to 10:13.
24 Q. Mr. Bosnic, in paragraph 85 of your statement, you say that
25 during your meeting with Jovica Stanisic, Milan Martic, Milan Babic, and
1 Bora Mijkalic [phoen] in 1994 there was nothing that indicated that
2 Stanisic had any familiarity with Milan Babic or Milan Martic. Do you
3 stand by that statement?
4 A. Yes.
5 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I neglected to tender into evidence
6 65 ter 4432, please.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be ...
8 THE REGISTRAR: The number would be P2998, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections. The document is admitted
10 into evidence.
11 Please proceed.
12 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Could the Court Officer please display Exhibit P631, page 3 in
14 both English and B/C/S.
15 Q. I'm showing you a transcript of a telephone conversation between
16 Jovica Stanisic and Radovan Karadzic. This conversation took place in
17 August 1991, nearly three years before the time you say you met
18 Jovica Stanisic at that meeting.
19 Can I direct your attention, please, to where Jovica Stanisic
20 begins talking about Babic. He says that he was at Babic's for about two
21 days fighting battles with him. Do you see that in the transcript?
22 A. Yes. Yes.
23 Q. Now, would you agree that this demonstrates that there was a
24 relationship between Stanisic and Babic already from 1991?
25 A. Well, I wouldn't agree with you because I wasn't present during
1 the conversation. Babic never told me this. And this transcript is not
2 something that I can confirm. I cannot comment on this. I don't know.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, this is, of course, the answer you
4 can -- to ask the witness to draw conclusions from a document which is
5 unknown to him, not knowing about the authenticity, I mean, and so,
6 therefore, I -- the answer is as you could expect from a witness who is
7 carefully choosing his words. And let's try to elicit from the witness
8 any information, any facts he has observed or -- rather than to ask him
9 to draw conclusions of -- on documents which are unknown to him.
10 Please proceed.
11 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
12 Could the Court Officer please display Exhibit P636.
13 Q. Mr. Bosnic, according to evidence presented in this case, this
14 intercept I'm showing you now is part of a series of conversations
15 relating to the arrest of Milan Martic in Bosnia and the co-ordinated
16 efforts of Milosevic, Stanisic, Karadzic, and Babic to have Milan Martic
17 released. Could you read the first page to yourself, please.
18 As you can see from this conversation, Stanisic and Karadzic are
19 talking about the arrest of Milan Martic. Stanisic in fact informs
20 Karadzic that Martic was arrested. At this point Karadzic only seems to
21 know that Martic's men were arrested. As it turns out, Stanisic was
22 correct, Martic was also arrested with his men.
23 Were you aware of this incident when Milan Martic and a few of
24 his men were arrested near Bosanska Krupa in September 1991?
25 A. I haven't read it through to the end, but I am aware of the
1 incident. Would it be possible for me to read the latter part? I am
2 aware of the incident, as I say.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course. You've never seen this transcript
4 before, you are -- you do not know anything about telephone conversation?
5 THE WITNESS: [No verbal response]
6 JUDGE ORIE: No. Well, the only question that has been put to
7 you, and which could have been put to you even without this document, was
8 whether the witness was aware of the incident. Apparently he is.
9 Ms. Marcus.
10 MS. MARCUS: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Mr. Bosnic, do you know who was responsible for that arrest?
12 A. He was arrested by, as we were told, by either the village guards
13 or the police in Bosanska Krupa because the leaders were avoiding the
14 area of Croatia and therefore crossed or travelled through Bosnia and
15 Herzegovina. The Muslims, specifically.
16 Q. Do you know how he was released?
17 A. I don't know that. We were just informed that the intervention
18 of people from Bosnia and Herzegovina and the army had been released.
19 When I say Bosnia and Herzegovina, I mean the Serbian SDS.
20 MS. MARCUS: I'm done with this document. Thank you.
21 Q. Mr. Bosnic, you have presented yourself as having been a very
22 close professional associate and personal friends of Mr. Babic. As you
23 know, evidence presented by Milan Babic before this Tribunal in other
24 cases is now admitted into evidence in this trial. We have 388 pages of
25 testimony of Milan Babic from the Milosevic case, 75 pages from Krajisnik
1 case, and 172 pages from the Martic case. In all that evidence, your
2 name came up only twice, put to Babic by Mr. Milosevic in relation to
3 your unfortunate arrest and mistreatment. Now, there was a stark
4 contrast between the way you represent your close collaboration with
5 Mr. Babic and his failure to bring up your name even once in these
6 trials. Can you comment upon that?
7 A. After the last talk, when Babic said that he would Drag everybody
8 else into the mud, we never saw each other again. And I suppose that he
9 knew that I was against his reacting in that fashion.
10 As regards my acquaintanceship and friendship with Dr. Babic, you
11 could have checked that with people from the Krajina, the top leadership
12 of the Krajina, of the SDS. All of them would have told you that
13 Mile Bosnic was one of the closest associates and friends of
14 Milan Babic's, especially as of the end of 1991 and the Vance Plan, that
15 he came to see him officially and on friendly visits, that he spent
16 nights in Slunj, et cetera, and so on and so forth.
17 Q. When was the last time you saw Mr. Babic before this conversation
18 where he talked about coming to The Hague?
19 A. We did not see each other again after that. And I found out from
20 Dusan Vjestica that he had gone to The Hague.
21 Q. I would like to know about the meeting you had before that, so
22 between the war time and when Mr. Babic went to The Hague.
23 A. We saw each other quite frequently. I would go to see him in his
24 aunt's flat at Altina [phoen], in Zemun. We tried to restore the work of
25 the SDS because as a party we were also registered in Serbia.
1 Q. What time-period are you talking about, please?
2 A. The period from my arrival, i.e., expulsion from the Krajina,
3 onwards, meaning from August 1995 to the -- this last encounter. And it
4 was not just I who attended those meetings. For a while we continued
5 working in Belgrade as an exile government, a government in exile. We
6 had our offices at 5 Terazije Street.
7 Q. Are you aware that Milan Babic pled guilty to the charges which
8 were the subject of the indictment against him?
9 A. Yes, I followed that via the media and TV.
10 Q. So you may also be aware, then, are you, that due to the plea,
11 although the Prosecution recommended imprisonment of no more than
12 11 years, the Trial Chamber was not bound by that recommendation, and so
13 when Babic pled guilty, he was aware that he could be convicted to a life
14 sentence as a result of his guilty plea? Are you aware of that?
15 A. Well, I suppose that that is so, but I believe that he had some
16 sort of an agreement with the Prosecution. It does strike me as
17 unbelievable that he would admit to anything of that kind and then be
18 given a life sentence.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, the Chamber wonders how relevant it is,
20 especially if you don't have much time.
21 MS. MARCUS: Understood, Your Honour.
22 Q. Mr. Bosnic, yesterday when you were asked if you ever saw
23 Mr. Stanisic after 1994, you said:
24 "Not until I was called to testify to the events happening in the
25 Krajina and Croatia for the Defence."
1 Can you just clarify for us when was it then that you met
2 Mr. Stanisic in relation to being called to testify in his defence?
3 A. I cannot recall the exact time.
4 Q. Can you tell us where that meeting was?
5 A. This encounter took place in an office, where there were -- there
6 was this attorney at law, a lady. It is on the Sava River, I believe.
7 And there are some caravans that serve as lawyer's offices there. There
8 I met on two occasions also with the gentleman from the Defence team. I
9 don't know what the area name is.
10 Q. And you say that Mr. Stanisic was present at those meetings?
11 A. He was present at the first meeting.
12 Q. Do you remember which year that was?
13 A. It seems to me that it was in 2003.
14 Q. Did you meet with Mr. Stanisic any time between 2003 and coming
15 to court to testify here?
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. Can you tell us the circumstances of that meeting, please.
18 A. I talked with the attorney at law, a lady from the team, and
19 Jovica Stanisic was passing by there. We said hello, we greeted each
20 other, kissed each other. He said that he had been on a vacation or
21 leave and would be returning to The Hague and I did not talk to him any
22 longer because he did not look very well to me.
23 Q. Can you tell us what year that was?
24 A. I'm not sure. I believe that there is a reference to my
25 conversation with that lady. I don't know what her exact role in the
1 team was, but the lady's surname is Zafirovic.
2 Q. Were there any other occasions where you met with Mr. Stanisic?
3 A. No, not that I recall.
4 Q. Mr. Bosnic, this Trial Chamber granted you safe conduct for your
5 passage through Croatia to protect you from being arrested at the
6 airport. Can you tell us what the pending charges are against you?
7 A. As many other Serbs, I'm on an INTERPOL wanted circular, and they
8 all, about 1.500 of them, are charged with alleged war crimes. Me
9 specifically for war crimes in Slunj.
10 Q. Have you appeared in court to answer to these charges?
11 A. I appeared in a court in Belgrade, as there exists an agreement
12 between Croatia and Serbia. And I could see from the case file that an
13 investigation has been opened against me in my regard, and I gave a
14 statement pursuant to the document that had arrived there from Croatia.
15 Q. How long were you aware of these pending charges against you?
16 A. Since the investigation was initiated.
17 Q. Was that in -- what year was that? Was that 2004?
18 A. According to the information which I saw in the documentation
19 sent Veritas, that was sometime in July or June 2003.
20 Q. Now, as far as we know, included in the allegations against you
21 is that as president of the Slunj municipality War Presidency you
22 instituted a policy obliging the Croatian residents of Slunj municipality
23 to wear a white ribbon. Did you institute such a policy?
24 A. No.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, if we ask a witness questions about
1 facts he's charged with abroad, then it should be clear to the witness
2 that he could invoke his right not to incriminate himself.
3 Mr. Bosnic, apparently you are charged with that. Now, I inform
4 you that someone who is suspected of, accused of certain behaviour has
5 under all circumstances a right not to incriminate himself. So, for
6 example, well, you've answered the question, and you said that you did
7 not institute such a policy, however, if you would have, for example,
8 confirmed that you had done so, that might be considered as
9 incriminating, an answer that would incriminate yourself. And I, for
10 that reason, inform you that if you have any concern that by answering a
11 question in accordance with the truth, that that might incriminate
12 yourself, that you could address me and ask not to be under an obligation
13 to answer that question. Is that clear to you?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is absolutely clear. Thank you,
15 Your Honour, but I have no problem with this. I've already given my
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I leave it to you, but I wanted to inform you
18 about this right and possible consequences.
19 You may proceed, Ms. Marcus.
20 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And I think it would have been appropriate that you
22 would have raised this issue as well, isn't it?
23 MS. MARCUS: You're correct, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
25 MS. MARCUS:
1 Q. Mr. Bosnic, the allegations also allege that you put the non-Serb
2 population to forced labour. Do you confirm that the non-Serb population
3 in Slunj municipality were put to forced labour?
4 A. It was not any forced labour of any kind. It was the work
5 obligation that every civilian was subject to, all civilians in the area
6 of the municipality of Slunj and the Croatians were no exception.
7 Q. Did you institute a policy of banning freedom of movement without
8 passes provided by the Slunj --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
10 MS. MARCUS: Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I'm going to interrupt you. What you are doing, you
12 are going apparently through the whole of the indictment. I haven't seen
13 it, but you want to go with him step by step. Let's take a different
15 Do you deny -- or do you admit to any of the charges in the
16 allegations that were brought against you? Are you -- first question is:
17 Are you familiar with them?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours, and perhaps what
19 you have proposed would be more efficient in terms of economising with
20 the time. But if you allow me, I would like to say a couple of sentences
21 about the indictment itself to shed more light on that particular matter.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I leave that to Ms. Marcus, whether she thinks
23 it's important or otherwise. At the end of your testimony you could ask
24 for a minute to give your observations in that respect.
25 Ms. Marcus, the easiest way of dealing with the matter is to
1 inform the Chamber about what the charges are or what the allegations
2 are. And we hear that Mr. Bosnic is denying all of them. And that comes
3 out of the answers in your approach as well, it seems.
4 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour. Then I would -- I fully
5 agree. Could I have tendered into evidence, then, the criminal report
6 from the Karlovac Crime Police Department, which is uploaded as
7 65 ter 6221. It's also been translated into English, and it contains the
8 allegations against the witness. And if that's admitted, I don't need to
9 ask the witness any more questions. It's to inform the Chamber of what
10 the full allegations are.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections? No objections.
12 Madam Registrar, the number for 65 ter 6221, which is now
13 tendered from the bar table is ...
14 THE REGISTRAR: P2999, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Before I say one more word: Mr. Petrovic, you
16 apparently wanted to say something.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise. This
18 is the first time I see this document. I should like it made clear that
19 this is a police document, not a court document. This is the criminal
20 complaint from the MUP of the Republic of Croatia against Mr. Bosnic.
21 JUDGE ORIE: If it's only now that your attention has been drawn
22 do it, then I would mark it for identification. You have another day or
23 until early next week to raise any objections if you wish to do so.
24 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, can I just note this was among the
25 original documents that we released for the witness 48 hours ago.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If that's the case, then, Mr. Petrovic, it's
2 clear that you bring to our attention that it's a police document and not
3 a court document, and --
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] This is all I wanted to say,
5 Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: If that's all, then we admit P2999 into evidence
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not know that it was a police
10 document because there is a difference between what was written on the
11 wanted circular of INTERPOL and what came in Belgrade. On the INTERPOL
12 wanted circular it is stated that I am a suspect and that I ordered
13 murderers, and the document -- the official document which came from the
14 investigating judge of Karlovac to Belgrade does not make any such
15 allegations. It's just that I forced them to work, that I evicted them,
16 et cetera. So these are two different documents. The police document is
17 the older document, and it is not authentic in the sense that changes
18 occurred subsequently.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps best would be, then, that we get the
20 sequence of documents that were issued so that we can also see whether it
21 developed. Of course now I ask myself whether it was wise what I did.
22 MS. MARCUS: May I make a comment, Your Honour, respectfully?
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
24 MS. MARCUS: That report does contain those more serious
25 allegations that the witness is talking about. I do think we can -- it's
1 only fair for the witness to receive a copy of it. We can provide him
2 with one, he can see what's coming in, and then maybe he can have an
3 opportunity later to give a comment on it.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is there a possibly that he receives it at the
5 next break?
6 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then I am looking at the other parties as well.
8 That would be fair to the witness, I would say.
9 You'll receive the document Ms. Marcus asked questions about and
10 you can read it during the first break. But you would like to make
11 another observation. Please.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am aware of that document. It
13 was on the basis of that document that the wrong man was arrested in
14 London and he was in detention for 14 days. After they realised that he
15 was the wrong man, the investigating magistrate wrote a new document
16 which arrived in court in Belgrade, and I was summoned by the war crimes
17 court in Belgrade to state my view on the second document, meaning that
18 the first one was no longer valid.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if we could receive full information about
20 that would perhaps be better, because I'm a bit surprised to hear that a
21 magistrate in England then phrases new allegations which would then be.
22 That would come as a bit of a surprise to me. But you have an
23 opportunity -- you'll have an opportunity at the end to say something
24 about it.
25 It's -- Ms. Marcus, the more complete you inform the Chamber
1 about the sequence of events court in and out court, the better it would
3 Mr. Petrovic.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise, I
5 believe perhaps not everything was carefully translated. I didn't
6 understand the witness the way you understood him, that it was a
7 magistrate in London who took some legal steps. Maybe I misunderstood
8 it. Perhaps for the sake of your proper understanding that should be
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I interpreted in relation to London being
11 mentioned and magistrate. I know that extradition cases are heard by
12 Magistrates' Court, I think it is in -- I think even it's supposed to be,
13 but I'm -- that's -- so I may have been mistaken.
14 Do I understand that the allegations brought against you were
15 phrased again after what you told us happened in London with the wrong
16 person being arrested and that there was a new document containing the
17 allegations that are brought against you in Belgrade? Is that correct?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After this man was released in
19 London and when the Croats withdrew their wanted circular because they
20 had arrested the wrong man, it was in Karlovac, in Croatia, from where
21 the MUP originally came for the INTERPOL wanted circular. It was the
22 investigating judge in Karlovac who changed the allegations from the
23 investigation and deleted the portion which was in the wanted circular.
24 So that document from Karlovac arrived in the war crimes tribunal
25 in Belgrade, and on the basis of that document I gave my statement. And
1 as I had both documents, it is evident that the -- that part from the
2 first document which alleged that I had arrested people and ordered
3 murders was deleted, and the second document arriving in the court in
4 Belgrade did not contain any such parts.
5 But I understood that Madam Prosecutor wanted to use this first
6 part which was contained in the wanted circular.
7 MS. MARCUS: Okay, Your Honour, this is part of the issue of the
8 RFA response. Just to clarify: We had some information, we got other
9 information. I tried my best to make selections to put to the witness
10 some of the allegations. It seems only fair, if this is the case, which
11 I was not aware of that part, that we search more and see whether we can
12 find those additional documents and then provide them.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Just to summarise, something happened in London,
14 could you tell us when that happened? You were talking about an arrest.
15 When was that?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That happened in February. A man
17 was arrested by the same name as mine --
18 JUDGE ORIE: February of what year? This year?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And I do understand that after that happened that
21 the charges against you were phrased newly in Karlovac and then sent to
23 Ms. Marcus, which means that any pending charges or allegations
24 which date back from any earlier than February 2011 seem not to be the --
25 the most accurate. And therefore I think that it would be good that if
1 there's any new document that we would receive the newest versions.
2 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Now it's easier for the hundreds of pages, you first
4 look at the date.
5 Yes, Mr. Jordash.
6 MR. JORDASH: And perhaps the Prosecution would also like to
7 disclose the documentation they have in relation to this witness.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 Ms. Marcus --
10 MS. MARCUS: Yes, we will do so.
11 JUDGE ORIE: -- I do know that you received it only very
12 recently, but since the Defence is able to read B/C/S, perhaps you
13 already copy the originals to them.
14 And do I understand that whether all charges brought against you,
15 I would say there the more serious ones, but also the new allegations,
16 that you deny all these allegations as far as you are concerned; is that
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely. But this shows that I
19 was obviously -- I became the subject of interest or was targeted after I
20 was called to appear as a witness in the Milosevic case. What I -- in
21 relation to these allegations, I can say that I deny them all.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, whether it shows that or not is your opinion.
23 Let's proceed.
24 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Could I please have 65 ter 6236. For the Court's information,
1 this is a document signed by the witness.
2 Q. Mr. Bosnic, we don't -- unfortunately we don't have an English
3 translation completed for this. Could I ask you to read to us the first
4 line of this document and so that the interpreters can translate that
5 into English, please.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, you are aware that this is only
7 exceptionally, and perhaps for one line, because that's not how we work.
8 You know that. I would stress that that is not the system in this
9 Tribunal. The translations are prepared by CLSS, and interpretation is
10 provided by CLSS but usually it's not for the interpreters to act as
12 MS. MARCUS: I understand, Your Honour. I apologise to the
13 interpreters. It's because we have this document signed by the witness
14 and unfortunately the translation is not ready yet, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Exceptionally, unless I hear strong opposition from
16 the booth. And if we are talking about only one or two lines, then it's
18 Mr. Petrovic.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, one intervention
20 which is all the more important since there's no translation. The
21 document was designated as an order by Mile Bosnic.
22 THE INTERPRETER: The microphone is off. Counsel's microphone is
24 JUDGE ORIE: If you don't switch on your microphone, then,
25 Mr. Petrovic, we'll not hear what you want to tell us.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Your Honour. What I
2 want to say is important all the more so since there's no translation in
3 e-court. The document was described as an order, and we will see that it
4 is not an order. It is something else. And this is important because we
5 don't have a translation.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just check. One second?
7 MS. MARCUS: I believe it says "apel [phoen]," which I think
8 means "call."
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I was just wondering who used the word "order."
10 You said a document ... okay, let's -- we'll carefully look at -- apart
11 from the first lines, if the title of the document could be read by the
12 witness as well.
13 Could you please read aloud apparently from where it starts as,
14 Ms. Marcus said, "apel." Does it read "apel" and could you then please
15 read the -- if you confirm that, read the two following lines.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: You are confirming it. Could you please read aloud
18 the two lines that follow, and please slowly.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "The Serbs of Kordun, the
20 municipality of Slunj is free, there are no more Ustashas, the town is
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, please proceed.
23 MS. MARCUS: Thank you.
24 Q. And then could you please also read aloud the last line of the
1 JUDGE ORIE: Last paragraph, I take it?
2 MS. MARCUS: Yes, sir.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Last paragraph, please, could you read that aloud as
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I just say something. If I
6 read the first two sentences without the third sentence, then a
7 completely different meaning will come across, so can I read the third
8 sentence before I read the last one?
9 JUDGE ORIE: You may do so.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Come, help us revitalise Slunj
11 which is yours and ours."
12 Now I'm reading the end:
13 "Come help us. By helping us you will be helping yourselves for
14 you will never again be refugees and you will also be helping the
15 Republic of the Serbian Krajina and its reconstruction and defence."
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.
17 MS. MARCUS:
18 Q. Mr. Bosnic, do you confirm that you wrote this call?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. It appears that this document is a call to the Serbs from Slunj
21 who have fled to return, to rebuild the municipality; is that accurate?
22 A. Yes. It's also a call to the Serbs who had moved out of these
23 areas earlier on, who were in various towns.
24 Q. In the first line you said there are no more Ustasha; does that
25 mean by this date there were no Croats or almost no Croats remaining in
1 the territory of the newly formed Serb municipality of Slunj?
2 A. It reads clearly the "Ustashas." That's how we referred to the
3 Croatian paramilitary, the Croatian National Guards Corps, and the
4 police. We did not refer by that name to the Croatian people.
5 Q. Why did you think it was important to include that line in this
6 call to the Serbs to return?
7 A. Because the Croatian army was no longer there. The message was
8 that they could feel safe. You have to know that in July and August of
9 1991 the Serbs fled the town of Slunj precisely because of the presence
10 of the National Guards Corps and the police and the mistreatment they
11 inflicted, job losses, et cetera.
12 Q. At this date that you issued this call, do you know how many
13 ethnic Croatians, ethnic Croats there were in Slunj municipality?
14 A. I didn't draw up a list. But in the town proper, in the
15 surrounding villages, Svitovic [phoen], et cetera, it depended. Some
16 were more, some were less. However, the majority of the Croatian people,
17 together with the army, that's to say, with the National Guards Corps,
18 and the police left Slunj between the 15th and the 16th of November,
19 1991, due to the clashes with the JNA and the Territorial Defence.
20 MS. MARCUS: Could I have this document admitted into evidence,
22 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections.
23 Madam Registrar.
24 THE REGISTRAR: The number would be Exhibit P3000, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
1 Mr. Bosnic, could I ask you one question. You said: "It reads
2 clearly the 'Ustashas.' That's how we referred to the Croatian
3 paramilitary, the Croatian National Guards Corps, and the police," and
4 you did not refer by that name to the Croatian people. Is it your
5 testimony that the word "Ustasha" was never used as derogatory term to
6 refer to Croats in more general terms, including both civilians perhaps
7 with a memory to what happened in the Second World War or but you say the
8 term "Ustasha" was -- "Ustashas" was exclusively referring to these
9 National Guards Corps and the police and never for civilians?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely in order to make that
11 distinction as had been made during World War II. It was the criminals
12 who committed crimes and not the Croats. The term Ustasha is synonymous
13 of all their armed formations because the beginning of the rule of the
14 HDZ was connected to their invocation of the Ustasha iconography. Had I
15 meant the entire Croat people, I would have written that.
16 JUDGE ORIE: How you intended to use the word is not exactly the
17 same as what the term refers to also if used by others. And I was just
18 exploring the general understanding of the term Ustashas. And you say
19 it's generally only a reference to -- well, let's say, to the armed
20 people who commit crimes and not as a derogatory expression including all
21 Croats. Thank you, please proceed.
22 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Could the Court Officer please display Exhibit P2673.
24 Q. While that's loading, Mr. Bosnic, yesterday at transcript
25 pages 12730, 12732, and 12773, you testify about a certain armoured
1 train. You said that it belonged to the Knindza unit and was commanded
2 by a man named Blagoje Guska. You were asked whether it had any defence
3 significance and you responded:
4 "No, it was more of a support to boost the morale of the local
5 population. I don't know that it was used in any operation."
6 I'd like to show you the document on the screen in front of you.
7 Now, this document actually discusses three trains. It says that each
8 train had a gun crew -- or would have, I should say, would have a gun
9 crew. The first train was to be stationed at Benkovac, the second at
10 Golubic, and the third at Gracac. You testified that Blagoje Guska
11 commanded the train, and by the way, Mr. Babic provided that evidence as
13 Now, this document says that the train stationed at Golubic was
14 to be set up and protected by the TO commander Milan Dragisic. So my
15 question to you is whether the train that you knew of which was commanded
16 by Guska was the one that was under the responsibility of Dragisic or did
17 Guska command one of the other two?
18 A. I knew from conversations with individuals in Knin -- or, rather,
19 I was told only about that one. I was told that there was one train and
20 that it was under the command of Blagoje Guska, who this gentleman is.
21 And whether there were indeed three trains, I don't know. I didn't say
22 that. I stand by my statement. What I know relates to one train. I
23 never went to see it. I don't know where it was stationed.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, there may be some confusion. This is a
25 document about plans and you dealt with the matter almost as if these
1 plans were implemented. That, at least, does not follow from the
2 document and may explain answers the witness gave. I just want to draw
3 your attention to that.
4 MS. MARCUS: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. So, Mr. Bosnic, did you know of any role of TO commander
6 Milan Dragisic in relation to the train that you know about?
7 A. No. I didn't know that the man was a chief nor was I interested
8 in that at that point.
9 Q. Mr. Bosnic, did you know that it was Franko Simatovic's idea to
10 have an armoured train, that he requested as much, and that he was
11 directly involved in the manufacture of the armoured train?
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Can our learned friend lay the
15 foundation for this statement.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
17 MS. MARCUS: I was asking the witness if he knew. I was asking
18 the witness about his knowledge.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At the same time, Ms. Marcus, you may be aware
20 that you only ask such a question from a witness if there are reasonable
21 grounds. I mean, you can't ask the witness, Are you aware that one of my
22 colleagues was drunk yesterday evening? That's -- you need - I did not
23 point at any of your colleagues - but, no, you need some basis for
24 putting such a question to a witness. And I think that it does not have
25 to be established but at least there should be a clue which makes the
1 question a reasonable question, and I think that that's what Mr. Petrovic
2 is seeking.
3 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour. I will do that.
4 Just to let you know, I only have a few more questions, so I
5 think we can finish before the break, if Your Honours --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if that's a matter of a limited number of
7 minutes, then I would allow you to do so.
8 Also looking at the Stanisic Defence. No strong objections,
10 MS. MARCUS: Yes, thank you.
11 Q. Okay. Mr. Bosnic, there has been evidence presented in this case
12 that it was Franko Simatovic's idea to have an armoured train, that he
13 requested as much, and that he was directly involved in the manufacture
14 of the train. Were you aware of any of Franko Simatovic's roles in
15 relation to the armoured train?
16 A. No. I heard it for the first time from you. According to what I
17 know, it was workers of Tvik and the railways who manufactured it. And
18 to say anything else, I believe, would be improper on my part.
19 MR. JORDASH: Sorry to leap up. Would Your Honours mind breaking
20 for a break now.
21 JUDGE ORIE: For a break now. How much more minutes would you
22 need, Ms. Marcus, after the break?
23 MS. MARCUS: Three or four.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Three our four. Then I stick to that. The
25 advantage of taking the break later is that there's a time-limit.
1 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, if it's just three or four minutes, I think
2 Mr. Stanisic would be fine with that. Sorry, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: If that's -- but then I look at the clock,
4 Ms. Marcus. I very strictly look at it. Please proceed.
5 MS. MARCUS: Yes, thank you.
6 And thank you to Mr. Stanisic.
7 Q. I'd like to take you now to one last part of the document. The
8 last part of the document states that the third train would have the
9 capability to target and attack Lovinac. Are you aware that in fact
10 Lovinac was indeed attacked by this armoured train?
11 A. It reads here that this is a project and that it will perhaps be
12 able to do so if it's manufactured. I don't know if it was followed up.
13 JUDGE ORIE: The question was whether you are aware that in fact
14 Lovinac was indeed attacked by an armoured or by this - or by an armoured
15 train, I take it, Ms. Marcus - are you aware of such an attack by an
16 armoured train on Lovinac?
17 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, Your Honour, I'd object to the formulation
18 of the question. My learned friend presents it as if it's truth and yet
19 avoids saying whether that is the Prosecution case or not. It's unfair
20 to present it in this way. The Prosecution should pin their colours to
21 the mast and say, This is our case, what do you have to say about it.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you have say -- you have to put to the witness
23 what your case is. If the witness contradicts that case and if you are
24 eliciting evidence, well, if you have not heard yet the answer on this
25 question, then of course we would not know whether the answer would
1 contradict the case.
2 MR. JORDASH: But then the question should not be put as if it's
3 truth. It should be put as a suggestion.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Let's just -- okay. Are you aware of any attack by
5 an armoured train - and I made already the distinction between "the" and
6 "an" - an armoured train on Lovinac?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.
8 JUDGE ORIE: You're not aware?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please, Ms. Marcus.
11 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 I note for the record that the attack on Lovinac by the armoured
13 train and the involvement of Franko Simatovic was discussed by JF-039.
14 Thank you, Mr. Bosnic, I have no further questions.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Marcus. We'll take a break. I am
16 looking at the parties. If we would resume at 10 minutes to 1.00, is
17 there a fair expectation that we would be able to conclude the testimony
18 of this witness today?
19 Mr. Jordash, could you give us a time estimate?
20 And perhaps first Mr. Petrovic's.
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't think I need
22 more than five minutes, if at all.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 Mr. Jordash.
25 MR. JORDASH: Inasmuch as we can re-examine, and we can't
1 re-examine fully because of the late notice, then I think we are only
2 going to need about 15 or 20 minutes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then --
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise for
5 interrupting. I do believe that we will now be given documents relating
6 to the witness and that may affect the five minutes that I've just
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll see how that affects. And if,
9 finally -- of course the Prosecution received the documents only very
10 recently, if that would ever cause at a later stage the need for
11 re-calling the witness, then we'll consider that. But let's try to see
12 how far we come today.
13 MR. JORDASH: Just for the record, my complaint is not these
14 documents, although it's part of it; my complaint is the documents that
15 have been admitted which are new.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see that it's both of our documents, the one
17 that's newly to be provided, the others are the ones used. And for
18 completeness of the record: The ones used is the Stanisic Defence and
19 the ones newly provided is the Simatovic Defence.
20 We take a break, and we resume at ten minutes to 1.00.
21 [The witness stands down]
22 --- Recess taken at 12.24 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 12.53 p.m.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I was informed that the Defence, I take it
25 Stanisic Defence, would like to make a brief submission in relation to
1 Rule 90(H). Mr. Jordash, we have 55 minutes left. I need your attention
2 for five to ten minutes at the end of this session. Therefore, I would
3 advise you to see whether you could make your submissions in four
4 minutes. Is that possible?
5 MR. JORDASH: I can do that.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please.
7 MR. JORDASH: It's simply this: That we submit the Prosecution
8 have failed pursuant to 90(H)(ii) to put their case to this witness. In
9 sum we would say a reasonable appraisal of the Prosecution's examination
10 would never have given this witness a clear indication or even barely a
11 glimmer of what their case is against Mr. Stanisic. What is it the
12 Prosecution say Mr. Stanisic did that this witness could clearly comment
14 In our submission, the Prosecution failed to put to the witness
15 the alleged role of the Council for National Resistance, to be found at
16 paragraph 26 of the Prosecution pre-trial brief. They failed to put that
17 the DB controlled the council and provoked military confirmation in
18 Croatia, again paragraph 26 of the pre-trial brief. The Prosecution
19 failed to put that the accused Mr. Stanisic, supported by Milosevic and
20 Martic, established a parallel military structure in the SAO Krajina,
21 paragraph 29 of the pre-trial brief. The Prosecution failed to put that
22 Simatovic remained in Knin to set up the training centre in Golubic with
23 Dragan and Stanisic would continue to visit the region regularly,
24 paragraph 53 of the pre-trial brief. The Prosecution failed to put
25 paragraph 85 or anything related to that of the pre-trial brief in
1 relation to the arming, financing, supply, and support of the SAO Krajina
2 police; including Simatovic transporting weapons and ammunition;
3 including Stanisic and Bogdanovic arranging such supplies; including the
4 supply of arms, equipment, uniforms, the SAO Krajina, and so on. In
5 relation to the new evidence of Dusan Momcilovic, there's nothing in the
6 indictment about that man. There's nothing in the pre-trial brief about
7 that man. There's nothing that has been disclosed to the Defence other
8 than he received an award at the Kula ceremony to indicate what it is
9 that man is alleged to have done and what relationship Mr. Stanisic had
10 to him and what Mr. Stanisic did to elicit action from that man which is
11 relevant to the charges.
12 In our submission, the Prosecution have avoided the principal
13 planks of the case against Mr. Stanisic and have not given this witness
14 an opportunity to deal with it. And I would, first of all, like that to
15 be on the record because I think it's significant, I think it's legally
16 significant, and it will be the be subject of our comment in a closing
17 brief that witnesses are not being given an opportunity to deal with the
18 Prosecution case.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, I have one question for you before I give
20 an opportunity to briefly respond. The Prosecution is under an
21 obligation to put the nature of the case of the party for whom that
22 counsel appears which is in contradiction of the evidence given by the
24 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Now, if a witness says, Mr. Momcilovic, don't know
1 him, I've got no idea. Even if it would be part of the Prosecution's
2 case that Mr. Momcilovic played an important role in some respects, would
3 that trigger that obligation or would you say, No, it doesn't contradict
4 it, it only -- the witness has no knowledge about it, so that even you
5 are one step earlier in the cross-examination of a witness who is able to
6 give evidence relevant for the case of the cross-examining party, it
7 seems that the witness in that respect, although questioned about it,
8 that perhaps despite the expectation of the Prosecution is unable to give
9 evidence in support of the Prosecution because he doesn't know him.
10 MR. JORDASH: Well --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, the analysis of what Rule 90(H)(ii)
12 exactly tells us, I'm just trying to find out -- apparently you take the
13 position if a witness says, I don't know anything about that, that
14 nevertheless the Prosecution would be under an obligation to put the role
15 of Mr. Momcilovic to the witness?
16 MR. JORDASH: Well, I accept that the issue relating to
17 Momcilovic is in a slightly different category.
18 JUDGE ORIE: It's one of them, but for other matters. Let's
19 then --
20 MR. JORDASH: But I do have a response to that, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.
22 MR. JORDASH: And the response is this: That the Prosecution
23 have never indicated to the Defence what their case is because it's not
24 in the indictment and the pre-trial -- but it's simply --
25 JUDGE ORIE: But that's a different matter.
1 MR. JORDASH: No, it's the same matter. Because of course the
2 Prosecution can only ask the witness, Do you know Momcilovic, and the
3 witness, without context, may say no. The point of the Prosecution
4 disclosing the case to the Defence is so that the Prosecution then put to
5 a witness what their case is and give the witness an opportunity to deal
6 with it. They can't avoid that by simply not disclosing what their case
7 is on a particular issue and asking a question which is suspended in
8 mid-air and a witness saying, Well, I don't know anything about it him.
9 Well, he might have known something about him if first of all the
10 Prosecution had disclosed what their case was on the -- to the Defence
11 and thereafter made it quite clear to the witness. But I accept --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you -- apparently you are less strict in your
13 interpretation than counsel appears which is in contradiction of the
14 evidence given by the witness. That's -- there is -- apparently that
15 might be the clue of your objections and your notice given that -- of
17 Now, I did something perhaps I shouldn't have done, that I
18 started responding where I think Ms. Marcus was the first one to.
19 Ms. Marcus, Mr. Jordash has brought to our attention that in his
20 view you failed to fulfill your obligations.
21 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. I'm very conscious of the time,
22 so I'll put very briefly what our position is and I would hope for an
23 opportunity to elaborate on this in whatever format Your Honours see fit.
24 The Prosecution submits that Rule 90(H) is an evidentiary rule to
25 guide the examination of a witness. It is a mechanism to ensure that a
1 witness understands the full import of the question asked of him. It is
2 not a rule which obliges a party to read to a witness every aspect of its
3 pre-trial brief. Now, I have jurisprudence and support of this. I can
4 give one very quick example and then I will be very happy, as I said, to
5 make further submissions later on, either orally or in writing.
6 If Mr. Smith says -- if I ask Mr. Smith, Did you come to this --
7 I want to know whether Mr. Smith worked -- I want to prove that he worked
8 at the ICTY, and I ask him, Did you come to this building, to the ICTY,
9 on a certain date? And the witness says yes. And then afterwards I make
10 an argument that he worked at the ICTY. I haven't put my full case to
11 him on that question. It's not fair to Mr. Smith because he doesn't know
12 that what I'm asking him is did he work there, when I only asked him did
13 he come there.
14 So our submission is that that is an example of why -- what the
15 purpose of this rule is; not to confuse a witness, to make sure the
16 witness understands the full import of the question asked of him. And I
17 our submission is that we have done that completely, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I will briefly discuss with my colleagues what
19 we'll do now. You have put something on the record, Mr. Jordash,
20 Ms. Marcus has responded to it. Let's see how we proceed. One second,
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash has put something on the record.
24 Ms. Marcus has responded to that. The matter, I would say, mainly comes
25 down to an interpretation of what exactly the obligations are under
1 Rule 90(H)(ii). The Chamber invites the parties to make written
2 submissions in that respect and then of course we'll read what is in
3 those submissions and then proceed as appropriate in light of those
5 And the witness may now be escorted into the courtroom.
6 [The witness takes the stand]
7 JUDGE ORIE: I think the usual sequence is that Mr. Petrovic goes
8 first so as to be able to add any questions triggered by the Prosecution.
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Cross-examination by Mr. Petrovic:
13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Witness, I have several questions for you.
14 In the second half of 1990 and in 1991 when the Republic of
15 Croatia changed its state symbols and placed a checkerboard on them, how
16 did the Serb population of Kordun, Banija, Lika, and Northern Dalmatia
17 respond to that? What was their reaction to the checkerboard having been
18 placed in the official state emblems of Croatia?
19 A. Well, a sense of revolt and fear at the same time because that
20 sort of symbol called back to their minds the regime of Ante Pavelic and
21 the independent state of Croatia that existed during World War II.
22 Q. Thank you. Is it conceivable to you, witness, that the Serb
23 police or the Serb Territorial Defence would place on their documents a
24 stamp bearing a checkerboard in this period of 1991?
25 A. Well, no, it would be inconceivable to the people as a whole.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown P2673.
2 We've seen it a moment ago. And can the stamp be enlarged as far as it
4 Q. And I would like to direct the witness's attention to the centre
5 of the stamp. Can you recognise the stamp? I do admit it's difficult,
6 but try, if you can. I'm interested in the centre of the stamp only.
7 A. It's quite difficult for me to tell. It's very smudged.
8 Q. Does not the centre of the stamp remind you of a checkerboard?
9 A. You mean the blots there?
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. Perhaps that's way the stamp looks the way it does. Perhaps it
12 was affixed in such a way as not to appear clearly because that would
13 collide with --
14 Q. Can recognise it now, the checkerboard in the centre of the
15 stamp? If not, say so.
16 A. I can't make out anything at all.
17 Q. Thank you. Let me put the question this way: Does this coat of
18 arms remind you of a Serb coat of arms?
19 A. No.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, I have
21 no --
22 MS. MARCUS: This is truly --
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions.
24 MS. MARCUS: The Defence is asking the witness questions about a
25 smudge and he says he can't make anything out at all, so I'm not sure how
1 this helps in any way.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the witness was unable to identify what was in
3 the centre of the stamp, and I think that at that moment further
4 questions were at a risk to provide the same answers, which actually
6 At the same time, Mr. Petrovic, you were very short. That is
7 appreciated. If there's no more to be asked from the witness, the fact
8 that it could even have been shorter, as Ms. Marcus would have liked you
9 to do, that is something we'll consider over the weekend.
10 Mr. Jordash.
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] One more point I'd like to make.
14 Unfortunately I haven't received as yet the documents that were disclosed
15 by the Republic of Croatia upon the RFAs. And should they appear
16 meanwhile, I may have a couple of questions on that issue.
17 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, we have sent the e-mails. They are in
18 four parts because of the quantity of documents, so Mr. Petrovic should
19 have them now.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which doesn't leave him much time to look at
21 them. But let's see. Mr. Petrovic, you are hereby informed that you --
22 that they were sent. I don't know whether you received them. Let's not
23 discuss it. Let's try to -- if they are there, please start working on
24 them. If they are not there, please inform us after Mr. Jordash has
25 re-examined the witness, which he is given an opportunity to do now.
1 Re-examination by Mr. Jordash:
2 Q. I've got a few brief questions for you, Mr. Bosnic. You were
3 asked about Dusan Momcilovic and you were asked about your knowledge of
4 him and you answered that you didn't know such people. You were
5 introduced to some individuals at meetings but at no point was anyone
6 introduced as a member of the MUP or the DB. You recall that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You've given evidence about the events in the Krajina and I just
9 want to pick up on that remark. The meetings that you attended, apart
10 from being -- apart from no one being introduced as a member of the MUP
11 of the DB, were you aware of the existence of members of the DB or
12 individuals with links to the DB at meetings?
13 A. If you mean the DB of Serbia, then the answer is no. If you mean
14 the DB of Krajina, I knew some of them.
15 Q. You knew Dusan Orlovic. Were you aware that he was reporting to
16 the Serbian DB?
17 A. No.
18 Q. He never said so, never exerted any authority arising from the
19 DB? The Serbian DB.
20 MS. MARCUS: Objection, that last part of the question doesn't
21 tie to the witness's knowledge. I think the witness has to be asked if
22 he heard of it or knew of it, not whether he never exerted any authority.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Let me reread the question. But I think whether he
24 never exerted any authority is the answer, wasn't the question,
25 Ms. Marcus. The question was, Do you know him, were you aware that he
1 was reporting the Serbian DB -- no, let me see. I'm now confused.
2 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I can withdraw the question. I'm
3 content with the first answer, that this witness didn't -- wasn't aware
4 that he was reporting to the Serbian DB. I can ask a more -- a less
5 controversial question, perhaps.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I'm a bit confused by the questions and the answer,
7 whether it's -- the answer was, No, he never said so ... is that part --
8 was part of the answer?
9 MR. JORDASH: No, that was part of my question.
10 JUDGE ORIE: A part of your question. Okay.
11 MR. JORDASH: Rather clumsily expressed.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Yes, then I may have misunderstood and then
13 it was part of the question. To that extent, my comment was not correct.
14 Please rephrase your question.
15 MR. JORDASH: Certainly.
16 Q. Did you spend time or did you have professional dealings with
17 Dusan Orlovic in 1991 and 1992?
18 A. In 1990 all the way to mid-1991, I had contacts with
19 Dusan Orlovic as president of the Serbian Cultural Society Sava Mrkalj
20 for Kordun and Banija, and he was the secretary of the Serbian cultural
21 society Zora [phoen] from Knin. We later remained in contact. When
22 Milan Babic told me that Orlovic was man number one in the DB of Krajina,
23 I was somewhat surprised. But of course we kept up our contacts and we
24 would see each other. Whenever he travelled through Slunj, he would drop
25 by to see me.
1 Q. And during your social or professional cultural activities with
2 Dusan Orlovic, did he ever mention that he had any links with the DB of
4 A. In conversations with me, no.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. JORDASH: Could we have P2996 on the screen.
7 Q. This is the application to the Captain Dragan Fund by
8 Dusan Momcilovic. I just want it on the screen so that you have the
9 relevant context to my questions.
10 Now, you testified that the Captain Dragan Fund, you had been
11 aware of it; correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Were you aware of other people within the Krajina applying to the
14 Captain Dragan Fund for benefits?
15 A. I can't recall at this time, so my answer would be no.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Could the Defence counsel please speak into the
17 microphone for the sake of the interpreters. Thank you.
18 MR. JORDASH: Sorry.
19 Q. What was your full understanding of the Captain Dragan Fund?
20 What did it do?
21 A. My understanding of the purpose of Captain Dragan's Fund was to
22 assist the wounded in the Krajina areas. But I had only learned of the
23 fund's existence in Serbia after the fall of the Krajina.
24 Q. Now, this is an application dated 1992. When you say your
25 understanding of the purpose of Captain Dragan's Fund being to assist the
1 wounded in the Krajina areas, who could apply to the fund, do you know?
2 Or who would apply to the fund? If you don't know, that's fine. But if
3 you can, shed any light on that.
4 A. Those who were wounded in combat in the Krajina.
5 Q. Let me ask you a different question. Do you know anything about
6 the Serbian MUP and the benefits that it might pay to its wounded?
7 A. I don't know the details. I know that in general terms they were
8 entitled to every sort of assistance needed. It was provided, after all,
9 by the state and not by private foundations.
10 Q. Do you know if that assistance extended to assistance when
11 somebody who is an employee of the MUP was injured?
12 A. If he had been in Serbia, yes. With Serbia.
13 Q. What do you mean "with Serbia"?
14 A. If he was a member of the MUP of Serbia and wounded in that
15 capacity, then it was only natural that he received financial assets of
16 sorts from the state.
17 Q. Thank you. I want to ask you -- I want to return, if I may just
18 very briefly, to the subject of the word "Ustashas." I just want to make
19 sure that, with Your Honours' leave, that you understood the issue being
20 addressed to you, because your answer to me, it seemed slightly
21 ambiguous. If I can just find that.
22 MR. JORDASH: Your Honours, page 65.
23 Q. You were asked by His Honour:
24 "Is it your testimony that the word 'Ustasha' was never used as
25 derogatory term to refer to Croats in more general terms, including both
1 civilians perhaps with a memory to what happened in the Second World War
2 or but you say the term 'Ustasha' was -- 'Ustashas' was exclusively
3 referring to these National Guards Corps and the police and never for
5 Do you remember the question?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you answered:
8 "Precisely in order to make that distinction as had been made
9 during World War II. It was the criminals who committed crimes and not
10 the Croats. The term Ustasha is synonymous of all their armed formations
11 because the beginning of the rule of the HDZ was connected to their
12 invocation of the Ustasha iconography. Had I meant the entire Croat
13 people, I would have written that."
14 So you seem to move from the general to the specific, i.e., from
15 general observation to your own subjective use of the term. And I want
16 to be clear about what you were saying. It's clear that you were saying
17 you didn't use it in that context. Were you suggesting that no one used
18 the term "Ustasha" in a derogatory context to describe Croats in general?
19 A. Absolutely. Our position, not just mine, is that there's a big
20 difference between an Ustasha and a Croat. The fact that Ustasha were of
21 the Croat people has nothing to do with the Croat people as a whole,
22 because even the Croats were anti-fascists in World War II and fought the
23 fascists alongside the Serbs.
24 Q. But what I'm asking you is whether anyone used the term "Ustasha"
25 in a derogatory context to describe Croats. Did anyone use that term?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
2 MS. MARCUS: Yes, I think the witness can only answer if he heard
3 anyone, not if anyone ever used that term.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's -- if you are living for 40, 50 years in
5 a certain area, then if you say, Is this term used for this or that,
6 that, of course, means did you ever observe or did you ever hear that
7 word being used in a different way. So that objection did not really
9 The question to you was, is whether others would use the term
10 "Ustashas" also in this, could I say this non-technical way, and used it
11 to refer to Croats in a more general way?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There perhaps might have been a
13 Serbian chauvinist who would use it in that way, but at this moment I can
14 recall generally speaking. When the Serbs say Ustasha, they do not refer
15 to the Croatian people as a whole. They refer to their military units.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, it seems I already tried to explore
17 that in quite some depth. You added to that. I think we should move on
19 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
20 Q. I want to deal with two more subjects. One is Martic's arrest,
21 which the Prosecution asked you about.
22 MR. JORDASH: Could we have, please, on the screen P1878. This
23 is not what I thought it was going to be. Sorry, could we have P638,
25 Q. This is an intercept between Karadzic and Babic,
1 8th of September, 1991, and one of the subjects or principal subject
2 being discussed was the arrest of Martic or the arrest of three of
3 Martic's men. Sorry, it's the arrest of Martic. And just have a read of
4 that page, please.
5 Does that accord with your understanding of what happened with
6 the arrest of Martic?
7 A. Yes, approximately so. This has jogged my memory somewhat.
8 MR. JORDASH: And if we go over the page, please.
9 Q. Have you read that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Are you able to comment on any of those details about the
12 position taken by Karadzic there when he notes:
13 "Don't let them go on Bosnia ... Here in Bosnian Krajina everyone
14 would rise. Serbs would start from up there. They are very edgy about
15 the thing in Okucani and it would be real hell."
16 A. I can understand this as a request of Radovan Karadzic addressed
17 to Milan Babic for Serbs travelling through Bosnia and Herzegovina not to
18 travel in police uniforms in order not to provoke any kind of a conflict
19 in Bosnia and Herzegovina in order for the Muslims in Bosnia not to
20 perhaps think that the Serbs have embarked on creating some problems.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. JORDASH: Now, let's have P1878. E-court page 262, please.
23 Q. Now, this is some of Babic's testimony. I'm sorry, I think this
24 testimony includes the intercept between -- an intercept between --
25 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, could I just have a moment. Let me try and
1 deal with this in a different way.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, I would also invite you to keep an eye
3 on the clock because I do not know what Mr. Petrovic comes up with after
4 he has read all this new material, but we -- and I need some time as
6 MR. JORDASH: Yes, I'm nearly done, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.
8 MR. JORDASH:
9 Q. Can you take yourself back to the time when Martic was arrested.
10 Are you able to cast any light on what might have been the consequences
11 in relation to the events in the Krajina in relation to the actions of
12 the Serbian armed forces if Martic had not been released?
13 A. The armed conflict would have spread also to the areas of
15 MR. JORDASH: I found the intercept I want you to look at. P638,
16 please. No, I'll leave that point there.
17 Q. One last question then, Mr. Bosnic. It was suggested to you by
18 the Prosecution that you didn't really have a close relationship to
19 Babic. Was your relationship professional and personal, or just
20 professional, or what?
21 A. In the beginning it was just official. And later, as of
22 December 1991 or thereabouts, we were personal friends, our families were
23 friends, our children knew each other, we had sleep-overs in each other's
24 houses. At the end, I visited his wife when she returned to Serbia and I
25 told her the same thing which I've said here, which is I know
1 Milan Babic, I have known Milan Babic since 1990, and this is not the
2 Milan Babic who appeared in court. This can be verified with this lady,
3 as well as with a number of other people who knew what kind of a
4 relationship we had.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that goes beyond what was asked and is, apart
6 from that, repetitious as well.
7 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: No further questions?
9 MR. JORDASH: I just want to ask one, if I may.
10 Q. If the Prosecution wanted to investigate how well you knew the
11 family, would Mr. Babic's wife be able to confirm that?
12 A. I don't know that. It is up to her.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, whether she's able or not to confirm it ... if
14 what the witness said is true, that the families had these kind of
15 relationship, then of course she'll be able to confirm. If it's not
16 true, then of course you might have difficulties in doing that. But to
17 be able, I don't know, that question is not unambiguous. But let's --
18 it's clear that the witness has drawn our attention to the fact that if
19 there's any need to confirm that or if you would like to challenge that,
20 that one of the sources would be the wife of the late Mr. Babic.
21 MR. JORDASH:
22 Q. Perhaps I can just ask if there's anyone else who could confirm
23 it. Could you name others who might be able to cast light on that?
24 A. Dusan Vjestica, Lazar Matsura [phoen], Petar Stikavac. I can
25 give you any number of names.
1 MR. JORDASH: Nothing further.
2 JUDGE ORIE: That's it. Thank you.
3 Mr. Petrovic, any further questions? I do understand that you
4 had very limited time to even look at the documents. The only thing I'm
5 interested in at this moment is whether they triggered any need to put
6 further questions to the witness. I'm not talking about what would
7 happen if you would have studied them more thoroughly and what action
8 you'd like to take under those circumstances. I limit myself to this
9 very moment. Any further questions for the witness?
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours. I have started
11 looking at this material. What I've seen so far does not prompt me to
12 ask any further questions. And on the basis of what I have seen, I
13 believe it is not warranted to keep the witness any longer. Whether
14 something will crop up in the future remains to be seen and we shall of
15 course duly inform you about that.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that, Mr. Petrovic.
17 Ms. Marcus --
18 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- any further questions?
20 MS. MARCUS: No, Your Honour, I just wanted to suggest that the
21 newer criminal file as well as the interview that this witness underwent
22 in Belgrade that perhaps if everybody would agree we can tender those
23 into evidence. We can wait till the translations come through, we can
24 MFI them, but I think in order for the Chamber to have a proper full
25 picture of the situation with Mr. Bosnic in order for it to be fair for
1 him, in addition to the older one we should have the newer ones and his
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, it seems to me that then would then be
4 bar tabled. And I think before we initiate any such action it's not
5 translated, so we can't ask any questions about it to the witness.
6 Perhaps have it first translated and that you then seek to have it
7 admitted as -- from the bar table. And then we'll hear from the Defence
8 teams what their position is in relation to that and what possible
9 consequences are still there.
10 MS. MARCUS: We will do that, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Did I -- was it a practical solution which
12 would suit you?
13 MR. JORDASH: Yes, Your Honour, thank you.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has no further questions for you,
17 Mr. Bosnic, which means that this concludes your evidence. We are all
18 glad that you are able to return home in time. But you raise your hand;
19 you'd like to say something, I take it. Please do so.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I should like to avail myself of
21 this opportunity to thank you, to thank you, the Prosecution, and the
22 Defence, and in particular the Trial Chamber for having made it possible
23 for me - and especially to you because you notice that I'm losing
24 concentration and that I'm quite nervous - by asking me additional
25 questions you actually helped me to focus because I tended to be too
1 prolix and not too concentrated. So I thank you for having made my
2 testimony all the more relevant by asking me these questions, and my
3 gratitude to you for that.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. I think I speak on behalf of all in this
5 courtroom that we always all try to do our best. And apparently you are
6 not unhappy with our performance, all of us in this courtroom in this
7 respect. Thank you for those words.
8 I'd like to thank you for coming to The Hague. It's a far way.
9 And I want to thank you for having answered all the questions that were
10 put to you both by the parties and by the Bench. And I wish you a safe
11 return home again.
12 As you may have noticed, that since not all details of the
13 documentation were available to all the parties, I cannot exclude for the
14 full hundred per cent that there would not at any moment in time be a
15 need to further examine you. If that is the case, then of course we'll
16 contact you or one of the parties will contact you.
17 I'm looking at the parties. I don't think that there's need for
18 special instructions because the chance that that will happen is so
19 small, or at least it's so difficult to give an estimate on that, that I
20 suggest that I refrain from giving any special instructions as I
21 sometimes do when there's a fair expectation that a witness will be
23 I see all parties apparently agree. I wish you a safe return
24 home and the usher may escort you out of the courtroom.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you and good-bye.
1 [The witness withdrew]
2 JUDGE ORIE: The matter I would like to raise is about scheduling
3 for next week. Two witnesses are scheduled: DST-043, initially
4 scheduled for -- as a viva voce witness for five hours, and then
5 Witness DST-035, scheduled for three to three and a half hours, also
6 viva voce. Now, matters -- first of all, we have scheduled four sessions
7 next week. We start on Monday. Meanwhile, for Witness DST-043, there is
8 a 92 ter application, motion, which may have an impact on the five hours
9 needed. What I want to find out in the next three minutes is whether
10 there would be time also for Witness DST-035 to be examined. It is of no
11 use to ask him to come to The Hague, examine him for half an hour in
12 chief before we go for the summer recess. But if there's a fair
13 expectation that we could deal with both witnesses, I would like to
14 receive a commitment of the parties. And perhaps the first to address
15 this, Mr. Jordash, because DST-043 was scheduled for five hours. If that
16 remains unchanged, then --
17 MR. JORDASH: I don't think I'll be more than two or two and a
18 half hours with that witness.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Two and a half hours.
20 MR. JORDASH: However.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. JORDASH: What I would request is that we -- or Your Honours
23 consider sitting for only three days next week, for two reasons. One
24 because of the latest medical report which suggests that four days is
25 proving too much for Mr. Stanisic. And, secondly, because if given the
1 summer break, we will compile a 92 ter statement and in fact make up for
2 the lost time next week by the time we come back after the summer. If we
3 proceed next week with the second witness, we will not have the
4 opportunity to compile the 92 ter statement, so the length of time we
5 spend in court will be that much longer.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Let me then be very practical. Two and a half hours
7 in chief; let's just assume that's two sessions. That would be two
8 sessions from the first day of the examination. Time for cross would be
9 how much?
10 MS. MARCUS: Three and a half hours, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Three and a half hours. Which would mean that we
12 would be halfway on the second day before your cross-examination is
13 finished. Mr. Petrovic, how many time would you need?
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is perhaps a
15 premature estimate. It is perhaps too early. What I can tell you now is
16 an hour and a half for the next witness.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, which would complete two full days of hearing.
18 Then, of course, most of the third day would be lost, just would be
19 either no witness there, loss of court time. Unless the parties would
20 agree to split up the examination-in-chief and cross-examination, that's
21 a possibility, then we would not lose that one day. But I'm just looking
22 at you. How to -- even if would sit only three days, which has not been
23 decided yet, and of course there was an earlier commitment more or less
24 to -- well, at least the problems arose only recently and it might well
25 be that after the summer recess the situation is a bit better. That's
1 still to be seen.
2 What are your suggestions so as to proceed in such a way that we
3 would not lose court time? Because that's my main concern. I mean, not
4 calling Witness DST-035, not asking him to come, would mean that instead
5 of four days, not three days, but only we would be busy for a little bit
6 over two days.
7 MS. MARCUS: Can I just ask, Your Honours: As far as I
8 understand, DST-035 is actually DST-074?
9 MR. JORDASH: Yes, that's right.
10 MS. MARCUS: I just wanted to make sure that the record was --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then I was briefed on the matter. I must have
12 misunderstood the information that was given to me. Yes, okay, DST-074
14 MS. MARCUS: And the only other thing I would add is that we are
15 happy to have it separated if that's what Your Honour so desides, from
16 the Prosecution view.
17 JUDGE ORIE: It's a possibility. The Prosecution apparently does
18 not oppose.
19 MR. JORDASH: I think it's something that the Trial Chamber's
20 avoided in the past and I think for good reason. I mean, I can't think
21 of a principled reason why it shouldn't happen, but I think it's
22 preferable that it's not split up.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Whatever other suggestion you would have to
24 use our time in the best way, I would -- avoiding this, I would welcome
25 that. But just to point out what is problematic and not come up with
1 a -- my problem was that instead of sitting for four days we would not
2 even use three days.
3 MR. JORDASH: May I just speak to my client. He's just been
4 calling me --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, one of the other things, and I'm -- the matter
6 perhaps still to be considered is that I'm aware that it's very tiring.
7 Of course, we still have at the back the option open of sometimes perhaps
8 using the videolink. The videolink is still there. That's just for your
9 information. If you consult, then perhaps meanwhile Mr. Petrovic will
10 say something.
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, whatever the
12 Trial Chamber may decide will be acceptable to us. I have done my maths
13 and in view of the practice so far and the estimates given by the
14 parties, this testimony will fill up most of the third day, that's based
15 on my experience so far. Helpful or not. Based on the estimates
16 announced by the parties, the testimony will take up three full court
17 days including all the procedural matters that may arise. And I repeat,
18 we are in your hands in that issue.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
20 MR. JORDASH: I mean, I would agree with Mr. Petrovic. I mean,
21 to a degree it depends upon whether the Prosecution intend to continue
22 introducing fresh evidence and that requires at least additional court
23 time. So I think on the way that the case has proceeded so far, I think
24 we can be relatively sure we'll use up the three days. And I'm sure that
25 we could always, with Your Honours' leave, throw in some housekeeping.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you would say our favourite activity,
2 housekeeping sessions.
3 Ms. Marcus, unless you have something to say in relation to this
4 matter, I --
5 MS. MARCUS: Only to point out, Your Honour, that we've often
6 come in under our estimates, so three and a half hours is our absolutely
7 outside estimate.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Absolutely outside estimate. The Chamber will
9 consider the matter and will inform the parties still this afternoon.
10 We adjourn. And we'll resume Monday, the 18th of July, quarter
11 past 2.00 in this same Courtroom II.
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.51 p.m.,
13 to be reconvened on Monday, the 18th day of
14 July, 2011, at 2.15 p.m.