Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 13642

 1                           Wednesday, 31 August 2011

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone in and around this

 6     courtroom.

 7             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.

 9             This is case IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic

10     and Franko Simatovic.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

12             If there are no procedural matters to be raised, we'll move into

13     closed session.

14    [Closed session]   [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of the Chamber]

15             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in closed session, Your Honours.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

17             May the witness be brought into the courtroom.

18             Mr. Bakrac, you needed a couple of more minutes to conclude your

19     cross-examination.  Is that --

20             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  You're right.

21                           [The witness takes the stand]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Witness DST-063.  I hope you feel

23     better by now.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do.  And I would like to

25     seize this opportunity to apologise to everyone for the fact that I was

Page 13643

 1     unable to appear for my testimony on the scheduled day.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Since we understood that it was due to your

 3     medical condition, there's even no need to apologise, because you -- it

 4     goes without saying that you are excused during the time that you do not

 5     feel well.

 6             If there -- at any moment you would think that you, again, do not

 7     feel well, please inform me so that we can take appropriate action.

 8             I further would like to remind you that you're still bound by the

 9     solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony, that

10     is, that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

11     truth.

12             Mr. Bakrac will now continue his cross-examination.

13             Mr. Bakrac, please proceed.

14             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

15             Good morning to everyone in and around the courtroom.

16                           WITNESS:  DST-063 [Resumed]

17                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

18                           Cross-examination by Mr. Bakrac: [Continued]

19        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Witness.  Let us resume our

20     examination.  I have two more documents to show to you, and I'd like to

21     have your comments on them.

22             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we call up in e-court

23     Exhibit D201.

24        Q.   Mr. Witness, while we're waiting for it to appear, let me tell

25     you that it appears that the document is a report on the application of

Page 13644

 1     operative and technical equipment in respect of an individual.  Let's

 2     look at page 1.

 3             The heading reads:

 4             "The Republic of Serbia, Ministry of the Interior, State Security

 5     Department, the State Security Department's centre of Novi Sad."

 6             And while we're on page one, let's establish the following.  You

 7     do know how these documents were made.  Can we agree that this has to do

 8     with the surveillance of an individual, according to standard procedure,

 9     between 7 and 16 November.  Is that right?

10        A.   Yes.

11             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we now turn to the last page so

12     that we can look at the signature of the operative involved.

13        Q.   I'm sure you would be familiar with the individual, since he

14     worked for the Novi Sad centre.

15             Can you see it reads "Operative Slavko Vojvodic" and his

16     signature.  First of all, let us establish if you know this individual,

17     Slavko Vojvodic.

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Did he work for the State Security Department, specifically the

20     Novi Sad centre, and which specific section?

21        A.   Yes.  He did work at the Novi Sad centre of the RDB, and it was

22     the third line of work, as it were.

23        Q.   When you say "the third line of work," what does it mean

24     specifically?  What were they occupied with?

25        A.   Well, I think the heading itself stated extremism.  In other

Page 13645

 1     words, internal matters.  Domestic matters.

 2             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we now turn to page 3.  I think

 3     the corresponding page in English is 3 as well.

 4        Q.   Have a look at the second paragraph.  On the

 5     12th of November, 1992, the source told us that at Kajmak, in inverted

 6     commas, Zivojin Ivanovic was present, in brackets, supposedly a member of

 7     the DB from Republika Srpska, who asked that -- who asked for people to

 8     fight in Herzegovina.  Is that right?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   So if my understanding is correct, the operative work, which was

11     in fact the surveillance of telephone contacts, was Kajmak, and

12     Zivojin Ivanovic is supposedly a member of the DB from Republika Srpska.

13     Or at least that's what the operative producing the report believed or

14     that's how he introduced himself.

15             Is my understanding of this operative's report correct in this

16     respect?

17        A.   Yes, yes.

18        Q.   Let's look at another report by the same individual but at a

19     later date.  I deliberately drew your attention to this specific

20     paragraph where the operative states that Zivojin Ivanovic introduced

21     himself and that it was assumed that he was a DB member from

22     Republika Srpska.

23             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at D200.

24        Q.   And while we're waiting, witness, let me tell you that this is

25     the same sort of document, produced by the same individual, and it also

Page 13646

 1     involves the surveillance of one Kajmak but the date is the

 2     4th of January, 1993.  In other words, a month and a half later.

 3     Apparently Kajmak is being listened in to again, and I'm sure that you'll

 4     believe me if I tell you, and so will the OTP, that on page -- on the

 5     last page we have Slavko Vojvodic, the same operative's, signature.

 6             Now, let's look at page 3, paragraph 1.  That's the top of

 7     page 3.

 8             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we have page 3 in B/C/S.

 9        Q.   I'll read the relevant part and put my question to you then.

10             Zivojin Ivanovic, a member of the DB of Krajina, told Kajmak that

11     he was leaving for Kosovo, et cetera.

12             This is my question:  We were able to see that your colleague

13     Slavko Vojvodic stated in November, said that Zivojin Ivanovic was

14     supposedly a member of the DB of Republika Srpska; whereas in this report

15     the reference to the same individual is that he was a member of the DB of

16     Krajina but without the inverted commas?

17             Now, you, as a person who knew this operative and knew how the

18     Novi Sad centre worked, do you believe that an operative would write in

19     no uncertain terms that an individual belonged to the DB of Krajina if he

20     had not, in the previous month and a half, done something to ascertain

21     that this was, indeed, the fact?

22        A.   Well, I'm sure that he would not have made a qualification of any

23     sort had he not been certain of it to a certain extent.

24        Q.   If my understanding of what you're saying is correct, in November

25     he placed his qualification in brackets, saying a member of the DB of

Page 13647

 1     Republika Srpska, and this was in November of 1992, whereas in

 2     January of 1993, he wrote without the brackets that he was a member of

 3     the DB Krajina.

 4             Does this not mean that he checked the information in the

 5     meantime to make sure?

 6        A.   Well, the time-frame involved certainly allows for such

 7     information to be checked up on.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  I have one more question left.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, in relation to the last two documents

10     you presented to the witness, if there's any issue - and you refer to it

11     several times - that names are in between quotation marks or inverted

12     commas, then, of course, in order to follow all that, the translation

13     should also reflect that.

14             Now, the translation does not in any way reflect any inverted

15     commas in the original.  So, therefore, since it apparently is an issue

16     in dispute between Defence and Prosecution and where the Prosecution --

17     it's not quite clear to me, but suggests or makes an inference that it

18     has some meaning, then it should at least be in the translation as well.

19             So, therefore, I would like the translations to be verified on

20     the use of inverted commas in relation to names and then to be uploaded

21     again in e-court.

22             I take it that the parties would agree with that.

23             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour, we agree with that.

24             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  Let me just

25     explain that our question at this point in time focussed on an individual

Page 13648

 1     whose name was not in inverted commas.  But I do agree with you that that

 2     should be remedied.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Whether the specific questions dealt with

 4     that, it is a point that is in issue, and therefore the translation

 5     should reflect it so as to be able to further analyse the position of

 6     both parties.

 7             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, I just wanted to raise another issue

 8     regarding Mr. Bakrac's asking of leading questions of the witness.

 9             My -- I have a submission on this, an objection to the asking of

10     leading questions and a brief submission in relation to that.  But before

11     I make that submission, I'd like to know in fact whether Mr. Bakrac was

12     able to meet with the witness before his testimony.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, there's a question -- well, first of

14     all, leading questions, of course, Mr. Bakrac is cross-examining the

15     witness in which leading questions as such are not prohibited.

16             MS. MARCUS:  That's exactly the matter I wanted to raise,

17     Your Honour.  I wanted to object to Mr. Bakrac cross-examining a witness

18     who is a witness in his favour if he is in possession of information --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  So you would say that Mr. Bakrac is not only

20     eliciting answers on the subject matter of the examination-in-chief or on

21     matters of credibility and reliability but he is also questioning the

22     witness under Rule 90(H) - what is it? - small (ii), I think, that is,

23     eliciting evidence from the witness which supports that party's case.  Is

24     that ...

25             MS. MARCUS:  That's right, Your Honour.

Page 13649

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  And there you would expect Mr. Bakrac to refrain

 2     from leading questions.

 3             MS. MARCUS:  Correct, Your Honour.  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, the questions you have put to the

 5     witness when did you put leading questions to him, was that in any way

 6     related to the examination-in-chief; or were you eliciting evidence under

 7     Rule - and let me be very precise - Rule 90(H)(i), last part, where it

 8     reads:  "The witness is able to give evidence relevant to the case for

 9     the cross-examining party to subject matter of that case."

10             Were you eliciting that kind of evidence or were you challenging

11     the evidence which was led in-chief?

12             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was not challenging

13     the credibility of the witness.  My question was more pursuant to 90(H),

14     as you said.

15             And I can respond to what my learned friend said.  I did have an

16     occasion to meet with the witness for ten minutes.  I did not make any

17     notes.  I didn't have a pen or paper in front of me.  We discussed

18     matters in general.  I never showed the witness these two documents.  We

19     didn't discuss them.  And this is something that the witness can confirm.

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22             JUDGE ORIE:  And that was before the witness started giving his

23     evidence.

24             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, of course, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  I think, in view of your answer, that the

Page 13650

 1     appropriate way of questioning the witness would be not to put leading

 2     questions to him.

 3             Is that, Ms. Marcus ...

 4             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Yes.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Would you please keep that in mind.  You may

 6     proceed, Mr. Bakrac.

 7             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

 8             Please bear with me for a moment.

 9                           [Defence counsel confer]

10             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Witness, one minute and one question more.

12             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we go back to page 1.

13        Q.   Can you look at the third bullet point, please, which reads:

14             "He continued maintaining contact with members of the Army of

15     Yugoslavia."

16             As part of your operative work, did you monitor individuals who

17     had some dealings with or were in any way associated with the security of

18     the Army of Yugoslavia?

19        A.   Not in that line of work.  That was not part of our duty.  But

20     if -- we would come across them as part of some other work.

21        Q.   In that case, would you also report to the military security

22     structure, or did it remain strictly within the authority of the MUP?

23        A.   Well, I can't tell you exactly.  I think it was treated as

24     internal information.

25        Q.   Thank you very much, witness, for the answers you gave me.

Page 13651

 1             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] And, Your Honours, for the time

 2     assigned to me.  I have completed my examination.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Bakrac.

 4             Ms. Marcus, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?

 5             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  You will now be cross-examined by Ms. Marcus.

 7     Ms. Marcus is counsel for the Prosecution.

 8             Please proceed.

 9             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

10                           Cross-examination by Ms. Marcus:

11        Q.   Good morning, DST-063.

12        A.   Good morning.

13        Q.   During your testimony last week, you were asked whether the

14     Vojvodina SUP and the Serbian MUP had a joint or a separate chain of

15     command.  You stated, at transcript page 13562:

16             "... I think that at some crucial moments, they had a joint chain

17     of command, absolutely.  A Joint Command function."

18             Early 1992, they had a joint command.  Can you explain what you

19     meant by "joint command"?

20        A.   Well, if I cast my mind back to that, an event which would have

21     trigged our joint work, well, I wouldn't refer it -- refer to it as

22     "command."  Rather, it would have been joint co-operation.  Command would

23     sound like we were in the army, and we didn't have that sort of work.

24        Q.   This co-operation you refer to existed prior to 1992 as well,

25     didn't it?

Page 13652

 1        A.   But, of course.  But it was with all the services of all the

 2     republics, and not just Serbia.  We were a separate service only formally

 3     at the level of the province of Vojvodina.  But that was formally only.

 4        Q.   Now, with respect to the DB, the state security, isn't it true

 5     that prior to 1992 the federal DB governed this co-ordination, direction,

 6     and reconciling of the works of the SDBs throughout the provinces and the

 7     republics?

 8        A.   Yes.  As far as I know, that's true.  They treated on equal terms

 9     all the provinces and republics.

10        Q.   Now, during your testimony at page 13559, you were describing

11     your only chain of reporting as a DB operative.  This was when you were

12     an operative in the Vojvodina DB in 1990.  You stated that your superior

13     "was the chief of the group, working on counter-intelligence activities,

14     and he was" - pardon my pronunciation - "he was Stevan Pecelj.

15             "He answered to the chief of the department, Djordje Gojkovic, of

16     that section."

17             Then you said that Gojkovic's superior "was the chief of the

18     provincial State Security Service.  At that time, it was Ratko Sikimic."

19             You then go on to stay that Sikimic was responsible to the chief

20     of the federal service.

21             Now my question to you is:  Therefore, according to your

22     evidence, if we understood you correctly, the reporting line from the

23     Vojvodina DB went straight up to the federal DB in 1990; is that correct?

24        A.   As far as I know, both to -- up to the federal and the

25     republican DB.  And I mean the DB of Serbia.

Page 13653

 1        Q.   And that was the case in 1991 as well?

 2        A.   I am referring to 1991, yes.

 3        Q.   Now, during your testimony last week when you were asked about

 4     the changes in the work of the Vojvodina SUP after the multi-party

 5     elections, you replied that the situation:  "Required a greater effort on

 6     our part, in terms of taking in the overall security situation."

 7             Can you explain what you meant by that?

 8        A.   Well, what I said the last time, I believe, was that the

 9     elections had taken place in the various republics and that the

10     assessment made at the time was that there was an extremely aggressive,

11     and, at times, very hostile attitude coming from the Republic of Croatia.

12             Since my centre has under its purview territory which borders

13     with the Republic of Croatia along the length of some 130 and

14     140 kilometres, and since in my territory we had a sizeable Croat

15     population, the situation required the service to invest more efforts in

16     collecting information with a view to averting a conflict in that area.

17        Q.   Now, at page 13586, you were asked what territory you were trying

18     to protect by gathering this information that you just described.

19             Your answer was:  "The territory of the Republic of Serbia."

20             So is it your evidence that matters of overall security are those

21     which would impact upon the territory of Serbia as a whole?

22        A.   I would first like to say that the term "defence" is something

23     that does not stand, in my view, here.  Having control over the territory

24     bordering Republic of Croatia for the purpose of preventing possible

25     problems that could occur in our territory; that's what it implied.

Page 13654

 1        Q.   Okay.  Well, perhaps there was something I said which was maybe

 2     misconstrued.  But I was asking specifically about your

 3     information-gathering activities.  And you said that you had to put a

 4     greater effort in to take in the overall security situation.

 5             So my question to you was:  These matters that affected the

 6     overall security are, in fact, matters that affect the entirety of the

 7     Republic of Serbia; isn't that right?

 8        A.   At the time, no.  I'm talking about late 1990 and early 1991.

 9     That was regular procedure, part of our service's work, making

10     assessments of possible problems.  What we did was we had operatives

11     focussing more on that specific territory.

12        Q.   Okay.  I understand.  And what about after May of 1991?

13        A.   Now that you've mentioned the date, and it was a date that made

14     the overall situation much more complex, but this time I'm talking about

15     the area of Croatia, the area of Vukovar, yes, it required additional

16     involvement of operatives, and that was the period when my involvement

17     started.  Until that point, I was not involved.

18        Q.   And the matters relating to security at that time impacted on the

19     Republic of Serbia as a whole, not just on Vojvodina; isn't that correct?

20        A.   Yes, that's correct.

21        Q.   And these matters would be the kind of matters which would

22     require sending of information up to the hierarchy at the highest levels,

23     because they are matters which affected the overall security; isn't that

24     correct?

25        A.   Yes.  But I cannot confirm to which level all this went.  I was

Page 13655

 1     just an operative.  You must understand that.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus, your question in relation to the highest

 3     levels in the hierarchy does not specify what hierarchy and what highest

 4     levels, which makes the answer, at least, ambiguous.

 5             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Yes.

 6        Q.   DST-063, I was specifically referring to this information about

 7     the overall security and its path up to the leadership of the Serbian DB.

 8             Does that change your answer at all?

 9        A.   At my level, or, rather, my understanding of who was informed

10     went up to the chief of my centre.  I -- and my colleagues would brief

11     him either in writing or orally.  Everything else was outside of my

12     scope.  It was in -- in part of his duties.  He would choose whom to

13     forward it to.

14        Q.   So if I understand you correctly, it was the chief of the

15     centre - I suppose you mean the Novi Sad centre - who had the authority

16     to determine how far the information would be sent or to whom; is that

17     correct?

18        A.   Yes, you understood me well.

19        Q.   Now, if there were information that -- that you felt, as an

20     operative, would have to be sent up to the leadership of the Serbian DB,

21     and if the head of the Novi Sad DB decided not to, what would be the

22     consequences?

23        A.   Well, the chief would decide, and things would be that way.

24     There would be no consequences, of course.

25        Q.   Were you always informed of where your information -- what path

Page 13656

 1     your information took after you provided it?  Were you informed of where

 2     your reports ended up?

 3        A.   No, I wasn't told about it.  The practice wasn't that we get

 4     told.

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 13657











11 Pages 13657-13666 redacted. Closed session.
















Page 13667

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23        Q.   Now, on page 5, your entry, in relation to D205, which you say is

24     a report by you, your entry -- this -- this report also contains

25     information relating to combat activities, including your assessment of

Page 13668

 1     the combat readiness of the Army of the RSK.

 2             Your comment on this document is that:

 3             "I obtained this information by talking to people in

 4     Eastern Slavonia.  This does not mean that this information is absolutely

 5     correct."

 6             Now, my question to you is:  I was not able to see anywhere in

 7     the report where you state that the information may not be correct.  How

 8     did you distinguish in your reports between reports which were correct

 9     and reports which were not correct?

10        A.   It is difficult to pronounce any report as fully correct on the

11     face of it.  That's why there was a practice in place where every

12     document would be double-checked repeatedly.  This also included looking

13     into the reliability of the source.

14             In other words, a report would be written and -- well, now I

15     can't recall.  But based on the information it contains, this specific

16     report, I think it definitely merited the attention.

17        Q.   I'm not sure I understood your last comment.  You said:

18             "... a report would be written -- well, now I can't recall.  But

19     based on the information it contains, this specific report, I think it

20     definitely merited the attention."

21             My question to you had been:  How would the reader of this report

22     know that the information may not be correct if you didn't say so in that

23     report?  That really was my question.

24        A.   A reader would review the contents of the document and would then

25     get back to me and tell me what needed doing in order to verify the

Page 13669

 1     information contained therein.

 2             I said that the information was supposed to be double-checked.

 3     But what sort of information returned, I don't know.

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 13670











11 Pages 13670-13672 redacted. Closed session.
















Page 13673

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14        Q.   Thank you.  Now, you have given evidence about a meeting attended

15     by Zoran Janackovic, Goran Hadzic, Ratko Sikimic, Ilija Kojic, and others

16     from the JNA and SDB and SSDB.  Aside from Mr. Janackovic, what other

17     members of the Serbian DB were present at that meeting?

18        A.   As far as I can remember, he was the only one.

19        Q.   Who was it who called the meeting?

20        A.   I don't know who proposed for the meeting to be held.  My chief

21     told me to appear there at a specified date and time.

22        Q.   Your chief being Ratko Sikimic?

23        A.   My immediate supervisor was Djordje Gojkovic.

24        Q.   Apart from those you listed in your testimony who attended the

25     meeting, do you recall anyone else who attended?

Page 13674

 1        A.   Well, in addition to four of us that I named, there may have been

 2     up to ten people in total.  No, I don't think I missed anyone.

 3        Q.   You testified that according to what was discussed and assigned

 4     at the meeting, the intelligence-gathering process was to be changed.

 5     And this gathering of security information from Croatia was primarily due

 6     to the hostilities in that area.

 7             Would that be accurate?

 8        A.   I don't understand.  The result of the information and hostile

 9     activities.  I don't understand that part.

10        Q.   Let me take it step by step.

11             How would the intelligence-gathering process be changed according

12     to what was discussed and assigned during that meeting?

13        A.   It would be changed in such a way that the presence of operatives

14     in the areas in question was possible.  In other words, there was

15     possibility of direct insight into the situation.  Up until that point,

16     all intelligence was based on information received from citizens fleeing

17     Croatia and coming to Serbia.  The change in the situation was in the

18     fact that I could cross the border.

19        Q.   Now, these security concerns would implicate potential security

20     risks not only for the Vojvodina area but for the entirety of Serbia.

21     Wouldn't that be correct?

22        A.   That's correct.

23        Q.   Now, during your testimony last week, at page 13571 and 2, you

24     were asked what happened at the meeting.

25             You said that:

Page 13675

 1             "On behalf of the State Security Service, actually, the position

 2     of the State Security Service was that I should go there and the

 3     colleague of mine from Novi Sad, Radovan Vucurevic.  And from the public

 4     security service, Momcilo Radovic, aka Pujo, and Boro Predragovic."

 5             So you your colleague Vucurevic were the ones to be dispatched

 6     from the State Security Service; is that right?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   What was it, to your knowledge, that led the Serbian DB to select

 9     you and Vucurevic for this particular mission?

10        A.   I would link it up with an event that took place one or two days

11     before the meeting.  As part of our regular duties, Mr. Vucurevic and

12     myself were escorting a member of the SFRY Presidency, Mr. Branko Kostic,

13     to a meeting in Borovo Selo.  If I'm not mistaken, it was on the

14     27th of July, 1991.  My task, as well as Vucurevic's, was to take the

15     state's delegation across the Danube river to secure them during their

16     visit and bring them back to the territory of Vojvodina or Serbia safely.

17             I can only assume that this was then just a continuation of my

18     crossings of the border.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash.

20             MR. JORDASH:  I do think there is a possibility of the Court

21     being mislead, that there is a hidden question or hidden premise in my

22     learned friend's previous question which has not been either noticed by

23     the witness or certainly hasn't been addressed, which is the -- the

24     premise being that the state security of Serbia sent the witness.  The

25     witness hasn't said that.  I don't think his previous testimony said

Page 13676

 1     that.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  I think, as a matter of fact, that is not a kind of

 3     comments -- of course you can raise this matter, but the witness now is

 4     aware of everything you mention.  And I think that it should have been

 5     done in the absence of the witness or the witness having taken his

 6     earphones off.

 7             MR. JORDASH:  Well, if that's Your Honours' ruling, then, yes.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9             Ms. Marcus, you've heard the comment which, again, appropriately

10     should have been made in the absence of the witness or with the witness

11     taking his earphones off.  But if you want to further pursue this

12     specific aspect, you're invited to do so.

13             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I didn't realize there was

14     any confusion on this issue.

15        Q.   DST-063, who did you view was deploying you to Croatia, to the

16     areas that you were deployed to, as a -- as a DB operative?  Who was

17     it -- under whose authority were you being deployed?

18        A.   Me and my colleague were selected by my chief, Djordje Gojkovic.

19        Q.   But the ultimate mission and -- which was the result of the tasks

20     assigned at that meeting was a federal DB/Serbian DB mission; isn't that

21     correct?  Thus, the presence of the highest level DB officials.

22        A.   On one hand, yes.  But I believe the republican state security

23     and the federal state security were interested in gaining insight of the

24     situation in the area of question.  We're talking about 1991, when this

25     was all one state.

Page 13677

 1        Q.   Now, you stated during your testimony last week at 13573 that

 2     your mission was to:

 3             "... obtain data and information such as could indicate that a

 4     part of these interethnic conflicts would be, could be, spilled over to

 5     also the territories of Vojvodina and Serbia."

 6             Now, you were -- were you in a position to have refused this

 7     mission?

 8             Basically, my question is:  Did you, on the ground, in the

 9     Novi Sad DB, have the authority to say to those in the federal DB at that

10     meeting, "No, I'm sorry, we cannot carry this out"?

11        A.   I don't see any purpose in refusing to do that.  And, secondly,

12     we are professionals.  There was no reason for us to refuse it.  I don't

13     believe anyone would have.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  That is not an answer to the question.  You said, as

15     a matter of fact you had no reason to refuse it.

16             The question was:  If you would have had reasons, would you have

17     been in a position to refuse this assignment and this deployment?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was in a position to refuse such

19     a deployment, yes.

20             MS. MARCUS:

21        Q.   Would the Novi Sad DB have been in a position to refuse a

22     deployment?  I'm just trying to clarify.  You individually, personally,

23     may have refused, but would your authorities have been in a position to

24     refuse the assignment?

25        A.   I don't know.  I cannot give you a comment on that.  I don't know

Page 13678

 1     what my chief or Chief Sikimic could have or should have done.  I don't

 2     want to engage in any guess-work here.

 3        Q.   DST-063, do we understand correctly that this mission was one

 4     which lasted, for you, from the moment of that meeting in July 1991 all

 5     the way through to the Erdut Agreement in 1995?

 6        A.   Yes.  I was going to the area throughout that period, yes.

 7        Q.   During that time, were you deployed to any other regions, apart

 8     from the area of Eastern Slavonia?

 9        A.   No.

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 13679











11 Pages 13679-13684 redacted. Closed session.
















Page 13685

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7        Q.   During your testimony last week at page 13592, when you were

 8     asked about a document relating to events in Dalj on the

 9     21st of September, 1991, you stated that at this time you were in

10     Borovo Selo and you probably went to Dalj.  "I cannot dispute that," you

11     said.

12             Do you recall saying that?

13        A.   I suppose I did say so.

14        Q.   So on and after the 21st of September, 1991, you were in Dalj

15     gathering information as a DB operative; is that right?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Were you also in Dalj gathering information on or about the

18     4th of October of 1991?

19        A.   I probably was.

20        Q.   There has been evidence in this case that in September and

21     October of 1991 Serb forces, particularly SAO SBWS TO and SAO SBWS MUP

22     forces, arrested Croat civilians and kept them in a detention facility in

23     the police building in Dalj.  On the 21st of September, 1991,

24     Goran Hadzic and Zeljko Raznjatovic, aka Arkan, visited the detention

25     facility and ordered the release of two of the detainees.

Page 13686

 1             According to the evidence, Serb forces, in particular the SBWS TO

 2     and MUP forces, and Arkan's SDG shot and killed 11 detainees and buried

 3     them in a mass grave in the village of Celije.

 4             You told us that you did not find out about this incident until

 5     at least 1993 when you heard it from Cizmic.  Are you saying that in

 6     spite of being in Dalj and in the area of Dalj during and after the

 7     21st of September, 1991, that you never heard of the detention and

 8     execution of ethnic Croat civilians in the Dalj Police Station?

 9        A.   Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying.  And if you want me to, I

10     can explain.

11        Q.   Please do.

12        A.   First, the incident in itself is horrific.  Being there, under

13     those circumstances, in an area of combat activity, I don't think I'd be

14     able to find a person who would have the courage to report it.  And I'm

15     talking about 1993.  The situation settle the down.  The local

16     authorities became operational.  I met Cizmic.  I think he was the

17     commander of the Dalj Police Station at the time.  That was different.

18     Whereas, this particular incident was in 1991.  Everything was possible.

19     Anything could happen anywhere.  And it did.

20             Had I known of this incident, I would have included it in my

21     report, without going into what should happen beyond that.  But I would

22     have stated it as information, yes.

23        Q.   A witness who testified recently told this Chamber that everybody

24     in Dalj knew about this incident at that time.  In particular, those in

25     the police.

Page 13687

 1        A.   I believe him.

 2                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 3             MS. MARCUS:

 4        Q.   How is it that you are the only police officer who was there who

 5     didn't hear about this incident?

 6        A.   First of all, I don't know even that there was a

 7     Dalj Police Station in 1991.  I'm not sure.

 8             Well, as for all the policemen being aware of it, that's

 9     something that I can accept as his statement, a generalisation.  I myself

10     did not go into -- to Dalj to investigate.  I had a mission, and I was

11     supposed to check something in respect of an individual that I was

12     supposed to identify.  Perhaps they had a kind of deference for me from

13     the police service there, so they didn't approach me on this.  But I'm

14     speculating now.

15        Q.   Why would they have had a kind of deference for you?

16        A.   Well, how would I know that?

17        Q.   There has been evidence in this case that on the

18     4th of October, 1991, Serb forces, including Arkan's SDG, and members of

19     the SAO SBWS TO and MUP returned to the police building in Dalj and shot

20     26 ethnic Croat civilians who were detained there.  The bodies, according

21     to the evidence, were then dumped into the Danube river.

22             You testified that you were in Dalj on or about the

23     4th of October, 1991.  In your comment chart, D388, MFI, on page 1, you

24     commented on Exhibit P11, which is a report on this incident.  You stated

25     that you heard about these events considerably later.

Page 13688

 1             Do you recall how you heard about these events?

 2        A.   Can I make a correction?  I cannot state with any certainty that

 3     I was in Dalj on the 4th of October.  It was a period of time when I made

 4     trips there.  But it's difficult for me, 20 years on, to know where I was

 5     on a specific date.

 6             Now let me answer your question.  After I got to know

 7     Zeljko Cizmic, I suppose we were reminiscing about the events from the --

 8     these war-torn areas.  He may have brought it up and told me the story.

 9     But that's where this story between us ended as well.

10        Q.   But that was a couple of years later; is that correct?

11        A.   Well, after this incident, yes, I suppose that's correct.

12        Q.   So in spite of being in or, as you've now clarified, near Dalj at

13     this time, you did not hear anything about the execution of 26 ethnic

14     Croat civilians in the Dalj Police Station on the 4th of October, 1991,

15     at that time?

16        A.   Now, really, I can't be as precise about the dates, and this is a

17     very precise date.  So, simply ...

18        Q.   Now, earlier you tried to explain to us that if Arkan had -- and

19     his forces had attacked civilians, if there were potentially to be

20     serious security consequences of that attack, it would then have been the

21     kind of information that would have been of importance to you in your

22     work.

23             So is this an instance where the assessment would have been that

24     there were no serious consequences of this kind of a killing?  Why would

25     this particular instance not have come to your attention, not have been

Page 13689

 1     something that would you have come across in your work?

 2        A.   Such an incident would definitely merit our attention.  But let

 3     me underline the fact that we are talking about 1991, a period of intense

 4     combat activities.

 5             What followed beyond 1991 was a period of peace and stabilisation

 6     in the area.  There is an enormous difference between what the situation

 7     was like in 1991 and the subsequent years.

 8        Q.   And in this particular instance, you did not see or learn about

 9     the bodies of these ethnic Croatian victims floating down the Danube from

10     Dalj.

11        A.   As far as I remember, I did not.  And I most certainly did not

12     see.

13        Q.   Did you ever hear of the SAO SBWS TO committing crimes alongside

14     Arkan and his men in 1991?

15        A.   No.

16        Q.   What about the SBWS MUP?  Did you ever hear about MUP members

17     committing crimes, along with Arkan's SDG and the TO, in 1991?

18        A.   No.

19        Q.   There has been evidence in this case that in 1991 the SNB was

20     also participating in crimes in co-operation with Arkan, the TO, and

21     other Serb forces in the region.

22             Did you learn of any co-operation between the SNB and Arkan and

23     his SDG to commit crimes in the region?

24        A.   No.

25        Q.   There has been evidence in this case that on the

Page 13690

 1     9th of November, 1991, Arkan led the SDG and the SBWS TO and MUP in

 2     arresting at least nine ethnic Hungarians and Croat civilians and took

 3     them to the Erdut training centre.  They shot and killed these civilians

 4     the next day, according to the evidence.

 5             Did you know anything about this incident at the time?

 6        A.   No.

 7        Q.   So I suppose you also don't know anything about several days

 8     after this when members of the SNB of the SBWS, in co-operation with the

 9     SDG, arrested and killed some relatives of the original victims and threw

10     their bodies into a well in Borovo.

11             Have you heard of that incident?

12        A.   No.

13        Q.   There's also been evidence that on the 11th of November, 1991,

14     the SDG, SBWS TO and MUP forces arrested seven non-Serb civilians and

15     detained them in a house in Erdut.  They beat and interrogated them in

16     that house, according to the evidence.

17             That night, Arkan's Men took them to the training centre in

18     Erdut.  There, they killed the five civilians.

19             Did you learn about these killings?

20        A.   No.

21        Q.   Now, DST-063, from your answers to these questions, it is clear

22     that for the killings that the Prosecution has charged in the SBWS

23     region, you did not even learn that a crime had been committed during the

24     time that you were an operative in Eastern Slavonia in 1991.  You only

25     found out about these murders long after they had been committed.

Page 13691

 1             Would you agree that you are not able to provide accurate

 2     information on the Serb forces who were involved in crimes in

 3     Eastern Slavonia during that time?

 4        A.   I can confirm that you understood me well.  You enumerated

 5     several cases that I'm hearing of for the first time here and now.

 6             If I may add:  November was a period of intense combat activities

 7     and operations around the city of Vukovar, and my activities at the time

 8     were minimal.  And I'm not even sure whether I was physically present

 9     there at the time.

10                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

11             MS. MARCUS:

12        Q.   So you confirm that you do not have information about the Serb

13     forces and their activities and involvement in crimes in Eastern Slavonia

14     in 1991; is that correct?

15        A.   I confirm that.

16        Q.   The Defence informed us that you have knowledge of the appearance

17     of Arkan in the region, Arkan's training camp, and Arkan's relationship

18     with Badza.

19             Did you tell the Defence that can you provide information about

20     Arkan's arrival in the region, his Erdut training camp, and his

21     relationship with Badza?

22        A.   No.  I don't know how this came about.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash.

24             MR. JORDASH:  Again --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  You would like to have it literally quoted?

Page 13692

 1             MR. JORDASH:  Well, yes -- the summary says the witness will --

 2     [Overlapping speakers] ...

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Well, let's -- let's --

 4             Ms. Marcus, there apparently is a comment on the way in which you

 5     put it to the witness.  Would you please literally use the words the

 6     Defence has used.

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18             MS. MARCUS:  Would the Court Officer please call up Exhibit D31.

19        Q.   DST-063, what you will see on the screen in front of you is a

20     military security report regarding the SDB's training centre in Erdut,

21     which is dated 19 October 1991.

22             On page 1, it states that a certain Lieutenant Blagojevic had

23     contacted Arkan at the Erdut centre, and Arkan had told him that:

24             "Weaponry, ammunition, and mines and explosives had been supplied

25     by the MUP and the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia and that

Page 13693

 1     he had been distributing them to the TO staffs in Erdut, Sarvas, and

 2     Borovo Selo ..."

 3             Did you know that these ministries of the Republic of Serbia were

 4     involved with Arkan's training centre?

 5        A.   Absolutely not.

 6             MS. MARCUS:  Could the Court Officer now please call up P1078.

 7        Q.   This is another military security report regarding Arkan and the

 8     SDG, dated January 1992.

 9             MS. MARCUS:  Could I please have page 3 in the English and page 2

10     in the B/C/S.

11        Q.   This report lists the vehicles and weapons that Arkan has at the

12     Erdut centre.  The report goes on to state that these weapons and

13     vehicles were acquired from the TO, MUP, and JNA.

14             Then on page 4 in the English, it states that Arkan is:

15     "... openly supported by the MUP, TO, and MNO of the Republic of Serbia."

16     And that he is officially subordinated to the JNA, but this is only

17     formal.  And he enters and leaves the combat area as he pleases.

18             Do you know where Arkan got the authority to come and go as he

19     pleases, without being reprimanded by any of the authorities?

20        A.   No.  This report was provided by a military man who had such

21     information.  I'm not saying it is correct, but that person was in a

22     situation where he could obtain this type of information, number of

23     vehicles, and so on.  I could not.

24        Q.   Isn't it possible that had you gathered information, you would

25     have learned, yourself, about Arkan's relationship with the Serbian MUP

Page 13694

 1     and DB?

 2        A.   How could I have gathered such information?  Who was I supposed

 3     to ask?

 4             You must understand that I was an operative, and that is the

 5     lowest level within my service at the time.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  I'm done with the document.

 7             DST-063, I understand from your testimony last week that the

 8     1st of August, 1991, was the date of your first trip into Croatia

 9     following the meeting in July.

10             Is that accurate?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   You testified that on that day you went to Borovo Selo and met

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22     between March 1991 and August 1991.

23             Is that your evidence?

24        A.   I cannot say that it was on the 31st of March, that that was the

25     start date.  But after the events in Borovo Selo, they did organise on

Page 13695

 1     their own, yes.

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 13696

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3     inform you of his Serbian DB affiliation?

 4        A.   No, I hear this for the first time.  The only contact was through

 5     me, as far as I know.

 6             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, this might be a good time for our

 7     break, if you're --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you give us an indication as to how much time

 9     would you need after the break.

10             MS. MARCUS:  I will certainly use the entirety of the next

11     session, with your leave.  I'll do my best to finish by the end of the

12     day.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  That would be appreciated.

14             We'll take a break.  And we resume at 12.30.

15                           --- Recess taken at 12.01 p.m.

16                           --- On resuming at 12.35 p.m.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus, you may proceed.

18             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

19             I just wanted to mention that we have a submission we'd like to

20     make in relation to the next witness and the circumstances.  If possible,

21     we'd like to make it before the end of today.  I think that would be

22     useful.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  And how much time would that take?

24             MS. MARCUS:  Maybe about ten minutes or so.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Ten minutes.  I will give you ten minutes at the end

Page 13697

 1     of this session.

 2             MS. MARCUS:  Okay.  Thank you, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 4             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.

 5        Q.   DST-063, did you tell the Defence before your testimony that it

 6   (redacted)

 7     get in touch with?  Did you inform them of that before your testimony?

 8        A.   As far as I recall, I -- no, they did not.  I did not.

 9             MS. MARCUS:  Could I have D398 on the screen, please.

10        Q.   The document we're about to look at is one which you commented in

11     your comments chart and page 7, and you testified about this last week at

12     pages 13603 to 4.  You confirmed that this report was prepared by you.

13             The front page is apparently a cover page forwarding your report

14     to Jovica Stanisic personally at the Serbian DB, which, you say, was done

15     on your suggestion.

16             This report details an incident on the 16th of February, 1993,

17     when the RSK army surrounded the RSK MUP building in Vukovar in an

18     attempt to forcibly remove some of the RSK MUP leadership.

19             Do you recall this incident?

20        A.   Yes.

21             MS. MARCUS:  Could I please have page 3 in B/C/S and page 2 in

22     English.  Focussing, please, on the bottom of page 3 in B/C/S.

23        Q.   Now, on this page it states that the demand was for Ilija Kojic,

24     who was Assistant Minister of the RSK MUP, to be replaced, in addition to

25   (redacted)

Page 13698

 1     replaced, and he was accused - pardon me - he was accused of allegedly

 2     cooperating with the RDB of the MUP of Serbia.

 3             To your knowledge, why was there a demand for Ilija Kojic to be

 4     replaced?

 5        A.   Where co-operation with the DB and the MUP of Serbia is referred

 6     to, what is meant there is my -- is my contacts with him.  I don't know

 7     of any other co-operation with the MUP.

 8             As for the demands, that's not something I can speculate about.

 9        Q.   Perhaps there might be some misunderstanding.

10             My question was that in this document it states that

11   (redacted)

12     MUP of Serbia.

13             And then my question to you, which I think you've answered now,

14     was that there was a -- why -- do you know why there was a demand for

15     Ilija Kojic to be replaced.

16             Now, you've told us that you -- you do not know.

17             So certainly by the time you prepared this report you were aware

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 13699

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15     for the Serbian DB in 1991; is that accurate?

16        A.   Yes.  I'm not aware of it.

17                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

18             MS. MARCUS:

19        Q.   Now, I asked you a few questions ago, How do you know that he

20     didn't work for the DB.  You told us that this is what you know.  How did

21     you know that he never worked for the Serbian DB?

22        A.   Well, I can't be positive about it, but I suppose the man would

23     have told me so.

24             MS. MARCUS:  Could the Court Officer please call up P407, on

25     which the witness provided comments in his comments chart on page 4.

Page 13700

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3     was working in counter-intelligence in the Novi Sad SDB in 1991.  That's

 4     at page 13587.

 5             Now, this report, as can you see, is dated the

 6     22nd of February, 1993, and it's an update on the same incident.  The

 7     first paragraph of the report discusses a conflict between Ilija Kojic

 8     and what is described as the head of the "non-existent Vukovar TO,"

 9     Miroljub Vukovic.

10             Can you assist us in understanding what is meant by "non-existent

11     Vukovar TO"?

12        A.   I cannot confirm all the statements made during in that period of

13     time, but I do know for a fact that Milorad Vujovic [as interpreted] had

14     been a commander of the Vukovar TO for a while.  Why it is referred to

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22        Q.   Okay.  Now, the report states that the information has gotten out

23     of control and turned against Ilija Kojic, Slobodan Ivkovic, Lazic, and

24     Kostic.  The source of this information suggests that Kojic staged the

25     conflict in order to effect a change of leadership of Vukovar TO.

Page 13701

 1             The second paragraph reads:

 2             "The source said Serbia was to blame for all these developments,

 3     that is, the assistant minister of the Ministry of the Interior of

 4     Serbia, Jovica Stanisic, who tried to use Ivkovic, Kojic, and Kostic and

 5     others to turn the Krajina into a twilight zone."

 6             Can you explain, if you know, what was meant by Stanisic trying

 7     to "use Ivkovic, Kojic, Kostic and others to turn Krajina into a twilight

 8     zone"?

 9        A.   Well, I don't know what the author of the text or the source of

10     information meant.  It is a subjective view, after all.

11             But I can't see how it was possible for anyone at all to change

12     anything significantly in the region, apart from a political solution.

13     That's my view.

14             It is up to the source of information to provide explanations for

15     his statements.

16        Q.   Lazic and Kostic are mentioned in this report, which follows up

17     on the incident that you reported about just a few days previously.  But

18     your report did not mention either Lazic or Kostic.

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25     interpretation of the events by Vodolija.

Page 13702

 1        Q.   What did you know about Ivkovic and Lazic's connections to

 2     Jovica Stanisic at the time of these reports?

 3        A.   Absolutely nothing.

 4        Q.   Do you have any reason to disbelieve whether Stanisic would have

 5     done something to encourage conflict?

 6        A.   I cannot comment on it.  I can give you a general statement.  I

 7     don't see that anything significant could change over there.  And who

 8     would have wanted to have a "twilight zone" over there?  The area was

 9     inhabited.  There were people living there.  And nobody could permit

10     themselves to lead them into such a situation.  And who would have dared

11     to?  Individuals mattered least under those circumstances.

12        Q.   There is nothing which would cause you to doubt the source's

13     assertion about Mr. Stanisic's relationship with Ivkovic, Kojic, and

14     Kostic, is there?

15        A.   I have no doubts.  With a high degree of certainty, I can say

16     that the individuals mentioned here never, ever saw Mr. Stanisic.  Had

17     they seen him, they would have boasted about it.  Mr. Stanisic was the

18     leader of my service.  To me, this sounds incredible.

19        Q.   I'm finished with the document.  Thank you.

20             Now, you testified last week that you had never seen or met Boro

21     and Pujo until the meeting that you all attended with Janackovic; is that

22     correct?

23        A.   No, I had never seen Boro, but I knew Bojo [as interpreted]

24     through various sports activities.  I wasn't familiar with his

25     professional dealings.

Page 13703

 1        Q.   And after you were dispatched along with Boro and Pujo and

 2     Vucurevic to Vukovar, you testified that did you not know what activities

 3     they conducted; is that correct?

 4        A.   In principle, yes.  I know that they toured the newly established

 5     police stations, that's all.

 6        Q.   So I take it you didn't know that Boro and Pujo were involved in

 7     meetings of the SBWS TO along with Ilija Kojic and Dragan Lazic; is that

 8     right?

 9             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, can I object to the way that's phrased.  Is

10     that the Prosecution's case?  Does that arise from evidence?  It's

11     presented as fact, but we don't know the basis for that.

12             MR. GROOME:  I'll clarify.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Please to do.

14             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, thank you.

15        Q.   That has been evidence in this case that Boro and Pujo were

16     involved in meetings in the SBWS TO, along with Ilija Kojic and

17     Dragan Lazic.  Are you aware of that?

18        A.   No.

19        Q.   There has also been evidence in this case that Boro and Pujo were

20     involved with the Serbian DB in 1991 during the same time that you were

21     in Eastern Slavonia.  Did you know anything about this?

22             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry.  Could I --

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

24             MR. JORDASH:  Could I object, with the witness's headphones being

25     taken off, please.

Page 13704











11 Pages 13704-13707 redacted. Closed session.
















Page 13708

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19        Q.   DST-063, would you agree that in 1991, during the time that the

20     security situation in Serbia was getting more complex, there was

21     something of a reorganisation of police forces, and special police units,

22     or PJM detachments, were formed.  Isn't that right?

23        A.   I don't know about that, the special police and reorganisation.

24        Q.   Are you aware of the instruction by the minister of the interior

25     to form PJM detachments?

Page 13709

 1        A.   No.

 2        Q.   So you're not aware of a PJM detachment in Novi Sad under the

 3     command of Obrad Stevanovic; is that your evidence?

 4        A.   No.  I am aware of that.  But I don't know when the minister took

 5     the decision to establish the PJMs.  I am aware of it, but only of it

 6     existing at a later date.

 7        Q.   According to your knowledge, from what time are you aware of the

 8     PJM detachment in Novi Sad under the command of Obrad Stevanovic?

 9        A.   I cannot specify when, but it was 1992 or 1993.  That was when I

10     became aware of this term "PJM."

11             Unfortunately, I cannot help you beyond that.  And I'm hearing

12     for the first time that Mr. Stevanovic was the commander of the PJM in

13     Novi Sad.

14        Q.   According to the information we have, Obrad Stevanovic was the

15     commander of the PJM overall.  But the commander of the PJM in Novi Sad

16     was Boro Predragovic.  Were you aware of that?

17        A.   Yes.  That, yes.  But Obrad Stevanovic was not the commander of

18     the PJM in Novi Sad, as you told me a moment ago.

19        Q.   According to your knowledge, was Obrad Stevanovic the overall

20     commander of the PJM in the region?

21        A.   In what region?  I apologise.

22        Q.   In the broader region surrounding Novi Sad, in the Vojvodina

23     area.

24        A.   It is possible, but I was not aware of it.  And I'm not aware of

25     it now.

Page 13710

 1        Q.   From what date are you aware of Boro Predragovic being the

 2     commander of the PJM in Novi Sad?

 3        A.   It was certainly later than 1991, but I cannot tell you anything

 4     more precise than that.

 5        Q.   Were you aware of Dragoslav Krsmanovic being Boro Predragovic's

 6     deputy?

 7        A.   No.

 8        Q.   Now, at the time the security situation was worsening, namely in

 9     May 1991, the Serbian minister of the interior adopted a decision on

10     Operative Action Danube.

11             Are you familiar with Operative Action Danube?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   So you will be able to confirm for us that under

14     Operative Action Danube operative staff monitored the territory along the

15     border with the Republic of Croatia; is that correct?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   And the staff of Operative Action Danube were situated in

18     Novi Sad; is that right?

19        A.   That I do not know.  I'm not even sure we're talking about the

20     same action, because my service was forwarding its report as a part of

21     this operative action.  Now, what the public security service was doing,

22     I would not want to speculate on that.

23        Q.   So you confirm that your operative work was, in fact, a part of

24     Operative Action Danube.

25        A.   Yes.

Page 13711

 1        Q.   Did you mention this to the Defence before you came to testify

 2     here?

 3        A.   No.

 4        Q.   Now, correct me if I'm wrong:  As far as I know, the territory

 5     covered by this Operative Action Danube was divided into three parts; is

 6     that correct?

 7        A.   That I don't know.  You reminded me of the action.  I wouldn't

 8     have remembered its name on my own without your help.

 9        Q.   Based on your evidence, you carried out your functions within the

10     Novi Sad DB in Bac municipality; is that correct?

11        A.   Not only in the municipality of Bac.  The municipalities

12     bordering with Croatia are Bac, Backa Palanka, and Beocin.

13        Q.   So who was the commander within Operative Action Danube to whom

14     you were responsible?

15        A.   That I don't know.  My reports that were part of this action were

16     drafted by me and sent to the centre, which does not necessarily mean

17     that such reports, if the contents merited it, were forwarded to the

18     centre down there.  But who was leading the action, that I don't know.

19        Q.   Would you agree with me that Miodrag Zavisic was the commander of

20     Operative Action Danube in the area of Bac municipality?

21        A.   I cannot agree with you because I don't know.  He was there, but

22     what his position was, I don't know.

23        Q.   Can you explain to us how is it possible to be an operative

24     within an operative action and not know who's the commander of the

25     operative action in which you're working?

Page 13712

 1        A.   I can explain it in quite simple terms.

 2             First of all, we have two different services involved here.  My

 3     level of awareness at the time is very modest.  And the name of the

 4     commander of the Operative Action Danube was not something that would

 5     mean anything to me then or now.  I had very clear tasks, and I just list

 6     them as being related to the Operative Action Danube, and that's all.

 7             MS. MARCUS:  Could I have one moment, please, Your Honour.

 8                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 9             MS. MARCUS:

10        Q.   DST-063, I'm going to ask you about something you said earlier.

11     I'm just looking for the transcript reference.  It was today.

12             Now, on page 36 of the temporary transcript, I asked you:

13             "Do we understand correctly that this mission was one which

14     lasted, for you, from the moment of that meeting in July 1991 all the way

15     through to the Erdut Agreement in 1995?"

16             Your response was:  "Yes.  I was going to the area throughout

17     that period, yes."

18             Then you were asked:  "During that time, were you deployed to any

19     other regions, apart from the area of Eastern Slavonia?"

20             Your answer was:  "No."

21             That's the end of the quote.

22             Can you confirm for us that you did not take part in any other

23     operative tasks anywhere else other than Slavonia and the Vojvodina area

24     in 1991?

25        A.   I can absolutely confirm that, yes.

Page 13713

 1        Q.   Have you ever seen your DB personnel file?

 2        A.   I may have, but I don't remember.

 3        Q.   Well, let's take a look at your personnel file.  Your official

 4     record does not seem to correspond to what you were actually doing.

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 13714











11 Pages 13714-13716 redacted. Closed session.
















Page 13717

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15             Please proceed.

16             MS. MARCUS:  Understood, Your Honour.  Thank you.

17        Q.   Now, DST-063, are you aware that Jovica Stanisic also had

18     Milan Radonjic retroactively officially deployed to Kosovo from May to

19     November of 1991?

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the counsel please repeat the name of the

21     person.

22             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you.  It was Milan Radonjic.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

24             MS. MARCUS:

25        Q.   Are you aware that Jovica Stanisic also had Dragan Filipovic

Page 13718

 1     retroactively officially deployed to Kosovo from April to November 1991?

 2        A.   No.

 3        Q.   Are you aware that Jovica Stanisic also had Franko Simatovic

 4     retroactively officially deployed to Kosovo from April to November 1991?

 5        A.   No.

 6        Q.   Were you operating in co-ordination or co-operation with

 7     Franko Simatovic in Eastern Slavonia in 1991?

 8        A.   No.  And I've never seen him there.

 9        Q.   So your evidence would be that all of these retroactive

10     assignments to Kosovo would have been for the purpose of justification of

11     financial expenses incurred in SBWS.

12             Is that your evidence?

13        A.   I can only speak for myself.  And roughly, yes.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could I ask you:  You say, I can't speak for

15     the others.  To what extent can you confirm that it was the financial

16     aspects that caused your retroactive deployment in Kosovo?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot be absolutely certain

18     about it.  I can see that as the only possible reason, because I do know

19     that there was a problem of that nature.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  How did you know that; and what was exactly that

21     problem?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that I was supposed to get

23     some finances that would cover per diems and separated life and that

24     there was no modus that could be found to take care of it.  And I do

25     remember that it took a while before it was resolved, if it was resolved

Page 13719

 1     at all.  That's all I can say.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Did you receive those per diems?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think so, but after quite a

 4     delay.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You're talking about the delay.  Is it true

 6     that you did receive them, although delayed; or do you say, It was

 7     delayed but whether I received it finally, yes or no, I do not remember?

 8             Which of the two?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I did receive it.  I'm

10     convinced I received it.  But I cannot remember when or any details about

11     it.  But I do believe that it was resolved positively for me.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.

13             I was asking the question because initially the witness said that

14     he -- he could only assume a certain explanation, where there seems to be

15     at least some factual ground for it.

16             Please proceed.

17             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

18        Q.   Last clarification I have on this particular issue.

19             So are you saying that this financial payment that you received,

20     that you ultimately received, per diems, reimbursement for expenses,

21     et cetera, which you say was justified by this false deployment document,

22     that you received that from the Serbian DB in recognition of a work that

23     you did in the SBWS in 1991?

24        A.   I wouldn't describe it as some kind of recognition for my work.

25     I believe it was something that I was due anyhow, and there was no other

Page 13720

 1     way of resolving it.  I just cannot see what other intention may have

 2     been behind a decision such as this.  What would be the intention of it?

 3     What would be the purpose of it?

 4        Q.   So, in your view, due to your work in SBWS in 1991 for the

 5     Serbian DB, you were due this money as compensation, reimbursement for

 6     expenses, et cetera.

 7             Do I have that right?

 8        A.   Yes.  It was due to me, but there was also the administrative

 9     problem of the close proximity of that region.  Very often I would return

10     to Novi Sad, and simply a mode was found.  I could have been deployed to

11     the Nis centre, which is about 300 kilometres away from Novi Sad, and I

12     would get the same.

13        Q.   So you were being paid as if you were carrying out operations or

14     operative actions in Kosovo, although you were actually carrying out your

15     operative actions in SBWS; is that right?

16        A.   Yes, I think now you've come closest to the truth.

17             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, I have, I would say, about a half an

18     hour to 40 minutes more of cross-examination, and I'm conscious of the

19     decisions that we have to make about the next witness.  I just wanted to

20     raise that for Your Honours.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             We'll -- Witness DST-063, we would need a bit more of your time

23     tomorrow.  And we'd like to see you back tomorrow in the afternoon.  I

24     again instruct you that you should not speak with anyone about your

25     testimony, whether already given or still to be given tomorrow, and I'd

Page 13721

 1     like to invite you to follow the usher and leave the courtroom.  See you

 2     back tomorrow.

 3                           [The witness stands down]

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10                           [Open session]

11             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, now everything -- [Overlapping speakers] ...

13             MS. MARCUS:  Let me just verify that.

14                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

15             MS. MARCUS:  This morning before court I sent around electronic

16     versions of this submission and another one that I was going to make, so

17     I'm sorry that that didn't reach -- seems not to have reached the booths.

18     We're going to send one through right now.  I don't know which booth is

19     going to get the hard copy.  If someone tells us, tells the Case Manager,

20     which person to send it to by e-mail, we will do that immediately.

21             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, were they sent to the Defence?  We haven't

22     found them.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  No, but I do understand it's for the purposes of --

24     we usually, Mr. Jordash, also do not send to the parties already a copy

25     of what are read-like statements or these kind of things.  It's purely in

Page 13722

 1     order to facilitate the interpreters to do their job.  Nothing else.

 2             Please proceed, Ms. Marcus, if you would, at least when you read,

 3     do it slowly.

 4             MS. MARCUS:  I will do so, Your Honours.

 5             The Prosecution submission is that we have been detrimentally

 6     prejudiced in the context of our preparations for the testimony of

 7     DST-040.  For the reasons I'm going to set forth, the Prosecution

 8     requests that cross-examination be postponed until after the adjournment.

 9             The Defence informed the Prosecution on Wednesday, the

10     24th of August, at 7.15 p.m., that the next witness, who was to be

11     DST-030, would not be coming to testify the following week.  Just a day

12     prior, the Defence had informed the Prosecution that we could anticipate

13     receiving the 92 ter statement for DST-030 very soon.

14             Until that point, the Prosecution was heavily engaged in

15     preparatory work for DST-030 and DST-042.  The ISU Unit was engaged; the

16     Translation Unit informed of the prioritisation of documents pertaining

17     to DST-030 from his ISU search.  Rule 66(B) disclosure requests were

18     being prepared.  Rule 70 providers were contacted in relation to

19     restricted documents in the ISU search results, and the team itself

20     focussed all its work on DST-030.  Following that, the team would turn to

21     DST-042.

22             When DST-030's testimony was postponed, the Defence informed us

23     of their plan to call DST-040, who was scheduled to be the third witness

24     following DST-030.  The Prosecution does very much appreciate the Defence

25     providing the draft statement of DST-040 that same evening, as well as

Page 13723

 1     their preliminary documents list containing approximately 236 documents.

 2     The Prosecution would note, however, that the draft statement provided to

 3     the Prosecution was compiled to a certain extent on dates in 2009 and

 4     2010.  Therefore, this draft statement could have been provided to the

 5     Prosecution by one week prior to the commencement of the Defence case, as

 6     we submit, was required pursuant to Rule 67(A)(ii).

 7             The change in the witness orders implicates not only the

 8     Prosecution's preparation for the witness but it has other implications

 9     which cause something of a domino effect on other units in the Tribunal

10     as well.  The last-minute change affects the timing of the ISU searches

11     for this witness, the consequent Rule 70 clearance requests, the shifting

12     of priorities for translation, and the responses from RFAs to Serbia.

13             We made those shifts urgently on Friday to the best of our

14     ability.  In that context, the Prosecution notified Serbia that DST-040

15     will be testifying next week, that is, this week.  And Serbia expedited

16     the response to the RFA in respect of DST-040.  The expedited response

17     was provided.  I would note that is only partially responsive to our

18     request.  It was provided on Monday, the 29th of August, at the close of

19     business, containing 681 pages.  Upon a brief view of those documents,

20     they are directly and centrally relevant to the credibility of the

21     witness.

22             Just prior to that, the Prosecution had also received the RFA

23     response in relation to DST-063 who is currently on the stand.  That

24     response contained 150 pages.

25             One very serious concern is that the RFA responses which we

Page 13724

 1     receive, including these and others, are redacted in ways which impact

 2     upon the substance.  In particular, names are redacted which could be

 3     highly relevant to our case.

 4             I will just show Your Honours one example.  It's not from these

 5     two witnesses, but it's from another RFA response relevant to the case,

 6     and this -- these very extensive redactions that I've shown you --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus, for the record, you've shown us one

 8     piece of paper with some five squares covering approximately a third of

 9     the surface of that piece of paper fully in black.

10             Please proceed.

11             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

12             The Prosecution may be seeking to engage the Chamber on this

13     matter which we feel impacts upon Serbia's co-operation with the

14     Tribunal.  With respect to this, the Prosecution puts on the record that

15     for any witnesses whose RFA responses from Serbia contain substantive

16     redactions we may be seeking leave to re-call those witnesses once we are

17     able to review the unredacted versions.

18             In the mean time, additional language resources were requested

19     and some language staff had to work yesterday during the holiday on the

20     response for the witness that's currently on the stand, DST-063.

21             On Monday, the 29th of August, at 7.38 p.m., the Prosecution

22     received the final statement for DST-040.  At 10.08 p.m., we received the

23     final list of documents, containing 127 documents.  At 1.38 p.m.

24     yesterday, the 30th of August, the Prosecution received the comments

25     chart for DST-040 containing 56 documents.  But this morning the Defence

Page 13725

 1     added a number of documents to his exhibit list yet again.

 2             Now, the Prosecution understands the challenges involved in

 3     calling witnesses.  However, the Prosecution's ability to prepare has

 4     been severely hampered in the instant circumstances.  The

 5     Stanisic Defence requested the adjournment and they also requested the

 6     shift in the witness schedule.  Now they ask for the schedule to be

 7     adjusted yet again to add additional hearings.

 8             We submit that in light of the circumstances this would unfairly

 9     prejudice the Prosecution.  Due to the fact that the Prosecution has had

10     the final statement only three days prior to commencement of testimony,

11     we are still unaware of whether his comments chart contains the final

12     selected exhibits or only some of them, and due to the RFA response which

13     contains 681 pages which cannot be processed in one week, the Prosecution

14     requests that the schedule remain as it is and that cross-examination of

15     DST-040 be conducted after the adjournment.

16             This proposed solution would not result in any prejudice to the

17     ability of the Defence to present its case.

18             In addition, we request the Chamber to order the Defence to

19     provide us with all draft statements of upcoming witnesses pursuant to

20     Rule 67(A)(ii) to enable us to prepare for those witnesses' evidence

21     during the adjournment.

22             And finally, Your Honours, we request that the Defence confirm to

23     us the order of witnesses to be called after the adjournment.

24             Thank you.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Ms. Marcus.

Page 13726

 1             Mr. Jordash, I'm looking at the clock.  I do not know whether it

 2     would be good to ask you to answer, which would be a matter of one or two

 3     minutes only, or whether I would invite you to make brief submissions

 4     either in writing in an informal way and then we put that on the record

 5     or whether you would start tomorrow morning -- well, tomorrow afternoon,

 6     it would be, first, to address the matter.

 7             I'm just looking -- at the same time, I'm also aware that, of

 8     course, tomorrow afternoon means another day of uncertainty.

 9             MR. JORDASH:  The only problem I can envisage that if the

10     Prosecution are right, in relation to this latest disclosure, and that it

11     impacts upon their ability to cross-examine the witness, then -- and

12     Your Honours agree with that, then it follows that it would impact upon

13     our ability to lead the witness in direct.  So it may be that leaving the

14     argument until tomorrow might -- well, I'm thinking aloud.  It could be

15     level until tomorrow, but that certainly would be part of the submission.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  I do not know whether I fully understand that it

17     would impact on your ability to lead the witness in direct.  Is that

18     because the RFA information came so late?  Is that what you're referring

19     to?

20             MR. JORDASH:  Well, one thing that I would want or prefer would

21     be that the Prosecution indicate what it is within the RFA that makes it

22     so difficult for them to cross-examine the witness.  I'm -- at least

23     generally speaking.  Because we've gone through it and can't see what the

24     problem is because most of it relates to the trial of a number of people

25     for the killing of Djindjic in 2003.  There's nothing in that RFA, as far

Page 13727

 1     as we can see, which relates to this trial.

 2             So perhaps we've missed something, and we'd like the Prosecution

 3     to identify it so we can all know what we're dealing with.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I suggest that the first thing you would do is

 5     to spend ten minutes together and that you explain that the 750 pages --

 6     and I might remember your words, Mr. Jordash, that 750 pages, just a

 7     couple of days is quite sufficient.  If you know more or less what the

 8     problem is, that would be really sufficient.  I will remember those

 9     words.  I'll not hold them against you, but I'll not forget them.

10             And perhaps you spend ten minutes on the matter together so that

11     you convince Ms. Marcus that it's only the shopping lists of Mr. A, B, or

12     C, or that it's just the hairdresser's invoices over two years.  So that

13     Ms. Marcus, tomorrow, could report to the Chamber that she agrees with

14     you and that there's no reason to postpone the cross-examination.

15             What I'm suggesting is that you try to find out what really that

16     material is about and to see to what extent you could meet each other's

17     concerns.  And then the Chamber, of course, will finally decide on how we

18     will proceed and whether we'll grant the request by Ms. Marcus.

19             But it seems that some more homework needs to be done before the

20     Chamber is fed with the right information to decide on the request, at

21     least in the respect of the postponement of the cross-examination.

22             We adjourn for the day.  And we'll resume tomorrow, the

23     1st of September, at quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon, in this same

24     courtroom, II.

25                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.52 p.m.,

Page 13728

 1                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 1st day

 2                           of September, 2011, at 2.15 p.m.