Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 17820

 1                           Wednesday, 29 February 2012

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

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

 7     Courtroom number III.  Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 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             There seem to be no preliminaries.  Ms. Marcus, are you ready to

12     continue your cross-examination?

13             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Then before we continue, I'd like to again,

15     Mr. Karan, remind you that you're still bound by the solemn declaration

16     you've given at the beginning of your testimony.

17                           WITNESS:  MLADEN KARAN [Resumed]

18                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

19             JUDGE ORIE:  You may proceed, Ms. Marcus.

20             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

21                           Cross-examination by Ms. Marcus:  [Continued]

22        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Karan.

23        A.   Good morning.

24             MS. MARCUS:  Could the Court Officer please call up P235, the

25     first page for now.

Page 17821

 1        Q.   Mr. Karan, a log-book of entries from the Pauk headquarters has

 2     been admitted into evidence in this case.  This is an operational

 3     log-book containing hour-by-hour and sometimes minute-by-minute

 4     operational activities regarding combat operations carried out by the

 5     Joint Command in Operation Pauk.

 6             Did you ever have the opportunity to see this log-book during

 7     your visits to Petrova Gora?

 8        A.   No.  I did not see that.  The first time I've ever seen it was

 9     here when I arrived in The Hague.

10             MS. MARCUS:  Could I please have page 9 in English, which

11     corresponds to page 15 in B/C/S.

12        Q.   Karan, this log-book contains entries describing, as I said, hour

13     to hour combat activities, including the activities of Milorad Ulemek,

14     aka Legija, and Raja Bozovic, both of who you agree commanded tactical

15     groups in Velika Kladusa in the Pauk operation.  For your information,

16     there are 47 mentions of Bozovic and 78 mentions of Legija in this

17     operational log-book.

18             What you see in front of you is an example of one of the pages

19     from the log-book.  These entries are from the 17th of November, 1994.

20     Let me give you just a moment to have a look at it.

21             Could I draw your attention to the middle of the page to the

22     entry at 1005.  It says:  "Observe targets, you will get fire."

23             And you can see the entry to Bozovic to the right of that.  At

24     1040 it says:  "Atalusa to be fired on by tanks, BOV-3."  At 1120, you

25     can see helicopters landed near Cazin from the correction of Plitvice,

Page 17822

 1     Muslims have abandoned Ripac and still hold half of Grabez.  And to the

 2     right of that, you see the entry Frenki and RPG.

 3             A bit further down you will see at 1320 an entry which says:

 4     "Muslims are organising a counter-attack from the direction of Vrnograc,"

 5     and to the right of that you see again RPG and Frenki.

 6             Do you know who bore the nickname RPG?

 7        A.   I never -- RPG [Realtime transcript read in error "APG"] is the

 8     abbreviation for the radio interception group or, rather, the centre that

 9     was on Petrova Gora.

10        Q.   So based on what you have told us about Frenki's activities in

11     the context of the Pauk operation in terms of gathering reconnaissance,

12     isn't it a fact that these entries describe combat operations, not purely

13     reconnaissance activities?

14        A.   No.  Let's comment upon the entry at 1120 where it says:  "Three

15     helicopters landed near Cazin from the direction of Plitvice."  You could

16     observe that from the ground as well.  However, when it comes to

17     electronic surveillance, electronic surveillance is the best to observe

18     such activities and at the same time Muslims are organising a counter

19     attack from the direction of Vrgorac which means that they were listening

20     into the communications of the 5th Corps.  So it is easy to conclude that

21     this is, in practical term, an intelligence activity and not a combat

22     activity.

23             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

25             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I apologise for interjecting, but I

Page 17823

 1     would like to say that on line 7 the abbreviation is misrecorded.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It should be RPG.  That's hereby corrected.

 3     Please proceed.

 4             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you.  Could the Court Officer please call up

 5     65 ter 6402.  Your Honours, this is a demonstrative exhibit which the

 6     Prosecution has prepared.  It contains excerpts of P235.  There is

 7     nothing in here which is not in P235.  It's merely a copy in place of

 8     excerpts and we only need to show one because the document has both B/C/S

 9     and English on it.

10        Q.   Mr. Karan, the log-book, the Pauk operational log-book which I've

11     been showing you contains 15 entries discussing the activities of Frenki,

12     Franko Simatovic, as part of the Pauk operations.  I have taken some of

13     them and put them on this exhibit.

14             Could you have a look at some of the entries on this page which

15     are from the Pauk log-book, and then I will ask you a few questions.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you want the witness to look at some of them or

17     all of them?

18             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

19        Q.   All of them, please, sir.  Could you tell me when you're finished

20     with page 1.

21        A.   I'm done.  I'm done.

22        Q.   Could we have page 2, please.

23        A.   Done.

24        Q.   Isn't it a fact, Mr. Karan, that these entries describe Frenki's

25     involvement in the planning and carrying out of combat operations?

Page 17824

 1        A.   As I'm reading this, I can say that he was partly involved in

 2     combat operation activities.  However, I don't see his direct command

 3     over the entire thing.  This is more of informative nature, i.e., one can

 4     see that he arrived for the briefings and briefings, and it was up to the

 5     person who entered all those entries in the log-book how he did it.  I

 6     didn't see him there.  I didn't go there that often, so I can't claim for

 7     a fact whether he was the one who was in charge of combat operations or

 8     not.  As far as I know, electronic surveillance is a very complex

 9     activity, so if he could and if he was able to command combat activities

10     and combat operations, then I would say "chapeau" to him.  And I don't

11     know what General Novakovic would have been doing in that case.  He was

12     the commander.  He was an experienced officer as well as Colonel Bulat,

13     who was a lecturer at the high military school.  He was well-versed in --

14     on combat operations.  I really don't know how much Frenki knew about

15     conducting combat operations.  I really don't know.

16        Q.   On the 23rd of February, at page 17716, you were asked:

17             "Did you know what duties Mr. Simatovic discharged at that time?"

18             This was in connection to Pauk.

19             Your answer was:

20             "I knew that he had gathered a group of engineers and technicians

21     that were involved in electronic surveillance.  He headed that group.  He

22     co-ordinated their work, and that's all I knew and all I needed to know,

23     for that matter."

24             Coming from a security operative, your comment surprised me.  In

25     fact, on the 23rd of February, at page 17686, you stated:

Page 17825

 1             "I emphasised yesterday that I can only speak about the security

 2     situation in my unit, and in that sense I can also talk competently about

 3     the security situation in the area of that unit, that is Western Bosnia

 4     and the area bordering Croatia."

 5             Wasn't it then centrally within your responsibilities to know as

 6     much as you can about the situation in your area?

 7        A.   I don't remember that I said that I -- that my responsibility was

 8     the territory of Western Bosnia.  Actually, I am now claiming that I

 9     never said that.  This may have been misinterpreted.

10             I absolutely claim that in my area of responsibility, the area of

11     responsibility of the 21st Corps, I was really responsible for the

12     security situation.  Yes, the command of Operation Pauk was within my

13     area of responsibility, but it was not under the command of the

14     21st Corps but under the command of the Main Staff.  I did not have any

15     operational needs to monitor the activities and actions of the Pauk

16     operation command because they were not our enemy, and that was the

17     simple reason.  And it is true that I said that Mr. Simatovic worked on

18     Petrova Gora and that he was involved in electronic surveillance together

19     with a team of people.  As I've already told you, this is a very complex

20     activity, and to this very day I still claim that it would be practically

21     impossible to do both things at the same time, because it doesn't suffice

22     only to intercept conversations.  These conversations have to be analysed

23     and -- and then translated into valuable reports to be sent to those that

24     they were intended for.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Karan, you said you don't remember that you said

Page 17826

 1     that your responsibility was the territory of Western Bosnia, and does

 2     that include what Ms. Marcus read, Western Bosnia and the area bordering

 3     Croatia?  You said you don't remember that.  And then you continued by

 4     saying you even claim that you did not say it and that it might be

 5     misinterpreted.

 6             Now, it's relatively easy for us to verify whether you said that

 7     or not.  If it is your claim that your words were not -- that's not what

 8     you said and that it may have been wrongly translated, we'll verify that.

 9     Is that -- is your claim so strong as -- that we should verify it,

10     because we do not wish to misunderstand your testimony.  So if you say

11     you still claim this is not what you said, we'll have it verified and

12     then it's all audio recorded, both your words and the interpretation, so

13     if you say, My claim stands, then we'll do that.

14             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation] I stick by my claim.  I was in no

15     position to ever say that my responsibility was --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Whether you were in a position or not, the question

17     is whether you did say it or whether you didn't say it, and it will be

18     verified on the basis of the audio recording of both your words and the

19     translation and what is transcribed.

20             Ms. Marcus, you may proceed.

21             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

22        Q.   Now, Mr. Karan, wouldn't it have been part of your responsibility

23     to at least be aware who was operating in the -- in your area of

24     responsibility, what their activities involved, for security reasons at

25     least but also for information-sharing purposes toward a common goal?

Page 17827

 1        A.   Well, you're right, yes.  That's correct.

 2        Q.   In fact, twice you used a possessive term when you were speaking

 3     about the police both on your testimony at 23rd of February.  The first

 4     time was at page 17692 where you said:  "I know that we provided

 5     Fikret Abdic with police escorts."  And the second time at page 17702

 6     where you said:  "My police intervened in such incidents."

 7             It seems you did view the police activities, at least as falling

 8     into your purview, certainly your knowledge, in fact, it appears from

 9     your comments your -- your direct involvement, but with respect to a

10     high-level Serbian MUP official such as Franko Simatovic, you did not

11     need to know more about what he was doing other than co-ordinating the

12     work of a group of engineers and technicians in electronic surveillance?

13        A.   I don't know what your question is.  If I was talking about my

14     military -- my police, maybe I didn't explain myself fully.  It was the

15     military police, and I was responsible for them in professional terms,

16     and maybe it is my mistake that I used the possessive "mine."  We did

17     provide some of the support in addition to the civilian police to

18     Fikret Abdic, and I was responsible for issuing permits for movement to

19     members of the armed forces in the Western Bosnia region.  I was the one

20     who was exclusively responsible to issue them permits for their

21     unhindered movement in order to be able to carry out their activities in

22     gathering units together, preparing for combat operations and similar

23     things.

24        Q.   Could I please have page 1 again.  Back to page 1.

25             Mr. Karan, today, just before at pages 4 and 5, when I asked you

Page 17828

 1     about Frenki's involvement in planning and carrying out of combat

 2     operations, part your answer was:

 3             "I can say that he was partly involved in combat operation

 4     activities.  However, I don't see his direct command over the entire

 5     thing.  This is more of informative nature.  One can see that he arrived

 6     for the briefings, and it was up to the person who entered those entries

 7     how he did it.  I didn't see him there.  I didn't go there that often, so

 8     I can't claim for a fact whether he was the one who was in charge of

 9     combat operations or not."

10             And you continue to explain how difficult and complex electronic

11     surveillance is.

12             In fact, wouldn't it be consistent with the role of security

13     operatives to gathering intelligence and reconnaissance and use that in

14     guiding combat operations?

15        A.   You mean me or Mr. Simatovic?  Who do you have in mind?

16        Q.   Well, I would -- I think it applies to both, but let's answer

17     about Mr. Simatovic.

18        A.   Mr. Simatovic could collect intelligence by electronic

19     surveillance.  I did not have such means.  I didn't do that.  I'm not an

20     intelligence officer, for that matter.

21        Q.   My question to you is:  Isn't it consistent, isn't it possible

22     that he could have been gathering intelligence and reconnaissance and

23     using that in the planning of combat operations?  Isn't that the entire

24     purpose of gathering intelligence and reconnaissance in the context of

25     war?

Page 17829

 1             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, I -- I'm not sure that the question is as

 2     clear as it could be, because it's not totally clear to me, or at least

 3     it's not clear to me.  It's not clear to me whether my learned friend is

 4     suggesting that the security officer gathers the information and then

 5     personally uses it to -- for combat or gathers the information and then

 6     gives it to another to be used in combat?  I think that might be the

 7     confusion.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus, there is some merit in this observation,

 9     I think.  I mean, the use of intelligence and reconnaissance in combat,

10     even if that would be the purpose and the aim of gathering it, then that

11     doesn't say that much about how it is used, by whom it is used, whether

12     it's passed on, or whether that means that the person gathering that

13     is -- is using it himself for the follow-up or the simultaneous combat

14     operations.  So there is some ambiguity in that question.

15             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I was hoping the witness

16     could shed some light on the relationship between gathering

17     reconnaissance and combat activities.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but then you should put your questions in such

19     a way that there's no ambiguity in it because the risk of getting more

20     confused is greater than that we better understand it.

21             Apart from that, the witness said what he knew and what he

22     doesn't know, and of course this is a question which is rather on the

23     theoretical level, whether this is the aim and whether it could be

24     understood as whether the witness seems to have no direct knowledge of

25     it.

Page 17830

 1             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, respectfully, I do think that he does

 2     have knowledge.  He was a security officer and engaged in combat

 3     operations, so --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but when he asked, Are you talking about me or

 5     about Mr. Simatovic, then you said, Let's focus on Mr. Simatovic.  So if

 6     you want to put the same question to him in relation to himself, then of

 7     course that's a different question.

 8             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  Thank you.  I will do that in a

 9     few moments, sir.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed --

11             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  -- with the -- in the back of your mind the

13     observations made.  Please proceed.

14             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, thank you.

15        Q.   Mr. Karan, let me try this again.  With respect to Mr. Simatovic,

16     would it necessarily be inconsistent to say that Mr. Simatovic may have

17     been gathering reconnaissance, gathering intelligence, and also used that

18     information in the planning and carrying out of combat operations, based

19     on your experience?

20        A.   I'm saying again it was practically impossible physically to do

21     both, because anyone involved in gathering intelligence through

22     electronic surveillance knows what demanding work it is, and it would

23     take a super man to plan combat activities at the same time to the extent

24     I've done the same things within my service.  I know this, because what

25     would be the purpose of that?  If he did it, then the Pauk command was

Page 17831

 1     not necessary, nor was it necessary to attach part of the corps command.

 2     The general would not have been needed at the head of it all.  The

 3     Chief of Staff who was in the rank of colonel or general would not need

 4     to be attached to that.

 5        Q.   Mr. Karan, I hear your reasoning and you were speculation.  Let

 6     me ask you specifically about your knowledge.  Let's look at the first

 7     page of the -- that's in front of us.  The first entry on the 18th of

 8     November 1994:

 9              "Frenki requests that Alatusa and Plazikur be the first targets.

10     Do the job with 82-millimetre mortars.  Do the job with our

11     co-ordination.  What I am sending I will send to Ramici.  When you get to

12     Atalusa open fire on Plazikur."

13             Let's move to the next one, same day a little bit later:

14             "Frenki is looking for Bozovic to insert our forces (MUP)."

15             Next entry:

16             "Frenki is sending four Maljutkas operators and two suitcases to

17     Kole in Katinovac."

18             Now, these entries, Mr. Karan, do describe, as you said earlier,

19     Frenki being involved, at least in planning, and arguably with the first

20     one even co-ordinating combat operations; isn't that correct?

21        A.   From what is written here you could say that's true.  However,

22     he's the first one to learn the movements of the enemy, and he's the

23     first one in a position to react, because you can see here that he is

24     informing someone.

25        Q.   That is precisely my point, Mr. Karan.  Frenki was in a position

Page 17832

 1     to obtain this information and use that information in the planning of

 2     combat operations.  Isn't -- did I understand your evidence correctly?

 3        A.   No.  No, because the person who first learns about the movements

 4     of the 5th Corps, or whichever other enemy, must pass on that information

 5     to the units that are involved, that are fighting that enemy.  You can

 6     see -- or you can't see from this that he is involved in the

 7     co-ordination of any activities.

 8             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, I'd like to tender this demonstrative

 9     exhibit.  It's 65 ter 6402.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  I hear of no objections.

11             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry.  Could I just inquire whether this has been

12     in another form exhibited before.  I'm not sure.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I think Ms. Marcus told us it's an extract from a

14     log-book.

15             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  Yes, these are excerpts from --

16     just simply cut and paste excerpts from the log-book admitted as P235.

17             MR. JORDASH:  No objection.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 6402 will receive number P3091,

20     Your Honours.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  P3091 is admitted into evidence.

22             MS. MARCUS:  Could the Court Officer please call up P3024.

23        Q.   What you see in front of you is a document which is in evidence

24     in this case.  It is a report from the Serbian DB JATD dated

25     February 1995 several months after we say the Serbian DB became directly

Page 17833

 1     involved in the Pauk Joint Command.

 2             On the first page you can see an overview of command post

 3     security.  May I please have page 2 in both languages.

 4             On page 2 you see descriptions of convoy escorts and laying an

 5     ambush.  It says under "laying an ambush":

 6             "The following members participated in the ambush:

 7             "Keres," that is, by the way, Janko Keres, the author of the

 8     document, "Jankovic, Dukic, Kuburovic, two Z-M Strela shoulder-launched

 9     rocket system operators from the ARSK and two communications

10     operators ..."

11             Could I please have page 3 in both languages.

12             Here on page 3 you find an entry describing the conduct of sniper

13     operations.

14             Near the bottom it says:

15             "Keres, Jankovic, Suvara, Dukic, and Davidovic took part in the

16     action."

17             Our position, Mr. Karan, is that this report describes the

18     co-ordinated joint combat operations in which the JATD participated with

19     the SVK during Operation Pauk.  Would you like to comment on that?

20        A.   As far as I remember, when the group for electronic surveillance

21     arrived, and that was in about 20 vehicles carrying equipment, there

22     arrived also 40 to 50 persons who secured that convoy and who were

23     engaged up there in providing security to the facility at Petrova Gora

24     itself.  From this document, one could say that some of those persons who

25     had arrived took part in the activities.

Page 17834

 1        Q.   Combat activities you mean?

 2        A.   Yes.  You can see that.

 3        Q.   Could I please have page 5 in B/C/S and in English page 4.

 4     Mr. Karan, you told us earlier that you knew Rajo Bozovic and Legija to

 5     be commanders of two of the tactical groups which operated in Pauk.  As

 6     you can see according to this Serbian DB report, Bozovic and Legija were

 7     issued with military equipment by the Serbian DB in November and December

 8     of 1994.  Were you aware that Bozovic and Legija were operating in

 9     Operation Pauk, deployed and equipped by the Serbian DB?

10        A.   I didn't know the two of them.  I only heard of them the first

11     time when they arrived in 1994.  I described to you how I addressed my

12     superior for an explanation.  I've never seen a document like this

13     before, and I don't know that they received special equipment from the

14     Serbian DB.  I just don't have that information.

15        Q.   Finally could I please have page 5 in English and page 6 in

16     B/C/S.

17             The last page of this document lists special equipment and those

18     to whom it was issued.  Do you recognise any of the names on this list?

19        A.   No, I don't know anyone from this list.

20        Q.   So you were not aware then that the individuals, these

21     individuals, were members of the JATD of the Serbian DB during the time

22     they were operating as part of Operation Pauk?

23        A.   No.  I believed my superior when he told me about these two, but

24     I suppose that they had arrived with some more members of their service

25     for security purposes, which would be normal, but I don't know any of

Page 17835

 1     these people.

 2        Q.   On the 23rd of February, at page 17707, you were asked:

 3             "Do you know that the MUP of Serbia in October 1994 or perhaps

 4     later ever sent any material and technical equipment that would be used

 5     in Operation Pauk?"

 6             And you answered:

 7             "I don't know if I was clear enough.  Material and technical

 8     equipment, when it comes to counter-intelligence, are not cannons or

 9     ammunition.  Those are some special-purpose equipment.  So when the

10     commander talks about MTS is one thing, and my MTS is a different thing.

11     Our MTS is not visible, whereas the material and equipment for command

12     and its units are lethal weapons."

13             Would you agree with me that the equipment issued on this page

14     and the previous page is not equipment for counter-intelligence

15     activities, not for reconnaissance activities, but, rather, equipment

16     directly related to armed combat operations?

17        A.   What I see on these lists are lights.  I don't know why they

18     would be specifically intended for combat, perhaps only movement by

19     night.  Could you perhaps show me again that previous list so I can

20     comment, but this tells me nothing.

21             MS. MARCUS:  Could I have the previous page, please, in both

22     languages.

23             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation] Yes.  On this list you see that

24     some of these are MTS for combat.

25             MS. MARCUS:  Could the Court Officer now please call up P1285,

Page 17836

 1     page 4 in English and page 3 in B/C/S.

 2        Q.   Mr. Karan, Mr. Bakrac showed you this document during his

 3     examination last Thursday, the 23rd of February, at page 17692.  If you

 4     recall, this document dates from June 1994.  It discusses the provision

 5     of weapons and ammunition to Fikret Abdic by Slobodan Milosevic through

 6     the RSK government.  At page 17694, Mr. Bakrac asked you:

 7             "Sir, do you know that already in June 1994, Fikret Abdic had

 8     meetings with the President of Serbia?"

 9             And your answer was:

10             "According to what I know, he met with the President of Serbia

11     even before that.  I know that we provided Fikret Abdic with police

12     escorts.  We even provided him with temporary force ID bearing a Serbian

13     name so he could cross the territory of Republika Srpska on his way to

14     Belgrade."

15             Now, you explained to us a bit earlier that when you said police

16     escorts, you were referring to military police escorts.  What temporary

17     force ID did you provide Abdic with?

18        A.   You did not understand me well.  IDs were provided to

19     Fikret Abdic for his trip to Belgrade by SUP Vojnic.  We just provided

20     escort from Velika Kladusa to Vojnic to ensure safe passage, but we were

21     not in a position to provide documents like that because it was not

22     within our jurisdiction, and I said earlier that I provided temporary

23     laissez-passers to the members of the armed force of Fikret Abdic.

24        Q.   One of the paragraphs you were shown by Mr. Bakrac appears on the

25     page in front of you.  It begins with the words "at these meetings Abdic

Page 17837

 1     accepted."  Could I ask you to please re-read that paragraph again to

 2     remind yourself.

 3        A.   I'm done.

 4        Q.   As you can see, in addition to meeting with President Milosevic,

 5     this paragraph describes Jovica Stanisic as having been present at this

 6     early planning and organisational meeting.  Our position is that in

 7     addition to Slobodan Milosevic, Jovica Stanisic was also involved in the

 8     organisation of military support to Fikret Abdic and the autonomous

 9     province of Western Bosnia, and this is how command and control, in fact,

10     worked.  First there was a political decision-making process, and then as

11     we see in the specific combat order, the military command levels use the

12     political instruction in order to develop military plans whereby they

13     establish specific missions for specific units.

14             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, I refer the Chamber to the transcript

15     of 2nd November, 2010, at page 8640.

16        Q.   Mr. Karan, does what I just put to you conform with your own

17     understanding of how the support to Fikret Abdic was initially planned?

18        A.   That's not how I would read this.  You are just taking the name

19     of Jovica Stanisic out of here, and you are omitting Momcilo Perisic.  He

20     could have also been, based on your thinking, in command of the combat

21     operations in Western Bosnia.  I believe at this meeting Jovica Stanisic

22     is the closest associate of President Milosevic, was present because

23     somebody from the security sector should have been present.  I don't see

24     any link between Jovica Stanisic and the command from this.  Perisic

25     could have equally been in command based on that thinking.

Page 17838

 1        Q.   That's not exactly question I asked.  It is clear from this that

 2     Jovica Stanisic was involved in the planning meetings, isn't it?

 3        A.   I don't think these meetings represented planning.  Agreements

 4     were only made that something needed to be done.  Planning was left to

 5     military commanders.  I don't see the link, at least not from these few

 6     sentences, that he would be the only one who would be planning

 7     activities.  Based on this, Perisic could have done that.  What is

 8     Celeketic doing here then, or Mladic?  They were certainly not just

 9     figureheads at this meeting.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Karan, I don't think the question of Ms. Marcus

11     included that Mr. Stanisic was the only one but purely that he was

12     involved.

13             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation] I understand what Mrs. Marcus

14     meant, but I cannot confirm what she wants to hear from me.  Based on

15     these five lines, I cannot give an opinion about a matter so important,

16     although I can't rule it out either.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  That's fine.  Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.

18             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you.

19        Q.   I actually think we agree on a lot of this.  What -- your answer

20     was, though, one thing I wanted to ask about, you said:

21             "Agreements were only made that something needs to be done.

22     Planning was left to military commanders."

23             The paragraph Mr. Bakrac and that I just showed you says in the

24     first line:  Abdic accepted a proposal on the offensive activities.  So

25     the agreement in this paragraph is talking about an agreement about

Page 17839

 1     military activities, offensive activities; isn't that right?

 2        A.   I don't see anything controversial about that.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  That wasn't the question, whether it's

 4     controversial.  Would you please carefully listen to the question

 5     Ms. Marcus puts to you and then try to answer those questions.  The

 6     question was not, Do you see anything controversial?  The question was

 7     whether this agreement, what should be done, was about military

 8     activities, whether you agree with that.

 9             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation] I agree.

10             MS. MARCUS:  Could the Court Officer please call up 65 ter --

11     yes, I'm sorry.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus, I'd like to ask a follow-up question on

13     a matter which is already a couple of minutes behind us, but perhaps the

14     memory is still closer at this moment than if I would put the question to

15     the witness later.

16             Witness, you were asked by Ms. Marcus about this report, DB JATD,

17     and she went with you through certain parts of that report.  I'm talking

18     about P3024.  One of them was sniping operations conducted.  You were

19     asked about that, and Ms. Marcus wanted to know whether this report of

20     February 1995, whether it showed a direct involvement of the Serbian DB

21     in the joint -- in the Pauk Joint Command, and then on page 3 where the

22     sniper operations are described, she read to you that -- some names were

23     read to you, were -- took part in the action.

24             Now, you responded to the question as follows, you said:

25             "As far as I remember, when the group for electronic surveillance

Page 17840

 1     arrived, and that was in about 20 vehicles carrying equipment, also some

 2     40 to 50 persons arrived who secured that convoy and who were engaged up

 3     there in providing security to the facility of Petrova Gora," and you say

 4     from this document one could say that some of those persons who had

 5     arrived took part in the activities.

 6             Now, the two activities, sniping operations are described.  I'll

 7     read to you what is the second one.  A member with a submachine-gun,

 8     day/night site covered a marksman with a 90-millimetre RB, and after

 9     their fire the -- after their fire, the area around the target was

10     covered by mortar fire, and the targets were hit.

11             Now, I do understand that this action was taken against a hotel

12     building in which the enemy were, and then it's described how -- how this

13     was done.

14             Now, this description of this action, how can I reconcile that

15     with, as you said, providing security to the facility at Petrova Gora

16     itself?  You say this can be explained by that description of -- of the

17     duty of these 40 to 50 people.  This seems to be an attack on a hotel

18     where the enemy is lodged.  Could you explain to me how should I

19     understand this activity against this hotel or the same would be true for

20     the two-storey building which is described as securing the facility at

21     Petrova Gora.

22             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation] I did not have knowledge about any

23     activities of a certain number of persons who arrived there as a security

24     detail.  That's how they came, to provide security, and we can see from

25     this document that there was fighting using the hand-held launcher of

Page 17841

 1     19-millimetre calibre and that it was in the Cazin Krajina.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, could I then put the following to you:  If an

 3     activity is described and if you say people came to provide security to

 4     the facility of Petrova Gora, would you agree with me that there are two

 5     possibilities if you see this -- this -- this operational activity

 6     described?  Either you can put that activity in one way or another in the

 7     context of providing security to the facility of Petrova Gora -- that's

 8     one option.  The other option is that what is described just fell out of

 9     that context, which would mean that whatever their task may have been,

10     that they may not have performed those tasks but were engaged in

11     activities which are foreign to their task.  Would you agree that that

12     are the two options?

13             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation] Based on what we can see here, it

14     is more probable that the second option that you have just laid out is

15     true.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please proceed.

17             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Could I request the

18     Court Officer, please, to call up 65 ter 5608, page 188.

19        Q.   My colleague Mr. Bakrac showed you this entry that you will see

20     in a moment from the Mladic diary, dated 8th of July, 1994.  This is

21     where Mladic held a meeting attended by Milosevic, Perisic,

22     Jovica Stanisic, Martic, Mikelic, and Djukic.  The topic of conversation

23     was what is to be done to help Fikret Abdic.  Do you recall -- well, it's

24     not up yet.  When it's up, could you please tell me whether you recall

25     having looked at that entry and then I will compare it to another one.

Page 17842

 1        A.   I've read it.

 2        Q.   Do you recall being shown this by Mr. Bakrac?

 3        A.   Yes, I do.

 4             MS. MARCUS:  Could I now please request the Court Officer to call

 5     up 65 ter 5609, page 83 in both English and B/C/S.

 6        Q.   This will be another entry from another part of the Mladic

 7     diaries.  This is another excerpt that was shown to you by Mr. Bakrac.

 8     It was shown on the 23rd of February at page 17704.  This one relates to

 9     a meeting which took place on the 4th of October, 1994.

10             Mr. Bakrac did not tell you the participants at this meeting.  In

11     attendance were President Milosevic, General Perisic, General Celeketic,

12     Jovica Stanisic, and General Mladic.

13             Mr. Bakrac asked you:

14             "Do you know something about the agreement between Milosevic,

15     Martic, and Karadzic?  What was that about?"

16             You answered:

17             "That was about an absolute support of Fikret Abdic in every

18     term, especially in military terms, to help him return to the territory

19     of Western Bosnia.  That is political framework for something that the

20     army would have to do."

21             It seems to me in that comment that you agreed with me about the

22     meetings establishing the political framework that set the stage for what

23     would happen militarily.  Do I have that right?

24        A.   Yes, you have that absolute right.

25        Q.   Thank you.  I've finished with this document.

Page 17843

 1             Mr. Karan, isn't it a fact that in the context of war and active

 2     combat operations there are many individuals who participate in combat

 3     operations who do not stand at the front lines firing weapons and

 4     artillery?

 5        A.   Yes, that's a fact.

 6        Q.   So, for example, there are those who carry equipment, those who

 7     drive vehicles, who fly helicopters, there are those who organise

 8     logistics, and there are senior-level officers who also do not

 9     necessarily fire weapons or artillery but pass down the orders to those

10     who do; isn't that right?

11        A.   Yes, that's right.

12        Q.   Similarly, there are also members who gather intelligence or

13     reconnaissance all with the aim of protecting and ensuring the success of

14     combat operations; isn't that correct?

15        A.   Absolutely correct.

16        Q.   And all those individuals in the context of armed conflict are

17     considered to have participated in combat operations, even those who

18     didn't necessarily fire the weapons and artillery at the front lines

19     because they all contribute to the effectiveness of the combat; isn't

20     that correct?

21        A.   Correct.

22             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry.  The question has been answered, but I would

23     have objected to the question.  It's asking the witness effectively for

24     an opinion, but an opinion from which perspective?  I mean, from a

25     lawyer's perspective, from a witness's perspective, from an intelligence

Page 17844

 1     officer's perspective, from a humanitarian worker's perspective?  I mean,

 2     it can be answered in so many different ways.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I was more thinking about asking the obvious.

 4             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  I was more thinking in terms of asking for the

 6     obvious.  Is it true that someone who is in charge of using a telex

 7     machine contributes to the -- of course.  The one who cleans this

 8     building contributes to the success of this Tribunal, isn't it.  I mean

 9     it's so obvious, Ms. Marcus.  That was more my comment and it's so

10     obvious because it's put in such general terms, and that seems to be the

11     problem with Mr. Jordash.  So both Mr. Jordash and I have some problems

12     with this question and invite you to come to your point.

13             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour, I will do.  Could the

14     Court Officer please call up 65 ter 6404.

15        Q.   Mr. Karan, this is a document from your military personnel file.

16     It appears to be an assessment made of your military performance on the

17     8th of November, 1995.

18             MS. MARCUS:  Could I please request page 3 in English and page 2

19     in B/C/S.

20        Q.   What it says here in the last line of the third paragraph is:

21             "During combat operations, he took all measures to protect unit

22     commands from any type of threat."

23             That does not mean that you were at the front line firing

24     artillery.  You were consistently engaged in security-related tasks

25     throughout the war; is that correct?

Page 17845

 1        A.   Correct.

 2        Q.   So the mention of combat operations pertains to your work as a

 3     security operative for the military in the context of combat operations;

 4     is that correct?

 5        A.   Correct.

 6             MS. MARCUS:  Could I now please ask for 65 ter 6405.

 7             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honours.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash.

 9             MR. JORDASH:  Just would things.  If my learned friend's position

10     is that contributing intelligence to a combat operation is a contribution

11     to a combat operation, then we agree with that.  And then the second

12     thing is would we be able to have a break, please.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Ms. Marcus, the first one there seems to be

14     agreement that if that's your position, could you confirm that.

15             MS. MARCUS:  That was the position I was putting forth with this

16     document, and then in that case I would not continue with any more

17     questions on this but I would request that this document be admitted into

18     evidence; that's 65 ter 6404.

19             MR. JORDASH:  Could I just understand the relevance and probative

20     value of it, please.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus.

22             MS. MARCUS:  Well, the relevance was what we just discussed,

23     which is that this witness's involvement in combat operations involved

24     gathering intelligence and the role of intelligence in planning and

25     organising and contributing that information to combat operations.

Page 17846

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  I do not know whether you are reflecting exactly

 2     what -- because the witness's involvement in combat operations involved

 3     gathering intelligence or is it that gathering intelligence would

 4     contribute and would be in support of -- could be in support of and may

 5     have been here in this document, may have been in support of combat

 6     operations.

 7             MS. MARCUS:  Our position would be both, and this is only one

 8     part of that -- that argument, Your Honour.  So this is one piece of it.

 9     There will be other pieces of it, of course, yes.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Under those circumstances, we have to look at the

11     evidence in its totality.

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation] I have an objection.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, first of all, let me give the decision on

15     admission.  This -- the objection is denied.

16             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, I wasn't objecting.  I was just inquiring

17     and I withdraw the objection.  Sorry.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  So then, Madam Registrar, the number would

19     be?

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 6404 will receive number P3092,

21     Your Honours.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

23             Mr. Karan, you had an objection.  Do I not know yet against what,

24     but please tell us.

25             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation] An objection to the gathering of

Page 17847

 1     intelligence.  That was not within my purview at all.  I did not gather

 2     intelligence.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  You'll have an opportunity after the break, in light

 4     of the document, to further explain what you meant.  We'll first take a

 5     break.

 6             Ms. Marcus, would you please take the witness back to the

 7     document and give him an opportunity after the break to comment on what

 8     he did and what he didn't do.

 9             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we take a break and we resume at a quarter to

11     11.00.

12                           --- Recess taken at 10.14 a.m.

13                           --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we continue, Ms. Marcus, I would like the

15     witness to look at a short video of part of his testimony given earlier.

16                           [Video-clip played]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  I hear a language which I think will be B/C/S on

18     channel 4 which -- oh, let me see whether -- could it be I had not my --

19     could it be played again.  And, Witness, could you please carefully

20     listen and look at yourself.

21             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpret with like to know whether the

22     portion should be interpreted.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, we can start without interpretation.

24                           [Video-clip played]

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, you have had an opportunity to look at your

Page 17848

 1     own testimony and hear it.  Is it still your claim that you were

 2     mistranslated?

 3             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation] I'm not claiming that.  I repeat:

 4     The autonomous region of Western Bosnia was not within my authority, but

 5     I used information that I received from that territory.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, I'm not asking you to comment on your

 7     testimony.  Earlier, you suggested that it would be a mistranslation.

 8     You claimed that you had not said what was written in the transcript.  I

 9     asked you whether you were sure your claim that what is in the transcript

10     is not what you said.  My question simply now is:  Do you still claim

11     that you have not said what was read to you as being part of the

12     transcript?  That's the only question I'd like to receive an answer.

13             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation] I'm not claiming that.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  As a matter of fact, you shifted the blame to

15     interpreters instead of explaining what you had intended to say but what

16     you did not say.  We took the effort to verify it after I specifically

17     asked you whether it was still your claim that you had not said what

18     appeared on the transcript.

19             This Chamber, the parties know that, never accepts the

20     interpreters to be blamed for something they should not be blamed for.

21     Is that clear to you?

22             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation] Yes, yes, yes.

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

24             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Just before the break, Your

25     Honour instructed that the within should be shown again, I see it's on

Page 17849

 1     the screen, that's admitted as P3092.

 2        Q.   Mr. Karan, you wanted to add something about this document.

 3        A.   Not to this document but to the comment that I was involved in

 4     intelligence work.

 5             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that -- I

 6     believe the witness is looking at the first page and I think he should be

 7     looking at the second page.  I believe that my learned friend was showing

 8     him the second page before the break and now he has the first page before

 9     him.

10             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, that's correct.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  That's correct.  Could we look at the second page.

12             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation] There's no comment to what it says

13     here.  My only objection was to the Prosecutor's word to the effect that

14     I was engaged in gathering intelligence, and that was not what I did.

15     That was not within my purview.  That was my objection.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus.

17             MS. MARCUS:  Would you like further clarification, Your Honour?

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, you put something to the witness and he says,

19     That's not what I did.

20             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Further clarification for us or to ask further

22     questions to the witness, I leave it in your hands.

23             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, I think what happened is that

24     Mr. Jordash and I engaged in a discussion, and I put our position which

25     talked about intelligence, and the witness interpreted that as what I had

Page 17850

 1     put to him, but, in fact, my last question to him was:

 2             "Your mention of combat operations pertains to your work as a

 3     security operative for the military in the context of combat operations."

 4             And his answer was that that was correct.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then we can proceed, I think.

 6             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.  Thank you.  Your Honour, before I do that,

 7     before we pass this subject and move on to another, I'd like to clarify

 8     something with the Stanisic Defence.  My colleague Mr. Jordash said:

 9             "If my learned friend's position is that contributing

10     intelligence to a combat operation is a contribution to a combat

11     operation, then we agree with that."

12             I'd like to understand very clearly what the Defence is agreeing

13     to.  It's the Prosecution's case that the accused, as members of a JCE,

14     were part of the planning and direction of military operations during the

15     indictment period.  That's part of our case.  Additionally, we've alleged

16     that the accused made a significant contribution to the JCE by providing

17     an important channel of communication between the JCE members.

18             The Prosecution submits that the evidence in this case has shown

19     that the intelligence collected by the DB of Serbia includes information

20     on the upcoming movements of enemy units and formations and other related

21     military matters.

22             For clarity, is the Defence agreeing that the DB of Serbia

23     collected intelligence and communicated this intelligence to military

24     structures as part of combat operations?

25             MR. JORDASH:  I think I was very careful in the words that I used

Page 17851

 1     and I stick by those words, and my learned friend's attempt to have us

 2     agree to something which is quite, quite different, we refuse to be drawn

 3     into that.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  What happened, as matter of fact, there seemed to be

 5     an agreement, although limited, on the theoretical level, the abstract

 6     level, whereas Ms. Marcus wants to explore what that means on the

 7     concrete level and that's where the parties quickly and strongly take

 8     their own routes, and I think we should leave it to that, if the parties

 9     would agree with my brief analysis of what happened.

10             MR. JORDASH:  I certainly do.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus.

12             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour, I fully agree.  I think

13     Your Honour --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Then please proceed as you deem fit.

15             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.  Thank you.

16        Q.   Mr. Karan, do you recall the date when Operation Pauk ended?

17        A.   That was the date when Krajina fell, in practical terms.  It was

18     either on the 9th or 10th of August, I believe, 1995.

19        Q.   Isn't it a fact as well that Tactical Groups 2 and 3 under Legija

20     and Bozovic were operating in the context of Operation Pauk in the

21     Velika Kladusa area then throughout May, June, July, and into August, as

22     you say, until the Krajina fell?

23        A.   Tactical Groups 2 and 3 functioned during that period of time.

24     However, I don't know whether Bozovic and Legija stayed until the very

25     end.  I really don't know that.

Page 17852

 1        Q.   Mr. Karan, I'd like to clarify to you what our position is with

 2     respect to Operation Pauk before I move on to a different subject.  Our

 3     position is that the accused Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic in

 4     their capacity within the Serbian DB directed, financed, equipped, and

 5     otherwise supported groups who participated in the Pauk Joint Command.

 6     Among the groups supported by the accused and the Serbian DB in their

 7     operations in Velika Kladusa were special units of the Serbian MUP under

 8     Bozovic, Arkan's SDG, and the Skorpions under Slobodan Medic, aka Boca.

 9     We do not dispute that as part of his direct participation in

10     Operation Pauk Franko Simatovic may have been gathering intelligence;

11     that would be logical in his position in the Serbian DB.  However, our

12     position is that Mr. Simatovic was also directly involved in day-to-day

13     operations in connection with this Joint Command.

14             The Pauk Joint Command was just, in our position, one example of

15     both accused directing, financing, equipping, training, and otherwise

16     supporting special units of the Serbian DB who then acted in

17     collaboration and co-ordination with other Serb forces throughout the war

18     in both Croatia and Bosnia.

19             Would you like to provide any comment on that position?

20        A.   No.

21        Q.   Our position with respect to your evidence regarding the

22     Serbia -- Serbian DB's participation in Pauk, and in particular

23     Franko Simatovic's participation in Operation Pauk, is that either you

24     were genuinely not aware of the scope of Mr. Simatovic's and the Serbian

25     DB's activities, or you have not been entirely forthcoming with us about

Page 17853

 1     what you do know.  Would you like to comment on that?

 2        A.   Yes.  I want to be entirely forthcoming, indeed.  I have nothing

 3     to hide.  I was not aware of all these things you just enumerated.  I

 4     don't know if I'm to blame for that.  I know what Franko Simatovic was

 5     doing, but whether he was doing anything else, I don't know.  In fact, I

 6     didn't know until I came here.

 7             MS. MARCUS:  Could the Court Officer --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus, could we try to get matters clear.

 9             You say, in fact, I didn't know until I came here.  Well, you

10     still do not know, although you have seen some documents which may, I'm

11     cautious in saying, may shed light on what has happened and what was

12     being to your knowledge.  Do I understand that what was put to you as the

13     Prosecution's case, which is not necessarily the truth, that you have no

14     knowledge about what Ms. Marcus told you, what goes beyond your own

15     personal knowledge of Mr. Simatovic's activities and that because you

16     don't know you can't tell us whether it's true or not true, and that you

17     have been candid as far as your own knowledge is concerned, and what is

18     beyond your knowledge, you cannot comment on.

19             Is that -- is that your position?  Did I understand you well?

20             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation] Yes, precisely.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  So if you say, I didn't know until I came here, you

22     still do not know.  The only thing you now know is you have seen a few

23     documents which may suggest that you had no full knowledge of what may

24     have happened.

25             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation] I've said looking at the documents

Page 17854

 1     that were shown me here that they could be read to mean that they

 2     assisted in certain combat activities with their involvement at

 3     Petrova Gora.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  You still cannot confirm, because of lack of

 5     personal knowledge, whether what these documents suggest is true or not?

 6             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation] I have no personal knowledge, no

 7     other personal knowledge.  I can only comment on the document before me.

 8     My personal knowledge did not go that far.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

10             Ms. Marcus.

11             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Could I please have

12     Exhibit P468, page 15 in both languages, please.

13        Q.   During your testimony, Mr. Bakrac showed you this page from this

14     exhibit.  You will see it coming up in a moment.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  I apologise, this is a confidential exhibit.

16             MS. MARCUS:  I'm sorry, yes.  Could it then not be broadcast to

17     the public.  Thank you.

18        Q.   This is a list of name with Mile Mrksic's name at the top, a list

19     of servicemen.  When you see it, perhaps you will tell us if you recall

20     having seen this.

21        A.   I see only the front page.  I don't see the list of persons.

22     Yes.  Now, I see it.  I remember this document.

23        Q.   You identified many names on this list as active-duty servicemen

24     at the time that they were on this list.  That's July 1995, and you

25     provided us with their unit and rank.  Do you know the individual at

Page 17855

 1     number 30, Nenad Bursac?

 2        A.   No.  No.

 3        Q.   I'll turn to this document in a few minutes to ask you some more

 4     questions.

 5             MS. MARCUS:  Could the Court Officer please call up 65 ter 6411.

 6             Your Honours, this is a document that was received by the OTP

 7     from the government of Croatia.

 8        Q.   Mr. Karan, this appears to be a transcript of a summary of an

 9     intercept provided by the Croatian government.  The date is 29th of June,

10     1995.  I'll give you a moment to read this and see if you have any

11     factual knowledge to corroborate it.  As you can see, it says:

12             "Aside from all this --" now I'm reading from somewhere in the

13     middle:

14              "Aside from all this, a certain Frenki is also mentioned,

15     possibly from KSS special forces corps Yugoslavia, who could resolve this

16     problem for them and through whom everything was, most probably,

17     organised.  Also, from the same conversation, we learn that there was a

18     rotation of instructors on the 29th of June, 1995 (the shift consisting

19     of Colonel Bursac Nenad, Warrant Officer 2nd class Borojevic Predrag and

20     Staff Sergeant Milosavljevic Milisav), and they went to the rotation in a

21     vehicle with a trailer carrying their equipment.  It is not known what

22     kind of instructors they are or where they went for the shift

23     rotation ..."

24             You said you didn't know Nenad Bursac.  Do you know either

25     Predrag Borojevic or Milisav Milosavljevic who are mentioned in this

Page 17856

 1     summary?

 2        A.   No.  I don't know either of the three.

 3        Q.   Were you aware of a rotation of instructors that took place on

 4     the 29th of June, 1995?

 5        A.   No.

 6        Q.   Okay.  Then I'll leave this document.  Could I now please have

 7     65 ter 6412.  And also this should not be broadcast to the public,

 8     please.  It was received from the Serbian government in response to

 9     RFA 1851.

10             Mr. Karan, could I ask you to have a look at this document.  I

11     will read the first paragraph and then I'll ask you to read the rest of

12     the document.  It's not that long.  Maybe you could let us know when

13     you're finished the page so that we can move on to the next one.  This is

14     a military secret report on assignment -- on an assignment called Splav,

15     and it states at the beginning:

16              "On the 24th of June, 1995, after the preparation of troops and

17     materiel and technical equipment, they were placed and stored

18     accordingly.  The material equipment was stored and secured by a Serbian

19     MUP unit in the castle 'Tikves,' and the troops were accommodated in

20     Bilja, in the facilities of the Serbian MUP.  The arrival and

21     accommodation of both troops and equipment was executed in full secrecy.

22     In the following period, until the beginning of the activities,

23     reconnaissance of supply and infiltration routes, in co-operation with

24     the 63rd Parachute Brigade, the 37th Infantry Brigade BOS, combat

25     security, and Serbian MUP units has been carried out."

Page 17857

 1             Could I ask you to read further and let us know when you need the

 2     page turned.

 3             MS. MARCUS:  Could we perhaps also move to the second page while

 4     the witness is on the B/C/S page.

 5             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation] You can turn the page.

 6             MS. MARCUS:

 7        Q.   As you can see here on page 3 in English and page 2 in B/C/S, it

 8     says:

 9             "The entire action was prepared and conducted professionally and

10     skillfully, combining the efforts of both troops and specialist organs."

11             A bit further down it states:

12             "In the course of the execution of the assignment, one MUP Serbia

13     member has been seriously and another slightly wounded, as well as the

14     commander of the group which was working at the water."

15             Isn't it a fact that this report is another example of joint

16     combat operations carried out by a combination of Serbian MUP and active

17     military servicemen?

18             MR. JORDASH:  Objection to the question.  Isn't it a fact that

19     the document says X, Y, and Z?  In our submission that's what the

20     question amounts to.  It's not seeking facts from the witness.

21             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Ms. Marcus.

23             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.  Sorry.  I believe that it will be very clear

24     what my point is.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Your point is perfectly clear.  Your point is

Page 17858

 1     perfectly clear.  The question is whether you can put it to the witness

 2     in this way.  What you apparently are asking the witness is the

 3     following:  I show you a document which gives facts of which you

 4     apparently are unaware.  For the Prosecution, these facts indicate that,

 5     and then you put what your conclusions are on the basis.  Do you have any

 6     comment on that?

 7             I think that's, Mr. Jordash -- because whether this demonstrates

 8     or not would -- first of all, would require that the witness forms an

 9     opinion about whether this is an adequate report, whether it's a forgery,

10     whether -- whatever.  Of course, the witness cannot know.  You say the

11     Prosecution concludes from this document that this and this and this

12     happened, which apparently is not within your knowledge.  Can you comment

13     on any of it?

14             Mr. Jordash, would that resolve your --

15             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, it would.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus, is that a question which would provide

17     you with an answer?  You -- the only thing you're missing is that the

18     witness agrees this should be the conclusion from this document, or

19     perhaps he does agree, I do not know, but let's ask him this way, what's

20     his knowledge about it.  Yes?

21             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour, I will do that.

22        Q.   Mr. Karan, do you have any knowledge about this joint operation

23     described in this document, assignment Splav?

24        A.   No.  This operation was executed in Eastern Slavonija, and at

25     that time I was still with the 21st Corps.  I don't know anything about

Page 17859

 1     this.

 2        Q.   You can see that the document was signed by Nenad Bursac.  Our

 3     position is that Nenad Bursac received payment from the Serbian DB for

 4     services he provided in the context of joint Serbian DB military

 5     operations.  Would you like to comment on that?

 6        A.   I see in this document that he's chief in the special forces

 7     corps.  He got appointed by the army and he certainly is receiving his

 8     salary from the army.  I don't see why he would be on the payroll of the

 9     state security sector.  If he was in the field and from this document we

10     see that he went on field missions, he could have received per diem only

11     from the unit that sent him and that's the special forces corps of the

12     Army of Yugoslavia.  That's the only comment I can give because I have no

13     choice.  It's an authentic document I'm looking at.  I know that from the

14     rectangular stamp, and that's -- there's nothing else I can say about it.

15             MS. MARCUS:  Could I please have P468, page 15, again, not to be

16     broadcast to the public.

17        Q.   You've said you don't know see why Nenad Bursac would be on the

18     payroll of the state security sector.  You see that he is here among some

19     other military members.  Our position is that some military members like

20     Nenad Bursac received payments by the Serbian DB for services performed

21     at the Serbian DB's bidding, and that explains why they're on this

22     payment list.  Would you like to comment on that?

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac.

24             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness is

25     receiving interpretation they were receiving salaries.  I think it should

Page 17860

 1     be made clear to the witness that we're actually discussing per diems so

 2     he can answer appropriately.

 3             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, the word I chose to use was payments

 4     which is neutral in English.  Perhaps in English it doesn't specify what

 5     type of payment whether it be a salary or a per diem.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please again put the question to the

 7     witness.  Everyone is now fully aware of why you have chosen the words

 8     you are using.

 9             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  Sure.

10        Q.   Our position, Mr. Karan, is that some military members like

11     Nenad Bursac received a payment by the Serbian DB for services performed

12     at the Serbian DB's bidding and that explains why they are on this

13     payment list.  I ask if you'd like to comment on that.

14        A.   I see the list, but I don't see what financial authority's

15     providing these payments.  I can see it's a list of persons receiving per

16     diem, but I cannot conclude from this where the funds came from.  I can

17     only see that they received payments in a certain period, and I know some

18     people among the names on the list, but I can't see the source from which

19     payments were made so that they would be doing this work in a certain

20     period.  It's an unusual document in some way.

21        Q.   I'll show you the first page of this document.  It's a 21-page

22     document.

23             MS. MARCUS:  Could the Court Officer please turn to page 1.

24        Q.   And meanwhile I'll ask you a few additional questions.  When

25     Mr. Bakrac showed you this list he asked if you knew these people to be

Page 17861

 1     members of the JATD of the Serbian DB.  So is it your evidence then that

 2     you were not aware of payments being issued by the Serbian DB to military

 3     servicemen whose names appeared on page 15 of this document?

 4        A.   No, I did not know of any such thing.  I only recognised persons

 5     from a list shown to me because I'm friends with many of them, I know

 6     them, and those people I identified.

 7        Q.   I'm going to show you a few other pages from this same document

 8     and tell you what our position is on that and give you an opportunity to

 9     tell us your comments on that.  Could I please have page 4.

10             As you see, Radojica Bozovic is at the top of this list.  Our

11     case is that Bozovic was a central member and in fact leader of a special

12     unit of the Serbian DB and that he was paid by the Serbian DB in

13     July 1995, on this list, due to his continued operations in Pauk as

14     commander of Tactical Group 3.

15             I would note for your information that Bozovic appears on 58

16     payment records, at least, from the Serbian DB from mid-1993 to the end

17     of 1995?

18             MS. MARCUS:  Could I please have page 6.

19        Q.   Do you know Vasilije Mijovic and Zivojin Ivanovic or either of

20     them?

21        A.   No.

22        Q.   As you can see, these individuals were also paid by the

23     Serbian DB.  I note for the record that Mijovic appears on 47 payment

24     lists between 1993 and 1995, and Zika Ivanovic, aka Crnogorac, appears on

25     six payment lists between December 1994 and July 1995.

Page 17862

 1             MS. MARCUS:  Could I please have page 8.

 2        Q.   Here you see Milorad Ulemek, aka Legija, whom we discussed

 3     earlier.  Our position is that others on this list are also members of

 4     Arkan's SDG.  As you can see the Serbian DB paid Arkan's men for their

 5     assistance in combat operations in Operation Pauk, and their appearance

 6     on payment records through the rest of 1995, we say, is consistent with

 7     their participation in joint combat operations with other Serb forces

 8     under the direction and support of the Serbian DB.

 9             MS. MARCUS:  Could I please have page 13.  I will give you a

10     chance to make your comments after.

11             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the Prosecution kindly slow down while

12     reading.  Thank you.

13             MS. MARCUS:  I will do my very best.

14        Q.   Mr. Karan, our position is that those on this list are family

15     members of individuals who died in the context of Serbian DB operations,

16     some of whom died as early as 1992.  For example, Branko Dimic at number

17     2, his son, Milan, died in combat operations in Doboj on the

18     13th of July, 1992.  That is our position.  And that Branko Dimic, his

19     father, was paid by the Serbian DB for his son's services in furtherance

20     of the DB operations in Doboj.

21             MS. MARCUS:  Finally, could I please have page 17.

22        Q.   Mr. Karan, auction see here Janko Keres is at number 8.  He was

23     the author of the JATD report for the Pauk operation that we looked at a

24     short while ago and he's on this payment list.  By the time he wrote the

25     report which we looked at and certainly by the time he was paid on this

Page 17863

 1     list, July 1995, he was indeed a member of the JATD.  That is our case.

 2     However, our position is that he was operating as a member of the special

 3     units of the Serbian DB since 1993.

 4             Isn't it a fact that you were simply not aware of the degree of

 5     involvement of the Serbian DB in participating in and supporting joint

 6     combat operations in the areas in which you served as a security

 7     operative or, indeed, in other regions?

 8        A.   I was not aware of those activities.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash.

10             MR. JORDASH:  I would like to note for the record that what my

11     learned friend has just put to the witness concerning the family members,

12     son Milan who died in combat operations in Doboj, Branko Dimic, the

13     father being paid by the Serbian DB for his son's services in Doboj, and

14     the allegations concerning Janko Keres are the very first time we've

15     heard allegations, I think, in this case.  For three years into this case

16     the Prosecution are now specifying what their case is in relation to

17     these payment lists, and this is a problem I flagged up several years

18     ago, that producing payment lists without any indication of what those

19     individuals have said to have done, who they were, what their acts and

20     conduct were, how it contributed to the crime and how they are linked to

21     the accused was always going to be a problem, a big problem about notice.

22     It's impossible -- sorry, it's not impossible, but now it's highly

23     impracticable for the Defence to deal with these allegations now

24     specified.  If they'd been identified and dealt with and specified three

25     years ago, we could have cross-examined a huge number of witnesses, we

Page 17864

 1     could have called Defence evidence to deal with these allegations, but as

 2     it is, at the dawn of the closing of the case, we are now understanding

 3     what significance the Prosecution intends to place on these individuals.

 4     Completely unfair, in our respectful submission.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus.

 6             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.  Your Honour as Mr. Jordash forecasted

 7     yesterday, our pleadings have been quite clear about how the payment

 8     lists prove our case or support the evidence in our case.  They are one

 9     part of the evidence.  We have included very clear submission on that in

10     98 bis.  Going person by person is detail all included in our general

11     submissions about how the payment records demonstrate the DB's role.

12     We've shown what contribution we allege the DB to have been involved in.

13     We never said that every single member on these payment lists was a

14     member of the JATD.  We never made that submission.  We made it quite

15     clear what the payment lists show.

16             Now, I've given detailed examples which are fully consistent with

17     our overall submissions regarding the payment lists.  So I'm going to

18     make this quite clear, even clearer to the witness, give him an

19     opportunity to comment on it, and in our submission we've met our

20     obligation clearly in our pleadings.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash.

22             MR. JORDASH:  I don't want to detain the witness obviously, but I

23     do invite -- I would like to respond very briefly to what my learned

24     friend has said, which is, in our submission, completely inaccurate.

25     I've been proceeding, maybe it's my fault, but I've been proceeding on

Page 17865

 1     the basis that the payment lists are a reflection, according to the

 2     Prosecution, of who was in the JATD, and I suspect the Simatovic team

 3     have been proceeding on the same basis.  Until, of course, now when we

 4     have what is effectively a volte-face and the Prosecution now saying,

 5     Well, actually, it's not just the JATD, it's something quite different.

 6     And in relation to the individuals that have just been mentioned, these

 7     are the specifics in relation to them.

 8             And the problem is that there are hundreds of people on the

 9     payment lists.  If we have a misunderstanding about what the Prosecution

10     case is in relation to something as basic as whether the members on

11     the -- those mentioned on the payment list represent the JATD or

12     something else, then we are heading into multiple misunderstandings when

13     it comes to the specifics that the Prosecution now are going to seek to

14     allege.

15             The closing brief is going to be the first time that many of

16     these individuals are identified properly by the Prosecution and a proper

17     description put as to what it is the Prosecution say they did in

18     connection to the accused.  Of course we can't deal with that at that

19     stage, but in relation to most of the names, that is the situation it

20     seems that we're now into because of this shift from the idea that the

21     payment lists represent the JATD to now actually they represent something

22     else.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac.

24             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.  Your Honour, my

25     learned friend Mr. Jordash said that he assumed that our team shared his

Page 17866

 1     position, and would I like to state for the record that we share the same

 2     position.  And that one of the main reasons for that was when we showed

 3     per diems to this witness, we were surprised that the per diem lists

 4     contained the names of active-duty officers who were still serving in the

 5     army, and practically it is only now that we receive information from the

 6     Prosecutor about their thesis with regard to the vast number of

 7     individuals whose names can be found on those payment lists.

 8             MR. JORDASH:  May I just add two sentences, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, two.

10             MR. JORDASH:  In our respectful submission, that's precisely why

11     the Prosecution have shifted their position, because it has become clear

12     to the Prosecution through Defence evidence that people on this payment

13     list were not members of the JATD but were members of other military

14     formations, and the Prosecution's shift is to deal with that evidence

15     whilst purporting to maintain consistency in their case.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus.

17             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  First of all, if Mr. Jordash

18     would point to anywhere where we alleged that every name on the payment

19     lists was the name of a member of the JATD, we will certainly consider

20     that to have been in error.  I do not believe we have ever said that

21     because that has never been our case.

22             Secondly, Your Honour, and more broadly, there are general

23     pleadings in the case.  There is the indictment.  There is the pre-trial

24     brief, and we've also at the conclusion of our evidence had 98 bis.

25             We don't go through every paragraph of every document and explain

Page 17867

 1     every single paragraph.  Neither does the Defence.  They put forward

 2     their general pleadings and then they tender evidence in support of that.

 3     The evidence is discussed with witnesses.  Witnesses contextualise that

 4     evidence.  Some of it comes in in bar table motions and not every single

 5     line is dealt with.

 6             What our position is is that the payment records are another

 7     example of documentary evidence.  We have clearly said what our position

 8     is with respect to what the payment lists show in terms of the

 9     accusations against the accused.  These examples support that position

10     and are merely that, example of how the payment records fit in.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's -- Mr. Jordash showed some self-restraint.  If

12     you'd do the same at this moment, Ms. Marcus.

13             I do understand.  What keeps the parties at this moment apart is

14     that the Defence says, We were under the impression, an impression given

15     by the Prosecution, that persons which appear on the payment list were

16     JATD members and it's only now at a later stage that we learn from the

17     Prosecution that their actual position is that those the Prosecution

18     claims were members of the JATD appear on these lists but possibly

19     together with others who were not members of the JATD.  And apparently

20     the discussion is about whether you have been clear in this respect or

21     not and whether your initial position was misleading and that you're now

22     shifting your position so as to fit within what you now know the evidence

23     to be.

24             Have I summarised the dispute between the parties correctly?

25             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.

Page 17868

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Then next question, Mr. Jordash, remedy?  Not at

 2     this moment, may I take it, that you take the same position as we

 3     discussed earlier this week that you're at a certain moment looking at

 4     the whole of the evidence will suggest to the Chamber what conclusions we

 5     should draw from what you consider to be shortcomings in the presentation

 6     of the Prosecution's case and the explanation, the notice given by the

 7     Prosecution?

 8             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, and we take the view that a named individual

 9     on the payment list, it described to attribute certain conduct to them --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me -- I tried to summarise what the positions of

11     the parties's were in rather general terms, and I asked you about remedy.

12     My question mainly was:  Are you seeking remedy at this moment from the

13     Chamber?  If so, please tell us what that remedy you're seeking is; or do

14     you say, No, we'll consider this at the final stages of the proceedings

15     and then we'll indicate to you what kind of remedy we consider

16     appropriate under those circumstances?

17             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, it's an issue of notice, and Your Honour's

18     right, we'll consider that when we have all the information at the end of

19     the case.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, I think, Ms. Marcus, we can proceed.

21             MS. MARCUS:  Just one more very brief point, Your Honour.  We

22     would very much appreciate the opportunity, however, in whatever format,

23     to give examples of where we clearly explained certain names, where we

24     put our position with respect to the payment lists and where through at

25     least witnesses and documents we have -- if that would be helpful.

Page 17869

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  I take it that if Mr. Jordash seeks a remedy at the

 2     stage he indicated, that having heard your answer two minutes ago, that

 3     he'll take care to provide a proper factual basis for his position that

 4     you misled him.  So I take it that that will then be the first thing to

 5     be established, that is how you presented those lists as part of the

 6     Prosecution's case.  Let's wait and see.

 7             Meanwhile, since we are interrupting the flowing of the evidence

 8     anyhow, you may have received a provisional courtesy copy of a slight

 9     amendment to the interpretation given on a matter on which I specifically

10     asked the witness.  So where the witness claimed that he had not said a

11     certain thing, we should be aware that, of course it was put back to him,

12     in interpretation, and that's how you did it, and of course I do not know

13     how it was again translated, but I thought for transparency, for

14     accuracy, that it would be important that you know.  I'm not saying

15     whether the gist of the testimony is any different by adding the words

16     "adjacent to," but at least that you are aware now of what a review of

17     the translation tells us.

18             Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.

19             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, thank you, Your Honour.

20        Q.   Mr. Karan, before we move on from this, I will just tell you what

21     our position is.  You've probably gathered it from our debate.

22             Our position is that on these payment lists there are indeed some

23     individuals who we say were full-fledged members of the special units of

24     the Serbian DB and others who we say were participating in operations

25     which were funded, directed, supported by the Serbian DB; for example,

Page 17870

 1     through direct salary and/or per diem payments to them following

 2     co-ordinated field operations.  Some of those on this list received

 3     payments for other services performed for the benefit of the Serbian DB.

 4             Would you like to offer any comment on that?

 5        A.   No.  I can only provide comment about the individuals whom I

 6     know, and I cannot agree with your conclusion.  That is your position,

 7     and I can't have an opinion about it.  I only told you that I knew some

 8     people who were members of the 72nd Brigade from Belgrade.  That's all.

 9     I cannot offer any comment about what you have just alleged.

10             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, I'd just like to foreshadow that I

11     don't envisage being able to finish in this session.  I will do my best.

12     I have cut out certain portions of it, but I do think I would need to go

13     somewhat into the next session.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  How much time?

15             MS. MARCUS:  Maybe by 20 to 30 minutes.  I will try to reduce it.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  How much time as matters stand now, Mr. Bakrac, you

17     would need?

18             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, 15 to 20 minutes.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash?

20             MR. JORDASH:  Ten minutes, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Which means that there's a possibility that we could

22     conclude the testimony of this witness in the next session.

23             If the parties share my optimism, then I'll not take any action

24     at this moment to see whether we can have an extended session either

25     today or -- the parties should also be aware that if that's not possible,

Page 17871

 1     that we'd have to continue tomorrow if only for 15 or 20 minutes.  So

 2     you, to some extent, are also deciding on your own fate tomorrow.

 3             Ms. Marcus, please proceed.

 4             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 5             Could I please have 65 ter 6406.

 6        Q.   This is another document from your military personnel file.  It

 7     is a note on your work and it contains remarks on your work performance.

 8     It says in the first paragraph:

 9             "He carried out his duty as chief of security in the 21st Corps

10     in an extremely difficult and complex situation; in particular, the big

11     pressure and influence the Croatian Army and Muslim services,

12     particularly in the Bihac area, had on the units of the corps.

13             "In addition to this, different smuggling channels criss-crossed

14     the area.  With his work and unselfish dedication he succeeded in

15     bringing to light and documenting different crimes which directly

16     sabotaged our defence system."

17             What smuggling channels does this relate to?

18        A.   This relates to the smuggling channels run by the civilian

19     population and aimed at the -- at Cazin Krajina and members of the

20     5th Corps.  I can tell you what the scope of that was.  Smuggling or

21     assisting the enemy was a popular movement.  That activity was so

22     all-encompassing and tangled our structures that it undermined our

23     efforts greatly and undermined the quality of the work of our units and

24     their capability to perform tasks at hand.  This is the smuggling

25     activities that I described.

Page 17872

 1        Q.   Who -- perhaps you could elaborate.  Who was it who was

 2     benefiting from these smuggling channels that tangled your structures?

 3        A.   Those who benefitted most from the smuggling channels were

 4     certain individuals with private businesses and certain members of the

 5     command structures.  In practical terms, the commands of certain of our

 6     units were tantamount to private companies that procured goods, and then

 7     disseminated the goods in Kladusa and Cazin Krajina through small

 8     distributors and all ended up with the 5th Corps.  In other words, every

 9     combat activity, in practical terms, increased the price of goods and

10     benefitted the established smuggling channels, at the end of which some

11     individuals acquired and amassed huge wealth.

12        Q.   I'll return to that in just a moment before we lose track of this

13     paragraph.  The document refers to different crimes.  What crimes were

14     those that you documented which directly sabotaged the defence system?

15        A.   I can state that there were between 12 and 20 murders or killings

16     that members of the Serbian Army of Krajina perpetrated.  They killed

17     each other.  Even a wife murdered her husband.  We had to secure the

18     crime sites.  We had to document the crime scenes.  We had to file

19     reports with the judiciary.

20             I hope to tell you that the military judiciary did not function

21     in the RSK territory, whereas the civilian judiciary did work but not

22     very well.  So it did occur that people with a lot of smuggled goods on

23     their hands would return from the office of the -- of the court in Vojnic

24     than the police who investigated the crime, because they had better cars

25     and they could travel faster.  When investigating, judges heard from the

Page 17873

 1     perpetrators, Yes, I did that.  They didn't really care about any further

 2     investigation, and that's how the judiciary functioned at the time.

 3             There was also theft of kitchen appliances and weapons.  A member

 4     of the military destroyed a unit when he sold the equipment intended for

 5     the 5th Corps.  Instead of delivering the equipment to the 5th Corps, he

 6     actually sold it, and that's how he disabled the entire unit.  This is

 7     what we had to counter.  This is what we had to document, and we had to

 8     take measures, appropriate measures, against all those activities.

 9        Q.   Was your documentation and work to quash the smuggling activities

10     related to your ultimate removal by the Serbian DB from the region of the

11     21st Corps?

12        A.   I'm afraid I did not fully understand your question.

13        Q.   Was there a connection between the work that you did to quash the

14     smuggling activities and the fact that you were ultimately removed from

15     the region by the Serbian DB?

16        A.   No.  I was never removed from the area where I worked, if you

17     mean the 21st Corps.  Is that what you have in mind, the 21st Corps, and

18     when I was involved in the 21st Corps; or do you have any other time in

19     mind, because whatever I've just told you relates to the 21st Corps?

20        Q.   You were ultimately removed from the region by the Serbian DB;

21     isn't that correct?

22        A.   I joined the column that was pulling out from the territory of

23     the 21st Corps when Krajina fell.  I joined the column with military

24     police and the rest of the people.  That was on the 10th of August, and

25     we travelled by way of the highway.

Page 17874

 1        Q.   Where were you ultimately removed from?

 2        A.   After that, when I returned to Serbia and after having spent a

 3     few days at home, I was sent to the 11th Corps in Vukovar.  That was also

 4     the Serbian Army of Krajina.

 5        Q.   So you were removed from the 11th Corps in Vukovar by the Serbian

 6     DB; is that correct?

 7        A.   No, I was not removed from there.  The corps commander,

 8     General Loncar, issued me an order one day, according to which myself and

 9     21 members of the security organ had to leave the territory.  I received

10     that task.  I requested a written order.  He said that a verbal order

11     should do.

12             According to him I was a criminal, and that's why I was expelled

13     from the area.  I was a traitor according to him.  And the rest of that

14     group were only traitors.  There were 22 of us.  I was a criminal and a

15     traitor, and the others were just traitors.  There were 22 members of the

16     security office in the 11th Corps.

17             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, perhaps for follow-up, if Your Honours

18     would like to take a break now, I can continue after the break.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We'll take a break.  I would like to try to

20     keep matters strict after the break.  You said 20 to 30 minutes,

21     Ms. Marcus, which still keeps you within the time limit you have

22     announced.  You said you would try to do with less time.  Not more than

23     30 minutes.

24             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, 20 minutes for you then.  Mr. Jordash,

Page 17875

 1     ten minutes.  And that makes altogether 60 minutes, and we have a few

 2     matters perhaps we'd like to raise ourselves, procedural matters.

 3             We'll take a break and we'll resume at five minutes to -- 25

 4     minutes to 1.00.

 5                           --- Recess taken at 12.03 p.m.

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

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus, you may proceed, and I'll be strict in

 8     timing.

 9             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

10        Q.   Mr. Karan, we're going to come back to what we were talking about

11     before the break.

12             MS. MARCUS:  Could the Court Officer please call up 65 ter 6409.

13        Q.   This is a report about you which we received from the Croatian

14     authorities pursuant to a request for assistance.  As you can see this is

15     a report dated the 3rd of February, 1995.  It is signed by

16     Colonel Raseta.  I'll give awe moment to read the first few paragraphs

17     and then I'll quote what comes afterwards.

18             Now, the fourth paragraph states:

19             "It is unquestionable that Mladen declared war on crime and in a

20     very short period achieved exceptional results in crime prevention.

21             "At that time, Mladen came into conflict with MUP organs because

22     this action was an inconvenience for them."

23             Which MUP organs would this relate to?

24        A.   I think it's the MUP of the Serbian Krajina in Vojnic.

25        Q.   Why would your efforts to stop crime be an inconvenience to the

Page 17876

 1     MUP organs?

 2        A.   You couldn't say that about the entire MUP, only the individuals

 3     in the MUP.  Even they were involved in crime precisely for that reason.

 4        Q.   Okay.  I'd like to call up one more document, 65 ter 6410.  This

 5     document is a daily report which you authored.  It's dated the

 6     17th of March, 1994.  I'll give awe moment to look at the first page to

 7     familiarise yourself and remind yourself, and I'm going to ask you

 8     something about page 2.  So please let me know when you are ready to turn

 9     the page.

10        A.   I'm done.

11        Q.   Could I draw your attention to the paragraph starting, "In order

12     to provide a substantiated explanation of the situation," and I'll just

13     ask you to read through the next two paragraphs, and I'll ask you a few

14     questions.

15             Now, it appears what is being discussed here by you are smuggling

16     activities which certain individuals were involved in contrary to their

17     bat orders from the corps commander, and three of those involved in this

18     smuggling activity were Nikola Torbica, Sinisa Loncar, and Jovica Djuric.

19             Do you recall the events you describe in this daily report?

20        A.   I find it hard to remember this one.  There were so many of these

21     cases.

22        Q.   So you don't recall with which combat groups these three

23     individuals were affiliated?

24        A.   That's clear.  The 21st Border Detachment was newly established

25     unit holding the territory facing AP Western Bosnia.  That unit

Page 17877

 1     practically replaced the mixed detachment, and testifies joined by those

 2     from the reconnaissance and sabotage unit commanded by Torbica, and they

 3     were notorious for their criminal activities.

 4        Q.   Were you aware in 1995 the DB provided payments to

 5     Nikola Torbica?

 6             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, P347.

 7        A.   No, not in September 1995.

 8        Q.   Your answer, at least the way I understood it, seems to imply

 9     that you were aware of other payments at other times by the Serbian DB to

10     Nikola Torbica.  Can I just clarify your answer, please?

11        A.   No.  I don't know that he was paid by the DB at all.

12             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, could I please tender into evidence

13     the past three documents I've shown to the witness, 65 ter 6406, 6409,

14     and 6410, all public, please.

15             MR. JORDASH:  May I just seek why -- whether they are for

16     impeachment purposes or for the truth of the contents?

17             MS. MARCUS:  Well, Your Honour, they're for both.  They came --

18     they're directly related to the witness's evidence, directly

19     contextualised by the witness.  One of them is from the witness 's own

20     personnel file, one of them was perceived pursuant to a RFA relating to

21     this witness, and actually the last two -- sorry, one was from the

22     military personnel file and one was from a RFA pertaining to the witness.

23     The third one, of course, is authored by the witness himself.

24             MR. JORDASH:  We don't object to them being used for impeachment

25     purposes, but we do object to them being to the truth of the contents;

Page 17878

 1     them being fresh evidence with no indication from the Prosecution as to

 2     the relevance or probative value of the fresh evidence, nor any

 3     indication as to why they couldn't have obtained these documents before

 4     or used them before as part of their case during the Prosecution case.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus.

 6             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  These documents are directly

 7     related to this witness's evidence.  We would not have tendered these

 8     documents in our case absent the presence of the witness.  They can

 9     clarify the witness's involvement.  They -- the witness has explained

10     what -- what his activities were.  The next document will also become

11     clear what -- I don't want to put this in advance.  We're going to ask

12     the witness some follow-up questions directly related to this topic.

13     These are put to the witness for contextualising his evidence that he

14     gave and challenging the evidence he gave in chief.  I -- I think that

15     they are quite appropriately tendered in this context.

16                           [Trial Chamber confers]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, final sentence.

18             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.  I would only add challenging the witness we

19     have no problem with, as I've indicated, but the adopting of the word

20     "contextualising" by the Prosecution to justify the admission of any

21     evidence at any particular time we continue to object to.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  More was said than just contextualise but the

23     Chamber admits the documents.  Numbers to be assigned to them without

24     limitation as far as the use is concerned.

25             Madam Registrar, the numbers would be?

Page 17879

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 6406 will receive number P3093.

 2     Document 6409 will receive number P3094.  And document 6410 will receive

 3     number P3095, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus, none of them in need of any protection,

 5     I take it.

 6             MS. MARCUS:  No, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Then P3093 up to and including P3095 are admitted

 8     into evidence.

 9             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you.  Could the Court Officer please call up

10     65 ter 1447.  Your Honours, I have hard copies.  I think because of the

11     length of the document and the detail to which I'm going to ask the

12     witness about it just for the ease of reference - I brought hard copies

13     in both languages - with Your Honour's leave perhaps the Court Usher

14     could give one to the witness and then the appropriate language is

15     distributed.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You may proceed as suggested.

17             MS. MARCUS:

18        Q.   Mr. Karan, I'll give you a moment to have a look at this moment

19     which you authored.  I will be calling your attention to specify

20     portions, but in case you wish to have a look at the whole document,

21     obviously you have a hard copy in front of you.

22             Do you recall preparing this document?

23        A.   I do.

24        Q.   There is no date on the document, but it appears from the context

25     to date after the 28th of August, 1995, based on the first two

Page 17880

 1     paragraphs.  Can you confirm that for us?

 2        A.   Yes, yes.

 3        Q.   Is this a common format used by members of the military security

 4     organs?

 5        A.   No, it's not the usual format.  It's a chronology of events and

 6     description of what actually happened regarding the stopping of this

 7     little boat and how everything unfolded.  I haven't read the whole

 8     document through, but I remember this incident.

 9        Q.   Okay.  Well, we will go through it, but can I just understand

10     your answer.  I asked you:  Is this a common format used by the military

11     security organs and you said, "No it's not the usual format.  It's a

12     chronology of events."  So if a member of the security military security

13     organs were to write a chronology of events, would this be the kind of

14     format that would be used?

15        A.   This is practically an explanation of something that happened.

16     This is preceded by another document that I suppose the superiors thought

17     did not contain enough facts, was not good enough, so I was told to

18     prepare this one.  I didn't do it of my own accord, because I personally

19     thought the previous document was quite sufficient, but this is a

20     supplement to something that had already been provided.

21        Q.   Now, on the first page it describes the subject matter of this

22     report as "operations of the OB," that's Coastal Battery, "11th Corps of

23     the SVK army, hindered by the MUP RDB, the sequence of events."

24             Could I please have page 4 in English corresponding to page 2 in

25     B/C/S.  I know we're all using the paper versions.

Page 17881

 1             On this page you state in your report:

 2             "Branko Curcic from the MUP of the Republic of Serbia,

 3     Radojica Bozovic, and an RDB officer nicknamed Gavra, were in

 4     General Loncar's office when we arrived.  I informed them of the results

 5     of our work.  General Loncar ordered me to hand over the entire file to

 6     the said officers of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia because they were

 7     going to take over from there.  Neither General Gligorevic nor I made any

 8     comments or opposed this order."

 9             Do you know the full name of the RDB officer named Gavra?

10        A.   It's not Gavran, it's Gavra.  I believe his last name was

11     Gavrilovic.

12        Q.   Now I'm going to move down on the English page, the same page,

13     and I'll ask you something about page 3 in B/C/S.

14             So following what we just read, you describe how Bozovic swore at

15     you, threatened to beat you, all the while keeping his hands on his

16     unbuckled holster, as you said.  To what do you attribute Bozovic's anger

17     at you on this date?

18        A.   I don't know why I phrased it this way, but that's how it seemed

19     to me at that moment.  That's how his behaviour seemed to me.

20        Q.   Let's look at page 5 in English, the bottom half corresponding to

21     page 3 in B/C/S so you're still, I think, on the same page.  Here you

22     write about the night between the 28th and 29th of August, 1995, saying:

23             "When Kragujevac arrived at the KOG in Dalj around 0630 hours, he

24     conveyed Bozovic's order which stated that Bozovic and Gavra were chief

25     security officers of the corps and that they requested a meeting of

Page 17882

 1     chiefs of security organs of all brigades and independent units to be

 2     held on th 28th of August at 2030 hours on the OB premises.

 3             "Before the meeting began, everybody was expected to write a

 4     short CV specifically citing the following:  Where they had come from,

 5     how long they had been with the OB service, how long they had been in

 6     Eastern Slavonija and Baranja; also to be included was a short review of

 7     previous positions and assignments within the service.  The same order

 8     applied to both members of the KOG and the Corps Security Section."

 9             What was your understanding of the source of the authority of the

10     Serbian DB and Serbian MUP officials to issue orders to you and your

11     subordinates in the military?

12        A.   I don't know from what they draw such force, but it is the corps

13     commander, the general, who made those things possible and who approved

14     it, because he did not act like the corps commander.  He accepted

15     somebody else's position, and he issued orders that we must leave the

16     territory of Eastern Slavonija.

17        Q.   Let's look at the second to last paragraph on page 6 in English,

18     which is on page 4 in B/C/S.

19             Here you report that you ordered your subordinates not to attend

20     this meeting.  A bit after that, you describe a phone call from

21     General Loncar informing you that he had received an announcement from

22     Obrad Stevanovic, Branko Curcic, and a few others that they are coming to

23     see him and that he believes that the purpose of this visit is to tell

24     Loncar that you are persona non grata.  Loncar, as you say, advised you

25     to leave for Belgrade right away.  You refused and stood your ground

Page 17883

 1     according to your report.

 2             Now could I draw your attention to page 8 in English, starting in

 3     the middle.  This corresponds to page 5 in B/C/S.

 4             According to your report, on the 20th of August, 1995,

 5     General Loncar called you and ordered you to come to his office.  There

 6     you found, among others, Branko Curcic from the MUP of Serbia,

 7     Obrad Stevanovic from the MUP of Serbia, and Gavra from the SDB of

 8     Serbia.

 9             You were instructed to take down the following order - it

10     continues now on the next page in English but the same page in B/C/S:

11             "The below-mentioned officers shall report to you at Mitica by

12     1530 hours.  They shall take all the gear they had brought with them.

13     You shall leave this area without the right of return.  You shall hand

14     over your files to Lieutenant-Colonel Kragujevac."

15             Those listed for removal are yourself, Zemunja and others, and

16     you were told:

17             "You would be provided with a motor vehicles and an escort?"

18             The Boco squad that escorted you were the Scorpions from

19     Djeletovci; is that correct?

20        A.   I didn't know they were from Djeletovci.  When I say escorted,

21     that's under quotation marks.  That is to say they did not escort us the

22     way they would escort a column.  They were just on our side.

23        Q.   But did you confirm it was the Skorpions Unit?

24        A.   Later on I learned that that was their name.  At the time I

25     didn't know that they were Skorpions.

Page 17884

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus, you are close to your 30 minutes.

 2             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.

 3        Q.   What was it that you did that caused the Serbian DB officials to

 4     have you and the others removed from the region?

 5             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, would I kindly ask my

 6     learned friend to rephrase and be very precise.  It was not just one

 7     service that decided that.  There were other organs involved.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Well -- Ms. Marcus.

 9             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, that's something I think Mr. Bakrac can

10     put.  I'm asking about the involvement of the Serbian DB officials.  What

11     was it that caused their involvement in having the witness removed from

12     the region.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Objection is denied.  Please invite the witness to

14     answer the question.

15             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation] I can't say exactly what the

16     motives were.  I don't know what they were governed by.  This did occur,

17     and that's a fact.

18             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, I have only one more question.  It

19     relates to one more document, with your leave, sir.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  One question.

21             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.  For that one question could the Court Officer

22     please call up 65 ter 4929.

23        Q.   This one will be on your screen, Mr. Karan.  What you see in

24     front of you is a list of names which was attached to an exhibit, P1075.

25     It was inadvertently not tendered as part of that exhibit.  We will deal

Page 17885

 1     with that procedurally afterwards.

 2             These annexes describe awards of various kinds which were given

 3     at the ceremony in 1996 on the observance of the day of security organs

 4     and service.

 5             Could I please have page 3 in English and page 2 in B/C/S for my

 6     final question.

 7             As you can see, Rajo Bozovic is under number 22, Branko Curcic is

 8     under number 25, and Momir Gavrilovic, aka Gavra, is under the second

 9     list at number 7, and they were all granted awards by the Serbian DB at

10     this ceremony.  Were you aware of this?

11        A.   No.  I don't know anything about that ceremony.

12        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Karan.

13             MS. MARCUS:  I have no further questions, Your Honour.  I would

14     just like to tender the long document that we looked at all together.

15     That was 65 ter 1447.  And I would like, with your leave, to tender this

16     attachment which was purely accidentally not attached to P1075.  If the

17     Defence would like to check that we can certainly MFI it for now.  It is

18     part of that document.  This was a complete -- just an error that it

19     wasn't attached when we tendered it.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's start with the long document.  No objections?

21             Madam Registrar, the number would be?

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 1447 will receive number P3096,

23     Your Honours.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

25             Now, the next one, the --


Page 17886

 1             MR. JORDASH:  May we MFI this so I can take instructions, please?

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Madam Registrar.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 4929 will receive number P3097,

 4     Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.  That document is marked

 6     for identification -- for -- yes, MFI'd, and we'll hear from the

 7     Stanisic Defence later.

 8             Then, Mr. Jordash, your ten minutes start now.

 9             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you.

10                           Further cross-examination by Mr. Jordash:

11        Q.   Just a few questions if I can, Mr. Karan, and I want to pick up

12     on the subject of your knowledge about the DB and in particular

13     Mr. Stanisic financing and supplying operations such as -- well, in

14     particular Pauk.  Could we have 1D02024 on the screen, please, and while

15     that's coming up, did you come across Mr. Stanisic at any stage in your

16     various roles before the beginning of Pauk?  Did you see him?  Did you

17     speak to him, have any indirect contact with him?

18        A.   No.  I did not see Mr. Stanisic before November 1994, and even

19     then I met him only once at a meeting at the corps command.  We didn't

20     talk to each other.

21        Q.   So as far as you were concerned, in your posts and in particular

22     those tasks you conducted with the 21st Corps in Kordun, Stanisic had

23     nothing to do with you or those tasks, as far as you're concerned?

24        A.   That's correct, yes.

25        Q.   Now, just moving to Pauk.  If you'd have a look at the document

Page 17887

 1     on the screen and have a quick read through it.  As you can see, it's a

 2     document emanating from the Main Staff of the Serbian Krajina Army,

 3     10th of April, 1995, and sent to Milosevic personally, Martic personally,

 4     and Perisic personally.

 5        A.   Yes, I've seen it here.

 6        Q.   And if we can -- it's a report which appears to describe, amongst

 7     a number of things, details about the Pauk operation, and I just want to

 8     ask you if you can confirm some of the details or not so that we can

 9     understand the scale of this operation.

10             Page 2 of the English and 2 of the B/C/S, please.

11             If you look at the -- well, at the English it's the second to the

12     last paragraph and it says:

13             "Seven hundred fighters from the SVK (from the 21st and

14     39th Corps) are engaged in Operation Spider in the territory of the

15     AP ZB."

16             Do you see that?

17        A.   Yes, I can see that.

18        Q.   Is that an accurate number, as far as you're concerned?

19        A.   Yes.  This is an accurate reflection of the strength, but I

20     believe that there were a few more of our men among the 700 combatants.

21     What I'm saying is that the ratio was not 50/50.

22        Q.   Okay.  Let's go to page 4 of the English and 3 of the B/C/S.  And

23     towards the top of the page in the English it says:

24             "The Spider Command group with the strength of 11.000 men is

25     receiving logistic support from the SVK which is providing large

Page 17888

 1     quantities of MTS from its own reserves."

 2             Do you know anything about that figure, 11.000 men, and who they

 3     were in relation to the Spider Command group?

 4        A.   The 11.000 men involved over 10.000 members of the defence of

 5     Western Bosnia, and the rest making up to 11.000 were the forces of the

 6     21st and the 39th Corps.  It is true that the security was provided by

 7     the Serbian Army of Krajina provided a lot of weapons, a lot of -- a lot

 8     of ammunition from their own depots.  I've already spoke been that.

 9        Q.   And do you know how big the groups were that were commanded by

10     Bozovic and Legija?

11        A.   Tactical groups are small.  They are the strength of a company,

12     which means that they had around 100 men.  However, TG2 had a brigade,

13     but that brigade did not number more than a thousand men or so.

14        Q.   And the remainder of the 11.000 then were commanded by men other

15     than Legija and Bozovic; is that right?

16        A.   That's right, because the brigades of the National Defence of

17     Western Bosnia had their own commanders.  They had their own chief, i.e.,

18     the commander of the Main Staff, their supreme commander.  They had an

19     entire military structure.

20        Q.   And the TG2 brigade, who -- who were the thousand men?  Were

21     these Fikret Abdic's men?

22        A.   Yes.  It was them.

23        Q.   And TG1, the hundred men, who were they?

24        A.   I don't know about TG1.

25        Q.   Fair enough.  Could I ask you to have a look at B/C/S page 4 of

Page 17889

 1     this document and 4 of the English, and the comment which begins:

 2             "With the receipt of material from the Republic of Serbia and the

 3     VJ in February and March of 1995, the necessary reserves of ammunition

 4     and food for war requirements were created, significantly alleviating

 5     PoOb problems."

 6             One interpretation there of this document is that the SVK were

 7     complying the Pauk command up until March of 1995 when certain material

 8     arrived from Serbia.  Do you know if that's an accurate interpretation or

 9     not?

10        A.   I'm not sure that I can provide an answer to this question.

11        Q.   Okay.  If you can't, you can't.  Let me just finish then with you

12     told us earlier today about the ending of Pauk coinciding with the fall

13     of Krajina on the 9th and 10th of August, 1995.  Were the two events

14     linked in any way?  Was one the cause of the other or were they linked in

15     any other way other than coincidence in time?

16        A.   There was a coincidence in time, and that's all the coincidence

17     there was.

18        Q.   Okay.  Fair enough.  Thanks very much, Mr. Witness.

19             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you, Your Honours.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Mr. Bakrac.  Mr. Bakrac, if you're ready

21     start, and while Mr. Jordash is taking instructions, he'll tell us

22     whether he has one more question for the witness.

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

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

25             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you.


Page 17890

 1                           Re-examination by Mr. Bakrac:

 2        Q.   [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Karan.  My learned friend

 3     Ms. Marcus asked you earlier today when she showed you the operative

 4     diary of Pauk command, that's P235, and when she showed you some entries,

 5     she told you that the operative diary which was kept from the

 6     16 November 1994 until the end of May 1995 contained 15 entries where

 7     Frenki is mentioned, and after that she suggested that the diary shows

 8     that Frenki was involved in daily operations relative to that command.

 9             Would you expect from somebody who was involved in daily

10     operations relative to the command of Pauk operation and who participated

11     in the commanding and the planning operations from 16 November 1994 until

12     the end of May 1995 would be mentioned in the diary 15 times?

13        A.   No, I wouldn't expect any such thing.

14        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Karan.  And now I would like to call up D139.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  This is document [Microphone not activated].

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, your microphone was not activated.

17     Is it a document which is confidential and not to be shown to the public?

18             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honour -- Your Honours, I just said the

19     document is marked not admitted so it's not in the exhibits, but I can

20     show it.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It's a document marked for identification.

22             Mr. Bakrac, your last question would be mentioned in the diary 15

23     times.  Was your suggestion that that is a very low number?

24             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.  I merely asked --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The question and, of course, I try to -- to

Page 17891

 1     understand what the probative value is, would you expect that he would be

 2     mentioned 15 times, which could be that's a very low number or that's a

 3     very high number or that the witness has a reason to believe that you

 4     would expect 14 times or 16 times?  The question is not clear to me,

 5     neither is the answer, what it tells me.

 6             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, since the Prosecution

 7     suggests that Franko Simatovic was involved in the daily operations of

 8     Pauk command, I asked the witness whether during that period which lasted

 9     for over six or even seven months, as many as 200 days-plus, whether a

10     person who was involved in everyday operations should not have mentioned

11     more times than that in an operative diary.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Now the question is clear, and when I earlier asked

13     you was your suggestion that it's a very low number, apparently that is

14     your suggestion, that it's a very low number and under normal

15     circumstances you would expect a higher number.  That's, however, not

16     clear from your question and it's not clear from the answer, but now it

17     is clear.

18             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I probably --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please proceed.

20             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] -- misunderstood your suggestion,

21     Your Honour.

22        Q.   Mr. Karan, let's look at this order.  It seems to be an order

23     from Mile Novakovic.  And it says, "Pauk command, 15 December 1994."  I'm

24     going to draw your attention to bullet point 1 where it says, "SUP

25     Vojnic" and it says send -- and send the following organisational

Page 17892

 1     establishment units to the Pauk command as agreed and discussed.  And

 2     then it goes on to say other things, but one of the things is SUP Vojnic,

 3     a company 60 to 80 men, SUP Glina 60 to 80 men.  Are you aware of the

 4     fact that Major-General Mile Novakovic also included the members of the

 5     local SUP, SUP Glina and Vojnic in the command of Pauk?

 6        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 7        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Karan.

 8             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we now look at

 9     65 ter 6402.  I apologise.  This is one part of the -- the Pauk diary

10     that my learned friend has separated.  I may have omitted the fact that

11     it has a new number, but it's part of P235.

12        Q.   Mr. Karan, who is normally in charge of maintaining an operative

13     diary?  Who is it?

14        A.   A staff member.  In this case a member of the Pauk command,

15     usually the Chief of Staff, designates the duty operations officer, but

16     this lies within the authority of the Pauk command or the Chief of Staff

17     of the Pauk command, in this case Colonel Bulat.

18        Q.   Mr. Karan, when you look at the second entry where it says,

19     "Frenki's looking for Bozovic to insert our forces ...," when Colonel

20     Bulat says our forces MUP, what MUP does he have in mind?  The MUP either

21     from Vojnic or from the Manija [as interpreted] Corps, both from Kordun.

22             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, I'm not sure how the witness can know

23     what Colonel Bulat has in his mind.  This is the witness's understanding

24     but the witness -- I mean, the witness has to have particular knowledge

25     of that particular date and those events to know what was being said.

Page 17893

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  And re-reading the transcript, it's not entirely

 2     clear.  Well, sometimes you may have facts to your knowledge which shed

 3     some light on somewhat someone may have on his mind because he says

 4     something about it, but could you try -- if you can ask the witness this

 5     question, could you try to find out what the source of knowledge is which

 6     would allow him to answer that question, Mr. Bakrac.  Could you rephrase

 7     it, apart from that the document you are referring to seems to be P3091,

 8     because it has been admitted into evidence.  Please proceed.  Rephrase

 9     your question.

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

11        Q.   Witness, are you familiar with the fact that Pauk command also

12     engaged the MUP forces from Vojnic and Glina?

13        A.   Yes, I'm familiar with that fact.

14        Q.   Do you know that Franko Simatovic -- or, rather, my question is

15     this:  If a corps commander, i.e., if a chief of the corps who writes the

16     operative diary, if he says, Frenki's looking for Bozovic to insert our

17     forces, what would you expect that was on his mind?  Who does he mean

18     when he says that?

19        A.   It is clear that he means MUP members from either Vojnic or

20     Glina.  This is absolutely clear to me.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You are interpreting a text.  Do you have any

22     knowledge which would support this reading, this interpretation of this

23     text?

24             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation] I know that members of the reserve

25     MUP forces were mobilised.  A unit was established, and that unit was

Page 17894

 1     transferred to the area of Maljevac.  It was at that time that one part

 2     of the 21st Corps Military Police Unit was also engaged.  The military

 3     police carried out their task on a different axis.  We were in the

 4     village of Kuplinsko.  There was a line-up of the military police force

 5     there, and I know that they were deployed in the direction of the Western

 6     Bosnia region.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  What do you know about Frenki's involvement or

 8     Frenki, why he was looking for Bozovic, because you more or less separate

 9     the activity entirely from Frenki, whereas there seems, in the text at

10     least, to be a link, whatever that link is.  Could you explain to us

11     whether you have any knowledge about what Frenki's involvement at that

12     point in time was.

13             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation] I assume that Mr. Simatovic, by

14     way of electronic surveillance, learnt about an event and that --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm not asking you what you assume, but I'm asking

16     you about what you know.

17             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation] As regards this specific event, I

18     don't know anything about it.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Bakrac.

20             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, I think that the answer the witness

21     gave support exactly what my point was before.  First he says they were

22     MUP members from either Vojnic or Glina, then he says they were military

23     police.  Clearly the witness does not have any personal knowledge to

24     comment on -- on this entry.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  This is commenting, Ms. Marcus, which is not

Page 17895

 1     appropriate at this point in time.

 2             Mr. Bakrac, you may proceed.

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

 4        Q.   Mr. Karan, yesterday you testified about a commission from the

 5     security administration that arrived after the fall of Vukovar.  Who were

 6     members of the commission as far as you can remember after such a long

 7     time?

 8        A.   It's not easy to remember, but I know that there were about 10 to

 9     12 men, but after such a long time it's very difficult to remember.  It

10     would take me a long time to try and remember, but I know that they had

11     been dispatched from the security administration.

12        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Karan.  Can you remember and do you know what was

13     the task of that commission?

14        A.   That commission was supposed to interview people selected by

15     physicians from the hospital who were not wounded and who had been

16     treated in the hospital before.

17        Q.   Mr. Karan, just to make it clear for the record, we're talking

18     about the previous issue regarding Pauk and the document I showed you.

19     Do you have knowledge that members of the MUP of Vojnic and Glina were

20     engaged by the Pauk commander Mile Novakovic?  Do you have any direct

21     knowledge about that?

22        A.   I said I was present myself at the inspection of the MUP unit and

23     the military police unit that was engaged at the time.  They were both

24     sent to the Maljevac sector, whereas my military police unit had another

25     task on a different axis, and they went to the right, toward a different

Page 17896

 1     place, Cetingrad.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  I believe that is clearer now.  My learned friend

 3     from the Prosecution asked you about a document that you drafted

 4     concerning your departure from Slavonia in 1995.  Can you tell us if you

 5     knew at the time who Obrad Stevanovic was?

 6        A.   I didn't know what position he occupied.  I learned later that he

 7     had the rank of general, but I didn't know where he worked.

 8        Q.   Did you learn later if he was perhaps in command of some units in

 9     that area, and if you know, which?

10        A.   I cannot recall the exact name of that unit now, but I know he

11     was a general and that he held high position in the MUP of Serbia.

12        Q.   Can you tell us about the security situation in the area of

13     Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem in September 1995, specifically the

14     security of the border of the Republic of Serbia?

15        A.   I wasn't there very long.  I was just trying to organise the work

16     of security organs in the depth of the territory, appointing security

17     chiefs in brigades, and I didn't have time to assess the security

18     situation in the area of the corps, so I can't answer that question.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, could I seek a clarification of one the

20     previous answers.

21             When asked about whether Obrad Stevanovic was commanding a unit

22     in the area, you said, "I cannot recall the exact name of that unit now."

23     Does this mean that you confirm that he was in command of a unit in that

24     area, although you do not know what the name of that unit was?  Is that

25     how I have to understand your answer?

Page 17897

 1             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation] Maybe I didn't phrase it well.  I

 2     did not, in fact, know that he was in command of any unit in that area.

 3     That would be a better answer.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  What then triggered you to tell us that you do not

 5     know the name of that unit if no unit was in your mind at all?

 6             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation] I cannot really answer that

 7     question.  I don't know how those words came to me.  They just slipped

 8     out.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac.

10             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  Those were

11     all my questions for this witness.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Has the re-examination triggered the

13     need for any further examination?

14             MS. MARCUS:  No, Your Honour, thank you.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, same answer.  Then --

16             MR. JORDASH:  May I just turn to an exhibit, please, the one that

17     I used in the examination.  1D02024.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Madam Registrar.

19             MS. MARCUS:  No objection.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  The number would be?

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 1D2004 will receive D758, Your Honours.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  D578 is admitted into evidence.

23             Mr. Bakrac, I earlier told you that D139 was not an exhibit but

24     was marked for identification, well, that was the situation until the

25     18th of February of last year, because the words by Mr. Petrovic were


Page 17898

 1     then, "We withdraw it, Your Honour."  "D139 is withdrawn by the

 2     Simatovic Defence" were then my words which means that it's marked not

 3     admitted.  If you want to seek it to be re-tendered, then we first have

 4     to look at what exactly was the reason it was not admitted at this time.

 5     We don't need the witness for that at this moment.  I just bring this to

 6     your attention that it's not --

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

 8     it as a basis for questions.  We'll look into the real reason and then

 9     we'll address you when the time comes.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Then this concludes your testimony,

11     Mr. Karan.  I'd like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague and

12     for having answered all the questions that were put to you by the parties

13     and by the Bench, and I'm glad that we could finish your testimony today,

14     and I wish you a safe return home again.  The usher will escort you out

15     of the courtroom.

16             THE WITNESS:  [Interpretation] Thank you.

17                           [The witness withdrew]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  I've few matters, and I have asked for a very small

19     extension of time so that we could -- that there's no need to -- to have

20     a session tomorrow for just five or ten minutes.

21             The first issue is for the Simatovic Defence.  The

22     Stanisic Defence has made an application for provisional release for

23     Mr. Stanisic.  Now, as you remember, Mr. Bakrac, there was some issue

24     about guarantees and there might be any need for a follow-up in this

25     context with the Republic of Serbia.  At least the Chamber is considering


Page 17899

 1     whether there would be any need for such a follow-up, but then we'd like

 2     to know whether the follow-up would be just for the Stanisic Defence or

 3     also for the Simatovic Defence, and therefore is there any intention to

 4     file a request for provisional release for Mr. Simatovic?

 5             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we do intend to file

 6     that request, but today we prioritised the scheduling of witnesses and

 7     complying with the order you gave us yesterday, but we are going to work

 8     on it.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Do that as quickly as possible so that we do not end

10     up in a situation where there's insufficient time if we would want to

11     give it follow-up but that we would be unable.

12             Then I move to my next matter, which is the follow-up on a

13     decision we provided orally to you yesterday about the adjournment the

14     Simatovic Defence has asked for.

15             We will hereby set in this same context certain deadlines,

16     deadlines which are closely related to the one-month adjournment which

17     will take place in April 2012.

18             First, the Simatovic Defence is instructed to file a motion

19     requesting any additions to it Rules -- its Rule 65 ter witness list by

20     the 12th of March, 2012.  These additions could concern the six proposed

21     witnesses mentioned in the Simatovic Defence's adjournment motion filed

22     on the 20th of February, 2012, and in its further notification which was

23     filed on the 23rd of February.

24             Point two, the Simatovic Defence is further instructed to notify

25     the Chamber and the parties no later than the 26th of March, 2012,

Page 17900

 1     whether it intends to call Witnesses DFS-1 and DFS-3.

 2             Three, the Simatovic Defence is also instructed to notify the

 3     Chamber and the parties no later than the 20th of April, 2012, whether it

 4     intends to call any of the witnesses who it seeks to be added to its

 5     Rule 65 ter witness list.  The Chamber, however, strongly encourages the

 6     Simatovic Defence to give such indications as early as possible.

 7             That could -- the earlier notification could concern one or two

 8     witnesses already, even if you would need until the 20th of April to make

 9     up your mind for the others.

10             Four, as for the proposed expert witness Milosevic, the

11     Simatovic Defence is instructed to file a revised report of Mr. Milosevic

12     having removed all portions it considers irrelevant or on which it does

13     not intend to rely.  Furthermore, parts not disputed between the parties

14     should be removed from that report and can be submitted to the Chamber

15     separately through a record of agreed facts.  This report should be filed

16     no later than the 10th of April, 2012.

17             I see that there is no clear deadline yet for the filing of

18     the -- no.  I think -- yes.  The report to be filed not later than the

19     10th of April is the new expert report, and, of course, a record of

20     agreed facts is -- if it is there, is -- should be filed not later than

21     that same date.

22             I now move to number five.  As for the proposed expert witness

23     Borojevic, the Chamber stays the notice deadline of Rule 94 bis.  That's

24     of course mainly for the Prosecution and the Stanisic Defence and

25     instruct the Simatovic Defence to do the following:  First, to indicate

Page 17901

 1     to the parties whether or not after having had a discussion with the

 2     parties, more specifically with the Prosecution, to indicate to the

 3     parties which chapters or areas the Simatovic Defence will strike from

 4     the report.  This indication should be communicated to the parties no

 5     later than the 12th of March, 2012.

 6             Also in relation to the expert witness Borojevic, the

 7     Simatovic Defence should respond to the Prosecution's motion requesting

 8     that the Chamber follow the approach taken by the Gotovina Trial Chamber

 9     in relation to the witness Theunens and Konings not later than the

10     19th of March, 2012.  This response should include information about any

11     good cause for filing the report at this stage of the proceedings.  It

12     should also include as much information as possible about which chapters

13     or areas of the report will be stricken and an explanation of the

14     relevance of the remaining portions.

15             It may be clear to the Simatovic Defence that the Prosecution

16     asked for the -- what they call the Gotovina trial approach, which

17     includes that a Trial Chamber can consider whether or not to admit at all

18     an expert report in view of timing, among other matters, size -- well, it

19     may be clear that a decision on admission of this expert report still has

20     to be taken and that you're invited to provide the Chamber with the

21     relevant information, including, if it's downsized, that of course might

22     have consequences as well.

23             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, I'm very sorry to interrupt.  Just

24     before we get too far, I believe there's a pending protective measures

25     motion for the witness that was just being discussed in open session.

Page 17902

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then we'll --

 2             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if we mean the same

 3     thing, then I believe you've already made your decision.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's what I was thinking about.  I think

 5     that there was an application which was denied, if I remember well,

 6     Mr. Bakrac.

 7             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  That is my

 8     recollection too.

 9             MS. MARCUS:  [Overlapping speakers] my apologies, Your Honour.

10     My apologies.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  You're reported as an overlapping speaker,

12     Ms. Marcus.

13             MS. MARCUS:  I was just apologising, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, yes.  It's good to have that on the record.

15             Now let's -- yes.  I move to the next one in relation to the same

16     witness.

17             The Simatovic Defence is instructed to file a revised version of

18     the report of Witness Borojevic, having removed all portions it considers

19     irrelevant or on which it does not intend to rely.  Parts which are not

20     disputed between the parties should also be removed and can be submitted

21     to the Chamber separately through a record of agreed facts.  This filing

22     should be submitted no later than the 13th of April, 2012; that is three

23     days after a similar report for expert witness Milosevic.

24             Finally, the last portion.  The parties' notice deadline in

25     relation to the Borojevic report is hereby set to the 4th of March, 2012,


Page 17903

 1     having taken into account that the parties have exchanged information

 2     about portions to be stricken already by the 12th of March.

 3             Mr. Jordash, I -- yes, I said the 4th of March apparently.  Of

 4     course that should be the 4th of May.  So the deadline is a bit short

 5     compared to the date on which the new report should be filed.  At the

 6     same time, relevant information has reached the parties already by the

 7     12th of March and that is the reason why the deadline is slightly shorter

 8     than as provided for in the Rules.

 9             Mr. Bakrac, you're on your feet.

10             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm on my feet because

11     I realised that you were addressing me, and I thought it would be

12     courteous of me to listen to your words on my feet, and that's the only

13     reason why I stood up.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, then I now address everyone, but I do not

15     expect everyone to be on its feet because we'll adjourn, unless there are

16     any questions about the deadlines I just gave to primarily the

17     Simatovic Defence but also some relevant for the other parties.

18             MS. MARCUS:  No questions about that, Your Honour, but we would

19     very much like to know who the next witnesses are.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  I do understand that the three witnesses who are

21     DFS-7, I think, 10, and 11.  Is that --

22             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  Within the next

23     half an hour, the Trial Chamber and the parties will be provided with a

24     detailed information as to what has been planned as well as the important

25     details of the upcoming witnesses' testimonies.

Page 17904

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Patience for half an hour, Ms. Marcus.

 2             We adjourn for the day, and we will resume on Tuesday, the 6th of

 3     March, at quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon in Courtroom II.

 4                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.56 p.m.,

 5                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 6th day

 6                           of March, 2012, at 2.15 p.m.