Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 18960

 1                           Thursday, 3 May 2012

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The witness takes the stand]

 4                           [The accused entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 2.21 p.m.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Good afternoon to everyone.

 7             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.

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

10     and Franko Simatovic.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

12             Before we continue, a few procedural matters.

13             Mr. Jordash, the scheduling on the 14th of May in the afternoon

14     is definitive, but I hate that I have to say this.  And before you take

15     very drastic steps for yourself, the scheduling is there, but if it would

16     turn out that we would have only one witness that week, we might consider

17     to start at 4.00.  So much on what actually will happen on the 14th

18     depends very much on the presentation of evidence, and if that would

19     leave sufficient room -- I mean, we would not risk a witness not being

20     able to leave before the weekend, et cetera, but if there is a commitment

21     of the parties and if there is a clear and realistic expectation that

22     even without the first two hours in that afternoon we -- we would not

23     lose anything, then, of course, we would seriously consider that.

24             So therefore, perhaps, you speak about the matters with

25     Mr. Bakrac as well.  We are trying to accommodate you to the extent


Page 18961

 1     possible, and we'll be very flexible, but Monday afternoon is the

 2     scheduled court session.

 3             MR. JORDASH:  I'm grateful for the flexibility.  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 5             Then, Mr. Petrovic, as far as the attachments to the report of

 6     Mr. Milosevic are concerned, you've used them.  Could you include them in

 7     the list, at least to the extent you've used them, of source documents so

 8     that they receive a number as well, because in e-court they are not part

 9     of the report itself.

10             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] We'll do that, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

12             Then, Mr. Milosevic, we'll continue.  I first would like to

13     remind you that you are still bound by the solemn declaration you've

14     given at the beginning of your testimony.  And when I now invite

15     Ms. Marcus to proceed, I also -- what I have again forgotten yesterday is

16     to introduce Ms. Marcus as counsel for the Prosecution.  But again, being

17     a specialist in criminal procedure, you would have noted already that

18     Ms. Marcus was a member of the prosecutorial team in this case.

19             Ms. Marcus, please proceed.

20             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

21                           WITNESS:  Milan Milosevic [Resumed]

22                           [Witness answered through interpretation]

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

24        Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. Milosevic.

25        A.   Good afternoon.

Page 18962

 1        Q.   Yesterday you told us that you chose to title your report

 2     "Discharge of Internal Affairs" because the Serbian language does not

 3     provide for another option which would better describe the nature of your

 4     study.  I would say that a simple title such as "Study of the Rules and

 5     Structures of Internal Affairs" might have done the trick, but you are

 6     the author, not I.  However, I note that throughout your report you

 7     continually use terminology which describes not only the applicable

 8     rules, laws, and regulations, but which denotes the application of those

 9     rules, laws, and regulations.  There are scores of examples.  To name

10     very few, in paragraph 199 you state that:

11             "The overall financial operations of the RSUP MUP were transacted

12     in the framework of the joint financial service."

13             In paragraph 202:

14             "In accordance with the instructions, the SDB special expenditure

15     resources were used for," and then you say what they were used for.

16             In paragraph 228, you state:

17             "The chief and the leadership of the service department, in the

18     framework of exercising their managerial function, were informed of all

19     the more important primary documents stemming from the operative work of

20     the SDB RDB."

21             You do use conditional language in many places.  But in others

22     you chose to use quite concrete and unequivocal terminology.  So what --

23     so that we understand what you are saying about these assertions in your

24     report, any time you use terminology in your report which states that

25     something was carried out or records were kept, rules were applied, all

Page 18963

 1     of this we should understand to mean that if the applicable rules had

 2     been applied, then this would have been the factual result.  But you have

 3     absolutely no information about whether or not these applicable rules

 4     were, in fact, applied.

 5             Is that a correct understanding?

 6        A.   Well, I think the report I provided is quite clear and explicit,

 7     and I will leave it to the Chamber to decide about the matter.  I don't

 8     know how I could now supplement my testimony.  Everything contained in

 9     this report is quite explicit, and I'll leave the matter in the hands of

10     the Chamber.

11             I'll repeat what I said yesterday, and that is that there were

12     rules of service that were in existence and it was necessary to strictly

13     adhere to all the rules.  Failing to do so would entail certain

14     consequences, and therefore I don't know what else I could add.

15        Q.   In paragraph 9 of your report, you state that:

16             "This methodological approach in the expert report, based on the

17     relevant documents ..."

18             You said yesterday that you inspected "personnel files and other

19     decisions including letters of appointments and assignment and the

20     payrolls."  Did you have direct access to internal DB documentation in

21     preparation of your report?

22        A.   What documentation do you actually have in mind?  I'm not sure

23     that I have understood your question.  What specific documentation do you

24     have in mind?

25        Q.   I'm sure some of my questions will use lay terminology that may

Page 18964

 1     not be the official terminology.  Please bear with me; I'll do my best.

 2     You mentioned, I believe, personnel files, other decisions, including

 3     letters of appointments and assignment and the payrolls.  I'm trying to

 4     determine exactly what those materials were and how you obtained access

 5     to them.

 6        A.   What we're dealing with are a certain number of decisions on

 7     appointments and a certain number of decision on salaries.  When someone

 8     is assigned to a certain work position, then that person is provided with

 9     a decision on the salary and on that position.  I had access to such

10     decisions that related to some of the staff members of the anti-terrorist

11     unit.  I'm not certain that I saw all the decisions, but I used all the

12     documents I received from the Defence.

13             As for Franko Simatovic's case, well, naturally what I received

14     were photocopies, not originals.  I received a photocopy or photocopies

15     of the documents that were contained in his personnel file.  And

16     naturally I also examined documents that concerned certain payments made

17     and they were documents that had been assigned, but the key documents for

18     me were documents that concerned individual members of the anti-terrorist

19     unit, because it was on that basis that I established the date of the

20     creation of that unit, because that document officially created the unit.

21     That was in mid-1993, as I have already said.  I said yesterday that I

22     haven't seen the original of that document.  But I don't think that there

23     is anything that is in dispute here.

24        Q.   Thank you.  We will return to that issue.  I will return to ask

25     you questions about that a bit later.

Page 18965

 1             The materials that you say you reviewed, and you said that you

 2     "used all the documents I received from the Defence."  So all the

 3     materials that are these internal DB documents were documents that you

 4     received from the Defence; in other words, you didn't obtain access

 5     yourself directly through the Serbian authorities to additional

 6     documentation.  Do I understand that correctly?

 7        A.   Well, some of the documents that are state secrets are not

 8     documents that I could have requested access to.  I believe that you'll

 9     understand that that quite simply wasn't possible.  Naturally, I had

10     certain documents at my disposal as a researcher, but these documents

11     aren't confidential.  All the documents that concern the RDB were there,

12     were included, and all other documents that I could find were documents I

13     used to draft this report.  I can produce a list of the literature I

14     used, if you like.  I was involved in all the details.  But as far as

15     other documents are concerned, the rules on the organisation and work and

16     on jobs specifications, well, these are state secrets, so I could not

17     have such documents.  I could not have access to such documents because

18     in order to have access to such documents I would have had to break the

19     law.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I intervene.  There was a certain category of

21     documents Ms. Marcus referred to and which you mentioned yesterday.  The

22     question of Ms. Marcus was whether those documents, that is,

23     appointments, personnel files, et cetera, whether you received those

24     documents exclusively from the Defence or whether you received them also

25     from official sources.  And what would violate the law and what not,

Page 18966

 1     Ms. Marcus is interested in the facts.

 2             Did you receive any of the documents falling in that category

 3     from anyone else than from the Defence?

 4             That's the question, I think, Ms. Marcus.

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

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Would you please try to briefly answer that

 7     question.  And not what would have happened if you had asked for other

 8     things, just what happened.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

10             The documents that concern the personnel file of Franko Simatovic

11     and that concerned decisions on salaries and assignments of various

12     members of the anti-terrorist units are documents that I received from

13     the Defence, but I have absolutely no doubts as to their authenticity,

14     since the documents are photocopies.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, sometimes photocopies are not always

16     authentic, but that's not yet in the question of Ms. Marcus.  There may

17     be other issues as selectivity, et cetera.  But Ms. Marcus -- listen

18     carefully to her next question and try to focus very much on what she

19     asks.

20             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

21        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, apart from those documents that you actually cited

22     in your report, and apart from the bibliography which you produced for us

23     as well, could you produce for us a list of the documentation that you

24     consulted in preparation of your report that would include all the

25     documents that the Defence asked you -- the Defence provided to you and

Page 18967

 1     which you consulted in preparing your report but which we can't find

 2     cited in your report.  Essentially, those are source -- that's source

 3     material for your report which we don't have.  Could you provide that

 4     list to us if we asked you to do that?

 5        A.   There's a list of the bibliography of the books that I used and

 6     of other secondary material, but there are no other documents.  I don't

 7     know what you have in mind, exactly.  I don't know how I would compile

 8     such a list.  I have provided everything, and everything has been

 9     referenced.  If you like, I can go through the material once more, but I

10     really don't understand what you have in mind.

11        Q.   Apart from the personnel file of Mr. Simatovic, which other

12     documents from personnel files, letters of appointment, et cetera, were

13     you provided with by the Simatovic Defence?

14        A.   Well, there were decisions that concerned Milan Radonjic and so

15     on and so forth.  If necessary, I can provide you with a precise list.

16     These are standard things.  It's just a matter of a sort of textbook

17     example that's provided.

18        Q.   I would, in fact, appreciate if you could at some point -- I

19     don't know how soon you think you could produce that list.  With leave of

20     the Chamber, I would request if you could put together that list, the

21     decisions.  You said "decisions that concerned Milan Radonjic and so on

22     and so forth."  And you mentioned -- you refer to some additional

23     documents of that kind which are not in your bibliography and which are

24     not footnoted in your report.  If you could prepare a list for us at some

25     point and provide that, I would very much appreciate that.

Page 18968

 1             MS. MARCUS:  With the Chamber's leave.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Are you willing to prepare such a list,

 3     Mr. Milosevic?

 4             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave, in

 5     the previous version, before the redactions, there was a detailed list of

 6     the bibliography.  It's not included in the list that the Chamber now has

 7     before it.  We could, perhaps, provide the Chamber and our colleagues

 8     with the original list.  In fact, our colleagues from the Prosecution

 9     have had it for several months now, but we could provide you with the

10     original list prior to these redactions.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus --

12             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  -- have you looked at the previous version and have

14     you looked at whether a list attached or contained in that would help you

15     out?

16             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, I will have a look at that again.  We

17     have looked at it.

18             Can I just understand my colleague Mr. Petrovic:  Does that mean

19     that every document that was provided by the Simatovic Defence to the

20     witness in preparation of the report would be contained in that

21     bibliography?  Is that my understanding?

22             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it's a list of the

23     bibliography that was compiled by Mr. Milosevic.  It's his list, his

24     bibliography, and it consists of several pages, of about ten pages if I

25     remember this correctly.

Page 18969

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I do understand.  But the question is whether

 2     it contains all the material that you have provided to Mr. Milosevic.

 3     That was the question.  If you don't know, please tell us.  If you do

 4     know -- or --

 5             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would have to have

 6     another look at that list and then provide you with a precise answer.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

 8             Mr. Milosevic, in an earlier version of your report, the

 9     bibliography was far broader, as I understand.  In that bibliography of

10     the previous version, had you included a reference to every single

11     document you received from the Simatovic Defence, or would we not find a

12     reference to each and every of those documents?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'd have to have a look at it to be

14     able to provide you with a precise answer.  I provided a very extensive

15     bibliography, and for certain reasons it was not included.  And in that

16     bibliography you can see all the sources that I availed myself of, but I

17     would have to have a look at it again.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, because even if you did not use certain

19     documents, you may have received them, you may have considered them, and

20     then not used them.

21             I take it, Ms. Marcus, that that's part of what you would like to

22     know as well.

23             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Would you be willing - I'm talking in the -- would

25     you be willing if Ms. Marcus, after having reviewed your bibliography

Page 18970

 1     attached to your previous version of the report, would you be willing to

 2     make such a list?  What Ms. Marcus wants to know is exactly what material

 3     you received from the Simatovic Defence.  That's what she's -- what she

 4     would like to know.

 5             I don't know whether you're able, whether you have written it

 6     down for yourself anywhere; so, on that I received A, B, C, D, E, because

 7     if you don't have that written down, then it might be problematic to

 8     produce such a list.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  At this point in time it's

10     practically impossible, but I can cite the material that I took into

11     consideration.  But I didn't use all the material I had because there are

12     these documents, for example, on appointments and there are quite a lot

13     of such decisions.  It would be absolutely pointless to reference each of

14     those decisions.  But if you like, I can try to do so.  I can't do this

15     off the top of my head, though.  That's impossible.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus, I'll leave it for the time being in your

17     hands.

18             Please proceed.

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

20        Q.   And just to clarify, for you, Mr. Milosevic:  In your

21     bibliography, which is on page 116 of your original report, all that is

22     there are the constitutions, laws, sub-laws, monographs, studies, text

23     books, and articles.  There is no DB documentation listed there.  So to

24     the extent you are able to piece together as much of a list as possible,

25     the documents pertaining to Milan Radonjic which you just referred to for

Page 18971

 1     example, I would very much appreciate that.  Now I'll continue.

 2             I would think that with your professional background and your

 3     experience you would be following this case with great interest.  Have

 4     you seen the indictment against Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Simatovic?

 5        A.   As far as I know, there were several indictments.  The indictment

 6     was amended, wasn't it?  I don't know which one you have in mind.  I only

 7     read the third amended indictment, the last one.  I didn't read the

 8     previous ones.

 9        Q.   So based upon your consulting the third amended indictment, which

10     is the operative indictment, you do know what the case is about.  Would

11     you say that's accurate?

12        A.   Yes, in general.  But I didn't go into any of the details because

13     that is not the purpose of my presence here.  As an expert witness, I am

14     completely neutral.

15             MS. MARCUS:  Could the Court Officer please call up

16     Exhibit P2397, but not broadcast it to the public.

17        Q.   What you will see before you in a moment, Mr. Milosevic, is a

18     decision on the appointment of Jovica Stanisic to the position of

19     assistant republican secretary of the interior, dated the

20     12th of June, 1990.  It says in the first paragraph:

21             "Jovica Stanisic, assistant chief of the State Security Service

22     of the republican secretariat of the interior, is hereby appointed

23     assistant republican secretary of the interior."

24             If we understand this document correctly, Mr. Stanisic, by this

25     decision, was promoted to a higher position; is that correct?

Page 18972

 1        A.   No, that is not correct.  Chief of state security was a position

 2     that was at the same time the position of the assistant secretary for the

 3     interior.  I don't see how he would have been promoted.  He shared

 4     several positions at the time.  That position was also the position of an

 5     assistant secretary for the interior.  He remained chief of service.  He

 6     never stopped being chief of service, if that was your question.

 7        Q.   Thank you, yes.  And how did the position of assistant republican

 8     secretary of the interior differ from the later position of assistant

 9     republican minister of the interior?

10        A.   I really don't know what the difference was.  If he remained in

11     that position -- I'm afraid I don't understand your question.  He

12     remained in the position as a chief of service of state security, which

13     later on became the state security department.  I can consult my -- the

14     documents.  I don't remember that I've ever stated that there was a

15     difference there.

16        Q.   That's fine, thank you.  Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.

17             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you.  I'm finished with this document.

18        Q.   Now, in paragraph 28 of your report, you say:

19             "At the time of the constituting of FR Yugoslavia, the State

20     Security Service, in the federal secretariat of the interior, was

21     nominally organised as ten administrations and two independent

22     departments.  However, as of October 1992, actually, and as of 2001 also

23     formally, the federal MUP no longer comprised state security organs."

24             The reason that as of October 1992 actually the federal MUP no

25     longer comprised state security organs, this was because of the Serbian

Page 18973

 1     MUP take-over of the federal MUP which we discussed -- which you

 2     discussed earlier; is that correct?

 3        A.   I've already explained in my testimony so far that at that moment

 4     there were those administrations on paper, but they were completely

 5     nonoperational.  They existed only on paper, effectively.  They didn't

 6     have personnel.  They were not active.  It was a transitional period in

 7     the state of chaos that reigned.  I've already testified about that.

 8     After that, the federal SUP was reorganised.  Some administrations

 9     remained.  But when it comes to state security, everything, save for the

10     protection of individuals, everything was merged, as it were, with the

11     republican ministry of the interior.  In other words, that ministry

12     didn't completely disappear.  The state security didn't completely

13     disappear.  Their activities were significantly reduced, as you will find

14     it stated in here.

15        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, you have quite a lot of information, and I have

16     quite a lot of material to cover with you.  I'm doing my best to ask

17     quite specific questions.  If you would be so kind to please answer as

18     briefly as you can.  If I'm asking for a further explanation or if the

19     Chamber would like further explanation, we will certainly ask you

20     follow-up questions.

21             Now, you make very brief mention of this take-over in the

22     one-sentence paragraph 29 of your report, and then you move on from

23     there.  You provide no analysis, no assessment of the legality of the

24     circumstances, no presentation of the rules governing the take-over.  You

25     did, as you said now, discuss the take-over during your testimony, and

Page 18974

 1     you gave a few reasons for it.  However, you explained it as some sort of

 2     agreed-upon solution to a problem of office space and to "overcome the

 3     problem of working on a double-track and duplication that had lead to a

 4     lot of unnecessary costs."  That's at transcript page 18836.

 5             The take-over of the federal MUP by the republican MUP was

 6     forcible, was it not?

 7        A.   Was your question about the take-over, and did you ask me if it

 8     was forcible?  You spoke quite at length and then you put a question to

 9     me, and I'm just trying to make sure whether I understood the question

10     properly.  Did you ask me if the take-over was forcible, and is that the

11     question that I'm supposed to answer?

12        Q.   Yes, that was the question.

13        A.   I can just give you my personal opinion.  Personally I believe

14     that it wasn't forcible because all the employees continued working

15     there.  No coercion was used against anybody.  There was no force used.

16     To be more precise, I don't have information to the effect that the

17     process was forcible.  I didn't find it anywhere in any of the literature

18     that I perused.  There was no shooting.  There was no force used.  There

19     was no violence.  I don't know.

20        Q.   You present it as some sort of a merger or an agreement.  And I'm

21     trying to ask you about the circumstances which were, in fact, not

22     pursuant to an agreement.  Now, what happened later on may have permitted

23     you to go back and draw a conclusion based on what must have happened,

24     but that's exactly what I'm trying to ask you.  This take-over was not

25     pursuant to the rules and it was not pursuant to an advanced arranged


Page 18975

 1     agreement; isn't that correct?

 2        A.   I don't know.  I can't answer the question.

 3        Q.   The take-over occurred late on a Sunday evening; isn't that

 4     right?

 5        A.   As far as I can remember, that's correct.

 6        Q.   What kind of a major organisation would carry out a merger on a

 7     Sunday evening?

 8        A.   I believe that this was very leading.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  In cross-examination leading questions are allowed,

10     but there is no need to comment on the question.

11             Please proceed and please answer the question.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours.  I'm not

13     familiar with the rules here.

14             As far as your question is concerned, I can only share my

15     opinions as a citizen.  I can give you my personal opinions.  I've not

16     seen any documents about that, and I couldn't find what the nature and

17     the details of the process were in any of the documents of a more general

18     nature.

19             I really can't testify about that because I never studied this

20     area.

21             MS. MARCUS:  Could I request private session, please.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  We move into private session.

23                           [Private session]

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 18976

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17                           [Open session]

18             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in open session, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

20             MS. MARCUS:

21        Q.   You did not directly take part in any high-level Serbian

22     government meetings where the reasons for the take-over were discussed,

23     did you?

24        A.   Correct.

25        Q.   In fact, your comments as to the underlying reasons for the


Page 18977

 1     take-over are based upon the laws and regulations and the resulting

 2     structural changes; correct?

 3        A.   Correct.

 4        Q.   So you deduced from the merger which later occurred what the

 5     reasons for the take-over had originally been; is that right?

 6        A.   It's only logical.  I was not aware of any other reason.

 7             MS. MARCUS:  Could the Court Officer please call up P2993.

 8        Q.   Now, this take-over caused a degree of outrage in certain sectors

 9     of the government, didn't it?

10        A.   I don't know anything about that.  This is the first time I hear

11     any such thing, from you.

12        Q.   Well, what you see before you are minutes from the session of the

13     council for reconciliation of standpoints regarding state politics, held

14     just after the take-over on the 2nd of November, 1992.

15             MS. MARCUS:  May I please have page 2 in both English and B/C/S.

16        Q.   In attendance at this meeting - you can see those who attended;

17     I'll just name a few for the record - Prime Minister Milan Panic;

18     president of the Republic of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic; chairman of the

19     Presidency of the Republic of Montenegro, Momir Bulatovic; federal

20     minister of internal affairs, Pavle Bulatovic; and a few others.

21             MS. MARCUS:  Could I please have page 3 in both languages.

22        Q.   Can I ask you, please, to read the paragraphs starting with,

23     "Further on during the session ..."  And we will read it as well.  Let us

24     know when you are finished, please.

25        A.   I have completed reading the passage.

Page 18978

 1        Q.   This meeting describes the republican MUP blocking federal DB

 2     employees from reaching their offices, taking over equipment,

 3     documentation, registries, essentially rendering the work of the federal

 4     DB impossible.  This was not an insignificant event, was it?

 5        A.   I really don't know that things evolved that way, that people

 6     were blocked.  As far as I know, everybody turned up for work on the

 7     following day.  I accept documents of this kind at their face value.  I

 8     personally have no knowledge about that.  But I'm sure it was a very

 9     important event, but I'm not sure that things happened in the way that

10     they are described here.  I was not there, so I can't say anything about

11     that.

12        Q.   The take-over itself was not provided for in any of the rules or

13     regulations, was it?

14        A.   Things like that could not have been provided for.  It was a

15     historical moment, one of its kind -- a kind.  I don't know how it could

16     have been provided for.  But even at that moment it was not understood

17     that something that was against the constitution or negative in any other

18     way.  What is mentioned here are some financial problems that were

19     previously mentioned in the press, but I didn't know anything about that.

20     I was not a member of any high-top -- high-level leadership or I was not

21     in the top echelons of the government, so I can't say anything about

22     that.

23        Q.   In the following paragraph of your report, after you make very

24     brief mention of this event, you state that Zoran Sokolovic, the

25     republican minister of the interior, amended the rules on the internal

Page 18979

 1     organisation of the DB.  So essentially the republican MUP took over the

 2     federal MUP building, kicked out the employees, seized all their

 3     documents and equipment, lied to the public to cover this up, and then

 4     within a few weeks changed the DB rules.  Yet you did not consider this a

 5     sufficiently significant event to discuss in your MUP expert report.

 6        A.   If that had been the case, if those people had been fired, why

 7     would then the organisation of work be changed and why would have the

 8     list of jobs expanded?  And why would then those people have been allowed

 9     to come back?  I only know that the job specification was expanded after

10     that, and that's all I can testify about.  I didn't participate in any of

11     that.  I believed that one of the consequences of the take-over was the

12     enlargement of the job specifications.  It really doesn't make sense for

13     the employees first to be fired and then asked to come back based on the

14     new job specification.  It doesn't make too much sense.

15        Q.   My question, Mr. Milosevic, specifically is:  This is an example

16     of a violation of the rules, and in your report, which deals with the

17     rules, you gloss over what I think is clearly a very serious and

18     significant event which blatantly violated the standing rules.  That is

19     my question to you.  Why did you not expand upon this in your report?  Is

20     it because you didn't know about it?  You didn't know the details?  Is

21     that what your evidence is?

22        A.   I still don't know what regulations were breached.  I didn't know

23     at the time what rules were violated, and that's why I did not refer to

24     that in my report.  I did not pay too much attention to that because I

25     thought that it was a fact.  I, however, spoke about one of the

Page 18980

 1     consequences of the event and that was the passing a new book of rules.

 2        Q.   Okay.  I'll leave it at that.

 3             MS. MARCUS:  I am done with this document, thank you.

 4        Q.   In paragraph 175, you state:

 5             "Pursuant to Article 9 of the Law on Internal Affairs of the

 6     Republic of Serbia, at the request of the National Assembly and the

 7     president of the republic, the minister of the interior was required to

 8     submit a report on the work of the Ministry of the Interior and on the

 9     security situation in the republic, which also included the work of the

10     service department."

11             I'd like to ask you a few questions about this.  I hope you won't

12     mind if I sit down for a little bit.

13             From the way this is unequivocally worded, much like in many

14     other places in your report, you appear to have direct knowledge or, at

15     least, you do not cite to any other source for this assertion, that this

16     report also included the work of the service department.  Can I take it

17     from the way this is worded that according to your evidence such reports

18     were, in fact, provided by the minister of the interior to the

19     National Assembly and to the president of the republic containing

20     information on the work of the service?  Is that your evidence?

21        A.   I really don't understand what's in dispute in this statement.

22     This is based on Article 9 on the internal affairs of the Republic of

23     Serbia.  Pursuant to that article, it says explicitly in that article

24     that the Ministry of Interior is duty-bound to report on the work of the

25     Ministry of the Interior.  Since the state security department was one

Page 18981

 1     part of the Ministry of the Interior as well as the public security, it

 2     was implied that that would be comprised within that rule.  It was a

 3     legal obligation of the Ministry of the Interior.  And if the Ministry of

 4     Interior violated the law and didn't do that, I don't know.  What I'm

 5     saying here is that that was his obligation.  He was duty-bound to report

 6     to the general assembly, to the National Assembly, at its request.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic.

 8             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your leave.

 9     With your leave I believe that perhaps we could see this article in the

10     law to make a clear distinction between what is written in the law and

11     what my learned friend is implying that is the expert's personal

12     experience and his personal position.  If we have an opportunity to look

13     at the wording of that article of the law, I'm sure that everything

14     which -- will be much clearer to us.

15             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus.

17             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour, I'm asking the witness about

18     assertions in the report, and I -- Mr. Petrovic is more than welcome to

19     put the rules, the law, to the witness on re-examination, but at the

20     moment I want to ask the witness about what he says in his report about

21     this.  If he has no personal knowledge, he will clarify that for us.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic, apparently Ms. Marcus is not inclined

23     to follow your suggestion, but she rightly pointed out that if you want

24     to deal with it, Article 9, that you have an opportunity to do so on

25     re-examination.

Page 18982

 1             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] With your leave, Your Honours,

 2     just one sentence, if I may.

 3             When my learned friend puts this type of questions in the future,

 4     could she then be very clear and say what part of the expert report

 5     refers to the rule and, on the other hand, what has been made a part of

 6     the report as a personal experience?  And that will make things easier

 7     and we will then be able to shed more light on the matter during

 8     re-examination.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  I --

10             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, I put -- sorry.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please.

12             MS. MARCUS:  I put to the witness the exact part that I was

13     quoting.  It's paragraph 175.  I quoted the whole paragraph.  It's

14     verbatim what the witness says, and it's a question about what the

15     witness said and the assertion which -- in which, I submit, it is

16     entirely unclear whether his words, which also included, are based on

17     what the rule says or what he knows to be true, and I'm going to ask him

18     in my questions whether he can clarify what comes from the rule and what

19     comes from other information he has.  He's already answered that, and my

20     next question will delve into that more.  I'm sure that it will be very

21     clear.

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

23             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you.

24        Q.   So if I understand you correctly, you've heard our discussion.

25     You do not have any direct information about whether these provisions

Page 18983

 1     were actually enforced and observed.  You just know that the rules

 2     provided for such.  Is that correct?

 3        A.   Correct.

 4        Q.   Now, who would have had the final decision as to what information

 5     from within the service would have been included in these reports?

 6        A.   The minister of the interior.

 7        Q.   If the president of the republic or the National Assembly found

 8     the information to be lacking in the report provided by the minister of

 9     the interior, did they have the authority to instruct the head of the DB

10     to provide additional information?

11        A.   I am not sure if we understand each other.  I -- I'm -- I believe

12     that we have some terminology issues.  When it comes to reporting, we're

13     talking about periodical reporting every six months or every year, and

14     those reports provided information to the superior bodies about the work

15     of the service.  This is a lengthy report that was usually sent to the

16     National Assembly, and it was reviewed by one of the committees of the

17     National Assembly.

18             I believe that -- or perhaps you're talking about some interim

19     reports, some reports that were not regular.  And this is Article 9, the

20     meaning of Article 9, that the ministry is duty-bound to report to the

21     National Assembly, and within that report the DB service provides input,

22     and all that is merged within one report.  And it was a matter of

23     routine.  I don't think that any of those reports called for additional

24     information.  It was a matter of routine.

25        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, I've listened very carefully to your response, and

Page 18984

 1     I don't -- I still don't see what was wrong with my question.  The -- I

 2     understand that they were periodical reports.  I understand that it was

 3     routine.  My question was about -- was:  If the president of the republic

 4     or the National Assembly found the information to be lacking, did they

 5     have the authority to instruct the head of the DB to provide additional

 6     information?  That was my question.  I don't see why that doesn't have an

 7     answer.

 8        A.   Well, this concerns certain information, but they could have

 9     acted in this way but through the minister of the interior.  If they

10     weren't happy with the report, they could have asked for it to be

11     supplemented or for certain parts of the part [as interpreted] to be

12     elaborated on, but this would be done through the person submitting the

13     report.  They could have made such specific requests.  For example, the

14     assembly committee could have acted in this way.  So this was possible,

15     but it had to be done through the subject submitting the report.

16        Q.   Thank you very much.  Now, you state in paragraph 296 of your

17     report:

18             "The means and methods envisaged by the rules on the work of the

19     State Security Service brought by the federal secretary of the interior

20     on 6 July, 1990, pursuant to the powers vested in him by Article 23,

21     paragraph 2, of the Law on the Principles of the State Security System,

22     were applied in the work of the State Security Service of the RSUP of

23     SR Serbia, the state security department of the MUP of the Republic of

24     Serbia, in the 1991 to 1995 period."

25             In the next eight paragraphs, you continue to describe the

Page 18985

 1     application of the SDB operative and surveillance means and methods,

 2     continually citing to these rules on the work of the State Security

 3     Service.  Your source in the footnote refers to D239.

 4             In paragraph 296, which I just quoted to you, you state that

 5     these rules on the work of the State Security Service were applied in the

 6     work of the DB in the 1991 to 1995 period.  Now, in paragraphs 303 and

 7     304, you then describe the role of the federal secretary of the interior

 8     with respect to the means and methods of operative application of the SDB

 9     operative and surveillance means and methods.  At the end of

10     paragraph 304, you then say that after the DB of the federal MUP "stopped

11     functioning in October of 1992, the aforementioned powers of the federal

12     secretary of the interior were no longer applied."

13             Now my question is:  Who was the one who carried out these

14     functions you describe in paragraph 304 after the federal secretary of

15     the interior stopped functioning?

16        A.   Obviously it was the republican secretariat for internal affairs.

17     That's my opinion.

18        Q.   On what do you base your opinion?

19        A.   Well, it's a matter of logic and of drawing analogies.  The

20     federal secretary is, in fact, the federal minister.  When the republican

21     ministry was responsible, well, the logical thing would be for the

22     republican ministry to perform such duties.  What's at stake here is the

23     adoption of certain rules.  Nothing specific or concrete is at stake

24     here.

25        Q.   But it's still not clear to me which rules applied.  You said

Page 18986

 1     "the aforementioned powers of the federal secretary of the interior,

 2     although not repealed, were no longer applied."  So this appears to me to

 3     be a situation where the standing rules in practice were not applied;

 4     isn't that correct?

 5        A.   I don't know how to answer your question.  I think the report

 6     provides a clear answer.  The rules on work that were adopted at the

 7     federal level were applied, so all the republics and regions applied

 8     them.  But the other republics and regions, or at least some of the them

 9     at the time, had already created their own state.  So the rules were in

10     fact only applied in Serbia and in Montenegro.  State security rules

11     weren't applied at the federal level anymore.  I testified to that effect

12     in detail yesterday.  I don't know whether it's necessary to go into it

13     again.

14             If your question was whether the text of the rules doesn't

15     correspond to what was done, well, in my opinion, because I have no

16     experience of the matter, well, I would say yes.

17        Q.   Okay.  So if I understand you correctly, although your report

18     says that the rules, although not repealed, were no longer applied, in

19     fact what your evidence is is that they were applied but differently.

20     Not at the federal level anymore, but only at the republican level.  Is

21     that what you meant to say?

22        A.   I believe that that was the case.

23             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, I see what time it is, and I'm about

24     to broach a different subject.  If this would be a good time for the

25     break, I could do it after the break.

Page 18987

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Although I would like to seek one

 2     clarification.

 3             I do understand a federal institution to work on behalf of the

 4     federal state, that is, serving the interests also of those republics

 5     forming that federal institution.  Is that correctly understood?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] By definition, yes, that is so.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Now you tell us that the malfunctioning federal

 8     institution more or less was adopted, or at least became part of the

 9     Serbian republican state security institutions.  Is that correctly

10     understood?  People came to work, did their job, but not on the federal

11     level anymore but now for the -- at the republican level?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that time there was no federal

13     level anymore.  Those institutions were formed as if all the republics

14     and regions participated in them, as if they had the will to remain

15     within that state and do everything for the benefit of territorial

16     sovereignty and the integrity of that state, but in reality the situation

17     on the ground was quite different.  It was necessary for someone to take

18     over these functions.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  My question is:  What about Montenegro at that

20     point in time?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Federal level duties in Montenegro

22     were carried out by the security service of the Republic of Montenegro at

23     the time.  They took over all the duties that concerned their territory,

24     and this was done within the borders that they considered to be their

25     own.  This knowledge I gained on the basis of the literature that I

Page 18988

 1     consulted, but I wasn't part of the leadership, so I do not know what

 2     sort of matters they discussed at meetings and for -- and so on and so

 3     forth.  All these matters were legalised when the Law on the Common State

 4     of Serbia and Montenegro was adopted.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  So you can't tell us whether the Montenegro state

 6     security system also had the benefit of having part of the premises, part

 7     of the staff, now working for their republican state security services?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is nothing I can tell you

 9     about that matter in relation to Montenegro.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

11             We'll take a break, and we resume at 4.00.

12                           --- Recess taken at 3.32 p.m.

13                           --- On resuming at 4.06 p.m.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus, please proceed.

15             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

16        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, can you hear me clearly?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   You are an experienced academic and you have both direct

19     professional experience as well as extensive academic knowledge of the

20     MUP.  You've served as a trainer and teacher and educator for many years.

21     There is no doubt that many of your students look up to you.  Isn't it a

22     fact that as part of the work of a professor you must ensure not only

23     accuracy in the work of your students, in terms of conclusions and

24     analysis, but also accuracy in terms of citations to sources?

25        A.   That's correct.  One always strives to follow such rules.

Page 18989

 1        Q.   When you review a research paper prepared by a student, you would

 2     verify the accuracy of their assertions; isn't that right?  What I mean

 3     is in terms of citing to the source material upon which they have based

 4     their analysis.  Correct?

 5        A.   That's correct.

 6        Q.   If you were to find, say, approximately 10 errors in one research

 7     paper where the student either incorrectly cited the source material or

 8     where the student made an assertion which could only be reasonably based

 9     upon source material but did not cite the source, you would find that

10     research paper to not meet the standards you would expect as a professor;

11     is that right?

12        A.   Well, first, one should determine the nature of the mistakes

13     made.  Perhaps the student had a different understanding of the method of

14     referencing work, so perhaps there was a problem in the methodology.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I intervene.

16             Ms. Marcus, before we start a long debate and long question and

17     answers about what you would expect students to do, I take it that you

18     want to point at inaccuracies in sourcing.  Why not directly go to that

19     so that we do not first have an academic debate on whether it would be

20     the students in the 2nd grade which should do better than the ones in the

21     1st grade and whether the other department who used them -- who would

22     teach them how to use sources was deficient in its functioning.  Let's

23     get to the core of the matter.

24             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.  That's my next question.

25             Could the Court Officer please call up 65 ter 6487.

Page 18990

 1        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, we have compiled a spreadsheet, you will see

 2     before you in a moment, of unsourced assertions we have found in your

 3     report.  I will provide a hard copy of this document for you to consider.

 4             MS. MARCUS:  With leave of the Chamber, I have copies in both

 5     B/C/S and English.  Perhaps the Court Usher could hand it to the witness

 6     and the Chamber.

 7        Q.   While you look at this, I would like to emphasize that where we

 8     were able to decipher what source you most likely meant to refer to, we

 9     did not include that in here.  These are assertions where we truly were

10     not able, with what I consider to be due diligence, to determine what the

11     source was for an assertion that you made.

12             Now, as you will see when you look through it, in our view there

13     are 136 unsourced assertions in your report, again using the criterion

14     that I just set out for you.  So where you do not provide a source for an

15     assertion in your report, are you basing that assertion on your own

16     personal experience or on your expertise?

17             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic.

19             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] At this point in time, I'm not

20     sure where my learned friend is going.  If she expects the professor to

21     look at a document that contains 136 statements that aren't sourced, and

22     if she thinks he can provide any answers about such a list, I don't think

23     this is possible.  It's a -- not possible to analyse 136 statements that

24     have been sourced.  He should be given -- the professor should be given a

25     few days to have a look at the list and then to say whether or not

Page 18991

 1     there's a source for what has been listed here.

 2             I don't think proceeding in this manner at this point in time is

 3     appropriate.

 4             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, I fully intend to give the witness the

 5     opportunity to study this.  Based on my estimate that I gave and which I

 6     think will be accurate, I do believe I will have to continue, at least

 7     briefly, next week.  So I have no problem with him considering that.  I

 8     only have a question for him about if there are unsourced assertions, are

 9     we to take it that it's based on a source or is it based on his expertise

10     or personal experience?  That's a general question about any unsourced

11     assertions which might be found in his report.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic, I deny the objection.  But I'll

13     carefully monitor that Ms. Marcus is really staying on the general level;

14     that is, if no source is mentioned in the report, does that mean that you

15     have not specifically used a source for that assertion.

16             Now, the other question, whether he relies on his expertise.  Of

17     course, expertise relies often to sources which you've seen in the past

18     but not specifically used when you drew up the report.  So the witness

19     will then have an opportunity, I take it, to add anything to the answer

20     to the very general question by giving further details on any specific

21     matter contained in this -- in this spreadsheet.

22             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  You have heard my comments and my decision on the

24     objection, Mr. Milosevic.  At this moment we -- Ms. Marcus is asking you

25     a rather general question.  If you could briefly answer that question and

Page 18992

 1     then you'll have a further opportunity to -- to further choose your

 2     position in -- on any specific matter in this list.

 3             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 4        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, I only have two general questions for you on the

 5     matter of unsourced assertion, generally.  So to ask you again the one

 6     that I asked before:  In cases where you do not provide a source for an

 7     assertion in your report, are you basing that assertion on your own

 8     personal experience or on your expertise in terms of your research and

 9     training?

10        A.   It's difficult to say without having a look at each individual

11     assertion, but in general I didn't think it was necessary to provide

12     sources for all the assertions made because I took it for granted -- or

13     we take for granted that I'm an expert and that on the basis of my

14     expertise I can form certain opinions.  So I used my scientific knowledge

15     in a general sense, if that's what you're asking me about.  But I would

16     have to look at each individual assertion to be able to answer your

17     question.  I'm not sure what you have in mind.

18        Q.   That does answer my question as well as my other question.

19     Before we leave this with you for now, I'll just make mention:  Because

20     of the timing on when we prepared this, there are some comments in there

21     regarding translations.  You are free to ignore those.  Those are about

22     an administrative consideration.  We need English translations for the

23     materials.  So to the extent any comment in there accidentally is

24     included that relates to translations, please -- please just ignore that.

25     The focus for this issue is on the lack of sourcing, and it'll be clear

Page 18993

 1     from the entries.

 2             MS. MARCUS:  So I'm done with this document at the moment, thank

 3     you.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But I take it that you wish that the witness

 5     keeps his copy so that he ...

 6             MS. MARCUS:  Yes.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  If you would keep your copy.

 8             And, well, the practical way of dealing with it, if the witness

 9     goes through it, Ms. Marcus, I don't expect you that he gives all his

10     specific answers in every single detail here in court when giving

11     testimony, or would you ...

12             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, I think it's fair for him to have a

13     chance to comment on it, but I did not intend for the witness no note one

14     by one what the sources were.  In fact, from my point of view his answer

15     is clear.  What he gave just now is the answer that I was looking -- the

16     information I was seeking.

17             Now, it is fair only for him to have an opportunity to respond,

18     but I certainly don't -- wouldn't ask him item by item.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  So what we are seeking -- but perhaps, Mr. Petrovic,

20     I first give you an opportunity to respond.

21             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

22             I think that this is an impossible mission or a failure to

23     understand the nature of an expert report.  Have a look at item 1,

24     Your Honour, which relates to paragraph 99.  Here it says the

25     responsibility of the department is defined in detail in the documents on

Page 18994

 1     internal organisation.  You have at least 15 pages in this report that

 2     deal with this issue, at least 15 pages, and my learned friend puts a

 3     question about the source.  She must have read the report and she can see

 4     that there are at least 15 pages in the report that go into the details

 5     of these documents on organisation.  So I really do not understand what

 6     is expected of this expert witness.

 7             I do apologise, Your Honour.  Thank you.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me try to -- to intervene for a second.  It may

 9     be a very clear example.  The expert has given his answer to the general

10     questions.  If, for example, number 1 and a few other items would receive

11     an answer like, "I have not detailed the source here, but in many other

12     paragraphs I gave the detailed sources when I went to the details of this

13     observation," then that is a comment on the question and the general

14     answer given.

15             I can imagine that for number 25 - I have not looked at it - that

16     he says, "You're right, I've forgotten to mention the source which I

17     specifically have but failed to put in the footnote."  Or on another

18     matter, to say, "Well, in general, numbers 2, 15, 17, 21, they are mainly

19     based on my experience in the service rather than on academic sources or

20     legal texts which I specifically used to make that assertion."  That is

21     the kind of comment we would allow the witness to give to the extent that

22     he thinks this it's fair in addition to his answer to the general

23     questions that would be fair for him to give.

24             Is that, Ms. Marcus, approximately what you had on your mind?

25             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, precisely, Your Honour.  We have endeavoured to

Page 18995

 1     focus on those where we couldn't really determine, but that doesn't

 2     exclude the possibility, that there may be some in there that are easily

 3     explicable.  That's correct, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Either by reference to other parts of the

 5     report.  And we do not expect the witness to go through that in detail,

 6     but to give him a fair opportunity to respond to what seems to be a

 7     question of not being very accurate, even as suggested, but I stopped at

 8     worse as a student.  Let's just focus on what the witness would like to

 9     say without going into every single detail of the list, but, rather, in

10     similar general terms to say, 20 per cent of it I've forgotten to give

11     the source.  Such kind of remarks.

12             And, Ms. Marcus, would you agree with me that such comments could

13     be given in -- if the witness would prefer to write them down, that that

14     may be okay, but that otherwise some comments on your list could be given

15     in some ten to 12 minutes, is that ... I'm trying to manage this trial as

16     well --

17             MS. MARCUS:  Yes --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  -- [Overlapping speakers] --

19             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  I would say maximum.  But yes,

20     absolutely.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

22             Then, Mr. Milosevic, I saw you raising your hand.  Yes, you may

23     address the Chamber.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, but obviously either I

25     don't understand the Prosecution or the Prosecution doesn't understand

Page 18996

 1     what is written here.  Well, if one casts just a brief glance at this

 2     first page, last item, that concerns paragraph 127, it says the author

 3     referred to such and such an article, 93, item 2, if that's the one.  But

 4     he says -- but it says he didn't provide it -- a source.

 5             In footnote 167, however, a source is referred to.  On the rules

 6     on job specification --

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  The witness is kindly asked to slow down when

 8     reading out parts of the text as it's impossible to follow.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you slow down, because it's a common

10     experience that once you -- once you start reading, that you usually

11     start speaking more quickly as well.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I continue?

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So the information provided in the

15     footnotes, the notes that were made and that relate to this specific

16     example we're discussing, well, we can see that in Article 127, in

17     brackets.  The decree on the professions of authorised officials of the

18     organs of internal affairs and on the professions of the republican

19     secretariat for internal affairs, published in the official bulletin of

20     the Socialist Republic of Serbia, number 58, in 1989.  I can't see

21     anything missing here.

22             So I said that things could be quoted in various ways.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, if I may just briefly inquire into that.  What

24     is different in paragraph 127 is that the sources are not in the

25     footnotes but in the text themselves.  Now, I haven't seen the list of

Page 18997

 1     sources.

 2             Now, does that include the sources which are contained in the

 3     text, or would it be just the sources in the footnotes, Mr. Petrovic?

 4             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, some documents are

 5     mentioned in several places.  Therefore, they will be found in footnotes

 6     in the places where it is most logical for them to be found.  For

 7     example, the 2D941, the decree on jobs and positions, is in

 8     paragraph 358, footnote 346.

 9             In the part that is directly concerned with that decree where

10     that decree is the main topic, there is a source there, and, again, the

11     indication of the document, the Official Gazette, and the 2D number,

12     obviously.  Paragraphs are 358, 359, and so on.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Apparently the issue is perhaps not primarily that

14     it's not sourced, because paragraph 127 gives sources, but whether that

15     source is available to the Prosecution and in such a way that it also is

16     able to locate where to find it, that source.

17             Ms. Marcus, is that part of the problem?

18             MS. MARCUS:  That would be part of the problem, Your Honour.

19     That doesn't -- in other words, this list includes sources which were not

20     provided and therefore we couldn't verify --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             MS. MARCUS:  -- as well as where a source for an assertion was

23     not provided at all.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So we have to look at it either -- but that

25     might be more a problem for Mr. Petrovic than it is for Mr. Milosevic,

Page 18998

 1     that to the extent source material is not yet in evidence and is not

 2     provided in a way so that Ms. Marcus can locate it, then there may be a

 3     problem.  Of course, the Chamber has the same problem, because what is in

 4     evidence we can look at, but when reading the report, not even having

 5     lists of supporting material, let alone that we have seen them all and

 6     that they are in evidence, that creates a procedural problem,

 7     Mr. Petrovic, for which you -- we cannot blame Ms. Marcus at this moment.

 8             But apparently there are also other matters in the list that are

 9     assertions where the problem is not where to find the source or whether

10     the source is available because a reference to that source exists, but a

11     reference is not yet the source itself.  But the other category is

12     assertions which are without sources at all, and that was, I think, one

13     of the main subjects of the question put by Ms. Marcus to the witness a

14     minute ago.

15             Is that ...

16             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  I just would like to add one

17     brief point.  There were a number of people who worked very, very hard on

18     this.  This list is under-inclusive, if anything.  Where we could

19     determine through reasonable investigations which, if there was a

20     cross-referencing issue, was very difficult to do, we -- I did not

21     include that here, so we had a much more extensive list.  And then for

22     those which we could determine with our own investigations, we -- we

23     tried really not to include them.  So I -- as I say this, there may be

24     something in here which is just simply because we could not determine

25     what the source was.  We -- as far -- to the best of our knowledge, we

Page 18999

 1     simply couldn't find it.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, therefore, we -- giving this list to the

 3     witness, wouldn't it be fair to ask him to primarily focus not on matters

 4     he sourced but where the source may not be available to you?  So I think

 5     the one paragraph 127 seems to be clear in that respect and doesn't need

 6     any further comment, not to even deal with matters of translation but to

 7     focus mainly on those items where the Prosecution alleges that no source

 8     is given at all, and then not to go through them one by one but to read

 9     them, to consider them, and to see whether there is a kind of an answer

10     to those assertions by the Prosecution.

11             Mr. Petrovic.

12             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your leave.

13     Everybody who's benevolent can see what the whole thing is all about.

14     Look at 358, look at footnote that accompanies that paragraph, and look

15     at 127.  I simply cannot believe that there is somebody who cannot

16     collate these two things and cannot understand what we're talking about.

17     I'm sorry for being a bit aggressive, but a lot of effort has been

18     invested in this.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, Mr. Petrovic, perhaps I should be the last at

20     this moment to not forgive you some small eruption of emotion.  Yesterday

21     I didn't always use the most gentle words when I -- we were discussing

22     the matter of the levels above Mr. Simatovic.  Although my colleagues

23     agreed with the content of my remarks, I also noted that they certainly

24     would have used a more gentle tone, and I take that as guidance for the

25     future.

Page 19000

 1             So I'm not blaming you for being a bit upset about the matter,

 2     but we are not going to spend time on this discussion in court.  I would

 3     suggest that you try to resolve this matter with Ms. Marcus in such a way

 4     that you assist her and say, "Well, we have difficulties in understanding

 5     why you couldn't resolve this or this or this," and then to try to find

 6     common ground for that and to see what really is important to know more

 7     about, perhaps strike a few items.  Try to see how far you could come.

 8             And then if that does not resolve the matter, if you could not

 9     come to an agreement on that, rather than spending time on it in court in

10     the way we just started to do that, I would invite you to meet with me at

11     7.00 in the morning to further discuss the practical approach of this

12     matter.  Perhaps, in view of circumstances, that I would delay it until

13     8.00 or that Ms. Marcus, apparently relying on the work of some others,

14     would seek assistance or even replacements by those who worked hard on

15     this.  And then I'm almost certain that we would have resolved most of it

16     by 9.00 and then we could spend our time in court again on what we're

17     here for, that is, to hear evidence.

18             Ms. Marcus, you may proceed.

19             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

20        Q.   The section of your report which deals with the position of

21     Franko Simatovic, that is, section 8 of your report - it contains

22     39 paragraphs - it is entirely based upon his personnel file and the

23     applicable DB rules and regulations.  You state that you did view some

24     personnel files and other decisions, as we discussed earlier, but you

25     don't cite to them.

Page 19001

 1             You make the following assertions in the Franko Simatovic section

 2     which, the way they are worded, suggest that you do have or did obtain

 3     some concrete information about Mr. Simatovic's actual activities.  You

 4     say in paragraph 338, for example, that Mr. Simatovic discharged certain

 5     duties.  You use that same term in paragraphs 356 and 364.

 6             I would like to focus now on your assertion in paragraph 336 and

 7     ask you some questions about that.  In paragraph 336, you describe

 8     Frenki's purported assignment to Kosovo from the 12th of April, 1991, to

 9     17th of October, 1991.  You state:

10             "From 12 April 1991 to 17 October 1991, Franko Simatovic was

11     assigned for a stint of duty to the State Security Service of the

12     provincial secretariat of the interior of AP Kosovo and Metohija."

13             MS. MARCUS:  Could the Court Officer please call up P2403.  I'm

14     not sure if this is under seal.  Perhaps I could ask the -- it is?  Okay,

15     and not broadcast it, please.

16        Q.   Now, you also mention Mr. Simatovic's alleged deployment to

17     Kosovo in footnote 335, which is a footnote to paragraph 348.  This

18     assertion is based purely upon the document in Mr. Simatovic's personnel

19     file which describes his deployment to Kosovo, which you cite as P2403

20     and which is on our screens; is that correct?  Yes or no, please.

21        A.   I did not understand your question.  Could you please be more

22     specific and tell me what you want me to say?  Maybe the interpretation

23     was not good.  What am I supposed to answer?  Is this the document or

24     what?

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me intervene here.  Listen carefully,

Page 19002

 1     Mr. Milosevic, to what Ms. Marcus asked you.  The question was whether

 2     the assertion you made in the report was based purely upon the document

 3     we see in front of us.  So that this -- was this your one and only

 4     source, or was there any other source for your assertion?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this case, this is the decision

 6     by which he was dispatched.  There is another document showing that a few

 7     individuals were deployed at the same time.  In this case, in a decision

 8     on deployment it has to say that somebody is deployed.  I really don't

 9     know what's in dispute.  I didn't accompany him personally to Kosovo to

10     see whether he really went there.  I base my assertions on this public

11     document, and that public document is true unless proven not true.

12             It says very clearly here from the 12th to -- the date is here.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Your answer apparently is:  "I based my

14     assertion on this document and also on the fact that I've seen similar

15     documents for other persons."

16             Your comment on whether the public document is true unless proven

17     not to be true is, first of all, for this Chamber and, second, is more

18     complex than you present it.  Because the document may be true in the

19     sense of authentic; the document may be true in the sense of that it was

20     produced on the date it gives; the document may be, for example, not true

21     on whether what was written down as a decision or an order was executed

22     after that.  So the truth of a document is a complex matter.  I don't

23     have to explain that to you as a specialist in criminal law and

24     procedure, and there is no need to further discuss that because we'll

25     have to do that circle.

Page 19003

 1             Therefore, it's this document that you rely upon and you add to

 2     that that you have seen similar documents, apparently, of persons who

 3     were assigned to similar tasks in the same period of time.  Is that

 4     correctly understood?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.

 7             MS. MARCUS:

 8        Q.   Now, in paragraph 336, where you cite this document, you do not

 9     discuss anything specific about this document.  You do not note, for

10     example, that this document, which is your source regarding Frenki's

11     alleged deployment to Kosovo, is dated the 18th of March, 1992; thus,

12     this was a retroactive deployment.  You do not mention that Frenki's

13     retroactive deployment to Kosovo was signed by Jovica Stanisic, the first

14     accused.  You are aware --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic.

16             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I kindly ask you to

17     look at footnote 320 where it says clearly that the document was issued

18     on the 18th of March, 1992.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  That may be true.  The report, although giving the

20     information, does not point at retroactivity, and I think that's mainly

21     what Ms. Marcus is talking about.

22             Ms. Marcus, am I correct?

23             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

25             MS. MARCUS:

Page 19004

 1        Q.   As you've told us that you've seen the indictment, you are aware

 2     that both Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Simatovic have been charged with crimes

 3     allegedly comitted in Croatia in 1991; correct?

 4        A.   Yes.  As far as I can understand, they are charged with

 5     participating in a joint criminal enterprise.  However, I -- I did not

 6     ponder the whole thing.  I was just curious and that's why I read it, but

 7     I didn't delve too much into it.

 8        Q.   But you did know that the issue of Mr. Simatovic's whereabouts in

 9     1991 is a critical issue to this case, didn't you?

10        A.   I don't understand what you are implying here.  But whatever you

11     are trying to imply, it doesn't really hold water.  I based my assertions

12     on the document.  I said when it was issued.  I didn't go into any other

13     detail because I'm not aware of them.  I can't testify about something

14     that I don't know and that I didn't see.  I can only testify about this

15     document.  I told you, and I stated when it was issued, and everybody can

16     see that.  It's clear.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Milosevic, the question simply was whether you

18     did know that the issue of Mr. Simatovic's whereabouts in 1991 is a

19     critical issue to this case.  That's the question.

20             Now, either you knew, then you answer by "yes," or you didn't

21     know, then you answer by "no."  That's the issue.  It's not the start of

22     a debate between you and Ms. Marcus.

23             Please proceed.  And please answer the question.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't know.  I read the

25     indictment only after I had written my report.  It was only then that I

Page 19005

 1     actually saw it, and it could not have affected my work on the report.

 2             MS. MARCUS:

 3        Q.   Did you not find the retroactive nature of the deployment to be

 4     significant to discuss in this paragraph?

 5        A.   I believe that I have already answered that by stating the

 6     precise date when this document was issued.  You will see that clearly

 7     stated in the footnote.  I didn't consider that I should do anything

 8     else.  When I analysed his career and his moves in the career, I used

 9     documents.  And that's what I did.  I did not think that I had to do a

10     complete reconstruction of his tours at every moment.

11             And as to your question, I believe that I have answered your

12     question already by citing the document and the date when it was issued.

13        Q.   Now, you mentioned earlier some other documents that you also say

14     that you consulted in reaching the assertion that you reach here.  Can

15     you tell us what those other documents are?  The way you referred to them

16     is, "There is --" oh, it's one document.  I apologise.  What you said

17     was:

18             "There is another document showing that a few individuals were

19     deployed at the same time."

20             Is that another document in Mr. Simatovic's personnel file or is

21     that yet another document that you consulted?

22        A.   I believe that this was a document in which the minister of the

23     interior deployed a certain number of individuals to Kosovo.  I'm not

24     sure whether it was at that moment that -- but that was common practice,

25     for people to be deployed based on such decision -- decisions.  The

Page 19006

 1     minister issued a decision, and then each employee who was deployed would

 2     be issued with their individual deployment decision.  I'm talking about

 3     what common practice was.  First there was a decision, and based on that

 4     decision individual decisions would be issued and filed in each of the

 5     individuals' personnel files.

 6        Q.   Was it common practice for these deployments to be issued

 7     retroactively?

 8        A.   I know nothing about that, really.

 9        Q.   When you saw that the date of the deployment post-dated the

10     date -- the alleged date -- sorry, the date of this decision on

11     deployment post-dated the alleged date of deployment, did you not think

12     to ask the Simatovic Defence whether they had any additional

13     documentation, or simply, in your researcher's mind, did you not query

14     the retroactive nature of this document?

15        A.   No.  I did not want to delve on that because I thought it would

16     be tantamount to dealing with facts, and I thought that what I pointed

17     out would suffice, because it looked very non-ambiguous to me, so I did

18     not go into the matter any further.

19        Q.   There are in evidence, in fact, at least three other retroactive

20     deployments of DB members to Kosovo, all dated March 1992, all pertaining

21     to purported deployments to Kosovo in 1991, all signed by

22     Jovica Stanisic, all contained in DB personnel files for these

23     individuals.

24             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, I refer the Chamber to P2723; P474,

25     page 6 in English and 45 in B/C/S; and P3012.

Page 19007

 1        Q.   There are also in evidence three other retroactive deployments on

 2     documents dated late 1995, all for retroactive deployment to

 3     Sremska Mitrovica in -- earlier in 1995, one signed by Jovica Stanisic

 4     and two signed by Milan Prodanic.

 5             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, for your reference, that is P474,

 6     page 17 in English and 54 in B/C/S; P548; and P2755.

 7        Q.   Now, in the case of all six of these purported retroactive

 8     deployments, there has been evidence in this case that during these --

 9     the time-period of these deployments to Kosovo and Sremska Mitrovica,

10     these individuals were actually operating as part of the DB in Croatia

11     and Bosnia.

12             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, I refer the Chamber to the following:

13     The transcript of the 1st of September, 2011, at pages 13749 to 13782; to

14     the transcript of the 2nd of February, 2012, at transcript pages 16909 to

15     16911; the transcript of 31 January, 2012, at page 16707 to 16708.  I

16     refer you to P537.  And, finally, P466, page 3.

17        Q.   Now, Mr. Milosevic, I'm sorry for that list of references.

18     Here's my question:  In this document that you see in front of you,

19     P2403, under what legal provisions would it have been possible -- let me

20     change the introduction to my question.

21             Under what legal provisions would it have been possible to deploy

22     DB members to Croatia in 1991 and Bosnia in 1995 to engage in joint

23     combat operations with other Serb forces in those areas?

24        A.   I cannot answer your question because I really don't know what to

25     answer.

Page 19008

 1        Q.   Does that mean you don't know what rules would have provided for

 2     that, or the rules did not provide for that?

 3        A.   No.  I don't know what the legal foundation for that was.  I

 4     really don't know.  I -- personally, I don't know whether there was a

 5     legal foundation and what it was.  Unless we go back to what we said

 6     yesterday, and that was that there was a legal foundation.  That was

 7     discussed yesterday.  But if you want me to answer your question more

 8     specifically by citing a law or an article there, I can't do that.

 9             MS. MARCUS:  I thank the Chamber again for the permission to sit

10     down.

11        Q.   So you're not able to answer the question of whether it would

12     have been possible, legally, for the DB to officially deploy individuals

13     to Croatia in 1991 and Bosnia in 1995 to participate in joint combat

14     operations; do I understand your evidence correctly?

15        A.   I can't answer your question if you're asking me to refer to the

16     exact article.  We spoke about a constitutional basis, a legal basis for

17     co-operation, yesterday, but I can't tell you exactly which article of

18     the rules is concerned.  I don't know what to say.  Yesterday I explained

19     in detail that there were -- there was a constitutional and legal basis

20     for combat operations in particular.  I really don't know what to say.

21        Q.   I'm not sure I understand your very last comment.  You said that

22     yesterday you explained in detail that there was a constitutional and

23     legal basis for combat operations.  Does that mean that you know that

24     there was a legal basis for these deployments by the DB to Croatia in

25     1991 and Bosnia in 1995 but you just can't cite the article for us, or

Page 19009

 1     you don't know whether it was possible, legally, to carry out those

 2     deployments for the purposes of joint combat operations?

 3        A.   Well, I think that they could be involved in intelligence

 4     operations.  I'm only speaking about the intelligence component within

 5     the service, not the combat component.  So I don't know where this

 6     terminology comes from.  I never mentioned combat operations yesterday.

 7     I only mentioned intelligence and security tasks.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, if I may analyse, what happens at this moment

 9     is the following.  Ms. Marcus asks you whether there was a legal basis

10     for DB members to be sent abroad to participate, and she gave the places

11     that the -- the republics and the time-period.  Whether there was a legal

12     basis for them to be sent to participate in combat operations.

13             Your first answer was, I wouldn't know exactly what legal

14     provision would provide for that.  Then you refer to what you said

15     yesterday, and from what I remember from yesterday is that you pointed at

16     certain provisions which would allow for intelligence activity both

17     within the state borders and outside the state borders.  And then you

18     say, But I never used the word "combat."  I think that's accurate.

19             Therefore, apparently the crux of the matter is where Ms. Marcus

20     asks you whether there would be a basis for sending DB members for combat

21     operations, that what you said yesterday, apparently, does not apply.

22     That's at least how I understood your last observation, that you never

23     used the word "combat."

24             So we are back, more or less, at square one.  What you said

25     yesterday, if I understand you well, is not an answer to the question of

Page 19010

 1     Ms. Marcus and whether any provision exists which would allow for DB

 2     members to be sent abroad in that period of time to the places mentioned,

 3     you just say, I -- I do not know of the existence of such a legal

 4     provision, which is -- does not mean that it does not exist but at least

 5     that it does not come to your mind at this moment.

 6             Is this analysis of a rather confusing question and answer

 7     situation, is that analysis accurate as far as you are concerned,

 8     Mr. Milosevic?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's correct, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  And is it also accurate as far as you are concerned,

11     Ms. Marcus?

12             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we can proceed.

14             MS. MARCUS:

15        Q.   Isn't it a fact that if the DB were deploying individuals to

16     Croatia and Bosnia in 1991 and 1995 to participate in joint combat

17     operations they would have had to create documents to conceal this

18     deployment in order to fit into the rules and regulations?

19        A.   Well, my understanding is that it's possible to put leading

20     questions in the course of cross-examination.  I do understand that.  I

21     can't confirm that anyone created documents of any kind to cover anything

22     up.  I don't know what the Prosecution is getting at.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Milosevic, that wasn't the question.  The

24     question was that if it would be true that DB were deploying individuals

25     to Croatia and Bosnia in 1991 and 1995 to participate in joint combat,

Page 19011

 1     that you would have to create documents to conceal that this happened

 2     because it would not fit into the rules and the regulations, so therefore

 3     you could not put on paper what actually happened.

 4             That is a different question from whether such documents were

 5     produced to conceal.  It's a more or less theoretical question.  Could

 6     you answer it?  If you can, please do so.  If you say, I can't answer it,

 7     then we'll move on.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I answer that question?

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  If you can, please.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as the legal basis is

11     concerned, I said I knew nothing about such a basis.  But as you,

12     yourself, said, Your Honour, that doesn't mean that there is no such

13     basis.  All it means is that I can't remember anything about it now.  As

14     far as covering up things, I really don't think that there was the need

15     to act in that way.  If everything was done in compliance with the rules

16     of service, in accordance with the rules of service there would not have

17     been any reason to try and conceal anything.  So I really cannot say

18     whether there were such cases or not, and I don't even know how I would

19     answer that question in a purely theoretical way.  It would be more

20     logical not to create documents of any kind apart from documents that

21     could subsequently prove to be compromising, but I really don't know.

22             MS. MARCUS:  Could the Court Officer please call up P979.

23        Q.   Now, what you will see in a moment is an order signed by Frenki,

24     dated the 16th of June, 1991, in Golubic, RSK, ordering weapons and

25     armament to be removed from the fortress to Golubic.  What rules would

Page 19012

 1     have permitted Frenki's involvement in the movement of weapons in Croatia

 2     and Golubic in June of 1991?

 3             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic.

 5             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Two comments:  The witness is not

 6     a factual witness.  And my second comment concerns this document which is

 7     presented as if one had determined that this was Frenki's signature.

 8     This is in dispute.  It would be fair to tell the witness what the status

 9     of this document is.  This is an exhibit, but it is an exhibit that is

10     contested by one of the parties.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, since Ms. Marcus did not ask for facts, she

12     could also have easily left out the question as to who signed it, because

13     it's a matter of whether you can issue such decisions yes or no, whether

14     it was by Mr. Simatovic or by anyone else, isn't it?  Because we're

15     talking about the rules and what was permitted under the rules.

16             To that extent, I think, Ms. Marcus, you're not asking for facts

17     but rather whether there would be a legal basis for a decision like this

18     where the Prosecution believes that it was signed by Mr. Simatovic.  But

19     even if that would not be true, still the question remains.

20             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour.  However, and perhaps it was the

21     faulty language in my question, I did want to know -- I am focussing on

22     this section of the report on Mr. Simatovic.  I did want to know which

23     positions the rules governing the positions that have been set out by the

24     witness would have permitted his involve -- Mr. Simatovic's involvement

25     in the activities in here.  But it is true I did not mention that it --

Page 19013

 1     that it is -- the signature is contested.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So you are asking what rule would allow a

 3     person in the position of Mr. Simatovic, leaving apart whether he was the

 4     one who assigned this or not, but which rule would allow for this

 5     activity.

 6             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour, based on --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 8             MS. MARCUS:  -- the documents that the witness studied in

 9     Mr. Simatovic's file.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Knowing what his position was.

11             Could you answer that question.  So don't bother about whether

12     the signature is the one of Mr. Simatovic or not, but you may answer the

13     question on an assumption that the document was signed by a person in a

14     position like the one you knew at the time was held by Mr. Simatovic.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that the authenticity of

16     the document is contested because in the heading it says "The Republic of

17     Serbia, the SAO Krajina," and so on and so forth.  So I have doubts about

18     its authenticity.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  The authenticity we'll discuss elsewhere.  I would

20     invite you to answer the question that was put to you by Ms. Marcus and

21     which I rephrased.  What rule would allow a person in the position of

22     Mr. Simatovic which would -- rule would allow for the activity as

23     described in this document?  That's the question.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to the rules of service,

25     he could go abroad and be involved in intelligence work there.  That's

Page 19014

 1     what I can say in general terms.  He could have done everything in

 2     accordance with those rules.  But there's nothing I can say about this

 3     particular case.  This document, I've never seen it before.  But as I

 4     have said, it is odd.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  Could I then ask you, because you are again not

 6     answering the question, because I referred to the activity described in

 7     this document.  Then a simple question is:  Is an order to have weapons

 8     and armament to be retreated from the fortress to Golubic, is that

 9     intelligence activity or is that anything else?  Or let's say if it's not

10     intelligence, to issue such an order.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This document doesn't show that the

12     activity concerned was a matter for intelligence.  So if we interpret the

13     language of this document, I'd say that isn't the case.  It's obvious

14     that other activities are at stake.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, therefore, you would agree with me that

16     you have not answered the question, because the question was:  What is

17     the legal basis for the activity described in this document for a person

18     in the position of Mr. Simatovic?  Your answer was that Mr. Simatovic

19     could have done other things abroad, that is, intelligence, but the

20     question was:  What is the legal basis for these activities described in

21     this document for a person in the position of Mr. Simatovic?  Could you

22     answer that question.  First, perhaps, does a legal basis for this kind

23     of activity, does that exist; and if so, where is it to be found?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we exclude the usual

25     constitutional and legally basis, well, I don't know on the basis of what

Page 19015

 1     sort of documents that this could be done.  I don't know.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.

 3             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 4             Could the Court Officer please call up P1121 --

 5             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry to interrupt.  May we have a break,

 6     Your Honours, please?

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 8             We'll take a break, Ms. Marcus, and we'll resume at a quarter

 9     to 6.00.

10                           --- Recess taken at 5.12 p.m.

11                           --- On resuming at 5.47 p.m.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus, please proceed.

13             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Is this P1121 that we see

14     on our screens?  Yes.  Yes.

15        Q.   Now, this is a report dated the 19th of July, 1991,

16     Mr. Milosevic, regarding TO and MUP combat operations in the Republic of

17     Serbian Krajina in the areas of Benkovac and Obrovac.  The report states

18     that it's copied to Frenki.  What would have been the MUP regulations

19     which would have provided that Frenki is to be copied on such reports in

20     July 1991 during the time he was purportedly deployed to Kosovo?

21        A.   Shall I answer that?

22        Q.   Yes, please.

23        A.   Well, here we have the same case.  Again, I really am not an

24     expert for these issues.  I can't answer such a question.  The SDB of the

25     Republic of Serbia didn't draft this document, so I really can't comment

Page 19016

 1     on it.  You can see that those who authored the document are not from

 2     that body, and I know nothing about the facts that relate to this case,

 3     so I can't say anything.  All I can say is that this is not a report from

 4     the SDB or, rather, the RDB.  Given the layout, that is not the case.

 5        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, I didn't ask you about the document.  I asked you

 6     about the MUP regulations.  That is your expertise - MUP regulations and

 7     rules and laws.  In all my questions, I've been asking -- not all, but in

 8     most of my questions, that's the point I'm trying to ask you about.

 9     You've told us, according the documents you've consulted, what Frenki's

10     position was.  You've told us about what the rules and regulations would

11     have said about what tasks and responsibilities he would have carried out

12     pursuant to those rules.

13             Now, my question specifically was which MUP regulations or rules

14     or laws would have provided for Frenki to be copied on reports in

15     July 1991 during the time that he was purportedly deployed to Kosovo?

16        A.   Let me repeat what I said.  I just don't know how to answer this

17     question.

18        Q.   Then let me just clarify with one last follow-up question on

19     this.  Isn't it a fact that you do not know of my MUP regulations which

20     would have provided for Mr. Simatovic to have been copied on documents

21     such as this in July of 1991?

22        A.   I apologise.  I haven't quite understood that question.  Perhaps

23     the interpretation was not quite right.

24        Q.   Perhaps I spoke too quickly and the interpreters couldn't follow

25     me.  I apologise if that was the case.  Let me repeat my last question.

Page 19017

 1             Isn't it a fact that you do not know of any MUP regulations which

 2     would have provided for Mr. Simatovic to have been copied on documents

 3     such as this in July of 1991?

 4        A.   I am not saying that there were no such rules or that there are

 5     no such rules.  All I'm saying is that I'm not aware of any such rules,

 6     so I can't provide you with a precise explanation.

 7        Q.   Thank you.

 8             MS. MARCUS:  Before I move on, I'd just like to refer the Chamber

 9     also to Exhibit P1122.

10             I am finished with this document, thank you.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash.

12             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, I just wonder what precisely my learned

13     friend is doing.  First of all, this witness hasn't asserted that there

14     was a regulation.  Secondly, the witness - quite fairly, in my

15     submission - said, well, this document doesn't come from the Ministry of

16     the Interior, so why would there, effectively, be a rule?  If I, for

17     example, send the Prosecution a document, one wouldn't expect the

18     Prosecution --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, I must say that what you're saying now

20     came to my mind as well.  I sometimes receive mail without any rule

21     providing for me receiving that mail.  Nevertheless, it becomes

22     argumentive.  And to be quite honest, Ms. Marcus also when she lists a

23     long series of sources which give a different -- sheds a different light

24     on the events which is the subject of the examination, then, of course,

25     no one could reasonably expect at that moment the Chamber to verify all

Page 19018

 1     that.

 2             And, as a matter of fact, I think it's already summarising what

 3     the evidence is, which is, during the testimony of a witness, not

 4     strictly necessary and should perhaps even be avoided, and then later in

 5     final briefs or at any other moment you could put that all in the right

 6     context.

 7             Ms. Marcus, if there's one specific document you think it would

 8     assist us to look at when hearing this evidence, yes, of course, that

 9     would help, but to receive seven, eight, or nine sources with all the

10     numbers, I could not even have them on my screen at the same time.

11             Let's try to -- the point you're apparently seeking to make,

12     Ms. Marcus, is that for some activities, including some of the accused,

13     for which evidence has been presented, that you would, through this

14     witness, want to establish that there was no legal basis for that.  If

15     that is the point you intended to make, I think whether we accept it or

16     not is another matter, but you have, I would say -- what you wanted to

17     establish is perfectly clear to the Chamber.

18             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.  That was, indeed, part of

19     the point.  I hope the rest will be clearer from the examination.

20             Now, in terms of references, Your Honour, what I try to do is to

21     provide the basis for my questions and put that right in the record at

22     the point where I ask that question.  There have been other times where

23     I've put a question and the Defence has asked what the basis was for that

24     question.

25             So now I'm doing it.  I do it as a matter of course now.  And

Page 19019

 1     it's become something which I think could be helpful to both parties and

 2     the Chamber in terms of cross-referencing.

 3             Now, that said, if Your Honour prefers me to not do that, then I

 4     will not make those references during the examination.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, if you listened well to me, I didn't say never

 6     do it, but do it within certain limits and only when it assists the

 7     Chamber at the very moment of hearing the evidence to better understand

 8     it.

 9             Now, I can imagine that if you have looked for all these sources,

10     you might -- it might assist the other parties fairly well in preparing.

11     So if you have a list and say, okay, this and this is it, then to prepare

12     for re-examination, et cetera, might be very helpful.  So I'm not saying

13     don't do these kind of things, but let's avoid that it becomes argument

14     more, such as there is a lot of evidence that contradicts what the

15     witness says.  That's appropriately done at another moment.

16             Please proceed.

17             MS. MARCUS:  I understand, Your Honour.  Thank you.

18        Q.   Now, Mr. Milosevic, in the JATD section of your report you do not

19     mention the role of Franko Simatovic or Jovica Stanisic.  Is it your

20     evidence that Franko Simatovic and Jovica Stanisic had nothing to the

21     with the JATD?

22        A.   Well, I said what is stated quite explicitly here, what is

23     written quite explicitly here.  I don't know what else I could say.  I

24     didn't say that they were aware of anything else.  I don't really know

25     what your question is about.  Jovica Stanisic didn't establish the JATD.

Page 19020

 1     It was based -- it was formed on the basis of the Law on

 2     Internal Affairs, as you can see here, by the minister of the interior,

 3     Zoran Sokolovic.  So I don't understand where I made a mistake.

 4        Q.   Mr. Milosevic -- sorry to interrupt you.  I simply asked you

 5     about what was not there and whether it was intentionally not there.  So

 6     you did not mention the roles of the accused in the JATD.  My question

 7     was simply:  Is it your evidence, therefore, that Franko Simatovic and

 8     Jovica Stanisic had nothing to do with the JATD, and that's why you

 9     didn't make mention of them in that section?

10        A.   The reason for which I didn't mention that is that here it says

11     quite explicitly who formed the unit and when.  It states who was in

12     command of the unit, and you can see who the deputy commander was and

13     where the centre was located.  The individuals that you have asked me

14     about are not mentioned in the documents that I examined.  None of them

15     was a commander or assistant.  So I don't see why I should mention this,

16     given the manner in which I compiled my report.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Milosevic, again, you are going around the

18     question.  You say, well, they were not commanders, et cetera.  The

19     simple question was:  Did you not mention Mr. Simatovic and Mr. Stanisic

20     because on the basis of the material you went through that you did not

21     find any link, any personal link, of one of the two or both with the

22     JATD?

23             And I take it, Ms. Marcus, that you did not include the mere fact

24     that they were working in the same state organ but whether there was any

25     personal dealing by Mr. Stanisic or Mr. Simatovic with the JATD.

Page 19021

 1             MS. MARCUS:  That's correct, Your Honour.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Should I answer?

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Please do so.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] How I prepared this part and the

 5     materials that I had at my disposal in a way led me to write what I did.

 6     I just enumerated those individuals in various positions based on

 7     documents.  I repeat once again, and I regret that I have to repeat over

 8     and over again, that I am not a fact witness and I don't know what the

 9     roles of all the individuals were.  I only know what has been confirmed

10     officially by documents.  I'm talking about people's position and jobs.

11             Of course chief of service was well aware of activities, but it

12     is only my assumption.  I cannot confirm that for a fact, because there's

13     no document relating these individuals to any of the places that are

14     mentioned in here.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  So, therefore, the simple answer to my question

16     would be "no," because on the basis of the material you went through, you

17     did not find any link, any personal link or any personal dealing with --

18     of Mr. Simatovic or Mr. Stanisic with the JATD.  A simple "no" would have

19     answered my question, I think, unless I misunderstood your question --

20     your answer.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You understood me well.  You can't

22     tell that based on these documents.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Which leaves another question.  If you would have

24     any personal knowledge, then, of course, although you were called here as

25     an expert and you are writing a report, then I would put the question to

Page 19022

 1     you as well whether you have any knowledge outside of your expertise, and

 2     this would then not be a clarification of your report but seeking

 3     evidence from you to the extent you know any facts about Mr. Stanisic or

 4     Mr. Simatovic in a link with the JATD.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yesterday I saw some

 6     signatures, but I can't remember what they were.  I believe that they

 7     belonged to a different administration, but I'm not sure.  One signature

 8     was put on behalf of somebody else, of the deputy commander Radonjic.  I

 9     believe it was Franko Simatovic who signed on his behalf.  And if you

10     remember, the Defence counsel asked me whether it would have been

11     customary for Franko Simatovic to sign on somebody's behalf if that

12     person was there, if the commander was there, but I can't confirm or

13     deny.  I can't say --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Milosevic, I'm not interested in what you

15     learned in this courtroom through the questions.  I'm interested in any

16     knowledge you may have, and you may have had before you arrived in

17     The Hague, about any personal dealing or any personal involvement of

18     Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Simatovic with the JATD.  That's my question.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were certainly linked to that,

20     but I don't know what facts we're talking about.  If I were to see

21     documents, I could provide comments on those documents.  But without any

22     documents, I don't know what we're talking about.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, sometimes people know things even without

24     looking at documents.  What I'm asking you is about any personal

25     knowledge you may have about that, and not whether when inspecting

Page 19023

 1     documents you would find something.  I'm interested:  Do you have any

 2     knowledge, any factual knowledge, about any dealing of one of the two

 3     accused, Mr. Simatovic and Mr. Stanisic, with the JATD?  If you have it,

 4     please tell us what it is.  If you don't have it, tell us as well.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no personal knowledge about

 6     that.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 8             Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.

 9             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

10             Could the Court Officer please call up 65 ter 6488.

11             Your Honours, what's going to come up on our screens is a

12     demonstrative exhibit which we have prepared.  I would compare it most

13     closely to the slides, for example, that we've prepared for our 98 bis

14     submission.  It is not intended to be evidence.  It is merely a tool to

15     cross-reference evidence to assist the Chamber and the Defence.

16             Now, there are three of them, each one containing underlying

17     documents, and those were the documents that were in the three respective

18     binders that the witness was asked to review.  Now, I have prepared --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  I would ...

20             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, sir.  I have hard copies, Your Honour, for the

21     Chamber.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I think we had two B/C/S versions earlier on

23     our screen, and now we have a B/C/S and an English version.

24             MS. MARCUS:  With the Chamber's leave, I would hand out the hard

25     copies.  The electronic versions were sent to the Defence previously.

Page 19024

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objections?

 2             Please, could the usher assist.

 3             MS. MARCUS:  Each of the packets that are handed out - there is

 4     an English version -- there's an English packet, B/C/S packets - each one

 5     contains all three charts.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  For Mr. Jordash an English copy, please.

 7             MS. MARCUS:

 8        Q.   Now, Mr. Milosevic, of the charts in the packet, the one that I

 9     am going to ask you to look at and which is on our screens, appears to be

10     the third one in the packet, if they're all in the same order.  It's the

11     one containing what we say is a list of --

12             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, Your Honours.  I -- I do think that I do

13     have an objection to this.

14             First -- I mean, obviously I don't know what the Prosecution is

15     going to do, but what I can see in relation to these demonstrative

16     exhibits, as they are termed, are essentially submissions.  Let's take

17     page 1 of this package.  Evidence -- it's entitled "Evidence Relating to

18     Killed Members of the Unit."

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me see.  We are back now to the first one.

20             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.  "Evidence Relating to Killed Members of the

21     Unit."  First of all, it appears, on the face of it, a way of packaging

22     the Prosecution evidence to make submissions to the Court in a way which,

23     I submit, we've seen my learned friend doing today and we've seen her

24     doing it before.  It's a way of making submissions to Your Honours,

25     effectively.  That's the first point.

Page 19025

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  So could we first ask Ms. Marcus what she's

 2     intending to do with it.  If she wants to say, Well, I want the witness

 3     to count whether number one consists of four pages, and then establish

 4     that.  Or ... I mean, I've got no idea what Ms. Marcus is intending to

 5     do.  It -- although I can imagine that one thinks of going into facts

 6     where the witness until now has clearly stated that he has no knowledge

 7     of any facts.  And I would not expect him, but of course it would be for

 8     the witness to say -- would be for the witness to say that he would have

 9     knowledge of these kind of fact where he has shown earlier not to have of

10     many, many factual activities.

11             Ms. Marcus, what is it that you would like to do with this

12     material?

13             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honours.

14             Now, what -- what Mr. Jordash says is partially accurate, and we

15     would be happy -- I would be happy later, if the Chamber prefers, to

16     tender this through a submission.  At this point what it's meant to do

17     was to organise material for the witness to consider.  The questions that

18     I will ask the witness will pertain to selections of documents that are

19     noted on these charts.  I will ask him questions directly pertaining to

20     his expertise and the rules and regulations.  I will, of course, ask him

21     if the documentary evidence that he has consulted might change his

22     opinion.  And I will -- and this is, essentially, putting our case very

23     clearly to the witness and rebutting the assertions that he makes in his

24     report.

25             Now, in terms of the quantity of materials underlying these

Page 19026

 1     charts, I'm in the Chamber's hands.  Some of it is to assist -- it's

 2     presented in this way to assist to present our case very clearly as to

 3     what documentary evidence is linked to what other documentary evidence.

 4     It is, in fact, a representation of a piece of our case.  Absolutely.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 6             MS. MARCUS:  I've done it in this context because these are the

 7     materials that we've provided to the witness and he can also have an

 8     opportunity to understand how that -- those documents that we showed to

 9     him, how they fit into our case.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but the witness is not here to learn about the

11     Prosecution's case.  The witness is here to give evidence.  And until

12     now, one of the them -- one of the main elements of the evidence has been

13     that the witness has presented a lot of documents on the structure, the

14     rules, as far as Mr. Simatovic is concerned, about his positions, his

15     appointment, et cetera, et cetera.  And whenever we entered into any area

16     where we asked him what happened, whether the reality was in accordance

17     with the rules or not, usually the witness said that he couldn't tell us.

18             There's not much - I'm not saying nothing - in his report about

19     what happened in reality, but I'm -- would you just allow me to consult

20     with my colleagues.

21                           [Trial Chamber confers]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus, we have some concern about in what

23     direction it will go.  That concern has not been removed entirely by your

24     explanation.  You have five minutes to put questions to the witness in

25     relation to whatever material is in here, and we'll stop you once you go

Page 19027

 1     beyond what you said you would do, that is, to elicit evidence based on

 2     the expertise of this witness.

 3             So, therefore, you are limited to that.  We don't want to have a

 4     repetition of a few other things that we heard today, and we are not at

 5     this moment assisted by -- through this witness giving the Chamber an

 6     overview of elements of your case which is -- of course everything is

 7     linked to what the witness says, but we would like to avoid that to

 8     happen.

 9             Mr. Jordash.

10             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry to jump up now, but I also did want to point

11     out that -- and this is an equal concern, that listed within this

12     document are 48 - that was my quick count - 48 pieces of fresh evidence.

13     Sixty -- for all the 65 ter numbers are fresh evidence.  It's -- this is

14     not only, in our submission, an attempt to make a lengthy submission, but

15     an attempt to, at the close of the case, introduce as much of the

16     Prosecution's archives as they can possibly manage under the guise of

17     this cross-examination.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  I hadn't noticed that, but I see that a footnote

19     usually starts with the words "65 ter."

20             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  We have been to some extent generous in this

22     respect, to say that if the evidence of the witness triggers -- if he

23     knows something specific which the Prosecution could not have foreseen,

24     they could not have made that selection in advance.  Until now, I do not

25     see any part of the evidence which is mainly about rules and regulations

Page 19028

 1     and legislation which would trigger specific knowledge about individual

 2     cases.

 3             But, Mr. Petrovic, I had started speaking before I had given you

 4     an opportunity to add something to what Mr. Jordash said.

 5             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

 6             I just wanted to say this, maybe somewhat belatedly, but I hope

 7     you will allow me to say what I'm going to say.  One of the reasons why

 8     my learned friend has presented this to the witness is whether the

 9     witness faced with the documents might change his opinion.

10             She has provided 45 documents about the JATD that allegedly bear

11     Simatovic's signature.  And now if the witness is expected to form a

12     different opinion on a set of new documents, it would only be fair that

13     he were provided with all the documents about the same topic, but a lot

14     of them bear different person's signatures or they are not signed at all.

15             If he is expected to change his opinion, then he would have to be

16     provided with a whole set of documents, not only those that were signed

17     by or initialled by Simatovic.  So he should be provided with all the

18     rest of documents, those bearing other people's signatures or initials.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  That might even make it worse, because the change of

20     opinion, of course, Ms. Marcus, I do not know what it is, what opinion

21     you are talking about.

22             But if it -- if there's any suggestion that this witness's

23     opinion as an expert was that Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Simatovic were not in

24     any way linked -- to be linked, no personal dealings with the JATD, then

25     that is not the opinion of this witness.  This witness's opinion is that,

Page 19029

 1     reviewing the materials he has reviewed, and that's mainly rules and

 2     regulations, that he did not find anything in those documents which would

 3     link Mr. Stanisic or Mr. Simatovic to the JATD in terms of personal

 4     dealings with that.

 5             Now, the witness did not tell us that they had no personal

 6     dealings with it.  The witness said that on the basis of the inspection

 7     of the documents he did not find any such link.  So if it would be your

 8     intention, by showing a lot of documents to the witness, to challenge

 9     that finding, I mean, even if he would be convinced at the very end of

10     this -- of these documents that he would be -- say, "Well, of course; how

11     could you think of any other thing?" that wouldn't change his opinion,

12     because his opinion is limited to what he found when he inspected the

13     documents.

14             Now, to put to a witness new material and then to ask him what

15     conclusions he would draw from that is certainly not something which

16     falls within the scope of the expertise of this witness.  You would

17     seek -- perhaps he would know a bit more about the context, but you would

18     seek him to draw conclusions on the basis of documentary evidence for

19     which he is not specifically trained, it's not within his specific

20     skills.  And apart from that, it's for the Chamber to draw such

21     conclusions on the basis of these documents.

22             May that be of guidance when I give you five minutes to

23     demonstrate that the only thing you are doing, including with this

24     material, is to elicit further expert knowledge, expert evidence, from

25     this witness.

Page 19030

 1             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 2             May I -- before I commence with my five minutes on that, may I

 3     please respond to what's been going on, to make a submission?

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  As a matter of fact, what happened is we had

 5     objections in two rounds; first the general ones, and then the second

 6     one.  I did not yet touch upon the fresh evidence issue.  I just briefly

 7     referred to the Chamber's approach to this, but I didn't elaborate on

 8     that.

 9             If that is a matter you would want to include or if there would

10     be anything else you would like to further say in response to Mr. Jordash

11     and Mr. Petrovic, you may do so now.

12             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

13             On the matter of fresh evidence, just in response to your last

14     comment, Your Honour, we can -- we do intend to tender the underlying

15     materials in rebuttal, and my intention was to deal with that at the end

16     of the witness's testimony, and I will be prepared at that time,

17     obviously, to respond to any matters relating to the admissibility of

18     that material.

19             I would like to respond to some other points that were raised by

20     the Defence.

21             This is a case about the Serbian MUP, and this is the Defence MUP

22     expert.  In fact, this is the only MUP expert to testify in this case for

23     either party.  Now, I recognise that the Defence and the expert both

24     concede and that the Chamber acknowledges that the intention underlying

25     this report was, perhaps, not to say what actually happened but, rather,

Page 19031

 1     to present what should have happened had the rules been followed.

 2             That said, Your Honour, the report the way it stands does not

 3     read as conditional.  The author states as early as in his introductory

 4     remarks:  The police expert report shall present a study on the

 5     functioning of organs of the interior.  That's paragraph 1.  Paragraph 4:

 6     Part five of the study analyses, among other things, the exercise of the

 7     managerial function of the chief of the SDB.  Paragraph 6:  Part seven of

 8     the study deals with the establishment and activity of the

 9     2nd Administration.  Paragraph 8:  Part nine of the study - which is the

10     JATD section - pursuant to the legal documents related to the JATD,

11     issues are discussed including the relationship between active and

12     reserve members, the manner of recruitment and engagement, the rights and

13     obligations of numbers, and the pay for engaging the reserve force in the

14     field.  And finally, and most prominently, paragraph 9 of the

15     introduction:  This methodological approach in the expert report, based

16     on the relevant documents, makes it possible to ascertain in detail the

17     place and role of Franko Simatovic in the functioning of the SDB of the

18     MUP of the Republic of Serbia; i.e., the duties that he de facto and

19     de jure discharged in the period from 1991 to 1995.

20             Now, if the Defence acknowledges and the Chamber believes that

21     the witness has no knowledge of these matters, no basis for these

22     assertions, then this evidence is inadmissible, and the parts that are

23     not conditional on the rules should be stricken from the report.  If the

24     Defence is prepared to create a redacted version of the report that

25     removes all matters related to anything other than the de jure structure

Page 19032

 1     of the MUP, then perhaps much of my questioning may not be necessary.

 2             As long as these de facto matters remain in the report, through,

 3     they will be the evidence of this witness.  Regardless of what the

 4     intention was in creating the report, they need to be tested.  The

 5     report, and in particular the sections which focus on the role of

 6     Franko Simatovic and the JATD, if left the way they are and tendered into

 7     evidence without being rebutted, will leave as part of the record not

 8     only an incomplete piece of evidence but also unequivocal assertions

 9     which, even if partly true, are not the whole truth, even in our view as

10     known by the witness based upon documentation he has reviewed.

11             My cross-examination would focus - and will focus - heavily on

12     the section on Franko Simatovic and the section on the JATD.  I will

13     focus on unsourced assertions in the report, the incomplete and, in our

14     view, inaccurate presentation of what the author clearly represents as

15     the status quo at the time, and the omission of what we say the author

16     did know based upon documents he asserted that he reviewed in preparation

17     of his report but did not cite to.

18             In short, our view is that the report is not purely focused on

19     the de jure situation but that it either clearly suggests or explicitly

20     states that the de facto situation was in line with the de jure

21     situation.  And in order to do so, the author omits additional

22     information which was at or could have been at his disposal.

23             As we have seen, it is not unusual for the Defence to rely

24     affirmatively upon what is not said, and the fact of that not having been

25     said not only upon what actually is said.

Page 19033

 1             Finally, Your Honours, unless the Defence will not be relying

 2     upon the report, either its inclusions or its omissions or part of the

 3     report in support of its case, the Prosecution submits that we should

 4     have a full and fair opportunity to rebut in detail.  In particular the

 5     sections focused on the accused Simatovic and the JATD.

 6             Now, part of that rebuttal, Your Honours, would be through my

 7     questioning, and part of it would be through putting certain documents to

 8     the witness.  If the Chamber prefers that the cross-referencing tools

 9     that I have prepared not be used, I have no problem in using that later

10     in submissions.  It was a means of making sure that the witness

11     understood how some of the documents I'm going to show to him fit into

12     our case so that he understands clearly the context, and absolutely to be

13     a tool for the Defence and the Chamber to understand what our case is

14     with respect to individual documents that I would put to the witness.

15             The other materials underlying those charts will be tendered by

16     us in rebuttal of the report of this witness because of the submissions

17     that I've just made.

18             Thank you, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  We now -- thank you, Ms. Marcus.  I should have

20     given you an opportunity earlier, because I do understand that where I

21     instructed you to show that it was the expertise of the witness which you

22     could further explore, that what you are saying is that the witness has

23     not limited himself to -- to the structure, to the rules, to the

24     legislation, but also it was conclusions of a factual nature.

25             I'd like to give an opportunity to the Defence to briefly respond

Page 19034

 1     to especially the -- I wouldn't say the shift, but at least the inclusion

 2     of the factual parts of the report in the examination.

 3             MR. JORDASH:  If I may just briefly deal with the issue relating

 4     to the JATD and the section of the report which deals with that, and I'll

 5     leave the Simatovic team to deal with the issue of Mr. Simatovic.

 6             But in relation to the section of the report which deals with the

 7     JATD, I don't think my learned friend is right.  The witness has been

 8     clear that he based his report on the documents.  He hasn't asserted that

 9     he has factual knowledge of the JATD beyond what the documents say.  And

10     the section in his report dealing with the JATD is, as far as I can see,

11     wholly uncontroversial.  It doesn't, as far as I can see, assert anything

12     which the Prosecution will, in fact, disagree with.  They may say, "Well,

13     he hasn't included things which we know to be the case," but that's not

14     the point.  The point is that he's made -- the expert has made assertions

15     about the JATD as far as he is able to according to the documents, and he

16     hasn't made an assertion which the Prosecution, as far as I can see,

17     would disagree with.

18             If that's wrong and they do have a problem with the content of

19     what he said about the JATD, then obviously they're entitled to

20     cross-examine on it.  What they're not entitled to do is simply say,

21     "Well, we assert - with no basis whatsoever - that you know all about the

22     JATD, and we're going to prove that by relying upon 48 new documents

23     relating to the JATD in order to assert that you do know about the JATD,"

24     and in doing so, elicit a huge amount of fresh evidence.

25             There's no basis for it, in our submission.

Page 19035

 1             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 3             MS. MARCUS:  -- with all due respect, I haven't commenced my

 4     cross-examination on the JATD section yet.  I think it's quite premature.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but I -- I know that.  But I think the problem

 6     for Mr. Jordash is that you should not start that.  Well, whether he's

 7     right or wrong, it may depend very much on what questions are put to the

 8     witness during cross-examination.

 9             First of all, Mr. Petrovic, would you like to add anything to ...

10             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  Just a few

11     sentences.

12             It's my impression that Mr. Milosevic's position is quite clear.

13     Mr. Milosevic is interpreting the rules and the regulations, the rules of

14     service, in his report.  As to whether there are other facts in this case

15     that correspond to what we have heard from him, well, that will be a

16     matter of debate.  Mr. Milosevic is not trying to lead us to any

17     conclusions with regard to the facts to decide whether the reality

18     corresponds to the rules and regulations.  This is for us to convince the

19     Chamber of the fact.  Whether we are successful in doing that, well,

20     we'll see.  But that is not what the witness is doing.  The witness is

21     providing a normative basis, so he analyses the rules and regulations,

22     but as to situation on the ground, as to the reality whether it is in

23     accordance with the norms and regulations and to what extent, well, the

24     Chamber will decide on the matter.

25             He's interpreting Franko Simatovic's personnel file that the

Page 19036

 1     Prosecution has access to.  He draws conclusions on the basis of

 2     documents.  The Chamber has his personnel file, the interpretation of

 3     that file, and other evidence.  The Chamber will then take its own

 4     decision.

 5             So what my learned is attempting to do, in my opinion, is an

 6     inadequate view of the Defence's intention.  The norms are being analysed

 7     according to which the service worked, the norms and regulations

 8     according to which Franko Simatovic and Jovica Stanisic acted at the

 9     time, and everything else is something that concerns the facts.

10             So if my learned friend is disputing his interpretation of the

11     norms, his expertise when it comes to interpreting the norms, if she is

12     going to present some other norms and regulations to him, well, that's

13     fine.  But if she wants to show him 45 documents initialed by

14     Mr. Simatovic, well, that just leads us nowhere.

15             Thank you, Your Honours.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Petrovic, you apparently ignore what Ms. Marcus

17     is saying, that is that the report is not just about rules and

18     regulations.  That's part of her submission.

19             Let me just confer with my colleagues for a second.

20                           [Trial Chamber confers]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus, you have added an element to the

22     discussion of the cross-examination of this witness that you also want to

23     challenge factual parts.

24             Now, first of all, if it is not the factual parts, you can put

25     questions to the witness and elicit evidence -- any evidence which isn't

Page 19037

 1     in the realm of his expertise.  As far as factual parts are concerned,

 2     the Chamber does not yet or would not immediately positively agree with

 3     you that what you quoted from the introduction part, whether those claims

 4     materialise in the report itself.  Nevertheless, the Chamber also

 5     understands that you find some factual elements here and there, and the

 6     appropriate way of dealing with that is not to put to the witness a lot

 7     of material, but first of all to identify exactly what factual portion

 8     you are going to deal with; second, then to explore with the witness on

 9     what knowledge that factual elements in the report are based.  And we'll

10     see after that whether there is any need or whether it assists in putting

11     additional material to the witness.

12             If the witness would show a very flawed basis of his knowledge,

13     which may come down to knowledge not to be taken that seriously, because

14     if he would say, "Well, that's what I thought already on my conversations

15     with my neighbours for the last five years," then I think there would be

16     no need to put specific material, because that would not be a basis on

17     which the Chamber would easily rely and therefore it would not assist the

18     Chamber to hear from the witness that the witness is -- could or could

19     not commence on all kind of material of a totally different nature.

20             Is this sufficient guidance?  So we clearly distinguish between

21     expert evidence, then we should limit it to that.  If we are going to

22     factual evidence, actual -- factual parts of the report, identify clearly

23     where they are, first explore what the basis of it is, and we'll then

24     decide to what extent it would be appropriate to put other matters to the

25     witness.

Page 19038

 1             MS. MARCUS:  I understand, Your Honour.  Thank you.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then we will proceed.

 3             MS. MARCUS:

 4        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, I'm going to show you an example of one of the

 5     documents that is contained in this chart.

 6             MS. MARCUS:  Could the Court Officer please call up P2772 but not

 7     broadcast it to the public.

 8        Q.   What you see before you is a page from the DB personnel file of

 9     someone named Milenko Milovanovic.  Now, this document --

10             MS. MARCUS:  Perhaps we could go to the signature line.

11        Q.   -- is signed by Dragoslav Krsmanovic, who you said in your

12     report, at paragraph 375, was the assistant commander of the JATD.  This

13     request by Krsmanovic for a background check on 31 candidates for active

14     and reserve duty in the JATD is initialed, we say, at the top by

15     Franko Simatovic.

16             MS. MARCUS:  Perhaps we could return to the very top so that the

17     signature is visible.

18        Q.   That is why this is one of the documents on that chart containing

19     documents which we say were signed by or initialed by Mr. Simatovic.

20             My question is:  Which aspect of Frenki's official positions and

21     role that you described in paragraph 8 -- sorry, in part eight of your

22     report would have involved signing or initialling documents relating to

23     the JATD?

24        A.   First of all, I am not a handwriting expert.  I can't confirm

25     that this is his initial.  And I'm not familiar with Mr. Simatovic's

Page 19039

 1     initials or with his signature.  I apologise for laughing a bit.  So I

 2     can't confirm that it's authentic.  But if it is, this could mean two

 3     things.  It would probably mean that he's familiar with this material.

 4     If that's his initial, that was probably the case; he was probably

 5     familiar with the material.  But I am not aware of all the details.  This

 6     is the first time I've seen this document.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Milosevic, could you focus on what Ms. Marcus

 8     clearly asks you.  She didn't ask you to verify whether or to tell us

 9     whether this is Mr. Simatovic's initials.  What she wants to know is what

10     in the description of -- of his job would match with the activity or with

11     the -- would match with being made familiar with a request as the one in

12     this document, that is, the request by Krsmanovic, for a background check

13     on 31 candidates for active and reserve duty in the JATD.  Where do we

14     find anything in his job description which would -- which could be

15     matched with this activity?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These initials mean that he was

17     familiar with this.  But I have certain reservations about the initials,

18     so I would have to check whether at the time he was -- I do apologise.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  I am not asking you to say anything about the

20     initials.  Just on an assumption that this, with or without the initials,

21     that this request would have been brought to the attention of

22     Mr. Simatovic at the time the document indicates - that is, in

23     August 1993 - what is it in the job description that would make us

24     understand that this would be brought to the attention of Mr. Simatovic?

25     And just ignore the initials.

Page 19040

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I couldn't say exactly.  I'd have

 2     to have a look at the document.  At the time I think he was already the

 3     special advisor to the chief.  If you allow me to have a look at the

 4     documents, I'll answer the question.  If he was the advisor, then perhaps

 5     that's why his initials are here.  The date is the 16th of August, 1993.

 6     At the time, he was already the special advisor to the chief of the RDB,

 7     so it's quite possible that he had those duties to perform.

 8             I have already said that with regard to special advisors, it

 9     wasn't known in advance which special advisors would be responsible for

10     certain duties.  It was a matter of a specific assignment.  And these

11     responsibilities were decided on a case-by-case basis, so this is the

12     only way in which I can understand the matter.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  If I understand your answer well, you would say the

14     position of Mr. Simatovic as a special advisor would not make it

15     illogical to keep him informed about this request and to have knowledge

16     of it.  Is that ...

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here we have a request for

18     operational verifications that concerns certain individuals, and this

19     also involves gathering certain intelligence.  In Montenegro,

20     intelligence information on place of residence, place of birth, and so on

21     and so forth.  And as to the special advisor, he was probably aware of

22     this matter because it's a complex issue and concerned a number of

23     individuals, so he must certainly have been familiar with this case in

24     one way or another.  That is my understanding of this document.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And that's all conclusions, what he certainly

Page 19041

 1     must have been familiar with.  We leave those conclusions most likely to

 2     the Chamber.

 3             Ms. Marcus.

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

 5             Could the Court Officer please call up P2933.

 6        Q.   Mr. Milosevic, what you will see on the screen in front of you in

 7     a moment is an excerpt from the diaries or notebooks of Ratko Mladic.

 8     This entry, as you can see, is dated the 16th of December, 1991.  In the

 9     first line, it says:

10             "Dule Orlovic, Filipovic - Fica and Frenki (Serbia DB/state

11     security/) they want to give some 3.000 barrels to the Muslims in Bihac."

12             For your information, there has been evidence in this case that

13     in this context the word "barrels" means infantry weapons.  Perhaps in

14     B/C/S that was clear to you.

15             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honours, that's the 8th of December, 2011, at

16     page 15510.

17        Q.   Now, my question to you is:  Which aspect of Frenki's official

18     position and role, as you describe in paragraph 8 -- sorry, again, in

19     part eight of your report, would have involved providing infantry weapons

20     to the Muslims in Bihac in December of 1991?

21        A.   There's no way I can answer this question which only relates to

22     facts.  I have no knowledge about anyone delivering anything to anyone or

23     of someone having such tasks on the basis of one's job specifications.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Milosevic, I again have to interrupt you.  The

25     question is not whether this happened.  The question is that what is

Page 19042

 1     described here, that Frenki - which is a name often used for

 2     Mr. Simatovic, but you don't have to bother about that - involved in

 3     wishing to give 3.000 barrels to the Muslims in Bihac, whether you, from

 4     the point of your expertise, are able to point at any part in the job

 5     description or in the description of the function of Mr. Simatovic in

 6     December 1991 which would make us understand how this matches to his

 7     function.  That's the question.

 8             And I can imagine that you would first of all look exactly at

 9     what his position was in December 1991, and I think what we find about it

10     is primarily in paragraph 364 of your report.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I've seen that.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  The question again is:  Did you --

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have understood the question,

14     Your Honours.  And I did have a look at paragraph 363 and paragraph 364.

15     And in 364 it says that at the time Simatovic was the head of the

16     department for the US intelligence service, so there's no way I can link

17     this to the issue of delivering 3.000 weapons to the Muslims in Bihac.  I

18     don't see how this would be part of his job description.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.

20             MS. MARCUS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

21             I see that I have only a few minutes left.

22        Q.   Before I conclude, Mr. Milosevic, I would like to ask you,

23     please, if you could prepare for us, to the best of your ability, either

24     based on what you remember or perhaps based on some notes or e-mail

25     communications - I don't know - to draw up for us, and if possible - with


Page 19043

 1     the Chamber's leave, of course - to provide through the Victim and

 2     Witness Section any other documents that you consulted in preparing your

 3     report which are not either cited in the footnotes or -- and which are

 4     not contained in your bibliography.

 5             So I'm referring specifically to a few things that you said.

 6     Yesterday, at page 18948, you said:

 7             "Based on personnel files and other decisions, including letters

 8     of appointments and assignments and the payrolls."

 9             Today, at page 7, you said:

10             "There were decisions that concerned Milan Radonjic, and so on

11     and so forth."

12             Today, at page 8 -- I'm sorry, today at page 11, you said:

13             "... I didn't use all the material I had because these are a

14     lot [sic].  For example, on appointments and there are quite a lot of

15     such decisions.  It would be absolutely pointless to reference each of

16     those decisions.  But if you like, I can try to ..."

17             So, Mr. Milosevic, what I'm asking you - and again, this is only

18     with leave of the Chamber - is to try to the best of your ability to

19     reconstruct which were the other documents that you consulted which you

20     did not provide for in the footnotes or in the bibliography.

21             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, with your leave, could the witness --

22     would that be acceptable to the Chamber?

23             JUDGE ORIE:  I'd first like to hear from the Defence whether

24     there are any objections with inviting the witness to try to write down

25     what other sources which we do not find in the report he may have

Page 19044

 1     consulted when preparing his report.

 2             MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't have any

 3     objections to that.  I don't know if it's possible.  But I won't go into

 4     that.  I have no objections.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That is what we'd like to hear from you, of

 6     course.  Whether the witness is able to do it ... if he refers to certain

 7     materials, then I would expect that at least he would give us some

 8     insight in it.

 9             But, Mr. Jordash, any objections?

10             MR. JORDASH:  No objection, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, Mr. Milosevic, would you be willing to dig

12     deep in your memory and see whether -- if you are talking about other

13     personnel files, whether you would remember, for example, how many

14     approximately you've seen - is it in the hundreds, is it five, is it

15     fifty - to try to remember what names you may remember or to try to

16     remember what other decisions you have seen which you may not have used.

17     Are you willing to do it?  Let's start with that.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course I'm willing to help in

19     any way I can in order to shed light on the truth, but personnel files

20     aren't concerned here, and mistakes continue to be made here, because

21     here the reference is made to salary lists, but what's concerned are

22     decisions on salaries.  That's just a one-page document.  Whereas, lists

23     of salaries consist of a lot of pages.  Or perhaps the Prosecution

24     doesn't understand me.  But the only thing that can be done is to mention

25     key documents that perhaps haven't been mentioned here, and I'll go

Page 19045

 1     through the list she shows me to see whether there is anything of

 2     significance that could be added.

 3             I really don't know exactly how to perform this exercise.  This

 4     isn't something I could do exhaustively.  I could try and identify

 5     certain key documents that aided me to draw certain conclusions; for

 6     example, the date on which certain units were established.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Milosevic, I'm happy that you are willing to

 8     offer that assistance, but I'd like to urge you to go a bit further.

 9     When I, for example, said, personnel files, whether you remember how many

10     you've seen - and I'm not asking you whether it was 43 or 44 - but I'd

11     like to know whether it's one, or ten, or a hundred, and whether you

12     remember, apart from the personnel file from Mr. Simatovic, whether you

13     remember any names.  That, in addition to what you considered to be key

14     documents.  And also to think about if it is about decisions on payment,

15     whether you have seen one or two or whether you have seen the whole

16     series of it.  Whether you have seen any payrolls.  That's --

17             And again, quantity and the type of document, I take, Ms. Marcus,

18     you are certainly interested in as well.

19             MS. MARCUS:  Absolutely, Your Honour.  Thank you.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Would you try to do your utmost best not only on

21     what you consider to be the key documents, but also keep in mind what I

22     just added.

23             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, I apologise.  Could we just clarify

24     that the witness would provide that to us in advance of -- not when he

25     comes to court next time perhaps, but as soon as he's ready.  Perhaps

Page 19046

 1     through the Victim and Witness Unit.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Preparing such a list, Mr. Milosevic, would

 3     take you approximately how much time?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's difficult to say.  I really

 5     don't know.  But there's only one personnel file that is important.  It's

 6     Franko Simatovic's file.  The other documents are only a few decisions.

 7     Perhaps by Monday.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Milosevic, when you say there is only one

 9     important, that wasn't the question, which one you considered to be

10     important.  What we wanted to know is approximately how many you've seen.

11     If you've seen only Mr. Simatovic's personnel file, then it -- the

12     question is easily answered.  If you have seen five, you might remember

13     names or you might not remember names.  So don't make your selection on

14     the basis of what you consider to be relevant, but try to be as complete

15     as possible in relation to the type of documents that Ms. Marcus was

16     referring to.

17             Now, let's have a look at the court schedule.  If you say could

18     have finished it by Monday morning, then I take it - I'm not intending to

19     spoil your weekend, but there is a Friday in between as well - would you

20     be able to give such a list reflecting, as completely as possible, your

21     reflection on these matters by Monday, well, let's say, 10.00?

22             Mr. Milosevic.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can try to do that.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, Mr. Milosevic, you've got, then, three days.

25     You are an experienced academic.  You would know whether or not you are

Page 19047

 1     able to produce that by Monday morning.  That's, giving it your best

 2     efforts, you just suggested yourself to do it by Monday.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Then could it be arranged through the Victims and

 5     Witness Section that the list could be received from Mr. Milosevic Monday

 6     morning, 10.00.

 7             Would that serve your purposes?  Because we'll adjourn until

 8     Tuesday.

 9             MS. MARCUS:  Yes, Your Honour, thank you.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we adjourn for the day.

11             And I again instruct you, Mr. Milosevic, that you should not

12     speak with anyone about your testimony either given or still to be given,

13     and we'd like to see you back Tuesday, the 8th of May, at 9.00 in the

14     morning in this same courtroom, II.  And I wish all of you a good

15     weekend.

16             We stand adjourned.

17                           [The witness stands down]

18                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.04 p.m.,

19                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 8th day

20                           of May, 2012, at 9.00 a.m.