1 Thursday, 24 May 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
8 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
10 This is case IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic
11 and Franko Simatovic.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
13 Mr. Jordash, are you ready to continue your cross-examination?
14 MR. JORDASH: Yes, I am, Your Honour. Thank you.
15 WITNESS: RADE VUJOVIC [Resumed]
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash: [Continued]
18 Q. Just a few remaining questions --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, before we do so.
20 Mr. Vujovic, I would like to remind you that you are still bound
21 by the solemn declaration you have given at the beginning of your
22 testimony, that is, that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and
23 nothing but the truth.
24 Mr. Jordash, please proceed.
25 MR. JORDASH: Could we have on the screen, please, P3162.
1 Q. I want to just very quickly return to the subject of the
2 financial reward which the Prosecution say demonstrates your
3 affiliation --
4 THE REGISTRAR: Document is under seal.
5 MR. JORDASH: Sorry. I beg your pardon.
6 Q. Which the Prosecution say --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Could all unnecessary microphones please be
9 switched off. Thank you.
10 MR. JORDASH:
11 Q. Let's have a look at the document again, and I wanted to ask you
12 whether you recognised the signature there, and look particularly at the
13 second name, the surname. Do you recognise the signature?
14 A. It's very hard for me to see who signed this.
15 Q. Could the first name there be Dragisa?
16 A. Yes, yes. It says "Deputy Chief," and that was
17 Mr. Dragisa Ristivojevic.
18 Q. And he was Mr. Stanisic's second deputy, with the first one being
20 A. Yes, that's correct. Mr. Stanisic had two deputies. The first
21 one was Milan Tepavcevic, and the other one was Dragisa Ristivojevic.
22 Q. And Ristivojevic, is this right, was the deputy in charge of
24 A. That was how things were officially. Mr. Milan Tepavcevic was
25 the first deputy and Mr. Dragisa Ristivojevic, as the second deputy, had
1 a lower scope of duties, and he was in charge of operations.
2 Q. And if that signature is Ristivojevic's, would that be consistent
3 with --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, is there dispute about that this is not
5 Mr. Stanisic's signature?
6 MS. FRIEDMAN: No, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I think that was clear already yesterday,
8 Mr. Jordash.
9 So unless there is any specific reason why it's so important to
10 establish whose signature it was, but apparently it's a deputy, not
11 Mr. Stanisic, who signed the document.
12 MR. JORDASH: I think the deputy that my learned friend indicated
13 did not exist was in relation to another document, which is a signature
14 which we say was Tepavcevic's. But unless I missed something --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I'm wrong, but here apparently there is no
17 MR. JORDASH: Then I can move on.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yeah.
19 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
20 Just to -- perhaps we can move back into public session.
21 JUDGE ORIE: We are in public session but the document was not to
22 be shown to the public and has not been shown.
23 MR. JORDASH: And I've finished with the document. Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. JORDASH:
1 Q. Just returning to the issue of your resignation or your
2 replacement, you said yesterday that the straw that broke the camel's
3 back was when Rade Markovic was brought in.
4 MR. JORDASH: Your Honours, page 19721.
5 Q. Why was his being brought in to replace Stanisic the straw that
6 broke the camel's back?
7 A. He was not that last straw as him. But what he told us at the
8 first collegium meeting as the future course that the service was going
9 to take, what he stated at that moment and why I said that that was the
10 last straw was that we were supposed to continue working normally, that
11 until further notice we would remain in our posts. He said that,
12 obviously, there would be some personnel shakeups, and that he expected
13 from all of us - and let me quote - "loyalty to the president, the state,
14 and the party."
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. We were flabbergasted.
17 Q. Okay. Am I correct that Markovic came from the public security
18 so had no experience of state security business or limited experience,
20 A. Mr. Markovic was an officer in the Serbian police, in the public
21 security, and his deputy, who had been appointed, Mr. Nikola Curcic was
22 also employed by the public security, never by the state security. He
23 was also 80 per cent disabled, and he was appointed as the chief of
24 sector. The motives of those who decided on those appointments must have
25 been specific, otherwise he would not have appointed a person who had
1 been involved in a car accident and ended up disabled.
2 So the two leading men that were appointed at the time had joined
3 from the public security sector.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise for
6 interrupting. On line 12, the family name of this person was not
7 properly recorded and I do not see the sign pointing to the fact that
8 this might be corrected subsequently, so I'd like to verify that.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 You earlier spoke about Mr. Nikola, and could you repeat his
11 family name?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Curcic.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
14 By the way, Mr. Petrovic, often if it's these kind of technical
15 matters, if you make a small little note and give it to the transcriber
16 and say that you think that it might be wrongly written down, then
17 certainly it will be taken care of.
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] We will do that, Your Honour.
20 MR. JORDASH:
21 Q. Isn't it correct, from at least where you were standing, but also
22 I suggest it was public knowledge at the time, that Markovic was on
23 friendly terms with the Milosevic family and in particular with
24 Milosevic's son, Marko?
25 A. Yes, it was a notorious fact. Although he was a police general
1 by rank, his main activity was to look after President Milosevic's son.
2 That was basically his principal job.
3 Q. Without going too much off the subject, and it was also equally
4 notorious that Marko was engaged in criminal activities along with
5 Radovan Stojicic; is that correct?
6 A. That was what was known, by and large.
7 Q. And, again, Nikola Curcic was also part of Milosevic's inner
8 circle. That, again, was a notorious fact; is that correct?
9 A. Absolutely, yes. Mr. Curcic was the Milosevic family's friend
10 through his own brother. When Mr. Milosevic was still a banker, the two
11 of them went to New York together, so I believe that they were quite
12 close, the two of them.
13 Q. So rather than this being a case of you leaving because of your
14 affiliation with Stanisic, this was a Milosevic purge of the State
15 Security Service and a replacement of key posts by persons who he was
16 particularly close to; correct?
17 A. That was absolutely the case. You know we worked in very hard
18 times, as a service. We had a very clear concept of the service's role
19 and place in our state system. I personally and intimately and
20 professionally agreed with that concept. Most of us were not going
21 through the motions of the job. We were convinced that we performed the
22 function that Mr. Stanisic defined as the basic task of the service, and
23 that was protect the state, the people, and the constitutional order.
24 All those years that's what we believed in, and all of a sudden there was
25 turmoil and there was a new wind blowing and a new direction -- a new
1 course that we had to adopt, and I did not agree with all that.
2 Q. And just to complete this subject, it was Markovic who was chief
3 of the service when members of the DB attempted to assassinate Stambolic;
4 is that correct?
5 A. Unfortunately, not only did they try to do that but they did kill
6 him. When Mr. Markovic was in charge, all those ugly things happened and
7 there was a ripple effect of all that.
8 If you will allow me just one more sentence. One of
9 Mr. Stanisic's postulates, something that he shared with us often at
10 collegium meetings, was this: "While I am the boss of the Serbian
11 Intelligence Service, the Serbian Intelligence Service will not be
12 involved in political killings," and that was a fact.
13 When Mr. Markovic came and after that a lot of ugly things
14 happened, things that were a stark contrast with the principles that we
15 had adopted and functioned on while Mr. Stanisic was in charge.
16 Q. And the last question: Markovic was also the chief when Djindjic
17 was assassinated by members of the DB; is that right?
18 A. No, no, that's not correct.
19 Q. Mr. Markovic is serving 40 years' imprisonment for something,
20 isn't he? What's that?
21 A. Well, because of the killings that happened primarily -- and the
22 murder of Mr. Stambolic and his involvement in that. When prime minister
23 Djindjic was murdered, Markovic was already serving his gaol time.
24 Q. Okay. My mistake. Thanks very much.
25 MR. JORDASH: No more questions, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jordash.
2 Mr. Petrovic, any need for further questions?
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours, a few.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
6 Further Re-examination by Mr. Petrovic:
7 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Vujovic.
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Let us first look at P3161.
9 P3161, under seal.
10 Q. Mr. Vujovic, yesterday my learned friend showed you this list.
11 Let us just briefly look at it again. Under numbers 2, 3, and 4, do you
12 recognise any of the names under these numbers?
13 A. Zoran Mijatovic under 3.
14 Q. This document was drafted in September 1993. Could you please
15 tell us what was this gentleman's position at the time?
16 A. Mr. Mijatovic was chief of the 2nd Administration or the head of
17 the Belgrade centre. I don't know exactly what his position was in 1993.
18 I suppose that he was chief of the 2nd Administration.
19 Q. Please look at the last column, the last vertical column. There
20 are some Roman numerals here, and when you look at number 16, 17, 18,
21 where your name is and your associates' names there are also Roman
23 A. Yes. Obviously the Roman numerals represent the number of the
24 administration. I was affiliated with the 7th Administration, so were my
25 associates, and I see the Roman numeral VII next to my name there. So
1 this is the 7th Administration.
2 Q. At the end of the list you can see under 20 or 21 "CRDB Uzice,"
3 and then in the last column it says "CRDB Sremska Mitrovica." Do you
4 perhaps have a explanation for these entries under 20 and 21?
5 A. Since this is a document issued by the 8th Administration and it
6 concerns per diems, the only explanation I can provide is that from these
7 centres - and that was common practice - funds were requested for
8 per diems. They provided documentation about their administration, and
9 the 8th Administration just confirmed that Uzice and Sremska Mitrovica
10 had received a certain amount of money that they would then distribute
11 among themselves. In my view this was a normal procedure.
12 Q. Mr. Vujovic, yesterday my learned friend showed you another
13 document, P3162. This document was about a reward of 2.500 dinars that
14 you got from your superiors. Mr. Jordash has just showed you that
15 document, and my learned friend tried to prove that that showed your
16 inclination towards the accused.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to call up 2D1790.
18 It was uploaded yesterday. It is not in the system.
19 Your Honours, I have hard copies for the Bench and for everybody
20 in the courtroom, the copies in both languages, English and Serbian. So
21 I would like the usher to help me distribute the documents among the
23 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Friedman.
24 MS. FRIEDMAN: I believe this also should not be broadcast.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Is that true, Mr. Petrovic?
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, the Chamber wonders why we need hard
3 copies of this document? Is there any specific reason for that, because
4 we usually look at documents on our screens.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, no. No, Your Honours, the
6 reason is the fact that we decided to show the document yesterday. We
7 uploaded it in the system, but it hasn't been released. We will not be
8 able to see it on our screens.
9 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] That's why.
11 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Petrovic.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. Mr. Vujovic, have you received a copy of this document?
15 A. Yes, yes.
16 Q. This is a document from your personal file. Could you please
17 tell us the following. It says here in the statement of reasons that the
18 coefficient for your monthly salary for May is being decreased by
19 20 per cent. Could you please tell us whether a decrease in salary is a
20 form of punishing employees?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Do you remember, perhaps, what the reasons were for the heads of
23 the service to punish you with this decrease of 20 per cent?
24 A. It was very specific. Something needed to be done. I was late.
25 That was my responsibility. That's why I was punished.
1 Q. This decision was signed by the assistant head of the department
2 of state security. The assistant head is one of the top people in the
3 service, right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Mr. Vujovic, decreasing one's salary, do you see that as proof of
6 being close to the top echelons of the service or a distance between
7 yourself and the top echelons of the service?
8 A. Well, you know, in my view, reward and punishment is not a
9 question of closeness within a service. At one point in time somebody
10 assesses that they are supposed to reward you, and another point in time
11 their assessment is that you need to be punished. From my point of view,
12 that is all part of the work process and the work discipline that
13 prevailed then in the service.
14 Q. Thank you, Mr. Vujovic.
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would kindly ask
16 that this document be admitted once the technical conditions are met.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Friedman.
18 MS. FRIEDMAN: No objection.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, could you already assign a number
20 to this, as I understand, non-released document which already is uploaded
21 into e-court.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.
23 May I just clarify, the number of the document that will be
24 uploaded is 2D1790?
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] 2D1790 [as interpreted].
1 THE REGISTRAR: 2D17 --
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] 1709 --
3 THE REGISTRAR: 1709 will receive number D899, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: D899 is admitted under seal.
5 Please proceed, Mr. Petrovic.
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. Mr. Vujovic, could we now please take a look at 65 ter 4385.
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] 65 ter 4385, Prosecution number.
9 Q. Mr. Vujovic, this is a decision that is identical to the decision
10 that was made in terms of your own punishment. This is a decision
11 punishing Franko Simatovic, special advisor in the state security
12 department at the proposal of the chief of the department. August 1995
13 is the time involved.
14 Do you know, perhaps, why Stanisic was -- Stanisic punished
15 Simatovic in this particular case?
16 A. I don't know.
17 Q. What is your understanding of this decision concerning
18 Simatovic's punishment in view of his position in the service, special
19 advisor, and this punishment is being meted out? How do you explain that
20 in terms of the functioning of the service at the time?
21 A. At that point in time Mr. Simatovic was a special advisor. When
22 I was punished, I was head of an administration, so I was within the
23 management line. Both show what I've already talked about, that is to
24 say, discipline and work. That was particularly focused on at the time.
25 You would be rewarded for your good work and also you would be punished
1 for your omissions. So that is to say there was hardly any leeway.
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could this please be
3 admitted as a Defence exhibit.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Friedman.
5 MS. FRIEDMAN: No objection.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Document 4385 will receive number D900,
8 Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
10 Is there any need to have it under seal, Mr. Petrovic?
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think there is no
12 need for that, but please do allow me to check.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Mr. Vujovic, just one more question, if you can help us with
17 Yesterday in response to the question put by His Honour the
18 Presiding Judge, you tried to explain to us how much 928 million dinars
19 was in September 1993. Could you please explain that to us. What was
20 the situation in the financial system of Serbia and the Federal Republic
21 of Yugoslavia at that point in time, the autumn of 1993, the time of
22 these millions and billions?
23 A. Well, in the simplest possible terms, if I were to say that we
24 had a bank note, a bill, of 5 billion dinars, so daily inflation at that
25 point in time was over 10 per cent per day. So all of these figures were
1 skyrocket high. Millions, billions. I don't know. A kilo of sugar cost
2 like 2 and a half million or something like that. Those were crazy times
3 as far as this inflation was concerned in Serbia, that year, 1993.
4 Q. Thank you, Mr. Vujovic.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, if it goes in the millions and the
6 millions, of course that can only happen in a situation of inflation.
7 What I was interested in was what, on the day this document was signed,
8 the approximate value of that was in Deutschmarks. That there was
9 inflation is not really something you could even think of not being
11 Any further questions?
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Just one more question so that I
13 perhaps try to explain what you asked about, Your Honour.
14 Q. Mr. Vujovic, in the autumn of 1993, how often did the value of
15 money change?
16 A. On a daily basis, quite literally.
17 Q. Can you tell us what that means, "on a daily basis"? For
18 example, what was the percentage during the course of one day?
19 A. For instance, if you were supposed to have 10 Deutschmark
20 exchanged, at 10.00 a.m. there would be one exchange rate and it would be
21 completely different at 4.00 p.m. It would be two times less, for
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, the witness said 10 per cent a day,
24 and now two times less, that's a hundred per cent. That is a
25 contradiction. Either we are able to establish what the approximate
1 value was or we are not, but to further explain how inflation works in
2 such an economy, that is not assisting -- at least is not assisting me
3 and perhaps also not my colleagues.
4 Please proceed if you have any further questions.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Thank you, Mr. Vujovic. I have no further questions.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
8 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, I beg your pardon. May I just pick up on
9 one small issue. It's one I accidentally missed out in my
10 re-examination. It won't take more than two minutes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I look at the clock, and Ms. Friedman has patience,
12 isn't it. Please proceed.
13 MR. JORDASH: I am grateful.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps more even than I have.
15 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash: [Continued]
16 Q. A very quick subject which I wanted to clarify, if possible.
17 Yesterday there was a discussion between you and the learned Prosecutor
18 and then the learned Judge concerning your knowledge about what was being
19 monitored from these listening posts. And there are two remarks I wanted
20 to ask you about.
21 Your Honours, page 19688, you said:
22 "Specifically what is being monitored, what is of interest for
23 monitoring in order to be used further, that was decided upon by the
24 intelligence line of work. So they said if Izetbegovic talks to
25 Sacirbey, we are going to monitor that, but we are not going to waste
1 times on other things, equipment or personnel."
2 What did you mean by the comment:
3 "They said ... we are not going to waste time on other things,
4 equipment or personnel"?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, could you please verify the page
6 reference, because for me, yesterday, the 23rd, starts in the 19000s and
7 not in 18000s.
8 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, I meant to say 1900 -- sorry, I meant to say
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
11 MR. JORDASH:
12 Q. You appeared -- do you understand my question? You appeared to
13 be making a distinction, and I want to understand what you meant by:
14 "... we are going to monitor Izetbegovic, but we are not going to
15 waste time on other things, equipment or personnel."
16 A. That is part of objective reasoning. That is to say, if you are
17 monitoring a spectrum, for instance, of course in the hierarchy of
18 information the most interesting information is the information coming
19 from the very top of a particular setting. Izetbegovic in this
20 particular case. Although, in that area there can be lower-level
21 information, too. Of course, these would be the priorities. They would
22 be monitored and documented. That's very simple.
23 Q. So, as you also said at Your Honours' page 19690, tangible
24 professional success, as you understood it, from the listening posts, was
25 the monitoring of high-level political conversations, as far as the State
1 Security Service was concerned; correct?
2 A. Absolutely. Absolutely. That's the way it is. Information that
3 can be obtained by listening to the conversations of high political
4 officials are certainly the most important and of greatest interest, and
5 that's the context that I put it in. I said that when my people came
6 back from the terrain, they simply bragged, if you will, professionally,
7 saying that that had happened.
8 Q. Thank you. Nothing further.
9 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honours.
10 Thank you to the Prosecution.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Friedman, any further questions?
12 MS. FRIEDMAN: Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please activate your microphone.
14 MS. FRIEDMAN: Yes.
15 Further Cross-examination by Ms. Friedman:
16 Q. Just on cross-examination you were shown a document -- sorry,
17 re-examination, you were shown a reduction of pay for Franko Simatovic in
18 August of 1995. Are you aware of other members of the service having
19 their pay reduced at the same time?
20 A. There was rewarding and there was punishing, so your question had
21 to do with other people and my answer is yes, of course.
22 Q. And in August 1995, to your knowledge, could there have been a
23 deduction due to Operation Storm having taken place?
24 A. No, no, no. I don't think so. These were disciplinary measures
25 related to some specific situations. I could not link that punishment
1 meted out to Mr. Simatovic to Operation Storm, that is. No.
2 MS. FRIEDMAN: And, Your Honours, with your leave, there is just
3 one document that I did not put to the witness that I think perhaps he
4 can help us with that I would like to show him.
5 JUDGE ORIE: You'll find yourself in a similar position as
6 Mr. Jordash --
7 MS. FRIEDMAN: Yes, I do.
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- a minute ago. I think that where I expected that
9 you would be very patient, that Mr. Jordash would be now, isn't it. And
10 Mr. Petrovic shares. Mr. Jordash.
11 Please proceed.
12 MS. FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Your Honours.
13 Can we have 65 ter 1583.
14 Q. Mr. Vujovic, this is an organisational chart showing
15 communication between the Serbian MUP, the RSK government, Banja Luka
16 CSB, and then on the bottom level, the locations of secretariats of the
17 interior in the RSK.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the characterisation
20 of the document, this is not a communication chart. The document itself
21 says what it is.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's then read what it is, Ms. --
23 MS. FRIEDMAN: Correct. Yes. It's an organisational chart
24 displaying -- well, that's what I want to ask the witness about.
25 Apparently direction, circular, and network connections. I don't know if
1 that's -- I presumed it was communication. But that's what I thought
2 that the witness with his experience in electrical engineering and in the
3 federal MUP and the Serbian MUP might be able to help us out with.
4 MR. JORDASH: Could we --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
6 MR. JORDASH: I'm sorry, could we know who authored this diagram,
8 MS. FRIEDMAN: The diagram was produced by the -- from the
9 Croatian archives, the archives from the Republic of Croatia. We can --
10 in fact the --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, there are two questions, I think. The one is
12 what the source of the document is, where it was obtained. The other one
13 is - and that was the question, I think, Mr. Jordash put - who is the
14 author who produced it, not in terms of obtaining it but by drafting it.
15 MS. FRIEDMAN: Yes. The information about the author is -- is
17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
18 MS. FRIEDMAN: We only have information about where it was
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, please proceed.
21 MS. FRIEDMAN:
22 Q. Mr. Vujovic, are you able to explain what the -- first of all,
23 the meaning of the different kinds of communication -- the different
24 indicators on the bottom, direction, circular, network?
25 A. I could do that as an engineer who had not dealt with that,
1 though. I've already said that in the State Security Service of Serbia
2 there was a special service that dealt with the system of communications
3 and cryptographic encryption. What you showed to me looks like an
4 organisational chart. What is KZ? That is probably cryptographic
5 communications. And somebody showed here that there was some flow of
6 information that had been encrypted. That's the only thing that I can
7 understand on the basis of this. And purely speaking as an engineer,
8 that would be my interpretation.
9 Q. Yes. So which information would you say is encrypted? All the
10 different lines, or only some of them? Is there a way to tell?
11 A. I cannot say. It really depends on the users involved. It's the
12 user who decides whether he is going to use encryption when sending
13 information or not. I am not in a position to give you an answer to
15 Q. Do you have any -- do you know why -- what the difference is
16 between direction - I think it means direct - the straight bar line, and
17 the network line which is like a dash? Do you know what the difference
19 A. It can mean different things. One of the possible
20 interpretations is that the direction between two points is a particular
21 communication directed a certain way, and then further down there is some
22 kind of network that they can use to communicate between and among
23 themselves. There is nothing else I can say. Once again, I am telling
24 you this as an engineer. I am speaking as an engineer on the basis of
25 something that I would find logical.
1 Q. Okay. Do you have any, let's say, educated guess about what
2 information is in the -- or based your knowledge as an engineer, what the
3 information in the circles are, the numbers, 107, 31 -- 0 -- 55?
4 A. I absolutely do not know what that means.
5 MS. FRIEDMAN: Your Honours, the Prosecution tenders this
7 MR. JORDASH: Could I inquire as to the relevance to the
8 Prosecution case, since --
9 MS. FRIEDMAN: Yes, the -- and maybe one more question, actually,
10 in case the witness can help us with it.
11 Q. According to the chart, the Serbian MUP is joined by the direct
12 line to the RSK MUP and by network to the RSK SUPs. So does this mean
13 that if these are different kinds -- lines of communication, that if one
14 is down, let's say the RSK MUP can connect to the Serbian MUP, for the
15 line is okay, then they can get through them to the network?
16 MR. JORDASH: Objection to the question. Entirely speculative.
17 The witness knows nothing about this, whether this diagram represents any
18 sort of reality whatsoever. So to ask the witness to move from this
19 document, which he doesn't know, whether it represents reality and ask
20 him a question as to what happened in reality is entirely illogical, in
21 our submission.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Friedman.
23 MS. FRIEDMAN: Well, I think perhaps maybe the question I should
24 ask before is:
25 Q. If you've seen not this particular chart but another similar
1 chart before?
2 MR. JORDASH: But whether he's seen a chart like this before, to
3 ask him -- well, either ask him in this chart does this mean this, when
4 the witness has said his knowledge is extremely limited, speaking as an
5 engineer what this -- in relation to what this chart means. But then to
6 ask a question which in some way asks him -- is based on a presumption
7 that this represents a reality is entirely speculative. It's -- it's --
8 it's -- on top of that, this is not, as I understand it, the
9 Prosecution's case.
10 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
11 MR. JORDASH: It's not in the pre-trial brief. It's not a case
12 that they have advanced that somehow the Serbian MUP was involved in
13 assisting the RSK MUP with their cryptographic data protection issues.
14 It's nowhere. It's a late -- it's a late plank to the Prosecution case.
15 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber needs more time to consider whether or
18 not this is admissible evidence, yes or no, and also whether it -- if
19 admissible, whether it's most appropriately done through this witness or
20 through the bar table.
21 Therefore, the document will be MFI'd.
22 Madam Registrar.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1583 will receive number P3164,
24 Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And is marked for identification.
1 Any further questions or any further matters, Ms. Friedman?
2 MS. FRIEDMAN: Could I just make a brief submission about the
4 I said it was Croatian state archives but it came from the
5 Banja Luka Security Centre. That is one thing.
6 JUDGE ORIE: That is quite a different source. Still the
7 authorship not being resolved by that.
8 MS. FRIEDMAN: And --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any time context which can be -- not when
10 you obtained it but the document?
11 MS. FRIEDMAN: Based on -- just based on other evidence, but
12 no --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
14 MS. FRIEDMAN: -- there is nothing more -- perhaps the other
15 documents that were collected at the same time, we could look at that and
16 offer that information.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I do not stop you from looking at that,
18 Ms. Friedman.
19 MS. FRIEDMAN: Okay. And we do -- also in terms of the
20 relevance, it's of course relevant to paragraph 15(1) [sic] of the
21 indictment, the channel of communication. And I can expand on those
22 submissions if ...
23 JUDGE ORIE: Wouldn't it be best that we have brief written
24 submissions on the matter so that we can look at it a bit more in detail.
25 And I think, as a matter of fact, that the core of arguments
1 would be -- should be possible to write that down in one sheet of paper,
2 and if the other party does the same and really not describing the whole
3 of the history, et cetera, but just give us the relevant information
4 which you think is for relevance, probative value, and reliability, that
5 we have some guidance when further considering this matter.
6 MS. FRIEDMAN: Should we file them simultaneously or ...? I
7 suppose the objection should be first, perhaps?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, as a matter of fact --
9 MR. JORDASH: Well, I am not sure it should, because if - sorry
10 to detain the Court - but if this is relevant to the allegation that
11 Mr. Stanisic was a channel of communication, then, of course, that allows
12 the Prosecution to rely upon anything that any witness ever says about
13 what Mr. Stanisic ever did which had anything to do with speaking to
14 anyone. It's carte blanche to lead any evidence they want. So it would
15 be useful if the Prosecution actually, having produced this at the close
16 of the case, said what it is it demonstrates.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Again, what is usually the result of saying one
18 party should be first, that if the other party responds, then the first
19 party wants to reply to that again. So why not -- you have your ideas on
20 why it's relevant. Share that view with Mr. Jordash. Mr. Jordash knows
21 exactly what it is that he objects to. And if you exchange that
22 information, then you put on paper knowing what the argument of the other
23 party is, and then the Chamber will be best assisted in deciding the
25 Mr. Jordash, are you willing to share your views with Ms. --
1 perhaps a cup of tea and then --
2 MR. JORDASH: I mean, I've shared my views probably in --
3 JUDGE ORIE: If that's all, then, of course -- Ms. Friedman, if
4 you have shared already all your views with Mr. Jordash, then there is
5 nothing that keeps you from making the submissions.
6 MR. JORDASH: I'm -- yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And if not, please share whatever you have not yet
9 MS. FRIEDMAN: Can I just clarify, then, what the next step
10 Your Honours would like us to take.
11 JUDGE ORIE: The next step is that you tell each other, cup of
12 tea or cup of coffee, what -- why you think it should be admitted.
13 Mr. Jordash tells you why it should not be admitted. And then you make
14 your submissions in writing, short, compact, and then the Chamber will be
15 assisted by it.
16 What about a time-limit by this Friday?
17 MR. JORDASH: Yes, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: That's good. If you're running out coffee or tea, I
19 have some tea bags and some coffee available.
20 MS. FRIEDMAN: Can the exhibit be marked for identification.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I think it has been marked for identification
23 Any further matter?
24 MS. FRIEDMAN: Nothing further, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Nothing further.
1 Mr. Jordash.
2 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, could I just ask the witness one question
3 about the document.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You may undermine your own position that it
5 should not, but you are certainly aware of that.
6 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
7 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash: [Continued]
8 Q. You spoke as an engineer. Was that because you have not heard or
9 do not know anything about whether this diagram represents reality or
11 A. I have absolutely no information about this. I've already stated
12 several times here in this courtroom that a different organisational unit
13 was in charge of communications. I don't know what the system was like,
14 neither was I interested in that. I was more interested in Croatian
15 communications than our own, to be honest.
16 MR. JORDASH: Can I just take instructions, please.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The answer is therefore no, the witness has no
19 [Stanisic Defence counsel and accused confer]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
21 MR. JORDASH:
22 Q. Can you confirm - if you can't, you can't - but can you confirm
23 that the State Security Service was not, in fact, engaged in
24 crypto-protection? This was something that was done by the military
25 during the -- during the war?
1 A. When it comes to the organisation of the security system in a
2 state, the military is the main body in charge of encryptic protection.
3 JUDGE ORIE: That was not the question, I think, the witness
5 MR. JORDASH: No, it wasn't.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please focus on the question and answer
7 that question.
8 MR. JORDASH:
9 Q. Have you any knowledge as to whether the DB was engaged in
10 crypto-protection? I am not suggesting your department. I am suggesting
11 that the State Security Service was not engaged in crypto-protection. Do
12 you know that or not?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, have you looked at page 19704, line 5
14 and following? Especially the first three lines following line 5.
15 MR. JORDASH: Yes. Can I just take instructions?
16 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know whether you want to -- yes.
17 MR. JORDASH:
18 Q. I think you did say the other day that the 4th Administration was
19 involved in cryptographic data protection. Do you know anything about
20 how they conducted that?
21 A. I'll try and explain. In our state, the army was in charge of
22 crypto-protection, and that's true. The users of crypto-protection were
23 state bodies. The state security department was one of the users, as
24 well as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. When it comes to the
25 exploitation and the application, the setting up of the equipment, that
1 was done by the communications administration. They did not generate
2 encryption codes. They used what was generated in that centre that was
3 run by the army and that's the whole matter. The whole thing.
4 Q. Okay. Thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave,
7 just one question, please.
8 Questioned by the Court:
9 JUDGE ORIE: I'm looking at the clock, and I had two questions on
10 my mind. Perhaps I put them first and then give you an opportunity to
11 put the last question to the witness.
12 Witness, I would like to take you back to P3160, not to be shown
13 to the public. But waiting for that document, I have another question
14 for you at this moment. When the salary of Mr. Simatovic was reduced in
15 August 1995 by 20 per cent, could you tell us what Mr. Simatovic was
16 engaged in professionally in that month? If you know, tell us. If you
17 don't know, tell us as well.
18 A. Mr. Simatovic was special advisor in that part.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I am asking -- what I'd like to know is specifics
20 about his activities during that month. Not his position but where he
21 was, what he was dealing with at that moment, specifically whether he
22 travelled, whether -- detailed -- I mean, what he actually did that
24 A. I know about the tasks at which we co-operated, and that was the
25 organisation of intelligence post. My part of the communication with
1 Mr. Simatovic was within that context, i.e., how to organise all that,
2 which men to send, and so on and so forth. If there were any other
3 tasks, I don't know what those were.
4 JUDGE ORIE: So you say your knowledge was limited to your
5 dealings with Mr. Simatovic in that month. You said it was the
6 organisation of intelligence posts. Which intelligence post you are
7 dealing with in August 1995 in your dealings with Mr. Simatovic?
8 If you know --
9 A. In 1995 the posts that operated were at Jelova Gora, Pajzos,
10 Brankovac, on Petrova Gora, Pljesevica, those were the intelligence posts
11 that we discussed. There was even a meeting at Pajzos, and I believe
12 that that meeting took place in 1995.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I was talking about August 1995. Any specifics
14 about August 1995?
15 A. No, no. I really can't be that specific. I am sure I can't tell
16 you anything that specific.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have any knowledge about the reasons, the
18 specific reasons apart from not performing his duties as expected, but
19 any specifics about the reason for the deduction by 20 per cent of the
20 salary of Mr. Simatovic? If you know anything about it, please tell us.
21 If you don't know, tell us as well.
22 A. No, nothing specific.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
24 Then I take you to P3160. On the map, if you would look at it,
25 we see that the posts in the west, Petrova Gora, Licko Petrovo Selo, and
1 Pljesevica, are relatively close to each other. Would it be logical to
2 say that if you have such listening posts relatively closest to each
3 other, that it would mainly focus on local communication rather than on
4 long-range commutations?
5 A. The mutual closeness of intelligence posts depends by and large
6 on the geography of the area. For example, if you're operating from a
7 mountainous area, two intelligence posts that are a couple of kilometres
8 away from each other as the crow flies translates to huge differences in
9 the ability to monitor radio waves. That's why the intelligence posts
10 have to be close.
11 And as to your question, an intelligence post is set up in order
12 to monitor a rather limited area, and that's why an intelligence post is
13 located as close as possible to that target area.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. They cover a limited area, and therefore you
15 need more. They cover a limited area, but that coverage is related to
16 the limited area of the communications, isn't it? If you are
17 broadcasting something with not much power which would establish
18 communications at a distance not more than 25 or 30 kilometres, you
19 couldn't listen in if you are at a distance of 50 or 70 or 100 kilometres
20 from that place. Would you agree with that?
21 A. Absolutely.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you told us several times that it would be
23 interesting to know about communications between Mr. Izetbegovic and
24 Mr. Sacirbegovic. Now that would be long-range communications, wouldn't
1 A. Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Now, if you would want to listen in, you would have
3 to be within the range of that radio communication used by those persons.
4 Would you agree with that?
5 A. Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Now, it is -- if we look at Petrova Gora, Licko
7 Petrovo Selo, three relatively close monitoring posts. That wouldn't
8 make much sense if you wanted to monitor the long range. At least you
9 would need only one good one to monitor such kind of long-range
10 communications, wouldn't it?
11 A. Yes, you're right, within that context. Let me explain, however.
12 Licko Petrovo Selo and Pljesevica -- if you will allow me.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.
14 A. Pljesevica is a mountain top and the intelligence post was on top
15 of that mountain. And Licko Petrovo Selo was there to receive
16 information from the mountain in order to forward the information to
17 Petrova Gora. I just needed to explain this very specific situation and
18 the closeness of the three points.
19 And for the communications that you have just mentioned, there
20 are systems, as we discussed on the first day of my testimony, when you
21 monitor a radio spectrum you don't have to be that close. If the range
22 of radio waves is short, then the reception abilities are much more
23 comfortable. And you can be quite further away from the target area.
24 So, for example, you could monitor some of the communications on an
25 ultrashort waves even from Belgrade, and that was done.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but if you would like to monitor local
2 communication, for example, between army units which had a very limited
3 range, would you agree that you would need, then, a series of listening
4 posts close to where that -- those army units were operating?
5 A. Your Honours, if you monitor communications at a lower levels of
6 decision-making, there has to be more intelligence posts. The
7 intelligence posts that we had monitored somewhat higher levels of
8 developments and decision-making, and that's why their numbers were lower
9 than the numbers of those that would have been dependent on some other
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You are taking the question to a matter I
12 didn't ask you. I asked you about local communications. Would you agree
13 with me that if a relatively weak communication sender, well, let's say
14 at a distance of 50 kilometres from Petrova Gora would be used, which, as
15 far as the power is concerned, would have a reach of 30 kilometres, that
16 you would miss it when you are listening in from Petrova Gora?
17 A. The way you described the whole situation, it would be
18 approximately more or less exactly what you have described.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Which means that if you want to listen in to
20 communications of the other party, communications with a limited range
21 due to the low power used by the sending equipment, that you would need
22 more listening-in posts in order not to miss part of those short-range
24 A. Objectively speaking, that was the case.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. I have no further questions.
1 Mr. Petrovic.
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have two questions
3 but I am looking at the time.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I am looking at the Stanisic Defence.
5 Two questions, Mr. Jordash, Mr. --
6 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, to be honest, I -- I found that last
7 section very difficult to follow. It's my fault entirely. And what I
8 would respectfully request is just the break to consider that, because I
9 do see where this might be heading, and I do want to be able to deal with
10 it if it's heading in that direction.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I ask myself, let me not make a -- I ask myself why
12 you need several posts at short range when you want to listen in what
13 Mr. -- and far away from the place where you would expect Mr. Izetbegovic
14 and Mr. Sacirbegovic being present, and that's what I asked myself and
15 tried to translate it into objective terms, technical terms.
16 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, it's precisely -- I just wanted a
17 short time just to consider that.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. JORDASH: Because it was my fault I just couldn't follow it.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What we will then do is the following. As far
21 as time is concerned - I am also looking at Mr. Stanisic - the two
22 questions of Mr. Petrovic, would that --
23 MR. JORDASH: No objection to that.
24 JUDGE ORIE: No objection at this moment. Because then we could
25 ask the witness to remain standby until after the break and see whether
1 there is any need to put further questions to him.
2 Mr. Petrovic, two questions.
3 Further Re-examination by Mr. Petrovic:
4 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Vujovic, first of all, do you know if in
5 1994 and 1995 in the area of Petrova Gora and Pljesevica, did the Army of
6 the Republic of Serbian Krajina have its own surveillance and
7 intelligence posts? Do you know that?
8 A. I don't know.
9 Q. From 1991 to 1995 at the level of the MUP of Serbia, was there a
10 communications administration?
11 A. At the level of the MUP of Serbia, there was a communications
12 administration in the public service, and there was also a communications
13 administration in the state security. Those were two separate
14 administrations. So my answer is yes, there was a communications
15 administration at the level of the MUP of Serbia.
16 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.
18 I'm abusing the fact that you were so short because I had one
19 other question for the witness.
20 Mr. Vujovic, the Chamber received evidence about a long column,
21 where you almost could not see the end of that column, moving to
22 Petrova Gora, which suggests that there were many people involved. Do
23 you know anything about what the activities of other persons in Petrova
24 Gora may have been apart from the technical people which were deployed
25 there on behalf of the 7th Administration? Do you know anything about
1 what the others did?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know about the experts of the
3 7th Administration, and I know about the employees of the intelligence
4 administration, and the two sets of people co-operated. I don't know
5 about anybody else.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Do you say there were only people from the
7 7th Administration and intelligence administration or may there have been
8 others from other administrations at Petrova Gora?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am sure that there were other
10 people, for example, from the communications administration. It was only
11 logical. But I don't know if there was anybody else, and if there were,
12 who they were.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now the people you were aware of, you just
14 told us about, in total how many would that have been all together?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yesterday when I
16 answered questions I provided an average, but that number changed, and I
17 am only talking about the people I was aware of, people from the
18 technical services, because I was responsible for them. I dispatched
20 As for the other groups, how many there were, how many men there
21 were, I really don't know. And if I gave you any figures, that would
22 just be speculation on my part.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for those answers.
24 We take a break. Mr. Jordash is updating his technical knowledge
25 about range of communications, and we will resume at 11.00.
1 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
2 [The witness stands down]
3 [The witness takes the stand]
4 --- On resuming at 11.12 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, any further questions?
6 MR. JORDASH: May I just ask one question.
7 JUDGE ORIE: One question.
8 MR. JORDASH: Thank you. I've --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Vujovic, only one last question to answer.
10 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash: [Continued]
11 Q. I've now followed what you were saying, so I want to ask you
12 this: If the listening post had been designed to obtain a comprehensive
13 picture of military operations in Croatia and Bosnia, are you able to
14 estimate how many listening posts would have been required?
15 A. I cannot give an accurate estimate, but it would certainly be
16 more than there had actually been.
17 Q. Are we talking one or two --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
19 MR. JORDASH:
20 Q. Are we talking one or two more, or tens more, or hundreds more?
21 Are you able to narrow it down to that?
22 A. It's certainly not one or two. It's tens, at least.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, if you would have understood my
24 questions well about the short range, you would have known that it's
25 already implicit in my questions that if you would want to look at local
1 communications for the whole of the area - and that's the comprehensive
2 part of your question - of course that would require more. That there is
3 no doubt about that -- there was no doubt in my mind, and I think it was
4 already clear from the question. So it's -- my question was focussing
5 very much on matters in certain areas rather than the comprehensive.
6 MR. JORDASH: And I just wanted to see if the witness could put a
7 number on and I've finished. Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
9 Ms. Friedman, may I take it no further questions. Mr. Petrovic,
10 no further questions.
11 Then Mr. Vujovic, I would like to thank you very much for coming
12 to The Hague and for answering the many questions that were put to you by
13 the parties and by the Bench. I wish you a safe return home again. You
14 may follow the usher.
15 And before the next witness enters the courtroom, I'd like to
16 read a few decisions.
17 THE INTERPRETER: The witness's microphone was off, interpreter's
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you switch -- yes, the microphone
20 is on now.
21 You said two or three words. In order not to miss anything, your
22 microphone was switched off, so if you would repeat them so that we would
23 know what you said.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. That is
25 what I said.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. To be quite honest, I recognise some of these
2 words in B/C/S by now.
3 Thank you very much. Please follow the usher.
4 [The witness withdrew]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then could the next witness be on standby.
6 I would like to read two decisions. I'll start with the first
8 The Chamber will now deliver its third decision on the "Stanisic
9 Motion for Admission of Documents through the Bar Table."
10 On the 17th of February, 2012, the Stanisic Defence requested the
11 admission into evidence of 674 documents from the bar table. With leave
12 of the Chamber, the Prosecution responded to the motion on the
13 23rd of March, 2012. The Simatovic Defence did not make any submissions
14 in respect of the motion.
15 On the 23rd of May, the Chamber issued its first decision on the
16 motion, and stated that it would issue further decisions on the motion in
17 due course. The Chamber hereby issues its fourth decision on the motion,
18 which deals exclusively with the fourth category of documents contained
19 in the second bar table chart, entitled: "RS MUP." These can be found in
20 Confidential Annex B to the motion.
21 The Stanisic Defence argues that the 61 documents contained in
22 this category are highly probative and relevant to its case. For each of
23 the documents in this category, the Prosecution has responded that it
24 does not accept the conclusions the Stanisic Defence draws from these
25 documents. Nonetheless, the Prosecution does not oppose their admission
1 from the bar table.
2 For many of the documents in Category 4, the Defence indicates
3 that they support, and I quote, "the Defence position that any alleged
4 assistance or support by the RDB or Jovica Stanisic to the RS MUP was
5 nonexistent or insignificant, with other actors being the principal
6 partners and suppliers," and that they are, and I again quote, "therefore
7 probative of the lack of any significant contribution to the criminal
8 objective or the crimes of the Bosnian Serbs by the RDB or Jovica
9 Stanisic." For each document, the Defence has added a short explanation,
10 sometimes accompanied by page references - of how the document tends to
11 support the aforementioned proposition.
12 While the aforementioned explanations and references were usually
13 sufficient for the purpose of their admission from the bar table, the
14 Chamber notes with concern that the descriptions and/or sparse references
15 offered by the Defence for documents bearing Rule 65 ter numbers 1508,
16 2077, 1534, 1498, and 2216 offer little assistance as to which portions
17 of these voluminous documents are relevant to the Defence case, thereby
18 rendering the Chamber unable to properly assess the relevance and
19 probative value.
20 By way of example, the Chamber draws the attention to document
21 bearing Rule 65 ter number 2077. Based on this sizable document, the
22 Defence requests that the Chamber draws a broad negative inference, yet
23 it offers only a scant description of its relevance to the Defence case,
24 referencing a three-page section of a very lengthy report.
25 The same can be said for document bearing Rule 65 ter number
1 1534, in relation to which the Defence seeks the Chamber to draw a
2 similar broad negative inference, referencing 5 pages of a 58-page
3 report. This report, in practice, is more a compilation of several
4 reports covering various issues which, at first glance, appear to be of
5 little relevance to the Defence case.
6 Lastly, document bearing Rule 65 ter number 2216 is a lengthy
7 interview with Momcilo Mandic published in the "Slobodna Bosna" in 1998,
8 which only in part covers the purpose for which it is tendered. In sum,
9 the Chamber concludes that for these documents the Defence has not
10 fulfilled the requirements for their admission from the bar table.
11 Accordingly, the Chamber denies their admission into evidence, without
13 Based on the submissions by the Stanisic Defence, and considering
14 that the Prosecution does not oppose admission, the Chamber finds that
15 the remaining 56 documents contained in Category 4 of the second bar
16 table chart are probative and relevant. Moreover, the Stanisic Defence
17 has demonstrated with clarity and specificity where and how each document
18 fits into its case. Therefore, the Chamber grants the motion in this
19 respect and admits these documents into evidence. Rather than reading
20 out the document numbers here, the Registrar -- and the decision reads
21 "has been handed a document," before I read that, I would like to hand
22 out a document to the Registrar.
23 The Registrar has by now been handed a document which references
24 each of the 56 documents admitted, and the parties will receive copies at
25 this very moment.
1 The Chamber observes that a number of documents admitted have
2 been introduced in order to show a negative, i.e., that something did not
3 occur because the documents make no reference to it. As the Chamber
4 stated in its earlier decisions on the motion, when such documents are
5 tendered from the bar table, if viewed in isolation and without context
6 provided by a tendering witness, there is a risk that less weight will
7 ultimately be ascribed to them by the Chamber. In order to properly
8 determine the weight of documents for which a negative inference is
9 sought, the Chamber encourages the Defence by providing clear references
10 to these documents in its final brief, to elaborate on the conclusions,
11 if any, it invites the Chamber to draw from them collectively and/or
12 individually, including, if appropriate, an explanation of how they
13 refute the Prosecution evidence regarding the same issues.
14 The Registry is requested to assign exhibit numbers to the
15 documents admitted and inform the Chamber and the parties once it has
16 done so.
17 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.
18 Then another decision of a rather technical nature. It is a
19 decision amending the dead-line for the filing of public redacted
20 versions of exhibits.
21 The Chamber will now address the filing of public redacted
22 versions of confidential exhibits. On the 23rd of August, 2010, the
23 Chamber instructed the parties to submit, where possible, public redacted
24 versions of the confidential exhibits they had tendered in a public
25 filing. The Chamber set the dead-line for this filing to after the end
1 of the presentation of evidence and at least two weeks before the filing
2 of final briefs.
3 Since August 2010, the Republic of Serbia has filed many requests
4 for protective measures in relation to a large number of documents. Some
5 of these requests are still pending. The Chamber therefore considers it
6 appropriate to adjust the parties' dead-line for filing public redacted
7 versions of confidential exhibits. The parties may commence such filings
8 following the end of the presentation of evidence. The dead-line is set
9 to eight weeks after the filing of final briefs. Should any motion for
10 protective measures remain pending at the time of this dead-line, the
11 Chamber will set a separate dead-line for filing public redacted versions
12 in its decision on such a motion.
13 And this concludes the Chamber's statement.
14 Could the next witness be brought into the courtroom, unless
15 there is any procedural matter.
16 Yes. We'll start with the next witness, as we usually do, in
17 private session. We move into private session and the witness may be
18 escorted into the courtroom.
19 [Private session]
11 Pages 19770-19771 redacted. Private session.
5 [Open session]
6 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
8 Could you please make that solemn declaration, Mr. Micic. The
9 text is in your hands now.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
11 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Micic. Please be seated.
13 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Micic, you'll first be examined by Mr. Bakrac.
15 Mr. Bakrac is counsel for Mr. Simatovic. You'll find him over there.
16 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
17 WITNESS: RADIVOJE MICIC
18 [Witness answered through interpreter]
19 Examination by Mr. Bakrac:
20 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Micic.
21 Mr. Micic, before we start putting our questions, we always
22 caution our witnesses who speak the same language that we do, they should
23 pause between my question and the answer that they are about to give so
24 that the interpreters could interpret both the question and answer
25 correctly. So please answer once I've finished my question, and, if
1 possible, could you try to speak slower so that your answers could be
2 followed properly.
3 So now I'm going to start dealing with certain things that we
4 always deal with for the benefit of the transcript. Please give us your
5 full name and surname.
6 A. Radivoje Micic. Father's name, Sredoje.
7 Q. Could you please be so kind as to tell us your date of birth?
8 A. A very long time ago, the 14th of December, 1958.
9 Q. Our age is similar, Mr. Micic, and therefore I would not agree
10 that it was that long ago, but let's move on.
11 Where were you born?
12 A. In Belgrade.
13 Q. Can you tell us what your profession is?
14 A. I have a degree in law, and once I passed the bar exam, then I
15 completed my training in that way. That was in the late 1980s.
16 Q. And can you tell us what your profession is right now?
17 A. Right now I am a retiree. I've been retired for a very long
19 Q. Could you please tell me when you got your law degree and when?
20 A. In 1985 in Belgrade, the University of Belgrade.
21 Q. After you got your law degree, what was the first job you had?
22 A. Briefly, I was involved in legal affairs at the Sopot
23 municipality, which is one of the suburbs of Belgrade. That was for
24 about nine and a half months. After that I got a job with the Ministry
25 of the Interior, the SDB, the State Security Service.
1 Q. Could you please tell us, briefly, when you were admitted into
2 the State Security Service and, again briefly, what your career was there
3 up until 1991, and then I will put a few specific questions to you in
4 relation to the work you did.
5 A. On the 1st of January, 1987, I started my employment with the DB.
6 I was a trainee for a year. And then in the beginning of 1988, I started
7 working in the American group of the Belgrade centre of the then state
8 security sector of the security service. I worked as an operative, as
9 one usually does when starting.
10 Q. So in 1991 --
11 A. Yes?
12 Q. -- what is the position you held, and what did you do
14 A. In 1991, that job was called "operative." Just that.
15 Q. As an operative, were you posted in a particular organisational
17 A. As I've already said, from the very beginning I became part of
18 the American group. That was 1988.
19 Q. This American group, did it have some abbreviation that it was
20 known by, and if so, what was it?
21 A. As far as I know, it was AOS. It was the AOS group within the
22 centre of the State Security Service.
23 Q. In 1991 --
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. -- and in the beginning of 1992, who was the head of your group?
1 A. At that time, it was still Mr. Franko Simatovic. When I say "at
2 that time," I'm saying that he was the head of that group. So basically
3 I think that he must have been the head even before I joined the service.
4 Q. When you say "head of the group," can you tell us from an
5 organisational point of view what was the level at the SDB or the RDB, at
6 which organisational level was that group?
7 A. That was the lowest organisational level, if I can put it that
8 way. There was nothing else. There was no organisation below that, so
9 freely speaking we can say that this was a group of operatives that had a
10 particular job. So this was the smallest organisational entity with a
11 particular task.
12 Q. You say "with a particular task." Could you please be so kind as
13 to tell us what were the tasks of this American group that you belonged
15 A. Counter-intelligence at the time. In the most general possible
16 terms, if it is possible to define this, it would go as follows:
17 Intelligence vis-a-vis the American community, registration, and stopping
18 or preventing intelligence activities by the American community.
19 Q. Mr. Micic, it just seems to me that there is some difference
20 between the transcript and what you said. So I am going to ask you to
21 repeat what you said. So what is the subject of interest?
22 A. First of all, the activity of the American Intelligence Services,
23 or, rather, community, because there is more than seven of them. It
24 varied. That's as far as activity goes. As far as activity is
25 concerned, it has to do with registering that activity, establishing what
1 it is and with a view to stopping it, whatever that may mean; that is to
2 say, stopping the intelligence work of a foreign intelligence service.
3 Q. Can you share with us some of the examples of tasks you were
4 involved in in 1991?
5 A. Unfortunately, my tasks were directly linked with some names. I
6 countered some activities, and my starting point was preliminary
7 processing. If I gave you examples, I would also have to give you some
8 very specific names.
9 Q. Unless the Trial Chamber insists on the names, I am just
10 interested in the categories of those individuals that you processed.
11 A. At first that was called the operative investigation of American
12 interns who resided in Yugoslavia and primarily in Belgrade, because our
13 centre was in Belgrade, as well as our own interns who went for the
14 purpose of continuing education to the United States of America. Also
15 within the scope of my work and duties were American journalists who
16 stayed in Belgrade.
17 Q. Could you please tell us something about the work of the group
18 and the activities that you were involved in? Who was your co-ordinator?
19 Who co-ordinated all that?
20 A. The person immediately in charge of co-ordination, advising, and
21 supervision was the head of the group, and later on things changed and
22 that person who was head of group or the group leader became the head of
23 section. That was Mr. Simatovic during that period of time.
24 Q. Can you please tell us, the group leader who later on became the
25 head of section, who did he report to and who he received his assignments
2 A. The organisation followed a vertical subordination, and at that
3 time it was the assistant chief of the department in the centre of the
4 RDB and also the chief of department. Again, following a certain line of
5 subordination, higher up it was the chief of the Belgrade centre. That
6 would be above the immediate superior line along that same vertical line.
7 Q. Mr. Micic, let's just explain for the record. When you said that
8 you followed a vertical line of subordination, at that time it was the
9 assistant head of department in the RDB centre.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Which RDB?
12 A. The RDB in Belgrade. All this time I've been talking about
14 Q. Thank you, Mr. Micic.
15 A. I apologise, just a moment, please. Whatever I am sharing with
16 you is very strictly confidential. It's a state secret, so I don't know
17 whether I should be telling you this.
18 Q. Mr. Micic, we already had experts who testified about that and I
19 believe that your testimony so far may be made available to the general
20 public. Do you know or can you estimate how many members did your group
22 A. During the relevant period that number varied from four
23 operatives, which was the minimum, and when the group was complete there
24 were seven of us or eight, including our team leader or the head of our
1 Q. We are talking about the time when Mr. Franko Simatovic was your
2 team leader. In addition to co-ordinating the work of your team members,
3 did the team leader also get engaged in some direct operative tasks?
4 A. Of course, yes. A team leader or a section leader, whatever you
5 call him, had a scope of work which encompassed direct operative
6 engagement, which means that he had some very direct operative tasks.
7 Q. Mr. Micic, again it seems that the record is somewhat
8 controversial. My question was whether the team leader, besides
9 co-ordinating the work of the group, also had some direct operative
10 activities that he was involved?
11 A. Shall I repeat the answer?
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. Yes, he had direct operative duties, i.e., he was involved in
14 operative activities or operations.
15 Q. Could you please tell us, to the best of your recollection, in
16 the course of 1991, which direct operative activities was
17 Franko Simatovic involved in?
18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may the Chamber please
19 move into private session, because I will invite the witness to be very
20 specific and give us the details of those operative activities.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. In what category does that fall of the four
23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, that goes to show what
24 the subjects of operative processing were. We have already discussed
25 that with the witness, but as far as I know, this witness also has
1 information about operative activities in other areas. So out of an
2 abundance of caution, I would like to ask the Chamber to move into
3 private session.
4 JUDGE ORIE: We have four categories; that is, IBA sources, IBA
5 operatives - that means persons still being IBA operatives at this
6 moment - locations, and technical means. I still have difficulties in
7 understanding in which category this would fall. Operative activities in
8 itself is not --
9 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I am worried only
10 about the third category, which concerns locations. That's why we -- I
11 want us to be extra cautious, because the witness is going to mention the
12 name of those locations where Mr. Simatovic went and where he was
13 involved in some operations activities.
14 JUDGE ORIE: If these are locations which have not been
15 abundantly dealt with in public sessions, then we will move into private
16 session. But if you are talking about Mount Tara or Bajina Basta or if
17 there is any specific location, I'll follow your suggestion and move into
18 private session. But only for questions in relation to those specific
20 So tell me whether -- whether we are already at the point to move
21 into private session.
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I will put some
23 very concrete questions to the witness. I will ask him what he knows
24 about all that.
25 JUDGE ORIE: About locations?
1 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then we move into private session.
3 [Private session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of the Chamber]
4 THE REGISTRAR: We are in private session, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
6 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] May I proceed, Your Honour?
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Mr. Micic, to the best of your recollection, in 1991 in his
10 operative work, what locations did Franko Simatovic go to?
11 A. Apart from Belgrade, Mr. Franko Simatovic's operative activities
12 took him to Kosovo, in the then RSK, today the Republic of Croatia, more
13 precisely to Knin and Slavonia, and also there was a period -- another
14 period that he spent at Kosovo.
15 Q. When you say "Kosovo," did you know where he went to Kosovo and
17 A. As far as I know he was in Pristina, which is the capital city of
18 that autonomous province, but that doesn't mean that he was exclusively
19 in Pristina. In some subsequent conversations I asked him whether he had
20 ever been to Rugovska Klisura. This is a very specific part of Kosovo,
21 and he told me that he did go there and that he even had associates in
22 that area, and that area is very specific for its mentality, for the
23 mentality of its people, and he also --
24 Q. Mr. Micic, my time is limited. We don't have to go into all the
25 details that you know. We have to focus on the most essential things.
1 Could you please pinpoint the time when he spent in Pristina, Rugovska
2 Klisura, and where he was in Knin, to the best of your recollection?
3 A. I can say that that was in spring 1991. After having spent a few
4 months at Kosovo, from spring 1991, and his urgent return to Belgrade, to
5 the Belgrade centre where he spent only a few days, and then he was
6 urgently transferred to the Knin Krajina or Knin itself. A few months
7 later, after having spent a few months in Knin, he returned to Belgrade
8 and then he was dispatched to Kosovo again.
9 Q. Thank you, Mr. Micic. While we are still in private session, I
10 am going to show you a document which is under seal, and then after that
11 we will be able to move back into open session.
12 A. When you say "under seal," what do you mean?
13 Q. That means that the document cannot be the broadcast publicly.
11 Page 19782 redacted. Private session.
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I would like to call up P2933.
21 Q. Mr. Micic, before the document appears on the screen, let me tell
22 you that the document will be an excerpt from Mr. Ratko Mladic's diary.
23 There is an entry on the page that I have called up. It seems that it
24 was made on the 16th December 1991.
25 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is a document
1 under seal. No, it's not. I apologise. And we can go back into open
2 session because this document has already been discussed in private
16 [Open session]
17 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
19 Please proceed, Mr. Bakrac.
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Q. Mr. Micic, this is an entry from the diary of Mr. Ratko Mladic.
22 Apparently, one Rade Siptar is giving some references in the first
23 paragraph. Let me first ask you if you know a person by the name of
24 Rade Siptar?
25 A. No.
1 Q. The first paragraph of this entry mentions:
2 "Dule Orlovic, Filipovic - Fica, and Frenki (Serbian DB). They
3 want to give some 3.000 barrels to the Muslims in Bihac. This was
4 supposed to go to Ugljanin through the Muslims in Bihac."
5 Do you know who Ugljanin was -- or, rather, if you mentioned
6 Ugljanin at the time, what first came to mind?
7 A. I would say that it referred to Sulejman Ugljanin, the leader of
8 the Muslim SDA municipality, in the territory of Sandzak, specifically
9 Novi Pazar.
10 Q. And the territory of Sandzak was, and still is, in the Republic
11 of Serbia?
12 A. Yes, fortunately it is still part of Serbia.
13 Q. Mr. Micic, according to this entry, one Rade Siptar said that
14 Filipovic, Fica, and Frenki wanted to give some 3.000 barrels to the
15 Muslims in Bihac and that that was supposed to go to Ugljanin in Sandzak.
16 Do you have any intelligence to that effect, since in 1991 you were part
17 of the same group, of Franko Simatovic having had any such intentions?
18 A. Not only was this an idea coming from these three individuals,
19 but it came from the Republic of Serbia itself with an intention to
20 protect its own territory. There was an intention to deal with this
21 issue. There would be weapons transported to Bihac first and then on to
22 Sandzak or even Bosnia itself. That was deemed to be a very risky
24 In view of the number of barrels, I would say that it was an
25 impossible mission because the territory covered is some 700 kilometres,
1 and to go through all these territories with that high an amount of
2 barrels, I think that this is completely pointless and doesn't make any
4 Q. Mr. Micic, let's make it quite clear. I don't think your answer
5 is reflected in the transcript. First of all, as a member of that group,
6 did you have any knowledge of the fact that Franko Simatovic intended to
7 arm Sulejman Ugljanin via Bihac with some 3.000 barrels?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Did Franko Simatovic have the ability to procure 3.000 barrels
10 for anyone's benefit?
11 A. No. Let me just say this: It would be impossible to ship such a
12 large amount of weapons without it being reflected in the documents of
13 any body, be it public or state security.
14 Q. Finally, would it make any sense for a DB member to be arming the
15 Muslim population some 700 kilometres away in Bihac -- or, rather,
16 through a route leading some 700 kilometres away from home, to be arming
17 a group of people in one's own country?
18 A. That would be completely pointless. Besides, arming any groups
19 of people in one's own territory is precisely what we were fighting
21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Micic.
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I note the time.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, apart from that, we have now heard a
24 couple of questions, quite many, which do not -- are not dealing in any
25 way with facts. Do you think that it makes sense, no, it would be
1 pointless. Do you think he had the ability. Without giving any basis
2 for the answers, please focus on facts the witness knows rather than to
3 seek his opinion on matters.
4 We take a break and will resume at 10 minutes to 1.00.
5 --- Recess taken at 12.20 p.m.
6 [The witness stands down]
7 [The witness takes the stand]
8 --- On resuming at 12.59 p.m.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, a very practical matter.
10 Information was received from the Simatovic Defence that 2D1709
11 now had been uploaded into e-court. Provisionally I think number D900
12 was assigned to it. There was also a matter whether it should be under
13 seal or not. It should be under seal, Mr. Bakrac.
14 D900 is admitted under seal.
15 Please proceed.
16 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. Mr. Micic, before the break we were discussing your American
18 group, the so-called AOS. Was there within the Belgrade centre a
19 presence of other groups that dealt with other intelligence?
20 A. Yes. On the issue of counter-intelligence there was, at the
21 time, in the Belgrade centre of the state security department a number of
22 other groups later to be called "sections" or "departments," the
23 so-called European group, the Israeli group. There was another
24 department that dealt with a large number of countries and they were
25 primarily neighbouring countries or countries in the region.
1 Q. Mr. Micic, you said that you knew that Franko Simatovic went to
2 Knin along operative lines of work. Do you know specifically what it
4 A. Well, specifically, the Daniel Snedden case, that's to say,
5 Dragan Vasiljkovic, an Australian national. The work on this case called
6 for activities outside of the territory of the Republic of Serbia.
7 Q. When Mr. Franko Simatovic returned from Knin, did you see his
8 personal attitude toward Daniel Snedden change as well as that of his
10 A. The work on the case was of the same scale and substance when it
11 came to the Belgrade centre, and I mean the case involving Daniel Snedden
12 and a number of other individuals.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, could I just seek some clarification.
14 What exactly did Mr. Simatovic in Knin in relation to the
15 Daniel Snedden case? You said:
16 "The work on this case called for activities outside of the
17 territory of the Republic of Serbia."
18 What was he doing, when, and where?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean outside of the territory
20 of the Republic of Serbia?
21 JUDGE ORIE: When I said "in Knin," that is outside of the
22 territory, isn't it?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to the information
24 available at the time within the Belgrade centre, there was an actual
25 possibility and risk that Daniel Snedden's activities may become a
1 security threat.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I didn't -- I didn't ask you what triggered his
3 activities but what did Mr. Simatovic do in Knin when -- when he was
4 there, as you said, that the case called for his activities there. What
5 exactly did he do?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What was it that was necessary for
7 him to do and to be present there? Well, to monitor the very --
8 JUDGE ORIE: I'm stopping you again. Whether it was necessary or
9 not, I am not interested in. I am interested in what he actually did.
10 Could you please tell that. Did he have meetings? If so, with whom did
11 he have meetings? Did he go around and observe the behaviour of
12 Mr. Snedden? What were his actual activities? If he did discuss the
13 matters with others than Mr. Snedden, with whom, where, how? I am
14 interested in facts rather than in general descriptions of what was
15 necessary. And "monitoring" is a word which could have 10 or
16 20 different meanings depending on the circumstances. I'd like to know
17 what was done, when, for how long, with whom. That's what I'm interested
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Specifically, the risk that
20 Daniel Snedden posed was the possibility that he may set up armed units
21 or whatever you want to call them, informal at any rate.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Again, you're describing what the problems were. My
23 question was about what Mr. Simatovic did. Would you please now -- I am
24 asking you now the third or the fourth time. If you know it, tell us.
25 If you don't know, tell us as well.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the main, his presence there -
2 and not just there -- that, but also to obtain information, to interview
3 individuals, to monitor his subjects - but not just subjects but also
4 collaborators - everything that could be gathered on the activities of
5 Daniel Snedden. Now, what did he specifically do and what measures he
6 took --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- that's something that I can't be
9 certain of. I wasn't there. I wasn't a member of the team working in
10 that facility at the time in Knin.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Even if you are not there, even if you're not a
12 member of a team working there, sometimes you may have specific knowledge
13 gained in other ways. Do you have any such specific knowledge? If no,
14 tell us. If yes, tell us from what source you obtained it and what it
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No, without my memory being
17 refreshed I wouldn't be able to give you anything specific.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Bakrac.
19 MR. FARR: Your Honour --
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Farr.
22 MR. FARR: I apologise for interrupting, but as far as I can
23 tell, we don't have a foundation for even what the witness has told us he
24 knows so far about Mr. Simatovic's activities, and perhaps that would be
25 a helpful clarification.
1 JUDGE ORIE: You may ask any questions about it. I think that my
2 questions, at least, shed some light on the knowledge of the witness in
3 relation to the activities of Mr. Simatovic in Knin.
4 Please proceed.
5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Sir, Mr. Micic, so let us be specific. We've heard lots of
7 evidence here about the monitoring of Daniel Snedden and that network.
8 We had these two telephone lines in Belgrade. Monitoring telephone
9 calls, was that possible once Daniel Snedden went to Krajina?
10 A. No, it was impossible to impose that particular measure. While
11 the subject, or, rather, Daniel Snedden was outside the territory. It
12 goes without saying that that would have been possible only on the
13 territory of Serbia. There is another measure but the results yielded
14 are very poor. MKTS is what it's called, and that is international
15 monitoring telephone calls.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, again, I am interested in whether it was
17 done or not. Whether there are good reasons to do it or not to do it is
18 a different matter. We now know that another measure, but results
19 yielded are very poor, was it applied in relation to Mr. Snedden? That's
20 my question.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We could not hear the
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat your answer because the
24 interpreters could not get your answer.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The secret monitoring telephone
1 conversations was actively applied vis-a-vis Daniel Snedden.
2 JUDGE ORIE: So when earlier asked: Monitoring telephone calls,
3 was that possible once Daniel Snedden went to Krajina, the answer is
4 that's what was done, if I understand you well. Or was it done only
5 within Serbia?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That measure was only applied
7 within Serbia if it had to do with Daniel Snedden only. I assume, since
8 I was not directly in charge, at that particular facility, that the
9 so-called contacts Mr. Daniel Snedden were also followed. That is to
10 say, persons that he had close contact with there.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I am not interested in your assumptions unless you
12 give us a proper basis for it.
13 Please proceed, Mr. Bakrac.
14 And again, could we stick to the facts. We are interested
15 primarily in facts.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Mr. Micic, do you know the following: You told us that
19 Franko Simatovic returned from Knin after the summer. You said that he
20 was in Kosovo and that from Kosovo he returned to Belgrade. Did
21 Daniel Snedden return to Belgrade in the autumn as well?
22 A. He was there from time to time as well. But, yes, specifically
23 speaking, yes, he did return to Belgrade.
24 Q. Do you remember whether Mr. Franko Simatovic, after that
25 particular stay in Knin and after his return, that is to say, after
1 Daniel Snedden's return, made some proposals with regard to further work
2 vis-a-vis Daniel Snedden?
3 A. Yes. That was the proposal of this technical measure being
4 applied as a permanent one. A year on from then.
5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] 2D490.2. Could we please take a
6 look at that document. Could it please not be displayed to the public
7 because this is a redacted document that we received from the Republic of
9 Q. Mr. Micic, please take a look. Here it says the State Security
10 Administration Belgrade, AOS, the 2nd Department, the date is the
11 6th of November, 1991. And the heading is:
12 "Proposal for the Secret Monitoring of Telephone Calls,
13 Daniel Snedden, an Australian citizen of Yugoslav origin?"
14 Now, in order to save time, it seems that there is an
15 introductory part that seems to be an explanation of the reasons for
16 making this proposal in the first place. So now could we please move on
17 to the next page.
18 Please look at the last paragraph of the document. This is what
19 it says the measure has been applied pursuant to such and such a
20 decision, and since the application of the measure has already led to
21 information of interest to the SDB and information of wider security
22 interests, we propose that following the expiry of the current decision
23 the measure should, in the future, be applied as a permanent one.
24 Is that the proposal that Franko Simatovic had made, that this
25 measure be applied as a permanent one through the head of his department?
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we would like to
3 tender this into evidence.
4 MR. FARR: Your Honour, I don't think we've received information
5 on origin. If we could take a look at the RFAs, then that would be our
6 only objection.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac.
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, then I suggest that we
9 have it MFI'd and we are going to submit our request as well as the reply
10 we received to our colleagues from the OTP.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Does this mean that you do not know where the
12 document comes from? Did you receive it from the OTP?
13 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, no. Previously there
14 had been a redacted version and we asked the state of Serbia for an
15 redacted version, and we received the unredacted version of this
16 document. So this is the document we received from the Republic of
17 Serbia, this unredacted one.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, whether it is unredacted, yes or no, is still
19 to be seen because on page 2 there seems to be a portion which in
20 translation says "blank space," but it suggests at least that there has
21 been text which has been taken out. Which --
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it seems that in the
23 translation we only see the redacted version. That is why the document
24 is 2D450.2, because previously -- or, actually no, no, Your Honour,
25 possibly what you mean is the last paragraph. There is something that
1 had been erased using a white eraser. I don't want to interpret this in
2 any way. This is the document we received. This was typewritten. And
3 then people would often correct mistakes using Tipp-Ex, so this is what
4 we received.
5 JUDGE ORIE: In that context that may be a reasonable explanation
6 for the text taken out.
7 Madam Registrar, the number would be?
8 THE REGISTRAR: Document 2D450.2 will receive number D901,
9 Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: D901 is marked for identification.
11 Mr. Bakrac, the question about origin is, I would say,
12 consistently asked by the Prosecution, so if you would anticipate in the
13 future such a question, that would save a lot of time. You may proceed.
14 And perhaps since you use the document, the AOS abbreviation --
15 or could the witness perhaps tell us. At the top of the document it says
16 "AOS." Could you tell us what that stands for?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It pertains to this part where it
18 says "AOS." That was counter-intelligence protection. That is to say,
19 counter-intelligence protection from the activity of American
20 intelligence agencies.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Do you know exactly what the letters AOS stand for
22 in your language?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] American Intelligence Services.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. Mr. Micic, do you know when Mr. Franko Simatovic was transferred
3 from the Belgrade centre, and do you know where he was transferred, what
4 this other job was?
5 A. I certainly don't know the specific date, but it's the spring of
7 Q. Do you know what job he was transferred to then?
8 A. Yes. That was deputy head of the 2nd Department -- or, rather --
9 THE INTERPRETER: 2nd Administration, interpreter's correction.
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Mr. Micic, can you tell us the following: You said spring of
12 1992. Franko Simatovic was transferred to the post of deputy head of the
13 2nd Administration. What about your department, the AOS, did they
14 continue to monitor the activities of Daniel Snedden?
15 A. It was the division. That's what it was, AOS. It wasn't a
16 department. And it continued dealing with the subject matter of
17 Daniel Snedden.
18 Q. Mr. Micic, 2D459.2. Let's have a look at that.
19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Again, Your Honours, this document
20 should be under seal.
21 Q. While we're waiting for the document, Mr. Micic ... Mr. Micic,
22 the 18th of July, 1992, is the date of this document. And it is a report
23 on the application of OTTKTR measures, and the subject is "Farisej."
24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may we briefly move
25 into private session now.
1 [Private session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of the Chamber]
11 Page 19799 redacted. Private session.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. Mr. Micic, I would bring this topic to an end, the topic about
20 Daniell Snedden and 1991 when he was followed. Tell me, did you in the
21 centre, in your group, in 1991, apply this so-called operations
22 combination? And if you did, what does that mean? Can you give us an
24 A. Yes, that is an integral part of operations -- of operations
25 against a subject of an investigation. Do you want me to share some
1 personal examples with you?
2 Q. Give us a personal example. We will move back into open session
3 then. Can you explain what that means?
4 A. That means that the subject is approached to the maximum degree,
5 which means that we come into direct contact with the subject of our
6 investigation. At the same time, we apply all of the other available
7 measures and actions depending on objective circumstances. Everything
8 that can be applied is applied in addition to the personal contact.
9 Q. Would you then hide from your subject the information that you
10 were an operative, or would you be frank about it?
11 A. In principle, it's very difficult for me to talk about that
12 because a distinction should be made between theory and practice. In
13 theory you do your utmost to cover up your identity. You don't say that
14 you're an operative. However, due to some objective circumstances you
15 have to be frank and open; i.e., you have to reveal where you work.
16 Q. If I understood you properly, the operative will not hide the
17 fact that he was affiliated with the state security; however, in that
18 operations combination or that kind of work, what's the point? What is
19 the purpose?
20 A. A maximum approach to the subject and direct contacts with him
21 usually do not reveal the objective of those contacts; i.e., you don't
22 reveal to that person that he is being targeted as a subject by the
23 intelligence service.
24 Q. Mr. Micic, can you share a very specific example of that
25 situation; i.e., when you approach the subject as an operative but only
1 to offer him some services?
2 A. At that time, Dusko Doder, a journalist of the European, was
3 somebody I tried to contact in that way, i.e., an operative tried to
4 approach the target in that way.
5 Q. Did you approach him? Did you introduce yourself to him as an
6 operative of the DB?
7 A. Yes. But not directly. I telephoned him due to objective
8 circumstances. That was the only way I could contact him.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, I consulted my colleagues in order to
10 find out whether I was the only one who was totally lost on the relevance
11 on most of the last few questions. Apart from that, I need ten minutes
12 with the parties without the witness. So, therefore, I would like to ask
13 you to finish in one or two minutes, and if those one or two questions
14 would help us out as far as the relevance is concerned, that would be
16 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I will try.
17 With your leave, when the witness leaves the courtroom, I will try to
18 explain why I am putting all these questions to him. But let me put just
19 another question to the witness.
20 Q. You said that you tried to approach your target openly as a DB
21 employee. However, did you tell him what the objective of your approach
22 was? If you didn't, can you tell us why you approached him?
23 A. The true objective of our operative work, obviously, is never
24 revealed to the target. However, his objective situation was used and
25 under the guise of trying to help him we also tried to approach him as
1 close as possible.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I see that we have ten
4 more minutes left and this is precisely the time that you said that you
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Bakrac. There is a
7 mistake in the name, but I don't think that that is important, is it?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Which name, then it will be verified.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Dusko Doder, D-o-d-e-r.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If that is of any significance.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that.
13 Mr. Micic, we will adjourn for the day. We are not sitting
14 tomorrow and Monday is a day off, which means that we will resume only on
15 the 29th of May in the afternoon, quarter past 2.00 in this same
16 courtroom II. I instruct you not to speak or communicate in any other
17 way with anyone about your testimony, whether already given or still to
18 be given next week. You may follow the usher and we'd like to see you
20 [The witness stands down]
15 [Open session]
16 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
18 As I said, I'd like to deal with a few scheduling matters. Where
19 are we at this moment? We most likely will finish hearing the last
20 Simatovic Defence witnesses next week and the recalled witness either
21 next week or in the week starting with the 4th of June. That's where we
23 The Chamber intends to have a housekeeping session in the week of
24 the 4th of June. The date later to be determined. The Chamber aims to
25 issue its remaining decisions on the Stanisic Defence bar table motion
1 before the end of next week. We have delivered three decisions until
2 now. There are a few others pending.
3 Any further motions related to evidentiary matters with regard to
4 the Defence case should be filed by the 4th of June at noon.
5 I'd like to briefly move into private session.
6 [Private session]
16 [Open session]
17 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
19 As the Chamber already announced on the 28th of March, 2012, the
20 parties should be ready to file their final briefs before the summer
22 And then my last line: Whether the parties have any questions or
23 comments about this rough scheduling.
24 Ms. Marcus.
25 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour, just one quick question:
1 With respect to rebuttal submissions, we were given a seven-day
2 time-period for rebuttal submissions in connection to decisions. Could
3 we request that with respect to the Stanisic bar table decisions, that we
4 have seven days from the final decision by the Chamber to avoid a
5 repetitive or duplicative rebuttal filing.
6 JUDGE ORIE: You'd say the last one.
7 MS. MARCUS: The last one, yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think -- yes, we'll consider that,
9 Ms. Marcus.
10 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Would there be any objection against this practical
12 suggestion by Ms. Marcus?
13 MR. JORDASH: No. No objection.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac also no objection.
15 Mr. Jordash.
16 MR. JORDASH: Will we have the opportunity to address you on the
17 timing of the final briefs? Because I think the summer break begins
18 somewhere around the 20, late in July, which effectively will give us on
19 this timetable no more than a clear month after the finishing or the
20 completion of evidence. And with the best will in the world, even from
21 now, an eight-week period for a case of this size is challenging, and we
22 would anticipate real difficulties, and we would appreciate the
23 opportunity to address you further on this in due course before
24 Your Honours' minds are completely settled.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Our minds are never settled, Mr. Jordash, and
1 I speak on behalf of the whole of the Chamber, but we'll consider whether
2 we would allow you to make any further submissions and whether we expect
3 them to be oral submissions or submissions in writing.
4 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Any other matter?
6 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just for the record,
7 the position of our Defence is the same. We support Mr. Jordash in what
8 he has just stated.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 Any other questions or comments? If not, we'll adjourn and we'll
11 resume Tuesday, the 29th of May, at quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon in
12 this same courtroom II.
13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,
14 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 29th day of May,
15 2012, at 2.15 p.m.