1 Tuesday, 29 May 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.21 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case
8 IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 Before we continue with the -- with hearing the evidence of
11 Mr. Micic, I'd like to ask the parties the following, and it is in
12 relation to the Stanisic Defence. It's Stanisic Defence's request to
13 have an opportunity to address the Chamber regarding the timing of the
14 filing of final briefs. An opportunity to address the Chamber will be
15 given. For us, the problem at this moment is whether we should give you
16 an opportunity to make oral submission or written submissions.
17 The schedule for this week is very tight, although we do not know
18 exactly how tight it is. That depends on how much time the Prosecution
19 would need for Mr. Novakovic. Could we have an impression of that?
20 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I believe it's approximately an hour
21 and a half.
22 JUDGE ORIE: An hour and a half.
23 How much time would the Simatovic Defence still need for
24 Mr. Micic?
25 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that I may
1 finish by the end of the first session.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could we hear how much time the Prosecution and the
3 Stanisic Defence would need for the cross-examination of Mr. Micic.
4 MR. JORDASH: We're not anticipating more than 20 minutes, maybe
5 even less.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Twenty minutes.
7 Mr. Farr.
8 MR. FARR: Your Honour, my initial estimate is up to three hours,
9 but obviously I'll try to keep it shorter than that if possible.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which would mean that you'd need another hour
11 most likely, one session tomorrow?
12 MR. FARR: Correct, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then we would have at least the second session
14 tomorrow for Mr. Novakovic. So this is a chance that we would have some
15 time available on Thursday, although it requires the parties to behave
16 very disciplined, because the Chamber is not taking the risk that we
17 would not finish with Mr. Novakovic this week in order to give you an
18 opportunity to make oral submissions. So I leave it to a great extent to
19 you. If you think that there would be sufficient time, the Chamber is
20 quite willing to hear the oral submissions on the matter, but only after
21 the testimony of Mr. Novakovic is concluded. If you think that you could
22 make that and it's a matter of discussing it between parties, then you're
23 invited to make oral -- to make written submissions. Is that clear?
24 Then finally, I do understand that this was a matter the
25 Prosecution wanted to raise at this moment as well, or perhaps not the
1 timing but to -- to make submissions.
2 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, we were ready. But we're in your
3 hands as to the timing.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And, well, you now know what has priority on
5 our minds.
6 Then the parties have sent by e-mail short submissions, as they
7 were invited to do, in relation to the chart which was marked for
8 identification, P3164. The parties are invited to file these e-mail
9 submissions in perhaps the same format, and these are the e-mail
10 submissions 25th of May by the Prosecution and the 28th of May by the
11 Defence. So therefore we'd like to receive it formally filed.
12 If there's no other -- no other matter at this moment, could the
13 witness be escorted into the courtroom.
14 [The witness takes the stand]
15 WITNESS: RADIVOJE MICIC [Resumed]
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Micic.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
19 JUDGE ORIE: First I'd like to remind you that you're still bound
20 by the solemn declaration you have given at the beginning of your
22 And you'll now be further examined by the Simatovic defence.
23 Mr. Bakrac.
24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Good afternoon to all in the courtroom.
1 Examination by Mr. Bakrac: [Continued]
2 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Micic. Mr. Micic, last week
3 we concluded part of the examination. The topic that I'd like us to
4 discuss now has to do with 1993. So sometime in mid-1993, what was the
5 position that you held and where was it that you worked?
6 A. In mid-1993, I was still an operative in the AOS. On the
7 14th of November - I remember that because that's my birthday - I became
8 head of the AOS division.
9 Q. Thank you. Mr. Micic, so in August you were still an operative
10 in the AOS.
11 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Could we now please take a look at a
12 Prosecution exhibit, that is, P2414. It is under seal. So,
13 Your Honours, may it not be displayed to the public.
14 Q. Mr. Micic, we're waiting for the English translation as well.
15 Could you please take a look at the first page, and later on we'll go
16 back to one of the paragraphs on this first page. Can we now please take
17 a look at the second page.
18 Could you tell me whether you recognise the document, and can you
19 tell me whether this is your signature underneath where it says
20 "Operative Radivoje Micic"?
21 A. Yes, that is my signature. Which means that practically I
22 coauthored this document.
23 Q. Thank you. Can we now please move on to the first page again.
24 This is a document dated the 31st of August, 1993, and it is entitled
25 "Official Report on Intelligence about Dafina Milanovic."
1 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may we now move into
2 private session. I would like to mention a name. And then after
3 mentioning that name we can go back into open session.
4 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
5 [Private session] [Confidentiality lifted by order of the Chamber]
6 THE REGISTRAR: We're in private session, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Mr. Micic, in the second paragraph -- or, rather, in the first
10 paragraph, let's deal with that first, you say from our operative source,
11 and then you say further on in the second paragraph: It is interesting
12 that Gerasimovic, the judge working on the murder case - the murder took
13 place on the premises of Dafiment Banka - gave Dafina Milanovic for her
14 birthday a precious diamond of great numismatic value. This information,
15 if I'm not mistaken, you got that from one of your operative posts. Did
16 you check it, though?
17 A. Yes, certainly. These allegations or, rather, this information
18 was not correct as far as the diamond itself was concerned, or brilliant.
19 Judge Gerasimovic was an investigating judge at that time. On the basis
20 of what we knew about his property and his revenue, this would be
21 nonsense. I can put it that way. Or inaccurate.
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we now please go
23 back into public session. I think that further on ...
24 JUDGE ORIE: May we turn into open session.
25 [Open session]
1 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
3 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Mr. Micic, let us now look at page 2 of this official report.
5 Last paragraph. This is what it says here:
6 "... D. Milanovic, during the period in question, pointed out
7 several times that she did not trust Frenki because he had promised a lot
8 but failed to deliver on anything, and concluded that Frenki did not
9 trust her either. She said that this was not fair because she,
10 allegedly, at one point in time imported two trucks with equipment,
11 helmets, bullet-proof vests, and night sights from Austria and two
12 aircraft from the United States for Frenki's requirements and, in fact,
13 had equipped 5.000 of his men."
14 So, Mr. Micic, as for this information that you received from
15 your operatives, did you check it any further?
16 A. At any rate, like most of the information that can be verified,
17 we checked this too. However, this information itself indicates that it
18 is incorrect. Basically this is impossible. Two aircraft from America,
19 at that time, the end of 1993, quite simply that was impossible. It was
20 impossible to deliver that or import that. There was no way of receiving
21 that in Serbia. Equipping 5.000, men, that's an army. That is an
22 unbelievably large number.
23 As for the question of trust, who trusted who, now, whether it's
24 Mr. Franko Simatovic or Dafina Milanovic, I think that it's a very
25 well-known thing who Dafina Milanovic is -- or, actually, I don't know to
1 what extent the Trial Chamber knows about Dafina Milanovic.
2 Q. Thank you, Mr. Micic. Just one more question that I'd like to
3 add to this. In 1992 or in 1993 was it possible to import equipment from
4 Austria for 5.000 men without having this registered somewhere and so on?
5 A. Let's put it the other way around.
6 MR. FARR: Foundation, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Farr.
8 MR. FARR: Objection: Foundation.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could you lay a foundation for your --
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness was an
11 operative at that point in time, and he received some information from a
12 source and he checked that. My question is whether in that check -- I
13 mean, the witness already told us that he had not come across anything
14 that was similar to this. However, in view of his knowledge as an
15 operative, he can tell us whether that was possible in the first place.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, if there's an objection against
17 foundation, then your -- and when I invite you to lay that foundation,
18 it's not for you to give that foundation but for the witness. To ask the
19 witness such questions that the foundation is laid by him for his
20 knowledge. And the question was -- the question was whether in 1992 or
21 1993 it was possible to import equipment from Austria for 5.000 men
22 without having this registered somewhere.
23 Is that at least ... if it was at that moment that you
24 intervened, Mr. Farr.
25 MR. FARR: That's precisely the issue, how the witness knows --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. FARR: -- what was possible or not and in terms of importing
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Bakrac, so you're supposed, then, to put
5 questions to the witness so that the witness provides the foundation, not
6 that you tell us why you think the witness could tell us what he did.
7 Please proceed.
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. In your group AOS -- you also said there was another group, a
10 European group. During your operative work, did you check the arrival of
11 foreign nationals, weapons, equipment into the territory of Serbia? Did
12 you have this kind of insight?
13 A. Certainly the arrival of foreign nationals at every point in
14 time, whereas the arrival of weaponry, especially this many, this
15 certainly would have been registered by our colleagues from the public
16 security and they would have passed that knowledge on to us.
17 Q. Do you remember that in 1992 at one point an embargo was imposed
18 on the import of weaponry into Serbia?
19 A. Well, that was the reason why I said that at that point in time
20 it was impossible. Again, I'm saying that I think that it is impossible.
21 If this had to do with Austria, then three countries would have to be
22 crossed in order for this weaponry to reach Serbia or the
23 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at the time unobserved. This is an
24 operation that I cannot even imagine.
25 Q. Mr. Micic, Mr. Micic, finally, tell me, when you have some
1 intelligence received from some of your operatives, do you sometimes make
2 remarks at the end of a text?
3 A. That is a integral part of the role of an operative. That is to
4 say, after presenting information or intelligence received from our
5 contacts, we give an opinion of our own. We state what our own position
6 is with regard to this kind of intelligence. However, that seems to be
7 missing here.
8 Q. That's precisely what I wanted to ask about. Why is there no
9 remark here?
10 A. Well, I can only go back once again to what I've already stated,
11 that is to say that this -- well, to put it very simply, this is simply
12 impossible. There was no additional knowledge, say, from the public
13 security department or any other security organ in Serbia that would make
14 this possible.
15 Q. Otherwise, would you have written something in your remark
16 regarding the reliability of the source?
17 A. Well, if this could have been correct information or if it had
18 indicated that the original information has some basis in reality, I
19 would say that it is necessary to take further action with regard to
20 shedding more light on the circumstances involved. I can assume who the
21 source was. It's not right. The source comes from criminal circles,
22 circles closed to Ms. Dafina.
23 Q. Mr. Micic, at some point in 1993 or 1994, did you ask to be
24 transferred from the Belgrade headquarters? And if you did, where?
25 A. I can't say at what time it happened exactly, end 1993 or early
1 1994, but I did go to see the then-deputy head of administration, asking
2 him to find me a position somewhere, never mind what kind of duties it
3 involved, that would take me away from the Belgrade headquarters. And
4 the reason was -- this is not a nice thing to say, but the relationship I
5 had with the then-head of Belgrade centre was intolerable.
6 Q. When you say "head," you meant the head until that time or the
7 one who arrived in 1993?
8 A. The latter.
9 Q. Whom did you approach with the request to get you a transfer?
10 A. You mean name?
11 Q. We can go into private session here.
12 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
13 [Private session] [Confidentiality lifted by order of the Chamber]
14 THE REGISTRAR: We're in private session, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
16 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. You can tell us the name of the person from whom you requested
18 the transfer.
19 A. It was deputy head of the 2nd Administration, Dragan Filipovic,
20 whom I knew from working together in the American group. And do you
21 still want me to tell you with whom I had this intolerable relationship?
22 That was Zoran Mijatovic who had returned from the 2nd Administration,
23 from the position of head of the administration to the position of head
24 of the Belgrade centre.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, if you do not mind, I'd like to go back
1 briefly to the -- to the document we had last on our screen. You said it
2 was so obvious that it was -- could not be true, that you did not make
3 any remark about that.
4 Now, is it your evidence that all of what was said by this source
5 was untrue under all circumstances, or is it just the last paragraph?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I stress the prefix regarding
7 Mrs. Milanovic, especially the initial information coming from a source
8 that belonged in criminal circles that involved a lot of fraud and
9 dishonest actions. There is not only this reference to a diamond, but
10 you see there is information --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please listen to my question: Is it your
12 evidence that whatever is said here by this source is untrue? For
13 example, who attended the birthday celebration of Dafina Milanovic, is
14 that true or not true? Could it be true?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I suppose it's possible. I suppose
16 it's true.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because you said there's no reason to make any
18 observation, because what is untrue is clearly untrue. Now, if you say
19 that may be true, wouldn't it be important then to distinguish between
20 what may be true and might be of interest and what, as you said, is
21 obviously not true? How would the reader know that -- that the diamond
22 is not true but that the people attending the birthday celebration may be
23 true and that perhaps the -- the confidence Mr. Milosevic may have had in
24 John Kennedy, was that true, was that not true?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's a very simple principle. We
1 as operatives collect information. If we had no foreknowledge -- and
2 this especially is an area I wasn't involved in directly. I had no
3 foreknowledge about any of these areas. For instance, there is a
4 reference here to two aircraft from America, which is obviously
5 suspicious. Still it doesn't mean that if I brought it to the
6 leadership - and when I say "leadership," I mean the centre where all the
7 information of all the operatives within the centre is collated - it
8 doesn't mean that they would not order further action be taken to verify
9 and supplement this information to take further operative steps.
10 I could not, and it would have been unprofessional of me to
11 include my judgement on matters I did no -- I didn't know enough about.
12 I was not involved in the surveillance of Dafina Milanovic, and I am not
13 even sure that the leadership did not order further action be taken on
14 this, telling an operative to collect more information.
15 MR. BAKRAC: [No interpretation]
16 JUDGE ORIE: A minute ago you said that you make an observation.
17 If you would -- you were asked by Mr. Bakrac would you have made a
18 comment like this may be true or this may not be true, and then you said
19 well, it's obvious what is not true and therefore there was no need to do
20 that, but that apparently then does not apply to the whole of this
21 document; whereas on other matters your comment is missing on the
22 likelihood of the observations made by your source.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm saying this again. I did not
24 have all the information concerning the reliability of sources and
25 verifiability of intelligence. It's tantamount to giving an unqualified
1 opinion on -- on inaccurate information.
2 Mr. Bakrac asked me about the last paragraph, which is a case in
3 particular because it's absolutely impossible, whereas the other
4 information isn't necessarily implausible. In any case, I suppose the
5 leadership of the centre would have reacted if there was anything
6 controversial in this.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the question put to you by Mr. Makrac --
8 Bakrac was the following:
9 "... finally, tell me, when you have some intelligence received
10 from some of your operatives, do you sometimes make remarks at the end of
11 a text?"
12 And then you said:
13 "That is an integral part of the role of an operative."
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Now, apparently for most of this report you have not
16 made any observations on the likelihood. And then you were asked:
17 "That's precisely what I want to ask about. Why is there no
18 remark here?"
19 And then you said that you had -- "it's simply impossible."
20 "There was no additional knowledge." Mr. Bakrac didn't ask you
21 specifically on the last paragraph but in more general terms, and what I
22 observe is that on none of the other paragraphs there's any comment on
23 whether it could be true or not.
24 Yes, Mr. Bakrac.
25 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it may have been my
1 mistake. I did not follow the interpretation. But when I was asking my
2 question, I wasn't asking about operative officers but operative sources.
3 When they received information from operative sources. I'm not claiming
4 that it's exactly the same in the transcript because I didn't check, but
5 the text says "from operative sources."
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but it doesn't change the gist of the questions
7 and the answers irrespective of whether this was very accurate.
8 One additional question: How would you know that the
9 judge - I've never heard of him, so I've got no opinion about him in
10 whatever way - how would you know that he couldn't give a diamond or a
11 brilliant or whatever to another person without verification?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that's what I said. This
13 would take time, but searching through the records that we had on certain
14 individuals within the centre, Belgrade itself, it was established that
15 the judge in question did not engage in anything improper, and we had no
16 information that he was involved in anything criminal or in spying or
17 anything. This is what we normally do with regard to everyone who is
18 mentioned in such reports, especially people like Mrs. Dafina. Operative
19 steps would be taken to find out about the financial situation of the
20 person, and he could have offered a gift like this only if he had -- he
21 had engaged in something criminal, because that's not the kind of money
22 you can earn.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, what is still unclear: You said, Well,
24 we send that up and of course it would then be verified. So apparently
25 you did not verify it at that moment. You left it without comment. You
1 did not make any verification yourself. Because a minute ago when I
2 asked you about comments on other matters, you said, Well, if we send it
3 in, then perhaps others would do the verification, but now it sounds as
4 if this is whether -- sounds as if this was routine verification done by
5 yourself, which is not fully in line, I think, with what you told me two
6 or three minutes ago. Any comment on this observation?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When an operative is writing on
8 something that is not his personal area of work, he avoids making remarks
9 because he's not familiar enough with the issues at hand. But the
10 leadership of the centre, if they are interested, would order the same
11 operative to gather more information using the same source, and I never
12 received such an order. And the operative source involved was never
13 again used for inquiries of this kind. And if I may add, this is
14 information that I received not within my own line of work but picked up
15 by the way, in passing.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Are you aware of the existence of any document
17 in which everything you've now told us is put on paper? For example, the
18 information about the background of the judge, or whatever.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not supposed to know this, but
20 I do know that there are files on the lady, Mrs. Dafina, because she was
21 under surveillance very actively.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I'm asking about the existence of a document in
23 which this report is considered saying, for the judge, couldn't be true
24 because he doesn't have sufficient means to buy a diamond or for the
25 others it's to be verified that those people were present at the birthday
1 party. I mean, a document not generally on the background of -- of the
2 lady but on -- on the accuracy of the information contained in this
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was not given any tasks to create
5 something like that, and I did not. But I cannot claim with any
6 certainty that nobody else within the Belgrade centre was tasked with
7 further exploring this matter. It's possible, but I don't know anything
8 about it.
9 JUDGE ORIE: So the simple answer is no, you're not aware of any
10 such document.
11 Please proceed, Mr. Bakrac.
12 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 Q. Mr. Micic, you said you asked Mr. Filipovic to transfer you to a
14 different administration. What did he tell you? Were you transferred?
15 A. Deputy head of the 2nd Administration took my request under
16 advisement. He did not give me any answer on the spot. He didn't
17 promise anything. And I definitively moved to the 2nd Administration in
18 June 1994, I believe.
19 Q. When you joined the 2nd Administration of the RDB of Serbia, what
20 position were you placed in and what responsibilities did it involve?
21 A. I was independent operative instructor.
22 Q. Can you tell us what that job involved?
23 A. That job involved direct operative work but also training and
24 co-ordination, providing training and co-ordination to individual
25 operatives or centres in the territory of Serbia, with the proviso that
1 the administration could not give orders, but the training role was
3 Q. When you say that the administration could not issue orders, what
4 administration do you mean?
5 A. No. The then-administration did not have the role in which it
6 could give orders. It assumed that capability only in 2003.
7 Q. When you say administration, which administration is it?
8 A. The 2nd Administration. But also all other operative
9 administrations. So it means that an instructor could not order that
10 something should be done in the centres. Maybe you don't quite
11 understand it.
12 Q. Mr. Micic, how many centres of the RDB were there in Serbia, in
13 the territory of Serbia?
14 A. The number varied. Fifteen to 17 at the time. Whether it was 15
15 or 16 at that precise moment, I wouldn't know. The territory also
16 varied. There was restructuring. Some the centres were abolished, some
17 were merged. But I think I could say around 15. I'm not absolutely
18 sure, but I think that the number is around 15.
19 Q. You told us that the 2nd Administration could not issue orders.
20 Can you tell us, then, the heads of the centres reported to whom?
21 A. The centre heads were responsible for their own work, and they
22 would receive instructions solely from the heads of the State Security
23 Department for the whole of Serbia, or his deputy.
24 Q. Do you know in 1994 when you arrived in the 2nd Administration
25 and then in 1995 and later who was the deputy head of the State Security
2 A. It was the late Mr. Tepavcevic. He was the deputy head of the
3 security department.
4 Q. Thank you, Mr. Micic. If this is the closed session, I think we
5 can go back to the open session, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: We return into open session.
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Mr. Micic, I think you wanted to say something. But if you see a
12 carat next to a name, it means that it is going to be corrected later.
13 You need not worry about that.
14 In June 1994, when you arrived and you assumed your position
15 there, the position of an independent operative instructor in the -- the
16 administration, do you know what was the position of Mr. Frenki Simatovic
17 at the time?
18 A. At the time, Franko Simatovic was a special advisor to the head
19 of the State Security Department.
20 Q. Do you know whether he as a special advisor to the head of the
21 State Security Department had some special authority?
22 A. What I know, and a later practice confirmed this, is that his job
23 involved primarily investigation and development of technical resources,
24 their application. And later on I also was influenced by him in that
25 regard, especially in the IT department, specifically in the analytics
1 department. This entails also communications systems, especially special
2 communications systems, and to speak even more narrowly, special
3 communications between agents.
4 Q. Is it possible to say that the framework of all these activities
5 is something that naturally belonged to the 2nd Administration?
6 A. Yes. I think I can assert this based on my own knowledge. The
7 2nd Administration had many of those things at their disposal. If you
8 look at the activities of the third branch of the 7th Administration, you
9 will see that they certainly had a lot of technical resources at their
11 Q. We heard other testimony here, and our time is quite limited here
12 so I'm going to skip some of the subjects, we heard that the
13 2nd Administration had a special person in charge of analytics, records,
14 and documentation, as well as a branch for special purposes. Could you
15 explain these things, and why was it so in the 2nd Administration?
16 A. To be very brief, as brief as I can be, yes, it is true because
17 of the specific nature of its work as opposed to the
18 counter-intelligence. They used -- they had a special methodology to
19 access those particular tools, if I may use that word. Within this
20 administration, it was absolutely necessary to have a separate people
21 working on analytics, on IT technology, and on documentary technology.
22 Q. Does that mean that the 2nd Administration was different in its
23 status from other administrations?
24 A. Talking about its status, I have to say that it was absolutely
25 equal to other administrations, operative administrations and other
1 parts. You can see that very clearly if you look at the remuneration.
2 People who worked in the 2nd Administration and outside, it had
3 absolutely exactly the same competencies and authority.
4 Q. When you say that they had the same competencies and authority,
5 are you talking within the 2nd Administration, because my question was:
6 Did they have special authorities compared to people who worked in all
7 other administrations within the State Security Department?
8 A. No. No. It was identical. It was only much, much later, in two
9 thousand and something, when people who worked in the 2nd Administration
10 did not have their special status of an authorised official any more.
11 They did not have that particular ID any more. But up to that moment,
12 within the State Security Department and especially within the operative
13 administrations, the 1st, the 2nd, and the 3rd, they were absolutely
14 equal, except, of course, in the subject matter of their work. That was
15 the only important difference.
16 Q. Thank you, Mr. Micic. Very briefly: The fact that the
17 2nd Administration was rather specific and the fact that they needed to
18 have a special analytics department, IT department, and people working on
19 documentary materials, does it mean that they had particular
20 requirements? I'm talking about equipment here. And if yes, what
22 A. Of course. I'll try to give you an example. The
23 counter-intelligence services are the services that use their own
24 resources, the resources within their own state. We, however, were
25 sometimes forced to use resources that were still the resources of our
1 state but they were specifically resources outside of our state in order
2 to protect our interests. So our method of work was very different from
3 the counter-intelligence people. I could say that the craft is the same,
4 however the tools are very different.
5 Q. Could you be a bit more specific? What tools? What tools did
6 the 2nd Administration need?
7 A. You mean technical tools?
8 Q. Anything that you can explain briefly to us in order to be more
9 specifica, to explain what exactly you meant to say.
10 A. Again, to be very brief: When you say human sources, human
11 means, it means that you have to go and establish contact with them
12 outside the territory of your own country. It's something completely
13 different from the case in which you establish contact within the
14 territory of your country. It means that you have to undertake a series
15 of preliminary actions in order to establish a secure contact. If you
16 establish a contact with a foreign citizen within the territory of our
17 country, it means that you go very deep into the territory of your own
18 country. You normally go deeper than it would be strictly necessary in
19 order to establish a secure contact and to protect your own contact.
20 When we talk about the technology, if we talk about the
21 electronic surveillance, it is something that the counter-intelligence
22 people -- I'm not going to say that they don't know about it, but the
23 intelligence administration uses these things far more than others. Then
24 if you have to establish a contact with the live source, so to speak, you
25 can do it -- nowadays they call it Bluetooth. You have a special modem
1 that can zip the files so you can simply carry it in your bag and you
2 don't have to have an actual contact with this other person. You can
3 still transfer information at a distance. The operative official has to
4 undertake a number of operative measures and activities in order to
5 ensure the safety of the contact. I do not know if anything else --
6 Q. Thank you, Mr. Micic.
7 A. Just one more thing. This is a rather complex topic. That is --
8 it is not easy to explain it in just a few minutes. However, if you have
9 any other specific questions --
10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Micic. Tell me, in June 1994 when you were
11 transferred to the 2nd Administration of the State Security Department,
12 who was giving you your tasks?
13 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, maybe we should move
14 to the private session for a few moments.
15 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
16 [Private session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of the Chamber]
17 THE REGISTRAR: We're in private session, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Mr. Micic, in June 1994 when you were transferred to the
21 2nd Administration, who was giving you your instructions and tasks?
22 A. It was only the deputy head of the 2nd Administration, because at
23 the time the head of the administration had not been appointed yet.
24 Q. Can you tell us his name?
25 A. Dragan Filipovic.
1 Q. While we are still in closed session, could you tell us briefly
2 whether you had any contacts with Franko Simatovic, and, if so, what kind
3 of contacts? From June 1994 onwards when you were in the
4 2nd Administration.
5 A. He was the factor that complicated our everyday work. He
6 insisted that we should have more sophisticated technological work,
7 whatever it meant, and I know about that very well. He insisted that the
8 IT technology should be used within the work of the analytics branch of
9 the 2nd Administration, as well as other fields of work which also should
10 have been performed with more technical resources. Our contacts were not
11 frequent, only every now and then, but whenever we did have a contact, it
12 was on the topic of using of the technical resources in our operative and
13 analytical work.
14 Q. You as an individual, did you attend those meetings or briefings
15 with Mr. Simatovic as an individual, or was there a number of operatives
16 who attended those meetings?
17 A. No. Everybody went. You have to bear in mind that at the time
18 the 2nd Administration did not have a lot of people working in it,
19 probably not more than ten. So as far as I can remember, it was in the
20 meeting room where he would hold what you could call a briefing or maybe
21 instructions on further development. There were some cases when he had
22 to draw things on blackboard, because I have to admit that we did not
23 understand exactly what he wanted us to do and how. I think that
6 Q. Mr. Micic, when you were in the 2nd Administration, did you ever
7 receive any specific working task from Mr. Franko Simatovic or any
8 specific operative task?
9 A. Wait a minute. We shouldn't confuse working and operative tasks.
10 Operative tasks, no. The operative tasks were within the exclusive
11 purview of Dragan Filipovic. That is the deputy head.
12 Working tasks, especially those related to the IT technology,
13 that was something that he influenced a lot within the
14 2nd Administration.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I carefully listened to the questions and to the
16 answers. I'm still wondering what exactly the reason is that we went
17 into private session. I mean, is there BIA source? You didn't ask for
18 that BIA operative --
19 MR. BAKRAC: [No interpretation]
20 JUDGE ORIE: -- if you're talking about Mr. Filipovic. Well,
21 whether that's an operative or whether that's a person which was
22 mentioned many, many times. Location, specific technical means. I have
23 difficulties in understanding, but please explain yourself.
24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my expectation was that
25 perhaps something more specific would be mentioned, things that are used
1 in the BIA today in terms of IT and their operative work. So that is why
2 I wanted to deal with these few questions that way.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I say something? Sorry about
4 that, but may I say something now by way of an example?
5 JUDGE ORIE: No. We'll just first -- this -- first resolve this
6 matter and then ...
7 Mr. Bakrac, I'm re-reading now all your questions, and I have
8 great difficulties to follow your expectation that technical details of
9 any specific kind would come as an answer. Earlier we had the Bluetooth,
10 now that's common technology everyone uses in his house and in his cars,
11 so ...
12 Would you tell us -- then the heads of the centres reported to
13 whom? That's a not question which would --
14 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'll try. I'll try.
15 I'll try, Your Honour, to deal with that through my next question, and
16 then we can move into open session.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please. What we're concerned about, whether it
24 would reveal any secrets. Now, if everyone uses it now and if at that
25 time it may not have been very interesting -- may have been a very
1 interesting new development, that's not something that could in any way
2 affect the state security of the Republic of Serbia.
3 Steganography, that I'm not familiar with, or is the
4 transcript ... I'm familiar with stenography. I'm not familiar with
5 steganography. Is there any difference between the two?
6 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't want to lead in
7 anyway. I'm going to try to deal with this through the witness.
22 Q. Just tell me this: When was it that you first came across this
23 concept, this way of operative work?
24 A. Once again I say that this was what Franko Simatovic had wanted
25 and asked for, that we start dealing with this kind of research and
1 development in realtime.
2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I'm mindful of the time,
3 Your Honours. I do apologise to you, but with all due respect, I think
4 that 15 or 20 minutes were used by different questions at the very
5 beginning, so could you please be so kind as to give me this time so that
6 I could conclude my examination?
7 JUDGE ORIE: You get 20 minutes after the break, Mr. Bakrac.
8 We take a break and we'll resume at 4.00.
9 --- Recess taken at 3.30 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 4.04 p.m.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, you've got until 25 minutes past 4.00.
12 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. Mr. Micic, during 1994 and 1995, did you hear of Operation Pauk,
14 and, if so, what was it that you heard?
15 A. Yes, I heard about it, and I was made aware of the reasons for
16 starting this operation.
17 Q. Can you please tell us what that was.
18 A. Well, practically this had been agreed upon at highest state
19 level. As far as I know, it had been signed by Fikret Abdic, the
20 political leader of the then-Western Bosnia, then Martic and Karadzic as
21 well, together with Milosevic, the then-leader of Serbia, with a view to
22 creating and maintaining Western Bosnia as part of Krajina.
23 Q. Do you know about the involvement of the 2nd Administration or
24 part of the 2nd Administration in this operation?
25 A. At that time, I had not been made aware of the true objectives of
1 the operation. However, since I saw Mr. Simatovic directly, as well as
2 the team that went with him, there were three or four big trucks and
3 perhaps four Range Rovers or Land Rovers. I cannot really make a
4 distinction between the two.
5 They had set out, and on the basis of the composition of the team
6 I could assume what that had to do with, namely that the establishment of
7 a post was the main objective.
8 Q. Please tell us first what kind of post was supposed to be
9 established, and secondly, do you know what these trucks and Range Rovers
11 MR. FARR: Objection, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Farr.
13 MR. FARR: The witness has just said that it was on the basis of
14 the composition of the team that he could assume what it had to do with,
15 the establishment of a post, and he's now been asked specifically what
16 kind of post was to be established. We would submit that there's no
17 foundation for that based on his previous answer, that it's just based on
18 an assumption.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, we're not primarily interested in
20 assumptions. If the assumption is based on anything, then please try to
21 find out what that is and then we can consider whether we need the
22 assumptions any further.
23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Q. Mr. Micic, when you say "on the basis of the composition of the
25 team that had set out," can you tell us which team this is? I think that
1 we are in closed session, so you can give us the names, and then we can
2 move into open session.
3 A. First of all, as we've already said, the trucks contained
4 equipment. At that time, I did not know what kind of equipment.
5 However, the people who went along to operate the equipment, and that
6 primarily has to do with radio scouts, the late Ranko Tadic. I can give
7 a name; right? Then Nikola Varda and people around them. It is certain
8 that they were involved in this kind of work. And along with them was
9 the team from the 2nd Administration for the special purpose
10 communications, namely Janko Budimir -- or, rather, Janko was his working
11 name. Ranko Levi [phoen], Budimir Milorad, and this practically
12 indicated that there would be radio reconnaissance, and acting in
13 co-ordination with the others, this indicated that a post would be
14 established. So I had not been made aware of the objectives of the
15 operation for the purpose of keeping the conspiracy, but I did see the
16 results of this involvement.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we now move into
19 open session?
20 JUDGE ORIE: We return into open session.
21 [Open session]
22 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Mr. Micic, do you know anything about the further involvement of
1 Franko Simatovic in Pauk, and also do you know whether Franko Simatovic
2 went to Petrova Gora?
3 A. Yes, I know that towards the end of that year from time to time
4 he went to Petrova Gora. At first it was from time to time and for
5 longer stints several times at a weekly level. However, from 1995 it got
6 shorter. It was only a few days and he went less and less often. That
7 is to say, he left the premises of the 2nd Administration less and less
9 Q. You said a moment ago, it's reflected in the transcript, too,
10 when you mentioned the team that went there, you said that later on you
11 saw the results of this involvement. Can you explain to us what it was
12 that you meant?
13 A. Well, practically, in addition to the operative involvement in
14 the field, there was a great deal of radio reconnaissance. We obtained
15 the results of this work in the administration itself.
16 Q. Thank you, Mr. Micic.
17 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we now please take a look at
19 Q. While we're waiting, Mr. Micic, tell me first of all whether you
20 are familiar with this format of information, MUP Republic of Serbia, the
21 2nd Administration of the RDB, and then the date.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. The date is April 1995, so it seems that information is being
24 provided here about a conversation between Fikret Abdic and Milan Martic
25 and some other detail is being provided. I'm interested in the
1 following: On this first page, do you see something that rings a bell?
2 Do you remember receiving this kind of information?
3 A. Well, specifically towards the very end of this page a certain
4 Sandi is mentioned. As far as I know, he cropped up often in the reports
5 that were sent to the 2nd Administration.
6 Q. Do you remember -- do you remember -- do you remember whether
7 this information sometimes contained something that had to do with the
8 position of the Republic of Slovenia that had been seceded from
9 Yugoslavia in relation to the existence of the Autonomous Province of
10 Western Bosnia?
11 A. Specifically it had to do with Slovenia's favouring of this
12 status of Western Bosnia. As far as we know on the basis of these
13 documents, Slovenia even wanted to officially recognise Western Bosnia as
14 an autonomous entity.
15 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we please move on
16 to page 2 now.
17 Q. I'm going to look at a particular paragraph now, and I would like
18 to know whether this would jog your memory in terms of this information
19 reaching you. There is a reference to a certain Slaven who is supposed
20 to come and see Abdic. That is paragraph 3. Around 10.00 he will be at
21 the agreed place at the Bosna Hotel in Banja Luka, and it seems that he's
22 coming from Ljubljana, and Stanic says that he informed his republic of
23 the intention of Fikret Abdic to declare a republic in the AP, and he
24 says that this position was welcomed in Slovenia.
25 Does this jog your memory? Is this the kind of information that
1 you received, and was this of interest to the Republic of Serbia?
2 A. Yes. Information of this kind, well, naturally arrived in the
3 2nd Administration. At any rate, this was of significance for the
4 Republic of Serbia itself. That is to say, if this political option were
5 to come to fruition, then, well, things would have been completely
6 different in the Balkans. The game would have played out differently, as
7 we say, from a political point of view.
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't know whether
9 the Prosecution is changing its position with regard to this document.
10 We asked the Republic of Serbia specifically for all these documents. At
11 this point I would like to tender the document because the witness has
12 recognised it, but Mr. Farr, if he still has objections to this, then
13 we're going to wait for the response of the Republic of Serbia.
14 MR. FARR: Your Honour, I'm not -- I'm not aware of the
15 Prosecution having an objection to this document previously. This is a
16 document that the OTP received from Serbia.
17 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it's correct. We have
18 lots of such information. And, well, this document is Prosecution
19 number -- I mean, the Prosecution received this document from the
20 Republic of Serbia, but then I would like to tender it. And I would like
21 to thank Mr. Farr, too.
22 MR. FARR: No objection, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, this document without any problems
24 would receive number ...
25 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D3436 will receive number D1116,
1 Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: D1116 is admitted into evidence. Any need to have
3 it under seal, Mr. Bakrac?
4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, out of an abundance of
5 caution, I would like to have it under seal until we've worked things out
6 with the Republic of Serbia.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.
8 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, the abundance of caution then would be
10 valid five minutes ago as well, so -- but we'll -- it's admitted under
12 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Correct. Correct, Your Honour.
13 You're right.
14 Q. Mr. Micic, my time is running out, so very briefly: Do you know
15 whether anyone from Belgrade or Serbia went with this equipment, and if
16 so, what was the purpose? In addition to these technicians, this team
17 that you've already referred to.
18 A. Yes. At the very beginning I did not say that in addition to the
19 people or experts from the electronic line of work or whatever you wish
20 to call it, there was a team -- I mean, there were these young men,
21 officials from the ATD, the unit for anti-terrorist activity. As always,
22 when it was necessary to secure not only the post itself or the
23 interception centre, but also the transport of the equipment just as this
24 paper says, it was a state secret, strictly confidential.
25 Q. You mentioned that the JATD also went. Can you tell us from an
1 organisational and functional point of view in the State Security Service
2 what was that?
3 A. In 1993, the minister of the interior established a unit for
4 anti-terrorist activity on the basis of a document he issued himself, and
5 this was an organisational entity within the State Security Department.
6 Q. Do you know where the premises of the JATD were, where their seat
8 A. As far as I know, it was in Lipovica at the time, but they also
9 had shared premises with the 2nd Administration on the second floor.
10 There was one office made up of two rooms.
11 Q. To the best of your recollection, who used it?
12 A. There was an officer called Milenko who was almost permanently
13 present. I was his best man in Croatia, because we were friends. His
14 name was Milenko. And then there was this -- give me a moment. There
15 was Mr. Radonjic who came very seldom, and Krsman was there even more
16 rarely. Krsmanovic.
17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Micic. What was the relationship between the
18 2nd Administration and the JATD, if there was one?
19 A. In functional terms, it was the same relationship as with all
20 other units, primarily in the sense of providing information and
21 intelligence concerning Western Bosnia specifically. It was information
22 about the ability of transports to pass, and as feedback we would get
23 from them some little intelligence from their own observations, but
24 nothing significant.
25 Q. You said, Mr. Micic, they had one office on the same floor as the
1 2nd Administration. Can you tell us, where was the office of
2 Mr. Simatovic at the time you joined?
3 A. It was an entirely different wing. The opposite direction from
4 the landing, from the 2nd Administration.
5 Q. I have to show you very quickly two documents and a couple of
6 questions before I conclude. Do you know what Pajzos is, near Ilok?
7 A. That was also one of the intelligence centres outside the
8 territory of the Republic of Serbia. I say it was a post because apart
9 from radio interception they were involved in other activities and steps.
10 Q. Can you tell us how you know that?
11 A. I went there twice, the first time when I continued on my way
12 from the Novi Sad centre towards Pajzos. The Novi Sad centre was in
13 charge of providing logistics to that post, and I brought
14 counter-intelligence information that we obtained precisely by radio
15 interception, and it concerned the unauthorised use of radios and other
16 communications by our members.
17 And the second time, I was there when it was necessary to provide
18 briefing and instruction to the team that operated there, radio
19 interceptors, and analysts, and certain operatives. I was to tell them
20 in which directions to -- to work more on.
21 Q. Who provided security to this post?
22 A. At that time the members of the said unit were there. At that
23 check-point there were three of them. On the grounds where this house
24 was - it used to be Tito's villa - there were another three of them. But
25 I believe they worked in shifts, so I don't know the real number.
1 Q. Mr. Micic, we shall now look at two more documents, and I'll have
2 a couple of questions on each of them and that will conclude my
4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] 2D2704. I believe this document
5 should be under seal. We received it unredacted on 15 May from the State
6 of Serbia.
7 In its redacted form this document has been seen before here, and
8 it was part of the Prosecution's disclosure regarding the file on certain
9 Zoran Ristovic, and we received this document from Serbia unrevised and
11 Q. Mr. Micic, look at the top right corner. It says "Ministry of
12 the Interior, State Security Department, ATD unit." The date is
13 1st February, 1994, and it's a report on the activities in the territory
14 of the RSK Ilok from 15 to 30 of January, 1994. Have you looked at this
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we move to the next page.
18 Q. Mr. Micic, please read through this second page as quickly as you
19 can so that I can conclude my examination and then I'll ask you two
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Farr.
22 MR. FARR: I apologise for interrupting, but this is unduly
23 leading. If Mr. Bakrac is intending to ask the witness about the
24 contents of this document, there's -- he should see what the witness
25 knows on this topic before --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, that's the usual order in
3 Would you please stop reading.
4 Put your questions and then we can look at the document if
5 there's any need to do that.
6 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Witness, have you ever seen the document before?
8 A. No.
9 Q. You haven't. Witness, can you tell me, seeing how you used to
10 work in the state security sector, if we go back to page 1, look at the
11 top. It says "ZNRB" [as interpreted] and then followed by initials. Do
12 you recognise the initials?
13 A. Yes. That's -- those are the initials of Franko Simatovic.
14 Q. And what does ZNRDB mean?
15 A. That means it was sent to the deputy head of the RDB.
16 Q. Could you tell us, with all your experience of work in the RDB,
17 what the initials of Franko Simatovic meant?
18 A. That means he familiarised himself with the contents of the
19 document. Then he would initial it and send it on, in this case to the
20 deputy head.
21 Q. If the subject of a report were the conduct of people who were
22 guarding Pajzos, would it have been logical for Mr. Franko Simatovic to
23 be informed about that?
24 A. Well, in view of the fact that JATD work was very sensitive and
25 all the harm that could come to this radio interception group and if
1 there was any threat to the whole project, he would be informed.
2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I would like to draw the attention
3 of the Trial Chamber to the fact that there is some information about
4 this on page 2. I just want to ask the witness.
5 Q. Did you know about the Special Police Unit's presence in the
6 territory of Slavonia, PJP?
7 A. Yes. From 1991, PJM, later PJP, were constantly present there,
8 and they were under the command of Radovan Stojicic Badza. The purpose
9 was for them to train local police stations so they can continue to
10 operate and do their part of the job. From 1995 they were called PJP,
11 because milicija changed into policija, and at that time Obrad Stevanovic
12 was the head of those units.
13 Q. Did you know that in -- within PJM units there was a unit called
14 Red Berets?
15 A. No, I did not know that there was any separate unit like that. I
16 know that members changed berets. I don't know how and why, but they at
17 different points in time black, red, and blue berets.
18 Q. Thank you, Mr. Micic.
19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I should like to tender this
20 document, too, Your Honours. I have only one more document left and one
21 more question related to it and that would be the end of my direct
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
24 MR. FARR: Apologies. Just to say we have no objection to the
25 admission of the document just tendered.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be ...
2 THE REGISTRAR: Document 2D1704 will receive number D1117,
3 Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: D1117 is admitted into evidence under seal.
5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my last document and
6 my last question, it's a document we also received from Serbia, from the
7 pile of Mr. Micic, and we added it to our 65 ter list. We hope that this
8 will be approved. It's 2D1698.
9 Q. It is a certificate, Mr. Micic, regarding you, and I want very
10 brief information about it.
11 The date is 20th February 1998, certificate confirming
12 Radivoje Micic from the 2nd Administration attended a specialised
13 workshop with the title "Organising Intelligence Work Abroad," in the
14 period from 19 January to 19 February 1998, and it lists the topics
15 covered by the workshop.
16 Could you tell us briefly: Who organised this, where, and who is
17 the director Dr. Andrija Savic who signed this certificate?
18 A. The workshop lasted more than a month. It was organised by
19 Franko Simatovic personally. You can see there the areas covered by the
20 workshop. Andrija Savic was at the time director of the training centre,
21 so he was the person authorised to issue certificates like this, and you
22 don't need my opinion about Mr. Andrija Savic.
23 Q. Thank you, Mr. Micic.
24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I should like to
25 tender this document, which is from the personnel file of Mr. Micic, and
1 this would be the end of my examination-in-chief.
2 MR. FARR: No objection, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Madam Registrar.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Document 2D1698 will receive number D1118,
5 Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. And it's admitted into
7 evidence under seal.
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Mr. Micic, thank you very much.
9 And thank you, Your Honours, for allowing me this small
11 JUDGE ORIE: Before I give an opportunity to cross-examine the
12 witness, I have one -- one question for you, because matters are not
13 perhaps perfectly clear.
14 You looked at the previous document, which was about Pajzos, if
15 you remember well. You read the second page. Perhaps you could have it
16 on the screen again.
17 Now, the question put to you was:
18 "If the subject of a report were the conduct of people who were
19 guarding Pajzos, would it have been logical for Mr. Franko Simatovic to
20 be informed about that?"
21 And then you explained why it would be reasonable.
22 Now, the question was "If the subject of a report were." I think
23 you earlier said that Pajzos was guarded by the anti-terrorist unit. Is
24 that correctly understood?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Could you tell us where on this document you can see
2 that the anti-terrorist unit was sent there to guard Pajzos?
3 Perhaps we could have it on our screen again.
4 Yes. This document now, whatever page you would like to read,
5 the first one or the second one, where does it say that the
6 anti-terrorist unit is there to guard Pajzos?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think this document does not
8 contain any explicit description of the main tasks of the unit in this
9 case. As far as I can see, it's more about the problems that the members
10 of the unit were facing in going about their duties.
11 JUDGE ORIE: So this document does not refer to guarding Pajzos
12 as one of the tasks with which the anti-terrorist unit was sent there?
13 Because that was the basis of the question, assuming that.
14 Mr. Bakrac.
15 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise, but due
16 to time restrictions and because Mr. Farr reacted, I considerably
17 abbreviated my work on this document.
18 You can see on page 1 the stamp of the RDB, unit for
19 anti-terrorist operations, and it says in mid-1993 this unit was
20 disbanded but the image of the Red Berets that was exclusively used in a
21 negative context --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please -- is this still on page 1 you are
23 quoting from or is it on page 2?
24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours. It's page 2,
25 towards the bottom.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'll give you an opportunity to put your
2 question specifically in relation to that relating to page 2. So do not
3 start explaining yourself what -- but ask the witness questions about it.
4 Please do so.
5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. So, Mr. Micic, we have seen the stamp on the first page. Now,
7 look at this passage which says that -- which says:
8 "In mid-1993, this formation was disbanded, but the image of the
9 Red Berets used exclusively in negative contexts was transferred to a
10 group that remained in Ilok as part of our unit that was present in Ilok
11 to guard the Pajzos and the white house facilities." And the name
12 mentioned is Radoslav Krsmanovic.
13 Do you see a connection here that allows you to say that part of
14 the JATD was providing security there?
15 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we move to page 3?
16 JUDGE ORIE: I would first like to hear an answer from the
17 witness unless he has seen enough, and if -- you asked him a question
18 already without asking him to go to page 3, isn't it? So why not first
19 wait for an answer?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. I had not read in great
21 detail this particular passage describing the responsibilities of the
22 unit in that area, in Pajzos and the white house. It does refer
23 explicitly to their specific tasks and probably not only the tasks of the
24 unit but the command as well.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask -- of course I've seen that guarding
1 Pajzos is mentioned in this document, but I did not gain the impression
2 until now that it was the unit which is at the head of this document but
3 describing their own activities, but, rather, activities from other
4 groups. This formation was, they planned it, transferred to a group that
5 remained in Ilok as a part of -- and then it's a four unit, perhaps our
6 unit. So it sounds as if -- if that's a reference to our unit, that
7 those were the remainders of the earlier Red Berets formations which are
8 described as already starting in 1992.
9 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. The entire
10 context is subject to interpretation. You can see at the top there is a
11 reference to the PJM of the MUP of Serbia.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Now, I can ask questions on the basis of my
13 understanding of the document. You can ask questions but not putting
14 your interpretation of the document to the witness. So if you have any
15 specific questions to the witness so as to -- for example, so as to
16 explain the composition of unit and units which are disbanded and
17 reformatted -- reformed in -- later on and where people from those
18 previous units stayed in the area and were called "parts of our unit,"
19 which apparently is the remainder of earlier formations, then you can ask
20 the witness questions about it, but you cannot put to the witness what
21 your interpretation of the document is. Please proceed.
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Let me just
23 check this translation, because it says "part of our unit" here.
24 Let's move to page 3, please. And I will conclude with this.
25 Q. This document is dated 1st February, 1994. Do you know who
1 Dragoslav Krsmanovic was?
2 A. Yes. That's precisely the person that I mentioned as
3 occasionally visiting the offices on the same floor as the
4 2nd Administration.
5 Q. And he was affiliated to whom?
6 A. The JATD command. I really don't know what his specific duties
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Micic.
9 I don't know if there is any need for -- we will analyse this
10 document in our final brief, and I don't think there is any need to
11 explore it further with this witness, because I don't think he knows any
12 more about this.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to find out. On page 3 it is reported
14 that the management of the police station knew that more than 20 former
15 members of the unit, and this is a document of early 1994, were residing
16 in the area of Ilok and that a majority of them were engaged in dirty
17 jobs but that out of fear of retaliation the Ilok Police Station
18 prevented the police station from taking any steps against them.
19 Were you aware of any members or former members of the
20 anti-terrorist unit almost, if I read it well, terrorising the Ilok area?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Apart from this document, I have no
22 other knowledge about this.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And then the line "The easiest way of concealing
24 such inaction was to claim that those were members of the Red Berets
25 enjoying the protection of the Serbian MUP," any comments on that line?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I understand the
2 document, it meant that these, let's call them bad guys who had been
3 expelled or had left the JATD in some other way, held themselves out to
4 be -- or misrepresented themselves as the Red Berets, pretending they
5 were under the protection of the Ministry of the Interior of Serbia,
6 which was not true, and this document says indeed that it was a real
7 danger for the whole ministry, for the JATD, and others.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have any knowledge about JATD members leaving
9 the unit and engaging in criminal activity?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Really. I had no such
11 knowledge then or do I have any now, in that respect, that is. Which is
12 not to say that no such thing ever happened, but I just didn't know about
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, having looked a bit closer at the
15 document, also at page 3, you still are of the view that the document
16 doesn't refer in any way to the task why that the JATD was sent to Pajzos
17 to guard the facility?
18 THE INTERPRETER: Could all unnecessary microphones please be
19 switched off. Thank you.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had already apologised for
21 misreading or misinterpreting the document, these one or two sentences.
22 I did not read it carefully enough where there is this specific reference
23 to the tasks of member units in that situation.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, all my questions derived from the way in
25 which you qualified the document, that's if the document is about this,
1 then either you are in a position to clearly say that it is and otherwise
2 it is asking for confusion, and certainly leading in
4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour. Your Honour, I do
5 apologise, but especially the second page --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, I think that we can move on --
7 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- and if there's any further comment, there are
9 other moments where you can express those comments.
10 Mr. Jordash.
11 MR. JORDASH: No questions, thank you.
12 JUDGE ORIE: No questions.
13 Mr. Farr, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?
14 MR. FARR: Yes, Your Honour. Just a moment.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then you may proceed.
16 Mr. Micic, you will now be cross-examined by Mr. Farr. Mr. Farr
17 is counsel for the Prosecution.
18 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, Your Honour. I don't know if this is a
19 convenient time for a break.
20 JUDGE ORIE: It is a bit early, but if it would be preferred to
21 have the break now, then we'll take the break now.
22 MR. JORDASH: Yes, please.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll resume at 20 minutes past 5.00.
24 --- Recess taken at 4.54 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 5.24 p.m.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, just a brief matter. There's a
2 Prosecution motion to compel disclosure of notes and photographs from the
3 examination of notebooks. Mr. Jordash in his response I think suggested
4 that rather obtain them on a voluntary basis rather than anything else.
5 Now, what's the position of the Prosecution in light of this? Do
6 you want to put your motion on hold or would you still insist? Of
7 course, we have -- my memory tells me that communication with the expert
8 was not always of the quickest kind. At the same time, Mr. Jordash, do
9 you know if the Prosecution would accept, by freezing its motion, your
10 offer, when do you think you could not only have put the questions to the
11 expert, but also when do you think you could report to us when the expert
12 thinks that he could respond to such a request? Because the first part I
13 take it that you can do it tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, if not
14 today, but the --
15 MR. JORDASH: Yesterday. It was done yesterday.
16 JUDGE ORIE: It was done yesterday. Okay. That's fine. Do you
17 have an indication as to when you think that the expert might find time
18 to respond to your request?
19 MR. JORDASH: I'm happy to put as much pressure on as is
20 necessary and I anticipate then I will get a very quick response. I
21 think the -- I don't have to be too careful about upsetting him now.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I'll leave that without any comment as to
23 whether there was any reason before to avoid that.
24 But, Mr. Groome --
25 MR. GROOME: Your Honour --
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- under the present circumstances.
2 MR. GROOME: Under the present circumstances, Mr. Jordash
3 anticipates a quick response, we'll ask that the motion be held in
4 abeyance for the moment and then we'll formulate our position once we see
5 what the response is.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then that's how we will proceed. And,
7 Mr. Jordash, the earlier we have news, I think the better it would be.
8 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Farr.
10 I apologise to the witness for -- Mr. Micic, for dealing with
11 other matters. You had to wait, but Mr. Farr is now ready to start his
12 cross-examination. Mr. Farr is, as I said before, counsel for the
14 Cross-examination by Mr. Farr:
15 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Micic. Can you hear me?
16 A. Yes, very well.
17 Q. Can I start off by asking you whether you ever received an award
18 from the JSO, the successor unit to the JATD?
19 A. The JSO, no.
20 Q. I'd like to ask you a few questions about the relationship
21 between the DB of Serbia and the leadership of the Republika Srpska. Are
22 you aware of any employees or officials of the DB of Serbia meeting with
23 Ratko Mladic in the second half of 1995?
24 A. I'm not aware of that, no.
25 Q. Are you aware of any employees or officials of the DB of Serbia
1 meeting with other senior officers of the VRS in the second half of 1995?
2 A. That would be sheer guesswork. I don't have any direct
4 Q. Are you aware of any employees or officials of the DB of Serbia
5 meeting with Tomislav Kovac, the deputy minister of the interior of the
6 RS in the second half of 1995?
7 A. Unfortunately, I cannot even remember who this person was, the
8 one that you've mentioned, Kovac.
9 Q. Are you aware of any employees or officials of the DB of Serbia
10 serving as a co-ordinator of the forces of the Ministry of the Interior
11 of the Republic of Serbia in Bosnia in the second half of 1995?
12 A. In that function to co-ordinate the work of somebody else's
13 service, no. Co-ordination, yes.
14 Q. Co-ordination -- my question is about co-ordination of the forces
15 of the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia operating in
16 Bosnia. Are you aware of any employee or official of the DB of Serbia
17 carrying out that function, specifically in September or October of 1995?
18 A. I can only confirm the presence of employees of the state
19 security, but as for the 2nd Administration and its employees in the
20 region of Bijeljina ...
21 Q. And which employees of the state security can you confirm the
22 presence of in Bosnia in that time in 1995?
23 A. I don't know whether you are referring to specify names. If so,
24 perhaps it would be advisable to move into closed session or deal with it
25 in some other way, because most of these people are still alive. So I
1 really don't know what the practice of this Court is.
2 JUDGE ORIE: The mere fact that they are still alive is not a
3 reason to go into private session unless there are any specific concerns
4 about these persons, but in itself if they are still working as BIA
5 operatives, then that would be a reason to go into private session. I do
6 not know whether the persons you have in your mind are still BIA
7 operatives. If so, please tell me so that we can go into private
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] One of the persons, yes, is still
10 an active-duty member; and the others, no.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then we move into private session.
12 [Private session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of the Chamber]
13 THE REGISTRAR: We're in private session, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
15 MR. FARR: And, Your Honour, could I just request that we get the
16 name of the one person who still is an active member in private session
17 and then return into open session.
18 Q. So, sir, could you start by please giving us just the name of the
19 one person who is still an active employee of BIA.
21 Q. And can you tell us his function, please, at that time in 1995?
22 A. We called it reproducer, that is to say, he transcribed onto
23 paper that is to say visible media material that needed to be reproduced.
24 MR. FARR: And could we now return to public session, please,
25 Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We will return into public session. The other
2 names are not at the present BIA operatives, so you can use their names
3 unless there's any very specific concern. Therefore, we now move into
4 open session.
5 [Open session]
6 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Radenko Novakovic, first of all. I
9 cannot recall the first name of this other person, but his last name is
10 Lukic. Lukas was his nickname. There were two other employees, and I
11 only remember the nickname of one of them, Nesa from Sremska Mitrovica.
12 And the other one is an elderly man. I really cannot remember his name
13 and surname now.
14 I just want to add something. I don't know whether that is what
15 you consider to be co-ordination. Our terminology is "sadejstvo," acting
16 in concert, the two services acting in concert, because co-ordination
17 implies certain powers of an order-issuing nature. In order to
18 co-ordinate, one has to be in a position to order a particular type of
20 Q. And when you say "acting in concert, the two services acting in
21 concert," just for clarity, which two services are you referring to?
22 A. Well, in this specific case it is the service of Republika Srpska
23 that had to be informed about setting up a post of our service in
24 Bijeljina but also about some other actions.
25 Q. Are you aware of any co-operation between employees or officials
1 of the DB of Serbia and an intelligence grouped called Tajfun or Sigma?
2 A. I've never heard of Sigma up until now. Tajfun yes, but at a
3 later stage, mostly from the media. If that is relevant. I think that
4 Radovan Karadzic was the target, but I cannot assert anything because
5 this comes from the media.
6 Q. So it's fair to say you never heard of it in 1994 or 1995; is
7 that correct?
8 A. I most certainly hadn't heard of it.
9 Q. Did you ever learn anything about a possible professional
10 relationship between a person named Mijovic and Mr. Simatovic?
11 A. As for their direct relations, whatever we call them, I really
12 cannot qualify them in any way because I don't have any information as to
13 whether they were professional or something else, especially because I
14 first heard of Mr. Mijovic in the context of that well-known - I know it
15 is well-known here - celebration in Kula in 1997.
16 Q. So you had never heard of Mijovic any time before the celebration
17 in Kula in 1997; is that your evidence?
18 A. Yes, precisely.
19 Q. You mentioned Mr. Simatovic's presence in Petrova Gora during
20 Operation Pauk. During your time in the DB, did you ever learn anything
21 about Jovica Stanisic being present in Petrova Gora?
22 A. No. No. I don't know of Mr. Stanisic being there, but I'm not
23 saying that he wasn't there. I mean, I'm saying I don't know.
24 Q. During your testimony last Thursday, you talked about
25 Mr. Simatovic's mission to Knin, but you also indicated that he went to
1 Slavonia in 1991, and that's at transcript page 19780. To your
2 knowledge, when was Mr. Simatovic in Slavonia in 1991?
3 A. Well, if it is after his return from Kosovo, then very roughly
4 speaking it would be around the middle of that year 1991 and the three or
5 four months that followed. That's when he was in Knin.
6 Q. My question was actually directed to Slavonia. When to your
7 knowledge was he in Slavonia in 1991?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Farr, could you assist me? I have still not the
9 numbered transcript of last Thursday and a search on Slavonia doesn't
10 help me. Could you give us another few words so that I can find the
11 relevant place.
12 MR. FARR: I can -- shall I just read the quote from the witness?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but for me it's important that I can look at
14 the context. So you can read it to the witness, then I'll find the
16 MR. FARR: Okay. Very good.
17 Q. Sir, your answer -- well, I'll start with the question. The
18 question was:
19 "Mr. Micic, to the best of your recollection, in 1991, in his
20 operative work, what locations did Franko Simatovic go to?"
21 Your answer was:
22 "Apart from Belgrade, Mr. Franko Simatovic's operative activities
23 took him to Kosovo --" the transcript says, "in the then-RSK, today the
24 Republic of Croatia, more precisely to Knin and Slavonia, and also there
25 was a period, another period, that he spent at Kosovo."
1 And, sir, my question was: When was he in Slavonia, to your
3 A. The quotation that you refer to was the Republic of the
4 Serb Krajina. I wanted to explain what it encompassed, and that's why I
5 mentioned Slavonia. In my view, I mean I saw him a few times -- or,
6 rather, twice, when I mentioned that I was at the place that was called
7 Tito's villa. I cannot remember any more details. I'd have to think
8 about it. That's the point in time when the RPGs were being established.
9 Now, whether they were mobile or stationary -- well, this is the only
10 involvement of his that I know of on that basis.
11 Q. And was that in 1991?
12 A. No, no. 1991 -- I'm sorry. I'm sorry. To the best of my
13 knowledge, in 1991 -- I mean, it only had to do with the
14 already-mentioned gentleman Mr. Daniel Snedden and taking various
15 measures vis-à-vis him in Knin.
16 Q. Okay. Can we please have --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Can I ask one question.
18 When you say, "I was at the place that was called Tito's villa,"
19 is that Pajzos where you're referring to or ...
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
22 MR. FARR: Could we please have 65 ter 6536 on the screen, not to
23 be broadcast. And specifically if we could please have page 8 in B/C/S,
24 which is ERN 0682-2734, and page 8 also in English.
25 Q. Sir, this is a decision dated 19 November 1990, but effective as
1 of the 1st of September, 1990, appointing you to a position in the
2 2nd SDB Administration in Belgrade, specifically the post set out in
3 Article 42, number 19, and my question is: Is it correct that this is a
4 decision appointing you to your position as an operative in the American
5 intelligence section of the Belgrade DB centre?
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. JORDASH: Sorry to interrupt. May Mr. Stanisic be excused
8 for five minutes?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Again, if you want us to stop --
10 MR. JORDASH: No, we can continue. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
12 [The Accused Stanisic withdrew]
13 MR. FARR: And could we now please have Exhibit P474 on the
14 screen, again not to be broadcast. And in P474, specifically we'll need
15 page 43 of the B/C/S, which is ERN 06112138, and page 2 of the English.
16 Q. And, sir, this is an excerpt from the personnel file of
17 Dragan Filipovic. It's a decision of precisely the same date,
18 19 November 1990, effective the same date, 1st of September, 1990,
19 appointing Mr. Filipovic to precisely the same point as you, that is, the
20 post in the 2nd Department of the SDB Administration in Belgrade, defined
21 under Article 42, number 19.
22 Do you recall Dragan Filipovic being appointed to the same
23 position as you on the same day in 1990?
24 A. I really can't recall that it was on the same day, but he was
25 certainly an employee of that division or section.
1 MR. FARR: Can we scroll to the bottom of the page, and
2 particularly the left-hand side of the bottom.
3 Q. In the B/C/S version we see a handwritten notation on the
4 left-hand side at the bottom. Can you tell us what that is?
5 A. As I read it, he received it on that day. The date is indicated.
6 And I suppose this is the signature of Mr. Filipovic, meaning that he
7 received it.
8 Q. Are you able to recognise his signature?
9 A. I can't say for sure, but I think it's his signature.
10 Q. Last Thursday you said that during your time in the American
11 intelligence service section the number of operative workers varied from
12 four to seven, and that's at transcript page 19777. Do you recall how
13 many operatives there were during 1991?
14 A. I'm not absolutely sure, but most probably there were six or
16 Q. So does that mean that your immediate team was either seven or
17 eight people, including yourself, Mr. Filipovic, and Mr. Simatovic?
18 A. Yes. I meant them too.
19 Q. Is it fair to say that you worked closely with them and knew them
20 well at that time?
21 A. Well, if you can put it that way. There was certainly,
22 professionally speaking, close co-operation. We were a tight-knit group.
23 But it's also true that the principle of subordination was strictly
24 observed. We knew exactly who the boss was and who the gofers were,
25 people who brought in information, but there were no close private
1 relations. In 1991 I was going through a divorce, and at that time
2 Filipovic had a lot of understanding for my personal situation, and he
3 accommodated me whenever I had to take a leave of absence to appear
4 before the court. I don't know if you can call that closeness.
5 MR. FARR: Okay. I'd like to move to a later period now, and for
6 that could we please have 65 ter 6536 back on the screen, again not to be
7 broadcast. And specifically I'll need page 3 of the B/C/S, which is
8 ERN 0682-2728, which is page 1 of the English.
9 Q. And, sir, this is a decision dated the 10th of June, 1994,
10 effective as of the 1st of July, 1994, and this decision appoints you to
11 the post from Article 11, number 3, of the book of Rules on Staff
12 Planning in the State Security Department of the Ministry of the
14 MR. FARR: And for the Chamber's and Defence's reference, that
15 book of rules is in evidence as D115 and D833.
16 Q. Sir, according to that book of rules the position defined by
17 Article 11, number 3, is the post of independent operative instructor,
18 which you told us earlier was your position. Can you confirm that this
19 is the decision appointing you to that position?
20 A. Yes. Yes, that should be it, with my signature. That's the
22 [The Accused Stanisic entered court]
23 MR. FARR: And can we now please have Exhibit P474 back on the
24 screen, again not to be broadcast. And we'll need page 52 in B/C/S,
25 which is ERN 0611-2147, and page 15 in English. And I note for the
1 record at this point that the date at the top of the page in English is
2 incorrect. It should be 11th of October of 1993, as reflected in the
3 B/C/S version.
4 Q. Sir, this decision dated 11 October 1993 appoints
5 Dragan Filipovic to the position defined by Article 11, number 2 of the
6 applicable rules, and this position is the deputy chief of administration
7 of the 2nd RDB Administration. You confirmed that Filipovic was in that
8 position at the time you joined the 2nd Administration. If we could
9 scroll to the bottom of the page. Again, my question is: Are you able
10 to identify that as the signature of Dragan Filipovic?
11 A. I think -- I think it is.
12 Q. Is it accurate to say that Mr. Filipovic was your direct
13 supervisor at the time you joined the 2nd Administration of the DB?
14 A. No. It was quite a different person. If you mean who was my
15 immediate superior. It was a different person, the one because of whom I
16 left the centre. Just before my transfer, just before asking for a
17 transfer, I was promoted into chief of division or head of group, and I
18 had received a letter of appointment to that post, but the prospects were
19 glum in my view because of very difficult intrapersonal relationship and
20 that's why I approached the person I told you about to see if he could
22 Q. I apologise for interrupting. I can see that my question wasn't
23 clear. I meant after you joined the 2nd Administration. From that time
24 on, was Dragan Filipovic your direct supervisor?
25 A. Yes. He was my immediate superior until 1999.
1 MR. FARR: Can we please have 65 ter 6536 back on the screen, not
2 to be broadcast. And now we'll need page 14 in the B/C/S, which is
3 0682-2757. And unfortunately we don't have a translation of this page
4 available yet.
5 Q. But, sir, can I just ask you whether you recognise this as your
6 employee evaluation questionnaire for 1996?
7 A. Yes. That's our evaluation form, and my signature is there to
8 indicate that I have been made aware of my grades.
9 Q. And we also see Dragan Filipovic's signature; correct?
10 A. Like on the previous documents. That would be his signature.
11 Q. And can you please read the three words in Serbian that appear
12 immediately above Mr. Filipovic's signature so we can get a translation.
13 A. I don't know what you mean. You mean those three lines?
14 Q. Sorry, the words immediately above Mr. Filipovic's signature,
15 indicating his position.
16 A. All right.
17 Q. Would you read them out loud, please.
18 A. "Manager of organisational unit."
19 Q. And why did Mr. Filipovic sign your evaluation questionnaire as
20 the manager of organisational unit?
21 A. Well, there was no one else. He managed, led, the organisational
22 unit at the time.
23 Q. And would "organisational unit" there refer to the
24 2nd Administration?
25 A. In my view, yes. They meant the 2nd Administration.
1 MR. FARR: Can we now please have page 12 in B/C/S, which is
2 ERN 0682-2755, if I'm not mistaken. And that's page 15 in English.
3 Q. Sir, are you able to recognise this as your employee evaluation
4 questionnaire from 1995?
5 A. If it bears my signature, then it is it. Just let me add one
6 thing. Neither I nor many other employees thought much of this
7 evaluation. We did not attach to it any special importance.
8 Q. If we look at the bottom of the page, here we see that
9 Mr. Simatovic has signed as the manager of your organisational unit;
11 A. Yes. This was a fax, a facsimile, if that matters. Only he
12 could use it, though.
13 Q. And why -- why was Mr. Simatovic here indicated as the manager of
14 the organisational unit?
15 A. I can only suppose that it was because my immediate supervisor
16 was absent, Dragan Filipovic. Why he was absent at that time, I can't
17 remember, and I can't remember for how long. I suppose that all these
18 evaluations suddenly landed on somebody's desk and needed to be signed
19 quickly, and I believe that's the main reason why Mr. Franko Simatovic
20 affixed his facsimile. The deficiency of this document is that there is
21 no worth "za" in front of the signature to indicate that he was not the
22 head of that unit, that he was signing on behalf of somebody else. It
23 did happen that I signed for other people, but I always put the word "za"
24 whether it was my superior or my subordinate that I was signing for.
25 Q. Can you tell us why it would be Franko Simatovic's desk in
1 particular that these evaluations would land on when Dragan Filipovic was
3 A. I don't know whether it was in his capacity as special advisor or
4 head of department that he did this. Mr. Franko Simatovic was named
5 deputy head of department in 1996.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac.
7 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, sorry. There's an
8 important error in the transcript. Could the witness repeat his dilemma
9 on page 59, line 12 and 13. He begins: "I don't know whether it was in"
10 one or the other capacity. So he could name these two positions?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the course of 1996,
12 Franko Simatovic was moved from the position of special advisor in the
13 RDB of the Republic of Serbia to the position of assistant head of RDB of
14 the Republic of Serbia. It may seem similar, but it's not the same.
15 MR. FARR:
16 Q. Sir, our position will be that this document tends to show that
17 Mr. Simatovic was at least functioning as the head of the
18 2nd Administration as early as 1995, or perhaps even earlier. Are you
19 able to comment on that?
20 A. This signature can certainly not corroborate that. I said
21 tongue-in-cheek that he burdened us, but only in a technical sense.
22 Until 1996 he served as special advisor. After that, after he was
23 appointed assistant chief of RDB, he helped the chief of RDB in
24 intelligence matters. So, in addition... by virtue of his line of work
25 or how should I put it, he was also tasked with the 2nd Administration.
1 Q. I asked you earlier whether --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac.
3 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think that line 9
4 does not exactly reflect what the witness said, by his line of work and
5 his responsibilities, what he was to the 2nd Administration.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, I have to compare my screens, because on
7 the screen to my left line 9 reads: "JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac." That
8 certainly is correct.
9 You -- the last sentence of your last answer was: "So by virtue
10 of his line of work and responsibilities," and could you then again tell
11 us what you then said. Not to explain, but just to repeat what you then
12 said. He was in charge of ...
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe I'll get it wrong again, but
14 we don't understand each other perhaps. As special advisor until
15 mid-1996. Is that what you mean?
16 JUDGE ORIE: I can't tell you what I meant apart from asking you
17 to again give that answer, because Mr. Bakrac thinks that there may be
18 something wrong.
19 Mr. Bakrac, did I put it to the witness in a correct way?
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise to you in
21 advance and to the interpreters as well. Perhaps it is due to my poor
22 knowledge of English, but I believe the sense of what the witness said in
23 Serbian is not "in charge" in English. I believe the meaning is -- is
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please -- when you talked about his line
1 of work and responsibilities, what did you then say was his task in
2 relation -- or what was his task as a special advisor? Was he in charge
3 of anything, or did you say something else?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As special advisor, his main duty,
5 as I said before, was technical and technological improvement. I mean of
6 our operative technology. And considering that the 2nd Administration
7 was rather different from other administrations in terms of technology
8 and used technology a lot, especially computer technology in analysis and
9 radio and electronic reconnaissance and surveillance, his role was
10 important. I suppose he also had contacts with other administrations, as
11 far as I remember.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you there for a second.
13 Mr. Bakrac, if the words of the witness would have been
14 translated not as being "in charge of" but "dealing with," would that
15 come closer to what was your understanding of the response?
16 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Precisely, Your Honour. You
17 understood the main thing. That was the point I wanted to make.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll seek a verification of the translation
19 and see whether it was translated in accordance with what the witness
20 said or whether it's -- there are several ways to translate it. We'll
21 seek verification of that.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. FARR:
24 Q. Sir, I asked you earlier whether you had ever received an award
25 from the JSO, and you indicated that you hadn't. Are you aware of
1 Mr. Simatovic or Mr. Filipovic ever having received an award from the
3 A. I really don't know about their awards, but I know -- well, I'm
4 sorry about this imprecision, but I know that some knives were being
5 given out of different types. I think that to this day I have a lighter,
6 but it's a zip lighter. It's basically the RDB that awarded these
7 objects as some kind of an award, but this was apart from formal
8 protocols, apart from regulations. It's not that someone was awarded by
9 way of a formal decision, but things were just given to people, but they
10 were totally insignificant from a material point of view.
11 Q. Sir, I'm sorry, I didn't understand your answer. Are you aware
12 of Mr. Simatovic or Mr. Filipovic ever having received an award from the
14 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I can -- the witness says that he is not
15 aware of awards but about knives and lighters, insignificant.
16 Do you know whether Mr. Simatovic and/or Mr. Filipovic received
17 any such lighters or knives or whatever was given by the RDB to their
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I can say with certainty is
20 the following: Since both of them were smokers just like I am, they used
21 lighters with an emblem of the department. Now, in formal terms, whether
22 this kind of a reward was followed by a decision within the department,
23 that I really don't know about. But that doesn't mean to say that there
24 weren't any.
25 JUDGE ORIE: But let's be practical. The lighters, I do not know
1 what they do with nonsmokers, but the lighters with the emblem of the
2 department, would you buy them at the department shop, or were they given
3 as a kind of appreciation of work done?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, it wasn't necessary to buy
5 them. Quite simply they were received. I had a lighter like that, too,
6 but it didn't work for very long.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Now, apparently there is a reason to play down the
8 significance of all this where you were not even asked to qualify. The
9 simple question is: Did they received one; yes or no? And was it
10 related to the performance of work or duties? And you similarly,
11 although you were not happy with the quality of the lighter, I do
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I repeat once again.
14 Formalisation --
15 JUDGE ORIE: There's no need to repeat what you've said already a
16 couple of times. If there's anything you'd like to add, please do so.
17 If you want to repeat what you said, there's no need.
18 Mr. Farr will then put his next question to you.
19 MR. FARR:
20 Q. Sir, I'd like to return now to Mr. Simatovic's mission to the
21 Krajina in 1991. On Thursday, Mr. Bakrac asked you the following:
22 "Q. Mr. Micic, you said that you knew Franko Simatovic went to
23 Knin along operative lines of work. Do you know specifically what it
25 Your answer was:
1 "Well, specifically, the Daniel Snedden case, that's to say,
2 Dragan Vasiljkovic, an Australian national. The work on this case called
3 for work outside ... the territory of the Republic of Serbia."
4 And that's page 19789.
5 How did you know, what is the source of your knowledge that this
6 was the purpose of Mr. Simatovic's mission to Knin?
7 A. It wasn't only Mr. Simatovic that went to Knin in that period.
8 From time to time Dragan Filipovic went, too, but to a lesser extent.
9 And in direct talks this was mentioned several times, what was being done
10 there, because this was a great novelty as far as our work until then was
11 concerned. It was very brief, like classical operative work vis-à-vis
12 the already-mentioned subject. That's the only thing I know, not more
13 than that, because I was never there myself, directly.
14 Q. So is it fair to say that your information about this depends
15 entirely on what Mr. Simatovic, Mr. Filipovic, or others were willing to
16 tell you about it?
17 A. You can put it that way, yes.
18 Q. And you had --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Farr, we're willing to tell you, I think I've
20 told you, that would be the right way of putting it --
21 MR. FARR: Yes, I take your point.
22 JUDGE ORIE: -- because we couldn't -- yes, please.
23 MR. FARR:
24 Q. And is it also fair to say that you had no reason to check this
25 information, and you did not check this information?
1 A. Well, it's superfluous to check what your superior, your
2 supervisor, says. Your then-supervisor. At that point I could not
3 envisage anything else that could be done. I didn't know anything then
4 about RPG or anything else. Also, Daniel Snedden constituted a real
5 threat for the relations within the region then in general terms.
6 Q. You were also asked on Thursday when in 1991 Mr. Simatovic was in
7 Knin, and you said:
8 "In any case, that was during the summer. I can't be any more
9 precise than that."
10 And that's at page 19781 to 19782.
11 Our position is that you may be mistaken about the timing and
12 that Mr. Simatovic was actually in Knin beginning in the spring of 1991.
13 Are you able to comment on that?
14 A. Nothing more than what I've already stated.
15 Q. Is it correct that Mr. Simatovic's mission to the Krajina was
16 undertaken with the permission and knowledge of the leadership of the
17 DB of Serbia, if you're able to say?
18 A. Well, I can just apply logic. I am justified in assuming that he
19 could not have gone there on his own. He had to get some approval in
20 order to engage in operative activity outside the territory of Serbia.
21 Q. And based on your knowledge of how the DB functioned at that
22 time, who would ordinarily have had to provide that approval?
23 A. At that time, I was an ordinary beginner without any particular
24 high posts. Now, how could I conclude what the minister of the interior
25 would decide on and what the head of the department would decide on, to
1 what extent they could take decisions independently? At any rate, the
2 department was just -- I mean, the department for state security was just
3 a department within the Ministry of the Interior.
4 Q. Now, you've -- you've told us that Mr. Filipovic spent time in
5 Knin at this time as well, and we've seen that you and Mr. Filipovic had
6 the same position. Is it your evidence that you can't tell us who would
7 have given -- who would have had to give you approval to do operative
8 work outside of Serbia?
9 A. I am just assuming -- actually, I know what would have been
10 sufficient for me, that is to say that the head of the group or the head
11 of the division would give an order. However, following the formalism of
12 the then-8th Administration, the one that was involved in logistics,
13 legal grounds would have to exist -- or, rather, a decision would have to
14 be made, and other things would have to be taken care of, like the money
15 that would necessarily be spent on such a mission. And as for the
16 technical resources needed, I would deal with the -- I would actually
17 address the office that dealt with that.
18 When I say technical resources, I'm saying that operative work
19 required some special technical resources too. When I say that, I mean
20 if I'm issued with a particular piece of equipment, I have to sign a
21 document saying that I had been issued with that particular piece of
22 equipment. I'm just giving this by way of an example.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Farr, is there any way that we could leave the
24 realm of assumptions, logic, et cetera, and rather go back to the facts.
25 MR. FARR:
1 Q. Sir, in addition to Mr. Simatovic and Mr. Filipovic, there has
2 been evidence in this case that Milan Radonjic was also in Knin at this
3 time. Were you aware that he participated in this mission as well?
4 MR. FARR: And, Your Honours, that's at transcript page 16708.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I had no knowledge about
6 Milan Radonjic because he was in a completely different division. If I'm
7 not mistaken, at that time he was dealing with the subject matter of the
8 Israeli intelligence service, but I'm not sure.
9 Q. Now, based on things that you were told about this mission, did
10 you ever hear whether this mission had been approved by authorities in
11 the SAO Krajina as well?
12 A. No. If we are talking about 1991, the details of the
13 arrangement, if I can put it that way, or of the stay there, I really had
14 no knowledge about that, none whatsoever.
15 Q. During the time he was in the Krajina, as far as you know, did
16 Mr. Simatovic prepare any reports on the activities of Daniel Snedden?
17 A. I am not aware of that. I repeat once again: I was not directly
18 involved in working on Daniel Snedden, but if someone looks at the file,
19 then this can either be confirmed or refuted. If I may just take a
21 Q. Sir, our time is short. I'd prefer to move on. I'd like to turn
22 briefly just to the question of the extent of your knowledge --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Farr.
24 It was not quite clear to me, but when you said, "If I may just
25 take a minute," did you intend to take a minute to explain things
1 further, or was there any other reason for which you needed a minute?
2 A. Just to give an example why that was the case.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Farr.
4 MR. FARR: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. Can you tell me if this is accurate: Because of the principle of
6 conspiracy, in general your DB colleagues would not necessarily tell you
7 about all of their activities; is that correct?
8 A. I don't know if we understand each other correctly. What do you
9 mean by "conspiracy" as "zavera"? Conspiracy as in "konspirativnost" is
10 one of the main principles for the functioning of any service of this
11 kind in Serbia and outside Serbia anywhere.
12 Q. And is it fair to say that that principle is essentially that
13 even members of the same service should only share information with each
14 other on a need-to-know basis?
15 A. Yes, yes. That was my example in terms of expressing
16 unauthorised interest for Mr. Daniel Snedden. Two persons left the
17 security service because of that. It was that strict. They were
18 dismissed from the company.
19 Q. I'm sorry, could you just explain in a bit more detail why they
20 were dismissed?
21 A. There is this principle of everyone doing the work that he or she
22 is in charge of. If you express unauthorised interest or if you
23 jeopardise in any other way the implementation of missions with regard to
24 a particular subject, you are punished most strictly.
25 In this particular case, I know of two individuals.
1 Q. And can you tell us who they were and how they expressed interest
2 in this case that led to their dismissal?
3 A. Well, I mean we, all the other employees, were told about that at
4 a separate meeting of the head of the division, but the least possible
5 information was given. At this same meeting I insisted that the
6 punishment be even more severe. It is disclosure of a secret, and that's
7 very serious. I never expressed interest in anybody else's work. I
8 cannot remember the name of one of these individuals, and the other one I
9 see from time to time to this day. So ...
10 MR. FARR: Could we please have Exhibit P2420 on the screen.
11 Q. And, sir, while the document is coming up, I'll tell you that it
12 is an Official Note on the heading of the 2nd Administration of the RDB.
13 It is dated 27 June 1994. So this is just a few days before you joined
14 the 2nd Administration. And if we could have the second page in B/C/S
15 and the bottom of the first page in English. And here at the bottom of
16 the document we see the words "Deputy Chief of Administration,
17 Dragan Filipovic," and below that a signature. Sir, again can you
18 confirm that this is the signature of Dragan Filipovic?
19 A. Yes. It should be his signature.
20 MR. FARR: And can we please go back to the top of the first page
21 in both languages.
22 Q. And we see here that the document is entitled "Official Note on
23 the Tajfun Group," and I'll begin reading at the top of the document. It
25 "Because of the internal conflict and discord in the RDB and the
1 RJB of the Republic of Serbia, the intelligence group known under the
2 pseudonym Tajfun from Banja Luka, as well as the Banja Luka Department
3 for Narcotics have decided to reduce their intelligence activity since
4 they've started having doubts that their intelligence reports that they
5 have been preparing have not been reaching the right end user (the
6 president of the republic) but, on the contrary, have been ending up in
7 the hands of unknown people.
8 "The members of the Tajfun group have therefore decided to
9 establish contact with the 2nd Administration of the RDB of the Republic
10 of Serbia MUP explaining that we were the only institution they still
11 have faith in and stating their wish to forward their intelligence and
12 information directly to us in the future, and so leaving the processing
13 of intelligence and its distribution to us.
14 "We let the members of this group know that we will accept the
15 group's initiative only under the condition they get approval from the
16 president of the republic, Radovan Karadzic, and the minister for the
17 interior, M. Stanisic. Since the said group informed us that they got
18 Karadzic's and Stanisic's approval, we are of the opinion that this
19 segment of the intelligence bodies of the Republika Srpska should be
20 subsumed under our system."
21 MR. FARR: And next page in B/C/S, please.
22 Q. [As read] "The technical aspects of a two-way communication were
23 therefore analysed, and the said group will form now -- will from now on
24 contact us under the pseudonym Sigma.
25 "The preliminary discussions on Sigma's incorporation into the
1 intelligence system of the RDB of the Republic of Serbia MUP were held by
2 the chief of the 2nd Administration of the RDB of the Republic of
3 Serbia MUP, Franko Simatovic, and the Deputy Chief of the
4 2nd Administration of the RDB, Dragan Filipovic."
5 Now, I asked you earlier today whether you had any knowledge of
6 an intelligence group known as Tajfun or Sigma, and I believe you said
7 you you did not have any knowledge during the period 1994/1995, and that
8 what you know, you know only from later media reports. Is it really your
9 evidence that you had no idea that Franko Simatovic and Dragan Filipovic
10 were making these arrangements with this group?
11 A. It's not only that this is the first time that I see this
12 document or, rather, am made aware of its content. That's one side. And
13 then on the other side, my subsequent work and my work in the
14 2nd Administration did not even hint at what is mentioned here, except
15 for the part that I've already referred to, the Bijeljina post.
16 MR. FARR: Okay. Could we please have the top of the first page
17 in both languages. And I'm interested in the handwritten remarks at the
18 top, starting on the top left.
24 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
25 [Private session]
24 [Open session]
25 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
2 MR. FARR:
3 Q. Now, sir, earlier, when I was reading out the entire text of the
4 letter, I read a portion that included the words "the preliminary
5 discussions on Sigma's incorporation into the intelligence system of the
6 RDB of the Republic of Serbian MUP were held by the chief of the
7 2nd Administration of the RDB of the Republic of Serbia MUP,
8 Franko Simatovic, and the deputy chief of the second administration of
9 the RDB, Dragan Filipovic."
10 Now, sir, doesn't this show that Mr. Simatovic was in fact
11 functioning as the chief of the 2nd Administration at this time?
12 A. I've already stated in which field my knowledge is in terms of
13 Franko Simatovic's presence in the 2nd Administration. Now, what Fica
14 wrote, I cannot really stand by that. But obviously Franko is suggesting
15 what should be done further, that is to say, to open a file. This is
16 purely analytical work. But the decision was no. Why it was no, that I
17 would not know how to explain.
18 Q. Now, you indicated also when you were in the 2nd Administration
19 you never received any tasks from -- from Mr. Simatovic. Do you have any
20 knowledge of why Mr. Filipovic appears to be receiving a task from
21 Mr. Simatovic via this handwritten note?
22 A. I can only suppose at that time work with a network of agents was
23 of such a scope that it was not easy to make quick conclusions. I
24 suppose this was rather a request for a professional opinion what should
25 be done next on the case that we just read about, how to use the agents
1 outside the country.
2 Q. Okay.
3 MR. FARR: Can we now please have Exhibit P2941 on the screen.
4 Q. And, sir, while this is coming up I'll just orient you by telling
5 you that now we're moving to a later period, which is specifically the
6 second half of 1995. And this is specifically a letter dated the
7 26th of September, 1995, that we'll see on our screens in just a moment.
8 And if we could just zoom in a little bit more on the signature
9 at the bottom, we can see that it's signed in the name of Tomislav Kovac
10 as deputy minister. And if we could zoom out again, we can see that the
11 ministry in question is the Ministry of the Interior of the
12 Republika Srpska.
13 And I'll just read the first -- sorry. In the letter we also see
14 it's addressed to General Ratko Mladic as the commander of the Main Staff
15 of the VRS. And I'll read the first paragraph of the letter. It says:
16 "I propose to schedule a meeting between the RS Deputy Minister
17 of the Interior Tomislav Kovac, the co-ordinator of the forces of the
18 Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia, Dragan Filipovic, and
19 you to resolve certain problems with regard to the commanding of troops
20 currently under the RS MUP."
21 Now, you told us earlier that you had knowledge of any member of
22 the Serbian DB meeting with either Ratko Mladic or Tomislav Kovac in
23 September or October 1995. Were you even aware that Tomislav Kovac was
24 trying to arrange such a meeting among himself, Dragan Filipovic, and
25 Ratko Mladic in September of 1995?
1 A. I can only repeat what I stated earlier. I would need a lot of
2 time and material to even recall who Tomislav Kovac was. I have no
3 closer or better knowledge. At the time when we first mentioned him, I
4 didn't even know who he was.
5 Should I go on? I would use this formula for a good legend in
6 another country. I would say that I'm a co-ordinator of some special
7 group attached to the Ministry of the Interior to get these people to
8 work for my intelligence service. That's what I would do.
9 Maybe that title existed, but I'm not aware that Dragan Filipovic
10 was any sort of co-ordinator of forces within the MUP. He was my boss,
11 but he was not co-ordinator of forces within the MUP.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you the following question: You earlier said,
13 "Unfortunately --" "Unfortunately, when asked about Tomislav Kovac, I
14 cannot even remember who this person was, the one you've mentioned, Kovac."
15 Now, a few lines ago you said: "At the time when I met him, I
16 didn't even know who he was."
17 On the one hand you tell us that you do not know who Mr. Kovac
18 is, and at the same time in your last answer you said you met him, but at
19 that time you didn't know who he was, but there may be an error, because
20 it's -- could you please explain? And if need be, of course, we'll check
21 whether your words are translated and scribed accurately, but that's my
22 problem at this moment, reconciling the two answers you gave as it
23 reaches us -- and they reach us in English.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sorry I didn't follow the
25 interpretation, but I'll repeat once again. Neither then nor now until
1 this moment that name told me nothing and doesn't tell me anything now.
2 I just don't know who that person is.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What did you then mean when you said: "At the
4 time when I met him, I didn't even know who he was." What's the meaning
5 of that sentence? Can you explain to us?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really can't go back to that
7 context. I can't recall it. But it was not -- I couldn't have said
8 anything about meeting Tomislav Kovac. Maybe I should -- maybe you
9 should quote to me what I said before.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I'll read your entire answer. You said, when asked
11 about Tomislav Kovac trying to arrange a meeting among himself,
12 Dragan Filipovic, and Ratko Mladic in September of 1995, your answer was:
13 "I can only repeat what I said earlier. I would need a lot of
14 time and material to recall who Tomislav Kovac was. I have no closer
15 knowledge. At the time when I met him, I didn't even know who he was."
16 That was what your answer -- how it was translated and
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I meant probably that when I met
19 Filipovic, Dragan, I had no prior knowledge, and I still don't know
20 anything about Tomislav Kovac. He was never a subject of conversation.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac.
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I let this pass
23 because I didn't want to suggest anything, because it might be my
24 mistake. I wasn't following the transcript.
25 I did not hear the witness mention meeting Tomislav Kovac. I
1 don't know. Maybe -- I don't know whether it's necessary to check the
2 recording, but it's my mistake. I wasn't following.
3 JUDGE ORIE: No, it's not your mistake. I would like to know
4 what the witness said, Mr. Bakrac. That's the issue at stake, not on who
5 in time asked for translations or anything else.
6 Madam Registrar, I would like to have those lines verified from
7 the audio, and as far as the translation is concerned, and of course the
9 Mr. Farr, I would like to read one decision, so therefore I
10 suggest that we adjourn for the day. Are you on time in your schedule?
11 MR. FARR: I estimate another hour and a half, Your Honour, so,
12 yes, I think I am.
13 JUDGE ORIE: If you could try to see whether you could do it in
14 one session that would be appreciated. So be as efficient as --
15 MR. FARR: Yes, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'd like to instruct you again that you should
17 not speak or communicate in any other way with anyone about your
18 testimony, and we'd like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.00 in this
19 same courtroom, and we'll conclude your testimony tomorrow.
20 You may follow the usher.
21 [The witness stands down]
22 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to deliver a decision on rebuttal
24 The Chamber addresses the Prosecution's request to extend the
25 deadline for rebuttal filings.
1 On the 1st of May of this year, the Chamber instructed the
2 Prosecution to file requests or notification of rebuttal evidence no
3 later than the 8th of May, 2012. With regard to Defence evidence
4 admitted after the 8th of May, the Chamber instructed the Prosecution to
5 file any such motions no later than one week after the date of the
6 introduction of such evidence. You can find this on page 18810 of the
8 On the 8th of May, the Prosecution filed its notification
9 regarding rebuttal evidence. In its notification, the Prosecution
10 requested the Chamber to adjust the deadline for rebuttal filings in
11 relation to Defence documents which have been tendered and for which a
12 decision on admission is pending. The Prosecution requested that this
13 deadline be set to two weeks following the find decision on admission.
14 The Prosecution noted that the Defence had tendered many Defence
15 documents from the bar table for which a decision on admission was
16 pending and which could potentially trigger additional rebuttal evidence.
17 On the 24th of May, the Prosecution orally requested to adjust
18 the deadline for rebuttal filings in relation to Stanisic Defence bar
19 table documents to seven days from the final decision on admission of
20 such documents by the Chamber. The Stanisic and Simatovic Defence
21 submitted in court that they did not object to this request.
22 The Chamber accepts that the Prosecution will be in a better
23 position to determine if rebuttal evidence, if any, once it has a full
24 overview of the documents, if any, still to be admitted in the Defence
25 case. In view of the scheduling of the remainder of the trial, the
1 Chamber considers that a one-week time period remains appropriate. The
2 Chamber accordingly grants the Prosecution's request in part and sets the
3 deadline for rebuttal filings in relation to documents tendered by the
4 Defence and admitted after the 8th of May, 2012, to one week after the
5 Chamber's last decision admitting documents in the Defence case.
6 In its notification, the Prosecution further requested the
7 Chamber to adjust the deadline for rebuttal filings in relation to the
8 final four Defence witnesses, namely Milosevic, Plahuta, Vujovic, and
9 Micic, to two weeks after the last of these witnesses has finished
10 testifying. The Prosecution requested the same in relation to the
11 re-called Defence witness Novakovic. The Prosecution submitted that
12 these witnesses were all expected to testify about the structure and
13 membership of the Serbian DB. The Prosecution anticipated that it would
14 make inter-related rebuttal submissions in relation to their testimonies.
15 Neither the Stanisic nor the Simatovic Defence responded to this
17 On the 21st of May, the Chamber suspended the deadline for
18 rebuttal filings in relation to the aforementioned witnesses, pending the
19 present decision. The Chamber informed the parties accordingly through
20 an informal communication which is hereby put on the record.
21 The Chamber accepts that it may be more efficient for the
22 Prosecution to make rebuttal filings once the four aforementioned final
23 witnesses have testified. The Prosecution should already have a good
24 overview of Witness Novakovic's testimony, who is being re-called for
25 further cross-examination. The Chamber considers that a one-week time
1 period remains appropriate. The Chamber accordingly grants the
2 Prosecution's request in part and sets the deadline for rebuttal filings
3 in relation to witnesses to one week after the last of these witnesses
4 have finished testifying.
5 And this concludes the Chamber's decision. So there is a
6 distinction between Novakovic and the others, but Novakovic is the last
7 one anyway who will appear.
8 We adjourn for the day, and we'll resume tomorrow, Wednesday, the
9 30th of May, at 9.00 in the morning in this same courtroom, II.
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.04 p.m.,
11 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 30th day
12 of May, 2012, at 9.00 a.m.