1 Thursday, 31 May 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
9 This is case IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic
10 and Franko Simatovic.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
12 Mr. Novakovic, I would like to remind you that you're still bound
13 by the solemn declaration you've given yesterday that you'll speak the
14 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
15 If you are ready, Mr. Weber, then you may proceed.
16 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honours.
17 WITNESS: RADENKO NOVAKOVIC [Resumed]
18 [Witness answered through interpreter]
19 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please move into private
21 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session. I take it that you
22 want the whole Chamber to move into private session, not only the
24 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please.
1 [Private session] [Confidentiality lifted by order of the Chamber]
2 THE REGISTRAR: We're in private session, Your Honour.
3 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Weber: [Continued]
4 Q. Good morning, Mr. Novakovic.
5 A. Good morning.
6 Q. Yesterday I showed you an image and asked if you recognised
7 Mihajlo Lukic. Today I am now going to play a video-clip, and could you
8 please watch this clip and the individuals depicted in it.
9 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I'm now going to ask Mr. Laugel to play
10 a clip from Exhibit P1592. The clip will commence playing at the
11 1:59 mark, and I've asked Mr. Laugel to pause the clip after
12 approximately 11 seconds. The Prosecution is going to play the clip
13 without any sound.
14 [Video-clip played]
15 MR. WEBER:
16 Q. The clip is now paused at the 2:10 mark. Mr. Novakovic, are you
17 able to identify Mihajlo Lukic in this video?
18 A. It looks like him. This one person looks like him, but I cannot
19 say with any certainty that it's him. You know, it was how many years
21 Q. The one person that you believe to be him, what is that person
22 wearing in the video?
23 A. He's not on this still.
24 Q. I understand that, sir. Do you recall what he was wearing in the
1 A. Well, that's the reason why I'm not sure, because I've never seen
2 him in uniform. I'm not sure if that's the person in uniform.
3 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please return to open session.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, before we do that, the witness says he's
5 not on -- the person he thinks or looks like Mr. Lukic is not on this
6 still. Now, what is the Chamber supposed to understand? Is there any
7 portion where Mr. Lukic is seen so that we are able to follow the
9 MR. WEBER: We do have a still from this portion that we showed
10 yesterday I can call back up to the screen, if it's -- that would be
11 D744, page 5.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. WEBER: I can ask if that's the individual that he believes
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps that would be good.
16 MR. WEBER: Okay.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Because I do not know why we stop here, where the
18 supposed Mr. Lukic is not visible, rather than at any other spot where
19 one could see him, for the witness also to describe any -- but if you say
20 the still would do better, then that's okay as far as I'm concerned.
21 Then I wonder what the video was good for, but ...
22 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I was just trying to give the
23 opportunity to the witness to view the full images, and I understand your
25 Could we please have Exhibit D744, page 5.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. WEBER:
3 Q. Mr. Novakovic, in the image that is before you, do you see the
4 person that you believe to be Mihajlo Lukic from the video-clip that we
5 just saw?
6 A. Looking at this still, it could be Mihajlo Lukic.
7 Q. Yes.
8 A. But I'm not sure. I cannot be sure.
9 MR. WEBER: Could the court usher please hand the witness a pen
10 and could the witness please then circle the individual that he believes
11 to be Mihajlo Lukic.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Which he believes to be possibly --
13 MR. WEBER: Possibly.
14 JUDGE ORIE: -- Mihajlo Lukic.
15 MR. WEBER: Just so we have a clear record.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
18 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution would
19 tender the marked still image.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be ...
21 THE REGISTRAR: The number for D744 marked by the witness will be
22 P3167, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: P3167 is admitted into evidence.
24 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, since it is identifying a member -- a
25 former member of the operative, we would ask that it be provisionally
1 under seal.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Former members are -- I don't know. That is not
3 within the ruling, is it?
4 MR. WEBER: Yes. I was being --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Sources, BIA operatives, and locations.
6 MR. WEBER: Understood.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. WEBER: Could we please return to open session.
9 JUDGE ORIE: We return into open session.
10 [Open session]
11 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
13 MR. WEBER:
14 Q. At transcript page 14074 of your testimony last fall, you
15 indicated that you could not recall whether you received a salary
16 increase between the 10th of July and the 10th of August, 1995. On that
17 same page, you stated, in response to a question to whether you received
18 a per diem in July or August 1995:
19 "Well, I cannot tell you exactly. It was 17 years ago."
20 Yesterday, at transcript page 19963, you stated in response to my
21 question about a 20 per cent salary increase in October 1995 the
23 "Look, in July and August 1995, I was also in the Krajina, and I
24 believe my salary was then increased by 50 per cent."
25 On the next page you stated:
1 "From the 5th or 6th of July, I believe, until the 5th or
2 6th of August, 1995, that was the time I was in the Republic of Serbian
4 What is the reason that you now recall the exact amount of your
5 salary increase, where you were assigned in July and August 1995, and the
6 precise dates of your assignment?
7 A. Let me tell you. You showed me a decision that I signed,
8 increasing my salary by 50 per cent. The period when I was in the
9 Republic Serbian Krajina is a period I now remember was exactly that. So
10 my salary was increased for that period by 50 per cent, and I was
11 separately rewarded by 20 per cent more in salary, although I was already
12 back in Serbia, and I believe that that was a reward for the jobs that I
13 had done.
14 Q. Sir, just so it's clear: At the time that you made the comment,
15 is it correct that I had just shown you a salary increase of 20 per cent
16 in October 1995?
17 A. From the papers and the documents you showed me, I see that it
18 was, and I believe if you got these documents from my personnel file,
19 then they must be authentic.
20 Q. Last fall you testified about one occasion where you were in the
21 Krajina between November and December 1994. Why do you now recall being
22 assigned to the Krajina on a second occasion between July and
23 August 1995?
24 A. You mean why I didn't mention it then?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
1 MR. JORDASH: Could we have a page number, please.
2 MR. WEBER: T14002 to -3.
3 Q. I'm sorry, sir. Could you repeat your answer.
4 A. I'm sorry, are you asking me how come I did not mention then that
5 I had been there also in July and August 1995 when I was speaking about
6 November and December 1994?
7 Q. I'm asking you how you recall today that you were in the Krajina
8 in July and August 1995. That's my -- the gist of my question. Could
9 you tell us how you recall that today?
10 A. When I was here before, we discussed the time periods that you
11 asked about, the time lines you asked about, and I answered those
12 questions. I wasn't talking about July 1995 or 1996 or 1997. There are
13 many things that I remember I did in 1996, for instance. When you put a
14 question, I answer to the best of my recollection.
15 Q. Sir, when I asked you whether you received a salary increase in
16 July and August 1995 when you were last here, what is the reason that you
17 did not recall being assigned to the Krajina at that time?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Same pages, Mr. Weber?
19 MR. WEBER: That would be page 14074 where I asked him about
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't remember. Maybe I
22 overlooked it. It was such a long time ago, you know.
23 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please return to 65 ter 6545,
24 page 3 of the B/C/S and page 5 of the English translation.
25 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, could I just -- I do think that it would be
1 more fair to the witness, if my learned friend is going to -- because
2 I've just read the transcript, and it's hard to keep up, but --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please, Mr. Weber, if you put something to
4 the witness what he said, then to read the question and answer, and if
5 it's too much, the gist of it and with the precise page reference.
6 MR. WEBER:
7 Q. Sir, before you there's a decision dated July 13 of 1995 from a
8 Milan Prodanic, the head of the 8th Administration. This decision
9 indicates that you received a 50 per cent salary increase because you
10 were deployed for the execution of official duties in Prizren from 10
11 July 1995 to 10 August 1995. Directing your attention to the lower left
12 corner --
13 MR. WEBER: Could we please have the bottom of the document.
14 Q. Does your signature appear on this document?
15 A. Yes. That's the signature without a date. I signed that I
16 received it.
17 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders
18 65 ter 6545 into evidence and requests that this exhibit be placed under
19 seal. The Prosecution is tendering the five excerpts that -- from his
20 personnel file that have been discussed with the witness.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Document 6545 will receive number P3168,
23 Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
25 Let me just check, Mr. Weber. Any need to have it under seal?
1 Yes, under seal. Admitted under seal.
2 MR. WEBER:
3 Q. You testified at transcript page 14017 that you were in Visegrad
4 on the 1st or 2nd of June, 1995. I'd like to ask you whether or not you
5 saw any Red Berets in Visegrad at this time.
6 A. I don't remember on what occasion I went to Visegrad what the
7 incident was. Could you tell me more about my testimony then?
8 Q. On page 14017, Mr. Jordash asked you:
9 "When did you attend Visegrad?"
10 Your answer was:
11 "It could have been either the 1st or 2nd of June as far as I can
12 remember. I -- I mean, I believe it was the 2nd of June. I really can't
13 remember the exact date after such a long time.
14 "Q. Fair enough and --
15 Then His Honour said:
16 "And we are talking about the hostage crisis. Who are the
18 Sir, I believe this was in relation to your --
19 A. [No interpretation]
20 Q. -- if that refreshes your recollection. During this occasion,
21 did you see any Red Berets in Visegrad?
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours --
23 JUDGE ORIE: One second.
24 Mr. Petrovic.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I object, and I
1 would appreciate it if my learned friend would be more precise when he
2 says Red Berets. Because this is a highly sensitive issue in this case,
3 would he please tell the witness which unit precisely he means.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- this is comment on the question. If the
5 witness -- this is inappropriate, Mr. Petrovic. You should refrain from
6 making observations which could even be understood as messages.
7 The witness may answer the question.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Then in Visegrad I didn't see any
9 Red Berets. I believe I stated in my testimony at an earlier trial that
10 I was met by a representative of the State Security Department of
11 Republika Srpska and somebody from the VRS.
12 MR. WEBER:
13 Q. At transcript page 14036 of your earlier testimony, you were
14 asked the following question:
15 "Following the massacres in Srebrenica, was there any issue which
16 arose as a result of Muslims fleeing those events?"
17 Your answer was:
18 "In the area of the Uzice centre in that period, there was a
19 large influx from the area of Zepa to the area of the Uzice centre. I
20 cannot recall the exact time-frame. I think it could be August."
21 Is it correct --
22 A. [No interpretation]
23 Q. Is it correct that this -- that you understood this question and
24 answer related to events which occurred in July and August of 1995?
25 A. Yes. Yes. It was July/August 1995. I don't know the exact time
1 period, but I know that after those activities in Zepa a large number of
2 civilians fled to the territory of Uzice, and they were put up in
3 Branicko Polje, at least a part of them. There was a collection centre
4 established there.
5 Q. How do you know about the events that occurred in Srebrenica and
7 A. To tell you the truth, the events in Srebrenica and Zepa, even
8 now, looking back, they probably coincide with my stint in Krajina. So
9 when I got there, I was briefly -- I was mainly briefed and got my
10 information from -- from the media reports and from the -- what was
11 available in the centre.
12 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 6547.1. The
13 Prosecution requests that this document not be broadcast to the public.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could I meanwhile ask one additional question. You
15 told us about increase of salary between the 10th of July and
16 10th of August, that you didn't remember, it's too long ago. That's what
17 you said in -- in the fall of last year.
18 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
19 JUDGE ORIE: You didn't remember that you were in the Krajina in
20 July and early August in 1995, in the Krajina, and that was the reason
21 why you got extra salary? You don't remember that? You didn't remember
22 that at -- in -- when was it? October. You'd forgotten about your
23 presence in the Krajina?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now, looking at the decision, I
25 believe that is it. That is for that stay there. It's an increase of
1 salary as remuneration for that trip.
2 JUDGE ORIE: But did you not remember then where you were in
3 July/early August when you answered these questions? "When I was on
4 field missions, I received per diem," you said. Do you remember to be --
5 didn't you remember in October of last year that you had been in the
6 Krajina in July and August 1995?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know if anyone ever asked
8 me, actually, where I was at the time. If it's in the transcript, I
9 should like to see it.
10 JUDGE ORIE: What was asked to you is:
11 "Did you receive any increase in your salary between the
12 10th of July and the 10th of August, 1995?"
13 And then you said:
14 "An increase in salary? I can't remember now. It's too long
15 ago. When I was on field missions, I received per diems."
16 This seems to be a lack of recollection of what happened or an
17 increase of salary in July and August 1995, and you told us now that you
18 were in the Krajina at that time. My question is: Didn't you remember
19 that when you testified last October?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I remember a decision was shown to
21 me, but I can't say with any certainty. I knew in October that I had
22 been in Krajina at that time, but I can't remember the exact question and
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll carefully look at the transcript of your
25 testimony at that time.
1 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
2 MR. WEBER:
3 Q. Is it your testimony that you were in the Krajina during
4 Operation Storm and you forgot that?
5 A. I can now state that I was in Krajina in that period and that at
6 the beginning of Operation Storm I returned to Serbia.
7 Q. Mr. Novakovic, I'd like to turn your attention to the document
8 that's before you. This is a Republic of Serbia State Security
9 Department JATD Official Note dated 5 March 1996. I'd like to direct
10 your attention to the bottom of the document.
11 MR. WEBER: If we could please have that on the screen.
12 Q. Do you know the author of this Official Note, Milan Maksimovic?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. How do you know Mr. Maksimovic?
15 A. Well, I know that in that period of time he was within the unit.
16 Now, what was his specific task? Was he within the unit? Was he on the
17 reserve? I mean, I'm talking about that particular period that we are
18 discussing now.
19 Q. Well, I'd like to discuss with you an earlier period that's
20 referred to in this Official Note.
21 MR. WEBER: If we could please go back up to the top portion.
22 Q. The first sentence of this Official Note states:
23 "In the period between 18 June and 25 June, 1995, I went to
24 Srebrenica on a number of occasions with the knowledge of the Service."
25 Were you aware or ever become aware of any members of the JATD or
1 other members of the Serbian DB who went to Srebrenica in late June 1995?
2 A. I'm not aware of that. That was not within my purview.
3 Q. This Official Note continues to state:
4 "In the mentioned period, I met Milan Lukic from Visegrad in the
5 hotel in Bratunac. He was dressed in a NATO uniform and wore a red beret
6 with no insignia. At that time there were about five to six soldiers
7 from Visegrad with Lukic who were similarly dressed, wearing the red
8 beret as a part of their uniform. I met that same group, equipped the
9 same, ten to 15 days later in the operations of the liberation of Zepa.
10 When I met them in Bratunac and Srebrenica, the following were in the
11 company of this group." There is a name stated, "a CRDB Bajina Basta
12 operative, Boskovic Borko, a member of our reserve composition. When I
13 met them near Zepa, I was in the company of," the name of the same
14 individual mentioned in the previous paragraph, "an SDB Uzice operative.
15 In the same period, following the liberation of Srebrenica, the following
16 showed up wearing our uniform with our insignia: Radivojevic, Milutin,
17 and Nakarada, Svetozar -- "
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, you are apparently reading from a
19 translation which is not exactly the same as we have on our screen. Is
20 there any reason why you take a different version of the translation?
21 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I'm sorry. I was working off the
22 translation that I had been provided. I do see that this is slightly --
23 I see that there are some differences in the translation. My apologies.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Now, I do not know what questions you'll put to the
25 witness and to what extent the slight differences may play a role there.
1 Please keep that in mind when you ask questions. And if need be, read
2 again from the translation we have in front of us.
3 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour, and thank you for bringing that to
4 my attention.
5 Q. Is correct that members of the JATD wore Red Berets and green
6 camouflage uniforms similar to those worn by NATO forces?
7 A. You're asking me?
8 Q. I'm asking --
9 A. Yes. As far as I know, that's the kind of uniforms they wore.
10 Q. Do you know if any hotels in Bratunac were used by commanders of
11 the VRS, including Ratko Mladic?
12 A. I absolutely have no knowledge of that.
13 Q. Do you know Milutin Radivojevic, Svetozar Nakarada, or
14 Borko Boskovic or ever become aware of these people as members of the
16 A. No. I have no information about that.
17 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the end of the
19 MR. WEBER:
20 Q. Sir, could you please repeat your answer.
21 A. Well, let me tell you, these names mean nothing to me except for
22 Maksimovic and Mihajlo Lukic. And Milan Lukic up there, yes, I heard of
23 him. As for the rest, I know nothing.
24 Q. Sir, can we --
25 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, could we have a redaction of the
1 reference to Mihajlo Lukic at page 15, line -- he is a former -- I've
2 been treating it cautiously, not knowing whether --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Isn't it true that yesterday a lot of questions were
4 put, I think even in open session?
5 MR. WEBER: I was --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Former operatives are not within the scope of the
8 MR. WEBER: Okay.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And similarly, one document which was admitted under
10 seal was dealt with yesterday at length in open session. So let's try to
11 clearly stick to what the ruling was, that is, IBA [sic] sources -- BIA
12 sources, BIA operatives. That means those who are now BIA operatives,
13 still BIA operatives, and BIA locations. Please proceed.
14 MR. WEBER:
15 Q. This Official Note indicates that there were encounters between a
16 member of the Uzice CRDB and members of the JATD with Milan Lukic in
17 Bratunac, Srebrenica, and Zepa at different times in late June and
18 early -- and, I'm sorry, July 1995. Did you know or ever become aware of
19 these meetings?
20 A. Absolutely. I see from this note, the date, that this is when I
21 was in the Krajina. I mean, this is the month of June, and I was there.
22 This is just before that. I absolutely have no knowledge of this.
23 Q. Did Mihajlo Lukic ever discuss these events with you?
24 A. No, never.
25 Q. Could you explain how it is possible that Mihajlo Lukic never
1 mentioned these events to you? Yesterday, you stated that the two of you
2 discussed the Lukic cousins. Did you not discuss anything about them in
3 more detail?
4 A. Let me tell you, I know Mihajlo Lukic very, very well and we are
5 good friends. Mihajlo Lukic and Milan Lukic are two different persons.
6 I mean, the families of Mihajlo Lukic and Milan Lukic are completely
7 different too. Now, why? They are very distantly related. I mean, they
8 have the same distant ancestors. I don't know to what extent I can
9 explain this to you. When Milan Lukic was in the area, in the houses of
10 the Lukics, I mean, this Milan Lukic is not from that area at all. He
11 was not even born there where Milan -- Mihajlo Lukic was born, his
12 father, grandfather, whatever. But since Milan Lukic was in Visegrad,
13 the uncle of Mihajlo Lukic was wounded in his house, and he even died.
14 He succumbed to these wounds.
15 I have to say that Mihajlo Lukic never looked upon the stay of
16 Milan Lukic in that area favourably. These are two different families.
17 Q. When you say he "never looked upon the stay of Milan Lukic in
18 that area favourably," what area are you referring to?
19 A. The area of Visegrad. From the very beginning of these war
21 Q. The Prosecution's case is that the interactions between
22 Milan Lukic and the members of the Serbian DB do not show that the
23 accused were concerned about protecting Muslims but, in fact, had other
24 contacts that were of quite a different nature with Milan Lukic is
25 included. He's included training Milan Lukic and some of his men and
1 also encountering Milan Lukic and being with him in July 1995. Would you
2 care to provide any comments on our position based on the interactions or
3 contacts between the Serbian DB and Milan Lukic?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
5 MR. JORDASH: Could I just object, for the record. We haven't
6 had notice that it was alleged that the accused were responsible for
7 training Milan Lukic or his men either in the indictment, the pre-trial
8 brief, or the opening statement. I think it was mentioned by Mr. Weber
9 at some point during the Defence case, but that was the first time we
10 understood that that was -- or we were provided with a scintilla of
11 notice about that.
12 And secondly, it would be useful even at this late stage to know
13 precisely what it is is being alleged concerning the - and I put -- I use
14 Mr. Weber's words - "encounters" that it is alleged that the accused are
15 responsible for.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber --
17 MR. WEBER: I'd be happy to answer, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: I beg your pardon?
19 MR. WEBER: I'd be happy to answer.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.
21 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the information in the testimony that's
22 been elicited through this witness was in the context of the Serbian DB
23 taking actions to curb certain extremism, and that included actions taken
24 against Milan Lukic. It is from this context that the Defence offers the
25 actions taken by the Serbian DB against Milan Lukic. The Prosecution has
1 brought forward information of other contacts that the DB had with
2 Milan Lukic. We are just offering it to rebut the reason that the
3 Defence has asserted as a defence to the accused's intent in relation to
4 actions carried out by the Serbian DB to curb extremism.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, at this moment what has to be done is to
6 give an opportunity to the witness to respond what the Prosecution thinks
7 is contradicting the Prosecution's case, isn't it? And that is done
8 using this document.
9 Now, the battle on whether you have had sufficient notice at this
10 moment, it's not primarily an issue of giving notice to the Defence, but
11 at this moment it's to put it to the witness in order to give him an
12 opportunity to comment.
13 MR. JORDASH: Well, and I think that is right in relation to the
14 so-called encounters. It's not right in relation to the training. This
15 witness hasn't --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
17 MR. JORDASH: -- said anything which would require Mr. Weber to
18 put that allegation. He was doing it in order to indicate so that the
19 Prosecution would plead, at a later date, that the accused trained
20 Milan Lukic. It's to slip in a new allegation.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If you could make them separate. And if you
22 want to ask a question about training, then perhaps do not do it in a way
23 by putting to the witness, but ask whether the witness is aware of any --
24 has any knowledge about training rather than encounters. Mr. Weber, you
25 may proceed.
1 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honours, I discussed
2 the training with the witness last fall. I will just keep it focused on
3 this document.
4 Q. Do you have any comments on the interaction between the
5 Serbian DB and Milan Lukic based on this document?
6 A. I have no comment. Especially I do not know what it was that
7 Mihajlo Lukic could put on Milan Lukic. I really don't know about that
8 in any way. I mean, they were not close. I can assume that this
9 encounter may have taken place, but for Mihajlo Lukic to train
10 Milan Lukic, I mean, what point of contact would they have?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could I ask one question, Mr. Weber.
12 When this document was shown to you and you responded to the
13 dates described in the document, that is, late June 1995, by saying,
14 "Well, I wasn't there. I was at the time in the Krajina." If my
15 recollection serves me well, I think yesterday you said that you left for
16 the Krajina the 5th or the 6th of July and then returned the
17 5th or the 6th of August. And I also remember that there was the
18 10th of July. But I did not understand from your testimony yesterday,
19 neither from your testimony today, that you're in the Krajina between the
20 18th and the 25th of June.
21 Could you assist me in understanding your evidence.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise. Even now I made
23 this comment stating that I was in the Krajina at a certain period, but I
24 see now that it's June, June/July. I mean, I couldn't see from this,
25 because I see this note was written in 1996, and it concerns information
1 from 1995 and then the question is being put as to where I was in 1995.
2 So that is how I confused the two. In this period I hadn't left for the
3 Krajina yet. This was a week or ten days before I'd left.
4 I mean, I roughly went, say, on the 3rd, 4th of July and returned
5 on the 5th or 6th of August, 1995.
6 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
7 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
8 JUDGE ORIE: One second.
9 Well, you say you were not aware of the date described, that it
10 was -- because you said it was March 1996. Let me then read your answer:
11 "Absolutely. I see from this note the date that this was
12 written. I was in the Krajina. I mean, is the month of June, and I was
13 there. This is just before that. I absolutely have no knowledge."
14 So apparently when you answered that question, you were perfectly
15 aware that the events described here were in June and that you were not
16 mistaken by March 1996, because you specifically referred to June. So
17 therefore your answer, where you said, "I mean, I couldn't see from this
18 because I see this note was written in 1996 and it concerns information
19 from 1995," "but I see now that it's June," but in your previous answer
20 you refer to June as well as, so apparently you were aware that the
21 events described were about June, whereas you left for the Krajina only
22 in July. It puzzles me slightly.
23 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
24 But I give you an opportunity to further explain if you wish to.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mean, I don't remember mentioning
3 March at all, what you referred to just now. I really got confused by
4 the dates here. I mean, I would like to say that in this period that the
5 note pertains to, I see from it, I was in Uzice. In the beginning of
6 July 1995, I went to the Krajina, and I returned in the beginning of
7 August 1995. However, I saw the date up there that it was written in
8 March 1996, and it has to do with information from 1995, so I did not
9 understand that. I don't see for which purpose this note was written up.
10 I do apologise.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
12 MR. WEBER:
13 Q. Do you have any reason to think that the information in this
14 Official Note is not correct?
15 A. I have no reason. No.
16 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution at this time tenders 65 ter 6547.1
17 into evidence. It's just the single excerpt. We ask that it be admitted
18 under seal.
19 MR. JORDASH: We object to the tendering of this document. Had
20 we had notice of this document during the Prosecution case, we could have
21 taken steps to investigate this material. We could have spoken to
22 Mihajlo, for example. We could have conducted investigations into what
23 was happening in this location at that time. We could have spoken to
24 Mr. Novakovic during the proofing session. We would have had a
25 reasonable opportunity to be able to deal with this material. We've been
1 deprived of that opportunity.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
3 Or Mr. Petrovic first.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we subscribe to what
5 Mr. Jordash says. Also, we would like to add that on the basis of this
6 document and on the basis of the questions put by my learned friend
7 Mr. Weber, one may conclude that the Prosecution case is being extended
8 in this way and they are trying to say directly or indirectly that this
9 group that was with Milan Lukic is linked to the DB of Serbia. We
10 haven't heard that until now. Until now this has not been the
11 Prosecution case.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
13 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, in terms of timing, the -- as
14 Your Honours are aware, this document was the subject of the reason that
15 the witness was recalled, and the information in it, the names in
16 particular, were not available to the Prosecution until the
17 12th of March, 2012. So this is information that recently became
18 available to us. We have sought the recall of the witness on this basis,
19 and we've made submissions as to why we would like to recall him
20 concerning this. As I've indicated today, the reason the Prosecution
21 sought to recall the witness is because the Defence seeks to rely upon,
22 as a defence, that actions were taken against Milan Lukic by the
23 Serbian DB. This document is being offered to show that there were other
24 contacts between the Serbian DB and Milan Lukic that did not involve any
25 type of punitive actions or remedial actions taken against him. That's
1 why we're offering it.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, you are talking about newly received
3 materials. Was the Defence made aware of what you received recently so
4 that they could have anticipated on -- on what would have triggered your
5 request? Not only that it was new material, but also what that material
6 was, was it disclosed?
7 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour. We -- we -- this was the subject
8 of the recall. We filed it as attached to --
9 JUDGE ORIE: No, I see that, but I'm -- I'd just like to know
10 whether once you received that you had immediately disclosed that to the
11 Defence so that they would know on the basis of what material exactly you
12 are -- you had received you sought to recall the witness.
13 MR. WEBER: It was disclosed with the motion to recall.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 Mr. Jordash, the material not being available in fall of last
16 year, everything being disclosed to the Defence so that the Defence would
17 be aware that this new material triggered the request for a recall, does
18 that in any way influence your position?
19 MR. JORDASH: It's not irrelevant, but it's not the core point.
20 The core point is that the Prosecution have known since the beginning of
21 this case, since we've filed our -- at least since we've filed our
22 Defence pre-trial brief, what our position was in relation to Lukic.
23 They had ample notice that we were suggesting that the accused had been
24 involved in making an arrest. They had ample notice that it was alleged
25 by the Defence that we had nothing to do with Mr. Lukic other than the
1 arrest. The Prosecution had ample opportunity to conduct reasonable
2 investigations well in advance to give us the same opportunity.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber denies the objection. The document is
6 Madam Registrar, the number would be ...
7 THE REGISTRAR: Document 6547.1 will receive number P3169,
8 Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: P3169 is admitted into evidence. Any need to have
10 to under seal, Mr. -- and, please, on the basis of the ruling and not on
12 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Republic of Serbia, just out of
13 fairness to them, has requested that with respect to the collection of
14 unredacted materials to -- I would just like to -- if we could keep it
15 provisionally under seal.
16 JUDGE ORIE: We -- it's admitted provisionally under seal. In
17 order to avoid whatever misunderstanding when I said the Chamber denies
18 the objection, I perhaps should have said the Chamber denies the
19 objections, because they were of a different nature. The one was about
20 notice and the other one was about extending the Prosecution's case. So
21 both objections are denied.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. WEBER:
24 Q. Mr. Novakovic, I'd like to return to your previous testimony
25 about the investigation into explosions at a gas station and a
1 transformer station in Kremna during June 1991 and your comments provided
2 on documents D427 and D432, marked for identification. At transcript
3 page 13591, you stated:
4 "Through our operative work, we managed to establish that the
5 explosion at the gas station, as well as the explosion at the transformer
6 station, which is about 2 or 3 kilometres away on Sargan mountain was
7 carried out by the same people."
8 In your comments on Exhibit D432, you stated:
9 "The public security investigated and determined that the used
10 explosive devices were of the same kind and that the time of the
11 explosions match, which indicate the perpetrators were the same. The
12 state security was involved in the further investigation into the
13 perpetrators until they were arrested."
14 At transcript page 13958, you stated that the culprits were
15 determined to be Muslims who hailed from the territory of Visegrad.
16 Is it correct that the Serbian DB further investigated this
17 matter until it was determined that Bosnian Muslims from Visegrad
18 committed these offences?
19 A. Yes. The further investigation was conducted both by the DB and
20 the SUP of Uzice. That was before the beginning of war in Bosnia. So we
21 addressed officially the authorities of Bosnia through our contacts,
22 asking them to find in the records who owned that vehicle by the licence
23 number, and then they were arrested by the public security and prosecuted
24 before the District Court in Uzice in 1992. The perpetrators, I mean.
25 Q. Were any people killed as a result of these explosions?
1 A. No. Nobody was killed. There were no casualties. There was
2 only the physical destruction of the installations of the gas station and
3 the damage at the tunnel at Chevron, some 20 kilometres away.
4 Q. Is it correct that you did not further investigate the Severin
5 kidnapping after your interview with Milan Lukic on the 26th and
6 27th of October, 1992?
7 A. I, as a member of the centre of the RDB Uzice, concerning that
8 kidnapping, personally participated in the interview with Milan Lukic on
9 the following day together with another two persons. That activity was
10 in the exclusive jurisdiction of the third line of work that was in
11 charge of everything that had to do with the extremism and terrorism, and
12 the -- that kidnapping was treated as a terrorist act against the
13 citizens of Serbia. Our orders were to get the service involved, and we
14 did, in collecting information, but I did not have any tasks regarding
15 that myself.
16 Q. Did you further investigate Milan Lukic after your interview?
17 A. You mean I myself?
18 Q. Yes. I'm just asking about you.
19 A. No. No, because after the interview that I conducted with a
20 colleague, he was turned over to the public security in Uzice, because at
21 the moment he was arrested, there was a suspicion that he was guilty of
22 illegally carrying weapons and having false IDs, and there was a
23 suspicion that he was involved in the murder of Stanko Pecikoza and the
24 kidnapping of citizens of Serbia in the north. So he was investigated by
25 the SUP, by the public security, and after that interview with us, he was
1 turned over to them for further procession.
2 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 6540. Since
3 this is a longer document, I'm going to ask him to read a little bit of
4 it. I was wondering if I could please have the Court Usher's assistance
5 to provide the witness with the B/C/S translation.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, you jumped from the attack to the
7 kidnapping. Is that the kidnapping we find on page 13974 and -77? I
8 mean, you moved from --
9 MR. WEBER: I did move, and I changed -- I'm not talking
10 about the -- I changed from the explosions in Kremna to the --
11 JUDGE ORIE: -- Sjeverin kidnapping.
12 MR. WEBER: -- Sjeverin kidnapping. Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, it came a bit as, of course, a sudden
14 change of subject.
15 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar has difficulties in finding the
17 relevant document in e-court.
18 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, if I could have the document taken back
19 from the witness. I will check out what --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, could -- Mr. Novakovic, would you please be so
21 kind to return the document to the usher. Thank you.
22 MR. WEBER:
23 Q. Do you know of any actions that were taken after Milan Lukic's
24 arrest to further investigate the Sjeverin kidnappings?
25 A. After the arrest of Milan Lukic and after interviewing him, my
1 colleague and I conducted another interview with two other sources
2 concerning the same circumstances, and both documents were turned over to
3 the competent administration for further action. I don't know what
4 happened later. I don't believe there was any interaction. I believe
5 there was interaction between the centre and that authority, but I'm not
6 familiar with the details.
7 Q. You stated that one of the reasons that you were concerned -- or
8 one of the reasons that you were concerned -- one the reasons you
9 interviewed Milan Lukic was that you were concerned with the fate of the
10 Muslim victims who were kidnapped. Is that correct? Is that one of the
11 reasons that you went to interview Milan Lukic, to determine if he had
12 any information about the kidnapped Muslims?
13 A. That was precisely the reason. Those were the orders of the
14 leadership of the service and even the state leadership at the time.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, could you always give us the pages and
16 the lines so that we are better able to follow exactly.
17 Q. Why did you not contact Risto Perisic, the chief of the Visegrad
18 SUP, to ascertain any information that he may have had regarding this
20 A. You're asking me?
21 Q. Yes.
22 A. I had no direct contact with Risto Perisic. I knew him because
23 he came to Uzice sometimes, but not to talk to him. You see, it was
24 happening at the moment when -- the kidnapping was on the 22nd, and I'm
25 not sure now when the interview took place. At that time we didn't know
1 the fate of the kidnapped people. It was within a very brief period of
2 time the service was working on it, and I believe the operatives who were
3 covering that territory, who were involved, were trying to get that
4 information from the authorities in that territory. Risto Perisic was an
5 official in the territory of Republika Srpska. You could not contact him
6 as you wished, only as required. But this was a good reason to make an
7 inquiry, but I was not directly involved. It was not directly my task.
8 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, this witness, at transcript page 14140,
9 previously testified that he did not know what happened to Milan Lukic
10 after he took his statement and he was transferred to the Detention Unit.
11 The Prosecution does have court records related to the charges that were
12 sought after the interview and his release from custody on
13 4 November 1992. At this time, we would ask to tender these materials,
14 which are available under 65 ter 6541.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections?
16 MR. JORDASH: These -- these are -- this is a lengthy document.
17 If the point is that the court released Milan Lukic, then perhaps we
18 could deal with it shortly by just an agreement.
19 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, we asked for the actual court records.
20 It's three documents. It's the filing by the public prosecutor and the
21 information --
22 JUDGE ORIE: What -- what in addition to what Mr. Jordash seems
23 to be willing to agree upon would you bring to our attention?
24 MR. WEBER: Well --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Is it the charges brought, or what is it? And how
1 many pages are the documents altogether?
2 MR. WEBER: The B/C/S version is nine pages. The English
3 translation is ten pages. The Prosecution would submit these are not
4 voluminous records. They detail what was --
5 JUDGE ORIE: That's -- apologies to interrupt you, but the three
6 documents all together is nine pages?
7 MR. WEBER: Correct.
8 MR. JORDASH: The problem we have is that within these documents
9 there are a number of other names, including persons who were arrested
10 with Lukic, and, on past practice, we have no faith that the Prosecution
11 will not identify those people as perpetrators at some point and suggest
12 the accused are responsible for them. So out of an abundance of caution,
13 we have to object to any document which introduces new names which we
14 have seen the Prosecution continuously trying to connect to the accused
15 without notice.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, now we have two questions. My question:
17 What is it that you want to establish beyond the fact that Mr. Lukic was
18 released by the court? And second, whether you're going to rely on any
19 of the other names mentioned in those documents so as to link them to the
20 accused. Two questions. Could you please respond to both.
21 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, with respect to the information in the
22 documents, there's been other materials including the witness's
23 statement, the statement of the Uzice public security --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, I put two simple questions to you. Now,
25 you start with the second one, that's okay. I'm not asking to you in
1 what context you want to use that in relation to what other evidence; the
2 question was whether you are going to rely, perhaps together with other
3 material, on the other names mentioned in that file.
4 MR. WEBER: I was trying to answer the first question. But to
5 answer the second question is very simple: No. With respect to the
6 first question, there's been -- the information, the details that are in
7 the records here, when compared with other materials that have been
8 introduced in the record, can show the information that was available to
9 the authorities in October/November 1992 compared to later charges that
10 were sought in relation to this offence that have already been made part
11 of the record. So we would ask that -- we're not tendering a big volume
12 of those court records; we're just asking that the materials be tendered.
13 The individual that -- that is arrested with Milan Lukic on this has
14 already been discussed, and information has already been admitted in
15 relation to this individual. So in order to have -- for the Chamber to
16 be able to see what he was addressed for --
17 JUDGE ORIE: But purely Lukic, no one else?
18 MR. WEBER: But he was arrested with someone else, and --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The question simply was: Are you going to
20 rely on these documents as well in relation to that other person?
21 Now, you said the answer is very simple, "No." And then you
22 started explaining how you will link those names to other evidence in
23 relation to that person, which undermines your own answer, if I am --
24 MR. WEBER: If I've misunderstood Mr. Jordash's submission, I
25 mean, the Defence is putting forward that they took certain actions
1 against individuals, so there are two individuals that were arrested, and
2 their release would be relevant to rebut the Defence contention. I guess
3 to that extent I did contradict myself, and we would be relying upon the
4 other individual to rebut that aspect of the Defence cases, to that
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, the questions to the witness were
7 exclusively focusing on Mr. Lukic, isn't it, and not on the others?
8 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, at least during the course of his
9 testimony he has testified as to the arrest of two individuals that were
10 caught with what -- I mean --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but have they been named? I mean, if
12 Mr. Jordash has some fear that you'll link a specific individual to the
13 accused, then if they slip in in what appears, at first, it seems to be
14 about Lukic, then I would suggest that you put questions about that
15 witness. I've got no idea who that other person is. I do -- I've got no
16 idea whether he appears anywhere else in the evidence at this moment. So
17 if you say you will use the name of that second person to rely upon in a
18 broader context, then please lay a basis, lay a foundation for the use of
19 that. Until now, when you tendered the document, we were not aware of
20 anything else than that it was about Mr. Lukic. And that apparently is
21 the fear of Mr. Jordash. So if you lay a foundation, we may reconsider
23 Mr. Jordash, may I can take it that on the basis of the answers
24 of Mr. Weber that you're not yet satisfied?
25 MR. JORDASH: Exactly, Your Honour.
1 MR. WEBER: Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
3 MR. WEBER: I'm not going to rely on this document for anything
4 greater, or the identity of the second individual, anything greater than
5 what I've already just explained on the record, which is that, at most,
6 based on just the face of the document, that the individual was arrested
7 with Milan Lukic, that they were detained, that they were processed on
8 specific charges, and that Milan Lukic and this other individual were
10 JUDGE ORIE: And that other person, you're not going to link that
11 other person in any way to what is the main subject of this trial, that
12 is, that the accused may have some responsibility for what those persons
13 did or --
14 MR. WEBER: Other than the arrest, no.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, without the Chamber even knowing who that
17 other person is, not knowing, I mean it's -- it's -- if Mr. Jordash would
18 not have objected, it would have slipped in. Now, the Chamber doesn't
19 say that that is inadmissible evidence, but until now arrests and release
20 of Mr. Lukic, there seems to be no problem. If you want this document to
21 be in, and having received it also recently, then please tell us or
22 identify with the witness who it was, how this linked to other evidence,
23 so that we consider that.
24 MR. WEBER: And the Prosecution doesn't intend to rely on this
25 other individual in that regard.
1 JUDGE ORIE: What, then? If you're not interested in -- I take
2 it that Mr. Jordash is willing to agree as well that not only Mr. Lukic
3 was arrested and was later released by the court, but that there was
4 another person which was arrested and released by the court. Well, if
5 you don't want to rely on it in any further way, why do we need the
6 document? If, however, you want to link that to other evidence, then at
7 least the Chamber should know what person we're talking about.
8 MR. WEBER: I understand, Your Honour. Can we offer this --
9 these documents for the limited purpose of the fact that Milan Lukic was
10 processed on certain charges based on the information in these documents
11 and that he was then released on the 4th of November, 1992?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Can you -- can you agree on the charges which are
13 laid out in the -- then we don't need the whole of the document. If you
14 agree on the text of the charges as you find them in the document and if
15 you agree on Milan Lukic being arrested and Milan Lukic being released by
16 a court decision, then that's it.
17 MR. WEBER: That would be fine, Your Honour, but could we also
18 have an indication whether the Simatovic Defence would be willing to
19 engage in such an agreement?
20 JUDGE ORIE: We'll ask Mr. Petrovic and/or Mr. Bakrac.
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, we are prepared to accept
22 that kind of agreement.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then the only thing we still need is the text of the
24 charges to be put on the record so that we know what the agreement is
1 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, may we do that after a break?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I think that's appropriate. So you can
3 use the break to copy it and perhaps OCR it.
4 We'll take a break. And how much time would you still need after
5 the break, Mr. Weber?
6 MR. WEBER: I was just going to go through one more document and
7 that's it.
8 JUDGE ORIE: One more document. We then resume at 10 minutes to
10 --- Recess taken at 10.22 a.m.
11 --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, you may proceed.
13 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit D784,
14 marked for identification.
15 Your Honours, I see the original version of this document appears
16 to be not so great quality. I do have a hard copy available for the
17 witness if it would assist him.
18 If the Court Usher could please hand it to the witness.
19 Q. Sir, if you could please not look through the document yet. I'm
20 going to ask you some questions about it and go through it with you
22 I'd like to direct your first -- first your attention to the
23 heading of the document. This document purports to be an Uzice CRDB
24 Official Note of a preliminary interview of a source. Is it correct that
25 the Roman numeral II in the heading represents the 2nd Administration?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Were you assigned or performed any tasks on behalf of the
3 2nd Administration of the Uzice CRDB in April of 1995?
4 A. I tried to explain that to you yesterday, but you interrupted me.
5 If I may say it now. In late 1994 and early 1995, the issues at the
6 headquarters of the service that had intelligence connotations were
7 slowly being transferred to another service. Everything was directed to
8 the 3rd Administration that dealt with terrorism and extremism. That is
9 the consequence of the situation in the service itself.
10 Until 1991, this was dealt with by the federal service. And
11 after that, republic services started developing intelligence activities
12 in their own centres. And this is a direct consequence of this. The
13 contact with this source is a contact with a source who provides
14 intelligence, and that is why I directed it to them.
15 Q. Okay. You said a couple of things here. If I could go back to
16 my question. Were you assigned or did you perform any tasks for the
17 2nd Administration of the Uzice CRDB in April 1995? If your answer is
18 "yes," could you please tell us what that task was?
19 A. Already from the end of 1994, and in this period to which your
20 question relates, I was oriented mostly, although as a member of the
21 centre, I was in charge of intelligence. I also dealt with intelligence
22 work, collecting all information, all intelligence of interest to the
23 republic regarding economy, politics, defence, and security, anything
24 relevant to the security of the country, the national security. And
25 since intelligence work implies also collecting all information about any
1 threats to national and cultural and economic integrity of the Serbs,
2 wherever they live, I also collected information on that.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, page 35, line 21/22,
5 the witness makes a distinction between types of information in terms of
6 different lines of work, but I believe this distinction is not clear in
7 the transcript, at least not quite as the witness put it.
8 JUDGE ORIE: We'll try to clarify that.
9 Mr. Weber, perhaps -- I think sometimes the line numbering is not
10 exactly the same.
11 Mr. Petrovic, would you be willing to read in English the line
12 you had on your mind, and then we'll ask the witness whether what you
13 read to him is his complete answer or whether further details were
15 MR. PETROVIC: Yes, I can, Your Honour.
16 "... I was oriented mostly, although as a member of the centre, I
17 was in charge of intelligence. I also dealt with intelligence work,
18 collecting all information, all intelligence of interest to the republic
19 regarding economy," et cetera.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 Did you make any further -- did you mention any further detail as
22 far as intelligence was concerned?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said: Although I was dealing
24 with counter-intelligence work, in that period I started also collecting
25 intelligence information, because that was the demand of the service.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
2 Mr. Weber, please proceed.
3 MR. WEBER:
4 Q. Did you ever conduct any interviews of this source Producent?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Sources are within the scope of the -- I don't know
6 whether the answer to your question would possibly identify --
7 MR. WEBER: I'm not asking for the identity of --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. WEBER:
10 Q. Mr. Novakovic, so you're clear: I'm not asking for the identity
11 of the source in my question. I just would like to know whether or not
12 you ever conducted any interviews of this source.
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. WEBER: If we could please move to private session.
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 Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
19 MR. WEBER:
20 Q. Could you please tell us the name of the source?
21 A. Coming here, I got a decision from the Government of Serbia
22 waiving my obligation to keep official secrets. Sources are the highest
23 asset of the service, and they are protected, and when I got retired, I
24 signed the Official Secrets Act requiring me to keep secrets on all
25 sources, et cetera.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Now, the Republic of Serbia has requested protective
2 measures. We have decided on that, and we do protect sources. That's
3 the reason why we are in private session and why we're not dealing with
4 this matter in public.
5 The Republic of Serbia is informed about the decision the
6 Chamber, and if they would have wished to -- to appeal that or to have
7 that reviewed, they would have had an opportunity to do that. So
8 therefore, we're in private session. It will not be public. And you're
9 invited to answer the question. Apparently there's no problem as far as
10 the Republic of Serbia is concerned. Would you please answer the
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know whether this
13 source is still being used today. That's why I'm saying what I'm saying.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And that's the reason why we are in private session.
15 That's the reason why we would not make this publicly known. Everyone in
16 this courtroom is under an obligation to keep it secret, and this part of
17 your testimony will not be broadcasted to the outside world.
18 Please answer the question, Mr. Novakovic.
23 MR. WEBER:
24 Q. Mr. Novakovic --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps you would clarify it, Mr. Weber.
1 That's okay.
2 MR. WEBER:
3 Q. Mr. Novakovic, the interpreter believes that they might have
4 heard something additional after you said the name of the source. They
8 Q. Could you please review that document. Yes.
9 A. You want me to read it aloud?
10 Q. No. No. If you could review the document and let us know if you
11 authored it.
12 A. All of it?
13 Q. Yes. Review it until you're able to determine whether or not
14 you're familiar with it and whether or not you authored it.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Novakovic, I think the question of Mr. Weber was
16 that when you're able to say that you recognise this document or that you
17 authored it, that please let us know. And then whether you have to read,
18 then, the whole of it or whether certain portions will be put to you by
19 Mr. Weber, we'll see that. But do you recognise the document?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do recognise the document, and,
21 yes, I authored it.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Then listen carefully to the questions Mr. Weber
23 will put to you.
24 MR. WEBER:
25 Q. The last paragraph of this Official Note contains a
1 recommendation. It states: "We believe it is necessary for the
2 leadership of the centre in the 2nd Administration of the RDB MUP RS to
3 urgently agree on how precisely the source should be used and to examine
5 On the front of the Official Note, it indicated that this was
6 just a preliminary interview. Did you conduct any subsequent interviews
7 or generate any subsequent reports in addition to this source?
8 A. As I've already said, you can see from the content of this
9 document that there is a wide array of information provided. The
10 situation in the political segments of Republika Srpska, the situation in
11 the army, the situation on the ground. My thinking in terms of this
12 contact and also in agreement with the 2nd Administration, the further
13 guidelines to be provided to this source were to be co-ordinated. I did
14 continue my relationship with this contact or source.
15 Q. And did you generate any later reports in relation to those
16 subsequent contacts?
17 A. Well, I must have written reports, because I wrote things up
18 whenever I had contact with him. Perhaps until 1995, 1996. It had to do
19 with the subject matter of Bosnia, later on perhaps something else.
20 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, could we -- I believe we're still in
21 private session. If we could return to open session. I have a number of
22 housekeeping matters to hopefully alleviate from next week, and I also
23 wanted to read in an agreed fact. I'm done --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Does this mean that your cross-examination of the
25 witness is concluded?
1 MR. WEBER: Correct. I have no further questions.
2 JUDGE ORIE: No further questions. Then we return into open
4 [Open session]
5 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
7 Now, before we deal with practical matters, Mr. Weber, are they
8 of such urgency that we should first hear them before we give an
9 opportunity to the Defence to put further questions to the witness?
10 MR. WEBER: I think so, because the Prosecution's going to be
11 withdrawing a number of objections that we have had, and if this is of
12 assistance to the Defence --
13 JUDGE ORIE: If that -- if that -- if that -- if that is relevant
14 information in relation to the further examination of this witness, then
15 please proceed.
16 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution at this time withdraws its objection
17 to the admission of the comment chart of the witness marked for
18 identification as D424. However, the Prosecution maintains its
19 submissions regarding the probative value and weight of these comments.
20 The Prosecution also withdraws its objection to the admission of
21 the following exhibits: D427, D430, D432, D435, D437, D440, D443, and
23 Lastly, the Prosecution withdraws its objection to exhibit -- to
24 the admission of Exhibit D436. However, the quality of this document is
25 poor. We would inquire whether or not the Defence has a better available
1 version, and if not, the Prosecution requests verification of the
2 translation of the last paragraph on page 1 of the B/C/S original after
3 the words "Visegrada sevsto [phoen]," as this may contain relevant
5 With that, Your Honour, I'd seek leave to read in an agreed fact.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And if the Defence has a better version
7 available, is then the request for the verification of the translation
8 moot? Or ...
9 MR. WEBER: Correct. If we're able to see it and it corresponds
10 to what is available on the translation, then that would render the need
11 to do a verification moot.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then there's a fair chance that these
13 exhibits would be admitted into evidence. I would have to look at it.
14 The Chamber will have to look at it, of course, in further detail what
15 the basis of the objections were, whether we have any questions in
16 relation to those. But I think there would be a fair expectation that
17 admission is forthcoming.
18 Any other matter, Mr. Weber?
19 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, if I could please read in the agreed
20 fact related to the matter that was addressed just before the --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. WEBER: -- recess.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes.
24 MR. WEBER: The following information would be agreed upon
25 between the parties: On 30 October 1992, Milan Lukic was charged with
1 the crime of unauthorised procurement, possession, carrying, manufacture,
2 exchange or sale of weapons, ammunition, and explosive substances.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please slow down, Mr. Weber.
4 MR. WEBER: On 4 November 1992, the District Court in Uzice
5 dismissed these charges as unfounded and terminated the detention of
6 Milan Lukic. He was then released from custody.
7 So stipulated.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Then that is on the record that the parties agree on
9 these facts.
10 Who will go first?
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that it
12 should be the Defence of Mr. Simatovic. That is the way we usually
13 handle things. Of course, with your leave.
14 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine with me. Could you give us a time
15 estimate, Mr. Petrovic?
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, only a few minutes.
17 Not more than ten at any rate.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, could you give us an indication
20 MR. JORDASH: Not more than 15. Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then please proceed, Mr. Petrovic.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Petrovic: [Continued]
24 Q. Good morning, Mr. Novakovic.
25 A. Good morning.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please look at P3169, and
2 could the document please not be displayed to the public. P3169 is the
3 document number.
4 Q. Mr. Novakovic, a few moments ago you looked at this document. I
5 would just like to put a few questions to you in relation to the
6 document. I would like to start with the first sentence. It says there:
7 "In the period between the 18th of June and the 25th of June, 1995, I
8 went to Srebrenica on a number of occasions with the knowledge of the
10 Mr. Novakovic, will you agree with me that Srebrenica was taken
11 by the Army of Republika Srpska on the 11th of July, 1995?
12 A. I don't know the exact date, but that was probably the case.
13 Q. Will you agree with me that before Srebrenica was taken by the
14 Army of Republika Srpska, it had not been possible for anyone to go to
16 A. Absolutely.
17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Novakovic. Next sentence.
18 "In the aforementioned period, I met Milan Lukic at the hotel in
20 Mr. Novakovic, what is your understanding of this sentence, "I
21 met Milan Lukic"?
22 A. That absolutely means that he saw him in passing. It means that
23 he saw him, saw him.
24 Q. Thank you. When we analyse the meaning of this sentence, does
25 this sentence in any way suggest that they had agreed to meet, that they
1 had had any meeting as such whatsoever?
2 A. Absolutely not. I think that that's absolutely not suggested,
3 because in view of the document that he's writing, I think that he would
4 have mentioned in the document had he been on that kind of mission, that
5 he met with him, that he told him something. Because he says here, "I
6 met Milan Lukic," and he describes what happened. He describes that he
7 saw him wearing a uniform. He's saying what he saw.
8 Q. Had there been a meeting apart from this encounter, would it be
9 expected to have this noted in the Official Note, not only to refer to
10 the appearance, the physical appearance of the person?
11 A. Absolutely. He would have said what the subject discussed with
12 the said person was.
13 Q. Please look at the second paragraph of the same document. The
14 same document. It says:
15 "The same group equipped in the same manner, I encountered 10 or
16 15 days later."
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphones for the Judges, please.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, this is a document which, of course,
21 when interpreted, then will be commented by the parties. Now, whether
22 the witness is a person who is the one who should guide us in
23 interpreting this document is very questionable. We'd rather hear facts
24 from this witness.
25 There seems to be, however, one thing that is -- reference was
1 made to -- I -- let me see. I think you're -- or consistently the word
2 is -- the word is used -- let me check that, because it just disappeared
3 from my screen.
4 Yes. What you read was, as it appears on the transcript, "In the
5 aforementioned period, I met Milan Lukic at the hotel in Bratunac";
6 whereas the translation says "I met up with." That may not be exactly
7 the same. That's one. And then in the answer, the witness says -- gives
8 his interpretation of what that means, to see in passing. The Chamber is
9 not fully aware of what makes this witness a person that could tell us
10 exactly that meeting up with a certain person would actually mean see him
11 in passing. Again, that interpretation, you could call 50 other
12 witnesses who would tell us what the meaning of this document is. We
13 rather hear facts. And we'd rather have the right quote, "meet up with"
14 rather than "met." And if there's any translation issue in that respect,
15 we'd like to know so that can be verified. Please --
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] -- if you allow me. If you allow
19 me. If you allow me just one sentence. My intention is --
20 JUDGE ORIE: As long as what you say is something that could be
21 appropriately said without the witness taking off his earphones or, if he
22 speaks English, to leave the courtroom. Then you have an opportunity.
23 But no further discussion about the content of evidence in the presence
24 of a witness.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, lest I run any risk,
1 I would kindly ask that the witness be allowed to leave the courtroom for
2 a second. Or he can take off his headphones. I don't know if he
3 understand English. And also I don't know whether he can hear the
4 interpretation even if he takes his headphones off.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you have considered that what you want to
6 tell us is really important enough to ask the witness to leave the
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will try to
9 simplify matters. The witness is an operative with a great deal of
10 experience who wrote and read many, many documents. I wanted to hear his
11 understanding of the document. Also, as a person whose mother tongue is
12 B/C/S, or, rather, the Serbian language, from a linguistic point of view
13 could he describe specifically the word "susreo."
14 THE INTERPRETER: "Met." Interpreter's note.
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] That is why I put this question to
16 the witness.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's clear, and you may proceed. And you're
18 still invited to focus very much on facts rather than -- not to say that
19 it's useless to hear from someone who has read many reports. At the same
20 time, it is -- if -- of any assistance, of limited assistance. So please
21 focus on the facts.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just one more
23 question in relation to this document. And after that I'm not going to
24 go back to the document.
25 Q. Mr. Novakovic, in the second and third paragraphs of this
1 document there is also reference to some encounters that the author of
2 the document had with certain individuals. Is an operative of the
3 service expected to do the following: If these encounters were
4 meaningful, is an operative of the service expected to write this up in
5 an official note if he talked to these persons and what these persons
6 said and what was discussed?
7 A. Absolutely. If an operative has contacts, on the ground in
8 particular, he's expected to say what kind of contact it was and what was
10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Novakovic. While we are -- actually, we're not in
11 private session.
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we briefly
13 move into private session, please.
14 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
15 [Private session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of the Chamber]
16 THE REGISTRAR: We're in private session, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
19 D784, could would have a look at that again, please.
20 Q. Mr. Novakovic, it's not very legible, but I believe that you have
21 a hard copy in front of you. A few moments ago you read it.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Can you explain to us why this document is being sent along a
24 different line of work -- or, rather, the second line of work? Why is it
25 being sent along that line of work? What is so characteristic about it?
1 A. Well, the content of the document is a portrayal of the current
2 situation as the session of the Assembly of Republika Srpska was being
3 held in Sanski Most, and it shows the active clash that took place
4 between the military and political leadership at that point in time.
5 Q. The information contained in this report, what type of
6 information is this? What nature does this information have?
7 A. It is intelligence, absolutely.
8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Novakovic. And just one more question. Perhaps
9 it hasn't been clarified fully.
10 You mentioned that there was a conflict between Milan Lukic and
11 the family of Mihajlo Lukic. What kind of relationship did they have?
12 Or, rather, what led to this conflict, and what was their relationship
13 between Milan and Mihajlo?
14 A. I'm sorry, I tried to explain the difference between Mihajlo and
15 Milan Lukic. When Milan Lukic stayed in the area of Visegrad --
16 Q. Please slow down so that this can be recorded.
17 A. In terms of the reasons, as Mihajlo Lukic said to me, one of the
18 reasons why his uncle had been killed in the village where Mihajlo's
19 father and uncle lived, as far as I can remember the man was wounded near
20 the house of a man who hadn't been a combatant at all. This was probably
21 done on the basis of some revenge, and he bled to death. I know that
22 Mihajlo Lukic never liked the fact that Milan Lukic was in the area of
23 Visegrad. And ultimately he was convicted, because the family, the
24 father of Mihajlo Lukic, lived in the area of Republika Srpska
1 Q. Mr. Novakovic, again it is not clear. What was it that
2 Mihajlo Lukic said to you was one of the reasons for the killing of his
4 A. He thought that one of the reasons was precisely that, the fact
5 that Milan Lukic was staying in the territory of Visegrad. And what he
6 had committed there.
7 I'm saying this to you on the basis of what I remember. I
8 remember that Mihajlo was very bitter at the time.
9 Q. Do I understand you correctly: Mihajlo believes that the death
10 of his uncle is revenge for what Milan Lukic did?
11 A. He didn't specifically say that it was revenge, but that
12 certainly contributed to it. I cannot remember what year it was exactly.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Novakovic.
14 Thank you, Your Honours. I have no further questions.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.
16 I'm seeking one clarification of one of your answers. It relates
17 to the previous document. If you'd like to have it on the screen, then
18 we'll put it on the screen. I think it's 3169. That's the document in
19 which the meeting at the hotel was mentioned and the encounter at -- in
20 the days following this first, as you said, see Lukic in passing.
21 Now, in relation to a question put to you by Mr. Petrovic, you
22 told us the following:
23 "If these encounters were meaningful, as an operative of the
24 service expected to write this up in an Official Note if he talked to
25 these persons and what these persons said and what was discussed?"
1 And you said:
2 Absolutely. If an operative has contact, on the grounds in
3 particular, he was expected to say who was contacted and what was
5 Now, in the question there was a suggestion that perhaps such
6 information was not in this document because there may have been no
7 conversation at all. Is that how you understand the document, or do you
8 think that there has been a conversation during these encounters?
9 A. I personally think that there hadn't been any contact. Look,
10 this term that is used in our language, "met," that means that -- when we
11 would meet. But "susreo," as opposed to "sreo," would be to see in
13 JUDGE ORIE: I was focusing also on the encounters which are
15 I encountered the same group dressed in the same manner 10 to 15
16 days later in the operations to liberate Zepa during the encounter with
17 this group in Bratunac and Srebrenica. Lukic Mihajlo, an operative were
19 Now, these encounters, do you understand this report to be that
20 there has been any exchange of information or any conversation, or is it
21 your understanding that that did not take place?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, let me tell you. From this
23 point of view, as I'm giving a comment in respect of the way it was
24 written here, I'm not in a position to say that there had been meetings
25 and contacts. However, they say that during their stay they met these
1 persons that they refer to in this note. Whether they talked to these
2 persons about anything, I don't know. I'm not in a position to comment
3 on that. But had there been any contact, talks between them, I believe
4 that they would have written that up.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. How do you interpret that last line of the
6 second page of this document?
7 Could we move, in the English translation, to the second page.
8 And we need to have a look whether it's on the first page in B/C/S. If
9 we could move it a little bit -- no, second -- could we have a look at
10 the original. No. One second. Yes. It's still the first page.
11 It says: "Lukic Mihajlo, an operative of Uzice SDB, was informed
12 about this."
13 How would he have been informed?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you please show the document
15 to me so that I could see? I mean, I have the English version here, but
16 not --
17 JUDGE ORIE: For the witness, the B/C/S version, please. Last
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The last sentence: Radivojevic and
20 Nakarada managed to flee from Bratunac to the FRY. Mihajlo Lukic, an
21 operative of the SDB Uzice, was made aware of this.
22 This is how I understand this: That Lukic knew that the two
23 mentioned persons fled from Bratunac to the FRY, and I assume that he
24 informed someone about that. I don't know. The persons in the centre
25 who were in charge?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you don't know. You don't know whether there
2 was a conversation, you do not know who would have informed Mr. Lukic.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I don't know.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
5 Mr. Jordash.
6 MR. JORDASH: I would like to address you at some stage about the
7 translation of this document and request a verification for various
8 reasons, but I don't think I need to do that before the witness is -- has
10 JUDGE ORIE: Unless it creates problems in the questioning of the
11 witness, of course. Then --
12 MR. JORDASH: No, it won't. I'm not going to revisit the
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we can do it later.
11 Pages 20022-20024 redacted. Private session.
13 MR. JORDASH:
14 Q. Apart from that specific purpose, were the -- was your service,
15 the Serbian DB, collecting intelligence for any other purpose?
21 Q. Sorry, which service in the Republika Srpska did the post have
22 contact with?
1 Q. So what about the military service? Did the State Security
2 Service of Serbia have any contacts with the military service from the
3 point of establish -- from the point the post was established?
4 A. Not that I know of.
5 Q. So no assistance from the Serbian DB to the military as far as
6 you were aware?
7 A. No. I'm a member of a civilian structure. Throughout my career,
8 I was oriented towards civilian structures in Republika Srpska, and I
9 believe the contacts were also at the state level between the RDB of
10 Serbia and the RDB of Republika Srpska. Even during my stay throughout,
11 I have avoided all public appearances.
5 Q. Thank you. I think that's clear. Could I just ask you about
6 Kozara. Do you know anything about that?
7 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one question which is specifically on
8 Bijeljina, so before you move on.
9 When you set up this post in December 1995, after Dayton, did you
10 create -- did you newly establish that post, or did you use an existing
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We used a pre-existing building
13 that we just leased.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not primarily thinking in terms of building, but
15 mainly in terms of equipment, listening equipment.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was new. We equipped the
18 JUDGE ORIE: You came to the building with new equipment, and you
19 established, after Dayton, in December 1995 a listening post in Bijeljina
20 with that new equipment; is that correctly understood?
21 A. Yes, yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
23 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Q. I just want to ask you about Kozara and whether you know anything
25 about DB involvement there, DB of Serbia's involvement there.
1 A. For a while I believe there was a radio reconnaissance centre in
2 that area, but I'm not sure. I don't know.
3 Q. Do you know when?
4 A. Maybe in the same years when I was there in 1995, 1996.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, "maybe" answers, maybe yes, maybe no,
6 is --
7 MR. JORDASH: I know --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. JORDASH: -- I was to -- just about to clarify.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
11 MR. JORDASH:
12 Q. I'm not going to push you. If you don't know, you don't know.
13 Do you have any other information besides what you've just given us about
14 Kozara and the DB's involvement there? I don't want you to guess or
15 speculate. Just if you have facts --
16 A. No, no.
17 Q. Thank you. No further questions. Thank you, Mr. Novakovic.
18 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jordash.
20 Mr. Weber, no need for further questions?
21 MR. WEBER: That's correct, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 Mr. Novakovic, the parties have no further questions for you.
24 I've got one question.
25 Questioned by the Court:
1 JUDGE ORIE: What exactly was your mission between early
2 July 1995 up till the 5th or the 6th of August, 1995, in the Krajina?
3 What were you doing there?
4 A. From the beginning of July until early August 1995, I was in
5 Krajina, together with the representatives of the RDB of Serbian Krajina,
6 to be in contact with the security organs of Western Bosnia,
7 Fikret Abdic, for the purpose of collecting intelligence that would be of
8 importance for the security of the Republic of Serbian Krajina.
9 JUDGE ORIE: What kind of intelligence were you trying to gather
10 at that moment?
11 A. Information related to the deployment of military forces, the
12 5th Corps, their movements, et cetera, because the situation was getting
13 complicated at the time. There were threats. The Croatian offensive and
14 the Muslim offensive were in the making, threatening an attack against
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So if I understand you well, that gathering
17 intelligence would include gathering intelligence of a military nature?
18 A. Yes, there was military intelligence also.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Did you in any way work together with military
20 intelligence -- intelligence services? Because you said, "Well, we were
21 strictly civilian." You earlier emphasised how much that you were always
22 working in the civilian organisation and you were sent to the Krajina
23 apparently to gather intelligence which you just explained was - that's
24 the only thing you mentioned - was, rather, troop movements and these
25 kind of things.
1 A. I worked exclusively with civilian services and I talked with the
2 mediation of the service of the Serbian Krajina with the security forces
3 from AP Western Bosnia, but I never worked with any -- anyone from the
4 military or the military service, with the Military Intelligence Service.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that answer.
6 If there are no further questions, Mr. Novakovic, I'd like to
7 thank you very much for coming back in a different season --
8 Yes, we first move into open session.
9 [Open session]
10 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. I think we should have
12 moved into open session earlier, but ...
13 Mr. Novakovic, I would like to thank you very much for coming
14 again to The Hague and to having answered the questions that were put to
15 you by the parties and by the Bench, and I wish you again a safe return
16 home. You may follow the usher.
17 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
18 [The witness withdrew]
19 JUDGE ORIE: There are two matters I would like to deal with, and
20 I'll inquire with the parties how much time that would take. The first
21 one is the scheduling of a housekeeping session. The Chamber wants to
22 have a housekeeping session on Thursday, the 7th of June, that's one week
23 from now, at 9.00 in the morning. Any problems with that?
24 MS. MARCUS: No problems, Your Honour.
25 MR. JORDASH: No problems, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Simatovic Defence?
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, it's okay.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then there's another matter, that is, the
4 Prosecution would wish to make further submissions in relation to the
5 motion in which it seeks further Browne materials, if I may say. So
6 we're not talking about rebuttal evidence, not about the expert report
7 the Prosecution would like to present in rebuttal to the Browne report,
8 but rather to receive the material and the information.
9 I think the last we heard was that you, Mr. Jordash, you intended
10 to seek Mr. Browne's co-operation so as not to issue an order on that
11 matter. I also do understand that there are some problems in that
12 context. I wonder -- the Prosecution would like to make further
13 submissions in answering to the response by the Defence. I wonder,
14 however, whether we should first take a break and then hear those
15 submissions or whether they would be of such -- so short that we could
16 continue. And I'm specifying address you, Mr. Jordash and Mr. Stanisic.
17 MR. JORDASH: Well, my suspicion is that they won't be that
18 short, because I think the -- the -- the issue is --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then perhaps we take a break first.
20 MR. JORDASH: And could I also just raise two other things.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. JORDASH: Very quickly. One is the issue of the translation
23 which I mentioned in relation --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. JORDASH: -- to this document. And the second is just an
1 inquiry as to whether we will be asked to address you on the timing of
2 the filing of the closing briefs.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you've asked for a postponement of that.
4 I suggest that there's too much on the agenda to deal with it and
5 then adjourn, so let's first take a break. We resume at 20 minutes to
7 And could you tell us how much time you would need for the
8 submissions in relation to the Browne materials.
9 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, from our end, unless there are further
10 queries, about five minutes for the Browne issue and perhaps a little bit
11 more than that for the final trial brief deadline issue.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll hear from you after the break.
13 --- Recess taken at 12.08 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 12.43 p.m.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Since it was announced that the submissions in
16 relation to Browne would be most likely the shorter ones, let's start
17 with that. The Prosecution has asked for an opportunity to make
18 submissions, but perhaps it would be good for the Chamber to be updated
19 on the present situation, because I think the last thing we heard in
20 court was that Mr. Jordash would be in contact with Mr. Browne.
21 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. This is directly in response to
22 that --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MS. MARCUS: -- so it will all be clear from the submission, and
25 I'm going to ask Ms. Friedman to make that submission for you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Unless there's anything you with like to
2 update on -- us on first, Mr. Jordash.
3 MR. JORDASH: Yes, please, because we received an e-mail today at
4 12.06 from Mr. Browne, who states:
5 "I have just been through all my notes. No pages were detached
6 during my examination other than the book 16 in my report. That is the
7 book that it was always going to be difficult, loads of detached pages
8 when I saw it in March, loads of detached pages when I saw it in
9 November --"
10 No, I'm missing out some bits because they're not strictly
11 relevant, although I'm happy to disclose the full e-mail, if necessary.
12 JUDGE ORIE: If you tell us what is relevant, then if you perhaps
13 disclose the whole of the e-mail to the Prosecution, then that would ...
14 MR. JORDASH: "Two pages became detached during my examination
15 and were noted and reported as such. The Prosecution have -- already
16 have all those notes. By the way, it was made quite clear during the
17 planning for my examination that the NFI supervisors were the
18 Prosecutor's agents. Did the Prosecution not get a report from them
19 about all of this? If not, what was the point?"
20 And that's it for the moment, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Prosecutor's agents seems to be a rather
22 ambiguous expression.
23 MR. JORDASH: Well, I think I understand Mr. Browne, who is
24 saying, "Well, I thought that I was being [indiscernible] for this
25 precise purpose, which is that the NFI observers would make a report
1 concerning the way in which the examination was conducted, including any
2 perceived mishandling or damage, and that report would be sent to the
3 Prosecution." I think that's what he's trying to say. Whether
4 "Prosecutor's agent" is the right words, I -- well, it's -- I think it's
5 probably a bit overstating it, but I think the point is -- is clear.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Ms. Friedman.
7 MS. FRIEDMAN: Yes. Leaving aside for the moment the issue of
8 the NFI, although I can address that, our concern is that Mr. Browne has
9 only been asked to provide information as -- that he -- if there's any
10 additional damage, but our end and as the Defence has indicated, they
11 were going to ask him for only that information which is only part of
12 what our motion requested. They indicated that the rest of the material
13 is irrelevant. The Prosecution disagrees, and we consider all of the
14 material requested to be relevant. And without going into details at
15 this stage, we submit that the response contains inaccuracies, that it
16 repeats arguments that we have responded to when the Defence sought to
17 compel the production of the Mladic notebooks in the courtroom. And our
18 filing of the 22nd of February, 2012, did respond directly to the
19 arguments which are again found in this latest motion.
20 What the motion does not do is address the crux of the
21 Prosecution's position that the Prosecution and the Chamber are entitled
22 to the material which Mr. Browne acknowledged during his testimony should
23 have been put in his report and should have been disclosed.
24 And finally, it should be noted that the Stanisic Defence
25 initially claimed in its e-mail communication that the material was
1 protected by work product. Now apparently because they're unable to
2 support that claim, they indicate that it's irrelevant. And under these
3 circumstances the Prosecution requests that the motion be decided upon,
4 unless the Stanisic Defence requests all of the notes and all of the
5 photographs from Mr. Browne.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
7 MR. JORDASH: If I may just reply briefly. Firstly, the
8 Prosecution have not addressed the salient issues. A number of issues
9 remain completely unaddressed, including what protocol was used during
10 the time when Milovanovic handled the books, including what steps the
11 Prosecution have taken to establish the protocol that was used by the
12 Serbian MUP when transporting the books to their archives, including what
13 protocol was used during the transport of the books to The Hague at the
14 behest of the Prosecution. And I'll give just one example in relation to
15 what remains unanswered.
16 In the Prosecution's response to our motion to compel the
17 production of the notebooks, the date of their response being the
18 22nd of February, 2012, the Prosecution indicated that bringing the
19 Mladic notebooks into a carpeted room would itself break the
20 DNA protocol, yet the Prosecution have not indicated whether the room, in
21 relation to when Milovanovic examined those books, was carpeted or not.
22 These are the questions the Prosecution have continued to disregard, in
23 our submission. And at the same time, wanting their cake and eating it,
24 in our submission, they want to now put the Defence to standards which
25 they're not willing to accede to them themselves, by, at the very least,
1 responding to some of these very real concerns.
2 Secondly, whether Mr. Browne acknowledged notes should be
3 disclosed or not is beside the point. It's a legal issue. Mr. Browne is
4 not a lawyer.
5 And thirdly, the issue of whether the Defence object on the basis
6 of relevance or work product, we object on the basis of both. But we
7 have given the Prosecution the relevant information, the relevant
8 information being that the notes do not relate to -- or the remainder of
9 the notes do not relate to the Prosecution's concern about damage,
10 because, as Mr. Browne has confirmed, none of the notes, remaining notes,
11 deal with that subject. The photographs certainly do not deal with that
12 subject. It's very difficult to understand why Mr. Browne's photographs
13 are relevant to that subject at all. And obviously the issue of work
14 product doesn't arise unless the Prosecution establish relevance. They
15 are work product in the absence of --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, to give a long explanation as to
17 relevance and then to say, well, it's work product anyhow, that's -- is
18 that a very practical approach?
19 MR. JORDASH: Well, I'm just dealing with both points. I think
20 that they're not relevant to the Prosecution's concerns about damage to
21 the notebooks, and in some way the issue of relevance relates to work
23 JUDGE ORIE: But isn't it true that if it's work product, it
24 should not be disclosed whether it's relevant or not?
25 MR. JORDASH: Well, I could see where work product would have to
1 be or perhaps would fall to be disclosed if they became relevant.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mm -- okay.
3 MR. JORDASH: In this instance, I think that the two are the flip
4 side of the coin. If Mr. Browne's notes did contain further evidence of
5 damage, then I think to claim work product would be difficult, because
6 they are relevant, then, to an issue before the Court. But in the
7 absence of any of the notes or the photographs being relevant to the
8 issue of damage, we do assert work product and say they're not for the
9 Prosecution or the Court.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Friedman, any need to respond?
11 MS. FRIEDMAN: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you. First, as to the
12 allegations that the Defence says we have not responded to, we have
13 indeed. As I mentioned, in our motion of the 22nd of February, we
14 explained at -- in relation to Manojlo Milovanovic, at paragraph 18 that
15 he was shown originals of the 2008 notebooks for which there is no
16 DNA protocol in place. And in addition to that: When he later dealt
17 with the 2010 notebooks, he reviewed the electronic copies. This is also
18 the reason that they were scanned when they came to the OTP, another
19 assertion that was made, although not orally now but in the response,
20 that the Prosecution not explain the need to scan it, and we did so in
21 paragraph 16 of the 22nd of February filing, because the copies were not
22 of high enough quality that they could be used and we would have had to
23 constantly use the notebook, so we had to take high-quality electronic,
24 colour scans that would be complete and could be used in the future.
25 And with respect to the issue of the protocol that existed, this
1 is again addressed in paragraph 17 of the 22nd of February filing, where
2 we explained that we used a clean-room protocol which included blocking
3 air vents, cleaning the room, scanner, and equipment with a particular
4 chemical provided by the NFI. Cleaning the surfaces between the
5 processing of groups of evidence and requiring staff members entering the
6 room to swear surgical masks, soft nitrile examination gloves, and full
7 protection suits. I'm sorry to repeat this now, but since the
8 allegations do keep arising, it's important for us to put on the record
9 that there is -- there's only been an attempt by the Prosecution to
10 maintain as best as possible the condition of these notebooks to prevent
11 further deterioration, especially when -- under circumstances where it's
12 unnecessary. And the Prosecution did provide the notebooks to be
13 examined on two occasions under a strict protocol because of the efforts
14 that are being made in order to maintain that evidence.
15 Now, as for Mr. Browne's acknowledgement being -- him being
16 unable to legally explain, the issue is that when he in court was asked
17 about items and said, "This should have been in my report," we see that
18 his report is incomplete. And at this stage it is a little late to now
19 ask him what else -- asking him the specific question of whether
20 additional pages were damaged is not the pertinent question at this
21 stage. What's been demonstrated is that what needed to be in his report
22 was not in his report. His notes, I would ask Mr. Jordash to articulate
23 what the work product concern is, because there doesn't seem to be any
24 articulation of that in the Rules of this Tribunal or even in common law
25 jurisprudence how it is that the notes of a witness about the evidence
1 itself and not about Defence strategy or communication with the Defence
2 would be work product. Moreover, it would be -- it would have been
3 broken when it was -- when part of them were already displayed, when
4 there was no objection previously, when they were discussed, when they
5 were offered. So I would like to just ask what the basis for the work
6 product claim is.
7 JUDGE ORIE: That's it.
8 Mr. Jordash, briefly, could I ask you also specifically, apart
9 from the work-product question put to you by Ms. Friedman, what is
10 exactly -- to what extent does the one request, that is, to be further
11 informed about what happened, how does that influence the decision on the
12 motion? I mean, the Prosecution is seeking something, and you say, Yes,
13 but you've provided us with insufficient information about what happened
15 Now, I can imagine, of course, you have -- you have made a -- of
16 course you have to have sought the protection of the books, but to what
17 extent is -- I hardly dare to say -- is the tu quoque reasoning
18 applicable in these procedural circumstances? To say, You should deny
19 the motion because the Prosecution has not given us the relevant
20 information we need.
21 MR. JORDASH: Well, first of all, because it goes to the merits
22 of their position. They take scans of these documents on two separate
23 occasions. It is -- it's difficult to -- to accept that that scanning
24 process does not damage any of these books whatsoever, that somehow
25 Mr. Browne under a strict protocol damaged one of the books but the
1 Prosecution's scanning of the books on two occasions didn't damage
2 anything. Now, the Prosecution want Mr. Browne's notes. Where are the
3 notes that the Prosecution must have taken if they're going to demand of
4 the Defence what they've lived up to themselves? And so --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Sorry to interrupt you. Have you asked whether any
6 notes were taken by the Prosecution and have you invited them to produce
8 MR. JORDASH: We've asked for any and all information relating to
9 the treatment of these books since they were seized by the Serbian MUP
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. JORDASH: Including protocols. We've had no disclosure of
13 any of these so-called protocols the Prosecution say they have in place.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. JORDASH: And --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Friedman, perhaps, because -- sorry to shortcut,
17 but I would like to be it a debate [sic].
18 Is there any reason why you wouldn't disclose to the Defence the
19 protocols which apparently you've used?
20 MS. FRIEDMAN: Your Honours, you've -- you -- you -- the same way
21 you asked the relevance, that's our question. If we've asserted, as
22 officers of the court, we've explained what it is that we're doing to
23 protect them, and the suspicion and the aspersions are not really -- we
24 don't understand the basis of it.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's try to be very practical. The
1 protocols you say you've used, but there may be a confusion about what a
2 protocol is. Was it put on paper?
3 MS. FRIEDMAN: We can --
4 [Prosecution counsel confer]
5 MS. FRIEDMAN: We can -- we can investigate further with the
6 OTP Evidence Unit, but in terms of -- if I could just add --
7 JUDGE ORIE: No, no. I'd like to keep matters at this moment.
8 You may add whatever you want at a later stage.
9 So, what happened, as a matter of fact, is that Mr. Jordash asked
10 you about what protocols were applied, and then you gave some rules which
11 apparently were applied without even having thought about whether these
12 rules were ever put on paper and -- because, having no answer. It's
13 clear that the protocol for the inspection of the notebooks by
14 Mr. Browne, I think they were negotiated for half a year, and so they are
15 on paper.
16 Would -- would you -- if there's any written protocol, would you
17 give it to Mr. Jordash?
18 MS. FRIEDMAN: Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Jordash, therefore, if it exists, you'll
20 have access to it.
21 And if not, you'll give to the best of your abilities the details
22 of what rules applied at all stages of the seizure and later
23 transportation and handling of these materials. Is that ...
24 MS. FRIEDMAN: Yeah, we can provide that.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, I didn't ask these questions from the
1 Prosecution. I'm a bit surprised that the Prosecution only now starts
2 thinking about whether there's a written document on the protocols, yes
3 or not, because that -- I would have expected this to be dealt with
4 earlier in the discussion between the parties.
5 I asked it before because I think that just as the Prosecution is
6 seeking the best available information about what happened and -- and
7 exactly that you should be entitled to have the same information, not to
8 say that if one party doesn't apply the same rules as the other, that
9 that necessarily means that -- that the parties should give up their
10 claim on gaining information. It's not matter of, as they say in Latin,
11 "do ut des," "I give it to you, so you give it to me." I mean, it's not
12 an exchange. There's a motion by the Prosecution. And I'm seeking
13 whether the information you say you need, again, whether that's a
14 reason -- not to counter-motion is a different matter, but whether you
15 would be informed as fully as possible. And the Prosecution are -- is
16 finding out whether at least there are any written protocols available.
17 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So we have the protocols. Any more to be
19 said about the protocols?
20 MS. FRIEDMAN: Not strictly on the protocols.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then any -- I interrupted you, Mr. Jordash, in order
22 to see whether we could make any progress on a certain matter. I would
23 like, then to give you the floor again to further proceed.
24 MR. JORDASH: I'm not sure there's anything I'd like to add other
25 than to -- to reiterate the point about the notes. We would find it
1 more -- less objectionable to be asked for notes if the Prosecution had
2 kept notes themselves when handling the notebooks.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Simple question: Have notes been made?
4 MS. FRIEDMAN: Yes, they have, but, Your Honours, this is really
5 besides the point because we have provided the information --
6 JUDGE ORIE: My question simply was whether notes were made.
7 Next question: Are you willing to share these notes with the
9 MS. FRIEDMAN: Yes, we are.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, equality has been finally established
11 in this respect. Or is --
12 The answer was "yes," Ms. Friedman? I see that there was some
13 further conversation within the Prosecution, but I've not heard that the
14 answer has changed.
15 So notes are -- now you may proceed. I interrupted you
16 again - --
17 MR. JORDASH: No, I mean, if the Prosecution are willing to
18 disclose the notes that they've made which relate to their handling of
19 the books, and I mean, when I use the word "notes," the notes which
20 should reflect whether any damage has been done to the books by their
22 JUDGE ORIE: What notes should reflect is different from what
23 notes reflect. You can ask for notes that do exist. The Prosecution is
24 not asking any more than notes that are in existence. And whether the
25 notes that should have contained other information than they actually
1 contain is a different matter. But could I say that you would expect to
2 read in those notes how the material was handled?
3 MR. JORDASH: And whether any -- yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So the Prosecution, as far as I understand,
7 gives the written protocols to the extent they exist. They give, as
8 best -- to the best of their abilities, information about anything, what
9 happened during their handling, give that information. And if any notes
10 exist on that matter, they'll be disclosed to the Prosecution -- to the
11 Defence as well.
12 Have I summarised the situation?
13 MS. FRIEDMAN: Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 Mr. Jordash, I think we made one or two steps forward. Does this
16 in any way influence your -- because it was part of your argument why it
17 would be unfair to ask Mr. Browne to provide what the Prosecution is
19 MR. JORDASH: Yes. I mean, of course it does influence my -- but
20 let me just -- if I can just take one step back, which is to say this:
21 That the issue before the Court, or certainly one of the issues in
22 relation to the Mladic notebooks, is the source of the damage to the
23 notebooks, and in particular the book, I think book 16, which most, on
24 one view, implicates Mr. Stanisic. And -- I mean, we -- we are concerned
25 that if -- this issue has been before the Court for some time. We've
1 made it very clear. And what I'm concerned about is now hearing from the
2 Prosecution, if I take what they say on face value that they have notes
3 relating to or potentially relating to this issue, why it is, if they're
4 acting in good faith, why it is those notes have not been disclosed
5 previous to today.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. JORDASH: But I'm raising that now because what I'm mindful
8 of is that we make a concession, and I'm minded to make that concession
9 that we should disclose Mr. Browne's notes, and then what we get from the
10 Prosecution is another kind of note which just shows some kind of
11 broad-brush continuity rather than an examination.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I expect the Prosecution to disclose the notes they
13 have on this matter. And -- and whether they are good notes or bad notes
14 or -- that is -- we can't force a party to disclose notes that do not
16 MR. JORDASH: No.
17 JUDGE ORIE: We can instruct the party, order a party, to provide
18 information as fully as possible, and as officers of the court they have
19 to meet such an order. If there is any material. If a party says,
20 "We're willing to disclose these notes," then I expect them to disclose
21 the notes, all of them as they are in existence, dealing with this
22 matter. And further suspicions about not being loyal in that respect are
23 for the next stage, I would say.
24 Mr. Groome.
25 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, simply to say the Prosecution accepts
1 that the -- and we will undertake to provide notes. I was under the
2 impression that they had been provided, and I didn't come today having
3 fully refreshed my recollection, but I do recall the evidence log, the
4 notes of every movement of that book, being provided to the Defence. But
5 I will check that and I will make sure that Mr. Jordash is provided with
6 all notes related to the book.
7 But I think I want to make the point here that what the
8 Prosecution is interested in is whether the books sustained additional
9 damage during Mr. Browne's examination upon which he then made a
10 conclusion based upon damage that he may himself have caused. The
11 Prosecution have very clear in its -- in its questioning of Dr. Browne
12 that we accepted that the books were damaged, and we were unable to say
13 with any great certainty how much damage was caused by the recovery by
14 the Serb police or how much damage was caused prior to the recovery by
15 the police. But I think the relevant issue for us is whether or not we
16 accept Dr. Browne's assessment of what damage the condition was in when
17 he received them. We just want to know what additional damage. And that
18 was prompted by the inadvertent disclosure of one of his notes where he
19 had written "I have damaged the notebooks." So we just want to be clear
20 about what damage was caused by his examination.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- let's -- at this moment it seems that the
22 parties have moved closer to each other.
23 MR. JORDASH: In relation to the disclosure of the notes, I don't
24 think we have. And the reason for that --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, but let's not discuss it now. Mr. Groome will
1 check it, what you have received, and then you may further discuss it.
2 If you say, "Isn't -- isn't this available or isn't that available,"
3 Mr. Groome - and that's at least how I understand the position of the
4 Prosecution - committed himself to provide every note on paper made which
5 deals with the handling of the books prior to the examination of
6 Mr. Browne.
7 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, and could I add something: It is
8 confirming my recollection. I'm just receiving an e-mail that we have
9 provided all of the material that we have - OTP staff declarations; the
10 evidence registration logs and movement logs; as well as we made the
11 investigator who was given responsibility for handling the books,
12 Ms. Erin Gallagher, available for an interview by the Defence so they
13 could fully explore this issue. We've also provided all of the Serbian
14 MUP reports that we received in relation to this. So I can confirm that
15 my recollection was correct that we have provided everything we have. I
16 will double-check whether, since this disclosure was made, whether
17 there's any additional material, but all this material has been provided.
18 MR. JORDASH: This is why -- this is why we're going round and
19 round in circles, because what I'm talking -- I accept. I've accepted
20 that for a long time that the Prosecution, in Mr. Groome's customary open
21 way, has disclosed these documents. What he hasn't disclosed is whether
22 there was a concerted effort to record the -- the state of the books
23 before the scanning, the damage done to the books during the scanning,
24 ditto during Milovanovic's examination, and so on. These are the types
25 of notes that they're requesting from the Defence, and these are the
1 types of notes, it would appear, they have not kept themselves.
2 JUDGE ORIE: If they do not exist any more, then of course it's
3 impossible to produce them now. Have you used the offer to interview -
4 who was it? - so to --
5 MR. JORDASH: But it -- that doesn't help, because we have, and
6 that was again typical of Mr. Groome to make that available. But -- or
7 her available. But she doesn't know -- in the absence of keeping
8 detailed notes, she cannot tell us page 16 out of 1.050 was damaged or
9 not damaged at a given time. It's that material. So the Prosecution
10 stand to gain our notes and say, "Look, you've damaged," and by not
11 keeping the notes themselves --
12 JUDGE ORIE: No, I mean, they would like to know. If --
13 MR. JORDASH: Well, we would like to know.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Hm?
15 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, Your Honour. We would like to know what
16 damage the Prosecution --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. JORDASH: -- did to the books.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Of course. If it would not have been written down,
20 the Prosecution wouldn't know either. Of course. Our sources of
21 knowledge are limited to what exists and what is in the minds of persons
22 we can ask for, but let me not take it any further at this moment. Let
23 me just confer with my colleagues.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber is assisted by the submissions and will
1 decide on the matter.
2 Then, next item was final briefs. Mr. Jordash, you go first?
3 MR. JORDASH: Oh, do I have to?
4 JUDGE ORIE: No. It was a line with a question mark. It is
5 quarter past 1.00. We have half an hour available. Who goes first and
6 how is the time divided?
7 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour --
8 JUDGE ORIE: And is the Simatovic Defence claiming the same time,
9 or have you consulted with Mr. Jordash? Does he present the position of
10 both Defence?
11 MR. JORDASH: Your Honours, we consulted with Mr. Jordash and we
12 will take the same position.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Who goes first?
14 MR. JORDASH: I wondering -- sorry to interrupt.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. JORDASH: I wonder if I might just make a two-minute
17 application for verification of the translation of --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes. You announced that earlier. Yes.
19 MR. JORDASH: Well, I can deal with it in two minutes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
21 MR. JORDASH: P3169, to my mind, from the English, translation is
22 ambiguous. It's ambiguous because in the first paragraph it uses the
23 phrase "I met up at the hotel," which could indicate a casual -- a casual
24 pass-by, if you like, or it could indicate a meeting.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
1 MR. JORDASH: The second paragraph, "I encountered the same
2 group," appearing to reflect a similar type of passing-by or meeting as
3 the first paragraph, which suggests a much more brief meeting. The word
4 "encounter" in this context, in my submission, suggest something a bit
5 more casual. The Prosecution's interpretation is of something very
6 definite: a meeting. The Defence position is that "encounter," or
7 something looser like that, is a much more natural interpretation. So
8 perhaps, in our view, an attempt by the Translation Unit to look at this
9 would assist the Court.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Apart from the linguistic aspect, of course,
11 linguistic aspect is one of the aspects in interpreting the content of
12 documents, as long as the parties are aware of that, I think it might be
13 good to have it verified whether --
14 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, we didn't want to interrupt but
15 we --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MS. MARCUS: -- share the concern and we will submit it for
19 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. With these -- those specific questions
20 attached to the request.
21 MS. MARCUS: Absolutely, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Marcus.
23 Then, who goes first with the final briefs?
24 MR. JORDASH: I'm happy to make some brief submissions.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
1 MR. JORDASH: We would request until the end of September for the
2 filing of the closing brief, give or take a few -- or one or two weeks,
3 depending upon when the evidence finishes. If the Court witness is
4 called and takes the time that would look likely, then we may not finish
5 the evidence until late in June, and we would submit a three-month period
6 for a closing brief following a case of this size and complexity is not
8 I'm not going to address in detail size. Your Honours have sat
9 on several cases and will have in mind, no doubt, the size of this case
10 in relation to other cases, but it is a sizable indictment, a broad
11 indictment with a wide-ranging joint criminal enterprise alleged.
12 Complexity is a bit more at the heart of our concern. This is
13 not the type of case which involves a large swathe of evidence which can
14 be safely put to the side as unimportant or agreed testimony. The -- the
15 contentious issues in this case really range from the crime-base
16 evidence, for example, whether -- and what -- what Martic's Police were
17 doing in the Krajina, for example, or what Mijovic may have been doing in
18 Bratunac, we have to go right to the ground, all the way to the
19 Prosecution allegation that Mr. Stanisic played some kind of
20 quasi-political role. So we have to go right to the top to consider the
21 role of the top leadership from Croatia, Bosnia, and Belgrade. So we
22 really do have, in our submission, an extremely complicated case where
23 the issues range from top to bottom, but also which is reflected in the
24 kind of focus which has to be played -- which has to be given to the
1 In our submission, much turns on the detailed examination of
2 hundreds, if not thousands, of exhibits. For example, in our submission,
3 if one puts side by side the exhibits which deal with the
4 Bratunac Red Berets, Your Honours will come to the conclusion that the
5 Defence will urge upon you. But only when Your Honours are taken through
6 those exhibits one by one can a chronology be seen and the truth be
7 ascertained. And, in our submission, it's only through the minute
8 examination of many of those exhibits and much of the witness testimony
9 that Your Honours, in our view, will arrive at a just verdict. And, in
10 our submission, a bit more time to write the closing brief will assist
11 Your Honours to arrive at the right verdict and will assist Your Honours
12 in arriving at the right verdict maybe perhaps more quickly than
13 Your Honours would.
14 I think the Prosecution are, I think, a skilled team. We hope
15 that the Defence have -- can rise to that challenge, too, and in doing
16 so, if given a bit more time, provide you with the type of assistance
17 which we submit you would need to be able to arrive at the right verdict.
18 Finally, we had a quick e-mail exchange with a few Defence teams
19 yesterday, and we would suggest that the three months that we're
20 effectively asking for would not be unreasonable compared to, for
21 example, the Zupljanin case, which, whilst being granted in the end only
22 five weeks, effectively had from the beginning of the year until May
23 interspersed with a handful of rebuttal witnesses and, prior to that, had
24 September till December of 2011 where they were sitting only two weeks
25 out of every four because of the Haradinaj case.
1 We've been, as Your Honours know, sitting intensely for some time
2 and will do until perhaps the end of June. So it's very difficult to
3 make comparisons, that's what we've found, but nonetheless, we do think
4 that's a useful comparison. Thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If comparisons are to be made, it should be as
6 broad as possible so that it really gives a full overview. That's --
7 MR. JORDASH: Well, perhaps I can just throw in, if I may, and
8 Her Honour Judge Picard will correct me if I'm wrong, but the Perisic
9 case, the parties were given, I think, six weeks after the last
10 Status Conference of the 2nd of May, 2012. In our submission, that case
11 was significantly less complex in the way that it focused on one accused
12 and focused on largely the supplying from one entity to another as
13 compared to this, which -- this case, which involves a multitude of types
14 of supplies to various locations.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I think, as a matter of fact, that a comparison
16 is -- it's a complex matter.
17 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Because every case has its own specific features and
19 a variety of -- of elements to consider, and the Chamber, of course, will
20 carefully consider the comparisons you made.
21 Mr. Petrovic.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave,
23 just two sentences.
24 Our Defence team supports everything that our learned friend
25 Mr. Jordash said. We only wish to emphasise two circumstances that may
1 bring about a considerable change to the hitherto case record in this
3 The witness the Court intends to call and the evidence in the
4 form of personnel files that the Prosecution intends to present in their
5 rebuttal case, those two circumstances that will come to light by the end
6 of June bring about a tectonic change to the case record so far. Any
7 kind of work we may do now, without having a clear idea of how that will
8 end, would be futile. As things stand now, three weeks after the leading
9 of that evidence can certainly not be sufficient for the work that we
10 need to be done to be done well.
11 And if you allow me just one more thing. After having done a
12 preliminary analysis of everything that should be included in the closing
13 brief, our preliminary position is that the limit of 60.000 words will
14 not be enough, and we will have to apply to the Trial Chamber to modify
15 that limit. And we will attempt to do so, as our colleague Mr. Jordash
16 has indicated.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.
19 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour. The Prosecution appreciates
20 the Chamber's offer to the parties to make submissions regarding the
21 proposed deadline for final trial briefs.
22 The Prosecution notes that it will strive to meet any deadline
23 set by the Chamber. We wish to express our concern at the difficulty
24 which the Prosecution will likely face in driving to meet the proposed
25 pre-summer recess deadline for completion of the final trial brief.
1 The Prosecution requests that the deadline for final submissions
2 be set at the 31st of August, a six-week extension of the Chamber's
3 previously announced deadline, for the following reasons: The purpose of
4 final submissions is to allow the parties to assist the Chamber to the
5 greatest extent possible in the examination of the evidence and the
6 search for the truth. Decisions related to the timing of final briefs
7 must, in our submission, be informed primarily by that goal. Of course,
8 expediency is an important interest as well, but we submit that given the
9 length and complexity of the trial, the time that we seek in order to
10 devote exclusively to the preparation of the brief is reasonable. We
11 submit that the interests of justice are best served by the Prosecution
12 and the Defence having developed carefully considered and carefully
13 crafted final submissions.
14 Your Honours, the reasonableness of the extension sought by the
15 parties must be assessed in light of three factors: The first factor is
16 the length of the proceedings. These proceedings have now been ongoing
17 for three years. In this context, a six-week extension of the deadline
18 for the briefs is proportional and reasonable to the benefit to be
20 The second factor is the extent of the evidentiary record in this
21 case. The record now runs to 20.000 transcript pages and more than 4.000
22 exhibits, with new materials still being admitted through Defence
23 witnesses and through the bar table. We note in this respect the filing
24 today of the Simatovic Defence in which they foreshadowed a combination
25 of approximately 510 documents they anticipate tendering from the bar
1 table in the future.
2 A period of uninterrupted work following the close of the
3 evidence is required to synthesise and make intelligent arguments
4 regarding a body of evidence of that size.
5 The third factor is the critical importance of final submissions
6 in assisting the Chamber in its fundamental task: the search for truth.
7 This extension is not sought for the completion of a frivolous or
8 peripheral task. It is sought to enable the parties to properly
9 disarming one of their primary duties in this case. In light of these
10 considerations, a six-week extension is, in our submission, entirely
12 The Prosecution finds itself with limited resources at this stage
13 of the proceedings. All but one of the attorneys on the
14 Stanisic/Simatovic Prosecution team is engaged on two cases.
15 As the Chamber is aware, the time-period prior to the summer
16 recess will involve a confluence of competing and urgent matters, all of
17 which are central to the Prosecution's obligations. We have been working
18 steadily on the brief for the past two months. Nonetheless, the rebuttal
19 filings, bar table responses, witness preparation, and housekeeping, and
20 now the response to the motion filed earlier this week by the
21 Stanisic Defence, all are critical tasks being undertaken by the
22 Prosecution team, which have effectively prevented us from spending the
23 time necessary to progress our closing submissions.
24 Under these circumstances, the Prosecution agrees with the
25 Defence that the interests of justice are not served by the filing of the
1 final briefs prior to the summer recess. The Prosecution appreciates
2 this opportunity, and we are ready to meet any instructions issued by the
3 Chamber in this regard. Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that there's no need to respond to
5 what seems to be a concurring position by the parties.
6 Then we adjourn. And we'll resume on Thursday, the 7th of June,
7 at 9.00 in the morning in this -- yes, Mr. -- I --
8 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, could -- just very quickly -- could the
9 accused be excused in the customary way from the housekeeping session?
10 JUDGE ORIE: From the housekeeping sessions. If -- it almost
11 goes without saying. If Mr. Stanisic and/or Mr. Simatovic think they can
12 use their time better and more pleasant, then they're excused.
13 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: So therefore, I was interrupted when I said the
15 7th of June, at 9.00 in the morning, in this same courtroom, II.
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.33 p.m.,
17 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 7th day
18 of June, 2012, at 9.00 a.m.