1 Wednesday, 12 July 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.22 p.m.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, Mr. Visnjic, do you have, either yourself or

6 through Mr. Sepenuk, further submissions to make?

7 MR. VISNJIC: [Microphone not activated].

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

9 MR. VISNJIC: Mr. Sepenuk -- [Microphone not activated].

10 MR. SEPENUK: [Microphone not activated].

11 On the question of the admissibility of this -- I'll call it

12 report for the time being, and that's Prosecution Exhibit 473, I take it

13 that's what Your Honour wants argument on.

14 I will analyse -- we attempt to analyse this question based on the

15 order on procedure and evidence that the Chamber issued yesterday.

16 Needless to say, I'll be guided by that in my comments. And there are

17 three relevant areas of that order that I think we should consider. First

18 the admissibility or not of hearsay evidence; secondly, the admissibility

19 of -- and I'll call it for the moment a book; and third, the admissibility

20 of a report, because your order is directed to those three areas.

21 And I'd like to start first, before I get into the hearsay

22 matters, I'd like to start first with the book part of your order. And as

23 the order states in general, books and other similarly lengthy documents,

24 which of course this is of some 400 pages, will not be admitted in

25 evidence in their entirety, but only parts will be admitted by the Trial

1 Chamber if you consider it appropriate to admit it in light of the

2 submission of the parties.

3 In this case, as I understand it, the OTP is not making any kind

4 of a claim as to part of the book. I've seen no submission by them that

5 they want parts of this report admitted into evidence. They want the

6 whole report admitted into evidence. Of course we'll hear from the OTP on

7 this, but I'm assuming right now that they want the entire report in

8 evidence for reasons I'll get to in a moment. I think that's

9 unacceptable.

10 The second part covered in the recent order are reports. And the

11 Prosecution 473 is called an analysis of the human rights finding of the

12 OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission. But certainly, for the sake of

13 argument, we can call it a report. But obviously we don't have the

14 situation of a report here because Your Honour's comments on reports are

15 really directed to expert witnesses. And it's traditional that all or

16 part of an expert witness report might be admissible. But we don't have

17 that here. Ms. Mitchell was not called as an expert witness, nor does she

18 qualify as an expert witness.

19 Now, the report, of course, is classic hearsay, based, as it is,

20 on unsworn, anonymous statements not subject to cross-examination. But I

21 know that in the Tribunal that's not the end of the matter; it might be in

22 some jurisdictions but it's certainly not the end of the matter, as we all

23 know, in the Tribunal. And under Rule 89(C) in the cases of interpreting

24 it, we have to determine whether despite the -- its hearsay nature, this

25 document is reliable. As Your Honours have said in your recent order in

1 paragraph 4: "The Trial Chamber considers that reliability of a hearsay

2 statement is a necessary prerequisite for probative value under 89(C)."

3 Now, what does the evidence under this point show about

4 reliability? First, as the Trial Chamber noted yesterday, we have to look

5 to the teachings of the Appeals Chamber in the Aleksovski case, quoted

6 again in your order. We have to look as the Appeals Chamber noted in that

7 case - and I'm going to quote now - to "the infinitely variable

8 circumstances which surround hearsay evidence."

9 And the first thing we should look at, I respectfully suggest, is

10 the report itself; OTP Exhibit 473. So we open this document, and the

11 first thing that greets us on page 6 - as I understand in the scanned

12 materials it's little 5 in the booklet I have - is the acknowledgment by

13 Ambassador Gerard Staudmann who is the director of the OSCE and he says

14 after noting the generous --

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Just hold a second. I happen to have a copy of

16 this but other Judges don't because it's not available in hard copy but

17 it's on here. So let's have that page on --

18 MR. SEPENUK: Yes, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: -- the e-court. You say it's page 5 in e-court, is

20 it?

21 MR. SEPENUK: Yes, it's page 6, as I understand it, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Oh, it's page 6.

23 MR. SEPENUK: On OTP Exhibit 473.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: No, I have it on the computer screen but not on

25 the -- yeah, we have it now on both.

1 MR. SEPENUK: Thank you, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Carry on, please.

3 MR. SEPENUK: Okay. As noted in that acknowledgment after

4 first -- after Ambassador Staudmann first notes the generous financial

5 support of certain western European countries and the United States in

6 making possible the report, it goes and says: "The OSCE ODIHR is grateful

7 for the advice and assistance of staff of the International Criminal

8 Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ICTY, in the development of this

9 report."

10 And of course as we know from the evidence that we've heard, the

11 ICTY and the OSCE were in daily contact in assembling information for this

12 report, and the OTP, I think it's fair to say, took a very significant

13 part in the assembling of information and in the writing of this report.

14 If we turn to page 7 of the report, if that could be put up on the

15 screen. Next page, yes, the foreword. And of course that's the foreword

16 from Justice Louise Arbour who, as we all know now, was the lead

17 Prosecutor of the Tribunal during this period in 1999. She said a number

18 of complimentary things in this foreword. And she, of course, is the

19 Prosecutor who signed the indictment in this case in 1999 when it was

20 initially brought against three of the defendants in this case.

21 So even though the OSCE was not technically employed by the OTP,

22 as a practical matter it was the OTP's chief investigator in this case.

23 This report, OTP Exhibit 473, provided the blueprint for the OTP in this

24 case. If this report is considered admissible by the Trial Chamber, you

25 might as well admit the Prosecution's pre-trial submission in this case,

1 you might as well admit Mr. Hannis's opening statement in this case, you

2 might as well admit the government's closing argument in this case. That

3 analogy, I respectfully suggest, is apt and suitable. This report should

4 not be admitted into evidence. This report is a series of allegations not

5 based on reliable evidence or proof.

6 Finally, in determining the reliability of the report we ask the

7 Trial Chamber to consider the testimony of Sandra Mitchell. Now, what was

8 the importance of her testimony? I would like to read very briefly from

9 the OTP's summary of what -- of what they regard as the importance of

10 Ms. Mitchell's testimony. This was simply a summary they furnished in the

11 case about Ms. Mitchell. And they said, OTP said: "All information used

12 in the preparation of 'As Seen, As Told' was collected and managed under

13 the direct supervision of the witness. At all times she had primary

14 responsibility for ensuring the credibility of the human rights findings

15 made and the integrity of the conclusions drawn."

16 Now, what do we know about Ms. Mitchell? What have we learned

17 about her in this courtroom? We know that to this day she is deeply

18 engaged in the welfare of the Kosovo Albanians. She is to this day the

19 head of the United Nations mission for return of refugees to Kosovo.

20 Second, she was the OSCE "primary liaison" with the OTP, dealing with that

21 office on virtually a daily basis of supplying information to them

22 regularly and repeatedly. Three, she had as she conceded a very "special

23 relationship" with the Albanian population from Kosovo; again, a

24 relationship which continues to this day.

25 Now, let me digress for a second here. I'm not deprecating

1 Ms. Mitchell. I take my hat off to anybody involved in humanitarian work.

2 They do marvelous work, and again I respect them. But those qualities of

3 passion and commitment that go into that work sometimes will create -- at

4 least it's my experience, and again the collective experience of this

5 Chamber is far greater than mine, but I will simply note something that I

6 think is a matter of common sense, those qualities of passion and

7 commitment that go into this kind of work sometimes create: We're the

8 only good guys in the room philosophy. We're the good guys and the other

9 people are the bad guys. And I suggest that those kind of qualities are

10 not quite the qualities one wants for detached dispassionate analysis, for

11 objectivity, for reliability.

12 Now, I think hat it's clear that Ms. Mitchell show these -- this

13 lack -- and again I'm saying it with respect for her. I don't mean to

14 unduly deprecate her. But I think that she showed a certain lack of

15 objectivity in a number of ways in her testimony. I'll simply cite a few.

16 Her grudging concession that the NATO bombing might have been responsible

17 for the departure of the KVM on March 20, 1999. It took a series of

18 questions for her finally to make that concession.

19 Secondly, the question of thousands of interviews, she originally

20 stated in Milosevic trial and in her statements about thousands of

21 interviews and she gradually paired that down. At one point she said a

22 little less than 10.000. And then finally she came up with a 3300, 4300

23 figure. And I mentioning that -- and I want to mention that, too, in

24 connection with -- not to beat this point to death either, but Mr. Stamp

25 saying tens of thousands of interviews. That alone at least is giving the

1 Defence a lot of concern here, but where are these -- to this day we

2 haven't received a single refugee verification form in the form noted when

3 she testified yesterday. I think it was Prosecution Exhibit 765. We've

4 had reports about that form. We've yet to see one of those forms and

5 we've yet to be given any intimation about all these thousands of

6 interviews and what happened there.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Perhaps I misunderstood Mr. Visnjic yesterday, but

8 he was saying that you had received a very small number of these forms.

9 MR. SEPENUK: No, we actually have not received the forms

10 themselves, Your Honour. Remember the refugee verification form, it says:

11 Reasons for leaving and that kind of thing, and it was made out in

12 handwriting. We have not received a single one of these forms.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: None of these -- so all you have received --

14 MR. SEPENUK: Is a typewritten report about what, presumably, was

15 in that form.

16 And finally I want to -- I am asking the Chamber to recall - and I

17 know you do recall - Ms. Mitchell's testimony about the word-for-word

18 duplication of the International Crisis Group report and the OSCE report.

19 And if I could just quote briefly from her testimony. And I asked her

20 after showing her two instances in which the ICG report was exactly the

21 same as the OSCE report, I want to represent to the Court that my

22 colleague, Mr. Visnjic -- I make this representation to the Court. My

23 colleague, Mr. Visnjic, has now found three more reports which are

24 literally word for word the same. And I asked her: "So is the only

25 conclusion that we can draw from this is that somehow the ICG was privy to

1 your information?"

2 She says: "No, as I've stated we had the measures in place to

3 ensure as best we could the security and the confidentiality of the

4 information. There were a lot of people following and getting statements.

5 People were working together. The rule was, you know, the information was

6 only being shared with ICTY. And if, you know, somebody breaks the rule,

7 they break the rule. But that's as much as I can say on it, Your Honour.

8 "Q. So what you're saying here is that at least based on what

9 you're saying it appears that one of your investigators shared information

10 with the International Crisis Group against the rules of your

11 organisation.

12 "A. It's a possibility. It's also that possibility that this

13 person re-interviewed somebody hat we had interviewed and came up with the

14 same story."

15 I said: "Word for word?"

16 Ms. Mitchell said: "Sure."

17 I then said: "That's your testimony?"

18 She said: "Anything's possible. I have given, you know, the

19 reasons that I can think of as honestly as I can, and if they shared a

20 form, they shared a form, and, yeah, the rule was broken."

21 I found that testimony very, very disturbing. Here's the person

22 charged with ensuring the credibility of this report, and she actually

23 testified under oath that, yes, in this terribly chaotic situation with

24 all these Albanian interviews in this horrible refugee camp situation

25 that, in at least two instances, and I'll be charitable now and I'll

1 confine it to just this one instance, she said it's possible that word for

2 word it still could have been a different interview. That defies

3 credibility. And if that's her notion of credibility, I think is this

4 report should be considered very -- to be a very dubious document if she

5 is the person in charge of ensuring the credibility of the report. I

6 think at the very least it casts very severe -- it casts very serious

7 doubt on her judgement.

8 And again, let's assume also, let's assume that a rule was broken,

9 a rule was broken. How many other rules were broken? I mean, was there

10 was a trafficking -- and I don't mean this frivolously, because again I

11 admire deeply the work these people were doing. But based on her

12 testimony it seems like there was almost some sort of trafficking in these

13 refugee forms. People were following along. One organisation was

14 following another organisation, and if one or more members of her

15 organisation broke the rules, what other rules did they break? Did they

16 break the rules on objectivity, on credibility, on being fair, on being

17 dispassionate? And I ask Your Honours to consider that, and we ask Your

18 Honours to reject this report.

19 We respectfully submit that receiving this report into evidence

20 would be a mistake, it would be unfair, it would be unjust.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Sepenuk.

22 Mr. O'Sullivan.

23 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Thank you, Your Honour.

24 I'm going to ask you to not admit Prosecution P473, As Seen, As

25 Told, and I have two basic submissions. And they are first that this is

1 inadmissible hearsay; and second, that as a result of breaches in the

2 rules of disclosure on the part of the Prosecution they should be barred

3 from presenting this exhibit.

4 I will not repeat what Mr. Sepenuk has said; I will adopt it.

5 What I would like to direct the Chamber to one further Appeals Chamber

6 decision, which we say may be helpful in the resolution of this issue, and

7 that's from the Kordic case, IT-95-14/2 AR 73.5, a decision of the Appeals

8 Chamber of 21 July 2000, where the Appeals Chamber stated that Rule 89(C)

9 must be interpreted so that safeguards are provided to ensure that the

10 Chamber can be satisfied that the evidence is reliable.

11 The point being that there's a threshold question which the

12 Appeals Chamber spelled out at paragraph 22 of that decision. It's the

13 following: "The reliability of the hearsay statement is therefore

14 relevant to its admissibility and not just to its weight."

15 We say that the lack of reliability, given the full context of the

16 way in which these hearsay statements were used, does not satisfy the

17 threshold question of admissibility.

18 What do we have? The report contains an assessment of the

19 statements of others, which we say is based on unreliable and biased

20 methods of data collection. There can be no probative value to hearsay

21 taken in that regard.

22 Your Honour, we take issue with the qualifications, competence,

23 and bias of the persons who took this information which is -- forms the

24 basis of this document. We've heard and we can see, as a matter of common

25 sense, that there was selective sampling. There's indications that there

1 may have been a manipulation in the selection of individuals who came

2 forward, chosen by community leaders, who one would have to think were

3 sympathetic to the cause of the KLA. Ms. Mitchell has acknowledged that

4 there was a lack of training of people performing the task; they received

5 on-the-job training, as she put it. And she acknowledged that their

6 training was not followed up and, at best, was haphazard and sporadic.

7 Your Honour, we say that against Rule 89(C) you must consider

8 Rule 95 of our Rules of Procedure and Evidence. It's a very short rule,

9 and it states that: "No evidence shall be admissible if obtained by

10 methods which cast substantial doubt on its reliability or if its

11 admission as antithetical to, or would seriously damage, the integrity of

12 the proceedings."

13 I'll stop there on this first point that I wish to make, given

14 that Mr. Sepenuk has canvassed it quite fully.

15 The second point I wish to make in support of our request to not

16 have this exhibit admit is what we say is a violation of Rule 68(ii) by

17 the Prosecution. Now, I commend my learned friend from the Prosecution

18 for informing us, quite candidly, that there was a large amount of

19 material which was never -- has never been disclosed by the Prosecution to

20 the Defence.

21 I do take issue, however, with my learned friend from the

22 Prosecution when he suggests that the obligation was on the Defence under

23 Rule 66(B) to request that information. With all due respect to the

24 Prosecution, Your Honour, we disagree. Rule 68(ii) places an affirmative

25 obligation, a mandatory obligation on the Prosecution to make available to

1 the Defence under the EDS system materials which it has at its disposal.

2 We've heard from Ms. Mitchell that the Prosecution has had this material

3 for years.

4 Why do I say that Rule 66(B) does not apply? The Chamber will be

5 aware of the legislative history of these rules and Rule 66(B) is the

6 remnants of the old reciprocal disclosure rule. As you know, reciprocal

7 disclosure is no longer part of our rules of procedure. Rule 66(B) does

8 say that Defence can make a request for certain materials; it does say

9 that. But the primary rule in regard to disclosure, the disclosure

10 obligation by the Prosecution is Rule 68(ii). That's an affirmative

11 obligation that the Prosecution must disclose to us under that provision

12 using the electronic disclosure system.

13 We say that there's been a breach of their disclosure obligation,

14 and Rule 68 bis provides for a consequence for failure to comply with the

15 disclosure obligation. Rule 68 bis says: "The Chamber made decide at the

16 request of other party on sanctions to be imposed on a party which fails

17 to perform its disclosure obligations pursuant to the Rules."

18 We say that the only relief that would be meaningful now that we

19 are in trial, now that we have learned that there has been a breach of

20 their obligation under 66(ii), some seven years later, is that this report

21 should not be admitted since the underlying material has not been made

22 available to us. We say again Rule 95 comes into play, and it would put

23 these -- it would bring these trial proceedings into disrepute to do

24 otherwise.

25 So on either score, whether it's the inadmissible hearsay or the

1 violation of Rule 68(ii), in conjunction with the jurisprudence of the

2 court and Rule 95, we respectfully submit that you should rule in our

3 favour and not admit this Prosecution Exhibit P473 into evidence.

4 Those are my submissions.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. O'Sullivan.

6 Can I deal just now with what might seem a very petty point but it

7 actually has a purpose in due course. These divisions of Rule 68 are

8 Roman numeral divisions. I know there are questions of alphabet and

9 approach to letters between the two languages and it's easily understood

10 what you're referring to here, Mr. O'Sullivan, but a difficulty can arise

11 in relation to the indictment because the letter I appears in

12 subparagraphs of the indictment, and you can end up with an I -- I don't

13 know if it actually happens in this indictment, but I and then

14 subparagraph, as you would describe it, (ii) or (iii). So I think we

15 should adopt a routine approach to this and use -- it regard these as

16 Roman numerals, and you'll see the same feature in the indictment itself.

17 Yes, Mr. Petrovic.

18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will not reiterate

19 the words of my colleagues, since our position is to adopt everything put

20 forth by our colleagues. We intended to mention several things, but due

21 to the lack of time we will try to narrow that to the very basic

22 objections we have as regards this document.

23 I wanted to draw your attention to several decisions of this

24 Tribunal which may be relevant, in my view, in your -- for your

25 deliberations.

1 In the Tadic case, decision -- motion on hearsay dated the 5th of

2 August, 1996, inter alia, it states that the Rules of Procedure and

3 Evidence implicitly require that the reliability be one of the components

4 of admissibility. In that decision, one also reads that in order for the

5 Trial Chamber to be able to examine the circumstances, it is necessary to

6 assess the reliability of every given piece of evidence and draw

7 conclusions based on that.

8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, we haven't received the text

9 of the decisions.

10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Another decision dated the 19th of

11 January, 1998, it states that reliability is an implicit component of

12 admissibility of evidence in case it is clear that any submitted exhibit

13 is clearly unreliable cannot be considered of any probative value. Based

14 on everything stipulated by my colleagues and based on the jurisprudence

15 of this Tribunal, in our view, and according to Rule 98(D) -- 99(D) --

16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.

17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] 89(D) shows -- or rather, mentions

18 the actual points I've made previously as regards the admissibility of

19 this report. In our view, it should not be admitted.

20 Thank you.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Petrovic, the name of the case on the 19th of

22 January, 1998?

23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Prosecutor versus Delalic and

24 others.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

1 Mr. Aleksic, do you have any submissions to make on this?

2 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] No, not as regards this. But I was

3 told by my lead counsel to read out a text of our objections, should I be

4 permitted to do so. And I believe this would be a favourable time before

5 we move on to the next witness.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: This is an objection to what?

7 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, regarding the right to

8 counsel of General Pavkovic. And, with your leave, I'd like to state a

9 couple of points that we would like to have in the transcript.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: This is not an appropriate time for you to be

11 making a general point in relation to the conduct of the trial. If you

12 have a submission to make, then you should make it in writing. If you

13 have a particular submission to make on the question of the admissibility

14 of this evidence, then I will hear you on that.

15 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] No. Thank you, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

17 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I simply follow the instructions of

18 my lead counsel.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Bakrac.

20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I believe

21 everything has been said and we second the things that have been said.

22 What I wanted to add is that the document discussed here also

23 contains some legal arguments or positions which are inadmissible, in our

24 view, and they comprise a very important portion of the report itself.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

1 Mr. Stamp.

2 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Your Honour. If I may briefly

3 start by responding to some of the objections raised today.

4 It is submitted that the OTP took a significant part in the

5 assembly of the information, and that is a quote from one of the

6 submissions. There is no evidence that the OTP participated in the

7 collection of the information. There is evidence, and it is agreed, that

8 when the analysis was being done there was advice and assistance from the

9 ICTY and that the raw material, the refugee forms, were delivered to the

10 ICTY and there was contact with the ICTY quite frequently. The mere fact

11 that the then-Prosecutor of the ICTY wrote a congratulatory foreword to

12 the report does not, in any way, detract from its reliability or its

13 objectivity. The ICTY is a Tribunal set up by the United Nations for the

14 prosecution of crimes of the nature charged in this indictment. The KVM

15 mission in Kosovo was a mission acting under the auspices of a United

16 Nations resolution, and it is normal, practical, indeed it is desirable,

17 that there should be amicable relations, cooperation, and advice and

18 assistance between the parties. And the fact that there was this type of

19 relationship does not detract from the independence of the OSCE-KVM

20 mission and does not in any way suggest that there was undue or improper

21 interference from the ICTY.

22 It was said in addition to that that the witness, Sandra Mitchell,

23 may have been tainted by -- I'm not sure, maybe bias because of her

24 ongoing work in human rights or humanitarian issues. It is suggested that

25 she is presently engaged in the welfare of the Kosovar Albanians, and

1 that's another quote from the submission. There is no evidence as to

2 that. She is the director for the return of refugees, refugees. There

3 were refugees of various ethnicities leaving Kosovo. Indeed she testified

4 that she prepared a report in respect to offences that were committed

5 against the Serbs in Kosovo after June of 1999, and the evidence in

6 respect to the return -- her work as the director for the return of

7 refugees is indicative of her work in respect of the return of Serb

8 refugees. So it is not correct to say that she's engaged -- still engaged

9 in the welfare of Kosovar Albanians. And in fact if she was still

10 engaged, it is my submission that that would not sufficiently detract from

11 her credibility so as to render the report inadmissible.

12 The issue of Rule 95(F). It is submitted that Rule 95(F) is

13 relevant to the issues in respect to the report. It is the Prosecution's

14 submission that the Rule 99 -- 95, I beg your pardon, Rule 95, which is

15 what I'm discussing, was primarily intended to ensure the integrity of the

16 Tribunal's proceedings, rendering inadmissible evidence which was obtained

17 through oppressive conduct. The method of obtaining the evidence is a

18 critical issue when Rule 95 is being considered. For example, evidence

19 which might be obtained on an involuntary basis. So a mere reference to

20 Rule 95 in this context, it is my submission, does not suffice to invoke

21 it insofar as we are talking about a report of this nature.

22 And there is an issue in respect to disclosure. The issue of

23 disclosure, as Your Honour well knows, is a complex thing, what is Rule 68

24 and what is within the knowledge of the OTP. The -- there are criticisms

25 from the Defence on many occasions in this case about material being

1 disclosed to them which is of marginal Rule 68 value and of them being

2 flooded with material disclosed to them under Rule 68 which they find

3 useless. I've heard many complaints about that. The approach -- one of

4 the approaches that could be made in respect to huge databases of material

5 is that once the Defence is made aware of what it is, then if they

6 consider it to be Rule 68, or if they think that it is useful to the

7 preparation of their Defence under Rule 66, then being so forewarned they

8 ought responsibly to make a request for the information.

9 As I indicated before, what we are speaking about is raw data,

10 thousands of forms from various sources collected in the field, some

11 processed and put on the EDS and therefore available to the Defence; and

12 some not so. The witness who has been on the -- a previous witness list

13 filed said in this statement which is now evidence -- in her statement,

14 which is now evidence before the Court, that the material was delivered to

15 the OTP; that is, the raw data. The raw data is generally, insofar as

16 I -- as the results of my inquiries have revealed, not Rule 68. It is the

17 opposite of Rule 68. The Defence --

18 JUDGE BONOMY: You seem to be suggesting that this is some lower

19 category of material, raw data. I would have thought that raw data was

20 exactly what the Court should be most interested in, the basic material,

21 the source material.

22 MR. STAMP: The Court ought -- and of course the Defence ought to

23 be most -- or at least generally interested in the source material. I

24 refer --

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Remind me of why it is you say that the Defence

1 ought to have been alerted to the existence of all these statements.

2 MR. STAMP: The exhibit itself, which has been on the exhibit

3 list, indicates that the statements were -- were given -- the originals

4 were given to the OTP in 1999. So the Defence would have been aware of it

5 from that. But the statement of the witness, which has been served on the

6 Defence many times over the years, the last few months, also says quite

7 clearly that the material, which I refer to as raw data, was handed over

8 to the OTP after they were photocopied.

9 So I would submit that the Defence, in preparation for the trial,

10 would have, if they thought it fit and thought it's something that the

11 Court would want to look at, these thousands of forms, that would be

12 useful to the deliberations, would have asked for them. They asked for

13 those in respect to those persons who are going to testify. We have made

14 efforts to give them those forms. We gave them the data reports -- I

15 shouldn't say "the data reports," the print-outs from the database. We

16 are now searching for the originals of those individual persons because

17 they are among batches, huge batches, of material which we received some

18 six years ago. It was yesterday that a general request for the first time

19 was made for all the material, and we are now in the process of gathering

20 together all the material. And it is a process that involves work and

21 deployment of staff and effort.

22 So the disclosure of this material is a matter which the Defence

23 could have achieved, could have enforced, if they thought it relevant to

24 the trial from long before we came into this court to proceed in the

25 trial. And without being critical or anything, I would submit that it

1 would not be the time now, in the course of a trial, to use this setting

2 to criticise the Prosecution for non-disclosure of material of that

3 nature. Indeed, I suspect that if all of this material had been

4 disclosed, then we might have been criticised for inundating the Defence.

5 I think -- I submit that it was sufficient that we gave them adequate

6 notice that the material existed, and therefore if it was appropriate for

7 them to use it in their preparations, they could have asked for it.

8 And much has been said about hearsay. It is agreed and accepted

9 that -- I think by all that hearsay is admissible in the Tribunal. And

10 reliability, of course, is an important issue in respect to the

11 admissibility of hearsay. I don't think we would need authority on that.

12 There is a lot of evidence before the Court in respect to the

13 reliability of the methods of collections, notwithstanding the criticisms

14 which have been made by the Defence. The -- indeed, it is my submission

15 that Your Honour may well consider the answers given by the witness in

16 cross-examination yesterday, when counsel elicited material which are

17 apparently consistent with the averments -- the averment of the Defence in

18 respect to the facts in issue. The -- this material suggests that the

19 witness in the discharge of her responsibility to gather the material and

20 to write this report approached her work with objectivity. The evidence

21 is that they took appropriate steps to train their staff in the collection

22 of these reports; to employ, as far as possible in the circumstances -

23 which must have been somewhat chaotic at the beginning - but to employ, as

24 far as possible, persons with adequate experience. And after they had

25 gathered the information, when they were forced -- not forced. When they

1 were allowed to return to Kosovo, as the report indicates and as the

2 witness said in testimony, they took steps, whatever steps possible, to

3 verify the accuracy and the reliability of the information that they were

4 using to formulate the report.

5 As the report indicates, where there were inconsistencies they

6 reported it; where there were weaknesses, they reported it. And the

7 report, in that sense, speaks for itself. The report is, in fact, a

8 well-documented analysis with appropriate citations of the victim reports,

9 and that is very important. This is not second-hand hearsay; these are

10 identifiable victims. And it was carried out under the mandate given to

11 them by United Nations resolution.

12 So the objections in respect to the evidence of the witness and

13 her -- whether she's biased or not, whether she's -- she's pro-Albanian or

14 anti-Serb are really objections which go to weight. They are objections,

15 which it is submitted, refer to matters, if they are worthy, but they are

16 matters which we could leave to the good judgement of this Chamber when

17 considering the weight of the document. But it is submitted they are not

18 matters that should be considered in the initial deliberations in respect

19 to the admissibility of the documents.

20 The Strugar case was referred to yesterday. This was a case in

21 which a report which, according to the Defence, was of a similar nature to

22 this one was rejected. It is the submission of the Prosecution that the

23 report in Strugar is quite distinct from this one, and I will just give

24 two other reasons, and there are other important reasons why it is really

25 distinct. The --

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Who referred to Strugar, Mr. Stamp?

2 MR. STAMP: I think it was Mr. Robinson.

3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it was I who

4 mentioned it.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

6 MR. STAMP: Mr. Robinson is not here. I think I'm wrong there.

7 The critical point in the Strugar decision in rejecting that

8 report was that the date, the date of the incident that that report

9 referred to could not be ascertained. Or if I could put it this way, the

10 report referred to incidents that occurred between October and December.

11 The issue in that case was an incident of one day in December, and it

12 could not be clearly discerned whether or not a report which covered that

13 broad period could be narrowed on the focus on that issue before the

14 Court, the one being in December.

15 The other distinction with that case is that the report in Strugar

16 was a preliminary report, and I think that was the main reason why it was

17 not accepted. It was titled a preliminary report to the extent that one

18 of the consultants involved in preparing the report, when he came to

19 testify in Strugar could not even vouch for the accuracy of that report.

20 So that report in Strugar is clearly distinguishable from what we have

21 here.

22 The said same report, As Seen, As Told was received in evidence in

23 the Milosevic case. And I'm not suggesting for a minute that because it

24 was received in a previous case that you are bound by it.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I would be assisted if someone could explain

1 to me how it was received in the Milosevic case, and you may care to have

2 a look at that. I've tried myself to work out on what basis it was

3 admitted and it's far from clear. Although you're right, it was given an

4 exhibit number.

5 MR. STAMP: I was trying to work that out myself, and I think --

6 JUDGE BONOMY: I think it slipped in in circumstances where an

7 accused was not adequately represented at that stage and perhaps not quite

8 as switched on, as he later was, to the conduct of the proceedings.

9 MR. STAMP: In that case, though, I think that the Court did go to

10 distinguish As Seen, As Told from material which would not be acceptable

11 in evidence because --

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I've been unable to find the decision

13 admitting it. So if you could find it, I would be grateful if you were

14 able to assist me.

15 MR. STAMP: I will endeavour to find the decision admitting it.

16 But it was referred to in the transcript by the Court at page 5643, in

17 which the Court indicated -- and here I'm going off of a reference to it

18 in an appeal judgement, in the same Milosevic case, a judgement --

19 decision on admissibility of Prosecution investigators' evidence, a

20 judgement of the 30th of September, 2002. It was distinguished from a

21 non-admissible document because it was not prepared for the purposes of

22 that particular trial, and it had been prepared by a body independent of

23 the parties, and thus has a quality of independence.

24 As submitted before, the association, close association, amicable

25 and cooperative relationship between the ICTY and the KVM-OSCE mission

1 does not detract from the independence of the report, and neither was it

2 prepared for this trial specifically.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Is your transcript reference to the trial

4 transcript in Milosevic?

5 MR. STAMP: The trial transcript.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: And then the appeal decision separate, or was that

7 transcript -- is that a page in the transcript where the appeal decision

8 was being discussed?

9 MR. STAMP: The appeal decision that I just referred to --

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

11 MR. STAMP: -- referred to the Milosevic decision on As Seen, As

12 Told and cited that transcript number.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.

14 MR. STAMP: It was also received evidence in the Limaj case, where

15 the accused was represented, as Exhibit 150. And while I'm on the Limaj

16 case, the report by Human Rights Watch under orders was also received in

17 that case as evidence and, indeed, cited in the Judgement.

18 As I say, I don't claim at all that the Court is bound by these

19 decisions; I know that the Court is entitled to exercise its discretion on

20 the basis of the facts before it in this case. And I submit that the

21 evidence from Ms. Mitchell not only indicates -- and we're not talking

22 about beyond a reasonable doubt, but well beyond prime facie that proper

23 efforts were made to induct appropriate staff, to train them where

24 necessary, and to collect the information on an objective and reliable

25 basis. So there are sufficient indicia of reliability for the report to

1 be admitted. Unlike a previous report, this is not a report based on

2 double hearsay; this is a report based on identifiable victims, the actual

3 victims. The Court is entitled, within the exercise of its

4 good judgement, to use the whole report - and here I refer to the

5 objection based on the submission that the whole report should not go in -

6 to use the whole report in its deliberations.

7 I pause here to ask the Court to consider the objections in

8 respect to the opinions expressed in the report in respect to law. There

9 are many areas of the report where the law is discussed. Now, clearly if

10 any party to these proceedings should submit to the Court that you should

11 take the law as discussed in As Seen, As Told, then the Court, in the

12 exercise of its good judgement, could deal with that appropriately.

13 However, the discussion of the law in the report is relevant to the

14 context in which the persons who did the analysis conducted their job.

15 The whole of the report provides the context in which the various parts,

16 the various areas of the analysis, was done. And the Prosecution has

17 faith in the judgement of the Tribunal, of the Trial Chamber, should

18 inappropriate submissions be made at a later date as to how the various

19 areas of the submission -- of the report should be used. The Prosecution

20 does not proffer the report or tender the report as direct evidence in

21 proof of any of the specific incidents or crime sites referred to in the

22 indictment, but submits that if -- or will submit at the appropriate time

23 that if, as we anticipate, direct evidence which we will call establishes

24 to the satisfaction of the Trial Chamber that these offences were, in

25 fact, committed, then the report can assist the Trial Chamber and give it

1 whatever weight the Trial Chamber thinks appropriate.

2 In corroborating the evidence the evidence in respect of these

3 crime scenes, it can assist the Trial Chamber in its deliberations on the

4 issue of the widespread and systematic nature of the offences charged. It

5 can assist the Trial Chamber on the issue of notice to the higher level

6 political and military figures of crimes committed, not only in 1998 but

7 also in 1999. And it can assist the Trial Chamber in respect to its

8 analysis of evidence relating to the background of the conflict and the

9 parties involved in the conflict.

10 In all of these areas, the degree to which it is of assistance is

11 squarely, it is my respectful submission, a matter of judgement for the

12 Trial Chamber.

13 But the whole document is admissible, may it please Your Honour.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, I have a number of matters to raise with you.

15 First of all, do you wish to address the point made by Mr. Ivetic

16 about Rule 92 bis?

17 MR. STAMP: The submission in respect to Rule 92 bis is that the

18 Prosecution at this stage does not submit the evidence of these 2.800

19 persons in evidence. The statements are the basis of the report. If we

20 had sought to put in directly the evidence of any one of them, we would

21 have either to call the witness here or ask for it to be received under

22 Rule 92 bis. The witness called was Sandra Mitchell, and the issue

23 really, I think, which Mr. --

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I must have misunderstood because I thought

25 12 of them were to give evidence? Have I got that wrong?

1 MR. STAMP: Yes. That's correct.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: 12 will give evidence. But you won't be submitting

3 their statements?

4 MR. STAMP: Some of them, I believe. We applied for them to be

5 received under 92 bis. Some were live. All of them will come to testify,

6 having regard to the recent ruling of the Court.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, Mr. Ivetic's point is that that's just a way

8 around Rule 92 bis, which says that where you're relying on a statement,

9 then there are certain requirements, and these aren't followed in this

10 case. And you get around them by saying somebody else will report on what

11 that witness has said.

12 MR. STAMP: The -- it is submitted that Rule 92 bis - and I hope

13 I'm not being repetitive - applies to the direct evidence of the witness,

14 if the witness's testimony is being placed before the Court, or if an

15 attempt is made to place the witness's testimony before the Court. Here

16 we have an analysis of the statements of witnesses who are not called to

17 testify and it is submitted that the appropriate consideration is really

18 whether or not the hearsay has sufficient indicia of reliability for

19 limited purposes.

20 For example, if the Court accepts the other evidence we lead in

21 respect to the several crime bases, the Court will have to at some point

22 deliberate upon matters of widespread, systematic nature in which the

23 offences were committed. While the report, it would not be our

24 submission, could stand or prove by itself something of that nature. The

25 Court may, it is my submission, refer to the various statements used in

1 the report and give it whatever weight it thinks fit. But it is a vexed

2 issue. How many witnesses does one call to prove widespread and

3 systematic? Certainly not the 800.000 that we allege left Kosovo. We

4 call a fraction of that. But could a report which covers a large amount

5 of those persons assist the Court in its deliberation? And it is the

6 Prosecution's submission that in that area, for example, the report is of

7 legitimate use.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, in the -- in the report there is an index and

9 there are 30 municipalities in the index.

10 MR. STAMP: 30?

11 JUDGE BONOMY: 30. And there are 13 in the case. What's the

12 Trial Chamber to do with the ones which are not referred to in the

13 indictment?

14 MR. STAMP: In respect to the ones not referred to in the

15 indictment, the report itself could not provide any collaboration of any

16 evidence led because we will not be leading evidence in respect to those.

17 However, the indictment does charge for all of Kosovo. The

18 specific -- incidents specified in the indictment are a representative

19 sampling. Indeed the Chamber did reduce them. It is impractical for us

20 to prove or attempt to prove all of them. But at some point the Court

21 will have to consider the core allegation of the indictment, that this was

22 a Kosovo-wide endeavour, not limited to the illustrative sampling that is

23 represented or identified in the indictment.

24 So the report, it is submitted, can be used by the Trial Chamber

25 in its deliberations under evidence in respect to the specific crime bases

1 or crime sites charged and in respect to the report's discussion of areas

2 which are not within the indictment. It can assist the Trial Chamber in

3 its deliberation on the bigger picture, the Kosovo widespread, systematic

4 offences.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, can you remind me how that's presented in the

6 indictment so I see how it would match with the evidence.

7 MR. STAMP: Without referring to specific passages in the

8 indictment, the indictment, in my submission, refers to the averment in

9 the indictment, that the offences were not limited to those charged

10 specifically in the indictment but were widespread and systematic and were

11 persecutory of the general Kosovar Albanian population in Kosovo. I think

12 that averment is made at various places in the indictment, which I don't

13 have with me now.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Certainly it's something I've overlooked. So far I

15 thought this was an indictment about 13 municipalities, which was a basis

16 for saying that this was widespread and systematic behaviour. I would be

17 assisted by being shown where the indictment says that it extends beyond

18 these areas.

19 MR. STAMP: I'm having a look at the electronic copy. I would be

20 able to assist the Court in a moment.

21 For example, it has been pointed out to me,

22 paragraph 26: "Throughout Kosovo, forces of the FRY and Serbia engaged in

23 a deliberate and widespread or systematic campaign of destruction of

24 property owned by Kosovo Albanian civilians."

25 Paragraph 27 reads on: "In addition to the deliberate destruction

1 of property owned by Kosovo Albanian civilians, forces of the FRY and

2 Serbia conducted widespread and systematic acts of violence and brutality

3 against Kosovo Albanian civilians."

4 Again, I think still better yet, paragraph 25 illustrates what I'm

5 saying. "Forces of the FRY and Serbia, in a deliberate and widespread or

6 systematic manner, forcibly expelled and internally displaced hundreds of

7 thousands of Kosovo Albanians from their homes across the entire province

8 of Kosovo."

9 [Microphone not activated].

10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone, please.

11 MR. STAMP: So the point I respectfully submit is not that the

12 Prosecution intends to prove with direct and specific evidence, and the

13 Court could not make findings in respect to the non-charged incidents or

14 sites which are referred to in the report, but the Court will deliberate

15 on the widespread, systematic nature and the questions of the scale

16 throughout the -- to quote the indictment "throughout Kosovo." And the

17 report, in those circumstances, can offer some assistance in those

18 deliberations.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: And are you saying that you won't be leading

20 evidence, direct evidence, from witnesses that would be sufficient to make

21 the finding of widespread and systematic conduct?

22 MR. STAMP: No, I'm not saying that. In fact, with -- the -- the

23 report would support a finding, it is the submission of the Prosecution,

24 that the Court would be entitled to make from the evidence, the direct

25 evidence, given by these witnesses.

1 JUDGE CHOWHAN: Now, it has been said here that there were

2 facsimile reports, at least two others, and this report has nothing -- as

3 if it is not something original. But there were two other reports of the

4 same kind, verbatim. Would you like to comment on that, please?

5 MR. STAMP: Yes, I -- and please forgive my remission in not doing

6 so earlier. I had intended to comment on that by submitting that --

7 Mr. Visnjic is indeed right. There probably were even more than two where

8 the identical verbatim information were on different forms, allegedly or

9 apparently submitted by different collecting agencies.

10 If I may just reflect on the evidence first.

11 The witness was asked questions about how this might have

12 happened. And it is, no doubt, clear to the Court that she was put in a

13 position where she could only speculate. She did not know how that could

14 have happened because that would be a breach of the procedures that she

15 sought to enforce.

16 However, the documents that were shown to the Court were clearly

17 print-outs from a database, and the question I asked in re-examination I

18 think would have indicated to the Court that she would not be incognizant

19 of nor would she know about how the material was organised, prepared,

20 possibly merged for data-processing purposes. So that is completely out

21 of her knowledge. So it does not, as was submitted by counsel, reflect

22 prejudicially on her objectivity.

23 Firstly, it -- she was asked to speculate and said she didn't know

24 but it could have been so and so and so. The documents were received and

25 efforts were made to put them on a database. The merger of the

1 information in a document, apparently from the ICG and one from the OSCE,

2 was done in an attempt to put together a usable, searchable database with

3 all of these thousands of reports. So it does not impact on the evidence

4 of the witness, but it is a matter which could be further explained, and

5 I'm trying to get a precise statement as to how it happened. But it is

6 already clear, based on the investigations that I have made, that that was

7 something that was done here for electronic searching purposes of the

8 various reports. But the one person still at OTP who would be able to

9 give the details is not here this week I'm told.

10 But if the Court requests further information, I will find out and

11 submit it when it's available.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Stamp.

13 Now, if I can go back to the contents of the report. Part I is

14 historical and political background, followed by something about the human

15 rights operation. Now, the first part of that, the historical and

16 political background, is not a matter in which the witness claimed to have

17 any expertise, nor did she claim to have any knowledge beyond just having

18 been in the area at various periods over a number of years.

19 Now, are you going to have her tell us, through this report, about

20 Prince Lazar and the Ottoman forces and the battle of Kosovo Polje, or are

21 now there going to be some limits on this evidence?

22 MR. STAMP: There has to be limits, it is the submission of the

23 Prosecution, in the way that the Tribunal judges it useful in what weight

24 can be given to and what weight cannot be given to. But in assessing the

25 credibility of other areas of the report of more directly relevant

1 analyses in the report, it may well be useful to the Tribunal to have --

2 to the Trial Chamber to have a knowledge or an appreciation of the context

3 in which the --

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we'll have plenty of evidence about that, at

5 least hopefully evidence from one reliable source. And it's the same with

6 chapter 3, Yugoslav forces in Kosovo and the Kosovo Liberation Army.

7 You're going to be tendering evidence through a witness you describe as an

8 expert, Mr. Coo. Now, is that not adequate? What happens if there's any

9 difference between the two? What do we do with it? How do we assess the

10 reliability of this when we don't actually know who it was that compiled

11 this paragraph, or this chapter rather?

12 MR. STAMP: What I am submitting, I agree that there is

13 insufficient indicia of reliability in respect to certain areas. I think

14 I conceded that earlier.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.

16 MR. STAMP: Including, to some degree, the first part and the

17 second part. But as I submitted earlier. It is a matter of context. The

18 Court is not only interested in the context in which the offences were

19 committed, which is what directly these parts of the report cover, but the

20 context in which -- or the state of mind in which it was written and

21 analysed. It is why, for example, in cross-examination one counsel for

22 the Defence asked various questions relating to facts and statements made

23 in various parts of the report. Because sometimes in understanding or in

24 coming to an appropriate understanding of a particular part of the

25 analysis in the report it might be useful to the Chamber to understand the

1 context in which the writers of the report operated. And to that

2 the Prosecution submits that the whole report would be useful, but some

3 parts, obviously, would not be of sufficient probative value or

4 reliability for it to form part of the deliberations or for a decision to

5 be based partly or fully upon it.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, if you take also paragraph -- sorry,

7 chapter 7, rape and other forms of sexual violence, what are you going to

8 invite us to draw from that chapter?

9 MR. STAMP: The -- there would be significant amount of evidence,

10 including expert evidence, in respect to rapes being committed as part of

11 the campaign of persecutions, as alleged. Should the Chamber accept the

12 direct evidence of rape of these witnesses, the Prosecution would submit

13 that that section of the book can assist the Court in its deliberations in

14 respect to the whole issue of rape, the systematic and widespread

15 campaign, including the offences of rape as alleged in the indictment.

16 May I rephrase that? If I could go back to an earlier submission

17 I made. That section would not be a section that could stand alone. The

18 Prosecution would not be asking the Court to rely on a section like that

19 on its own. But there will be evidence presented to the Court by

20 individuals and by experts about rape in the course of the events that the

21 indictment refers to. And if the Court accepts that direct evidence, it

22 would be the submission of the Prosecution at a later stage in the

23 proceedings that the Court could use the section of the book in -- to

24 assist it in determining how widespread it was.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: On one view, that is using that type of evidence

1 for the most significant purpose. One rape has little impact on this

2 indictment, and if you prove two or three, that has little impact on this

3 indictment. And that's without, for a moment, suggesting that each one of

4 these is not a horrendous event; it is. But the thing that really matters

5 for you is to show that it's widespread and systematic. And that's what

6 you then invite the Trial Chamber to conclude from this material, I

7 suspect, in relation to --

8 MR. STAMP: Yes.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: -- rape. It may be different in relation to some

10 of the other crimes.

11 MR. STAMP: Yes, that is correct. But if I could put it this way,

12 we would invite the Court to use this material in support of other

13 material. We would not ask the Court to make that type of conclusion from

14 this type of material alone.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: I follow that, but you're still using it to, in

16 that context, provide the bulk of your evidence, I suspect, the weightiest

17 part of your evidence.

18 MR. STAMP: I would submit not.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE BONOMY: There's just one final matter I want to raise with

22 you. This is not one report but two, and the second one covers a period

23 from June to October 1999, which is beyond the indictment. What is the

24 purpose of this report, or part of the report?

25 MR. STAMP: The exhibit being tendered --

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Is it only the one --

2 MR. STAMP: -- in e-court is part I.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Only part I?

4 MR. STAMP: Yes.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.

6 MR. STAMP: Although there is some relevant evidence in respect of

7 part II that we hope might assist the Court in the deliberations on the

8 integrity and objectivity of the witness and the procedure, because

9 part II, as she testified, was her investigations of offences committed

10 against the Serbs by the KLA and the Kosovar Albanians after the NATO

11 intervention.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, who is your next witness?

13 MR. STAMP: [Microphone not activated].

14 MR. HANNIS: Goran Stoparic, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: So you'll have the witness ready for us when we

16 return after the break?

17 MR. HANNIS: I think he's been waiting for a long time.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Sepenuk.

19 MR. SEPENUK: Excuse me, Your Honour, do you have any desire at

20 all to hear any further comments from the Defence in this matter?

21 JUDGE BONOMY: For example, in relation to what?

22 MR. SEPENUK: In relation to the admissibility of this report.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: No, no. But give me an example of a point that you

24 feel --

25 MR. SEPENUK: Well, yes, Mr. Stamp says that they don't intend to

1 introduce this report as direct evidence of the crime scenes, but they do

2 intend to use it to assist the Trial Chamber on the issue of notice to the

3 higher-level political and military figures of crimes committed not only

4 in 1998 but also in 1999. That really concerns the Defence in this case.

5 That's a pivotal issue in this case, because even getting by the crime

6 scenes, the question is: Can any one of these six defendants be proven

7 beyond a reasonable doubt to have been part of a plan to create these

8 crime scenes, to instigate them, et cetera.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, the report certainly can't achieve that

10 because it's not produced until after the events are all over. But if the

11 suggestion is being made that the evidence in there somehow or other

12 supports the notion that the accused are on notice, it certainly couldn't

13 do so on its own. He's not at any stage suggested that this material

14 would establish that on its own. But I accept what you say, the

15 submission was that it would assist the Trial Chamber in determining the

16 question of notice. We have to evaluate that.

17 MR. SEPENUK: Yes. And our comment, Your Honour, is that there --

18 the OSCE is almost being presented to the Court as an amicus curiae. I

19 think they have no right to be an amicus curiae in this case. It's up to

20 the parties, I submit, Your Honour, I respectfully submit, to offer the

21 guidance that's needed by the Court in determining the ultimate issues in

22 this case, not the OSCE.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Thank you.

24 MR. SEPENUK: Thank you.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: The various submissions made will be considered.

1 We will not give an instant answer to this. I did say that we would try

2 to give a fairly quick response; however, whether that's a final answer

3 remains to be seen. There will be a fairly quick response, but it may not

4 finally determine the issue. That I can't say for sure until we've had a

5 chance to discuss it privately.

6 We will adjourn now and we will resume at 4.15.

7 --- Recess taken at 3.52 p.m.

8 [The witness entered court]

9 --- On resuming at 4.16 p.m.

10 MR. STAMP: May it please Your Honour. Before we proceed with the

11 witness, I don't know if this would be a convenient time for me to put on

12 the record that the exhibits that we would be wished to be received in

13 respect of the evidence by Sandra Mitchell.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Is there any doubt about --

15 MR. STAMP: Yes, there might be an issue. We thought it would be

16 placed if it was placed on the record because in her statement some of

17 them are referred to ERN numbers and although she does give the

18 descriptions and the dates, but we would prefer to put the P numbers.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well.

20 MR. STAMP: First is P432, that is the agreement on the

21 organisation for security and cooperation in Europe, Kosovo Verification

22 Mission, signed by the chairman of the OSCE and the FRY minister of

23 foreign affairs dated the 19th of October, 1998; the next is P456, that is

24 the UN Security Council Resolution 1199, adopted on the 23rd of September,

25 1998; P473, As Seen, As Told; P615, that is a Kosovo atlas. We do agree

1 with the -- with you, Your Honour, that perhaps it is a little bit untidy,

2 but it does contain some material which is not in the other atlas, and we

3 could in due course submit upon it some more, but we ask if it is not

4 received it could be at least marked for identity.

5 P761, that is the OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission human rights

6 task overview for November/December 1998; P763, that's the OSCE-KVM

7 mission standard operating procedure, allegations of serious violations of

8 humanitarian law of November 1999; P763 that's the OSCE-KVM human rights

9 division operational plan of 17th of December, 1999.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: You've given us that number twice.

11 MR. STAMP: 763.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, you've just given us it and now you're giving

13 us it again.

14 MR. STAMP: I beg your pardon. The next is P764, the OSCE-KVM

15 refugee monitoring plan. Then P765, the form that was disclosed. That is

16 the OSCE-KVM refugee monitoring form. And finally P766, the OSCE-KVM

17 verification mission -- OSCE-KVM guidelines on classifications. That is

18 it.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: And for the avoidance of doubt, P473 is simply

20 part I?

21 MR. STAMP: Part I.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

23 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, Mr. Stoparic, if you would stand, please. And

25 I invite you to make the solemn declaration.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

2 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Please be seated.

4 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, Mr. Stoparic, I'd like just to explain to you

6 a little about what's going to happen here. You're about to be asked

7 questions by a number of people, starting with the Prosecutor, who's on

8 his feet to your right. And he will be followed by others on behalf of

9 the accused. What you're being asked to do is answer the questions which

10 are asked of you. This isn't a situation where you're here simply to give

11 an account as you choose to give an account, but you're invited to confine

12 your comments to answers to the specific questions which are given.

13 Now, you may find that it's a nice easy time you have or you may

14 find that some counsel ask you difficult questions and perhaps even make

15 suggestions to you about the way in which you're answering questions. I

16 want to make it clear to you from the outset that that's the form of

17 procedure under which this trial is conducted. It may be one different

18 from that in your own country or any other procedure that you yourself are

19 familiar with. But it's important in the interests of everyone, and

20 particularly in the interests of the accused here, that what you do is

21 concentrate very closely on the question that's asked you and answer the

22 question, the specific question that is put you. Thank you very much.

23 Mr. Hannis.

24 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.

25 WITNESS: GORAN STOPARIC

1 [Witness answered through interpreter]

2 Examination by Mr. Hannis:

3 Q. Good afternoon. Mr. Stoparic, would you state your name for the

4 record and spell your last name, please.

5 A. My name is Goran Stoparic, S-t-o-p-a-r-i-c.

6 Q. And the first thing I'd like to do is have you shown a copy of

7 your statement, Exhibit P2224, the B/C/S version for you and English for

8 the rest of us, please.

9 Will you let me know when you see that on the screen.

10 A. Yes, I do see it now.

11 Q. Do you recognise what that is?

12 A. This is the front page of what is probably my statement.

13 Q. Okay.

14 MR. HANNIS: Can we scroll down so we can see the bottom of that

15 as well.

16 Q. And do you recall giving a statement on the 6th of July here at

17 the OTP?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. I'm sorry. And you had a chance to review that at the time?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And you were able to read it and have it read to you before you

22 signed it?

23 A. Yes, I was able to read it.

24 Q. And are you ready to confirm now under oath that that's your true

25 and accurate statement to the best of your knowledge and belief?

1 A. Sir, I can confirm that I see the front page.

2 Q. Would you like to see the rest of the pages one at a time?

3 A. You're asking me to confirm whether this is indeed my statement.

4 I can tell you that this is certainly its front page.

5 MR. HANNIS: Can we show him the next page, please.

6 As a matter of fact, Your Honour, it may be easier if we hand him

7 a hard copy that we have here, which I can confirm to the Court is the

8 same as what's in the electronic copy.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, please do that.

10 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, the -- I was expecting that if this was

12 a witness giving evidence under Rule -- or part of the evidence

13 under 89(F) that we would have been provided with a copy of his statement.

14 And you've indicated that this is a recent statement, the 6th of July.

15 MR. HANNIS: It is, Your Honour. It's a compilation of three

16 earlier statements from 2003, 2004, and 2005.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, there's an order about --

18 [Prosecution counsel confer]

19 MR. HANNIS: It's my understanding, Your Honour, it was sent to

20 your principal Legal Officer by e-mail on the 6th of July, 6th or 7th of

21 July.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, as early as -- as recently as this afternoon

23 I was looking for it but I still haven't received it. I mean, the order

24 was to provide hard copy, wasn't it, of these statements or -- in e-mail

25 is fine, but it was to produce copies directly to the Chamber, not simply

1 to upload them into the electronic disclosure.

2 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I think that may have been sent to you

3 before we had the order in hand.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, all right.

5 MR. HANNIS: We certainly can provide you hard copies in short

6 order.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: If you have copies there it would be helpful

8 because we haven't seen them.

9 MR. HANNIS: We have one, Your Honour. We can have some

10 additional ones made and brought to you in short order.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Please carry on with the checking of the statement,

12 Mr. Hannis.

13 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

14 And if the usher could assist me by handing the English version to

15 Mr. Stoparic as well. To the witness, please.

16 Q. And, Mr. Stoparic, would you take a look at that and tell us if

17 you recognise our signature or your initials on the bottom of each of

18 those pages.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Now that you've had a chance to see both of those, are you

21 comfortable in confirming for the Court that that is your true statement?

22 A. Yes, that's my statement.

23 Q. Thank you.

24 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, we would like to tender his statement at

25 this time. I have a second English copy we could provide to you from the

1 one that's in front of him.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

3 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

4 Q. Now, Mr. Stoparic, I want to tell you that you do have a copy of

5 your B/C/S statement there on your table and I may from time to time ask

6 you to refer to a specific paragraph. But if at any time you're referring

7 to it, would you please let us all know. We want you to testify from your

8 memory and not from what's written down there.

9 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, with your permission, I'd like to lead

10 briefly the defendant [sic] on some background material.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, please do that in general where it's

12 background, and I'll leave it to counsel to draw our attention to any

13 concerns they have about the way in which you're proceeding.

14 MR. HANNIS: I will, Your Honour.

15 Q. Mr. Stoparic, I want to ask you a brief series of questions. If

16 you'll wait until I finish and let me know if what I've just said is

17 correct.

18 You were born in 1968 in the town of Sid in Serbia. You completed

19 your high school in 1986. You joined the JNA for your one year of

20 military service in 1987 where you specialised in infantry reconnaissance

21 and you served in Pristina. Is that correct?

22 A. Except for the place of birth. I was born in Sremska Mitrovica

23 and I live in Sid.

24 Q. And after your service in the army in 1987, you worked with your

25 father in construction until 1991?

1 A. That's correct.

2 Q. And we see in your statement that in July 1991 you volunteered at

3 your local office of Territorial Defence. Is that correct?

4 A. To be more precise, at the office of the Territorial Defence of

5 Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem.

6 Q. In paragraph 5 of your statement you say: "I fell for this

7 nationalistic ideology as thousands of other Serbs did ..."

8 What nationalistic ideology are you talking about there?

9 A. Well, if a young man feels the need to engage in a war against the

10 other party, which in this case were Croats, of course it had a

11 nationalist aspect to it.

12 Q. And from whom or where were you hearing this nationalistic

13 ideology?

14 A. From all sides. From the media, from the conversations with the

15 people at large.

16 Q. After you volunteered with the TO, you shortly had an opportunity

17 to join a different unit. What unit was that?

18 A. Following war operations in Slavonia and Baranja and Vukovar, is

19 that what you're referring to?

20 Q. Well, you first volunteered for the Territorial Defence. Did you

21 actually join them and work with them?

22 A. I apologise.

23 Q. That's all right. Go ahead.

24 A. After that we were joined with the 1st Guards Brigade.

25 Q. Was that a unit of the JNA?

1 A. Yes, yes. That was a JNA unit.

2 Q. And how long did you stay with them?

3 A. Until the fall of Vukovar.

4 Q. Do you recall when that was, approximately?

5 A. I couldn't give you the date. In November of 1991 -- I'm not

6 sure. I don't know exactly.

7 Q. And after that did you leave the JNA to join another group?

8 A. Yes. After that I went home.

9 Q. To Sid?

10 A. Yes, yes.

11 Q. And what happened there?

12 A. In Sid, you mean?

13 Q. Yes. Did you join another unit?

14 A. Yes. Later on I joined the Skorpions unit at Djeletovci.

15 Q. Who or what were the Skorpions?

16 A. What I knew of them at the time -- well, I joined the Skorpions

17 upon the invitation of their commander. What I knew of the Skorpions at

18 the time was that they were stationed in the village of Djeletovci, that

19 one of their missions at the time was to monitor the borders or the area

20 within their responsibility and to guard the Krajina Oil Company

21 facilities, which was already in existence at the time, I believe,

22 although I'm not sure.

23 Q. Who was the commander who invited you to join?

24 A. Slobodan Medic.

25 Q. Do you know him by a nickname as well?

1 A. Yes, we all called him Boca.

2 Q. Now, what kind of organisation or group was the Skorpions? Was it

3 a military unit? A social unit? An army unit? If you know.

4 A. The Skorpions consisted of two companies, one reconnaissance

5 platoon and a working platoon. They were very well equipped in terms of

6 infantry, weapons, in terms of uniforms, all-terrain vehicles, and so on.

7 Of course it was a military unit.

8 I'm not sure I fully understand your question. A military unit?

9 Q. Well, that's my question. You mentioned uniforms. What kind of

10 uniforms did the Skorpions have?

11 A. They weren't always the same. As far as I know, they always had

12 better uniforms than the Serb army. It was more up-to-date, more modern.

13 Q. And were the Skorpions a part of the JNA?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Who did they belong to, if anyone?

16 A. From what I know, officially they were supposed to be part of the

17 Army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. I also know that a lot of

18 influence over the unit was wielded from the MUP of Serbia, although I

19 don't know how this came about or how it was materialised.

20 Q. You used the term "officially" when you referred to them belonging

21 to the Army of Republic of Serbia [sic]. Was there some unofficial

22 membership in some other group?

23 MR. LUKIC: Excuse me, Your Honours, just if we can pause for a

24 second.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, Mr. Lukic.

1 MR. LUKIC: There is a mistake in the transcript. The witness

2 didn't say that they belonged to the Army of the Republic of Serbia but to

3 the Army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

5 I think the interpretation was accurate; it's the transcript

6 that's inaccurate.

7 MR. HANNIS: That's what I heard, too.

8 Q. Mr. Stoparic, let me ask that question again. You said officially

9 they belonged to the Army of the Republika Srpska Krajina. Was there some

10 unofficial membership in some other group?

11 A. Some other group. To my knowledge when we had meetings when the

12 commander and when he gave us assignments and from conversations with

13 other members of the unit, they always said that it was the Serb state

14 security that was behind that unit.

15 Q. And there's an abbreviation for the Serb state security that you

16 use in your statement?

17 A. It wasn't used by me only, it was used by everyone, and it was

18 the DB.

19 Q. In your statement in paragraph 10 you mention the Red Berets as

20 being the skeleton of all DB special units. You mention the Skorpions as

21 being a satellite. Were you aware of other satellite units?

22 A. According to the stories at the time and based on what I know now,

23 those were Arkan's Tigers, too, and there were some other units in the

24 Republika Srpska, yes, in Bosnia.

25 Q. In paragraph 16 of your statement, which I believe is on page 4 of

1 your B/C/S, I want to quote. You say: "The order came from the top that

2 60 per cent of our men should be from the RS and RSK and 40 per cent from

3 Serbia."

4 And you go on to say that: "... that was so people at the top in

5 Serbia could always deny the link between the Skorpions and Serbia."

6 First of all, in that statement where you're talking about the RS

7 and the RSK, are you referring to Republika Srpska and the

8 Republika Srpska Krajina?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Who told you about this order from the top?

11 A. Once I asked Srdjan Manojlovic, who was person number two in the

12 Skorpions. He was the one distributing salaries and issuing us with

13 equipment. He was, I believe, formerly a JNA officer, a commissioned or a

14 non-commissioned officer. At any rate he was part of the Skorpions.

15 On one occasion I asked him about two or three friends of mine who

16 wanted to join the Skorpions, and he told me precisely what is written

17 here, that there was an order coming from the top that whoever joined the

18 unit from Serbia should stay, but that they should no longer receive

19 people from Serbia, only from Krajina.

20 Q. And based on what he told you, what was your understanding about

21 who the top was that the order came from? Was that a particular

22 individual or a particular organisation?

23 A. Yes. When one referred to the top at the time, to me it meant

24 Belgrade, certainly not Beli Manastir or any other town. That was my

25 understanding of it.

1 Q. And any particular person or organ in Belgrade?

2 A. Throughout the time there was stories going around in the unit,

3 and some platoon commanders used to say that we were there under the

4 control of the DB -- well -- but I wouldn't be able to go into that. I

5 can only tell you what Manojlovic told me.

6 Q. Okay. Thank you.

7 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, do you have English copies now?

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah.

9 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: And it may be that, Mr. Hannis, we should get --

11 move forward into 1998 and 1999.

12 MR. HANNIS: I'm coming there shortly, Your Honour. I think in

13 three more questions I'll be to 1995 and then I'll be to 1999 in three

14 more questions.

15 Q. In paragraph 17 you mentioned that certain persons that Boca,

16 Slobodan Medic, reported to. Could you give us their full names. You

17 mention Legija, Mrgud, Frenki, and Stanisic. If you know, can you tell us

18 the full names of those individuals?

19 A. Legija appears to be the first one here and his name was Milorad

20 Dulovic, and I know Boca reported to him when we were in the field in

21 Velika Kladusa. The next person is Mrgud, and I don't know what his name

22 was. All I know is that he became quite a popular person when he signed

23 an agreement. Then there's Frenki whose last name is Simatovic, and

24 Stanisic whose first name is Jovica.

25 Q. Do you know what position Mrgud held, even though you don't know

1 his name?

2 A. I forgot his name, but I may be able to recall it at a later

3 stage. He was one of the ministers within the government of the Krajina.

4 I don't know whether he was in charge of defence or perhaps he was in some

5 other ministry. I'm not sure.

6 Q. Thank you. Now, between late 1991 and 1995, when you joined the

7 Skorpions, did you, as a member of the Skorpions, take part in any combat

8 or military operations in Croatia or Bosnia? Just yes or no, first of

9 all.

10 A. First you said Croatia. Our standing base was in Djeletovci, and

11 we were tasked to be there. There were no military operations, apart from

12 occasional reconnaissance and laying out mines as well as securing the

13 area that was within our responsibility.

14 As regards Bosnia, yes, we went out in Bosnia. We were in the

15 field in the Bihac theatre, as well as in Velika Kladusa. I believe in

16 Velika Kladusa we were headquartered in the village of Podzuvic [phoen]

17 and we went out to a part called Treskavica.

18 Q. Thank you. You tell us in your statement that you left the

19 Skorpions in 1995 and opened a cafe bar in your hometown of Sid. Is that

20 correct?

21 A. With my then-girlfriend, yes. Not in 1995, though, a bit later.

22 Q. I want to move forward then to paragraph 31 of your statement.

23 You mentioned that several former Skorpions and MUP police hung out at

24 your cafe bar, and you say: "Situation in Kosovo was a main topic of

25 conversation."

1 In late 1998 and early 1999, can you tell us what was being said

2 by those former Skorpions and MUP police about the situation in Kosovo.

3 A. I don't know what was being said by the Skorpions because they

4 were not in existence then. They were disbanded after the signing of the

5 Erdut agreement. The policemen who returned from Kosovo mentioned of the

6 increase of terrorist attacks of the then-UCK, or the Kosovo Liberation

7 Army, as well as their terrorist organisation and that the situation was a

8 grave one, although it was never officially stated. But there was an

9 expectation that NATO would eventually be deployed, and it did at a later

10 stage.

11 Q. In paragraph 32 you mention that you noticed a number of the MUP

12 officers returning from tours of duty in Kosovo had large amounts of money

13 and jewellery. You say it was obvious to you that that was the proceeds

14 of looting. Can you tell the Court why you came to that conclusion. What

15 did you know about them or what was going on that led you to think that

16 that was the case?

17 A. Did you say "many" or "several" officers? I didn't quite

18 understand the question.

19 Q. You said you saw MUP officers returning, and it -- you said it was

20 obvious to you that the money and jewellery -- you didn't say a number.

21 A. Yes. I know of some cases. This was probably my answer to

22 someone's question. Nevertheless, it is absolutely true. Some people

23 boasted that they simply took those things from there.

24 As regards money, I believe that the people in the field did

25 receive increased salaries as well, but there was always the possibility

1 of someone appropriating something.

2 Q. In paragraph 5 [sic] you mention that Boca was reforming the

3 Skorpions. And he told you that if you were to re-enlist or join up

4 again, this time you would be attached to the SAJ of the MUP. Do you know

5 what SAJ was, and can you explain that to the Judges?

6 A. Up until then, until that visit by Boca, when he came to my house

7 to invite me to accompany him to Kosovo, I knew very little. I know that

8 his headquarters were in Batajnica and that they were an elite unit, being

9 the best special forces that Serbia had. And for me it was an honour to

10 fight next to him.

11 Q. And do you know what kind of unit it was and to whom -- to which

12 organ or agency it belonged?

13 A. What I do know is that they were an anti-terrorist unit of the

14 Serbian MUP that was in charge of public security.

15 Q. Are you aware of -- well, can you tell us what MUP is. I don't

16 know if we've talked about that before now. What was the MUP in Serbia?

17 A. The Ministry of the Interior.

18 Q. And the SAJ was on the public security side of the MUP?

19 A. As far as I know, yes.

20 Q. Were you familiar with another group called the PJP?

21 A. This is the abbreviation for the special or separate police units.

22 Q. And who did they belong to?

23 A. To the Ministry of the Interior.

24 Q. What was the difference between the PJP and the SAJ, if you know?

25 A. As I said, the SAJ was a special anti-terrorist unit of the

1 Serbian MUP founded in the 1980s, as far as I know. It was the MUP's

2 elite unit.

3 The PJP is the following. From every OUP, meaning from every

4 police station in Serbia, there were people taken who were well-trained

5 and strong and they were assigned to the OUP. They had their regular

6 duties to carry out, but in addition they attended special training and

7 they were members of the PJP, which would then be activated under

8 extraordinary circumstances.

9 In any case, these were police officers of the public security

10 sector.

11 Q. So if I understand correctly, then PJP were regular policemen who

12 had been sent for specialised training?

13 A. They were regular policemen and they had some special training,

14 perhaps a bit more extensive one than they would have otherwise received

15 in their hometowns.

16 Q. And after they got their special training to be PJP policemen,

17 where did they go? Did they get a different assignment? Did they go back

18 to their home police stations? How did that work?

19 A. Sir, I was never an active police officer; therefore, I can only

20 offer my opinion.

21 As far as I know, they were always employed with their home unit,

22 being the OUP. But in extraordinary circumstances, there was a need for

23 the state to take strong young people from those regular units and to put

24 them together, to intervene wherever it was needed. It needn't be in

25 Kosovo and Metohija itself, but anywhere in the state or even in their

1 respective hometowns.

2 Q. And I'm trying to understand the difference between PJP and SAJ.

3 I know you said SAJ was a special anti-terrorist unit. These were, as I

4 understand, also policemen who had gotten some special training. What

5 happened with them after they got their special training to be in SAJ?

6 Did they go back to the police stations or did they have some kind of

7 separate posting?

8 A. What I do know of the SAJ is the following. The SAJ wouldn't take

9 people from the civilian sector, meaning civilians. For someone to become

10 a member of the SAJ and to undergo their training, that person must have

11 been a police officer prior to that, or at least must have completed the

12 police academy.

13 Q. So could a civilian go straight to PJP for training?

14 A. No. Maybe in case they carried out some training with the

15 reserves, with the police reserves as well.

16 Q. What about -- between the two, between SAJ and PJP, was one better

17 equipped? Was one seen to be more special or more elite than the other,

18 to your knowledge?

19 A. All police officers are well-trained. The PJP was well-equipped

20 as well, but the SAJ is the SAJ, the chosen ones. They probably underwent

21 much more strict and heavier training. They are a special anti-terrorist

22 unit, as their name testifies, and they are but a few.

23 Q. And there's another acronym I think that you referred to in your

24 statement somewhere, the JSO. Can you tell us who or what they were?

25 A. The JSO, the unit for special operations, called by many the

1 Red Berets.

2 Q. And were they also a part of the Ministry of Interior?

3 A. Of course.

4 Q. Were they on the public security side of the Ministry of Interior?

5 A. No. They were on the state security side.

6 Q. And can you tell us what the acronym or the abbreviation is for

7 state security. You told us DB was, I think, the acronym. Is that

8 correct?

9 A. Yes. The DB means "drzavna bezbednost," state security.

10 Q. All right. And is there an acronym for public security?

11 A. I don't know. I would have guessed so.

12 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now I'd like to move on to -- well, let me

13 summarise a little bit and then ask you a question.

14 In paragraphs 39 to 49, that's pages 7 through 9 of the B/C/S and

15 pages 7 through 9 of the English, you describe how a group -- you and a

16 group of about 120 volunteers, Skorpions, went from Sid to Kosovo. And I

17 note in paragraph 45 of your statement, I believe on page 8, that you said

18 about 50 per cent of the volunteers in this group had no combat

19 experience. Do you know if they had any prior police experience?

20 A. I don't know. As far as I know, they didn't.

21 Q. And you tell us in your statement that this group of volunteers

22 were going to be a detachment of the SAJ, the special anti-terrorist unit,

23 the elite unit. Based on your past experience, did you think it unusual

24 that men with such a lack of experience would be assigned to that elite

25 unit?

1 A. I was quite surprised by that.

2 Q. You mentioned that you actually gave them some training in house

3 and street fighting during the couple of days before you actually arrived

4 in Kosovo. Did you -- during that time did you or did they receive any

5 training or instruction about the Geneva Conventions on dealing with

6 prisoners of war or civilians encountered in combat zones?

7 A. I didn't instruct anyone about that and I wasn't instructed by

8 anyone, but the only training I did have concerning that was back from

9 1987 when I served my military term with the armed forces.

10 Q. Mr. Stoparic, I want to go next to Kosovo. In your statement in

11 paragraphs 50 through 64, pages 9 through 11 in both versions, you date an

12 event in Podujevo, Kosovo, in which Sasa Cvetan and three other Skorpions

13 shot and killed a group of 19 Albanian civilians, including 12 children

14 under the age of 14. And then you talk about how you were all sent back

15 to Serbia and told to take ten days' leave. You then say around the

16 middle of April you and many of that original group that had first gone

17 there returned to Kosovo. When you returned, was Sasa Cvetan in the group

18 that returned?

19 A. Sasa Cvetan was not there.

20 Q. What about the other three shooters, were they in the group that

21 returned?

22 A. They all returned to Kosovo, the entire unit, except for Sasa

23 Cvetan.

24 Q. Were the -- were the identities of the other three involved in the

25 shooting known to the superiors of the Skorpions at the time?

1 A. Probably, yes.

2 Q. Were those three ever disciplined or charged that you know of?

3 A. One man was charged. He was later acquitted.

4 Q. Do you know why the other two were not charged?

5 A. Someone must have obstructed the investigation, probably the

6 commander himself.

7 Q. I want to go forward to paragraph 64 through 79 of your statement.

8 I think it's pages 11 through 13. You describe how you had returned to

9 Kosovo in mid-April and you talk about your participation in some

10 operations to drive out the UCK or KLA and "seized the villages and

11 hamlets. This was called cleaning." And you say this took place in the

12 area of Jezerce in the municipality of Suva Reka and then north of Strpce.

13 During these operations, did you see any Kosovo Albanians? And let me

14 first say: Did you see any Kosovo Albanian civilians?

15 A. From a distance. I saw them in groups leaving.

16 Q. And you did encounter some KLA opposition?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And you continued to be active in this operation until you were

19 shot and wounded on the 2nd of May, 1999 by a KLA fire?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And I understand then that you were hospitalised first in

22 Pristina, then to the Belgrade Military Academy, where you had some

23 operations on your arm and your elbow, and that wound left you permanently

24 medically unfit for military purposes?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. And in May of 2000 you got an award for your work as a member of

2 the SAJ of the MUP of Serbia?

3 A. I don't see that as an award. I had been wounded and I received a

4 special commendation for my exceptional work on combatting terrorism in

5 the area of Kosovo and Metohija.

6 Q. And who was that from?

7 A. Vlajko Stojiljkovic signed it.

8 Q. And he was the minister of the interior of Serbia at the time?

9 A. I think so.

10 Q. Were the Serbians who were the volunteers with you when you came

11 back to Kosovo, they were the -- they were volunteers and you volunteer

12 Skorpions were attached to the SAJ. Correct?

13 A. I don't understand the question.

14 Q. Who were the Skorpions attached to when you came back to Kosovo in

15 mid-April?

16 A. As far as I know, they were attached to the reserve forces of

17 the SAJ.

18 Q. Thank you. Now I'd like to go to paragraphs 83 to 87 of your

19 statement, which are on pages 13 and 14 of the English and page 14 of the

20 B/C/S. In those paragraphs, Mr. Stoparic, you describe the criminal

21 proceedings or the trials against Sasa Cvetan for the 1999 killing of

22 those civilians in Podujevo. You were called as a witness in both those

23 proceedings. Could you tell the Judges in your own words what happened

24 the first time you were called as a witness in that matter. Were you

25 spoken to by anyone from the Defence before you appeared on that case?

1 A. No. I spoke to the Defence counsel --

2 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the answer.

3 MR. HANNIS:

4 Q. Did --

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stoparic, you're being asked to repeat that

6 answer, please.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was asked whether before

8 testifying in those proceedings I spoke to anyone, whether I spoke to the

9 Defence. I said not only did I speak with the Defence counsel but I was

10 also visited by the family of the accused as well as the Skorpions

11 commander and several of his men whom he used as body-guards. In total,

12 around 20 people spoke to me.

13 MR. HANNIS:

14 Q. And what did those people tell you or ask you?

15 A. That we needed to defend Sasa.

16 Q. Anything else? How were you going to do that?

17 A. I was supposed to appear at a proceedings at Prokuplje, I believe.

18 I met on several occasions with the Defence counsel. And on the day I was

19 to testify together with two other witnesses, we went in one car down to

20 the south of Serbia. Boca, the commander, ordered that we all -- all

21 three of us come to his property. And he said: Be careful what you do

22 there. If you spill your beans you won't live for long. And I was given

23 a paper by the attorney with a statement or with the answers I was

24 supposed to provide. It was rather brief, the way he authored that text.

25 And he gave it not only to me but to the other witnesses as well.

1 Q. So what happened when you actually went to testify in that first

2 trial? What did you do?

3 A. I was asked to say that once the shooting started and once we all

4 headed toward the place the shooting was coming from, that Sasa was

5 running alongside me and that the only thing he did was to fire a burst of

6 fire some 15 minutes earlier which was only meant to serve to speed up the

7 people as they were walking, merely that. And that was in fact my

8 statement at that trial.

9 Q. Was that the truth?

10 A. No, it is not.

11 Q. And how did you feel after that afterwards, knowing that you had

12 lied about it?

13 A. Well, of course I felt badly about it, especially in view of the

14 fact that so many children had been killed, but still my life was at

15 stake. It was terrible.

16 Q. What did you do as a result of that, as a result of feeling bad

17 about it? Did you do anything?

18 A. Many eye-witnesses of the incidents live in my hometown and we

19 talked about it a lot, and we all agreed that whoever killed those

20 children deserved to be punished. However, it was dangerous for us to

21 speak up and to voice these things at trial. First of all, one man was

22 standing trial, and we all know that one person was unable to kill 19

23 persons in one minute, even if the victims were children.

24 I don't know. I wanted to tell the truth, but I simply did not

25 have the chance to do that before that trial in Belgrade.

1 Q. Okay. You mentioned the first trial, and I think you said or you

2 say in your statement that was in Prokuplje. Where is Prokuplje? Pardon

3 my pronunciation.

4 A. It's in the south of Serbia.

5 Q. And you just mentioned there was a second trial in Belgrade. Do

6 you remember when that took place?

7 A. The second trial went on for quite a while. I know that I

8 testified in the month of December of 1993, I believe.

9 Q. 1993?

10 A. Or 4. I don't know. I must have forgotten. Well, two or three

11 years ago at any rate.

12 Q. I'm sorry. The transcript showed "1993," and since the events

13 happened in 1999 I assume that was just a mistake.

14 A. 2003, I apologise.

15 Q. All right. How -- did you come to be a witness in the second

16 trial?

17 A. Well, you see, the first time I was a witness for the Defence.

18 However, when the case was referred from the court in Prokuplje to

19 Belgrade, the prosecutor in that case called all the witnesses appearing

20 in the first trial as prosecution witnesses, and I was among them.

21 Q. Did you -- did you tell a different version of what happened in

22 the second trial?

23 A. At the second trial I told the things as they happened.

24 Q. And that was that Sasa and three others did the shooting?

25 A. During that trial I confirmed that the Skorpions perpetrated that

1 act and that I saw Sasa and other people coming out of that yard. I never

2 said that I saw them shoot.

3 Q. Okay. I understand. And was that the truth?

4 A. Sir, at that trial Mr. Tutinac said the same thing I did. Yes,

5 the Skorpions fired upon those children, and that's the truth.

6 Q. What -- what caused you to change your mind? How were you able to

7 tell the truth this time? Were you still in fear for your life?

8 A. Of course I was. Even at that trial in Belgrade when I received

9 the summons, I entered the courtroom and told the Bench that I did not

10 feel very well and that I should be invited some other time. And this was

11 because before entering the courtroom I met Boca in the corridor, who

12 again offered to give me money, vehicles, in exchange for a statement that

13 would enable Sasa to defend himself.

14 Furthermore, at the entrance to the court I saw two of his men

15 who, upon seeing me, went away. And probably he, having heard that people

16 would be invited again to testify, wanted to make sure that they told the

17 right story. That was why I went out of the courtroom that day, but I

18 came back to testify under police protection.

19 Q. I think in your statement you indicated that Boca had offered you

20 a large sum of money. Do you remember how much that was?

21 A. I think he said something along the lines of 100.000, but he could

22 have named any sum.

23 Q. 100.000 what currency?

24 A. Marks, euros, I don't know.

25 Q. Now, I assume that in addition to being afraid for your life,

1 being offered a bribe of 100.000 Deutschmarks, what did you think was

2 going to happen to you if you told the truth as far as your relationships

3 with other Skorpions or former Skorpions?

4 A. Many of the Skorpions did not hold this against me; those who did

5 were, in a way, related to these events and were afraid of being

6 imprisoned. Of course I was afraid what would -- of what would become of

7 me. And after my testimony at this trial, I was given police protection

8 for another month.

9 Q. And in spite of that fear, you went ahead and told the truth.

10 Why? Why did you do that? It seemed like it would have been easy to just

11 tell the same lie.

12 A. Well, I was offended by him. First of all, he offered me money;

13 second of all, he threatened me, although he did not always do it in

14 person. I received his messages through other members of the Skorpions,

15 and I mean threatening messages.

16 But anyway, I had decided to tell the truth six months earlier.

17 And I told the story at this trial. I was given police protection for

18 that one day of testimony, but I was actually given real police protection

19 after my testimony. I was testifying at the district court of Belgrade as

20 well as at this special court and I was a cooperating witness.

21 Q. I'm sorry. You said you made the decision six months earlier to

22 tell the truth. At that time what was the deciding factor for you to tell

23 the truth in spite of your concerns?

24 A. I would have wished you to have eye-witnessed the killing of so

25 many children, innocent children, and then I would be the one to ask you

1 that question.

2 Q. I think I understand.

3 MR. HANNIS: Will we break at 5.30, Your Honour?

4 JUDGE BONOMY: I think 5.45. We started at 4.15, so --

5 MR. HANNIS: Okay. That's fine.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Just --

7 MR. HANNIS: I just have two other things to --

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I think in the circumstances, perhaps we

9 should then adjourn just now and --

10 MR. HANNIS: I just have a couple more questions.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we'll adjourn now, I think, Mr. Hannis, and

12 we'll resume at ten minutes to 6.00.

13 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

14 --- Recess taken at 5.25 p.m.

15 --- On resuming at 5.53 p.m.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.

17 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.

18 The first thing I'd like to do is ask the usher to hand hard

19 copies of two documents to the witness.

20 And for us on e-court I'd like to bring up first P951.

21 Q. Mr. Stoparic, if you could look first at the thicker of those two

22 documents. I think it has a date on it of 28 June 2005 and it's --

23 appears to be a matter concerning the district court in Belgrade.

24 When you prepared your 89(F) statement for today when we met last

25 week, did you have a chance to look at that document?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And do you recognise it as relating to the trial proceedings in

3 which you've testified against Mr. Cvetan the second time in Belgrade?

4 A. Yes, I can see it. Yes.

5 MR. HANNIS: Now if we could bring up 952.

6 Q. And, Mr. Stoparic, if you would look at the skinnier document

7 dated 3 March 2006.

8 Now I'll ask you the same question: Did you have a chance to look

9 at that one as well?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And this appears to be an appeal related to that same case. That

12 also involved the trial of Sasa Cvetan? I'm sorry.

13 I don't know if you heard me. I asked a question. Did that

14 involve your trial? I didn't see your answer. Does that second document

15 involve the trial that you testified in in Belgrade against Sasa Cvetan?

16 A. Yes, yes.

17 Q. Thank you.

18 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, we'd like to tender these two at this

19 time. And with that, I have no further questions of this witness.

20 But before we begin cross-examination, Your Honour, I would

21 request permission to go into private session for two minutes to address

22 an issue concerning to -- concerning this witness.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well. Private session.

25 Mr. O'Sullivan, sorry.

1 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I'm just wondering on the propriety of doing

2 it -- making these submissions in the presence of the witness. If

3 Mr. Hannis could make that determination perhaps.

4 MR. HANNIS: I don't know. I don't have a problem with the

5 witness being out of the room while I address this. However, I can see a

6 point where it may become necessary for the Court to inquire of the

7 witness regarding it as well. So I don't know which is more efficient.

8 Perhaps we can do it with him out of the room and maybe we can resolve it

9 that way.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: You're satisfied, Mr. O'Sullivan, that there's a

11 risk of interfering with his evidence if he's here while we discuss this

12 issue, are you?

13 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I think Mr. Hannis can probably anticipate that.

14 That's my only concern. If, in fact, we came to that point that would be

15 a problem.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.

17 MR. HANNIS: I guess I'd rather err on the side of safety and have

18 him step out of the room briefly while we discuss this.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stoparic, you've heard the exchange just now.

20 There is an issue of law to be dealt with. Could you briefly please leave

21 the courtroom. You'll come back in a moment or two, but please leave us

22 while we have this discussion on a matter of law.

23 [The witness stands down]

24 JUDGE BONOMY: And we should now go into private session.

25 [Private session]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 714-717 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 [Open session]

25 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.

1 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, we'll proceed in the following

2 order. First, counsel for Lukic; Pavkovic; Milutinovic; Sainovic;

3 Ojdanic; and Lazarevic.

4 [The witness entered court]

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, Mr. Stoparic, you are to be cross-examined by

6 counsel for the accused, and the first counsel to conduct that

7 cross-examination will be Mr. Lukic, who represents the accused Mr. Lukic.

8 Mr. Lukic.

9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. But before I address the

10 witness, I have to ask you for one procedural matter, and I'm sorry I

11 didn't raise it before. Do you wish to enter the prior statements of this

12 witness as exhibits, or you prefer me just to go through them without

13 entering them as exhibits? And the practice in this Tribunal is different

14 from Chamber to Chamber.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Are they Prosecution exhibits in the case?

16 MR. LUKIC: No, they are not.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: So you are presenting them as part of your library

18 of exhibits?

19 MR. LUKIC: I'm not sure. Should I or not?

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Have they been introduced into the e-court system

21 as yet?

22 MR. LUKIC: We potentially put some of them, but I'm not sure if

23 we have English versions of all of them. But if it's not on the

24 e-court -- we have English versions copied for Your Honours.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it would be helpful if you would, in future,

1 follow the procedure which was set out in the order, that these should be

2 introduced into the e-court system, unless there is some reason why that

3 can't be done, in which case you will have to seek on good cause shown

4 relief from the Trial Chamber to allow you to make use of documents.

5 Now, in this case I see no reason why these should not have been

6 entered into the e-court system in accordance with that ruling.

7 However -- and if that happens, as soon as you refer to the document and

8 you give it its number, it will simply be a document that's part of the

9 trial process, unless someone has objected to its admission and we've had

10 a debate on its admissibility and then we have to take a positive

11 decision. But in the absence of objection, any document that's part of

12 your library of documents for the case will simply be part of the record

13 of the case as it is used. So in this case you don't need to do anything

14 formal. You can present these documents and see if any objection is taken

15 when you invite the witness to look at the document and deal with it.

16 MR. LUKIC: The only reason why we hesitated is we don't know your

17 position on prior statements of the same witness, whether they should be

18 an exhibit or not.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: I -- well, are you raising this on the basis that

20 for some reason you shouldn't disclose it in advance? Or are you raising

21 it in a general basis is it an exhibit or not?

22 MR. LUKIC: In a general basis because those are the statements

23 given to the Prosecutor by the same witness.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: If you introduce them and they're not part of the

25 Prosecution's library of exhibits, then they must be your exhibit.

1 MR. LUKIC: All right. We have all of them already in the system,

2 so I would like two of them to be released --

3 JUDGE BONOMY: So they are in the system?

4 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Right. Good.

6 MR. LUKIC: The only problem again we have is that the first

7 one -- the first statement given by this witness is from 2003, and we

8 don't have English version in the system, but we provided printed version

9 for Your Honours so you can follow. And as soon as we find this English

10 version, we'll attach it to the system.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. All right. Anyway, let's get started

12 with the cross-examination, and when we come to the statements no doubt

13 you will alert us.

14 MR. LUKIC: I think that we are already there, Your Honour,

15 because I'll go through the statements.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, does that mean we need to go back into

17 private session now? I'm finding this very confusing.

18 MR. LUKIC: You are not the only one.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you're supposed to be in control of this.

20 MR. LUKIC: I don't have to go to private session yet because --

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Okay.

22 MR. LUKIC: -- I'm not at that point yet.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Carry on then.

24 MR. LUKIC: And with your permission, Your Honours, I would like

25 to conduct this cross-examination in B/C/S because it would be -- I could

1 be in more control. Thanks a lot.

2 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic:

3 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Stoparic.

4 A. Good afternoon.

5 Q. My name is Branko Lukic, and together with Dragan Ivetic and

6 Mr. Ogrizovic, I appear for General Lukic.

7 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note that they don't have

8 copies of the documents used by the Defence.

9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. First of all, I would like to clarify one little point --

11 JUDGE BONOMY: [Previous translation continues] ... just for a

12 moment because I've just received a message from the interpreters that

13 they don't have the documents that are going to be used.

14 Now, Mr. Sabbah, do the interpreters not have access to the

15 e-court? Well, all the documents except one are to be on e-court, as I

16 understand it, then there shouldn't be a problem for the interpreters.

17 So carry on, Mr. Lukic, thanks.

18 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note that they only have access to

19 what can be seen under the button "computer evidence" not to e-court as

20 such.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Stop. Sorry. Let's get this clarified now. The

22 next message is, Mr. Sabbah, that the interpreters don't have access to

23 the e-court button or what can be brought up by the e-court button.

24 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, the updated information I'm given now is that

1 that is what's intended in due course, but at the moment e-court is not,

2 fact, available to the interpreters. And therefore, if you have hard

3 copies of this material, then it may aid them if the hard copies are

4 available for the ELMO. So perhaps your case manager or assistant who's

5 there can do something about that while you start your cross-examination.

6 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honours.

7 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Stoparic, let us resume your

8 cross-examination.

9 Firstly, I will ask you briefly a matter about your statement you

10 gave on the 6th of July, 2006, several days ago, therefore. I'd like to

11 know whether you gave this statement or was it compiled by the OTP

12 investigators. Therefore, on the 6th of July, 2006, did you speak to them

13 and they wrote down what you said, or was it simply a compilation of your

14 previous statements?

15 A. I believe that the latter is true.

16 Q. That they compiled your statements?

17 A. Yes. I believe that they used two or three of my statements to do

18 that.

19 Q. Who decided what should be inserted in the statement dated the 6th

20 of July, 2006? Was it you or was it them?

21 A. I don't understand. What do you mean? I or them? Who them?

22 Q. The investigators or OTP representatives, were they the ones who

23 decided what to select out of your previous statements, or did you tell

24 them which paragraphs of -- from those previous statements were to be put

25 into the 6th of July, 2006 statement?

1 A. I read the statement that I was given and I agreed to it. I

2 referred them to some of the mistakes that were there inadvertently, which

3 normally happens.

4 Q. Can we therefore conclude that you read this statement and then

5 signed it, nothing more?

6 A. No. I also participated in giving my input in terms of matters

7 that I disagreed with or I thought were inaccurate.

8 Q. In this statement it states that the interviewer was Philip Caine.

9 Do you know what Philip Caine's role was in compiling this statement?

10 A. I don't know any Philip Caine.

11 Q. Can you tell us who was present while you were signing the

12 statement?

13 A. The interpreter, maybe I know this person by sight but I don't

14 know him by name. There were people from the Prosecution of course,

15 several of them, as well.

16 Q. I wanted to go through several paragraphs from your latest

17 statement, and then we will go through your first and second statement.

18 In the statement of the 6th of July, 2006, in paragraph 47 you

19 described the MUP building in Podujevo, which was hit by NATO bombs.

20 During your short stay in Podujevo, did you see or hear of any other

21 targets being hit by NATO in Podujevo up until that time?

22 A. No, I don't remember. NATO was bombing all the time.

23 Q. In that statement of the 6th of July, 2006, in paragraph 59, you

24 described the situation after the murder of 19 civilians in Podujevo, and

25 you say: "Tutinac was very angry and used very harsh words with us. I

1 was afraid he would kill us all and he said that they were going to send

2 us back. I supposed we were being sent out of Kosovo."

3 In paragraph 60 you state: "Half an hour later all members of the

4 Skorpions, apart from one platoon, were on buses. They left Podujevo and

5 went towards Prolom Banja."

6 My question, therefore, is: Do you think that such behaviour of

7 your superiors prevented any further massacres of civilians?

8 A. Yes. It is absolutely possible.

9 Q. In the same statement of the 6th of July, 2006, in paragraph P67

10 you mentioned the operation in Jezerce in the municipality of Suva Reka.

11 You state: "We started operations to drive the Albanian terrorists out

12 and seize the villages and hamlets. This was called 'cleaning' or mopping

13 up."

14 Could you explain to us what the units participating in that

15 operation were actually doing during the cleaning or mopping-up

16 operation?

17 A. We always used to do that when we were sent out for an operation.

18 As to what exactly they did, well, they would try to seize that area, take

19 control of it. Of course, if they met any resistance, they were supposed

20 to eliminate it, to eliminate the KLA terrorists.

21 Q. In the operation in Jezerce, did you kill any civilians?

22 A. No, we didn't see any, apart from those we saw from a distance.

23 Q. The term "cleaning" or "mopping-up" the way you used it in your

24 unit when carrying out operations, does that include any murders or

25 expelling of civilians?

1 A. Throughout the war whilst I carried arms, mopping-up for me meant

2 attacking the enemy forces [as interpreted], trying to seize control of

3 their territory or facilities.

4 Q. Thank you. In your statement you mention --

5 MR. LUKIC: Just one correction for the transcript. In the

6 transcript on the page 78, line 20, it is written "enemy forces," and I

7 think that the witness mentioned "enemy soldiers."

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

9 [Defence counsel confer]

10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. In your statement you often referred to Tutinac. Do you know what

12 his first name was?

13 A. I even spoke on the phone with him once, but I don't know what it

14 is. I believe I was told once what his first name was, but for me he

15 always remained Tuta or Tutinac. I appreciate him greatly, a good

16 professional.

17 Q. Could his last name be Simovic?

18 A. That is possible.

19 Q. In the statement of the 6th of July, 2006, in paragraph 79, you

20 state that you spent a total of around 15 to 16 days in Kosovo as part of

21 the SAJ. Therefore, you were a remember of the reserve forces of the

22 police. Is that correct?

23 A. Yes, that's what I've been saying throughout.

24 Q. As a reserve member of the police, do you know that you could have

25 been attached to any reserve police unit?

1 A. I don't know that, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were a

2 fact.

3 Q. Thank you. In the statement of the 24th of February, 2004, in

4 paragraph 53 you state that you were never ordered to kill civilians. Is

5 that correct?

6 A. Absolutely so.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 [Defence counsel confer]

9 MR. LUKIC: I would like the usher to deliver the statement to the

10 witness as well, please.

11 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Stoparic, I believe you have before you the

12 statement dated the 21st November 2003. Is that correct?

13 A. It says Belgrade, the 21st, the 22nd, and the 24th.

14 Q. What I meant was that the first one is the 21st of November.

15 A. That is correct.

16 Q. In paragraph 10 --

17 JUDGE BONOMY: I think this document should probably now have a

18 number. This must have a number in e-court, does it?

19 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. Its number is 6D7.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

21 MR. LUKIC: But only in Serbian, in B/C/S.

22 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Stoparic, in the statement of the 21st of

23 November, 2003, in the Serbian version in paragraph 10, which is continued

24 on page 4 of 30 you state in the second line: "I never hurt [realtime

25 transcript read in error "heard"] anyone. I saw (redacted) killing

1 civilians."

2 Is that correct?

3 A. Is what correct, what you've just read out?

4 Q. Yes.

5 A. Yes, it is.

6 Q. Did you report that to anyone?

7 A. No.

8 MR. LUKIC: My learned friends have some objections, so if you

9 bear with me, Your Honour, just to consult for a second.

10 Sorry, now I understand finally. In the transcript it says "I

11 never heard," and should be "I never hurt anybody."

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

13 MR. LUKIC: Or harm.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. In paragraph 12 of the same statement it reads: "I saw many dead

17 bodies of Croatian civilians in the streets of Tovarnik. I also saw the

18 dead body of the grandmother of a friend of mine from Sid who was a Serb

19 lady. She was probably killed when she tried to protect some Croats."

20 Mr. Stoparic, do you know of this or is this a speculation on your

21 part?

22 A. Is this what you have in mind?

23 Q. Yes.

24 A. I said here of a friend of mine from Sid, and this is what he told

25 me about what he thought had happened.

1 Q. But you don't know it for a fact, the way it really happened?

2 A. No, of course I don't. All I saw was her dead body.

3 Q. Let us move on to paragraph 21.

4 MR. LUKIC: On B/C/S version it's page 6, but as since we don't

5 have the English version I don't know the English page.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: It's on --

7 MR. HANNIS: Page 5 in the English.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Page 5, yeah.

9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

10 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Stoparic, in paragraph 21 you state: "We

11 were told by Chetnik Captain Ljuba Ivanovic during the training that we

12 had to make up for the 700.000 Serbs killed during World War II, meaning

13 that we had to kill the same number of Croats."

14 Did you consent to such conditions?

15 A. No.

16 Q. But you remained in the unit?

17 A. Well, sir, not for long. And this Chetnik captain Ljuba Ivanovic,

18 well, he met his sudden end by the same method he employed in his actions.

19 He was a Chetnik captain -- at least that's what he called himself. I

20 attended his funeral in Nis, and there was a letter from the Serbian

21 Radical Party read out there by Seselj. He thanked the Chetnik captain

22 for his fierce fighting in the liberation of the Serb territories. As for

23 what I stated here, that is precisely what the man said.

24 Q. But you never accepted such preconditions?

25 A. I didn't kill any civilians.

1 Q. Did other members of the unit accept such conditions?

2 A. That unit was soon -- well, throughout their so-called military

3 war career, I didn't follow what they were doing. But I saw some of those

4 people later, and they never told me they had -- they felt any urge to do

5 that.

6 Q. In paragraph 25, there you state you were the commander of the

7 1st Platoon of the 1st Company.

8 A. I think I commanded the 2nd Platoon of the 1st Company.

9 Q. In any case, you commanded a platoon?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Let us move on to paragraph 30. That is page 9 in the B/C/S and

12 page 7 in the English. The last sentence reads: "Members of the

13 Leva Supoderica unit often killed Croatian civilians."

14 First of all, can you tell me what Leva Supoderica is?

15 A. Leva Supoderica is a settlement, a part of Vukovar, and that

16 detachment was called Leva Supoderica. I presume because they hailed from

17 that part of town, including their commander.

18 Q. Were you a member of this unit?

19 A. Yes. I was a member of the Leva Supoderica unit.

20 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry to intervene, Your Honour, but I realise

21 now that we've gone into the 2004 statement, and I don't think we've

22 mentioned the exhibit number for this one. We had referred to the exhibit

23 number for the 2003 statement.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it's this one that is 6D7, I think.

25 MR. HANNIS: Okay. I'm sorry. Then we didn't mention a number

1 for the other one when we spoke briefly about the 2003 statement.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: That's -- I think that's correct, Mr. Hannis.

3 Mr. Lukic, do you have a number for the 2003 statement?

4 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, I hope that I'm still on the same

5 statement from the 21st November 2003, and on paragraph 3-0, 30.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry, yeah.

7 Mr. Hannis, the statement we're on is 21st -- it's actually signed

8 24th November, 2003.

9 MR. HANNIS: I stand corrected on that, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: And that seems to be the only one we've explored.

11 MR. HANNIS: I think that's right.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Thank you.

13 Mr. Lukic.

14 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

15 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, we established that members of your unit

16 again killed civilians. Did you take part in the killings of those

17 civilians?

18 A. No.

19 Can I offer an explanation? Based on the experience I have, in

20 every unit -- or rather, not really in every unit, not in highly

21 professional ones, but in the units composed of volunteers where killing

22 of civilians occurred, it was always committed by one group of people who

23 repeatedly go back to the front line. But you can't say that where a

24 person was a member of a unit that he automatically did what other members

25 of the unit did.

1 Q. Thank you, and I accept your explanation. However, we said that

2 you were a platoon commander. What did you do to sanction the people who

3 were killing?

4 A. I will tell you, and I speak for my platoon. These were members

5 of the Leva Supoderica platoon and there were many of them. There was

6 only one case where a man reported to me and said: Oh gosh, you have to

7 know what we were doing yesterday. I can't really quote his words, but at

8 any rate he told me that he had killed some people, that he had run them

9 through with a knife. I believe that it was the Ovcara people. I told

10 him: Oh, get away, you must be lying.

11 However, when the Ovcara trial in Belgrade commenced, this same

12 person was convicted of that crime.

13 You see, I've told you, I simply didn't believe him at the time.

14 Q. Did you ever report what you knew of the killing of civilians in

15 Vukovar to anyone?

16 A. Well, who was I supposed to report that to? If these dead

17 civilians were at the same time seen by my superior, my commander, then

18 who was I supposed to turn to?

19 Q. Thank you. I wish to move on to paragraph 41 of the same

20 statement. There you speak of Vojislav Seselj and say that the effect he

21 left on the volunteers was that of a drug, it was intoxicating. I don't

22 wish to dwell on Mr. Seselj now, but I'd like to ask you the following.

23 Do you have first-hand experience with drugs and their effects on people?

24 A. Not personally, but I was able to see the effects on other people,

25 and I learned quite a lot from books, as other people did.

1 Q. I wish to move to paragraph 65 of the same statement, which is on

2 page --

3 A. I've found it.

4 Q. Very well. It's page 13 in the English version. In this

5 paragraph you state: "I had had enough of Brcko and I was unhappy with

6 the behaviour of some members of my unit. One of my soldiers killed a

7 married Muslim couple in a beastly way in order to rob them. I helped the

8 police arrest the soldier."

9 Can you tell us the name of the soldier? We can move into private

10 session if you want.

11 A. I'm trying to remember his name at this time, but for many reasons

12 I prefer to tell his name in private session.

13 MR. LUKIC: Your Honours, may we go into private session?

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well. We shall go into private session

15 because of the nature of the evidence which the witness is being asked to

16 give which he says he will be unhappy to give if the evidence is heard in

17 public.

18 [Private session]

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 [Open session]

14 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

16 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

17 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Stoparic, I'd now like you to focus on

18 paragraph 66 of the statement. You state: "When I demobilised at Brcko

19 sometime in the spring of 1993, I took a few of the soldiers who shared my

20 beliefs or similar to mine and we went to Teslic to work with the HVO on a

21 joint operation against Muslims."

22 What were these beliefs that you shared with these soldiers?

23 A. Beliefs. Well, perhaps I didn't put it properly here, but at any

24 rate I'll explain what I meant when I said that we shared the same

25 beliefs.

1 I meant to say that a soldier is a soldier and has to kill another

2 soldier. Imagine if we took the late Ljuba Ivanovic to Zepce with HVO.

3 Do you understand what I'm saying? We need to have a strictly

4 professional relation. If we are ordered to do something, we have to

5 execute that. And I know that. I was there. That's why I decided to

6 select a few people for whom I knew that they would not cause any

7 incidents, and that was what I meant.

8 Q. Were you in Teslic when Micas -- the Micas operated over there?

9 A. I never heard that.

10 Q. Well, that's a legitimate answer. Thank you.

11 I've asked you about these beliefs precisely because I wanted to

12 ask you the following: Were these the same people who fought Croats with

13 you in Vukovar?

14 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat his answer.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stoparic, you are being asked to repeat that

16 answer, please.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The answer was: Most of them were,

18 yes.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Could we move to paragraph 69 on page 18. In this paragraph you

22 speak of the inception of the Skorpions and you say: "I learned that the

23 Skorpions were a special unit of the state security, formed as a satellite

24 unit of the Red Berets at a meeting in Novi Sad between Mihalj Kertes,

25 Dule Filipovic, Slobodan Grahovac, Radovan Stojicic, Badza, and Bozovic in

1 Novi Sad. Perhaps some other people were present too. This meeting was

2 held approximately three months before I joined the Skorpions."

3 In what way did you learn of this meeting?

4 A. I was invited to join the Skorpions by Medic, who was accompanied

5 by accompanied by his body-guards, or at least persons who were his

6 body-guards at the time, and many of them were his relatives. I wanted to

7 know more about the units and he told me: Well, I think you should steer

8 clear of Seselj's units or any other units of that sort. You should

9 really join units that are more professional. If you want to fight, then

10 at least fight with someone who's more professional. He wanted to present

11 himself as a connoisseur of all these people.

12 There was one other name that he mentioned to me and I omitted to

13 say. That name I think -- he also mentioned Zivko Sokolovacki who was a

14 manager at the time or something along those lines.

15 Q. So Medic told you about the meeting?

16 A. Yes, precisely as I said it here. And now I added Zivko

17 Sokolovacki. I learned it from him and the people who were sitting there

18 with him. Then I inquired after that. I wanted to know what sort of

19 equipment they had because I wanted to make sure that I was moving on to a

20 better post. I had had enough of these volunteer-type of units that

21 didn't even have uniforms, and I found the story as he put it to me quite

22 attractive. I thought it a certain post, one that was offered by the

23 state, and I said: Well, why not?

24 Q. So the only source of information in that regard was Medic?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Did you receive other information concerning the Skorpions only

2 from him?

3 A. I had received all my orders from him, and everything that I had

4 to know, formally or informally, I learned from him.

5 Q. Thank you. Paragraph 70 of the same statement. At the same time,

6 paragraph 10 in the 6th of July, 2006 statement you state that one of the

7 satellite units was the CSB from Doboj. Do you know what the CSB is?

8 A. Based on what I heard, the CSB is the Central Security Service or

9 something of the sort. I know that they said that Mladen Kuzemka [phoen]

10 was the commander of the CSB. That's all I know, and the whole paragraph

11 contains the information that was told me.

12 Q. Do you want to say that the CSB Doboj was a satellite auxiliary

13 unit?

14 A. No, probably only their special platoon or special company.

15 Q. One part of the CSB therefore?

16 A. Please, I apologise if I made a mistake somewhere in these

17 acronyms. Whenever I heard over the communications lines "CSB" or words

18 to that effect, I thought that they referred to their specialists. I know

19 that generally speaking in police terms the CSB is something larger.

20 Q. Paragraph 73 on page 19, that's page 14 in the English version.

21 You state: "The state security of the RSK did not exist. There was only

22 the state security of Serbia."

23 You're speaking of the structure of the MUP in the Republic of the

24 Serbian Krajina?

25 A. Which paragraph is that, please?

1 Q. Paragraph 73, that's the third line of paragraph 73. "There was

2 no state security of the RSK."

3 A. Yes, that's as far as I know.

4 Q. Do you know that for a fact or as a rumour?

5 A. I wasn't a responsible duty holder there. You could say that I

6 heard that.

7 Q. Therefore, you were never in the head office of the Ministry of

8 the Interior of the Republic of the Serbian Krajina and you can't,

9 therefore, claim that the ministry lacked one of its sectors entirely?

10 A. I am absolutely clear about the fact that this is contained in my

11 statement. I did state that, but the context was different. What one

12 needs to add here is not an opinion of mine, but simply that this was the

13 sort of information that I received.

14 Q. Mr. Stoparic, I'm quite clear about that. I simply want to

15 establish with you that you do not have any direct knowledge of this but

16 that you're simply conveying what you heard.

17 A. Absolutely, yes.

18 Q. Very well.

19 A. May I explain this a bit further?

20 Q. Of course.

21 A. You see, sir, if something is said 100 times, even it is an

22 untruth, it will become the truth. To me, as an ordinary person, a

23 soldier, I simply had to grasp pieces of information and make conclusions

24 on the basis of that.

25 Q. This is precisely what we are afraid of in testimonies when

1 persons convey things that they are not certain of, and that's why we

2 appreciate you saying that clearly.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, Mr. Lukic, would this be a suitable time to

4 interrupt?

5 MR. LUKIC: Any moment is suitable for the break, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

7 Well, Mr. Stoparic, we have to end the proceedings for the day at

8 this time, and they will continue tomorrow. You should be here ready to

9 commence your evidence at 2.15 tomorrow. Meanwhile, it is absolutely

10 vital that you have no communication about your evidence, either that

11 you've given or are about to give, with any person. Do you understand

12 that?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I understand that

14 fully. After all, this is public testimony. I don't have to tell anyone

15 that I will be testifying tomorrow.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: But the point I'm making is that you shouldn't be

17 discussing it in any form whatsoever with any other person overnight. So

18 please return here tomorrow, ready to begin your evidence, at 2.15.

19 The Court is now adjourned.

20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.00 p.m.,

21 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 13th day of

22 July, 2006, at 2.15 p.m.

23

24

25