Monday, 28 April 2003

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: We're going to deal with some administrative matters first this morning left over from our last hearing. Mr. Nice, it may be convenient if we begin with at least the discussion on what it is that needs to be resolved this morning. The matters which I have are the final selection of Croatia Rule 92 bis witness.

MR. NICE: Yes, Mr. McKeon is ready to deal with that.

JUDGE MAY: The Foca transcript witnesses.

MR. NICE: Mr. Groome is ready to deal with that.

JUDGE MAY: Are there any other matters you want to deal with?

MR. NICE: After that, if I can just mention a couple of things, a couple of minutes.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll begin with the 92 bis witnesses. Mr. Kay, you're ready on that?

MR. KAY: Yes. I think we can save time because the general point that we've seen run throughout all of the subsequent witnesses has been the issue of the JNA as mentioned within those statements.


MR. KAY: Which has been the point that the amici have made on behalf of the accused over the issue of cross-examination.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, it may be convenient to deal with it with you going first really, if you're in a position to. 19587

MR. KAY: A little bit inconvenient, as I need to find those statements.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. McKeon is probably ready to go. MR. McKEON: I'm ready.

JUDGE MAY: The numbers which I had were 1055, 1086, 1089, 1136, 1162, 1175, 1185, 1191, 1215, 1238.

MR. McKEON: Yes, Your Honour. I've tried to put these into smaller groups of like witnesses for the convenience of the Court.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. MR. McKEON: First of all, these -- I would note that these are all crime base witnesses, and so to that extent would be cumulative of the testimony of Grujic and Strinovic. The first group, I think, starts with 1086, also includes 1136 and 1191. These I would call, witnesses to ethnic cleansing. Witness 1086 deals with the ethnic cleansing of the Erdut area. Witness number 1136 deals with the ethnic cleansing of Ilok, and Witness 1191 deals with the ethnic cleansing of Bapska. These witnesses are all cumulative of the testimony of Mr. Selabaj who dealt with the ethnic cleansing of Lovas. And I would also note that there has been one 92 bis witness already admitted under 92 bis, and that will be Witness C-1126 who dealt with the ethnic cleansing of another witness, so I would group those into one group.

The next witness on the list I have would be 1238, which deals with the Lovas minefield incident. We've already heard testimony on that incident from [redacted], and I think the amici at least agrees that this witness is cumulative of his testimony. 19588 The next witness I would have would be 1175. This is a witness to the Lovas farms incident, different incident from the Lovas minefield incident. This is the person who buried some of the bodies which were found on that. We have already considered under 92 bis the testimony of C-1154, which was admitted under 92 bis for this incident. And also C-1071, which was admitted under 92 bis. Actually, the testimony under C-1071 and this particular witness deal with the very same victim. It's testimony about the same person.

The next group deals with the two incidents at Dalj, paragraphs 50 and 51 of the indictment. That would be Witness C-1185 and Witness C-1215.

For this incident, we have testimony in court already from C-025 and C-013, and then admitted under 92 bis already for these incidents are C-1187 and 1140 for paragraph 51 and 1052 for paragraph 50. Finally, the last group I have would be three witnesses, 1162, 1055, and 1089. These witnesses all deal with Arkan and killings that the indictment alleges were committed by Arkan's men. Witness 1162 will identify other -- was arrested by Arkan and will identify other prisoners who were held by Arkan including some of the victims named in our indictment.

C-1055 will testimony that after one of the victims was arrested, the very next day he was told to move into the victim's house, indicating some knowledge that the victim was not going to come back. And then, finally, C-1089 deals with Klisa. He was arrested but later released and will be able to identify some of the victims. 19589 And I think that's the entire list, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you, Mr. McKeon.


MR. KAY: We've now moved on since the original filing by the amici curiae, and a number of these place are now familiar, so we cannot dispute that they represent a cumulative basis of the evidence of the Prosecutor. The issue that remains is that of cross-examination which we contend should be permitted to the accused to cross-examine upon the issues that are important to his case, and within the issues that are relevant to the indictment is the issue of the JNA, and we have already made objections in relation to that matter which the Trial Chamber has ruled upon and permitted cross-examination, and so that applies again to this batch of witnesses.

JUDGE MAY: Does it apply to all of them?

MR. KAY: It applies to -- I don't actually have my sheet here with me, Your Honour, I apologise for that, but off my memory, it applies to all, save two, witnesses who didn't mention the JNA.

JUDGE MAY: Well, I note 1089, 1162.

MR. KAY: Right. It was -- two witnesses was my memory.

JUDGE MAY: 1185. I don't know if you have your note to look at over the adjournment.

MR. KAY: Yes. I can try and locate it. We moved courts as you recollect on the last Thursday which put me in a bit of difficulty but it was two witnesses alone from my memory that did not mention the JNA.

JUDGE MAY: Well, if you -- 19590

MR. KAY: And I have to say about those witnesses again from my memory, they were very general cumulative witnesses.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, on that particular issue, is there anything you want to add to what's already been said?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, you know, Mr. May, yourself, my basic objections, and I assume that you have managed to read through the statements, although I don't know the time you have at your disposal to do that. But I assume that you found yourself that all the things that those witnesses say has nothing to do with the authorities of Serbia or myself. So I don't really understand why we have to listen to the witnesses about all the terrors of the war and all the terrible things that happened during the war but had nothing to do with Serbia. But that's up to you. That's the way you work. It's become standard practice here.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll move next to deal with the different issue which is the Foca witnesses who gave evidence in other proceedings, a total of 11, who were first of all cross-examined; secondly, of course, gave evidence on oath in those proceedings.

So it may be that different principles apply. The Trial Chamber again will have under the Rule to decide, first of all, whether to admit the transcripts, and if they are admitted whether the witnesses should be called for cross-examination, although they had been cross-examined in the earlier proceedings. The issue, no doubt, will be as to whether there are 19591 other issues, any other issues, on which they should be cross-examined. We've read the written submissions on this subject, so there's no need to repeat those.

Yes, Mr. Groome. Perhaps you could introduce the matter generally. It may be of assistance.

MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. The 11 witnesses whom the Prosecution has referred to and similarly the Chamber as the Foca witnesses are 11 witnesses who testified in the cases of Prosecutor versus Kunarac and Prosecutor versus Krnojelac. In this case you have ruled on 92 bis already with respect to a similar submission regarding eight witnesses from the Dokmanovic case. I will tailor my remarks regarding these witnesses to address the criteria articulated as the basis of your consideration and decision with respect to those Dokmanovic witnesses. Namely, the proximity of the witness's testimony to the acts and conduct of the accused and therefore its admissibility under 92 bis (D). And secondly, whether or not these witnesses should be called for additional cross-examination by this accused.

If I may begin with, Your Honour, the two witnesses B-1542 and B-1543. They both testified in the Kunarac case and were known in that case as FWS-75 and FWS-87 respectively.

B-1542, in addition to providing general evidence about the takeover of Foca, describes her experience of being repeatedly raped and abused over a period of three months, and she described her personal knowledge of similar acts against other women and girls. B-1543 tells of a similar account of her captivity and repeated 19592 rape by several men over the course of two months. With respect to the first inquiry regarding proximity, there can be no reasonable view that the evidence of these two women is proximate in any way to the direct acts of the accused. It was not the theory of the Prosecution case that this accused was in any way directly responsible in the actual commission of those crimes or had any direct authority over those who physically perpetrated the crimes. It is our theory that although very remote from these crimes, his participation in a joint criminal enterprise as defined in the indictment facilitated and resulted in foreseeable crimes like these to occur.

With respect to a consideration of whether these witness should be required to appear before this Chamber for additional cross-examination by the accused. Before I address this question with particular respect to these two witnesses, I would like to make some general submissions regarding this question.

The Prosecution fully recognises that the attendance and cross-examination of witnesses is one of the most important rights afforded an accused and also ensures the legitimacy and accuracy of any decision ultimately reached by a Trial Chamber, that right clearly being enshrined in Article 21. But directly following Article 21 is Article 22, the importance of a Trial Chamber to consider the impacts of proceedings on victims and witnesses that appear before it.

What was not specifically dealt with in your consideration of the Dokmanovic witnesses, which I submit should be part of your consideration of these Foca witnesses, is the impact of requiring these witnesses to 19593 attend for additional cross-examination. It is the Prosecution's submission that should the Chamber balance the need to protect these witnesses against whether that protection unfairly impinges upon the rights of the accused will be clear that in the case of these two witnesses, they should not be required to appear for cross-examination. B-1542, after providing her testimony on examination-in-chief was fully cross-examined by three different Defence counsel regarding her testimony. Over 150 pages of transcript were consumed in this exercise. Similarly, B-1543 was cross-examined by four different Defence counsels for a total of over 100 pages of transcript. The Chamber has recently heard the testimony of B-1405 who suffered similar crimes and fresh in our memory must be the difficulty and the pain which such testimony exacts upon the victims who must give it.

It is our position that nonetheless, if renewed cross-examination can reasonably be believed to assist the Chamber in its determination of a significant issue in this case, the Prosecution agrees such witness should be required to attend. Conversely, if no such reasonable belief exists, it is the Prosecutor's position that the mandate of Article 22 requires that witnesses not be brought to attend additional cross-examination. In the case of these two witnesses and other witnesses, there is no reasonable expectation that additional cross-examination will be of any assistance to the Chamber.

If I might add parenthetically, as indicated also in our written submission, B-1543 does not believe that she could endure additional cross-examination, and it is not the Prosecutor's intention at this time 19594 to request a subpoena or in any way attempt to compel her to appear. We would withdraw her as a witness.

What the accused's position will be with respect to these two women, I expect it will likely be as in the past that he will broadly oppose these procedures that have been designed to facilitate efficient proceedings while protecting his rights and interest. In the event that he does not indicate how the previous cross-examination was inadequate or what additional areas he would seek to question the witness regarding, the Prosecution submits the following: We have now been in trial for over one year. Clear patterns of cross-examination have emerged. Absent his willingness to state with particularity what areas of questions he seeks to put to these two witnesses, I submit the Chamber's analysis should include those areas of examination he regularly and consistently engages in.

JUDGE MAY: Let us consider the submission. You say that although there is no specific reference in the Rule, nonetheless a Chamber, in deciding whether a witness should be called for further cross-examination, should take into account the likely effect upon a witness who has suffered traumatic events as these witnesses have. Anyone who has read that transcript will see.

On the other hand, you can see that it will be right for a Chamber to consider cross-examination if there was some issue, some significant issue which wasn't addressed in the earlier cross-examinations.

MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Is that the point? 19595

MR. GROOME: We do not place them on a par, the rights of the victims on a par with the right of the accused to face his accuser, but simply a matter to be considered. If there is no reasonable expectation that further cross-examination will shed new light on a new issue or on an issue not adequately covered that the Chamber would be entitled to not require the witness to attend for additional cross-examination.

JUDGE MAY: It's the modern trend to take account of the impact on witnesses of being made to appear in court and retell their events, is it not?

MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. Especially in cases of sexual assault and of such extended and prolonged sexual assault as in these two cases.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you.

MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I was beginning to say I was going to use as an example the Chamber I think is entitled to look back at the year history of this trial and to evaluate the types of cross-examination that the accused has engaged in when evaluating whether witnesses being brought here and subjected to similar cross-examination, whether that will be of assistance to the Chamber, and I would use as one example the accused routinely explores inconsistencies between witnesses in-court testimony and prior statements. The Chamber -- if the Chamber examines in the case of both B-1542 and B-1543, that this was done with facility and adequately in the previous trial by a number of different Defence attorneys. There is no reasonable belief at present that the accused will be in a position to more fully exploit the differences that exists between the prior 19596 statement and the in-court testimony of those witnesses.

JUDGE MAY: Well, it may be said that that point can be made in relation to all the -- virtually all the witnesses, that their previous statements were put to them. Not just these two but other witnesses too, I think I'm right in saying.

MR. GROOME: That will be our position, Your Honour, when I with the other witnesses. It would be the same position.

JUDGE MAY: And one can get some idea of the extent of the cross-examination, maybe not the detail, of course, because it's a very rough-and-ready test by the pages which were taken up with cross-examination. I notice in the case of the last witness you mentioned, 1543, was cross-examined, I take it, for 102 pages as against 67 for direct or examination-in-chief.

MR. GROOME: If it is of assistance to the Chamber, we would be willing to point with particularity the specific references in the cross-examination that dealt with such things such as impeachment with prior statements.


MR. GROOME: I'm prepared to do that today. We would prepare a chart overnight and submit it to the Chamber.

JUDGE MAY: We'll consider that.

MR. GROOME: Another avenue that the accused routinely explores with witnesses is parts of their testimony which appear illogical or improbable. A cursory examination of both of these cross-examinations will indicate that this also was done at length and with some facility by 19597 the different Defence attorneys that questioned these witnesses. Finally, the accused routinely puts to witnesses information and facts that he has in his possession that he believes furthers his position in the hope that the witness may be in a position to confirm those facts. It was the Prosecution's submission, as the Chamber regularly reminds the accused, that this is a matter more properly dealt with on the Defence case in due course, and it would be the Prosecution's position that a witness should not be brought back for additional cross-examination in the hope that that witness might be able to confirm a fact which the accused wishes to put before the Chamber.

One final matter with respect that these witnesses, Your Honour is that the Prosecution is not in possession of any additional Rule 68 material tending to impeach these witnesses that was not available to the original cross-examiners.

The Prosecution submits that if the Chamber engages in this analysis, it is clear that in the case of B-1542 and B-1543, that they should not be required to attend cross-examination absent the accused or the amici putting forth some articulable basis that additional cross-examination could be reasonably believed to yield some new evidence or be of some assistance in the Chamber's determination of a significant issue in this trial. In the absence of that, it is the Prosecution's contention that the testimony should be admitted without cross-examination.

As a measure of additional caution, with respect to protecting the rights of the accused, the Prosecution would not oppose a later 19598 application by the amici or the accused later in the trial asking the Court to reconsider this matter if it should appear towards a later point in the trial that some important issue was raised by these witnesses and it would appear at that stage that additional cross-examination could shed light on that additional issue. The Prosecution would not oppose the Chamber reopening its consideration of this matter. I apologise with taking so long with these two witnesses. I will deal with the remaining nine in a far more expeditious manner. The next witnesses I would like to deal with are B-1015, B-1533, B-1618, and B-1120.

Some of those witnesses were protected in the Foca trial, so I would refer to all of them by their assigned witness pseudonyms. In that case, they were respectively FSW-104, FSW-15, FSW-33, FSW-111.

The subject of the testimony of all these witnesses concerns the circumstances surrounding the takeover of Foca as well as the conditions in the KP Dom. It is the Prosecution's position that none of their testimony is sufficiently proximate to the acts and conduct of the accused as to make it inadmissible under 92 bis (D). With respect to the question of cross-examination, I submit the following: The Prosecution filed this motion before any of the Chamber's recent 92 bis decisions. What has emerged from the Chamber's rulings, as the law of this case, is that witnesses that offer evidence regarding the JNA touch upon an important issue raised by the accused and, therefore, should appear for cross-examination. 19599 The Prosecution concedes that if the Chamber is inclined to follow this analysis, then these witnesses do speak to the participation of the JNA or the use of its facilities and would be appropriately called for limited purpose of cross-examination on that issue. With respect to cross-examination on other issues, it is the Prosecution's submission that such should not be allowed. All four witnesses were subjected to extensive cross-examination on inconsistencies between their in-court testimony and their prior statements. All were cross-examined regarding those portions of their testimony the Defence deemed improbable. B-1618 was cross-examined by each of the counsel of the three accused.

With respect to B-1536, the Prosecution's position is similar. The witness does talk about paramilitaries from Serbia taking part in the attack on Foca including Seselj's men and Arkan's Tigers. Again the Prosecution concedes that if the Chamber is to apply its same analysis that it did with respect to its March decision on the JNA, then the presentation of paramilitary forces from Serbia may raise sufficiently similar issues that similarly limited cross-examination would seem appropriate. It is the Prosecution's position that such renewed cross-examination should be strictly limited to this issue. Again, this witness was cross-examined by four different Defence counsel in two trials.

The final group of witnesses I would ask to deal with are B-1121, B-1537, B-1538, and B-1540. Respectively they were known in the Foca trials as FSW-111, FSW-109 -- sorry, FWS-69, and FWS-54. 19600 This last group of witnesses address in general terms the outbreak of the conflict in Foca and describe with particularity the conditions of the KP Dom detention facility. There is no reasonable view of their evidence that such evidence is proximate to the conduct of the accused. And is clearly within the ambit of the 92 bis (D). With respect to the issue of cross-examination, all of these witnesses were subjected to thorough and extensive cross-examination. Attempts were made to impeach some of them through questions regarding their participation in the SDA political party. One witness was questioned about a previous psychiatric illness that affected that witness's memory, and other important matters for a trier of fact to be aware of in evaluating their testimony. It is the Prosecution's submission that none of these witnesses directly implicate an important issue raised by the accused in this trial and as such should not be required to attend for additional cross-examination by the accused. I would note parenthetically that in the case of B-1537, the Prosecution has been unable to locate this witness in recent months, and the Prosecution would at this stage seek leave to amend our application for admission of his testimony to be considered under 92 bis (C) instead of (D). Of course, we will continue to look for him and advise the Chamber and the parties of any change in circumstance.

JUDGE MAY: If you're going to put an application under 92 bis (C) you'll have to put some evidence, or at least a statement or something of that sort in front of us so we have something to consider.

MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. 19601

JUDGE MAY: If you want to do that, of course do it.

MR. GROOME: Yes. I will prepare a submission regarding the efforts made to contact this witness.

In conclusion, Your Honour, it is the Prosecution's position that the considerations of Rule 22 are entirely appropriate for consideration when the Chamber considers Rule 92 bis issue of cross-examination. Attendance and questioning in this court impacts all witnesses over a spectrum of mere convenience to hardship to actual trauma in some cases. We submit that the Chamber duly considers this factor, there will be and are in this case those occasions in which there is no reasonable expectation that additional cross-examination will yield new significant information and that no significant impingement of the rights of the accused can said to have been occurred by not requiring such witnesses to attend for a second cross-examination by the accused. To summarise our position in the case of B-1542, B-1543, B-1121, B-1537, 1538, and 1540, it is our request that their testimony be admitted into this trial without the opportunity for the accused to ask them further questions and that doing so is not a violation of his right to cross-examine or the general right to a fair trial. We further acknowledge that if the Chamber is to employ a similar analysis to its ruling of the 27th of March, 2003, that that would require B-1015, 1120, 1533, 1618, and 1536 to attend for limited cross-examination. The Prosecution, however, submits that such cross-examination should be strictly limited to the issue raised by the accused, namely the presence -- 19602

JUDGE MAY: You referred earlier to Rule 22.

MR. GROOME: I'm sorry.

JUDGE MAY: It's confusing. No doubt you meant Article 22.

MR. GROOME: My apologies. Your Honour. Article 22 of the Statute.

JUDGE MAY: Concerned with the rights of the victims, of course.

MR. GROOME: Yes. The due consideration of the rights and the cost to the victims of participating in trials before this Tribunal. So with respect to those witnesses, although the Prosecution acknowledges that it may be appropriate to call them for a limited issue, it is the Prosecution's position that the cross-examination should be strictly limited and would request that any decision with respect to those witnesses by this Chamber include the limitations of the cross-examination to those issues.

JUDGE MAY: Just one moment.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Groome, you offered to produce a table overnight of cross-examination matters such as inconsistencies. We think that will be helpful if would you do that.

MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the two that I propose would be the use of prior inconsistent statements and questions about the improbability of the testimony. Are there any other areas that the Chamber would be of assistance to identify and locate?

JUDGE MAY: No. I think those are the main areas. Thank you. Mr. Kay. 19603

MR. KAY: Yes, Your Honours. The accused has asserted on many occasions during the course of his trial his desire to question witnesses at every opportunity. This is a matter that we are dealing with now that lies within the discretion of the Trial Chamber, and I ask the Court to bear in mind the way that the accused has presented his case and the statements that he has made as to his need to have publicly heard the evidence against him, and we submit that that is an important consideration within any trial when you are dealing with the concept of fairness to an accused.

As has already been said, the accused has a right to a fair and public trial under Article 21, subarticle 2 of the Statute of this Tribunal.

In the context of his trial, these 11 witnesses would not have been heard in public. Under that same Article 21, the accused has a right to be tried in his presence and defend himself in person. Cross-examination and the questioning in direct examination of those witnesses would not have been in his presence. He would not have been able to observe the demeanour, other personal characteristics of those witnesses, and for him, the relevance of that testimony cannot be assessed, for him, adequately as having been within previous proceedings for other defendants, facing other charges and in a completely different context to his trial.

Under that same Article 21, the accused has a right to examine or have examined those witnesses on his behalf that come forward to give testimony against him. 19604 Those are the principles that we derive from the Statute that seek to provide a fair trial for an accused. Having stated those principles, it is important now to stress the reasons. The reasons why we have this public hearing, that we give an opportunity to the accused to present his case and to question witnesses and to hear personally himself what is said in the context of his trial against him, the reason why that which has been said in other trials would be inadequate for him is because previous questions would not have been in the context of his case. Previous questioners in cross-examination would not have been questioning on instructions from him, and the importance of cross-examination by other questioners always depends upon the context of that particular individual who at that time is in court and on trial. It may serve the interests in other cases of those cross-examining not to pursue interests or lines of questioning that would be of relevance to this accused, i.e., it is a self-serving process entirely. And those questioning in the previous proceedings would have been serving the interests solely of those accused on trial and not the interests of Mr. Milosevic. They are not mutual interests.

JUDGE MAY: You seem to be saying that there are no circumstances under which this particular Rule could ever be applied. And therefore, really what you're saying is that we should ignore it because these general observations could apply to any trial.

MR. KAY: They are rules of -- a rule of discretion that we submit should be used sparingly. They should not be used wholesale because they may diminish the public nature of a trial. They may diminish in that way 19605 to highlight the interests of a particular accused, and by that I mean this accused. And it is worthy of note that the Rule itself was not a founding rule of this Tribunal. It is something that came in later. At the time of the creation of this Tribunal it was not envisaged, I would submit, that this would be the way that proceedings would be conducted.

JUDGE MAY: It wasn't envisaged no doubt that the trials would take as long and there would be as much evidence, but that may be a totally different point. I mean, the fact that the founders didn't foresee these problems I don't think is a strong point, I may say.

MR. KAY: Why I mentioned it is that the founders were probably working very closely with the principles in mind from the Statute. And it's easy to envisage situations where the principles of the statute that gives birth to the Tribunal in the first place may become obscured for reasons of expediency and thereby deprive an accused of that important right which underwrites the whole process of the fair trial.

JUDGE MAY: You see, that depends on a view that all the trial should be oral, and no doubt that was partly in the minds of the founders who gave a primacy to oral evidence, and that's what's been changed. All evidence now is treated equally. Now, I accept, of course, that this is a particular point dealing with evidence in other cases, but one has to take into account the size of the cases and the amount of evidence which is nowadays put before the Tribunal, and what is required is to find an expeditious but fair way of admitting it, and that's why evidence in written form is now more freely admitted.

MR. KAY: In a way, judging by the number of pages as to whether a 19606 job has been done or not, I would submit to the Tribunal, can be a very inaccurate way of assessing whether evidence has been properly challenged. Page numbers are no guide. It's quality rather than quantity which may be a far more important way of determining how well a job has been done. We do make this point, that Witness B-1015, at the start of cross-examination by Defence counsel refused to cooperate, not answer questions, and was antagonistic. This led, perhaps, but it's a fact on the record, to the Defence counsel putting obviously inaccurate facts in cross-examination and being criticised by a Trial Judge for it. And this highlights the problem in using testimony from other trials where the interests of the parties are not mutual, that the people performing their functions within the trial process are different, that case strategies may be entirely different. Each trial strategy for each accused has to be considered as an entirely self-serving process. And I don't mean that in a derogatory fashion, but it is a fact in the way that they have to contest the proceedings.

I take the observation by the Trial Chamber that the points I am raising are critical of this particular Rule, but we stress here that this is a rule that should be used sparingly and not in a wholesale application. At the end --

JUDGE ROBINSON: It seems to me, Mr. Kay, that what you are saying is that this is a rule which if not applied very, very carefully can be ultra vires of the statute in terms of the right to a public hearing and the right of the accused to examine evidence that has been given against him. 19607

MR. KAY: Exactly, so, Your Honour. Our submission is that this has forced the principles in a direction too far as far as those principles were the embodiment and the embedding of this Tribunal.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Kay, let's be specific. Could you make further observation as to those two witnesses, rape victims, 1542 and 1543? What will be your position?

MR. KAY: My position is very clear. In relation to any crimes, they should be treated with due equality. And if you start constructing a process that permits certain types of crime to be more easily proved against an accused than another type of crime, again you are moving away from the founding principles of the Tribunal, which -- which addresses victims generally and in full equality without distinguishing between one class and another.

As yet, there has been no medical evidence of any harm that the Judges should consider to determine an appropriateness in revising the usual procedures for the giving of evidence.

JUDGE MAY: Are you saying that this is not a matter we should take into account? And secondly, are you really saying that we need medical evidence to consider the possible traumatic effect of a rape victim having to come back and give evidence of a series of rapes? Surely no court needs evidence of that sort.

And the final point is this: It's not a question of a separate category here. It's merely a question of whether a witness having given what must have been traumatic evidence, or must have been traumatic for them, should be forced to come back to be further cross-examined. And 19608 whatever you say about the equality of cross-examination, certainly the quantity is relevant when considering the length of time they must have already spent in the witness stand.

Are you saying we should not take these matters into account when we consider whether we should order cross-examination?

MR. KAY: I am sympathetic to any victim who suffered any crime, and that includes those victims of sexual crimes. And it is easy to comprehend the trauma that such victims may later experience in a courtroom. But the issue we have here is that an accused is on trial whose liberty is at stake, and for him the manner and delivery of evidence may be important.

It has to be noted certainly in those parts of the trial to date where we have heard such evidence that the accused has been sympathetic and has stated no desire or wish to compound unpleasantness on the witness. So I don't want this issue to be seen as whether it's the amicus curiae, Mr. Kay in particular, forcing this issue onto those victims of rape. It's not the point that I am trying to deal with. I am still wrestling with the underlying problem of testimony that has been given elsewhere in different circumstances against a different accused who has different interests, a different lawyer and a different context for his trial. So there is no desire from this part to use this as an exercise of unpleasantness or harm to a victim, and we consider those Articles within the Statute as being very important which consider the rights of the victims.

But the issue here does remain the public nature of the trial 19609 which this accused has put forward as being a very important issue in relation to not only his trial but those watching it who may be potential witnesses of whom he has frequently made the point he has no fear or no need to disguise the case against him in any way. One can consider it in a different way against a different accused who is not so prominent, does not feature so highly in the scheme of things, and issues such as this, if he wasn't mentioned in relation to the evidence, carry no importance.

Having appeared in another trial myself, I can readily say that, that you let things go by because it makes no difference to your indictment -- your client at that time, and the issues you are following are for a particular accused, to meet the particular case against him. But in relation to this accused and his pronouncements and strategy, one can readily see that his perception of the trial and what he requires to do is very different for his own interests. If I could just turn now to the exhibits, the witness statements. It seems in that trial, for no good reason that I could see of reading the transcripts, that the witness statements went in as a matter of course in direct examination upon the witness being produced by the Prosecutor.

JUDGE MAY: Which trial was that?

MR. KAY: The Foca trial. I have terrible difficulty -- Kunarac and Krnojelac. I apologise to him for my poor pronunciation. I haven't got to that part of the course.

JUDGE MAY: You're saying both of them. In both of them the statements went in. 19610 BLANK PAGE 19611

MR. KAY: Yes. It was a matter of routine. And in that way exhibited material goes onto the record, burnt onto the record, should I say, if it's to be reused, with many aspects within those statements which are not challenged or dealt with in direct or cross-examination. That's a very different state of affairs from the position where a witness produces a map, a photograph, a plan as part of his testimony and one could see why exhibited such material makes sense to the transcript as a whole. But if witness statements go in like that, we can see a back-door route for the admission of statement evidence without any proper hearing upon the contents. And as we know, there are many inaccuracies. How they come about is not for me to say. It's just the fact that there are inaccuracies that need to be mentioned because they affect the reliability. And if the reliability of evidence is affected, the quality of the trial diminishes.

So the second strand of our submission is that there be cross-examination by the accused in any event. If the Trial Chamber does not accede to our argument on the matter but permits the transcript testimony in on behalf of the Prosecutor, our fall-back position on his behalf or what we would say is an argument open, a second strand, is that there be cross-examination. I don't know if I can assist any further.

JUDGE MAY: No. Thank you, Mr. Kay. Although, just one final point. I suppose we will have to look, if we were minded to admit any of the transcripts, we would have to look at the witness statements to see whether they were admitted in or not. It would be open to us to exclude the witness statements. 19612

MR. KAY: Yes. It becomes a tricky exercise in my submission, going down that route. It's just when the witness stands up, his statement, "any objections," the Presiding Judge says, the Defence say no and it just goes in like that almost like a tool of the process rather than an evidence in the process, if I can make that distinction if that makes sense.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Mr. Milosevic, on this particular point of these transcripts.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, precisely on that particular point and separate issue, Mr. May. Just like in all the other aspects, things here are being put topsy-turvy, upside down. The question is not whether the cross-examination has been conducted or not, it's a reversal of thesis. The question is how it was conducted and done and what one wishes to prove in each individual case.

Mention is made here of a proposal according to which the facts should be accepted, facts which have been adjudicated in front of this illegal court of yours, and neither you, although you are an illegal Tribunal, did not adjudicate facts but persons, people. You judged upon people. So it was not facts that were adjudicated and that the proposal is they be brought to your knowledge formally, but what we're dealing with are facts that refer to whether or not something took place, where, under what conditions and circumstances and whether a person perpetrated a crime or act of any kind. That was the subject of your deliberations. In the cases which you now wish to put into one box, into one trial, which in itself is cumulative, if I can put it that way, and which 19613 represents a completely novel practice in general in trials of any kind, or adjudication or judgement of any kind, which is not surprising as this is an illegal Tribunal.

So from your aspects, precisely from your own aspects, as you consider yourself to be a court, you have adjudicated, judged persons and not facts. And you have judged them on the basis of facts which in those proceedings, the legal proceedings conducted against those persons were considered to be adjudicated, which means that adjudicated facts can only be those which refer to whether a certain person did commit a crime of some kind, where, when, against whom, under what circumstances and conditions. Any other facts cannot be considered to have been adjudicated.

Mr. Kay, you mentioned a moment ago economics of time, expediency, and that principle does indeed exist. I do not challenge that. I do not challenge its existence. But I assume that you're not going to allow yourself to challenge the fact that when we're talking about legal courts and legal trials, this must not be at the detriment of justice. You usually tend to look at the clock and you're interested in the time, the passage of time mostly. A legal court of law must be interested in justice, that -- justice being done as opposed to principle of expediency and economy in itself.

So take a look now at what you have here before you, and putting it mildly, they are dubious facts, and dubious facts can be considered to be adjudicated, which curtails the right for me myself to be able to state my views on those facts or by applying them, by applying the means and 19614 resources that I have at my disposal, although you're trying to tie my hands at such as possible in that respect, I wish to put into question and to prove and show before the public that they have not been properly ascertained and adjudicated that, they are the result of insufficient knowledge in certain subject matters and areas, that they have been construed, for example, and even, I would as far as to say, that their assertion emerged from a compromise of the accused and their Defences with the opposite side over there, bargaining with that side over there that calls itself the Prosecution. And that is why that opposite side and this practice seems to be a sort of malignant body and acts in that way in a legal system which is being created and legal thought that is being created, because the eyes of the public see how many compromises are being struck here and bargains that are being struck with different people who are accused here, who are told to own up to certain crimes for them to receive shorter prison terms.

JUDGE MAY: We are well away from the point on which you must address us. The issue is not that of the adjudicated facts, and your hands are not tied, as you know, as far as the evidence is concerned. Providing it's relevant, you can call relevant evidence. But the matter that we are having to consider now and on which we have invited you to address us is the issue of the transcripts which were admitted in the two cases which have been mentioned, and the issue that we're having to determine, there are 11 of them, is whether we should admit them in these -- in this particular case with or without cross-examination. Now, that's the issue which you've got to address. 19615

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that's the issue I'm talking about, and I believe that I'm taking up less time than the opposite side and the amicus. I don't suppose you're going to challenge, Mr. May, are you, and gentlemen generally, one and all, that there is a complete difference of interests of persons who were judged here and the transcript of which you wish to introduce because it was not in their interests to deal in any depth with certain issues. And as we are talking here about a general -- the general culprit as Serbia is a general culprit and all the territories of Yugoslavia, this seems to be quite a different principle and approach here in order to establish the truth wherein culpability is concerned. What I'm doing, I'm doing for one goal, to establish the truth and the place and of role of my own people in the historical events which came to pass and which you are trying to represent in the way you are here to determine culpability. So it is quite logical to me that in the individual cases people had no interest in delving into any kind of historical and various other circumstances.

And I wish to repeat once again. I have already said that the indictment is false and that I will break down all its allegations, and I will be able to do that if you do not curtail my right and time to be able to put that into effect.

Now, whether something is essential or not essential, you must allow me to assess that. And everything is essential. Everything is of substance, because everything that took place on the territory of the former Yugoslavia you link to Serbia, its institutions, and to myself personally. So you cannot say that you can exclude something because it 19616 is not relevant. Everything is relevant because everything is linked together. And you link it together, even the rapes. Any drunken fool can carry out rapes in London or your own Jamaica, Mr. Robinson, or anywhere else. And I'm sure you're not going to bring the head of state to court because a criminal perpetrated a crime or raped somebody. However, everything is in play here, everything comes into play, and you have presented all kinds of accusations here for things that neither Serbia nor I have anything to do with and for which it is the people who committed the crime against Yugoslavia are to be held accountable and responsible.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, let me understand it. In relation to the rapes, you might not so much want to question the fact of the rape as you might wish to question who committed it. Do I understand you correctly? You might not wish to question the fact of the rape, that there was a rape, that these women were raped, but you might want to address the issue as to who committed the rapes?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I might even question the facts. If my information tells me that a witness statement and testimony is false, Mr. Robinson. Because here there have been a large number of false witnesses. You saw here somebody who said he was a close associate of mine. That's what he claimed, and I've never set eyes on him in his life before.

So, Mr. Robinson, you ever introduced into evidence as an exhibit a photograph of a shirt with three holes in it, which Miljazin Tachi, a witness brought in here who said he was shot with a heavy machine-gun from a distance of three metres and that he wasn't wounded because God saved 19617 him, God just didn't save his shirt. So you accept quite unbelievable things here in this court.

I have received here quite a lengthy document here which says it is a proposal on the part of the Prosecution for note to be taken of adjudicated facts. This is quite nonsensical, because facts were not adjudicated or judged. It was individuals that were judged in a completely different context.

And secondly, when it comes to these facts, there are such idiocies here in the historical sense, the factual sense, and any other sense which quite simply you won't need any effort to challenge, one wouldn't need any effort to challenge. They deal with everything, all things together. Several centuries ago the Serbs inhabited the northern and southern areas of Bosnia. That's what the other side claims there. They delve in history. They reshape and recut history. And it delves into all other different things.

It says: "Immediately after the First World War and the disintegration of the Habsburg Empire," this is what it says, "a kingdom was created of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes through the unification of the Kingdom of Serbia with Montenegro, with Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia-Herzegovina." That's what it says here.

Well, neither Croatia nor Bosnia-Herzegovina existed because they're part of the Habsburg Empire. So what kind of unity or unification are we talking about here? These are historical, nonsensical things. They've written nonsense here, a whole book of it. A whole book of facts we have here. And there's another thing they say here -- 19618

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, as the Presiding Judge indicated, we are already through with the issue of adjudicated facts. Please confine yourself to the issue of the transcripts.

And in answer to my colleague Judge Robinson's question, you said that you may challenge the fact that -- whether there was a rape or not. May I take it that you are challenging these two witnesses, 1542 and 1543, were raped or not? Could you make your specific observations as to those two witnesses?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, I really do rate very highly your well-intentioned efforts, but I can give an answer to that question only when I have all the facts which are related to their testimony which has not been available to me so far, because within the framework of my time constraints I have to deal with current witnesses, the order of which as you yourself know undergoes change on an almost daily basis, so that this type of practice also makes it more difficult for me or anybody to become better acquainted with this. I do not wish to insult anyone here, Mr. Kwon, but I myself do not believe that anyone, you or Mr. May or Mr. Robinson have managed to read through the 400.000 pages which have been disclosed so far because I just do not see the time that you have to do so in addition to your sitting here and all your other obligations that you have to attend to and, of course, the breaks that you are entitled to. So I don't think that any human being would be able to read through that number of pages but that is why you do consider that you're able to assess what it says there without being fully informed about what it says in all those pages. 19619 Take a look at what they say here: With the constitution of 1974, the Muslim population of Bosnia-Herzegovina --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we cannot allow time to go like this. The matter we are discussing here and we are inviting your submissions is about these Foca transcripts. We're not going over the history all over again.

Now, is there anything you want to say? We will consider, of course, whether to admit these transcripts and whether to allow cross-examination. Is there anything more you want to say on that issue, on that issue?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am absolutely opposed to the fact that any kind of transcripts are introduced into evidence here because it is completely incompatible with the contents of what that false indictment is accusing me of having committed. And they would now like to link it all up into different parcels and packages, different judgements brought under conditions which were suspect, under pressure exerted on people, under conditions of compromise with the accused, bargain pleas and all the rest of it. And they want to put it into one parcel, to tie it up and then to have that represent a crime base or a basis of documents which are all suspect. So I categorically reject any possibility of that being done and I hope that I have expounded that sufficiently clearly and you can decide whichever way you like, because I wouldn't be surprised of any of your decisions. They would not surprise me either way, whichever way it goes.

MR. KAY: May I make just one correction. It was in relation to 19620 the exhibited witness statements. I must have been suffering from transcript fatigue. I was thinking of the Dokmanovic trial where they went in as a matter of course, and I've been able to check it and it was the wrong Tribunal, of course.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you.

MR. KAY: Sorry.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Groome.

MR. GROOME: If I may just briefly, Your Honour. I think there were some witness statements accepted in this case. The Prosecution would not oppose just a simple rejection. It has been the practice -- simple rejection of that has not been the practice of this Trial Chamber. We certainly would not oppose that.

I think that raises --

JUDGE MAY: When you do your table about cross-examination, perhaps you could indicate your view about the witness statements in each case.

MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: If there had been any which have gone in, well then I think they should be excluded unless they're in for a particular reason which they may be to deal with inconsistencies and that sort of thing.

MR. GROOME: Of course, Your Honour. A similar issue has been raised here with respect to B-1015 and just the general nature of 92 bis. The Prosecution is equally bound by the transcript. There is no requirement in 92 bis that the Chamber accept the evidence. It's simply that the evidence be presented. It's simply about presentation of 19621 evidence, that the evidence be presented by transcript as opposed to live testimony. The Chamber would be certainly entitled after reviewing the transcript of the 1015 to combined the witness incredible. The Chamber would be entitled to review any of the exhibits tendered and say they are unreliable. Similarly with the rape. The witness would be able to read the testimony of that rape victim and decide that the Chamber does not find it credible and give it no weight.

Mr. Milosevic, if he has evidence that the witness perjured themselves, the Prosecution would not oppose the witness being recalled to face that evidence, to answer to that evidence.

So underlying 92 bis is simply the principle of presentation of evidence and if the amici or the accused can articulate some area of questioning that they wish to put to this witness that seems plausible and reasonable to the Chamber, chances are the Prosecution would not oppose that witness being recalled and the Chamber certainly would be entitled to have that witness called. But I think 92 bis imposes some -- puts it to the accused and puts it to the amici to say why should the Chamber not accept the presentation of evidence in the form of transcript testimony? Why must the witness be recalled to give oral testimony once again?

JUDGE MAY: We will consider this and give your ruling in due course. We will await the submission of the Prosecution document tomorrow.

Mr. Nice, it's time for the adjournment unless there's something you want to deal with briefly.

MR. NICE: I'm in Your Honour's hands. Has the Court yet received 19622 the summary of the next witness?

JUDGE MAY: Yes, we have it.

MR. NICE: Should I mention all administrative matters after the adjournment? I'll probably be about three or four minutes on administrative matters and a couple minutes on the next witness. It will be five minutes in all.

JUDGE MAY: Shall we deal with it now? If it's five minutes.

MR. NICE: The first thing I wanted to say had to deal with the witness list served last week. I hope it's self-explanatory, but I know that the accused --

JUDGE MAY: That hasn't found its way to us yet.

MR. NICE: I'm sorry about that. The motion did but not the witness list. The Chamber will recall that we were expelled from the building for technical reasons at 3.00 on the Friday, so it couldn't get on the -- on the Thursday, so it couldn't get in on the Thursday. I'll make my observations about the list when you've got it. It's silly to do it otherwise, and then the accused can perhaps follow the shape of the list which is designed to be helpful. One other technical point, procedural matter the witness Patrick Ball who was the expert called in the Kosovo part of the trial is being called back this week because of a corrigendum he wished to make to his report. He's not under an interdiction that he shouldn't talk to the Prosecution; nevertheless, I shall make it plain that my present intention is he may be spoken to by us briefly, or probably not at very great length so we can understand what it is that he's wishing to lay before the 19623 Chamber then either to, with the Chamber's leave, lead the evidence or alternatively just simply get him -- either lead the evidence or get him to explain the evidence himself.

In relation to the forthcoming witness, it may help you if you have before you not only his statement or rather his summary but the exhibits for this reason: The witness who has the benefit of protection kept a diary. When he met the investigator, he provided the investigator with notes that were extracted from his diary. The diary is no longer available to him, but the notes extracted from the diary are, and indeed all of them, bar one page, have already been provided to the accused. The witness is in a position to speak about three meetings. The diary entries dealt with those meetings and the notes provided to the investigator are, broadly speaking, transcripts of those original diary entries. The notes provided have been marked in the margins in either red or blue. The red passages are passages which are by and large simply taken straight from the original diary entries which were themselves broadly contemporaneous. The blue notes are a different kind that the witness wrote in preparation for his encounter with the investigator. My proposal is that when we come to the evidence about the meetings in particular - there are three of them - the best course would be for the witness to simply go through his notes which are side-lined in red, and then to be asked one or two supplementary questions. This will save time but also be the most accurate reflection of the evidence which this witness is able to give. But I thought it helpful to give you advance warning of that being the course I was proposing. 19624

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. So we can have the witness immediately after the break.

MR. NICE: Certainly. Oh, one other thing. One paragraph only does he seek to give - or two paragraphs - in closed session. It's on the second page -- or in private session, and I would ask for leave to call him on that basis.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will adjourn now. Twenty minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.37 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness take the declaration. If you would stand to do that, please.

THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]

JUDGE MAY: We didn't get an interpretation of that.

THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear the English on this channel?

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Would you read it again, please.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

JUDGE MAY: If you'd like to take a seat.


[Witness answered through interpreter]

MR. NICE: Your Honour, before I start the evidence, the Chamber will note that the front page of the summary has a schedule of exhibits. There will be some corrections as to what was to be dealt with in public and what under seal. So it's only an indication. 19625 The Chamber will also see on the second and third page an idea hopefully enacted coming from this pact that you should have a dramatis personae of the people mentioned by the witness to which you may readily refer. I think one error has crept in on what is page 2. In the last entry of the box that says, "figures in the MUP and the state security service," the last entry there, the second sentence, "part of Backa Palanka lobby" should be deleted.

JUDGE MAY: And just to make it plain, the pseudonym, there seem to be a number of pseudonyms given to this witness.

MR. NICE: For these purposes this witness is going to be known as C-048.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, may we deal with the background of the witness and by one paragraph that you can find in -- starting at the foot of page four but in the reality at the top of page 5, may we deal with that immediately in private session? It'll take little more than a few minutes, couple of minutes.


MR. NICE: May the witnesses's exhibits be given --

[Private session]





[redacted] 19626 Page 19626 - redacted - private session

19627 Page 19627 - redacted - private session


















THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.


Q. Witness C-048, how was it that you first came into contact with the Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal?

A. In early May 2002, I made contact at my own initiative, believing that I was familiar with certain circumstances and events which may be of assistance in this proceeding.

Q. Did you seek any benefit or gain from the Office of the Prosecutor? 19629

A. I never asked for any kind of gain nor ever considered receiving it from the Prosecution or from this testimony because I'm convinced that it is the duty of any honest man to testify at court against crime.

Q. Witness C-048, did you in May of 1992 get a job at a business in Belgrade called the MP Royal, which was a casino, restaurant and cafeteria, based in the Hotel Putnik -- I beg your pardon. In Novi Sad, not in Belgrade.

A. Yes. But I would like to make a correction here. The company was in Belgrade -- no, no, in Novi Sad. Belgrade was mentioned but the company was in Novi Sad.

Q. Was this hotel opposite the Regional Board of the SPS party?

A. Yes.

Q. Who owned this business?

A. Veselin "Vesko" Vukotic.

Q. Is Vesko his nickname?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Vesko Vukotic in due course tell you of what he had done in the 1980s in relation to Albanian immigrants in Europe?

A. Yes. Mr. Vukotic told me about the liquidations of Albanian immigrants throughout Europe, that he did that on the instructions of the Yugoslav secret service. He particularly mentioned the latest, the most recent, the last recent that he committed, that was the assassination of an Albanian immigrant and human rights activist, Mr. Hadriu who lived in Brussels.

He also mentioned to me on several occasions that that was the 19630 first assassination, political assassination, that the State Security Service of Serbia committed on its own, without any consultation with the federal service which still existed at that time and that practically constituted the beginning of the break-up of unified security system of Yugoslavia.

Before he told me that, he told me he did that with the help of Andrija Lakonic and with the logistics support of Darko Asanin.

Q. Staying with the liquidations in the 1980s, did Vukotic tell you what the general policy was as to which Albanians should be liquidated and why?

A. Vukotic mentioned that in the 1980s, the general policy of the federal service was the liquidation of Albanian intellectuals because, without any intention of insulting the Albanian people, because the educational structure in general was quite low and the loss of any intellectual for them resulted in major harm. And as Mr. Vukotic was very picturesque in the way he expressed himself, there was a lot of time necessary for new intellectuals to grow up. And when he said weeds amongst them, he meant the Albanian intellectuals. Mr. Vukotic also said that in the 1990s, especially the mid-1990s, he criticised the policy conducted by the accused here and his police, which was based on mass repression of the Albanian population in Kosovo. Mr. Vukotic believed that the methods that were used before were much more effective because they did not result in animosity and the rage of the international community.

Q. Can I move on to a matter of detail? The murder of Enver Hadri, 19631 which was the first one traceable to the Serb DB and not to the federal organs, just to be clear, did Vukotic say precisely who had committed the murder?

A. He told me very clearly that he committed it.

Q. Was there an investigation in Belgium into this killing? Were any arrests made? How did such an inquiry end?

A. I know that the Belgian police conducted an investigation and that he was wanted by the Belgian police. Mr. Vukotic, until the 16th of November, 1997, did not travel abroad for the above-mentioned reasons. And then he left because he had to, because he had committed another murder in Montenegro in a place called Prcanj.

I also know that in September 1995, in Greece, Darko Asanin was arrested on suspicion of involvement in the liquidation, but the entire Serbian and Yugoslav leadership at the time, both political and police leadership, got to its feet in order to get Darko Asanin out of prison. Marijan, the wife of Darko Asanin at the time, went to give a false statement that Darko was with her at the given time so that Darko could leave prison and then --

Q. [Previous translation continues]... Thank you. And then as to the man Lakonic, I know this is in italics in paragraph 7, but in a sentence, what happened to him?

A. Lakonic was liquidated in late March 1990 in a club, discotheque called Nana in Belgrade because he had become dependent on heroin, and he had begun to boast publicly about all that he had done for the service. Vesko Vukotic was given the task to do this. They did that in a way which 19632 caused a little bit more attention from the public, but Vesko Vukotic managed to --

Q. Now, that -- that that you've told us of general background coming from Vukotic's mouth and other material you learnt connected to it in the course of your time with him. I now want to look chronologically at the first few months at any event in your time in the Royal casino. When you first went there, what was your job?

A. My first job was to control all the cashiers in the cafeteria and in the restaurant, and particularly in the casino because the owner Vesko Vukotic thought that the staff was stealing from him.

Q. What success did you have in your supervision of the staff? What promotion did it bring and why?

A. Yes. The turnover increased suddenly, almost 50, 60 per cent. The owner was very satisfied. And then he also received positive recommendations about me regarding my studies, where my average marks were 10. [redacted]


Q. The promotion was to the position of general manager?

A. Yes.

Q. And although your details are protected and won't be revealed, this would mean you became general manager at a young age.

A. Yes.

Q. Shortly thereafter, did Vukotic, paragraph 17, approach you -- not shortly thereafter. Some months thereafter, did Vukotic approach you with a proposition? 19633

A. Yes.

Q. When and what was the proposition?

MR. NICE: Usher.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This was in June 1992. He proposed that I should start cooperating with the state security service, and he told me that Milovan Popivoda would come and talk to me, and another person. He didn't say who that would be. He then said that Milovan Popivoda was the chief of the Novi Sad centre for state security and told me a few words about him, that he was very powerful, influential, and that he was a close friend of Jovica Stanisic.


Q. When the meeting took place, where did it take place and who in addition to Milovan Popivoda attended?

A. Milovan Popivoda came, and Veselin Dakovic was with him who worked in the Novi Sad department of the centre for state security. It was the department for external extremism, which included Croatian extremism as they officially called it. They came to the cafeteria, the Royal cafeteria, during the day when we were closed because we only started to work in the evening. They introduced themselves to me and made their offer that I should work for the state security service.

Q. Now, we've already had some evidence in this trial of the way in which the state security service penetrated all walks of life. Can you help us? Your position, your age, your understanding of these things, how usual or unusual was it that such an approach should be made to a person like you, in your position? 19634

A. This was usual. Casinos, nightclubs, escort clubs were places that were especially of interest to the service, gambling places where all kinds of people circulate from all kinds of spheres. In other words, the underworld.

Q. We're going to hear in due course of how you got involved with the security service and what you did. From that, can you just -- so from your experience, can you just tell us this: Had there been a restructuring or was there a restructuring of the MUP that followed the constitutional changes in Serbia, and if so, what was the effect of that so far as the Novi Sad centre was concerned?

A. After the anti-constitutional putsch of October 1988 when the Vojvodina leadership was replaced and after that the same coup d'etat was repeated in Kosovo, constitutional changes were made and changes in the organisation of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia. Up until that time the provinces, as part of their executive councils, had their own Ministries of the Interior, an independent ministry which was in a coordination relationship with the republican ministry in Belgrade. And after the constitutional changes and the adoption of the appropriate laws, there were no longer provincial Ministries of the Interior but chiefs of public security and state security were appointed from Belgrade throughout Serbia. So the provincial ministries of the interior were officially abolished along with some other ministries.

Q. So therefore, what position, how important a position did Popivoda hold given his position at Novi Sad? 19635 BLANK PAGE 19636

A. In view of the fact that the Novi Sad state security centre was the biggest one in the province and also the biggest one after the Belgrade one in the whole of Serbia, and in view of the environment that I'm talking about, Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, as well as in view of the personal relationship and contacts of Milovan Popivoda with the members of the Backa Palanka lobby, so their friendships and other relationships, Milovan Popivoda was the informal chief of the state security service for Vojvodina, Eastern Slavonia, and Baranja, and he was the personal friend of Jovica Stanisic and others of whom I will be speaking about later.

Q. Just to tidy up in case I forget it later, your account of DB centres. In July of 1996, did Popivoda tell you what happened to the DB centres of Vukovar and Beli Manastir after the signing of the Erdut agreement?

A. Yes. Mr. Popivoda told me that by the end of June, since our conversation was in July 1996, that by the end of June of that same year, the centres were dislocated from Vukovar, Beli Manastir, to Vojvodina, thinking of the technical equipment as well as the most -- the majority of the staff. And he responded clearly to my question. "Well, we will not leave these areas so easily to the Croats, will we." Mr. Popivoda replied to that, "Of course we will not. Our people will remain on the ground, but they will be working or operating under different circumstances."

Q. That all emerged later in your relationship with Mr. Popivoda let's now go back to the beginning of that relationship when he met you with the man Veselin Dakovic. Who was Dakovic? 19637

A. He was an operative worker of the state security service. He was born in 1959 or 1960. I can't say exactly. But he worked in the sector for or department for internal extremism, and he was one of the leaders there. Personally, he was fairly intimate with Popivoda following the Montenegrin ties he had with them and some other people too.

Q. Well, now, in due course, Witness C-048, you are going to give us evidence of meetings at which you were present, involving very senior officials. This is your first encounter with Popivoda and Dakovic. Is there some significance of what happens later in how you were approached and how you responded at this early time do you judge?

A. Yes, that's right. As I've already said, they came to the Royal. Mr. Popivoda spoke first. He gave us a general overview of the historical situation, the historical times in which we were living, all the rest of it. And then after that he said that I was a good guy, a good student. He praised me. He said that I was working in a good company, that the proprietor was a good man himself. And he mentioned my salary which at the time amounted to 1.000 German marks, which for those times in Serbia a fantastically high salary. And he also said I knew people who were interesting to them security-wise and that it would be a good thing if I was to work for them, that is to say, observe and monitor those two individuals. And their names and positions were Marko Kljajic. That was the first one. And the priest in Petro Varadin, zupnik. And Petro Varadin is a part of Novi Sad. The parish priest. And they thought that they collaborated with the Croatian intelligence service. The other person was one of my best friends. We were of a similar 19638 age. His name was Robert Coban and at the time he was editor-in-chief of independent newspaper or rather weekly entitled Nezavisni Svet or Independent World.

Q. Just pausing there for a second. Now, you were basically being asked to provide information on two friends of yours, your contemporary Coban and the priest whom I think was several years older, Kljajic; correct?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. And in short and we'll look at it in a few more sentences, but in short did you agree to do what was asked of you?

A. Yes, I did agree.

Q. As I said earlier, your reaction to this may feature as an element in your judgement in what you were allowed to observe later, but help us, what was your reason at this time, if you can now articulate it, for agreeing to work for the DB providing information on two friends of yours?

A. Well, to be quite frank, at the time I accepted the offer made to me, I thought, "well, all right. I'll send in some general information." But I nevertheless began working on concrete issues straight away. The reasons were not political and -- were political -- were not political and ideological. It was quite contrary to what I did, and I'm really ashamed of that today.

Can I describe the reason as being the pragmatism of life. Like any young man, I was enticed by the high salary and the possibility of a good life. At a time when most of my fellows had some very existential, very real material problems. 19639

Q. Was there a second meeting after the first? If so, whereabouts was it held and how much later?

A. Yes, there was. And it was soon afterwards. A week, ten days at the most after the first meeting, in the building of the Novi Sad centre of state security, which is located in Bulevar Oslobodjenja Street, next to the old building of the Nafta-Gas company, and that is where I had a meeting once again with Milovan Popivoda and Veselin Dakovic.

Q. What passed between you on this occasion? What was said and so on?

A. On that occasion, I handed over a list of people who came to visit Mr. Kljajic and those that Robert Coban was in contact with, and that he saw that that was it, that I had started to collaborate properly, because the information they had up until that time coincided and were along the lines of what I told them. I told them who I had seen there. And after that, Mr. Popivoda started talking about the historical times we were living in and said that the goal was, the object was to have as many Croats leave Vojvodina as possible so that, as he put it, a stable border should be set up in the border belt between Vojvodina and Croatia, and, as he put it, with hard-line Serbs from Krajina. In that context, a particular thorn in his tied was the priest Marko Kljajic. And many of the parishioners who wanted to leave and go to Croatia, he would try and prevail upon them to stay in their own homes, on their own thresholds to look after their national identities, ethnic identities.

Q. Did Popivoda explain to you how this plan was to be effected? 19640 What methods were to be used to make people move?

A. At that first meeting or, rather, the second meeting, but that's when he began to make concrete mention of these things, he said that the method should be used to intimidate the richest and well-to-do -- most well-to-do people in the villages where there was a majority Croatian population or where there were a considerable number of Croatian inhabitants. And once they saw that the most influential people and the richest people were leaving, the others would follow suit. He also said that violence and liquidation were not the methods of choice for Vojvodina. He even mentioned in a negative context the killing of an old man in a field in a place called Hrtkovci in Srem which took place in those days of June 1992. And his words were, "Look at what those idiots have done in Hrtkovci." He wasn't worried about the killing of the old man. He knew that this would cause problems with the international community and what the public reactions to it would be.

Q. Did he explain, with any further particularity or detail, why liquidations in Vojvodina were not acceptable? Did he contrast the position in Vojvodina with the position anywhere else in the former Yugoslavia?

A. He mention that had they were not acceptable because Vojvodina was not a part of the battle area, the war area, and that as I've already said this would create problems with the international community, and if this did happen, for example, in Eastern Slavonia and Baranja, this could always be described to the anarchy that is customary when you have a war and things of that kind in those areas. 19641

Q. Was there a third meeting? If so, where? Who was present, and what happened?

A. The third meeting took place soon afterwards, and in addition to Mr. Popivoda and Dakovic, Djordje Banjac was there too, and he was the head of the department, the technical department for bugging. I don't know what this was, the official title of it was, but I do know what it dealt with, bugging. And they asked me to bug the premises, both the offices and the residential premises of priest Marko Kljajic and Robert Coban, to set up a wiring system, and that's what I did.

Q. Where did this meeting with Popivoda, Dakovic, and Banjac occur?

A. In the state security service building.

Q. That's the same office as for the second meeting; is that correct?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. We've set out in the summary the means you used to bug these two premises of your former friends, and you can give answers about the detail of that if asked. Is it sufficient to say you did manage to bug the premises that you were asked to bug?

A. Let me be more specific. I enabled the service to enter the premises and have their technicians place the bugging devices where they considered it to be necessary. I abused the confidence placed in me by the people who had up until that time been my close friends.

Q. Were you aware one way or another as to whether their telephones were intercepted or tapped?

A. Yes. The service did do that via the post office from their central building. There was no doubt about that. 19642

Q. Were you given any instructions as to your future conduct in relation to both of these friends or former friends of yours?

A. Yes. I was told to tell them what they wanted to hear, and they explained to me how this sort of intelligence interview was to be conducted. And Milovan Popivoda would always stress, "Don't ask them anything. Just listen and they'll tell you everything themselves in due course, in the course of the conversation."

Q. Was there a particular incident at Kljajic's house in which you had an involvement and of which you can give a history and of which you hold a view, I think, a personal view?

A. Yes. At the end of December 1992, Milovan Popivoda told me, and I'm quoting his very words, that I should bear pressure on the priest to have him leave Vojvodina. End of quotation.

They asked me to learn when Marko Kljajic was going to travel to Croatia, and that's what I did. I told them that the -- it was planned for the beginning of January. I can't give you an exact date now, but it must have been round about the Orthodox Christmas, one or two days before or after, in that period. And the two refugees -- two refugees attacked his house and attacked his mother. And she was an elderly lady of about 70. But she was fairly resilient despite her age, so she was able to defend herself, and her attackers finally fled.

Q. Did that event receive any media attention?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: I'm sorry.

Q. Did that event receive any media attention? 19643

A. Yes, it did. The papers wrote about it.

Q. What effect did that have on other Croats?

A. It was designed to have an effect and it quite certainly did. It instilled fear in the rest of the Croats, and they wanted to have them think that if they attacked the priest, what would happen to us? And Popivoda told me that the service incited the writings in the press about that event. They encouraged them to write about it. Not in the affirmative sense. They didn't write positively about it. But the message conveyed was quite clear. The message behind the newspaper articles was quite clear.

Q. Did anything happen to the men who to your knowledge had carried out the attack?

A. They were taken into custody and brought to a police station, and some legal proceedings were started against them but nothing came of it as far as I know. And they were given a very mild conditional sentence of some kind. They didn't have to go to prison at all.

Q. You're still at the fairly early stage of your work for the DB. You carried on for several years, but tell us, did you ever have a DB identification card?

A. No. I never carried an ID card. I had never had one, but I did have an emergency number, and it was 22862, and that was the number given to me for any emergencies. The area code was 021. That is the area code for Novi Sad. At that time there were no mobile phones yet, and when Mr. Popivoda got a mobile phone himself, he gave me his personal mobile phone number and it was 063201481. 19644

Q. As your relationship with Popivoda developed and continued, how regularly did you meet him, where? Who made reports, and did things change as to who made reports?

A. Let's take this step-by-step. I would have a meeting with him once or twice a month either at the Royal or in the DB centre. Sometimes he was alone. At other times Veselin Dakovic would be present as well. And reports -- the reports referred to the people visiting the priest, Marko Kljajic. They were most interested in Ivo Beslic who was a priest, a parish priest in Sremska Kamenica then there was Branko Melvinger who was the president of the democratic alliance of Croats of Vojvodina. Then there was Niko Kraljevic, the priest in Hrtkovci. Zeljko Garmaz who was a journalist at the time, and today he is an editor of the paper Vjesnik. He would go to Belgrade and Novi Sad fairly frequently and would always see the priest Marko. He was also interested in a person called Tomislav Basic who was an army retiree.

Q. I think that is enough for the targets of interest some of whom are dealt with at paragraph 32. As to reports, did there come a time when you prepared reports yourself?

A. Yes, there did. At the beginning, Popivoda and Dakovic asked me to tell them word by word what I had been doing. When I got into the job, I talked about Popivoda and Dakovic was a younger man in terms of age and position and he would take down notes. But very soon I was able to differentiate between what was vital and what wasn't so important and I was able to write the reports myself after that. And so in addition to handing over the reports, we would also discuss other matters during our 19645 meetings. That is to say I didn't have to spend so much time reporting to them. I handed over my written reports.

Q. Do you keep -- or did you keep copies of those reports or did you hand them all over to them?

A. I handed them all over to them.

Q. Were you instructed in writing or just verbally?

A. Always verbally.

Q. Throughout your time working for the DB, were you also working at the Royal casino?

A. Yes.

Q. When did you finish working for the DB?

A. I stopped contact sometime in the year 2000, although from the end of 1998 they became less frequent in that period.

Q. Turning then to the casino itself. Was it visited by several if not many famous people or people famous at the time?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you list them really by frequency, that is, those who -- those important people who went there most frequently and then coming down to those who went there less frequently or only once? Of those who were regular attendees, can you tell us their names and just in a sentence what their role was?

A. They would come to the cafe or the restaurant of the facility. Milorad Vucelic came by mostly. Vucelic. The director general of Radio-television Serbia of the day. He had a party post as well. I can't tell you which one exactly. 19646 Then there was Milovan Popivoda, the head of the Novi Sad centre of state security. And his brother Milutin Popivoda, The director of marketing for Radio-television Serbia. Mihalj Kertes. Up until the end of August, there was the deputy Minister for Internal Affairs until the end of 1992. That was his official title, position. Then there was Radovan Pankov, one of the vice-presidents and later on the president of the provincial board of the Socialist Party of Serbia, the party whose president was the accused here. Another man who would come was Jovica Stanisic, the chief of the state security service of the MUP of Serbia. Then there was Franko Simatovic, nicknamed Frenki Simatovic, the commander of the special units or special operation units of the state security service of the MUP of Serbia. Then there was Marko Kekovic, director of television, Television Novi Sad. As well as many other medium-ranking officials. Jovo Barosevic, a case in point, who was director of the Posomi [phoen] Prostor company in Novi Sad. And it was through him that various illegal operations were conducted or operation with elements of protectionism.

Q. Very well. Now, you've given us several names. There may be one or two others that you can help us with. Is there any particular person or persons who came only infrequently or only once, to your knowledge, to the casino?

A. Yes. The person accused here, Slobodan Milosevic.

Q. He came what, once or more than once?

A. Just once.

Q. We'll come to the circumstances of that visit later. Can you help 19647 us, please, if you knew anything of the following people or ever saw anything of the following two people: Goran Hadzic, or the man known as Arkan?

A. Yes, I did see them.

Q. Tell us a little bit about Hadzic, what you knew about him and what his visit or visits was like?

A. Well, Goran Hadzic before the war, and this is common knowledge, was a warehouse clerk. He was the person of low intellectual and human capabilities, an individual who frequently used his position as so-called president of the so-called Republic of Serbian Krajina, the RSK. And one of his main goals, to be quite frank with you here, was to eat and drink without having to pay for it in restaurants.

At the meetings that I'm going to talk about later on, he usually kept quiet. He was the classical type of puppet. And he didn't mind being in that position himself, because I assume he was aware of his very meagre and modest intellectual, moral, and human capabilities.

Q. With which of the others that you've named --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.


Q. With which of the others that you've named did Hadzic have most to deal, if it's possible to say and if it isn't we'll move on?

A. He had -- He mostly contacted with Frenki Simatovic, Mihalj Kertes, Milovan Popivoda.

Q. I also asked you about the man known as Arkan. Can you tell us anything about him, and if you can, who he had contact with. 19648

A. Arkan would come to the cafeteria several times privately to meet with Veselin Vukotic because they were friends otherwise, dating back to the 1980s. They did similar work, and both of them were from the crime scene, low-life and classical killers.

I apologise, Mr. Nice, but do you mean Arkan's contacts with political leaders and so on? The next part of your question, what was it? Could you repeat?

Q. With the people you've already named as coming to the casino, if you were aware of his having any particular contact with any of them. If not, say so.

A. Well, I do know that he did have contacts with Frenki Simatovic, Mihalj Kertes. Mostly with those two.

Q. Of all these people, setting on one side, please, the accused in this case, of all the others, which seemed to be the superior, the senior person?

A. Milorad Vucelic and Jovica Stanisic.

Q. From your general conversation with these two -- sorry. Did you have conversation with these men yourself in your capacity within the casino or did you just see them at a distance?

A. On several occasions, I personally talked to them. Not so much with Jovica Stanisic, but with Milorad Vucelic I did during those years, right up to a year or two years ago when I saw him last. At least two or three times a month. I would meet him two or three times a month because that's when he would come by the Royal, because he was a close friend of the proprietor, Vesko Vukotic. And he was a friend and remains a friend 19649 today. He still maintains contact with those people who on the INTERPOL wanted list.

Q. Did either of these men, Stanisic or Vucelic, speak of the accused to you when they spoke to you and if so in what context or setting?

A. They often mentioned him. Always mentioned him as chief. "Chief said this," or, "Chief said that." That's how they would refer to him in their conversation.

Q. Did either or both of them indicate how easy or difficult it was for them to have contact with the accused?

A. Until 1995 in particular, when they wanted to get an accused, they were very close to him. They had cordial relations with him. And then in the mid-1990s, they said they were thwarted in this by the wife of the accused.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, there are a few photographs to look at. I think, although I said there would be no need, to go into private session for the first two photographs with your leave which relate to the very short passage of evidence. At least one of them does that we've had in private session so far should be dealt with in private session. It will only take a minute.

[Private session]





[redacted] 19650 Page 19650 - redacted - private session



[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.


Q. Look at this photograph. What was it?

A. The outside. This is the club, the cafeteria, and casino Royal on the first floor of the hotel Putnik.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.


THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have an objection. I don't understand why a photograph showing a singer and another person that is mentioned is being given at closed session as if it was some kind of secret photograph, and we're talking about a --

JUDGE MAY: We will go back into closed session -- private session.

[Private session]









[redacted] 19652




[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session.

MR. NICE: Next photograph, please.

Q. Of whom is this a photograph?

A. This photograph from left to right, professional killer Veselin "Vesko" Vukotic. In the middle is an unknown person. And the next person is Milovan Popivoda, the chief of the Novi Sad state security centre.

Q. Next photograph, please. Who is shown here?

A. From left to right Vesko Vukotic and Milutin Popivoda, the marketing director of Radio-television Serbia and the brother of Milovan Popivoda.

Q. Again, was that taken at the Royal club?

A. Yes.

Q. Paragraph 55 of the summary. The topic is whether people with criminal connections came to the club. But I also want you, if you can, to help the Judges with a fuller picture, if you can give it, of any connections there may have been between criminals at the club and people from other walks of life, including politicians. First of all, did people with known criminal backgrounds visit the club?

A. Yes. 19653

Q. Can you name one or two in particular? Deal with them one at a time and give an account of what you learnt of the individual's activities and history.

A. Darko Asanin used to come, Andrija Draskovic. Arkan would come from time to time. So I would say that these three people were the most colourful.

Q. Let's deal with --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.


Q. Let's deal with Darko Asanin first. What can you tell us about him, and in particular of what enterprise he engaged in about which you hold a strong view.

A. Darko Asanin was born in 1958 in Belgrade. He was a criminal, a person from a criminal environment and an active associate of the state security service, also known for the fact that he liquidated political immigrants for the secret police. He was a cousin of Pavle Bulatovic, the federal defence minister. He had strong connections with all the people who would come to the Royal cafeteria and casino. As far as his activities, Darko Asanin in October 1997 organised a group of young men headed by Petar Divljakovic, AKA Pera Divljak, whose main task was to cause unrest in Montenegro prior to the forthcoming presidential elections.

Darko Asanin sided strongly on the side of Momir Bulatovic in those elections. That is the option that was supported by the accused here as well. The boys who went in order to cause unrest in Montenegro 19654 were caught very quickly because Pera Divljakovic is a person of low intellect and he is not very capable of personally organising anything, so they were arrested right away. And Petar Divljakovic managed to escape in time and to hide. The persons who were caught in Montenegro told everything about the reasons why they were sent there and what their objectives were and this is also something that Darko Asanin personally told me about.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, this particular passage can be found at paragraph 69 so we've taken care of that. But I want to come back to paragraph 57.

Q. Witness C-048, staying still with Darko Asanin, is there another activity that he engaged in with regard to Croatia that you can tell us about?

A. Yes. Twice in the course of 1993, I went on trips with him to the then-occupied territory in the Republic of Croatia, to Erdut. This occupied territory was called the Serbian Republic of Krajina even though this amounted to a classic occupation according to everything that was known at the time. He was a personal friend, as I said, of Frenki Simatovic and Mihalj Kertes and the others.

Q. What happened and what did you learn of what was afoot?

A. You mean the trips to Erdut?

Q. I'll come back to Erdut later. Can we go back to an incident? If I ask you about the use that was made of a checkpoint at Orasje, can you help us, please, with what you knew of an enterprise involving Asanin?

A. Yes, I can. This is the most terrible thing that I had heard 19655 about during my cooperation with the service and the time that I socialised with those people.

Darko Asanin, and he personally admitted this to me and this information was confirmed to me also, and I will talk about that later, he had the task of organising the transfer of large quantities of heroin into Croatia as a form of special warfare with the aim of destroying or weakening the fighting morale of the Croatian youth and generally in order to cause problems in Croatia, because it is well known that drug addiction causes other kinds of crimes as well.

Darko Asanin clearly told me that this was being conducted through the checkpoint in Orasje, that they had their own man in Zagreb who was distributing enormous quantities of heroin throughout Croatia, whose name was Zeljko Sobot he was later killed in a conflict between the so-called Serbian and Albanian Mafia in Zagreb.

This information was later come firmed to me by some people in Zagreb, specifically one person that I met in the office of the mayor, Zlatko Canjuga as well as by certain people from the criminal milieu. And if it's necessary, I can give you the names of all the people who confirmed this information for me.

After I heard this - I'm going back to 1993 now when I heard this in Darko Asanin's house - I was horrified and flabbergasted because this monstrous activity bordered on Nazi type of activities. I asked Milovan, Milovan Popivoda, if this was possible. He first jumped up from his chair angrily and with the words - I apologise to the Court but I'm going to quote him - "Well, fuck him. I hope he's not saying that." 19656 Milovan Popivoda told me after that this was an idea of Jovica, and he said something to the effect, "Well, the Siptars in Belgrade are doing the same to us," which, to tell the truth, is true. And in their opinion, that was one of the most effective ways to conduct special warfare.

Q. And when it was said that the Albanians were saying they were doing the same to us or to them, whereabouts was it said and you seem to accept that this was true, whereabouts was it said that they were doing this, bringing drugs in?

A. In the same context, in the conversation in 1993 it was stated to me. And this refers to the period in the early 1990s when the price of heroin went down drastically on the streets of both Belgrade and Zagreb, and it was possible practically to buy these drugs for nothing practically. And it was accessible to everybody. And it was clear that this had not only a financial, material effect but also a political effect.

Of course people in that chain, from the middle of the chain to the bottom of the chain worked only for material gain, and they didn't know what the whole thing was about. I don't have specific information that I could talk about the activities of the Albanian lobby or the Albanian immigration, however you want to call them. I'm talking about what the Serbian state security did through criminal elements in Croatia or as they said conducted special warfare. I also know that --

Q. Carry on then.

A. -- That in February 2001, in the safe of the Komercijalna Bank in Belgrade, 600 kilogrammes of pure heroin were found dating from those 19657 years, without any kind of receipt of the -- about the origin of the heroin, why it was being there. And also, it is a fact that the state security service is not responsible for combatting drug trafficking. These drugs, and it was obvious to see clearly from the documentation --

JUDGE MAY: Yes. I think we'll just stick to what the witness can tell us about directly.

MR. NICE: May I ask one more question about Asanin, if the Court was looking at the clock?

Q. How frequent or infrequent a visitor was Asanin to the casino, and did he mix with the other -- with the other people you've spoken of who have a political background?

A. He came to the casino frequently as Vesko's best friend. These people also met at his house in Krnjesevci as well, and they also went to the exclusive club called Legat which was in Dedinje right next or right behind the Libyan embassy. The people who visited him were the following: Frenki Simatovic, Mihalj Kertes, Milutin and Milovan Popivoda. Bosko Ubojevic also came he was an official of the state security service as well. And of course Milorad Vucelic who got a gold Rolex worth 150.000 German marks from Darko Asanin about which the accused directly asked Vucelic here about where he got this watch from.

Q. Thank you?

MR. NICE: Maybe I'd better deal with that after the break if there is to be one.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will adjourn now. 19658 Witness C-048, you're giving evidence. Don't speak to anybody about it until it's over, and don't let anybody spoke to you, of course, and that does include members of the Prosecution team. Keep it to yourself until it's over.

Very well. Twenty minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.20 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.41 p.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Paragraph 60, page 12.

Q. The accused and the gold watch and the man Vucelic. Can you just give us a couple of sentences, a summary of that part of your evidence?

A. Yes. This was a present that Mr. Vucelic received from the criminal Darko Asanin, a gold Rolex watch worth 150.000 German marks. When the accused heard about it he was very angry with Mr. Vucelic. He told him that in that way criminals -- in that way state functionaries are starting to work for the criminals and not other way around, which he thought was normal. Milorad Vucelic himself told me this. Darko Asanin was angry because Milorad responded to the accused Slobodan Milosevic that he got the watch from him. Darko Asanin said, "well, he could have said that he got it from Tom, Dick or Harry. Why did he say he got it from me?"

Q. Back to paragraph 55 in the summary, when asking you about criminals that visited the club you mentioned in addition to Darko Vucelic Andrija Draskovic. We haven't dealt with him in the summary but before I come back to him, was there a cousin of Vukotic known to you who had 19659 associations in the criminal world?

A. Yes. He was a cousin, Veselin Vlahovic, AKA Batica or Batko. Batica's brother had married Vesko's sister and Veselin Vlahovic, Batica, was brought to Sarajevo by Vukotic as a boxer. This is a person of very slight intellectual capacities. And not only that, it is a question of how sane that man is at all. He was a boxer in Sarajevo. Very soon he gave that up. He became involved in crime. At the beginning of the war, he joined the SDS paramilitary formations. He was a bodyguard of Momcilo "Momo" Mandic. He committed horrible crimes. He looted a lot in Sarajevo at the beginning of the war, and then he returned to Novi Sad where he --

JUDGE MAY: Yes. If you'd just listen to counsel, please. Perhaps we could shorten the matter somewhat.


Q. Where did you get your information of what Veselin Vlahovic had done?

A. Since this is a person if I may say who -- it's a question of how sane he is. He actually said that himself. He boasted with -- about those crimes, and he would also spend enormous amounts of money.

Q. I'm going to interrupt you. Did you speak to him and he speak to you on a regular basis?

A. We met a couple of times. I wouldn't call it a conversation. It was more him talking. I just sat there. I didn't want to contradict him or say anything because it seemed as if he wasn't all there. I would just say, "yes, yes." And on that occasion, he actually boasted about his 19660 BLANK PAGE 19661 crimes.

Q. And finally, was he a person even known in the Sarajevo press by a nickname?

A. Yes. The Sarajevo press wrote about him in 2001 when he escaped from the Spuz prison, and there was also -- there were also reports that this Tribunal conducted an investigation about him. And should I explain why I said quote unquote or allegedly escaped from Spuz? Should I talk about that?

Q. No. I'd just like you to give us his nickname and we'll move on to another topic for want of time.

A. We knew him as Batica at the Royal, but the Sarajevo press and the people in Sarajevo knew him by the nickname Batko.

Q. Finally you've mentioned Andrija Draskovic although his details do not appear in the summary. Just in a sentence, was he a regular visitor? What if, any criminality, was he connected to? But really, just a sentence or two at the most.

A. Yes. He was a regular visitor, and he was involved in crime.

Q. You've told us something of Frenki's attendance at Asanin's house. Was there an escort or prostitute facility connected with all this? If so, a sentence or so about that?

A. If you're thinking about the Royal, yes, we did have such an agency. Formally, it was a fashion agency for the purposes of the public.

Q. Were girls or young women provided for men? If so, whereabouts?

A. Yes. They were models, but at the same time they worked as escorts. They were used for - how shall I put it? - for the satisfaction 19662 of the certain needs of politicians and other persons who came there. We didn't have special rooms where they would go, but they would meet there and contacts would be made.

Q. Very well.

A. Then they would take them to --

Q. I'm sorry my interjections have to be brief, but I mustn't allow you to speak at the same time my microphone is on. The question of drugs briefly. Were there any drugs in the Royal?

A. We were never involved in that. Vesko Vukotic nor I myself, but we provided narcotics for certain inspectors of the state security service which indulged in that kind of, let me put it that way, relaxation. And I'm thinking primarily as Veselin Dakovic who was a younger man. And also we were in constant touch with drug dealer Nenad Opacic who is currently serving a prison sentence for these crimes, who would come to the casino and --

Q. Very well. So far as the accused is concerned. We know there is only the one visit of which you're aware and you're going to deal with that later. Can you say anything about his knowledge of what his associates were doing by way of dealing or visiting this place which had a criminal element to it?

A. As I knew all the circumstances, it is quite certain that the accused, Slobodan Milosevic, knew that the persons mentioned came to the facility and that they socialised with Veselin "Vesko" Vukotic, Darko Asanin and the rest. Of course I can't claim that he knew all the details of that association, but in general terms, he knew where they 19663 were, who they were friends with, and what types of dealings they were involved in.

Q. Did you have any knowledge of or any contacts with the movements of his children?

A. His son Marko Milosevic, on the 15th of April, 1994, was at our discotheque when Zdravko Colic's album was promoted. And also I saw several photographs where Veselin Vukotic was with Marija and Marko Milosevic, standing together with them.

MR. NICE: The Red Berets, Your Honours, we've already dealt with paragraph 69. I'm going to deal with paragraph 71 before coming back to 64. I think it's more logical.

Q. When was the first time you heard Red Berets mentioned and in what context?

A. I first heard it mentioned, that is to say when I heard those two words used, Red Berets, was in July 1992 when Jovica Stanisic and Milovan Popivoda came to the Royal where we were sitting around already, Veselin Vukotic and myself, and they talked about the formation of the unit. And that was the first time they mentioned those two words, Red Berets. As to the unit itself, I had heard about that before.

Q. From whom and what had you heard?

A. I heard it from Milan Popivoda, who said that at the end of 1991, a political decision was taken to establish a specials operation unit -- Special Operations Unit. And the reason was because on the battlefront in Croatia, there were a lot of units there, either under no control whatsoever or units which were not under the full control of 19664 anybody of the and they wanted to have a unit with a firm military organisation, a clear and strong chain of command, that is to say, based on the principles of subordination in which they could have complete trust and confidence. And he also mentioned in that regard that it was only Arkan's unit that was considered to be reliable, and that Seselj at that time was working, as he put it, for the same cause, and that in the barracks in Bubanj Potok, that is a place near Belgrade, Seselj's volunteers were being trained, and also that there were various paramilitary groups but that the service had to have a unit under its own control.

Q. Before we move on, to get a little more detail of this, can you just help us about notes? This is the first time where we may or the Chamber may find it helpful to look at notes.

Did you keep some form of diary?

A. Yes, I did keep some form of diary, and it contain matters of this kind which were interesting to me and some private things as well.

Q. When you first met the investigator who took a statement from you, did you provide him with your own extract of entries from your diary?

A. You mean to the investigators, whether I supplied them with a copy?

Q. Yes.

A. The investigator saw it in my own home, but they didn't take the diary away with them.

Q. Later did you provide written, tract from that diary? Not extract, notes of and extract from. 19665

A. Yes, I did. I handed them over.

Q. In preparing to give evidence, have copies of those notes been marked in the margins with either a blue or a red or possibly in one case a blue and a red line indicating, so far as the red is concerned, that this is material pretty well taken not verbatim but taken directly from your diary, the blue passages being passages which are notes you simply made in preparation for speaking with the investigator?

A. Yes.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I don't invite the witness necessarily to have any part of his diary with him for this passage of his evidence. But for your assistance, if you're interested in following it, it's page 11 in the English of 12, and it is, for the accused if he wants to find it because he may do, it's page 6472, the last four digits, in the B/C/S version if he wants to follow it there. But I'm not inviting the witness to look at it on this occasion, although, as I've said, I will when we come to the meetings.

Q. Very well. Then tell us please, Witness C-048, when you first heard of this group later described as the Red Berets, were they given any name and who was in charge of them?

A. No specific names were mentioned. Milan Popivoda said that for the needs of the Red Berets, they had either released part of the criminals from the prisons or they were amnestied and didn't have to serve their prison term.

Q. Who was in charge of them?

A. Frenki Simatovic was in charge of them. 19666

Q. I think you may have told us this. I'm afraid I haven't checked it off. Can you explain just in a sentence the political decision, if there was one, by which this group was set up and the political purpose or the political/military purpose of this group?

A. Of course a political decision was made. A political decision had to be made for the establishment of a unit of that kind, and that decision was made at the end of 1991 to set up units which would be within the framework of the security service and the purpose of which would be to act on the front, on the battleground in Croatia first and later on in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Q. Was anything said about the man Seselj and any groups associated with him? If so, by whom was it said?

A. Milovan Popivoda said this. Seselj was mentioned in a positive context, but he added that he wouldn't be allowed to have his unit just like that or, rather, that he did work at the time to the advantage of the general cause, as he put it, but the service wanted to have a unit of its own under its full control. And he also said that Seselj's volunteers were trained at the barracks in Bubanj Potok but he also emphasised you never knew how Seselj might turn.

Q. Not in the summary, but is there any other group of a like kind or broadly similar kind that you can give or that you can remember being spoken of by name? Any other named group of paramilitaries?

A. Mention was made of the White Eagles, Beli Orlovi. The Dusan Silni detachment, and Bokan's White Eagles in the context of anarchy. And of course Arkan's unit was mentioned in that context too. 19667

Q. Was anything said about -- by whom these groups were supplied with arms, and if so, who said it?

A. It was mentioned on several occasions, and they said that Frenki was the main person in charge of the distribution of weapons to Arkan's unit. As far as Seselj was concerned and his volunteers, they said that the training was being done in Bubanj Potok, which was a military establishment, a barracks, and that they were receiving weapons from the regime.

Q. Now back, please, to paragraph 64 of the summary, page 13. Did you see anything of people whom you understood to be Red Berets at the Royal? If so, who and on what frequency?

A. Yes, I did see them. I saw Zivojin "Zivko" Ivanovic and he was best known by his nickname Zika Crnogorac or "Zika the Montenegrin" and he would come by most frequently because he knew the proprietor from earlier on and he was also a Montenegrin like the proprietor. And there was Petar Divljakovic, and he was better known as Pera Divljak. And on one occasion I saw and met Dragan Mijovic too, and I knew him from when the time I did my regular military service.

Q. Did these men or any of them speak of their activities in the Red Berets? If so, what did you learn from what they said?

A. Yes, they all talked about it. Zika Ivanovic "Crnogorac" would talk about his time in the Red Berets. Pera Divljakovic, Pera Divljak would brag about the crimes he had committed. And he is also not fully accountable as a person. To explain to the Court what kind of man this was, after everything, he didn't end up in a mental hospital but he did 19668 end up in a monastery at Fruska Gora. He was of diminished responsibility and liked to drag about his crimes and even exaggerated in my opinion, because in the atmosphere that prevailed during those days in Serbia, especially in that particular environment, crimes against the Croats and Muslims were heralded as some form of prestige.

Q. Would you tell us of anything you heard about any Red Berets about activities qualifying if you feel you should by your assessment as to whether the person concerned was exaggerating what he claimed?

A. Petar Divljakovic mentioned specifically in more concrete terms the massacre of Croatian policemen, and he called them and referred to them as Ustashas. At the end of November nearby Borovo Selo where 20 people were killed and thrown into the Danube. And he said that he had done that with a group of friends or, rather, with his unit. And there was another friend of his called Ivan Andric, and in my opinion, he didn't exaggerate that event. But he did exaggerate a massacre at Mostar where he said that they had killed over a hundred Ustashas and balijas. The balijas, I am quoting that term. It was a term he used to refer to the Muslims by.

Petar Divljakovic, in the context of the rest of the Croats in eastern Croatia, as they called it the RSK, Republic of Srpska Krajina or, rather, the occupied territory of the Republic of Croatia, he said he would have killed them all but Frenki didn't allow him to do so. End of quotation.

Q. I want now to move to meetings. Was there a meeting in August 1992 that you can recall and of which you made notes? 19669

A. Yes.

Q. May I just be allowed --

Q. Yes. Sorry. Carry on.

A. I was going to explain the reasons for their meeting and how this informal group operated, because I think we skipped over that. About the Backa Palanka lobby, that's what I'm thinking about.

Q. I'm not going to skip over it but I want to raise something with the Chamber first.

MR. NICE: The Court will find the notes of this part at page 5 of the notes. The accused can find it at pages 6455 to 6458 if he wants to follow it in the notes. I would ask that the witness can have the document in front of him if he wishes, either to refer to it or even frankly to read from it as a more efficient way of getting the detail. But it's a matter for the Chamber.

JUDGE MAY: Just so I can understand it, although it's called a diary, these are essentially notes which he's made from the diary.

MR. NICE: Correct.

JUDGE MAY: With interpolations which he himself has more recently put in.

MR. NICE: Right. As I understand it is simply an explanation of what was in can -- either explanation or a transcription of or a transcription and an expansion so as to make sense of notes that are contemporaneous and essentially complete. The passages sidelined in blue are notes that he's drawn from his memory more generally. So that if we look at page 5 and I shan't rehearse -- 19670

JUDGE KWON: Before that, did you mention where the original diary is now?

MR. NICE: I didn't and I should have done and I'll get the witness to deal that straight away and then we'll come back to it.

Q. Witness C-048, I should have asked you. Forgive my oversight. The original diary itself, where was it when you last saw it?

A. It was in my own home, and the investigators were able to see it when they came to visit me at the home.

Q. When you left your home, did you leave the diary there?

A. I apologise, but may we go into private session and I'll tell you why?


[Private session]












[redacted] 19671 Page 19671 - redacted - private session

19672 Page 19672 - redacted - private session





















[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session now.

MR. NICE: May the witness have before him his own notes opened at page 6455.

Q. And C-048, you've been told that you are free to refer to those notes but in reality I think only the one sidelined in red if you wish to, 19674 and if becomes more helpful effectively to follow them as you give your evidence to save time do so and we can fill out details you miss after you've given your evidence. But before we come to the notes themselves, you wanted to say something about the Backa Palanka lobby represented at the meeting in August 1992 to which we turn. Explain that lobby to us, please.

A. When I speak about the Backa Palanka lobby, what I mean is a certain lobby that was made up of individuals from the police, the secret police, the information and propaganda realm of the political apparatus and the crime -- criminals. And they all the worked together, harmonised and dovetailed their activities and implemented the orders of the here accused. And also among them was a high degree of personal solidarity, and I can quote numerous examples to bear that out if you need to hear them.

Q. Who do you identify as member of this lobby, the Backa Palanka lobby?

A. The members of the Backa Palanka lobby were the following individuals: Mihalj Kertes, Radovan Pankov, Jovica Stanisic, Milorad Vucelic, Marko Kekovic, Milovan Popivoda, Milutin Popivoda, Frenki Simatovic, and also Brana Crncevic who was a writer. He was close to them too. And then there were criminals, Veselin "Vesko" Vukotic and Darko Asanin. But Darko Asanin distanced himself a little while later from these individuals to a certain extent. So if you allow me, this was the link between the police, the secret police.

Q. Carry on. Carry on. 19675

A. It was the police, the secret police, the information and propaganda department of the political apparatus and criminals as well. It linked all of them.

Q. This first meeting in August 1992 was attended by whom from that lobby?

A. Jovica Stanisic attended as did Milorad Vucelic, Milovan Popivoda, Mihalj Kertes, Goran Hadzic and Veselin "Vesko" Vukotic.

Q. Before we come to what was said, paragraph 99 of the summary, why would you, a young man, although now running this casino, why were you allowed to be present?

A. As I've already stressed, after some concrete operations I gained their trust. They also knew that as Vesko's number one man, they could place their trust in me, have confidence in me. Of course I didn't take part in the discussions at the meetings, nor did I talk to them. It was just my job to see that they were all served, to -- I don't want you to think that I was a waiter, but I wanted to have waiters collaborate with the pauses, when they had pauses that they were all served, and that they were served whisky, and Chivas Regal was the make of the whisky that was most often served.

Q. And were you ever given advice, and if so by whom and to what effect about whether you should talk about what you heard at these meetings?

A. The -- first of all, Veselin Vukotic and Milovan Popivoda told me in a well-intentioned form that I shouldn't speak about this at all. It never entered my head actually, because I knew that that same man 19676 Veselin Vukotic two years ago had killed Andrija Lakonic, somebody he had grown up with. So I could have imagined how easy it would have been for him to kill me had I started to talk about this.

Q. Back to paragraph 83 of the summary and what you --

JUDGE KWON: Microphone.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone please, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Thank you.

Q. Back to paragraph 83 of the summary on page 16. Witness C-048, tell us, please, what was said. Take your own course. If you read from or are guided by the notes that we have of course also in translation, please remember that it's easy when reading from something to read much faster than you speak and therefore it's difficult to go at a speed that is acceptable to the interpreters. So take your own course but tell us, please, what was said at the meeting.

A. This was an informal meeting. When I say "informal," there were no minutes taken, but it had concrete and clear-cut goals and intentions and it discussed concrete issues.

Jovica Stanisic started to talk first. He said that he had just come back from the boss, and the word "boss" referred to the accused here quite clearly. And he said that on -- at the London conference forthcoming there, would be mention, and I quote as he said, "Our territory is in the Republic of Serbian Krajina." And this referred to the occupied territories of the Republic of Croatia. Mihalj Kertes said he was going to do everything to clean out -- that a lot of Ustashas had already gone. And Jovica Stanisic 19677 emphasised that this was essential for negotiating positions to be adopted at the forthcoming London conference. So that with the policy a fait accompli, these territories should be conjoined with the Republic of Serbia. Jovica Stanisic then told Mihalj Kertes that he should work in as subtle a manner as possible to avoid any human casualties and that he was to proceed by first intimidating people in a certain region, a few people to begin with to instil fear in them and then the others would follow suit.

He underlined the difference between the methods that were to be applied in Vojvodina and the methods in eastern Croatia, that is to say, the UNPA zone as they were officially called. And he also said that they should leave no traces behind.

He also told him about the -- that on the territory of Serbia, family homes should not be blown up.

Mihalj Kertes's answer was that he should maintain constant cooperation with Frenki Simatovic, and he also mentioned the liquidation of an old man in Hrtkovci at the end of June 1992 in a negative context, as an example of what should not be done.

And on that occasion, I also heard that the object of the policy being pursued, that is to say to use a fait accompli to effect territorial domination, but mention was also made of the other parts of the so-called Republic of Serbian Krajina and the context of negotiations can be held in that respect and that the eastern regions would "always be ours," as they put it. Milorad Vucelic said in addition to the general political phrases that he used that propaganda was patriotic and he worked in the sphere of 19678 information to promote it and he also said and I apologise for having to say this, the scum like my former kum, Mile Isakov are always around. Let's me explain that to Your Honours. Mile Isakov was the president of the independent association of journalists of Vojvodina at that time. Jovica Stanisic also said --

JUDGE MAY: In order for us to take this in it would be sensible to break it up. It's very difficult to take in a narrative of this sort that simply flows along. Perhaps if you would break it down it would assist.

MR. NICE: I'm certainly happy to do that and it may be that the witness, I know the handwriting on the document is not -- it's his handwriting so you can follow it. The one that's marked in colour is a little faint. You've also got the original there for him. What I'm going to do on Your Honours' page 5 of the notes, I think we've covered everything up until about ten lines from the end and we then covered most of that that the witness was becoming more free in style. And so I'll go back and ask the witness.

Q. Please, C-048, you were dealing with what Kertes said that they should be in constant contact with Frenki, and you then said that he said how the accused had said that such -- no. I beg your pardon. Said that liquidation were is not to be carried out in Serbia. Just tell us who said liquidations were not to be carried out.

A. Yes, Jovica Stanisic said that. While Kertes replied to Jovica before that that he was in constant contact with Frenki.

Q. Very well. Then you've mentioned propaganda? 19679

A. Yes.

Q. Who said anything about propaganda as opposed to liquidations?

A. Milorad Vucelic talked about propaganda because he was the person in charge of propaganda as well as the director of the national television. He was talking about patriotic propaganda, that he was doing everything in the informational sphere. And then he mentioned, as he said, and I apologise to the Court, "Scum such as my cousin Mile Isakov are always around."

Q. Pausing there. You mentioned reference to the eastern provinces and how they should be dealt with.

A. Yes.

Q. Overall and look at your note, please, because you've got it there in front of you, was reference made to Eastern Slavonia, Western Srem and Baranja, it's in shorthand I think in the original, and then just tell us please the next sentence what was said and refer to a passage in quotation marks if it's appropriate and tell us who said that.

A. When we're talking about the eastern regions, I'm thinking of the area that was officially called Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, and that is the eastern region of the Republic of Croatia.

Q. And looking at your notes, just tell us exactly who said what about how those areas must be cleansed from Ustasha?

A. Jovica Stanisic began first. He said that he had been to see the boss, as he put it, and that at the London conference there would be discussion of, I quote, our --

Q. If you'd look please at your own notes. It's obviously not 19680 entirely easy to find it but I'll do my best. Immediately after a passage where you refer to the incident in Hrtkovci at the end of June 1992. If you find that passage, keep your finger on it and if you follow me through your own notes we'll deal with things in an orderly way. Can you find that note?

A. Yes.

Q. Perhaps you would be good enough then to go to the next sentence which deals with -- well, the end of that sentence deals with Vojvodina, intimidation, and propaganda. Go to the next sentence which begins he said that the Eastern Slavonia, Western Srem and Baranja must be cleansed from the Ustashas. Tell us who was speaking and what was said.

A. Jovica Stanisic said that, stressing the methods of activities in eastern Croatia and in Vojvodina itself. He said that the so-called Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem should be cleansed of the Ustashas and then the Croats may ask to get that region as much as they can, but they would never get it.

Also, it was mentioned, as I also said at the beginning of my testimony, that in the border region of Vojvodina, a stable Serbian majority must be formed with resilient Serbs as they put it and this is something that I also heard from Milovan Popivoda at our second meeting.

Q. Stay with the first meeting. Keep your finger on the notes if you'd be so good. Was it at this stage that Vucelic said something about a patriotic mission? And just look at the next sentence and tell us what it was he said.

A. Yes. Vucelic said that we were all on a great patriotic mission, 19681 that we have to create a strong Serbian state with as few hostile elements as possible, that he is doing everything in his power in the information sphere, that he believes that the propaganda on RTS was patriotic. And then I quote, "Scum like my former kum, Mile Isakov are always around."

Q. Keeping your finger on the notes, was it Milovan Popivoda who you next recall joining the discussion, and if so, top of our page 6 in the English version, what was it that was said?

A. Milovan Popivoda joined the discussion, and he said that a network of intelligence centres was formed in the region he called Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem and that he was monitoring those intelligence centres. That was the first time that I heard directly from his mouth that he was practically the real chief of the intelligence services of the so-called Republika Srpska Krajina in the eastern part.

Q. Do your notes go on to record an intervention or an observation by Jovica Stanisic next?

A. Yes. Jovica told him that the boss said that they should not worry about money because there always has to be money for the needs of the service and for such things.

Q. Was there discussion about Milan Panic? If so, to what effect?

A. Yes. They talked about him. The Federal Prime Minister at the time. They said that the accused here, Slobodan Milosevic, regretted nominating him to the post of prime minister, and they said that the objective of the accused here, Slobodan Milosevic, in connection with appointing Milan Panic was for him through his connections with the US administration should act for the abolishment of the sanctions, and he 19682 believed that Milan Panic would not really interfere much in the actual running of the affairs, but it had turned out differently, that Milan Panic did not agree as a person of integrity to be a puppet. And they said that he would very soon be removed from his post.

Q. Did there come a time when Hadzic left the meeting, and did Stanisic ask Kertes something at that stage?

A. Yes. Goran Hadzic went to the toilet, and Jovica Stanisic asked Kertes, "Are you and Frenki keeping this one under control?" To which Kertes replied that he shouldn't worry. And Jovica said, "Good. Good. I don't really want to think that he's really the president."

Q. The next meeting --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. NICE: Thank you.

Q. The next meeting, I think, was held in September 1992 that you can help us with; is that right? And again recorded in your notes.

A. Yes. The same people were present. This time Frenki Simatovic was also there, as well as Radovan Pankov. I just want to emphasise Veselin "Vesko" Vukotic was always present at these meetings.

Q. We'll follow the same routine if this is helpful to the Chamber. Keep your finger really on the note so that you can go through it in the same orderly way that we can follow it in our translations of your handwritten notes.

I take it this meeting was also at the club -- at the casino, rather.

A. Yes. Yes. 19683

Q. And did it start off with reference to the removal of Mihalj Kertes from a particular position?

A. Yes. Mihalj Kertes, in the course of the London conference, was dismissed from his post as deputy of the federal Minister for Internal Affairs upon the instructions of Milan Panic. And this was done because of the ethnic cleansing that he had committed. This was an official decision by Milan Panic and it was given as the reason for his decision. They criticised this decision by Milan Panic. And in a way they kind of joked with Mihalj Kertes. They were on good terms with him and they were kidding him that he was now unemployed and so on. They said that Milan Panic was a traitor, that his activities should be prevented and so on. But also they said that luckily they were not being asked to do anything.

Q. Did Stanisic then speak to Frenki? If so, what did he say?

A. Yes. Jovica Stanisic addressed Frenki by saying, "The boss told me today to step up the actions in Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem because I heard that the Croats would try to enter Krajina by force by November 1st. He said that UNPROFOR was there but we also have to be ready so nothing surprises us there. And then Frenki replied, "Jovica, don't worry. Everything is under control."

Q. Did Jovica Stanisic speak again to Frenki?

A. Yes. He told him clearly to quiet down his guys and make that Pera Divljak talk less. What can I tell you when it has even reached my ears, referring to the already mentioned Petar Divljakovic from the Red Berets who stuck out because of his brutality and during his leave while under the influence of narcotics and alcohol he used to say all kinds of 19684 things. Frenki said, "don't worry, I'll handle that. But you need to understand that they're young fellows, and without them we wouldn't be able to achieve anything." So he said that in order to balance out the situation and to defend those young men a little bit to which Jovica Stanisic told him, "All right. I do understand that, but still you should take care of it." And he said that in that context. Also, that he shouldn't worry about any financial or material resources.

Q. Did the conversation return to Milan Panic?

A. Yes. They --

Q. [Previous translation continues]... Conversation with one of the Popivodas? I think you better tell us from your notes which of the brothers it is. It may not be clear.

On your account it's only Milovan who was present, is it?

A. Yes, yes, of course.

Q. Keeping your finger on the notes --

A. Yes.

Q. One moment. That's the end of -- that's the end of really this conversation unless the witness has been triggered by reading his notes to remember anything else material that he hasn't yet told us about. Is there anything else that you can remember of this conversation beyond what you've already told us that's material?

A. As far as I have been able to follow my own testimony, I think that so far I have said everything that needed to be said. Popivoda was there, but he didn't really participate in the conversation so much so that I would remember it. 19685 BLANK PAGE 19686

Q. And perhaps you ought to tell us this: In what part of the club and if you can remember in what part of the day did these two meetings take place? First the first meeting. What part of the club? What part of the day?

A. The part of the club that was marked private. So it was a part of the restaurant. And it was early afternoon, between 12.00 and 1.00 p.m.. The reason why the meeting was held in that section was quite ordinary. It was summertime, so it was the most comfortable area to sit, because at that time of the day, the sun does not hit that part of the premises.

Q. That, I think, was the first meeting. What about the time and place of the second meeting?

A. The second meeting was held at the same place at a similar time. It was in mid-September in 1992.

Q. We come to the -- Your Honour, we come to the third meeting. It can be found at the handwritten notes for the accused 6451, and in the English version it's page 8 of 12.

Witness C-048, was there a meeting in March 1993 that you can recall?

A. Yes.

Q. Where and at what time of the day?

A. The Royal club, and the time of day was around noon.

Q. Who attended?

A. The accused here, Slobodan Milosevic, Milorad Vucelic, Radovan Pankov, Mihalj Kertes, Jovica Stanisic, Milovan Popivoda, Marko Kekovic, Veselin Vukotic was there the entire time. I was there 19687 also in the same role that I had at the already mentioned two previous meetings.

Q. From where had those attending this meeting come as you understood it?

A. Not only did I understand it, but I saw it because from the place where Veselin Vukotic and I were before that, we could see that clearly. The named persons came from the provincial board of the Socialist Party of Serbia where the accused here was on a working visit. Milorad Vucelic, two or three days before that, told Vesko that he would see if he could bring the boss over. Of course he wasn't able to promise that because nobody could force or order the accused here to go and -- go anywhere. But still, Milorad managed to do it.

Q. Using the same procedure, please, with your, as it were, finger literally or mentally on the appropriate part of the page, which in the version that's got numbers on it is the page that starts 6462, and the passage begins to the effect of "After they'd seated themselves, Pankov said." Can you then read out -- or not read out, tell us what happened at the beginning of the meeting when Pankov spoke.

A. Yes. Radovan Pankov was the first to speak, which was normal because at that time, Radovan Pankov was the number one man of Slobodan Milosevic for Vojvodina. Radovan Pankov with a large degree of humility said, "Well, boss, as I told you, the situation is under control." The accused replied, "Very, very well, Raso. I just want you to know that this is a very sensitive area. There are many minority groups here and plenty of hostile elements amongst them." 19688

Q. What happened next? Who spoke next?

A. After that, the accused here looked in the direction of Jovica Stanisic and asked him about the situation in Eastern Slavonia and Baranja, to which Jovica Stanisic replied that everything was going according to plan, that the terrain has been cleansed of Croats and the security situation on the field -- on the ground was stable, to which the accused here said, "Very well. So we have completed the main part of the job. Carry on like that, but in a subtle way," and with a certain amount of pleasure he said, "Well, I'm really looking forward to how the Croats would ask for the Krajina as now where the majority of the population now are Serbs."

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter missed the last sentence of the witness.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Jovica Stanisic just shook his head and said, "Yes, yes. Very well."


Q. The interpreters missed the last part of what you were saying, so can you go back to your notes and pick it up from the accused saying, "Well, we've completed the main part of the job," and go through your notes fairly slowly.

A. Yes. I'll just continue. He said, "Just continue working like that, but in a subtle way." And then he said with a certain amount of pleasure, "And now, Bre [phoen], I would like to see how the Croats would ask for the Krajina from me when the Serbs are living there now, just the Serbs are living there now, especially Eastern Slavonia and Baranja. And 19689 as for the rest, we can still talk about it."

Q. And was it at that stage that Stanisic shook his head and said, "yes, yes," or, "Very well"?

A. Yes.

Q. Next, to whom did the accused next speak?

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, there's apparently another sitting in here at half past two, so we have to bear that in mind. No doubt we can sit for a few minutes longer.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. NICE: This passage of evidence lasts another four pages, so I'll see how far we can go.

Q. Who did the accused next address?

A. He addressed Mihalj Kertes with his nickname, which was Bracika. He told him, "Bracika, you and Frenki just continue in this manner. You've done well so far. And as far as the material equipment is concerned, just ask Jovica for everything you need and Milovan is there also if you need him." And he was thinking of Milovan Popivoda. Then he directly asked Kertes, "Is Arkan under control?" To which he received the reply, "Yes, he is." And the accused here then said, "Very well. Very well. You just keep him under control. Don't let him gain control over you in due course. We need people like this now, but no one should think that they were more powerful than the state."

Q. Next thing said, please?

A. Then the accused here said that all kinds of pressure must be maintained and a united Serbian state must be made comprising the Republic 19690 of Serbia, Montenegro, Republic of Srpska, and the Republic of Srpska Krajina. And that is why it was important to stand all the pressures, because then the world would have to acknowledge the factual situation. He continued with the explanation that the Croats who once go towards Zagreb or to some European country have once found an apartment there or a job, in other words have fitted into that society will no longer want to return to the area where they originally came from. Also, he stressed that by using Republika Srpska and the Republic of Srpska Krajina, it will be easier for him to keep Montenegro under control in case they started to make waves, as he put it.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. NICE: Might that be a convenient moment?


MR. NICE: I hope the Court has got or will have access to the witness lists. I can will deal with their formation probably more conveniently tomorrow.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. It may be there are matters that have to be dealt with in relation to the next witness and the form that his evidence is going to take. Perhaps those responsible could look into it.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, we have the problem in mind. But I can tell you straight away that the witness's attitude is unchanged from what it was on the previous occasion.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will adjourn now. Nine o'clock tomorrow morning.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.52 p.m., 19691 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 29th day of April, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.