¹⁶²⁰⁷ Thursday, 19 January 2012

(Open session)

[The accused entered court]

[The witness takes the stand]

--- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone. Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.

JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. Good morning, Mr. Dimitrijevic.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, I'd like to remind you that you're still bound by the solemn declaration that you've given at the beginning of your testimony, that is, that you will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Ms. Marcus, are you ready to continue your cross-examination?

MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. Good morning.

JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

WITNESS: JOVAN DIMITRIJEVIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter] Cross-examination by Ms. Marcus: [Continued]

Q. Mr. Dimitrijevic, good morning. You showed us the form that you created for documenting personal information for SDG volunteers. The background checks you did and the ¹⁶²⁰⁸ form you filled in did not include any criminal background checks; is that correct?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. You testified yesterday that you were involved in logistics preparations for the Bijeljina operation. You did the same for the Zvornik operation as well; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Were the preparations for the Zvornik operation done in secrecy?

A. In Belgrade I did not have that information. I could not even assume that there would be an operation in Zvornik. I suppose that that was the case because the guards went straight from Bijeljina to Zvornik. I was told that from Bijeljina they would return to Erdut.

Q. Were you present for the planning meetings for the Zvornik operation?

A. No, I was not.

Q. Would you be able to, if so requested, provide us with a list of Arkan's men who participated in the take-overs of Bijeljina and Zvornik?

A. No. Over 60 members participated. I really wouldn't be able to remember their names, so the answer is no, if I understood your question properly. Was your question whether I would be able to provide you with a list of those men who participated in Zvornik operation; was that your question?

Q. Well, yesterday you explained to us that you were involved in putting together the list of men for the Bijeljina operation. Now I've asked you about your role in the logistics for the Zvornik operation. ¹⁶²⁰⁹ And I wanted to know whether you would be able to provide us with the names of those men who you put on the list for Bijeljina and Zvornik operations.

A. No. After such a long time it would be really hard to remember. I remember the name of some individuals, especially of those who were killed, because they all hailed from Belgrade. They were my very close friends and I will remember them forever.

Q. What happened to those lists that were prepared at the time?

A. They were archived by the Serbian Volunteer Guards.

Q. But as you testified yesterday, you don't know where those archives are now; is that correct?

A. I don't know. In 1996 when the war ended, I -- when the guards were disbanded, everything was left behind at the headquarters of the party. I don't know what happened to the paperwork later.

MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer please call up Exhibit P605.

Q. Now, your comment about the Bijeljina operation was that "everything went smoothly and the impressions one had of the entire operation were extremely positive."

This is a photograph taken during the take-over of Bijeljina by Arkan's men in 1992. Do you recognise these men?

A. I recognise one of them.

Q. Please tell us whom you recognise and where he is standing.

A. The person with his back turned to us who is kicking the men on the ground. He is a member of the Serbian Volunteer Guards. His name is Srdjan Golubovic. His nickname is Max. He was punished for his conduct ¹⁶²¹⁰ and removed from the ranks of the Serbian volunteers. There were a lot of foreigner reporters in Bijeljina at the time, or, rather, one or two days later after the operation itself. This photo was taken a day after the operation while they were on patrol. This was not considered appropriate conduct and he was, therefore, punished. And if I remember properly, he was even removed from the ranks of the Serbian Volunteer Guards.

Q. Can you tell us when he was punished and by whom?

A. Zeljko Raznatovic punished him. And he was removed immediately following the Bijeljina operation. A number of men returned from Bijeljina and some fresh troops arrived. We're talking about a very small number of people, some dozen or so.

Q. Was he prosecuted criminally?

A. No, he wasn't, as far as I know. Not for this particular incident. However, as much as I know, after the war he did have some problems with the law enforcement agencies.

Q. You said that Arkan punished him. Can you tell us what the punishment was?

A. The Serbian Volunteer Guards applied an old Serbian military rule as regards punishment. So actually, he was smacked on the bottom 25 times in front of all of his colleagues lined up. So he was physically punished.

Q. Was he the only one who was punished in this way or were there others who were also punished? For this incident, I mean.

A. Nobody but him. But there were cases of punishment among the ¹⁶²¹¹ Serbian volunteers for severe breaches of discipline. And one of those severe breaches of discipline was also alcohol consumption.

Q. You testified that you were involved in logistics for the Bijeljina and Zvornik operations. Where did you get the Zolja rockets?

A. We got them from the Territorial Defence of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem. Some of those Zoljas and Osas also came from the army, from the Novi Sad Corps.

Q. What about the rifles, where did you get those?

A. The same, from the TO and from the corps. When I joined at the end of November 1991, the rifles were already there. I was told that they were received from the Territorial Defence. My subsequent job was to supplement the supplies by addressing the Territorial Defence and the Ministry of Defence of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem. The TO was our primary source and the army was our secondary source.

MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer please call up P1631.

Q. As logistics co-ordinator, did you supply Balaclavas to the SDG?

A. If we're talking about those knitted Balaclavas, the answer would be yes. They were purchased at the Magnum store in Kneza Milosa Street. Those were woollen caps with openings. They could be obtained from hunting gear stores.

Q. What was the purpose of using these woollen caps that you describe?

A. They didn't have any particular purpose in war operations. It was a personal choice, those who did not want the photos of their faces to be taken, in view of the large number of journalists who used the ¹⁶²¹² press centre across the road from our headquarters. I've already spoken about that press centre in my previous testimony.

MS. MARCUS: I refer the Chamber to P117, page 9; and to the transcript from the 14th of December, 2009, at page 2567 to 2568. I'm done with the photograph. Thank you.

JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one additional question. Do I understand your testimony well that the Balaclavas were used mainly around the headquarters and not if people moved away from there because it was because of the journalists opposite the headquarters? So they didn't need them anymore once they had left the headquarters; is that ...

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you understood my answer very well. In war operations there was no need for us to be masked because such Balaclavas would only be a hindrance in war operation. They obstruct the view and they were not desirable. They were mostly worn in winter-time, as winter caps.

JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

MS. MARCUS:

Q. Mr. Dimitrijevic, you testified that you arrived in Zvornik on the 12th or 13th of April of 1992. That was at -- on the 17th of January at page 16113. This was just following the operation to take over Zvornik. Is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You were shown a video by the Simatovic Defence of Arkan describing the lead-up to the Zvornik take-over. This video is in ¹⁶²¹³ evidence as P1601 and your testimony was at page 16110 on the 17th of January. In that video, Arkan described a meeting at Mali Zvornik attended by representatives of a few Bosniak groups and "on the other side the commander of the SDS Crisis Staff and president of Zvornik SDS." That's a quote from the video.

Did you know about that meeting before you viewed that video on Tuesday?

A. No, I did not know about that meeting.

Q. Arkan did not mention any JNA members at that meeting, only two Serbs from the SDS; correct?

A. We saw the clip together, and I saw the clip for the first time, yes. He did not make any reference to JNA members.

Q. At that meeting Arkan gave the Bosniaks an ultimatum. And I'll quote again from the video you were shown. This is from page 3 in English and page 4 in B/C/S of P1601. The quote is:

"I gave them an ultimatum to surrender the town by 0800 hours, otherwise I would destroy it."

The next day Arkan led the SDG in an attack on Zvornik; correct?

A. It is correct, although he tasked certain officers with certain actions. In other words, they were supposed to prepare for him all those things that had to be implemented; that's how he checked their efficiency. As for the Zvornik operation itself, the person in charge was the then-colonel, and later on general, Marko Pejic on behalf of the Serbian Volunteer Guards.

Q. The evidence in this case is that the attack on Zvornik took ¹⁶²¹⁴ place on the 8th and 9th of April, 1992. The Defence showed you several documents relating to Zvornik. Exhibit D177 was a request issued by the 17th Corps of the JNA for air-strikes from fighter-bombers. That request was dated the 10th of April, 1992. Another one was D158, which was a report on combat that took place on the 10th, 11th, and 12th of April. Would you agree that these documents refer to activities that took place following, in the aftermath of, the take-over of Zvornik?

A. I can't say anything about that. Those things happened 20 years ago. It's hard for me to remember whether that was on the 9th, 10th, 11th, or 12th. Everything lasted for three or four days. I don't know who participated in what on what day. I can only tell you when I arrived, because I know that for a fact. I've already told you that I had a problem with the paperwork, which made me stay the entire day. And during that time I heard things, but this is the first time I hear, from you, that the air force also participated. What I was told at the time in an informal conversation was that Kula came under artillery fire. This is the first time I hear that the aviation was involved as well.

THE INTERPRETER: Could Mrs. Marcus please slow down while reading. Thank you.

MS. MARCUS: I will do my best. Sorry.

Q. Here's what I'm trying to ask you: According to the evidence in the case, the take-over of Zvornik took place on the 8th and 9th of April, and you testified, at transcript page 16109, that Arkan's SDG "acted in concert with the Army of Yugoslavia."

Isn't it a fact that Arkan and the SDG led the take-over on the ¹⁶²¹⁵ 8th and 9th of April, while the JNA played a more passive role, protecting military facilities, manning traffic, other kinds of monitoring activities, et cetera, as demonstrated by the dates reported in the documents shown to you by the Defence?

A. It doesn't make too much sense to me. If the engagement of artillery against Kula in Zvornik is what you consider passive engagement or a passive role, I wouldn't agree. That wouldn't be a passive role. They were tasked with providing security for the roads and so on and so forth, some other facilities I mean. So their participation in that sense was very visible. But they were -- they did not play a passive role in combat, no.

JUDGE ORIE: It sounds as if you're commenting on what is put to you by Ms. Marcus rather than that you're talking from your own memory. You're saying, Well, what you say they did, to you, doesn't appear to be a very passive role. Now, what I'd like to know is: Do you have any personal observation about the role of the JNA in -- on the 8th and the 9th that -- these were the dates, isn't it, Ms. Marcus? - do you have any personal observations about their role during these first two days? If not, then I think we should proceed, because drawing conclusions from what is in evidence and what the paperwork tells us is rather for the Chamber than for a witness to do.

Do you have any personal observation about what the JNA did during these first two days, the 8th and the 9th?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I arrived on the 13th, so the answer is no. ¹⁶²¹⁶

JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, please proceed.

MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you. Could I just refer the Chamber to Exhibit P1390.

Q. You were injured in March of 1994 and you returned to the SDG headquarters in Belgrade in June of 1994, according to your evidence. Do I have those dates right?

A. Yes.

Q. When you returned, after your recovery from your traffic accident, did you return to undertake the same logistics role or did you work primarily for the Party of Serbian Unity?

A. I returned and resumed the same roles. We shared the same office, those in charge of the party and those in charge of the SDG. I was injured in a traffic accident. I sustained some severe injuries. My spine was broken in two places at the level of the 5th and 6th thoracic vertebrae. I was in a cast. I mostly spent the time in that office sitting down and co-ordinating the work of everybody else.

Q. Whose work were you co-ordinating?

A. Of the employees. But not only their work, but also the work of all those companies that I was in charge of. They were expecting my return in view of some of the situations that had happened in the meantime as regards relations and the tasks at hand and everything that the work required.

Q. During the Velika Kladusa operation and the Trnovo operation and the Sanski Most-Banja Luka-Kljuc operation, you were not operating in the field with the SDG; isn't that right? ¹⁶²¹⁷

A. Yes, you're right.

Q. However, in your role as logistics specialist, you were present during preparatory meetings for those operations, I suppose; is that correct?

A. You're not right. The preparatory operations mostly took place in Erdut. All the movements and all the details of those operations were prepared in Erdut. So my presence was not necessary there. There was another man there. He was in Erdut and he co-ordinated that type of activities. I was informed about them but not in great many details. I received information as to what was going on. So everything that concerns the latter part of the war was moved to Erdut.

Q. Just so that I understand your evidence correctly: You do not have direct personal knowledge of the preparatory meetings and discussions and plans for the Velika Kladusa operation, the Trnovo operation, or the Sanski Most operation. Do I understand that correctly?

A. I was not present at any meetings. But I did take part in certain preparations for some of those operations. Not all, though. For example, in the case of Velika Kladusa, at the time we had disbanded the SDG. I think specifically it happened in November, although I do not recall the exact date. We received information from Zeljko Raznatovic, Arkan, to summon a number of volunteers who were willing to go to Velika Kladusa. We did so. They arrived and left for Erdut. Where they went from there is something I don't know. We didn't even know where exactly they would go. We only had instructions to call them up, and ¹⁶²¹⁸ only later on did we find out that Velika Kladusa was concerned.

MS. MARCUS: One moment, please, Your Honour.

[Prosecution counsel confer]

MS. MARCUS:

Q. I just want to follow up on one of the answers you gave. You said: "... in the case of Velika Kladusa, at the time we had disbanded the SDG." Can I just ask you if there's any public record of this disbandment?

A. No. It was never made public, that it had been disbanded. When I say "disbanded," it actually means that most of the volunteers were sent on leave or sent away in other ways. Because it was a voluntarily formation. They were not under any contractual obligations, and no one could tell them to leave or that they couldn't take part in any further actions. They were thanked for their previous participation, but we kept long lists of guardsmen in the headquarters who could we rely on. And we hoped that it was at least the officer personnel that would always respond to our calls.

Q. You said, at page 11, line 25: "We only had instructions to call them up, and only later on did we find out that Velika Kladusa was concerned."

Who gave you those instructions?

A. Arkan did.

Q. Do you know who gave Arkan those instructions?

A. No, no. We didn't even know where they were to go. He simply arrived and said, "Get me 40, 60, or a hundred men." So he simply issued ¹⁶²¹⁹ the instruction, as usual, and then we tried to assemble them. It was never done by a single person, but several. There were no mobile phones that we could use at the time in order to make our communication with them easier. It always took a few hours to make all the phone calls. I would task two or three people to keep dialling until we have a final number. We always put priority on the officers first who had undergone training. Then we went on to call up those volunteers who had a more extensive combat experience.

Q. Mr. Dimitrijevic, again I would just request, please, as-brief-as-possible answers, and if we need more clarification we will ask.

So you were present, then, during the gathering of the Super Tigers and the SDG members prior to the deployment to Velika Kladusa, you were present throughout that process in Belgrade; correct?

A. Yes. But these were not the Super Tigers. It was a unit of the SDG. The Super Tigers were established later.

Q. And you were present, then, when Arkan briefed the SDG and informed them that they would be under the command of Milorad Ulemek, aka Legija, and informed them that they were not to tell anyone of their affiliation with Arkan. Were you present for those briefings?

A. No. Save for Arkan, Legija, and the volunteers concerned, there was no one else. That meeting did not take place in Belgrade, however, so we were unable to be physically present. There was no appropriate place or conditions for the meeting to take place in Belgrade, and so it was organised in Erdut. ¹⁶²²⁰

Q. But you are aware of the meeting? Or you just were informed by me?

A. I knew that Arkan left for Erdut with the volunteers, and I suppose it is there that they had that meeting, if there was a meeting at all.

Q. You said earlier, I believe, that you weren't sure exactly what days the group left --

JUDGE ORIE: Could I --

MS. MARCUS: Yes.

JUDGE ORIE: -- ask one follow-up question. You say you don't know -- even know whether such a meeting took place, et cetera. Your previous answer was, when you were asked whether you were present:

"No. Save for Arkan, Legija, and the volunteers concerned, there was no one else," which suggests, first of all, that there was a meeting; and second, that you had information about who were present and who were not present, because it was only Arkan, Legija, and the volunteers. So it really comes as a surprise to hear in the next answer that you do not even know whether a meeting took place.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I respond to that?

JUDGE ORIE: One second, please. You suppose that it is there that they had that meeting, if there was a meeting at all. And you say the only thing you know is that Arkan left for Erdut, which is not very consistent.

Yes, you may comment. ¹⁶²²¹

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I say that there was no one else present at the meeting, I had myself in mind and those employed in the SDG headquarters at Ljutice Bogdana 1. I said in my previous statements that the facility was the size of this courtroom. 60 men plus Arkan and his entourage could not be fitted in the space as big as this in order to have that meeting. So I had in mind the people working at the SDG headquarters as those who were not present at the meeting. Those who went to Velika Kladusa went to Erdut in civilian clothes, were issued uniforms there, and Arkan saw them off to Erdut. I don't know what took place there. But if there was a meeting, that was the only place where it could have been held. I hope this clarifies.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you say you had a mind that people working at the SDG did not attend the meeting, then that still suggests that a meeting was there and not just supposing that there was a meeting, because otherwise it's difficult to establish who would not have been present.

Could I urge you to be clear in your answers as to what is conclusions and what is factual observation. Apparently the observation is that as far as the meeting is concerned, that you assume that none of the people from the SDG headquarters, apart from Arkan and Legija, had attended because you did not observe them to leave Belgrade at that point in time. That is what you observed. And who else were there is apparently something you concluded.

Mr. Jordash.

MR. JORDASH: May I just make this remark, if I can. ¹⁶²²²

JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

MR. JORDASH: That I think part of the confusion arose because my learned friend for the Prosecution presented Prosecution evidence as if it were true and suggested to the witness: This meeting took place, this is what happened at the meeting, were you present for that? And I think that's where the confusion began. And I would ask my learned friend to make it clear to the witness what is agreed between the Prosecution and Defence, what is a Prosecution evidence, and what is a question.

JUDGE ORIE: Isn't it true that in cross-examination you can include in a question a fact which has not been established? That is one of the -- I would say one of the forms of leading questions. I would agree that perhaps then in further examination of the witness that matters should be clarified, but I would rather not disallow the Prosecution - although within certain limits, Ms. Marcus, I add that immediately - to introduce elements as being true although not yet established. Because that's, from what I learned, is one of the forms of leading question.

At the same time, Ms. Marcus, of course the -- if you suggest matters to be true and if it gets lost somewhere in the answer, of course the evidence doesn't assist the Chamber greatly if we have to consider the possibility that the witness missed part of the assumed facts and answers the question in a -- in an understanding in which he missed some points.

And that, perhaps, Mr. Jordash, is something you would like to avoid as well. ¹⁶²²³

MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.

JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.

Q. You testified today at page 11 that you did not recall the exact date of the deployment of the SDG from Belgrade to Velika Kladusa. You said it was sometime in November. Do I understand you correctly that you do not recall the dates in November when that deployment took place, the date or dates?

A. That is correct, although I believe it was at the beginning of the month.

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] With your leave, we had an explanation previously and the witness explained twice that as to the best of his knowledge the SDG left Belgrade for Erdut, and then from Erdut to Velika Kladusa. On page 17, lines 3 and 4, my learned friend asked about the deployment of the SDG from Belgrade to Velika Kladusa. The witness had to answer without being able to make a distinction between the two stages, and we see no such delineation in the transcript. It looks as if they went from Belgrade directly to Velika Kladusa. In order to be fair to the witness and to have a clear transcript, I would kindly ask my learned friend to quote the witness precisely when putting her questions.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, apparently the emphasis is rather on the date that they were deployed to Velika Kladusa as through what route they ¹⁶²²⁴ arrived there. Is that well understood?

MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE ORIE: So, Witness, could you please answer the last question, where again it is not whether they left from Erdut or from Belgrade, but rather on when they were sent and deployed in Velika Kladusa. You said you don't remember the dates, but it was early in that month of November. Is that ...

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is correct.

JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.

MS. MARCUS:

Q. Did you organise the transport?

A. Transport from Belgrade to Erdut, yes. We used a van. And it made the number of rounds it required to have all the men transferred. I think the vehicle left to Erdut and came back some seven or eight times during that day.

Q. Did you organise the uniforms and the weapons?

A. No. It was all in Erdut.

Q. Did you supply the forces while they were in the field during the Velika Kladusa operation?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware that there were two tactical groups operating in Velika Kladusa?

A. No.

Q. In terms of the payments to the SDG troops, you did mention earlier that there weren't any payments whatsoever. I'd just like to ask ¹⁶²²⁵ you if you were aware of the fact, as according to the evidence that's been presented in this case, that the SDG volunteers in Velika Kladusa collected payments in the field, at Frenki's Red Beret headquarters in Petrova Gora. Were you aware of these payments?

A. I am not aware of that.

Q. You are not aware, is it correct, of any of the details of the day-to-day events during the Velika Kladusa operation; is that correct?

A. Not specifically, unless someone was wounded or killed, which was part of my job description. We had two men killed there and a few wounded. Again, the problem was transport. It happened on the 21st of November. In other words, I received information of the two members having been killed. I know what took place on that day. But as for the entire period, I had absolutely no knowledge what they were engaging in there. Once they left for Velika Kladusa, we were told they went there as training instructors, rather than to participate in any operations.

Q. So you will also not be aware, then, of the degree of involvement of Franko Simatovic in the Velika Kladusa Joint Command?

A. No.

Q. And you were also not aware, then, that the SDG members who were wounded during that operation were later paid a pension by the Serbian MUP?

A. I have no information of any pensions being paid out by the Serbian MUP. I also -- I only know they were transferred to the military medical academy, which was standard procedure. It included the wounded ¹⁶²²⁶ and those killed. This is the first time I hear of any Serbian MUP pensions.

MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, in relation to the last line of questioning, I'd like to refer the Chamber to the following evidence: P1639, P235, P1596, and a transcript from the 9th of November, 2010, at page 8879.

Could I have private session, please.

JUDGE ORIE: We turn into private session.

(Private session)

(16 lines redacted) ¹⁶²²⁷

(9 lines redacted)

(Open session)

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

JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

MS. MARCUS:

Q. At transcript page 16145 you were asked about your activities during November of 1994. You stated:

"I was there every day. That was part of my job description, at least that year and in that month. I don't know whether I was there on the 4th or the 6th or the 12th, but I suppose I was and I suppose that I know what you're going to ask me."

You also testified that you were involved in Arkan's businesses, in procurement of supplies from a variety of sources, in conducting background checks, in taking care of wounded and deceased volunteers. In carrying out these tasks you must have been extremely busy; isn't that the case?

A. Yes, absolutely. ¹⁶²²⁸

Q. And in order to successfully carry out all these responsibilities, you were not sitting in the office all day of every day; would that be accurate? Your job was not an office job.

A. It was not. But I had my co-workers who were good enough. Early in the morning, when we all arrived, we would have a briefing, and I usually issued them with the tasks for that day. I had some six or seven co-workers, more or less, who managed the tasks I issued to them on a daily basis depending on the events in question. During such briefings I would tell them what to do if I were going to be absent for a day or two from the headquarters. Upon my return they usually informed me of everything that took place in the meantime and whether there were problems.

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, by your leave, we have a mistake in the transcript, page 22, line 5 and 6. The witness was discussing his absence, but I believe the period of absence is mistakenly entered.

JUDGE ORIE: Let's seek, then, confirmation of ... on the transcript we read - and please correct me when the transcript does not reflect what you said, Mr. Dimitrijevic - I read:

"During such briefings I would tell them what to do and [sic] if I were going to be absent for a day or two from the headquarters ..." Is that what you said?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] An hour or two.

JUDGE ORIE: An hour or two. That's corrected. Please proceed, Ms. Marcus. ¹⁶²²⁹

MS. MARCUS:

Q. You were not present with Arkan all day of every day; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You were not present at all the meetings he had. In fact, it appears from your evidence that you were present at quite few of the meetings that he had. Would that be correct?

A. Correct. I attended only those meetings to whom -- to which I was invited by himself personally, when he deemed that my presence was necessary.

Q. You were not the one to make all of his phone calls; is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You were not the one logging his daily activities; is that correct?

A. That is also correct. He did not have a log-book. He had a secretary, a personal assistant, who made notes of all of his applications. However, knowing him and the entire procedure, he avoided that practice as much as possible.

MS. MARCUS: Could I have private session again, please.

JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.

(Private session)

(4 lines redacted) ¹⁶²³⁰

(2 pages redacted) ¹⁶²³²

(13 lines redacted)

(Open session)

JUDGE ORIE: And I don't know whether I used the word "allegation" in page 26, line 1, but I think I used another word, but ... Madam Registrar ...

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

JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. Please proceed.

MS. MARCUS:

Q. Mr. Dimitrijevic, you testified yesterday at page 16191: "So I didn't say we were part of the army or that we had been recorded as part of the army. We were the TO, the 101st Training Centre in Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem. I think I explained that ¹⁶²³³ yesterday, and I'm repeating it today. We were, quite simply, on very good terms with the JNA ..."

Your evidence is that there was no link between the SDG and the Serbian MUP; is that correct?

A. As far as I know, that is correct.

MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer please call up Exhibit D31, page 1 in English and in B/C/S.

Q. What you will see coming up on the screen in front of you is a Defence exhibit. This is -- means that this is an exhibit tendered by the Defence team, in this case the team of Mr. Simatovic, in support of their case. It is an official military document dated the 18th of October, 1991, submitted to the first department of internal security of the SSNO and the security organ of the 1st Military District, as you can read here, and it concerns the activities of Arkan's unit in the training centre in Erdut.

Can I please draw your attention to the second full paragraph of this document. As you can see, it states:

"During several consecutive contacts with Arkan, he stated that the weaponry, ammunition, and mines and explosives had been supplied by the MUP and the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Serbia and that he had been distributing them to the TO staffs in Erdut, Sarvas, and Borovo Selo."

This is, therefore, a military document reporting that Arkan received his weapons, ammunition, mines, and explosives from both the Ministry of Defence and from the Ministry of the Interior of the ¹⁶²³⁴ Republic of Serbia. You were not aware that weapons and ammunition had been supplied by both the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of the Interior, were you?

A. The document was issued on the 18th of October, 1991, and I said that I joined the SDG in late November. And I already found everything there, the ammunition, the weaponry. I didn't know where they had arrived from. What I stated was that from the moment that I joined and further on, the SDG received supplies from the TO of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem and from the JNA.

Q. Okay. So if I understand you correctly, you do not have any information about where the weapons and ammunition came from, the ones that you found there upon your arrival in November of 1991; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer please call up exhibit -- yes, sir.

JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, if you have a look at the next exhibit, first of all I think it's irrelevant for a witness to know where the document comes there. There's a clear suggestion and invitation you can believe it becomes -- because it comes from the Simatovic Defence. I'd like you to refrain from such comments. Apart from that, you said that this document establishes that -- it establishes what Arkan told those who are reporting, that's the precise summary of the document. Not what happened, but what was said that had happened.

Now, the distinction is perhaps not very great, but I'd like you ¹⁶²³⁵ to be very precise on these matters, especially if you start with a comment on the document which seems to be an invitation, you can believe it because it comes from the Simatovic Defence. Please refrain from that.

MS. MARCUS: Understood, Your Honour. Could the Court Officer please call up Exhibit P1078, the first page, please.

And, Your Honour, I see that we're approaching the break time. I have a few questions on this and then I will be able to pause, if it's all right with Your Honours.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm also looking at the Stanisic Defence. If that would be limited to not more than five to seven minutes, that's okay. Please proceed.

MS. MARCUS:

Q. Mr. Dimitrijevic, the document you see before you is another military report dated the 9th of January, 1992. This one contains information from the 12th Corps command security organ on the subject of Zeljko Raznatovic, the commander --

MS. MARCUS: Yes.

JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, if Ms. Marcus could finish her sentence, I was already looking at you so that I'll not forget you. Ms. Marcus, would you please complete your sentence to the extent you have not done yet.

MS. MARCUS: I was going to move to the next page and then quote something and then put the question. ¹⁶²³⁶

JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, Mr. Bakrac, before we move to the next page.

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise for interrupting Ms. Marcus. I'm looking at the transcript. What I see in the transcript is "information" and the interpretation we receive is "report." This is some intelligence that may be correct but doesn't have to be correct. A report is something entirely different. Let us not confuse the witness. Let us have the exact interpretation to avoid any confusion.

JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, a minute ago I made an observation as to the way in which Ms. Marcus summarised a document. Nothing, not one word, what Ms. Marcus said until now suggests anything about the accuracy of the information. She just stated that it was a military report. She gave the date and that the report contains information from a security organ on a certain subject. She did not in any way suggest that this is right or wrong. So therefore, I think that your comment is -- was not necessary, unless you could clarify what ...

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I may have misspoken. In the B/C/S version the title is "information," whereas the English version translates that word "information" as "report." Ms. Marcus did speak about information - I read that in the transcript - however, the witness received interpretation into B/C/S as "report," and I believe that there is a difference between the two.

JUDGE ORIE: Linguistically they may not be the same words, but as far as the gist of what Ms. Marcus said, I think it's the same. The ¹⁶²³⁷ observation was not necessary, was superfluous.

We move to page 2 of the report, or information - apparently "information" is translated in the official translation as "report" - and we'll hear what the question of Ms. Marcus will be for the witness. Please proceed.

MS. MARCUS: Could I please have page 3 in English and page 2 in B/C/S.

JUDGE ORIE: I'm sorry for intervening.

MS. MARCUS: No problem.

Q. I'd like to draw your attention to the bottom of the page in B/C/S, where it says:

"The weapons and vehicles were acquired from the TO, MUP, and reserve force of the JNA."

This is yet another document prepared by the army, reporting that Arkan had received weapons from the MUP, this one dated in January 1992. Before I ask my question, I'd like to turn to page 4 in English, which corresponds to page 3 in B/C/S.

Here, it says: "It is known that Raznatovic is openly supported by the MUP, TO, and MNO of the Republic of Serbia, but it is claimed that this is on the direct orders of the most senior," then there's an illegible word, "of the Republic of Serbia."

And a bit further in that paragraph, it says: "Raznatovic is officially subordinated to the 12th Corps, but only in formal terms, as can be seen from the following ..." ¹⁶²³⁸ I can give you a moment to read through the rest of that paragraph and then I'll ask you a question.

A. Yes, it's not very legible, but I believe that I understood the gist of what is written in the document.

JUDGE ORIE: Let's, then, read to the witness, because if there's any uncertainty about what he reads ... I'll read it for you. After "as can be seen from the following," it continues:

"... he enters and leaves combat when he wants; he is quartered in a luxury building while the Corps Command suffers a squalid existence in farms and schools; he enters the command posts of brigades and the corps uninvited or without a pass, while he himself only receives visitors by appointment and with his approval; he makes public statements about the JNA, and so forth."

That's what it reads. Ms. Marcus.

MS. MARCUS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

Q. Mr. Dimitrijevic, from the military point of view, this report seems to say that although Arkan may have been resubordinated to the JNA for certain operations, he was understood and known to be supported by, among others, the Serbian MUP. You were not aware of this support from the Serbian MUP; is that correct?

JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac.

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't see the words "the Serbian MUP" anywhere here. I see "the MUP, the Territorial Defence," and then "the Ministry of Defence of the ¹⁶²³⁹ Republic of Serbia." Let's not confuse the witness.

JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's a matter of interpretation, whether the Republic of Serbia relates to the three instances mentioned or not. And let's also not forget that this is the last part of portions that were read by Ms. Marcus. Mr. Bakrac, would you be -- show a bit more restraint in commenting on questions. And if so, then that we first invite the witness to take his earphones off.

Ms. Marcus, your question was: Whether you were aware, Witness, of this support from - let me make it broader - support from the entities mentioned, including the MUP.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The MUP of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, the TO of Baranja, Slavonia, and Western Srem, and JNA, that was that. I didn't know of any other support. I didn't -- I don't know whether I was invited to provide comment to what I read. It says here that Arkan made public statements about the JNA. In view of the report that was issued in 1991, those public statements mean that a proven nationalist he assisted on the creation of a Serbian army. The then-JNA at the beginning of war in Yugoslavia was still an army where there were officers and troops from all over Yugoslavia. He expressed a great deal of mistrust towards such an army.

JUDGE ORIE: You're commenting on the document beyond what you're asked to do. If there's any further need, then the other parties may put questions or Ms. Marcus may put a follow-up question. Ms. Marcus, you may proceed.

MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I'll pause here for the break. Just ¹⁶²⁴⁰ before I do, I would refer the Chamber to Exhibits P327 and the testimony from the 6th of July, 2009, at transcript 1808 to 1811.

JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. We take a break. And we'll resume at five minutes to 11.00.

[The witness stands down]

--- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.

JUDGE ORIE: I would like to deal with a few procedural matters before we continue. I have considered to do this at the very end of today's session and then to warn the parties that if they would not finish the examination of the witness in time, that we had to delay it until tomorrow, which means an extra session for just 15 minutes. I trust that the parties will do their utmost best to finish the -- to conclude the examination of the witness.

For the first time, I would like to go into private session.

(Private session)

(9 lines redacted) ¹⁶²⁴¹

(page redacted) ¹⁶²⁴²

(7 lines redacted)

(Open session)

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

JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. The Chamber suggested to the parties that they would meet or communicate on the subject dealt with in the urgent Prosecution motion to compel provision of documents to be tendered through Defence witnesses, a motion which was filed on the 13th of January, 2012. Could I hear either, from the Simatovic Defence, a response to this motion or any information as to the matter being settled or agreed upon. Because if there would be an agreement between the Prosecution and Defence in this respect, of course the Chamber would refrain from issuing an order. Mr. --

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Your Honour, I can take that commitment really. We will do our best to provide documents seven days prior to the testimony or even earlier than that, perhaps ten days prior to the beginning of the testimony. The practice has shown that during proofing one or two documents crop up that had not been announced and we find them important for the Trial Chamber. Therefore, we ask the ¹⁶²⁴³ Prosecution's and the Trial Chamber's indulgence in such a situation. We take it upon ourselves to provide all the necessary documents seven days prior to the arrival of the witness.

JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, Ms. Marcus, is this commitment sufficient to put the motion on hold?

MS. MARCUS: With respect to the first part, Your Honour, yes, it is. Thank you.

I do regret raising this with the Chamber, but we would also appreciate a commitment from the Simatovic Defence for prompt responses to out-of-court queries. We have a consistent problem with asking and then obtaining responses, waiting for responses, and then we very reluctantly engage the Chamber on these matters that we can deal with out of court. So I did -- that was included in the last motion regrettably for this reason. So if we could have that commitment from the Simatovic Defence, then that would completely dispense with the motion, Your Honour.

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we're in open session. I apologise to my learned friends from the OTP. This may even be impolite and may sound like a position that shows a lack of practice, but the -- this case is voluminous, we have a lot of work to do. Sometimes we are late with a response or we even forget to respond. I apologise for all of our past behaviours to our learned friend from the Prosecution. In the future we will try and reply to all of the requests and applications as soon as possible.

JUDGE ORIE: I suggest to the parties the following, that ¹⁶²⁴⁴ sometimes communications are more urgent than others. If you would find a kind of a code for the urgent ones so that if you have not received, well, let's say, within 24 hours a response to a matter you consider to be urgent, to just send with the code word like "respond now," or whatever you choose so as to alert the Prosecution -- the other party that there is an urgent response requested.

Would that be --

MS. MARCUS: We will do that, Your Honour.

JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I'll leave the code words to the parties. Next item, there was a Stanisic Defence application for an order pursuant to Rule 54 bis to the Government of the Republic of Serbia to produce documents filed on the 25th of October. During the hearing which was held on the 21st of November, the representatives of the Government of Serbia agreed to engage in further discussion with the Stanisic Defence about providing unredacted documents. Any progress to be reported on this matter?

MR. JORDASH: Significantly progress. I can't give you --

JUDGE ORIE: Okay.

MR. JORDASH: -- the details, but yes.

JUDGE ORIE: Most important for us is that we do not forget about it. There is a motion, and the Chamber, of course, is constantly aware that motions are there to be decided upon, unless there are good reasons to put them on hold for a moment. Could I understand your answer to be that at this moment you do not urge the Chamber to decide on the motion but that you rather rely on the progress made in your conversations with ¹⁶²⁴⁵ the Republic of Serbia?

MR. JORDASH: Precisely so, Your Honour.

JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Then, for the Simatovic Defence, we have been informed that Witness DFS-001 is, though still hospitalised, is expected to be released from hospital soon and --

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. We have the same information.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes --

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] We will try to schedule him for a later time.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber needs to know what that scheduling looks like because it has to adapt a decision. The safe conduct matter is dependent on the timing of the witness's appearance for testimony. So if you could inform the Chamber about a new scheduling as soon as possible.

Then I have to read out - and that's my last item - one decision, which is the Chamber's decision on the Stanisic Defence's Rule 92 bis motion concerning Witness DST-061.

On the 25th of November of last year, the Stanisic Defence filed a confidential motion requesting the admission of the witness statement of Witness DST-061 pursuant to Rule 92 bis of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The Prosecution responded on the 5th of December, 2011, opposing the motion and requesting that the witness be called for cross-examination. On the 15th of December, the ¹⁶²⁴⁶ Chamber, through an informal communication, informed the parties that the motion was denied and they'd also communicated that the parties should limit themselves in time when examining the witness should he be called to testify.

The Defence submitted that the statement satisfies all the requirements of Rule 92 bis of the Rules and that there are no factors present against its admission into evidence. It submitted that the statement does not relate to the acts and conduct of the accused, that it is cumulative to other evidence and relevant to the political background and the character of the accused. The Defence submitted that it would file a verification of the witness's declaration pursuant to Rule 92 bis (B) of the Rules at a later stage.

The Prosecution submitted that the statement goes to the acts and conduct of the accused and of other named members of the joint criminal enterprise. It further argued that the statement deals with life and important issues between the parties in this case. The Chamber considered that the witness's evidence relates to a large extent to background information but that some portions of the witness statement deal with life and important issues between the parties, such as the accused 's alleged participation in the alleged joint criminal enterprise. And for this reason, the Chamber considered that the witness should be called for cross-examination and denies the Stanisic Defence request for admission under Rule 92 bis of the Rules, but stated that the examination of the witness should be limited to the issues in this period. ¹⁶²⁴⁷ And this concludes the Chamber's decision.

Then could the witness be escorted into the courtroom. Ms. Marcus, could I urge you to see how you can most efficiently conclude the cross-examination of the witness.

MS. MARCUS: I don't think it will be a problem, Your Honour.

JUDGE ORIE: Will not be a problem -- no, but I take it also not a problem in view of that the other parties might have some questions for the witness as well?

MS. MARCUS: That's right, Your Honour.

JUDGE ORIE: That's great.

[The witness takes the stand]

JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, you may proceed.

MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour. Could the Court Officer please call up 65 ter 2608.23. For the information of everyone, this is a still taken from Exhibit P2976.

Q. Mr. Dimitrijevic, can you identify by full name the individual who appears here with the nickname of Zuti?

A. No, I can't.

Q. If you don't know his name, does he look familiar to you?

A. I can't recall the face.

Q. Thank you.

MS. MARCUS: I'm done with the photo.

Q. I'd like to ask you a few questions now about your traffic accident --

JUDGE ORIE: Before we -- should this be marked for ¹⁶²⁴⁸ identification? Because, of course, if it's not in any way recorded, then we do not know which photograph the witness did not --

MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. I would just -- I apologise. I should note for the record where it's -- which time-code it comes from, from that exhibit. Or we could MFI it if you prefer. But it comes from P2976 at 21 minutes and 30 seconds.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and you have mentioned the nickname, so therefore that should then be sufficient to have a clear record.

MS. MARCUS: I hope so.

JUDGE ORIE: Then there's no need to have it marked for identification.

Please proceed.

MS. MARCUS: Thank you.

Q. So I'm going to ask you a few questions about your traffic accident, which took place, if I'm not mistaken, in March of 1994. Is that date correct?

A. On the 4th of March, yes, correct.

Q. You were travelling with Milorad Ulemek, aka Legija, who was driving; is that correct?

A. It is.

Q. And travelling along with you were Mihajlo Ulemek and Sinisa Stojicic, Badza's brother; is that accurate?

A. No. There was Sinisa Stojicic, who was in the vehicle. Mihajlo Ulemek was in the other car.

Q. Right. So there were two vehicles involved, the vehicle with you ¹⁶²⁴⁹ and Legija and Sinisa Stojicic, and then another vehicle with Mihajlo Ulemek. Do I have that right?

A. As well as some other people in the second vehicle.

Q. Where were you travelling from and to at the time of the accident?

A. From Belgrade to Pirot, a town in Serbia some 250 kilometres away from Belgrade.

Q. What was the purpose of your trip?

A. One of the reasons was to meet a man who was willing to assist the SDG. His nickname was -- well, I can't recall now. I can't recall his name either. I think his nickname was Sraf, S-r-a-f. We were supposed to meet him in Pirot.

Q. Was it common for you to move about with Legija and Sinisa Stojicic?

A. No. I did associate with Legija privately and we travelled frequently, but Sinisa was not the usual passenger. His presence was explained by the fact that he was the person who was supposed to introduce us to this person, I think his first name was Zoran, whom we didn't know.

Q. What about with Mihajlo, Mile, Ulemek, was it common for you to move about with him?

A. No. We were some sort of small delegation. In the second vehicle there was Mihajlo Ulemek, Rado Rakovac, and Vukasin Gojak. There was a lull. There were no activities in terms of combat. And we were simply tasked with going there, meeting the man, and see what kind of ¹⁶²⁵⁰ assistance he could provide. It was nothing out of the ordinary. The only thing that was different was the presence of Sinisa Stojicic who was supposed to introduce us to him since none of us knew him.

Q. Isn't it a fact that before the investigators arrived on the scene of the accident, money and weapons were transferred from the Pajero to the Mercedes?

A. First of all, it was impossible. We dropped down some 20 metres into a river. I don't know where you get this information from. I was in a coma three days and I woke on the third day in Nis. We had no weapons on board and there was no need for it. It was a regular visit. As for any money, I did have a certain amount of money in my pocket and it was part of an instalment for a vehicle which I had bought immediately prior to the event. And the deal with the person selling it was to pay half up front and the other half when the car was delivered. It was the only money that we had with us that amounted to any significant amount. I don't know what other money you may have in mind.

JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, for the Chamber to have a good picture, but I might have missed something: Were you in the Pajero or were you in the Mercedes?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the Pajero.

JUDGE ORIE: And the amount of money you had with you was how much?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 7.000 German marks, which I had in my back pocket, in my pants. Nothing special. It was worth half the money that I was supposed to pay to the dealer in the shop. ¹⁶²⁵¹

JUDGE ORIE: That's what you explained. Please proceed.

MS. MARCUS:

Q. You said there were no weapons found. Isn't it the case that the police found a pistol at the scene of the accident, and when they identified the owner of the pistol they found that it was owned by Radovan Stojicic, aka, Badza?

A. I am unaware of that piece of information. We didn't even have our own side-arms or any handguns. We didn't have licences to bear arms in the territory of the Republic of Serbia. As for how that handgun appeared there, that is something I don't know.

MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer please call up 65 ter 1D2855.

Q. Mr. Dimitrijevic, what you will see in a moment on your screen is a report from the DB in Nis from the 22nd of March, 1994, containing the facts I've just put to you and more details about this incident. According to this report, while Sinisa Stojicic was engaged in these activities which are described by the DB as extortion, he was introducing himself to citizens as a DB employee. Are you aware of this?

A. No. It was the only time I saw Sinisa Stojicic. We were in the accident together, and following it I never met him in my life again. Therefore -- yeah, I don't know.

Q. Isn't it a fact that this mission that you were on was with the aim of, in fact, extorting this Zoran whom you mention, who I think is named Zoran Mitic? ¹⁶²⁵²

A. No. My participation in that journey was not to that effect. What I told you is the information I was given when I set out. Now, whether someone said something different, that I don't know.

Q. Well, according to this report, due to the accident that befell you which blocked your mission, Arkan himself carried out the beating of Zoran Mitic, obtained 25.000 Deutschemarks for the Serbian Unity Party, confiscated Mr. Mitic's BMW, and obliged him to pay 100.000 Deutschemarks as a donor to the Party of Serbian Unity account. Do you deny that the contents of this report, as I've just cited to you, are accurate with respect to the issues I put to you?

A. I am completely unaware of what you're asking me about. I can't say either yes or no. I simply don't know.

MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I'd like to tender this document into evidence. It came up on a search of the witness's name and was -- is on the Stanisic exhibit list.

JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections. Madam Registrar.

THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D2855 receives number P3062, Your Honours.

JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer please call up 65 ter 6348.

JUDGE ORIE: Could I --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Apologies.

JUDGE ORIE: -- one additional question in relation to the previous matter. ¹⁶²⁵³ You said you travelled to Pirot in order to meet a person, and you gave his nickname and ... to meet for what purposes?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I said, I was told by Arkan before the trip that we were going to meet the man and see to what extent he is able to assist us or to assist the SDG and the Party of Serbian Unity, because he declared himself as a supporter. It was up to me to assess such allegations and the recommendation by Sinisa Stojicic who spoke to us about that. We had not known the person previously. Your Honours, by your leave, a moment ago I was shown a document which I tried to read in Serbian -- Serbo-Croatian. There was a reference to certain archaeological findings by Sinisa Stojicic and it didn't refer to any traffic accident, in particular the one I was in. I have no idea what this is about and what sort of archaeological findings this concerns. Is it a mistake perhaps? Why else would this be shown to me, since I am completely ignorant of it?

JUDGE ORIE: Well, I -- it's not something I noticed, but I take it, Ms. Marcus, that you could give an answer to that. But before giving you an opportunity to do so, what is the kind of support or assistance you expected from that person? Did you know, did he have -- what was it that you considered relevant to meet for? I mean, support could be of any kind. What was your information?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, information about my participation in the trip to Pirot came my way from Zeljko Raznatovic, Arkan. He basically wanted me to see whether the man was simply boasting, trying to gain some reputation in the field by saying that he ¹⁶²⁵⁴ wished to assist. That information originally came our way by Sinisa -- from Sinisa Stojicic, whom, as I said, had not seen before or after. En route to Pirot near Aleksinac, some 170 kilometres from Belgrade, we met him and he got on board --

JUDGE ORIE: He got on board. Now, what I asked you is: What kind of assistance, according to your knowledge or information, that person could provide? Was that -- could he provide you with uniforms or with arms or with money or with -- with broadcasting in favour of the SDG? What was it that you expected he could assist the SDG with?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] More or less everything you've enumerated. To tell you the truth, since I never reached the man due to the accident, I could only gauge his importance by what I was told by Zeljko Raznatovic, Arkan. And it is precisely what you mentioned --

JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]...

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- Pirot is close to the Bulgarian border, and all trade in terms of export and import needed to be verified, because the man himself, I mean Sinisa, hinted at that. It is what Arkan told me. The people who were with us, such as Legija and others, were not well-versed in such situations and they were unable to assess or rely on their previous experience with documents. It is because of that reason that my experience was needed, I believe. I see no other reason why I would have to take part in the trip.

JUDGE ORIE: So it was -- he could assist in equipment of whatever kind to cross borders. Is that how I have to understand your answer? ¹⁶²⁵⁵

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't think you understood me properly. You mentioned several possibilities that the SDG had in terms of money, good, and other things. I -- he had a company. I don't know what that company did. My task was to go to the company to see whether it was a serious company, whether it was just a front, whether it was just a one-man band, a person who had a stamp and pretended that he had a company. That was my task, to see him and to assess whether he could help us or not. I never saw him. I never reached him. Some 60 kilometres before we reached our destination we had that car accident. I fell from a 20-metre-high rock into a river.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Part of one of your previous answers was: "En route ... some 170 kilometres from Belgrade, we met him and he got on board." Did he board one of the vehicles?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was my personal bad luck. I was a co-driver and we didn't know him. He had an arrangement with Arkan -- please give me a minute --

JUDGE ORIE: No, please answer my questions would be -- I asked you whether he boarded one of the vehicles. He did or he did not. Let's start with an answer to that question.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course he did. Yes. Yes, he did.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And from one of the previous answers I do understand that one of the possibilities would have been that he would financially support the SDG. Is that correctly understood or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have to repeat. It was our ¹⁶²⁵⁶ assumption that he could support us financially or in kind --

JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that was what I was asking and apparently you say that this was one of the possible ways of supporting the SDG. Yes.

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.

JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac.

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --

JUDGE ORIE: -- if there are any questions you would like to put to the witness, of course you have an opportunity to do so in -- soon. Ms. Marcus, please proceed.

MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, in order to be sure that the witness completely has an opportunity and understands what the previous document was, I'll show him the paragraphs that I was referring to. So if the Court Officer will indulge me, please. 1D2855. And the paragraphs would be on page 2 in English, the last three paragraphs; and page 2 to 3 in B/C/S, bottom -- the bottom of page 2 in both languages. And the witness and the Chamber can have a look.

The first of the relevant paragraphs starts with "On 3 March 1994 ..."

It looks like the B/C/S -- my Cyrillic is not very good, but it looks like that might not be page 2 or -- it should be on page 2 in B/C/S also, the bottom two paragraphs. Yeah.

Perhaps we could go to the top of the next page in the B/C/S version so that the witness can --

Q. Or are you satisfied, Mr. Dimitrijevic? Do you understand now ¹⁶²⁵⁷ why I tendered that document?

A. Yes, I do, thank you. May I say something? In the text there is information that I would like to comment upon. It says Mercedes car with licence plate so and so driven by Mihajlo Ulemek accompanied by a different vehicle, so there was another vehicle. He caused an accident when he was transporting me, who was injured and unconscious, to the hospital in Nis.

Q. So that's a fact you're adding. You're just adding, for us, an additional fact; is that right?

A. Well, I'm reading from the document and I can only say yes. This is what the text says. There were actually two accidents. The first one was the one in which I was injured and there was also a subsequent accident. It says money and weapons had been transferred from the Pajero to the Mercedes. That's not true. He was transporting me and he was speeding. There was a sense of urgency in the whole matter. He wanted to get to the hospital as soon as possible because I had been seriously injured. So I could -- I almost didn't make it to the hospital because of that second accident.

Q. Okay.

MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, unless you wish more clarification, I'm ready to move on.

JUDGE ORIE: Please move on.

MS. MARCUS: Could I now have 65 ter 6348, please.

Q. Mr. Dimitrijevic, the document you will see before you was received from the Serbian MUP in response to a request that we sent them ¹⁶²⁵⁸ about your activities. This relates to the same traffic accident which I've just been asking you about. I would ask you again: Isn't it a fact, as stated in this official DB document, that you were sent by Arkan to enforce the collection of a debt on his behalf?

A. I never did any such thing on behalf of Zeljko Raznatovic. This would be absolutely foreign to me. I had no experience in such things, not before the war, not after the war. I've never done any such thing on anybody's behalf. I have never extorted money even on my own behalf.

MS. MARCUS: Could I tender this document into evidence, please. The redactions, we are in discussion with the Serbian authorities. They have promised to provide us with --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My apologies --

JUDGE ORIE: Would you please not interrupt Ms. Marcus at this moment. If you want to say anything after she had finished her sentence, this --

MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour. The Serbian authorities will be providing us with an unredacted version, so perhaps the best thing would be that it would be MFI'd. We received it in response to RFA 2029.

JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dimitrijevic, there was something you wanted to tell us, I think.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have another document dated 15 March 1994, and the title is an official note, 14 March 1994, and I am reading about some people that I don't know. I don't know what the document is about. I don't know at all what the ¹⁶²⁵⁹ document is about. "Danica Draskovic" is mentioned here, somebody called "Stamenkovic," and another person called "Mladenovic," some "Zvonko Omsjalic [sic]"; I don't know them.

JUDGE ORIE: One second --

MS. MARCUS: If we turn to --

JUDGE ORIE: Once second --

MS. MARCUS: Page 2, Your Honour. I'm sorry, Your Honour.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps we take the witness to the relevant portion --

MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE ORIE: -- because he seems to be confused about reading portions of documents which apparently are not related to the questions you are putting to him.

MS. MARCUS: Yes. We can turn to page 2, Your Honour. It's the second paragraph in English.

And in B/C/S it would be -- it would start on the bottom of page 1 and continue on to page 2 in B/C/S.

JUDGE ORIE: This apparently is a report about the events. And you have answered the question already put to you by Ms. Marcus, that if this document in any way suggests that you were involved in extortion of a person, that you strongly deny that you ever have been involved in such activities.

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, let's please look at the second page. And let me say for the record that the translation may be erroneous -- [overlapping speakers] -- ¹⁶²⁶⁰

MS. MARCUS: [Previous translation continues] ... Your Honours, can I intervene please? If Mr. Bakrac wants to put questions to the witness, he can do so --

JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you can do so --

MS. MARCUS: -- later.

JUDGE ORIE: -- Mr. Bakrac, there's no ... and if there's any translation or possibility of a translation error, then you know how to [indiscernible].

Please proceed.

MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer please call up Exhibit P2151 but not broadcast it to the public. And if we could have page 12 once that's called up, please.

Q. I'm going to show you some photos, Mr. Dimitrijevic. I'm going to ask you if you recognise any of the individuals who are shown in these photos.

MS. MARCUS: Page 12, please.

[Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

JUDGE ORIE: I have to explain to the public that since there is a possibility that you could have a look at the screens just before you, that we have to close the curtains just for a short while.

MS. MARCUS: If I could have page 12, please.

Q. Mr. Dimitrijevic, I'm just going to go from one photo to the next. And if you recognise anybody, please tell us. You can see the top of the page. Now the bottom, please. Do you recognise either of those?

A. No. ¹⁶²⁶¹

MS. MARCUS: Could I please have the next page.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

MS. MARCUS:

Q. Do you recognise this person in the top photo?

A. No.

Q. Do you recognise the -- sorry. Do you recognise the badge on his arm?

A. I do. I don't recognise the cap, the hat. I recognise the badge, though.

Q. What is the badge, please?

A. I can't see it too well, but I would say that this is a depiction of a tiger which was used by the SDG. That was one of the badges, one of the symbols, used by the SDG.

Q. I'm just going to show you a few more photos.

MS. MARCUS: Again could I have the bottom of the page, please.

Q. Do you recognise this individual?

A. I don't recognise the individual, but I recognise the badge. On one shoulder our members would wear the badge of the Serbian Volunteer Guards, and on the other shoulder there would be a badge depicting a tiger.

MS. MARCUS: Can I have the next page, please, the top photo.

Q. I'll go to the bottom one if you don't recognise --

A. No, no, no, I don't.

Q. Okay.

A. I don't recognise this one either. ¹⁶²⁶²

MS. MARCUS: Can I have the next page, please.

Q. And the bottom photo, I take it that you don't recognise these people either; is that correct?

A. Yes, you're right. I don't recognise any of these people.

MS. MARCUS: One more page, please.

Q. Do you recognise this person?

JUDGE ORIE: Aren't we still looking at the same page? It's my recollection that I saw --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe so.

MS. MARCUS:

Q. Do you recognise this individual?

A. No, no. No.

Q. Do you recognise the vehicle that's depicted in the photo?

A. I do. This is one of the people-movers or vans. And the marking on the vehicle is the same that our vehicles had when I was there.

Q. There has been evidence in this case that these photos of Arkan's men were taken at the Skorpion headquarters in Djeletovci after the Trnovo operation in July of 1995, and that they were involved in cutting down timber for later sale. Isn't it a fact that the proceeds from the timber the Tigers cut in Djeletovci was one way that you raised funds for the SDG and the SSJ?

A. I've never heard that before. I had no information that funds would be raised from timber selling.

Q. There has been much evidence in this case of looting carried out by Arkan and his men. Isn't that, in fact, another way that Arkan raised ¹⁶²⁶³ funds for the SDG and the SSJ, through looting?

A. As far as I know, that wasn't one of the ways. I can explain. But if I did so, I would probably be admonished by the Chamber for being too long in my answers.

JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus will tell you whether she's seeking your explanation.

MS. MARCUS:

Q. You have testified about your work with Arkan's businesses. Are you saying that all of Arkan's businesses were legitimate?

A. As far as I know, I can say yes to your question. We had three or four types of final checks by the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Serbia. We had a bakery, the Delije association, a private company called Ari [phoen], and another private company called SDG Company. They all made income and they were subject to checks by the financial bodies of Serbia. They paid us frequent visits to make sure that there were no financial abuses. We already enjoyed some sort of a bad reputation, so Arkan made sure that we did everything by the book. We didn't want to tar our image among the public even more.

MS. MARCUS: I'm done with this document, in case for the public gallery.

Q. So you deny, then, that the businesses of Arkan's were part of a system of organised crime?

A. As far as I know, I can deny that.

Q. Mr. Dimitrijevic, you were asked on the 17th of January at page 16098 whether the SDG members in Erdut and later on ever received ¹⁶²⁶⁴ regular salaries. And you responded:

"No, that never happened at any time. The volunteers were never paid or compensated in any way for the time that they spent in the Serbian Volunteer Guards unit."

You were asked a follow-up question: "Mr. Dimitrijevic, while you were in Erdut and later on, did troops, members of the Serbian Volunteer Guards, receive regular salaries?"

And you answered: "No, that never happened at any time" -- I'm sorry, it seems that I've repeated that.

So your evidence is that the SDG volunteers worked for nothing throughout the entire war period, did not receive any payments or any remuneration of any kind from 1991 through 1995. Do I understand your evidence correctly?

A. You understood my evidence correctly. The SDG never had a numerical strength of over 250 people. The total number of guards we ever had all together was 3500 to 4000. Does -- that means that some stayed for a month, some stayed for two weeks, some stayed with us for as long as a year. So it is not true that none of them received any money throughout all that time.

Q. Perhaps you could clarify for me. What you're saying is they never received any payment, but they did receive some payment for other things that they did. Is that what you're saying? In other words, for the work that they carried out with the SDG, they never received any kind ¹⁶²⁶⁵ of payment or remuneration. Can I please have a clarification of your evidence.

A. Yes, that's that. They were never remunerated as volunteers with the SDG. They were never paid and never received salary, no remuneration. We never gave them any money. They volunteered. They were not there for the money that was in the job.

Q. How did they support their families?

JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, could I first seek clarification. The question was whether they received any salaries. The question was put in such a way that who would have paid them salaries has not been dealt with. In your last answer, you said:

"They were never paid and never received salary, no remuneration. We never gave them any money."

Would they have received from anyone else any money while serving as volunteers to the benefit of the SDG?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe I didn't express myself well. As far as I know, they did not receive remuneration for any -- from anybody else for their engagement.

As to the Prosecutor's question, I can clarify or I can repeat. The question was about how they supported their families. It was a very personal question. Joining the SDG was their personal decision, so I suppose that they had first provided -- ensured provisions for their families. Most of them did not have any commitments. I was a very rare among them who was a family man, who had a wife and children. They were all young. They were all inspired by their feeling of patriotism when ¹⁶²⁶⁶ they joined the SDG. I don't know how they supported themselves. They never stayed for the entire four years. At first they came and went very sporadically. Some of them stayed only a few days. When the first joined us, we gave them a document to sign. That was --

JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think that if Ms. Marcus needs further details, you have basically answered her question.

Ms. Marcus, please proceed. And if you need further details, don't hesitate to ask.

MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, I have about 10, maximum 15, minutes left. The next portion is a bit difficult to interrupt. Would Your Honours like to take a break now or would we maybe continue until I conclude?

JUDGE ORIE: We are now at approximately 75 minutes. Ten minutes -- it, of course, it has two elements. The first one is that the other parties would have an opportunity to prepare for their further examination, which of course is better done during a break than before. No, I would say it's better done during a break when you've heard all of the evidence listed by the Prosecution. The other matter is, of course, that it would extend the session for another 10 to 15 minutes.

MR. JORDASH: Mr. Stanisic's view is that we should finish.

JUDGE ORIE: We should finish. Then, Ms. Marcus, then please keep a close eye on the clock.

MS. MARCUS: I will do, Your Honour.

Q. You have given evidence in relation to some of the individual SDG members. You testified at page 16159 that you know Jugoslav Simic and ¹⁶²⁶⁷ that he was in charge of the system of communications in the SDG. You told us at page 16152 that Mladen Sarac was an SDG member who was the Chief of Staff at one time in Erdut. You told us that Rade Rakonjac was a member of the SDG. And you spoke about Vlado Vukotic at page 16198. You spoke more often about Milorad Ulemek, aka Legija. And this morning you spoke about Srdjan Golubovic, whom you said was -- whom you identified as the person depicted in the photo kicking the civilians on the ground in P605. During your testimony at page 16077, you named the SDG members who appeared in a video that was shown to you. That video has been marked for identification as D641. And one of those individuals whom you named was Nebojsa Djordjevic.

MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer please call up P457 but not broadcast it to the public. My apologies to the public gallery. Or I could keep my screen off.

Q. What you see before you is one of many payment records provided to us by the Serbian DB, documenting payments made by the DB to individuals at various periods of time. This one, as you can see from the front page, contains a list of payments made to individuals in the period of the 1st to the 15th of January, 1995.

MS. MARCUS: Could I please have page 2.

Q. At number 2 you can see -- sorry, at number 3 you can see Srdjan Golubovic, whom you claimed had been fired by the SDG after that incident in Bijeljina in 1992.

MS. MARCUS: Could I please have page 3.

Q. Here you can see, at the first one, Mihajlo Ulemek at number 1. ¹⁶²⁶⁸

MS. MARCUS: Could I please have page 4.

JUDGE ORIE: Would the Defence teams agree that if Ms. Marcus just mentions the names of those appearing on the other pages, that she would --

MS. MARCUS: This is the last page.

JUDGE ORIE: This is the last page. Then --

MS. MARCUS: Sorry to interrupt you.

JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

MS. MARCUS:

Q. As you can see here, at number 2 we have Nebojsa Djordjevic, who was paid by the Serbian DB on this date. His name also appears on four other payment -- DB payment records as having received remuneration from the Serbian DB. You can also see Rade Rakonjac at number 3, Mladen Sarac at number 10, Vlado Vukotic at number 33, and Jugoslav Simic appears at number 34. No doubt you'll recognise other names on the lists we see before us also as other SDG members. Isn't that correct?

A. I do recognise some of the other names, that is true, although I'm not familiar with these lists.

Q. You told us that you know Mladen Sarac. Do you recognise the signature at the right of this page as Mladen Sarac's signature?

A. I can only presume it is his. I no longer remember his signature and I don't remember him signing any of my documents. I don't think I've ever seen his signature, actually.

Q. Milorad Ulemek, aka Legija, whom you see at the top of this page, appears on no less than 19 DB payment records dated between December 1994 ¹⁶²⁶⁹ and September 1995.

MS. MARCUS: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I do have one last page, that's page 23, please. And if we could focus on the signature.

Q. Part of your role in caring for wounded -- was caring for wounded SDG members. According to evidence presented in this case, four of the five DB payment records which contain the name of Nebojsa Djordjevic are signed by Franko Simatovic. Have you ever seen this signature by Franko Simatovic who signs here for Milan Radonjic?

A. I neither saw him or -- nor any of the lists you are showing me. It never reached the SDG headquarters. I'm completely unaware of this. It is the first time that I see it. I see that these are some kind of lists, but -- can I explain something about Srdjan Golubovic. Following Bijeljina in 1992, he was rehabilitated and called back to the ranks of the guard. In other words, it is possible that he was present on the date of these lists. It was practice that people were forgiven after some time. I know some of the people on the list, although most I don't. In any case, I see these lists for the first time, and I'm not aware of any such records being in existence. It wasn't done in Belgrade, so there's nothing I can say about it.

Q. Can I just follow up on something you just said. Earlier you told us that Srdjan Golubovic, whom we saw in that photo, was punished for what he had done and removed from the SDG. You just failed to mention the fact that he was later rehabilitated back into the SDG; is that right?

A. You didn't ask me about it. You didn't ask me about that. He ¹⁶²⁷⁰ was rehabilitated later on. He was on the list of the guards men and he was called regularly, although it was a different matter whom we called and whom we did not. Since it was a year or two later, we sort of thought he had learned his lesson by having been disciplined.

Q. Okay. Well, you've explained to us now that you're not aware of this list. There were other aspects of your evidence where you said you were not aware. On page 16144 --

JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.

MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dimitrijevic, you were also not asked whether he was removed. You just told us spontaneously. You were asked whether you recognised a person on the photograph. You said that you remembered that he was Srdjan Golubovic, nicknamed Max. You told us about the photograph. And then, without being asked, you told us: "And if I remember properly, he was even removed from the ranks of the Serbian Volunteer Guards."

It was only then that Ms. Marcus asked you further questions. The whole truth of the matter, therefore, was that he was removed and then later accepted again. Your duty is to tell us not only the truth, but the whole truth. And then to say "you never asked me whether he was accepted later on again" is an improper comment on the questioning because no one started asking you about him being removed either. Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour. It was not my intention to hurt anyone by saying that. ¹⁶²⁷¹

MS. MARCUS:

Q. At page 16144, you were asked: "Did you know that Franko Simatovic was the leader of a unit for special operations of the state security of Serbia?" You answered:

"No, I didn't know that. I don't know that." At page 16196 and -7 you were asked whether you knew that Badza was employed by the Serbian MUP, and you said "no." When asked whether you knew that Ilija Kojic was employed by the Serbian MUP, you said "no." When asked whether you knew that the SDG volunteers in Velika Kladusa collected payments in the field at Frenki's Red Beret headquarters, you said "I am not aware of that." You were asked at page -- today at page 19:

"You were not aware of the degree of involvement of Franko Simatovic in the Velika Kladusa operation?"

You said "no." You also said:

"I have no information of any pensions being paid out by the Serbian MUP."

Today at page 33 you were asked whether you were aware of any support from the entities mentioned in the document, including the MUP, and you said:

"I didn't know of any other support." You were not fully aware of all the aspects of the existing relationship between the SDG and the Serbian DB, were you? ¹⁶²⁷²

A. Concerning my job and my duties in the SDG headquarters as well as the headquarters of the Party of Serbian Unity, during the entire time of my tenure, I could never observe that the SDG was in any kind of communication with the State Security Service.

Q. I didn't ask you about communication only. I asked you about the relationship. Isn't it correct that you were not aware of the existing relationship between the SDG and the Serbian DB?

MR. JORDASH: I --

JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Jordash.

MR. JORDASH: I do object to the way that this is proceeding. It's quasi-logic.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes, I tend to agree. Ms. Marcus, the witness can tell us what he knows. And you can put to the witness what evidence we have. Now, it's not for the witness to determine whether that evidence is reliable, is conclusive, yes or no. The witness can tell us what he knows, and then it's for us to conclude on the basis of the evidence whether the witness's knowledge was complete, yes or no. I think it's no need to answer that to a witness. The possibility is that if he has on the basis of what he has heard of, on the basis of his experience, whether he has any reason to believe, either then or now, that he may not have been fully informed about such relations, that's a question you can put to the witness. But if he says: "I have no reason to believe that," that, of course, does not give a final answer to the issue. The issue being: Is this witness informed at a level that his absence of any knowledge of links between the SDG and ¹⁶²⁷³ the State Security Service, whether that -- what weight to give that in relation to other evidence, because that's apparently the matter we have to consider.

So I do not insist on you putting that question to the witness. But if you would prefer to do that, you have one more minute left to do so.

MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.

Q. I'll put one final question to you specifically, Mr. Dimitrijevic. You were not aware, were you, that the Serbian DB made hundreds of payments to SDG members, at least from the end of 1994 throughout 1995, were you?

A. I was not aware of that.

Q. Thank you.

MS. MARCUS: No further questions.

JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Marcus. We'll have a break. And we'll resume at five minutes to 1.00. May I inquire with the other parties whether -- how much time they think they would need.

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think I can have an arrangement with Mr. Jordash to conclude by the end of the session. I'll leave it up to him.

MR. JORDASH: I will only need 20 minutes.

JUDGE ORIE: Okay. And if, then, any time would be left at the end so we do not finish at 44, 45, or 46, that would give an opportunity for Ms. Marcus to -- if there are any urgent questions or for the ¹⁶²⁷⁴ Chamber.

We resume at five minutes to 1.00.

--- Recess taken at 12.25 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.58 p.m.

JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, are you ready?

MR. JORDASH: Yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed. Further Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash:

MR. JORDASH:

Q. Mr. Witness, just a few more questions, if I may. You were asked about Ilija Kojic and whether you knew he was a member of the Serbian MUP. There's been evidence in this case --

MR. JORDASH: Your Honours JF-029, P10093 to P10094 and all the way to P10096.

Q. -- that Kojic did not inform those around him in the SBWS that he was a member of the Serbian MUP. In fact, he didn't impose himself as a member of the Serbian MUP. In your dealings with him, do you agree with that?

A. I was not in contact with him. In my previous testimony I said I used to see him in Erdut but never communicated with him on any issue. Most of what I could say was about Mrgud, Mr. Milovanovic. As for his visits to the centre, he may have been there once or twice. That is how I knew who he was and that he was with the government. That was enough for me.

Q. So Kojic had nothing to do, then, with you and supplies to Arkan; ¹⁶²⁷⁵ correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you also confirm that Kojic was hospitalised from around November of 1991 until March/April of 1992 and was not in the SBWS region at that point?

JUDGE ORIE: Is there a dispute about this fact?

MS. MARCUS: I'd have to check that, Your Honour. Perhaps I could have a source.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

MR. JORDASH: The same witness I've just quoted. And it's part of the Defence case as well that that's correct. It's a Prosecution witness. And particularly page 109 -- 10093 to 10094. Kojic injured in battle in October 1991, hospitalised for three to four months.

Q. Now, moving on to -- no. Can you confirm that? Do you know anything about Kojic being hospitalised?

A. As I said, I don't know. I had no contacts with him whatsoever. I know of his existence and I did see him in Erdut, although I don't remember when exactly. It may well have been in 1993.

Q. Okay. Fair enough. Let's move on to a related subject, and alleged Serbian MUP supplies to Arkan and his men.

You were asked what you knew in relation to supplies before your arrival in November 1991, and you said you didn't know who had supplied Arkan's men prior to that time. Could I ask you to look the D273.

MR. JORDASH: Please, could we have that on the screen.

Q. And I want to ask whether you -- rather whether you know anything ¹⁶²⁷⁶ about this.

THE REGISTRAR: It's confidential evidence.

MR. JORDASH: Sorry?

THE REGISTRAR: It's a confidential document.

MR. JORDASH: Oh, thank you.

JUDGE ORIE: Therefore not to be shown to the public.

MR. JORDASH:

Q. It's a state security of Serbia report dated 18th of July, 1991. And as you'll see, it concerns a report about the transportation of weapons by the Ministry of Defence to the SAO Krajina and also to Arkan.

A. I don't know anything about this report.

Q. Let's go --

A. I wasn't there then.

Q. I want you to read the rest of the report, because there's some later information which you might be able to cast some light on. If you're finished that page, we can go to the next page.

A. I've read it.

MR. JORDASH: Next page, please. Thank you. And also for the English.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've read this. Should I keep reading?

MR. JORDASH:

Q. Yes. Let's go to the end. And I want to ask you about two things in the report.

A. I've read it. ¹⁶²⁷⁷

Q. Okay. Now, the report largely concerns supplies which the Serbian MUP or the Serbian DB had observed going from the Ministry of Defence of Serbia to the Krajina and approved in the first instance by Defence Minister Jokic. Did you have any experience of Jokic and his involvement in supplies to this region?

MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, the witness has testified that he wasn't there and he just testified again that he wasn't there. Perhaps Mr. Jordash could specify which time-period he's asking the witness about for his knowledge, considering the document is from a time well before he was there.

MR. JORDASH:

Q. I'm asking about 1991 and particularly the supply by the Ministry of Defence approved by Jokic and, as we can see by the report, those supplies at least in part going into the TO depot in Lipovaca and Arkan taking weapons from that supply. Do you know anything about that source of weapons being delivered or received by Arkan? Ministry of Defence to Lipovaca, Arkan taking from Lipovaca, 1991?

A. I have no information or knowledge to that extent since it took place prior to my arrival in the centre in Erdut. In other words, I really have nothing to say about these matters.

Q. Okay. Let me ask you one other thing about this document. This document also reports supplies by brothers called Zukanovic organising 13 transports to Slavonia, Baranja, Kordun, Lika, and Dalmatia, and Arkan taking parts of those supplies for himself. So another route effectively from Zukanovic to the region, Arkan taking supplies from them. Did you ¹⁶²⁷⁸ know anything about that?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

MR. JORDASH: Let's go to D32 -- sorry, D357, please. And it's confidential.

Q. Please have a read.

A. I've read it.

Q. Now, this, on the face of it, is a letter by Sokolovic, Sokolovic being minister of interior post-July 1991, proposing or suggesting a proposal that they write to the Ministry of Defence to stop the Ministry of Defence supplies which are going to Arkan. Did you know anything about Sokolovic, the Serbian MUP, writing to the Ministry of Defence, alerting them to their supplies being given to Arkan, and trying to prevent it?

A. I've no such knowledge. It took place at higher levels than the level I was at there. I'm unaware of this correspondence between the Ministry of National Defence and the MUP minister. In July it was Zoran Sokolovic.

Q. So it seems as though you don't know about the Serbian MUP's alleged supplies but you also don't know about the Serbian MUP attempting to prevent the supplies. That's the situation; you just don't know one way or another?

A. That is correct.

Q. Thank you. Let me just return quickly to the issue of the payment lists which you saw just before the break. And you said that ¹⁶²⁷⁹ they never reached the SDG headquarters. If the lists had reached the SDG headquarters, would you have seen them, do you think?

A. Absolutely. I would have to be able to see them. And not only the lists, but the money as well, and it wasn't there.

Q. So these payments to these individuals from Arkan's men as far as you're concerned were outside the ordinary financial scheme or financial administration set up by Arkan's men; is that right?

A. Could you please repeat the question. I'm afraid I did not understand it fully.

Q. As far as you're concerned, given that these payment lists had not arrived at some point on your desk, as far as you're concerned these payments to these -- Arkan's men in 1994 and 1995 must have been outside of the usual financial administration of Arkan's Tigers; is that right?

A. It is right. I apologise. A moment ago I was shown by the Prosecutor a number of lists with names. On one of those lists, I did not recognise a single person from the SDG. So, on one of those lists. I did recognise some names on the other lists, though. I really don't know what they referred to.

Q. Fair enough, and I'm not going to ask you anything else about that.

MR. JORDASH: The only other issue, Your Honours, I'd like to deal with is I'd like to tender 65 ter 6350, which was on the Prosecution's notified list of intended exhibits for this witness. It's a record of court proceedings arising from the car accident, which the witness testified about. And it was a trial in absentia of Legija for ¹⁶²⁸⁰ road safety violations leading to that accident. And I'd just like to tender it because there's aspects of it which I suggest corroborate what the witness has said concerning the accident and it leading to his vehicle going into a ditch. That's the sole use of the document that I can think of at this point in time.

MS. MARCUS: No objections.

MR. JORDASH: Thank you.

JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be ...

THE REGISTRAR: Document 6350 will receive number D648, Your Honours.

JUDGE ORIE: D648 is admitted into evidence. Mr. Jordash, you earlier asked the witness to read D357, which - and I'm not talking on my own knowledge -- but Madam Registrar informs me that it was MFI'd on the 16th of August of last year and that admission -- the decision on admission was pending further information about the provenance as asked by the Office of the Prosecutor.

MR. JORDASH: Certainly.

JUDGE ORIE: You refer to it as if it was evidence but it's not.

MR. JORDASH: I --

JUDGE ORIE: Nevertheless, you have shown it to the witness, the witness has read it, and you have received answers.

MR. JORDASH: I apologise for that, Your Honour. The only other thing I'd like to do is ask for the testimony yesterday which I was in a closed session, largely my cross-examination, to be made public.

JUDGE ORIE: We'll consider that and -- ¹⁶²⁸¹

MR. JORDASH: Thank you.

JUDGE ORIE: -- yes.

MR. JORDASH:

Q. Thank you, Mr. Witness.

JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, are you ready to ... and if -- do you have any need to put further questions to the witness?

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. With your leave. Re-examination by Mr. Bakrac:

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Dimitrijevic, first of all, let us look at 2D527. While we're waiting for this to appear on the screen, let me remind you that Ms. Marcus asked you by -- about Mladen Sarac and you said that at one point in time he was Chief of Staff; right?

A. Yes.

Q. Where was that, where was he Chief of Staff?

A. That was during the time when he was the Chief of Staff of the SDG in Erdut.

Q. Mr. Dimitrijevic --

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it seems that we do not have the correct interpretation, or, rather, the correct translation. This document is on our list for the following witness, but we need to show it to Mr. Dimitrijevic now. Can Mr. Dimitrijevic please read the heading on the left-hand side.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Am I supposed to read this?

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]

Q. With the Trial Chamber's leave. ¹⁶²⁸²

JUDGE ORIE: I think the mere fact that there's no final translation yet should not keep yourself from ... because that's the issue apparently, Mr. -- let me just check.

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'll try to do it in a restricted form. My learned friend Mr. Petrovic has found it in the system. Maybe it was wrongly uploaded. 2D527. Your Honour, while we're waiting for the translation, perhaps you will allow the witness to read the left top corner and he will see from the heading the title of the body in question.

My friend is telling me that there are two translations. The first one was wrong and then the subsequent translation that was uploaded is the right one. Here we see it ...

[Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

JUDGE ORIE: There seems to be a technical issue involved.

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Maybe I can be of assistance, Your Honours. There are two translations under this number. The second translation is correct, 2D01-2038 -- 39, I'm sorry.

Your Honours --

JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, you're the one who is responsible for uploading documents and translations. If you give clear instructions, you'll get what you asked for. If the Registrar is unable to produce what you seek the Registry to produce, then --

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour --

THE REGISTRAR: [Previous translation continues] ... we have just one translation uploaded and that's the one that is published. ¹⁶²⁸³

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I have just been instructed by the Case Manager that he has corrected the mistake and uploaded a correct translation. Maybe the Registry should try again. I apologise. While we are waiting, maybe I could put my question. We were not of an intention to use the document but we have to now.

Q. Mr. Dimitrijevic, in the left upper-side corner, can you read what it says here.

A. "The Republic of Serbian Krajina, the Serbian army military post 9189/9 Erdut, internal number, date, military --" should I read everything?

Q. No, no. Tell me, it says the Republic of Serbian Krajina, the Serbian army. The military post indicated here, 9189/9 Erdut, is that the number of the military post used by the SDG?

A. Yes.

Q. Is this a certificate on the death of Aleksandar Drazevic, son of Tomislav?

A. I don't know who this is, but I'm familiar with the certificate. He was a member of the SDG who was killed in combat.

Q. Can you confirm that this is not signed? But it says "Chief of Staff Major Mladen Sarac." Is that the same Mladen Sarac, a member of the SDG, that my learned friend Ms. Marcus asked you about?

A. Yes.

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since we have a translation -- no, no. We will be using this exhibit with the following witness. Let's look at 2D519. ¹⁶²⁸⁴

Q. Mr. Dimitrijevic, the date is 15 November 1995. The Serbian Army of Krajina and the military post in Erdut, of which you stated it was the military post which you used. Is this a personal card, the same one you showed to us blank, and is that Aleksandar Drazevic who was killed in Mrkonjic Grad? Did you fill it out?

A. Yes, yes. This is Aleksandar Drazevic.

Q. Do you remember that you filled out the personal card yourself?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you.

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, at this moment I would like to tender 2D527 and 2D519.

MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, we have not had time to look into these documents. They were noticed for the next witness. So perhaps MFI and we'll consider it.

JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, could a number be assigned for the two documents. The first one, 2D527 ...

THE REGISTRAR: -- will receive number D649, Your Honours.

JUDGE ORIE: And is marked for identification. Then 2D519 ...

THE REGISTRAR: -- will receive number D650, Your Honours.

JUDGE ORIE: And is also marked for identification.

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. And now can we look at an exhibit that Ms. Marcus showed the witness, which is 65 ter 6348. This is a Prosecution exhibit. I'm looking for page 2 in B/C/S, paragraph 1.

Q. While we are waiting for the document to be displayed, we saw ¹⁶²⁸⁵ Aleksandar Drazevic's personal card, which is a certificate issued by Major Sarac on behalf of the Army of Krajina. Do you remember the burial of that person? Was he buried in a military ceremony?

A. Not only him, but all guard members who were killed in combat enjoyed that same privilege. They were entitled to a ceremonial burial with a lined-up platoon and shots fired in the air.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Dimitrijevic. Let's look at page 2. And while we're waiting for that page, I would like to remind you that Ms. Marcus asked you whether it was correct that together with that group of people with whom you were involved in the accident, you had been on your way to meet somebody called Sraf to extort money from him.

Could you please read the first paragraph on the second page, the paragraph starts with "Mitic" --

A. It's not very legible.

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can the first paragraph in B/C/S on page 2 be blown up for the benefit of the witness.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Due to his megalomaniac request, Mitic clashed with Arkan. That is why a team had been sent from Belgrade to warn him. The team consisted of the following people --"

Q. That's enough. Thank you. The question was: Were you on your way to extort something from that person? In this report it says that you were supposed to warn him. Do you still adhere by your statement that there were no attempts to extort something from that person? You were on your way to talk to him?

A. Yes, this is what I stated and I adhere by that statement. We ¹⁶²⁸⁶ were on our way to talk to him.

Q. Witness --

JUDGE ORIE: Since you now put this text to him, Mr. -- were you -- did you go there to warn him?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I already answered the Prosecutor's question about that case. My mission was not to go and warn anybody. Arkan asked me to go and check certain things.

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Dimitrijevic, there is another ambiguity with regard to that particular case. You were referring to somebody as "he." He joined us on 170 kilometres from Belgrade to Pirot. Who was it who joined you? Who is the "he"?

A. Sinisa Stojicic. I had never seen him before.

Q. During your journey, did Sraf ever join you?

A. No. We never reached him. We did not reach him physically.

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that this is the ambiguity that needed to be clarified.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the previous issue you raised was totally useless, but this one is certainly assisting very much. Thank you. Please proceed.

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]

Q. Witness, the documents also referred to Mihajlo Ulemek. Was Mihajlo Ulemek ever the commander of the military police in the SDG?

A. We did not have such a body. No military police existed. Officers in charge of parts of units were in charge of their troops. We ¹⁶²⁸⁷ did not have a need for a military police.

Q. Mr. Dimitrijevic, my learned friend Ms. Marcus asked you about -- about Arkan's daily activities, and you said, on page 23, line 13, that Arkan's personal assistant was informed about all of his daily activities. Who did you have in mind when you said Arkan's "personal assistant" or "secretary"?

A. Let me put in a caveat here. Even the secretary, Snezana Kalinic was not aware of all of his activities. For security reasons he never shared the details of his daily whereabouts with anybody. So not even his secretary was aware of all of that.

Q. Mr. Dimitrijevic, we heard testimony here that the operation in Velika Kladusa was a secret operation. And then we had another testimony according to which the families of SDG members who fought in Velika Kladusa received packages and those packages would first be brought to the headquarters of the SDG, then they would be taken to the state security, and then to Velika Kladusa. Do you remember any such cases when a package was first brought to you, then to the state security, and then to Velika Kladusa?

A. There were no such cases. We were in no position to send packages to our volunteers in any of the areas of combat. This was not a common practice. There was no possibility to do that.

Q. Mr. Dimitrijevic, my learned friend Ms. Marcus asked you, or, rather, she put a number of questions to you as to how you knew that the army was involved in the activities leading to the occupation of Zvornik. Did perhaps Arkan or Pejic tell you that 60 men who were there were more ¹⁶²⁸⁸ than enough to take Zvornik?

MS. MARCUS: [Previous translation continued] ... objection, leading.

JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours --

JUDGE ORIE: Could you rephrase your question.

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I'm under a time pressure, but I will rephrase.

Q. Can you repeat: How many SDG members participated in the Zvornik operation?

A. Those people who were first in Bijeljina proceeded towards Zvornik, so my answer would be about 60 men.

Q. Did you talk to either Marko Pejic or Arkan about that? Did you receive information from them that nobody else but the 60 men took Zvornik?

A. No, they did not. When I arrived in Zvornik on the 13, I had already received that information and I saw the Yugoslav People's Army troops on the ground. So that information would have been moot because I had already seen them on the way to Zvornik. So I realised that the army had acted in concert with them. Zvornik is not a small city, and 60 men would not have been enough to either take or liberate Zvornik.

Q. Just some more short questions, Mr. Dimitrijevic. Ms. Marcus asked you whether joining the SDG also included checking criminal records, you said "no." Do you know where criminal records are kept?

A. At the MUP. Such records, records on people with criminal files, ¹⁶²⁸⁹ can be accessed at MUP. The MUP is the only organisation that would have such records.

Q. Did you have a possibility, did you have access to those criminal records?

A. No, never.

Q. And my last question to you, witness.

MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Out of an abundance of caution if we are not in private session can we please move into private session. I would like to call up P1615.

JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.

(Private session)

(14 lines redacted) ¹⁶²⁹⁰

(6 pages redacted) ¹⁶²⁹⁶

(Open session)

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

JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. The last words I spoke in private session were that we would not further rely on the patience from all those assisting us, that is, interpreters, transcriber, security, technicians, since we have again a late finish today.

We adjourn for the day. And we'll resume Tuesday, the 24th of January, 9.00 in the morning in this courtroom, II.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.52 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 24th day of

January, 2012, at 9.00 a.m.