Proposal for Supplementing of Evidence Presentation Proceedings

Zmaj Jova str. #7, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia tel. +381 11 30 32 408; fax +381 11 26 36 429 e-mail: [email protected] ; www.helsinki.org.yu

No 11 ● March 2007 Attorney of family Đinđić, Srđa Popović, before the Trial Chamber conducting the proceedings against indictees for assassination of Prime Minister Zoran Đinđić (12 March 2003) on 23 February 2007 submitted two important proposals: the propos al for expansion of indictment and the proposal for supplementing of evidence presentation proceedings. Nata Mesarevic, the judge presiding the Trial Chamber, turned down those proposals in late March. Regardless of the foregoing, the Helsinki Charter is running them in their entirety, deeming both intitiatives to be of a broader social importance for they are highly indicative of the political ambience in which the assassination had taken place. After finalisation of the first-degree trial cond ucted by the Special Department of the Belgrade District Court, Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, for the same reason shall run the complete documentation including documentary eviden ce and final ruling of the prosecutor on those proposals. PROPOSAL FOR SUPPLEMENTING OF EVIDENCE PRESENTATION PROCEEDINGS By Srdja Popovic, attorney of plaintiff Ruzica Đinđić

Insurgency article headlined "BOŽOVIĆ: I just cited the Law", ran by daily "Danas" of 30 May 2005, and I suggest : 3. to produce evidence by reading the statement of Vladimir Božović from the article 1. That evidence be produced by reading "Lupus in fabula" ran by weekly "Vreme" of 2 June of the report of the Commission of the Government 2005, of Serbia of 13 August 2003 DT 72 No. 00- 002/2003/86, page 24, with the focus on the following circumstance:

With the focus on the following circumstance : that Inspector General of the Interior Ministry of Serbia, Božović on 18 May 2005 declared invalid an according to the findings of this arms procurement licence granted by Municipality Commission, the first defendant, as the ringleader, Savski Venac to Agency "Lupus", deeming it unlawful together with other persons in November 2001 since that the Agency employed persons, onetime staged an insurgency with a view to jeopardizing members of the Special Operations Unit, who had the constitutional order and security. taken part in an armed insurgency in November 2. to produce evidence by reading the 2001, which by itself stripped them of the right to statement of Inspector General of the Interior obtain and hold arms. Ministry of Serbia, Vladimir Božović, from the 1

And they have not been prosecuted for that That said, today proposed Report of the offence, "for the authorities were weak then", Commission of the Government of the Republic while "no investigation has been launched... unless of Serbia DT 72 no. 00-002/2003/86 of 13 August the prosecutor orders it". 2003 clearly indicates that the November 2001 SOU action was appraised as an armed insurgency. J u s t i f i c a t i o n: (confirmed at the main hearing by testimonies of qualified, in view of their capacities, The first defendant in his defense denies witnesses, notably the then Interior Minister, the having taken part in November 2001 SOU action then head of State Security, and other witnesses like threatening the constitutional order and security of RODOLJUB MILOVIĆ, ZORAN JANJUŠEVIĆ, the country . VLADIMIR POPOVIĆ, ČEDOMIR JOVANOVIĆ, Suggested evidence, notably when viewed ZORAN MIJATOVIĆ, witness-collaborator ZORAN within the framework of other, already VUKOJEVIĆ and the accused SAŠA PEJAKOVIĆ.) produced evidence, refutes such defense. Today attached statements of Inspector General of the Interior Ministry of Serbia, VLADIMIR Objective elements of action BOŽOVIĆ from 2005, indicate that Inspector General of the Interior Ministry of Serbia confirms Namely the first defendant fully recognizes allegations of quoted witnessess, namely that non- the facts which constitute objective element of prosecution of ringleaders and participants in the armed insurgency, namely that in November 2001 armed insurgency was not due to the absence of he took part in Special Operations Unit action in legal conditions, but rather because "the which that Unit: authorities were weak then", therefore on expressly disobeyed its superiors, political grounds, and that today "launching of voluntarily withdrew all its members to Kula relevant investigation still hinges on the barracks, and cut off all telephone lines thereof prosecutor's decision." with immediate superiors and external world, In other words, though it was an armed o withdrew its members from escorts of insurgency, that offence has not been prosecuted protected personalities, because the insurgency itself has been succesful. o withdrew its members from security service of Airport Belgrade, Indictment o fully armed and with military vehicles voluntarily occupied part of highway near “Sava Proposed evidence would corroborate the Centre” in Belgrade, stand and assessment of indictment KTs no. 2/03 of o demanded from the government 21 August 2003, in which , on page 32 , the following and national parliament to pass a law on co- is stated: operation with the Hague Tribunal. 1. that at the top "of that pyramid (criminal o demanded from the government to organization – remark by S.P.)were defendants Luković- replace a cabinet member, the Interior Secretary. Legija and Dušan Spasojević"; o Likewise demanded replacement of 2. that "the entire organization was so immediate superiors of the Unit, head of State designed ..to gear its activities towards the conquest of Security and his deputy. power."; However, the defense team of the first 3. that in "carrying out of that action ....SOU defendant denies that the described action in was subsumed as a well-trained armed formation and which the first defendant took part was aimed at obedient to Luković-Legija"; threatening constitutional order and security 4. that "the first test of those ambitions was the SOU insurgency which had of the country. a political Such a stand of the first defendant is based background, as evidenced by their demands for on an irrefutable fact that against participants in replacement of the Interior Secretary and of other high the insurgency, which constituted a grave criminal officials "; offense, proceedings have never been instituted. 5. and finally that "the impact of the The evidence proposed would prove that insrugency ...encouraged Spasojević and Legija to non-investigation into the criminal offense of pursue the principal idea-the conquest of power, armed insurgency was not due de facto due to an but, from then on, in other way, and by other alleged absence of legal conditions for means." prosecution. 2

However, if the special prosecutor quite establishing the design or intention as a constituent accurately qualified the actions of the first characteristic of the nature of the offence from article defendant as an armed insurgency, he failed, on 122 of the Basic Penal Code with which the first unclear grounds, to charge the defendants with that defendant is charged in these proceedings. offence. The only reason thereof may be that at the Protective object of this offence and of the one time of indictment filing, according to the from article 124 of the Basic Penal Code are assement of the special prosecutor, there wasn't identical – constitutional order and security. enough evidence for such a charge. Different are only means of assault, but the incriminated subjective relation of perpetrator Proposal for expansion of indictment is identical in both offences. By the proposed evidence the Court would On the other hand, in view of the fact that check the defense of the first defendant in part the evidence produced only at the main thereof in which the first defendant tried to prove hearing, that is testimonies of witnesses, that he had no motive whatsoever to commit the RODOLJUB MILOVIĆ, ZORAN JANJUŠEVIĆ, criminal offence from article 122 of the Basic Penal VLADIMIR POPOVIĆ, ČEDOMIR JOVANOVIĆ, Code, with which he is charged. ZORAN MIJATOVIĆ, GORAN PETROVIĆ, witness collaborator ZORAN VUKOJEVIĆA and partial Continuous criminal offence admission of the first defendant proper, Ulemek, with all certainty proved all those facts which It could be even maintained that at play was a constituted a criminal offence of an armed CONTINUOUS attack on the constitutional order and insurgency. security. Insurgency and assassination are the two I, on behalf of my client on 13 July this year, steps leading to the same goal, the two steps in accordance with article 342, paragrpah 1 of the leading to fulfillment of the same design- the Act on Criminal Proceedings, put forward a forcible overthrowing of government of the late befitting proposal to the special prosecutor to Zoran Đinđić and forcible removal of the late Zoran expand the indictment against the defendant to Đinđić from the position of Prime Minister, in order include the offence from article 124, paragraph 2, to place someone else in that position. Insurgency of that Basic Penal Code, the proposal which was and assassination represent one unique life event, backed on behalf of their clients by my colleagues and one unique political event. PAUNOVIĆ and DANILOVIĆ. From the criminal law standpoint both the Despite our repeated urging we got the insurgency and assassination belong to the same following reply from the special prosecutor on 1 kind of criminal offence committed by the same December 2006, namely that in his opinion, I offender (the first defendant) within the framework quote: it was a grave offence which should be of a unique design, all of which meets conditions for prosecuted, for there are legal conditions for filing a charge of continuous criminal offence (as such a prosecution, all evidence been already spelled out by article 61, paragraph 1 of Penal Code). contained in the case-related documentation and that such a case shall "take shape" in the Important facts (offence circumstances) special prosecution office, But that: indictment shall not however be But regardless of the foregoing, it is at least expanded on two grounds: firstly, because the certain that all the facts related to the insurgency, its trial has entered its final stage, and secondly, ringleaders and allies-though the first defendant is because the charge for the armed insurgency would currently not charged with that offence –belong to have to encompass other persons from the then what the lawmaker calls IMPORTANT FACTS in SOU command. article 326, paragraph 2 of the Act on Criminal Proceedings. Relevance of proposed evidence Let me reiterate: by their insurgency, even if one calls it a protest, a strike, an action, as you wish, The foregoing obviously raises the issue of the first defendant and his accessories by anti- importance of proposed evidence for these constitutional means gained control over proceedings (Let me briefly explain that Security Services, whose members, then as the importance). indictment spells out, "encouraged by that Facts and circumstances concerning the success" wound up the job by killing the Prime insurgency are of decisive importance for Minister. 3

Preparations 4. I suggest that evidence be produced by reading a statement of proposed witness Aca Tomić By that action, as already established in from the article "Tomić: They wanted to liquidate me" these proceedings, the desired changover in the from daily "Večernje novosti" of 2 June 2005, Services leadership was effected by the first defendant and his accessories. As by the foregoing With the focus on the following circumstance: the biggest obstacle to assassination had been removed, it may be inferred that laid down were at whether General Aca Tomić knew that the late least preparations for an act against the Spasojević was a professional drug-trafficker, and constitutional order and security, deemed as whether during their meeting the late Spasojević gave such under article 320, alongside an ideal him as a present, a moblile phone with camera. coincidence with assassination of Prime Minister. Justification: All the aforementioned serves to underscore the criminal law ties between the insurgency and At the main hearing of 6 September 2004, assassination, when asked by lawyer Paunović, whether in the meeting with General Tomic, the question of

“Kobras” getting involved into the “protest” of Red Meeting in the Military Security Services Berets, was discussed, the first defendant Ulemek Directorate replied : “No, it was not. ” (pages 71-72). When asked by the same lawyer whether I propose production of evidence via during the insurgency he met Aca Tomic, the first witnesses testifying : defendant Ulemek replied: “No” (6 September 2004, • ACA TOMIĆ, from Belgrade, page 72). Kumanovska street no. 14 “During the meeting with General Tomic we • RADE BULATOVIĆ, from Belgrade, did not discuss anything, in view of the fact that this Zmaj Jovina 39, and was our first-time meeting. It was just an ordinary • BORISLAV MIKELIĆ, from Belgrade, conversation. …” (17 June 2004, page 49). Molerova 3 Aca Tomić in his interview to daily “Večernje And by reading of the following documents novosti” of 3 June 2004. godine also downplayed his in writing: meetings with the first defendant during the • Interview of Aca Tomić to daily insurgency and maintained that meetings with “Večernje novosti” of 3 June 2004 Ulemek and Spasojević took place during the summer • An official, marked as Strictly of 2002 (“twice, in July and August”). Confidential, note of the Military Security Services None of them spoke the truth, for in the Directorate, no. 1-31 of 22 June 2003, to the Anti- proposed, STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL note of the Organized Crime Directorate; Military Security Services Directorate, no. 1-31 of 22 June 2003 it was stated that the meeting took With the focus on the following circumstance: place during the insurgency. “In November 2001, on the day when General defense of the first defendant should be Tomic and Pavkovic were about to leave for an official checked in regard to the following: whether he used trip to Moscow, and during the insurgency of Red to meet alone or together with the late Dušan Berets, Mikelic and Legija paid a visit to General Spasojević during the November 2001 armed Tomic. Legija was in possession of information insurgency General ACA TOMIC, the then head of indicating an imminent conflict between the SOU the Military Security Services Directorate, and and “Kobras”, and wanted to check with Tomic RADE BULATOVIC, the then security counselor of whether “Kobras” were subordinated to the Democratic Party of Serbia president, Vojislav Security Directorate of Chief of Staff. Tomić Koštunica,– and if he did – how did those meetings then gave him his word that the army would not come about, what were their topics, and notably interfere in that conflict. ” whether the first defendant during those meetings The proposed Report would clearly help inquired about the possibility of deployment of establish that the first defendant (and rightly so) was “Kobra” in stopping the insurgency and concerned about the possibility of the Army’s decommissioning the rebelled Special Operations intervention against the SPU in keeping with its Unit.

constitutional duties (article 133 of the then FRY confidential character and thus became a matter of Constitution in force), -because the public domain, but if the court does not share he was fully aware that he was taking part this opinion I suggest that from a competent body be in an armed insurgency (protest, action, whatever) previously obtained a decision on striking off the threatening the constitutional order. mark of strict confidentiality from this document. By producing this piece of evidence we could not only establish that as early as in November Unlawful conversation 2001 the first defendant was aware that he was hreatening the constitutional order and We suggest the testimony of the following possessed the will to do that, but we could also witness: check testimonies of witnesses, namely of the then • General MIROSLAV MILOŠEVIĆ, former Interior Secretary DUŠAN MIHAJLOVIĆ and the head of Public Security then head of Security Services GORAN PETROVIĆ, who spoke in this courtroom about the role of the With the focus on the following circumstance: Army of Yugoslavia, that is of parts of security services in threats posed to the constitutional order Surrender of the first defendant, and in November 2001 by the SOU. especially his whereabouts after his arrest, on whose I am referring in particular to the following orders, whether the first defendant before his arrival testimonies: in the Central Prison without the consent of o For example, witness Goran Petrović president of this trial chamber had any conversations (GP, 18 May 2005, page .34) with respect to the with other persons, notably with the Interior insurgency spoke about existence of operative data, Secretary DRAGAN JOČIĆ and SECURITY AND of which some were related to intercepted INFORMATION AGENCY director, RADE conversations…) which indicate, I quote, “that in BULATOVIĆ, under which conditions and to what the whole story was involved the Army of purpose. Yugoslavia, that is its security services.” We suggest that the evidence in writing be o Or, the same witness, “according to the produced by reading: collected data we concluded that the Unit in its 5. transcript of a statement made by Goran actions enjoyed the backing of the Army of Radosavljević in the radio program "The Forefinger" Yugoslavia, or of some of its members or of on Radio B92, on 18 May 2005 godine, and posted on some parts of its security services” (page .35). B92.net 6. transcript of a statement made by Goran o Or , witness Duško Mihajlović saying Radosavljević in the TV program "Insider" titled the following : "I understood that someone behind "Manuscripts Don't Burn, IV part", aired on 27 our back was preparing the insurgency ". December 2004, on TV B92, posted on B92.net (Minutes on GP, 15 March 2005, page 19) 7. statements made by Goran Radosavljević "...we understood that we could not count to "Večernje novosti" of 19 May 2005 on the backing of the army, which was the only institution with the right units and means with with the focus on th e following circumstance: capability to counter the SOU", and also many public statements of many others were indicative of General Radosavljević was ordered by the their political support for the Unit's insrugency". Interior Secretary DRAGAN JOČIĆ to take the first (Dušan Mihajlović, GP, 15 March 2005, page 21). defendant to the Interior Ministry of Serbia building In line with such interpretations of meetings and hold him there until his return from Zlatibor, between General Tomic and the defendants, during that the witness acted as he was told, and that the the insurgency, is the fact that General TOMIĆ, in first defendant first sat in the office of Milosevic and his interview, contrary to the official Report of the Government of Serbia of 13 August 2003 DT 72 no. and had a conversation with Milosevic, until 00-002/2003/86, obviously denied such a arrival of the Interior Secretary, JOČIĆ and Director of the Security-Informative Agency, RADE meeting and such contents of conversation BULATOVIĆ, with the first defendant. And especially let us focus on the

following circumstance: Possible confidentiality Whether he personally knew the indictee on

2 May 2004, or during the meeting, that is after the I consider that the proposed report, in view surrender, or he positively identified him as a of its repeated media disclosure, lost its strictly 5

person from wanted warrant, that is, as the first Proceedings ("His whereabouts and interlocutors defendant, Milorad Ulemek. are totally irrelevant"); We suggest that a testimony be given by witness "Explanations" • Interior Secretary, DRAGAN JOČIĆ, who should be summoned via the government of We suggest that evidence in writing be Serbia produced by reading:

With the focus on the circumstance: 9. statement of head of Public Security Department, Miroslav Milošević "He asked both Jocic Whether on his order the first defendant, and Bulatovic to guarantee his safety" from daily after his apprehension on 2 May 2004, between "Danas" of 21-22 May 2005; 20.00 and 21.00 p.m. was taken to the Interior 10. statement of the Interior Minister Ministry of Serbia, to the office of head of Public Dragan Jočić ran as news under the headline Security Department, Milošević, whether his "Conversation with a very dangerous man" posted on original order to RADOSAVLJEVIĆ was "to take B92.net, since 15 June 2005; the defendant to the judicial bodies", and if it was, statement of Minister DRAGAN JOČIĆ ran in why he then changed it, whether in the office of the article headline "In six months period police head of Public Security Department, MIROSLAV arrested 100,000 people", daily "Danas" of 18-19 MILOŠEVIĆ, he had a conversation with the first June 2005, page 3; defendant, and if he had, 11. transcript of interview with the Justice Was anyone else present during that Minister, Zoran Stojković a in radio broadcast "The conversation, Forefinger " on Radio B92, on 30 June 2005, posted Has he previously ordered General Goran on B92.net, Radosavljević and head of PSD Miroslav Milošević with the focus on the circumstance: to leave the premises, What was the purpose of that conversation, that the Interior Secretary proper, DRAGAN Was he aware that such a conversation was JOČIĆ, and also other members of Democratic Party of Serbia, as well as head of the PSD, MIROSLAV contrary to provisions from article 150, MILOŠEVIĆ and Justice Minister, ZORAN paragraph 4 of the Act on Criminal Proceedings, STOJKOVIĆ, tried in vain to explicate to the general why he hid that meeting from general public, public the purpose of this conversation of the first Whether on that occasion he exerted defendant and Minister Jocic and director of the influence on the first defendant in terms of the Security-Information Agency, Bulatović, by asserting nature of the defendant's testimony during the that : preliminary hearing. o the first defendant was taken to the Interior Ministry "because the Centralni Prison Cover-up does not admit new inmates at night" (Jočić);

o that the first defendant was brought to I suggest that a piece of evidence be the Interior Ministry, for "that building is the produced by reading safest place " (Milošević), 8. statements of the Interior Minister o that Minister Jočić's speedy return from Dragan Jočić ran under the headline "Election Zlatibor was due to "a speedier transfer of Ulemek Campaign or Covert Helpers" ran by daily "Danas" of 1 June 2004, page3, to the Central Prison" (Jočić); o that the meeting was occasioned with the focus on the circumstance: "because in question was not an ordinary man" (Jočić); that the Interior Secretary Dragan Jočić o that the first defendant was taken to the Interior Ministry building so that Dragan Jočić and misinformed the public that "the legal Rade Bulatović could there talk with the first procedure was respected to the letter", as well defendant " on his and his family's safety " (Jočić, as, that he downplayed the importance of Milošević), conversation which he had on the night of 2 May o the first defendant had to wait in the 2004 with the first defendant, contrary to article Interior Ministry building because "a procedure is 150, paragraph 4 of the Act on Criminal

needed to collect valid documents", to with the focus on the circumstance: establish his identity, "to collect data" (Zoran Stojković). that the parliamentary Security Committee before the Official Note was issued, questioned the Official note purpose of the meeting, whereupon the Interior Minister Jocic explained that "they (Minister Jočić 12. to produce a piece of evidence by and the first defendant) spent few hours in an reading a faxcimile of the official note of Minister intimate conversation" and that the committee "did Jočić not receive any officially recorded 01 no. 2875-04 dated 3 May 2004, ran by information". the weekly “Vreme” of 6 April 2006; • to produce a piece of evidence by "The Truth" reading the original Official Note of Minister Jočića 01 no. 2875-04 dated 3 May 2004, which the I suggest that a piece of evidence be produced court would obtain in an official mode from the by reading Interior Ministry of the Republic of Serbia. • To effect the expert vetting of the 18. the statement made by Vojislav original of that very official note with a view to Koštunica, and posted on 4 May 2004 on B92.net possibly establishing when that note was written, under the headline "There were no negotiations with Legija", with the focus on the circumstance: 19. statement made by the Democratic Party of Serbia official, Dejan Mihajlov, to "Glas javnosti" that Minister Jočić tried to cover up the on 11 May 2004. meeting with the first defendant during the night of 2 May 2004, as well as circumstances thereof.

16. I suggest that a piece of evidence be With the focus on the circumstance: produced by reading of transcript of a statement of Vladimir Bozovic, Deputy Minister, Inspector That President Koštunica and Dejan Mihajlov, General of the Interior Ministry, in the program after talks which Jočić and Rade Bulatovic had with "Poligraph" TV B92, 7 April 2006; the first defendant, and before the preliminary hearing of the first defendant, and before the court with the focus on the circumstance: was given an opportunity to assess his future statement, divulged to the public that the that Minister Jocic, who paid a visit to defendant's testimony would unveil the full Zlatibor with the Inspector General Bozovic on 2 truth, May 2004, hushed up the fact that he was given a chopper from the latter to fly out to Belgrade to Attitude on the first defendant meet the first defendant, that the top leaderhip of the Interior 20. statement of the Interior Minister Jocic Ministry of Serbia decided not to inform him of the made to daily "Balkan" on 21 September 2003, foregoing, headlined "How to survive a clash with Legija, the that the proposed witness at the first staff most wanted man" meeting took to task the Interior Minister for failing to inform him, and subsequently launched with the focus on the circumstance: a pertinent probe and that only three months later he got that then Dragan Jočić, in his capacity of the Official Note, whose reading we suggested. security councellor of President Kostunica and the Interior Secretary of co-called shadow cabinet, 17. I suggest that a piece of evidence be replied: "Don't ask me that now". produced by reading the transcript of statement of Dragan Šutanovac, member of parliamentary Justification: Committee for Security, made in the program "Insider" , on TV B92, 31 March 2006, I want to especially explicate the facts that motivated me to suggest that the witness JOČIĆ be 7

questioned with regard to the following: whether And finally, why would Minister Jočić draw he, during his meeting with the first defendant on up that official note on 3 May 2004 at all, when the night of 2 May 2004, tried to influence the according to daily "Danas", of 1 June 2004, he had latter's future statement. already exposed his opinion that, let me quote, "Who The proposed evidence in writing contains the first defendant was with, and who he talked numerous indications justifying the conclusion to, is totally irrelevant". If that is so, why did then that the foregoing could have happened and had Minister Jočić bother to draw up a note about probably happened. For example, something that is "totally irrelevant", for no notes are o the order that the first defendant be taken regarding "totally irrelevant things." Therefore taken to the office of head of the Public it is clear that what was "totally irrelevant" in 2004 Security Department and held there until arrival and did not merit an official note, became important of JOČIĆ from Zlatibor, was contrary to the only in May 2005, and moreover became so provisions of articles 566-569 of the Act on important, that it morphed into a state secret ! All Criminal Proceedings, under which the first this gives rise to a serious doubt tha the text of the defendant had immediately to be taken to the official note was indeed written on 3 May, when the competent internal affairs body (locally note was dated. competent in line with the Court's seat), and that o The fact is that after that secret and was the Belgrade police station, in 29 Novembra unlawful night conversation, because of which JOCIC street, which had issued the arrest warrant, and flew in from Zlatibor, after that conversation with there be handed the decision on detention, the two high Democratic Party of Serbia and after which the arrest warrant was to be withdrawn executive officials, the Interior Secretary and director and the accused was to be immeditately taken to of Security-Information Agency, the first defendant the investigating prison of the District Court, that began his defense in the midst of presidential is, to the Central Prison; campaign, by false self-accusations for smuggling o General RADOSAVLJEVIĆ, to whom in 600 kg of heroine, the criminal offence carrying the first defendant surrendered, knew him maximum prison term under article 245, personally, hence no other identification paragraph. 2 of the Penal Code of the Republic of procedure was necessary; Serbia (the admission, that is self-accusation, o The fact that JOČIĆ ordered without any motivation, and irrelevant for his RADOSAVLJEVIĆ and MILOŠEVIĆ to leave the defence); premises, so that he and BULATOVIĆ could have a o That fact that the future statement of private conversation with the defendant; the first defendant (which Dejan Mihajlov and o the fact that the said conversation Vojislav Koštunica, both jurists, call a unfolded in an unlawful manner, that is contrary "testimony", while according to them the first to the provision of Article 150, paragraph 4 of the defendant, is a "witness") was for days on end Act on Criminal Proceedings; announced by Minister JOČIĆ and other members of o the fact that the said conversation was Democratic Party of Serbia, as the "final disclosure of a covert nature, far from the public eye, of truth", which makes us infer that (a) the Minister ("there were no negotiations, there were no talks", JOCIC knew in advance the content of that future "the legal procedure was fully honored"), until it statement, and that (b) the statement would not be a was divulged by General Radosavljević; defense, but rather "a testimony" of someone else's o the fact that afterwards Minister guilt (for alleged heroine smuggling); JOČIĆ, assisted by other persons from his party, o The fact that the said false claim of the tried publicly to belittle the significance of that first defendant was tirelessly reiterated during conversation ("the interlocutor is of no the presidential campaign of DPS candidate importance..."); Marsićanin, as a proof that Democratic Party was a o the fact that Minister JOČIĆ by "drug-trafficking party"; inaccurate and contradictory assertions tried to explain that conversation. Relevance Proposed official note was disclosed under unusual circumstance, only in response to a major What would be the relevance of a possible fact public pressure, court threats and an order of that Minister Jočić exerted influence on the first the official in charge of information of public defendant? importance.

Firstly, that fact would be relevant for the With the focus on the circumstance: assessment of statement of the first defendant proper. That Vojislav Koštunica in his interview to Secondly, it would be even more important- weekly "Vreme" of 5 June 2003, tried to justify the within the framework of all other proposals which meeting between the first defendant and Dušan we shall put forward, and which must be also Spasojević with head of the Security Directorate, Aca considered in their entirety and their Tomic and Kostunica's Security Adviser, Rade interconnectedness-for checking the defence of Bulatović, by assertions that "Rade Bulatović was an the first defendant in part in which he denies accidental participant in that conversation", and existence of the political motive for the that "head of Security Directorate cannot choose his commission of the offence, interlocutors at will. " Namely in his defence he depicts himself as a 23. To produce a piece of evidence by reading personal and political friend of the late Prime the text of letter written by Vojislav Koštunica, which Minister, while it may be proved, and that is what is was published under the headline "Koštunica's letter" being done here, that the reality was quite inverse by "Danas" of 7 June 2004; to his claims. Our further evidence proposals shall prove With the focus on the circumstance: that the closeness was reflected in: 1. support for the insurgency; That General Aca Tomić on 4 June 2003, at 2. in akin political stands, which were the time when he was in the investigating prison of publicly divulged, notably as regards the the District Court in Belgrade, under suspicion of punishment of war crimes; being involved in association to commit hostile 3. in mutually co-ordinated support activities, in keeping with the article 136, paragraph 2 between the first defendant and Democratic Party of the Basic Penal Code, received a letter from of Serbia ; Vojislav Koštunica advising him in a weakly covert 4. in endeavours of Democratic Party of way to "keep mum and resist". Serbia, from the executive position, to impact these proceedings to the benefit of the first defendant. 24. To produce a piece of evidence by reading the article by-lined Rade Bulatović, and ran under the POLITICAL CLOSENESS BETWEEEN THE headline "Victory of Patriotism" from weekly "NIN", FIRST DEFENDANT AND DPS of 28 March 2002.

Insurgency With the focus on the circumstance:

I suggest that a piece of evidence be That Rade Bulatović as a security advisor to produced by reading Vojislav Koštunica, in weekly "NIN" no. 2674 of 28 21. the statement of Vojislav Koštunica March 2002, the re-shuffle in the Security from the article headlined "Koštunica: I have no Services leadership, attained by the armed influence on the Special Operations Unit" posted on insurgency, hailed as victory of patriotism. B92.net on 15 November 2001. Closeness of stands With the focus on the circumstance: I propose that a piece of evidence be produced That during the November 2001 insurgency by reading Vojislav Koštunica made a public statement to the 25. the article "Youth branches of effect that "the rebelled unit members in no way Democratic Party, Civic Alliance of Serbia, threatened the country's security" and likened Democratic Centre and Social-Democratic Union the armed insurgency with the doctors' strike. interrupted promotion of the book "Zoran Đinđić in 22. to produce a piece of evidence by the Clutches of Mafia", ran by daily "Danas", 5-6 June reading the statement of Vojislav Kostunica from 2004, the interview titled "How Spasojević was released from jail", weekly "Vreme" of 5 July 2003. with the focus on the circumstance:

attempt of Democratic Party of Serbia to prove its thesis that Prime Minister Đinđić was 9

allegedly "in the clutches of Mafia". The same- with the focus on the circumstance: titled book, was edited and promoted by a prominent member of Democratic Party of that the first defendant in his public Serbia, MP, academician, the late Nikola addresses, two months before the assassination, thus Milošević. spoke about the government of the late Prime 26. Transcript of video recording of Minister and the late Prime Minister himself: Vojislav Koštunica statement posted on TV B92 o "they are counting our last days, they site, under the title "For the first time publicly: play with our destinies, like with those of the whole journalists about journalists" people"; o "they don't want to respect the former With the focus on the circumstance: (him-remark by S.P.) and even the current commanders"; Accusation voiced by Vojislav Koštunica o "they won't let me be what I am, "but against the late Prime Minister that the latter they want me to be what I am not, they are trying to allegedly had "interesting and odd connections" and implicate me in something I have not done..." "they was involved in smuggling. are demonizing the true patriots" (him – the remark 27. Statements made by President of by S.P.); Democratic Party of Serbia, Vojislav Koštunica from o "they no longer need people or anyone the article "Speedy and humiliating" ran by the daily else"; "Glas" of 29 June 2001. o "they are exploiting the last ounces of popular will"; With the focus on the circumstance: o "they are trampling upon the last strongholds of national pride and dignity"; That according to President of Democratic o "nothing is sacred for them, and they Party of Serbia completion of the FRY international only care about things non-Serb"; obligation by hand-over of Slobodan Milošević at o "they devalue and belittle their own state the hands of the late Prime Minister dealt "a heavy " "they are deceiving us"; blow to the rule of law " and "seriously threatened o "they are doing what should not be the constitutional order". done"; o and then directly "no-one shall forgive Mutual backing you". 30. "Jočić: Legija's Analysis of Government's 28. Interview of Vojislav Koštunica to Performance", "BLIC", 29 January 2003 "Vreme", no. 648 of 5 July 2003, with the focus on the following circumstance:

with the focus on the circumstance: that Democratic Party official, DRAGAN JOČIĆ, Minister in the DPS-led shadow cabinet that Vojislav Koštunica accused Djindjic-led backed those stands espoused in the first government for assassination of Prime Minister. In defendant's letter, which many then, and rightly so, his public statements President of DPS reiterated perceived as an open threat to the government and accusations of here heard witness MIHAJLOV (that the very late Prime Minister, with the following Živković and Tadić "well know" who killed the late words: Prime Minister) and verbatim said: that "he sees no ... call to rebellion, to take up "if members of "Red Berets" are involved in arms in that letter of Milorad Lukovic Legija"; assassination of Zoran Đinđić, that the that "Legija's letter is serious"; government should be held accountable for that "the said letter represents a political that, since they were its clerks." (under the analysis of the government's performance and results command responsibility Zoran Đinđić himself is since 5 October 2000"; responsible for his own death!) that "such a letter could have been written 29. "Open letter of the former commander by any citizen of Serbia"; of Red Berets", "Blic", 28 January 2003 that "the letter is critical of the current political moment "; that it is "a threat to someone who poorly works and poorly runs the government (that is, the

late Prime Minister Zoran Đinđić"), but "by the with the focus on the circumstance: people, and not by Legija". 1. Transcript of statement of Vice that Association of Prosecutors assessed as President of DPS, DRAGAN MARŠIĆANIN, aired on "continuation of law violation by the executive Radio B92 and posted on the site of that radio on power" the statement of head of the Public Security 16 March 2003 under the title "DPS shall not back Department, Miroslav Milošević, according to whom the designate-Prime Minister or Council of "trial for assassination of Prime Minister Ministers", Đinđić is slowly being morphed into a farce", that "the Iinterior Ministry should deal with With the focus on the following circumstance: clarification of assassination of Prime Minister Đinđić", That Democratic Party of Serbia held and that "there are many pertinent accountable the government proper for the oversights, but also new knowledge and post-assassination crisis. information absent from the indictment and 32. Article "Time to Rally", containing the other official acts". statement of Vojislav Koštunic made at the DPS I suggest a testimony of the following witness press conference, as ran by "Vecernje Novosti", 17 • MIROSLAV MILOŠEVIĆ, head of the March 2003. Public Security Department, to be summoned via the Interior Ministry of the Republic of Serbia, Kneza With the focus on the circumstance: Miloša no. 101, Beograd,

That Democratic Party of Serbia and its With the focus on the circumstance: president Vojislav Koštumica, 3 days after assassination of Prime Minister tried to replace His knowledge of the facts related to the the incumbent authorities, which still had the assassination of Zoran Djindjic "absent from the parliamentary majority, by a new government indictment and other official acts". inclusive of DPS representatives, but also of I propose that a piece of evidence be produced representatives of the Radical Party and the by reading Socialist Party of Serbia (for according to Vojislav 35. statement of DPS official, GRADIMIR Koštunica's words "they were elected by the people NALIĆ, from the article "A bullet for Zoran, and jail too"). for Voja, "Večernje novosti" of 20 April 2004,

Piling pressure on the court with the focus on the circumstance:

33. Article "Jočić: Police Should Re- that the DPS official, GRADIMIR NALIĆ, Investigate Djindjic's Assassination", Beta Agency espoused the assertion news of 10 April 2004, posted on Radio B92 site, that the "official version of indictment ...was repeatedly put to the test six months with the focus on the circumstance: before the assassination", that we are facing the most classic case of that the Interior Minister, a member of DPS, preparation of murder of witnesses and the 15 days before the surrender of the first defendant guilty parties" by the same persons, demanded that the police re-launch that the one who places faith in the official investigation into Djindjic's assassination, for, version of assassination "is getting increasingly according to him, "the only thing that matters is farther from the truth about assassination of unveiling of the complete truth" and lamented Zoran Đinđić". over "insufficient co-operation of the prosecution 36. Statement of DEJAN MIHAJLOV, a DPS to that end". official, ran in the article "Dejan Mihajlov: Legija's 34. Statement of head of the Public Security surrender is the government's success", daily "Danas" Department, Miroslav Milošević, carried by daily of 11 May 2004, "Danas" of 14 June 2004 under the headline "Piling Pressure on the Court", with the focus on the circumstance:

his claims that during investigation into the case "the two indictees were killed, and some material 11

evidence was destroyed", and that it is important to Justification: hear the "testimony" (!?) of the first defendant, "so that the public could learn the full truth" and All the afore quoted evidence, likewise the that responses of officials from the former ensuing one, have only one purpose, namely to government "may lead us to conclude that establish the facts important for the scrutiny of tha apparently some of them have dirty conscience"; part of defence of the first accused which relates to the existence of motives and incriminated intention 37. statement of DPS President, Vojislav to commit the offence from article 124 of the Basic Kostunica, posted on the news site of Radio B92 on Penal Code. 4 May 2004, under the headline "Koštunica: There To explicate the given evidence proposals I were no negotiations with Legija", must briefly cover the gist of that defence

with the focus on the circumstance: DEFENCE OF THE FIRST ACCUSED

his assertions that "the surrender of Milorad Throughout his defence the accused Ulemek, Luković (that is the first defendant – S.P.) ensured in an attempt to deny the existence of any, and "a larger number of witnesses (!?) and more notably political motive for assassination of the material evidence" and "foiled the destruction of Prime Minister, stubbornly and consistently tried to material evidence." paint a contrived picture of (a) his loyalty to the late Prime Minister (b) and of affection which the late 38. Statement of ALEKSANDAR TIJANIĆ, Prime Minister had for him. According to his former councellor of Vojislav Koštunica, disclosed assessment such an idyllic relationship established on in the Transcript of the video recording of TV B92 the occasion of their first meeting, 4 October 2000, program "The Impression of the Week" of 5 June lasted until 12 March 2003. 2005. Thus, for example, at the principal hearing, on 7 September 2004. godine (pages 2-3) the defence With the focus on the circumstance: (defence counsel Milivojević) began his questioning his alleged knowledge of "who paid 50,000 of the first defendant by asking him about that very Euro to the unit which killed Kum and Šiptar", in topic, I quote: view of the fact hat he maintains "that it is a well- Defence Counsel Milivojević: "After the expiry known fact", of your term of office as the commander of the I suggest the hearing of special operations unit office has the first defendant had contacts with the late Prime Minister ...?" • Witness ALEKSANDAR TIJANIĆ, to be First defendant Milorad Ulemek: "I my defence summoned via Radio Television of Serbia, Takovska I have already talked about a series of meetings 10, Beograd, which I had with the late Prime Minister, ..(more in

terms of ) pleading, or, how to put it, our With the focus on the circumstance: councelling what to do in certain situations. In Who allegedly paid 50,000 Euro to the unit this courtroom I intentionally avoided to talk about which killed D. Spasojević and M. Luković. several meeting between me and the Prime Ministers, I suggest that evidence be produced by private meetings...for it would seem that I was just reading spinning a yarn ....All other meetings were public of 39. An abstract from the Report of the semi-public, and we mostly disccussed some topics European Commission on Progress of Serbia and about which the Prime Minister wanted to know Montenegro in the Year 2005, ran by daily "Danas" my opinion or possibly to get me engaged in some of 14 November 2005. developments...., for he probably thought that I could help with some advice or even more with my With the focus on the circumstance: presence. In an identical way defence counsels of the That the European Commission establishes accused Ulemek wound up their questioning of the in its report that in the year 2005 "were percived first defendant, I quote parts from pages 19 and 20 of obvious attempts of some government the transcript dated 7 September 2004: members to meddle in the judiciary work." Lawyer Momčilo Bulatović: "Were your relations with the late Prime Minister Dr. Zoran Đinđić bad?" 12

Defendent Ulemek: "No. On the contrary. " * * * Lawyer Momčilo Bulatović: "Thank you. I have no more questions." Contrary to what the first defendant spoke in This is the very gist of defence of the first his defence, the proposed evidence would prove defendant. political closeness between the first defendant and the most vicious political opponents of the Prime Minister and his goverenment, namely, SUPPLEMENTARY DEFENSE Democratic Party of Serbia. By presentation of the proposed evidence the Ouster existence of a long-standing political closeness, or of the one originating at least since the armed Of course such a defence is called into insurgency, between the first defendant and question by the two indisputable events, Democrattic Party of Serbia would be proved. That Firstly, the fact that the accused Ulemek, closeness was manifested by after those two incidents which he had caused in (a) akin political stands and objectives, Kula and "Stupica Club", was practically fired from (b) objectively fine-tuned political action- the Services, taking on various occasions, And secondly, and more seriously, in (c) recent systematic efforts of members of November 2001 he staged the armed insurgency that party to pile unlawful and anti- against the government led by Zoran Đinđić. constitutional pressure on independence of this Hence the first defendant supplemented his Court to the benefit of the first defendant, from defence by assertion that after being relieved of his the party's top position in the executive duties of the commander of the Special Operations authorities. Unit, he was allegedly awarded by the sum of $ 30.000 by the Prime Minister's close associate. Close stands

Insurgency Proposed evidence relating to statements of the highest Democratic Party of Serbia officials would As regards the insurgency aimed against the prove, contrary to the first defendant's assertions, government, the first defendant defended himself great and total closeness of political stands of the by saying that the late Prime Minister in that first defndant and officials of that party, who at the insurgency in fact sided with the Special time were the most virulent political opponents of Operations Unit and the indictee Ulemek ! the Prime Minister and his government. (though one of the demands of the insurgents was a Let us only mention some of those political replacement of a member of that government). stands, notably those on: The first defendant then explained that the o the hand-over of Slobodan Milošević; Special Operations Unit was placed under the o on the Act on Co-operation with the government control, not because the late Prime ICTY; Minsiter and the government lost faith in that o resignation of Mihajlović; Unit, but because the Prime Minister, I quote the o resignation of Petrović and Mijatović; defence of the indictee (Transcript of 7 September o on the Hague Tribunal and "treacherous 2004, pages 13-14): line" toed by Djindjic-led government (whereby one "Wanted to protect the Unit because he ... may easily recognize identical rhetoric and (after and despite the insurgency) had some vocabulary, notably "lay the sacrifices to the Hague", affection for that Unit, for he probably saw and "treason", "pride and dignity " etc. ) informed himself of the value and power of that All the aforementioned is most clearly Unit...and thus he wanted to protect that Unit demonstrated in the open letter of the first from manipulations..." defendant and Dragan Jocic's expressions of public And while, according to the indictee Ulemek, support to Ulemek's stands. the Prime Minister out of affection for the SOU, placed that Unit under its protection, he, in Fine-tuned actions, the first defendant's parallel, I quote: awareness of the joint actions "...was very angry because the Ministry (of internal affairs)... could not establish proper Aside from identical political stands and the relations with that Unit. " common political objective to overthrow the 13

"treacherous government" of Zoran Đinđić, at play was then put, that DPS "should assume were also fine-tuned actions and clear awareness of responsibility" by formation of a concentration the first defendant of that co-ordinated and joint government comprising "all parlamentary parties" action-taking. and headed by the Prime Minister from the DPS ranks. Let us look more closely into that matter: The first defendant stages the insurgency by Pressures on the court placing the very same demands placed on the political scene by Democratic Party of Serbia The fact that the first defendant was unusually (resignation of the Interior Secretary, re-shuffle in close to the principal political opponents of the late the top leadership of the Security Services, passing Prime Minister would be proved by those proposals of the Act on Co-operation with the Hague relating to obvious attempts of Democratic Party of Tribunal, suspension of hand-overs); Serbia to impact the proceedings, from its executive And, of course, Vojislav Koštunica, President position conquered after the assassination, to the of DPS and the then army commander (article 135 benefit of the first defendant. of the FRY Constitution) openly backs the (But let us follow the sequence of events.) insurgency; These are the facts which which would be In their meeting with Democratic Party of established by proposed evidence: Serbia official, Rade Bulatovic and head of Security • Around 21 p.m. on 2 May 2004, the first Directorate Aca Tomic, the first defendant and the defendant surrendered; late Dušan Spasojević asked and got guarantees • The very same moment a DPS official, that the Army in that case would not defend DRAGAN JOČIĆ, the then Interior Minister, left for the constitutional order, (despite the provision Belgrade to conduct an unlawful and secret of article 133, paragraph 1. of the then FRY conversation with the first defendant in the office Constitution in force). of head of the Public Security Department in the Rade Bulatovic, official of Democratic Party Interior Ministry Building, together with the second of Serbia, publicly hailed the success of DPS official, head of the Security-Information insurgency by penning the article "Victory of Agency, RADE BULATOVIĆ; Patriotism". • After that conversation, as it would be The first defendant divulged his political demonstrated by the proposed evidence, the stream manifesto, an Open letter, in which he of DPS statements, full of inexplicable faith in the attacked the government of the late Zoran first defendant's sincerity began, though the first Đinđić, above all because of its co-operation with defendant is not legally duty-bound to speak the the Hague Tribunal (which according to DPS truth nor the indictees usually do that. All those President, Vojislav Koštunica should be "a minor statements contrived to suggest that "Mr. Legija" issue on the political agenda"), for its alleged would unveil the TRUTH about assassination, in a "trampling upon national pride and dignity" (that stark contrast to the one presented by the lawful, by was at the time also a frequent argument of DPS the court confirmed indictment; President, Vojislav Koštunica), because that • The first defendant's gratitude for such a government "taints the true patriots", and marked DPS confidence in him was demonstrated threatened the government that "no-one would immediately: at the main hearing he stated that he ever forgive it such conduct" (like the defendant surrendered after fourteen months, for in contrast to "never forgave such conduct of the late Đinđić"). the former government (formed by Zoran Đinđić), he And then the DPS official publicly backed had total faith in the new Government; that political manifesto, such stands, • On 13 June 2004 the first defendant proclaimed the first defendant's letter "vox began his defence by false, for defence irrelevant populi" and alleged that his threats to the and unmotivated self-accusations relating to government, were threats of the people proper, on commission of a grave criminal offence, by spinning a whose behalf DPS official, DRAGAN JOĆIĆ was story about smuggling 600 kg of heroine in an alleged now speaking out; collusion with closest Zoran Djindjic's aides, thus On 12 March 2003 the threat was translated getting involved in the pre-election campaign of into reality, that is, the assassination took place. DPS candidate, MARŠIĆANIN; Immediately after assassination DPS • exploited the mood created by assassination Of course, that fabrication about drug- committed by the first defendant and his smuggling, was tirelessly reiterated, for days on accomplices, by resorting to a public demand, as it end, as a proved fact, by all DPS members and 14

notably the electoral headquarters of the DPS Both those concerning political statements candidate; and moves of the very witness, • A DPS official, here examined witness As much as those concerning political Mihajlov, then voiced that assertion that (Boris) statements and moves of his closest party Tadić and (Zoran) Živković knew the identity of collaborators, in view of their near-total co- "true killers", in contrast to the ones in the dock, ordination indicative of the policy of the party and then admitted to this very court that he was headed by the witness, only joking; And especially as regards the circumstance of • And then the other DPS official, the support for the November 2001 insurgency, DRAGAN JOĆIĆ, demanded "a new which he publicly rendered in his capacity of the FRY investigation", and the third, the Justice President. Minister, also a DPS member, demanded, that the shutdown of the Special Court, while the fourth, Justification: head of the Public Security Directorate, publicly divulged that "the indictment has clay feet", Support for the insurgency while "true muderers – are at large"; Many witnesses have here aleady spoken • The third DPS official then dared about the role of the proposed witness in events maintain that the entire case was a frame-up linked to the November 2001 armed insurgency. For put in place by "those who prepared the example: assassination" ("at play is the most classic o The accused Pejaković, during example of priming of assassination, witnesses, the investigation, testified that in November 2001, in the guilty parties" by the same person, GRADIMIR course of insurgency, either Ulemek or the late NALIĆ said); Spasojević, after their meeting with A.Tomić, Mikelić, • In line wit this "frame-up" theory, DPS and Bulatović, uttered "We shall not tell Šešelj that president asserted that during investigation we have established contacts with Koštunica, let material evidence was destroyed, while us first see what Šešelj thinks about that" (in the DRAGAN JOČIĆ and DEJAN MIHAJLOV investigating magistrate office, 23 May 2003, page maintained that the two indictees were 11). liquidated. o "In one of those conversations (during • And former adviser to Vojislav the insurgency – S.P.) which I disclosed, a member of Koštunica, ALEKSANDAR TIJANIĆ, even the Unit, perhaps Gumar, anyway someone who had maintained that he knew the name of the man talked with Čume or Spasojević, was literally told by who paid 50,000 Euro to members of SAU to one of them " we must continue, until Kostunica kill Spasojević and Luković, without corroborating tells us to stop'"... never proved claims from the first defendant's o "You may draw a clear conclusion that defence; the insurgency organizers had a lot of faith in In view of such abundance of allegations and Vojislav Koštunica, perceived him as the only fabrications, the European Commission in its authority who could influence them, if he so Report for the year 2005 made it clear that "there desired, to end the insurgency" (Goran Petrović, GP were obvious attempts of some government 18 May 2005, page 50). members to meddle in the judiciary work". o When I asked the witness why no-one (Obviously, contrary to the constitutional principle contacted Kostunica to make them end the of division of power, article 12 of our Constitution.) insurgency, since he was in power to do that, the witness replied that such a move was I propose the questioning of a witness: deemed "counter-productive", and explained: • Dr. Vojislav Koštunica, to be between the government and Kostunica and DPS summoned via Democratic Party of Serbia, Pariska "there was a conflict, they waged a media war, they 13, Beograd were enaged in a political struggle...the two sides were directly confronted" (Goran Petrović, GP, 18 With the focus on the circumstance: May 2005, page 51). o "What is noteworthy, in speaking about As DPS President, with a view to all the that political backdrop, aside from the already known aforementioned circumstances, facts, is therefore, that the FRY President backed that armed insurgency, and DPS did that too... 15

... there are also some other things, operational Spasojevic are not vested in such powers or things, indicative of that involvement" (Goran authorizations. And obviously doctor of legal Petrović, GP, 18 May 2005, page 34). sciences, the proposed witness, is perfectly aware of o For example, in his book, "Povlen Fogs the foregoing. The attempt to usurp those powers and Sights", here questioned witness DUŠAN or authorizations by threats, as it was done by the MIHAJLOVIĆ published a faxcimile of the 13 insurgency, are tantamount to the attack on the November 2001 official note in which a government, its Prime Minister, the policy pursued collaborator quotes ZORAN ŠAMI's bodyguard by the government of the Republic of Serbia in speaking about several meetings between Šami keeping with the Constitution, and sovereignty of the and Legija and Frenki, about "DPS's open National Parliament, and in itself represent jeopardy support of Red Berets", of "their foreknowledge to the constitutional order. And obviously the of the Army's non-intervention, and the Interior proposed witness is aware of that, that is, must Ministry.....impotence in the whole matter". have been aware of that. o "The story was circulated about the Unit coming to Belgrade to overthrow the incumbent Threat authorities and ....replace them with those who, according to them, would toe a patriotic line, in Threat manifestations were perfectly clear too: contrast to the current, anational, treacherous line..." o demonstration of power of the Special (Dušan Mihajlović, GP, 15 March 2005, page 20) Operations Unit; o disobedience and abandonement of the Obvious endangering of the task ; constitutional order o practical imposition of the compulsion monopoly; The question is whether Vojislav Koštunica, o guarantees for the army non- as a doctor of legal sciences, in giving his appraisal intervention by the first defendant. of the Special Operations Unit role, was aware, could be aware, or had to be aware that at play Legal significance of the support: was endangering of the constitutional order of the Removal of hurdles country. (yielding the compulsion monopoly)

Political demands On justifiable grounds could be posed the question of responsibility of President of Democratic Proposed witness must have been aware that Party of Serbia for the assistance rendered in by its action the Special Operations Unit was removal of hurdles by his non-action, therefore placing political demands before the highest for the offence from article 124, paragraph 2 in legislative and executive authorities, in view of the connection with article 30, paragraph 1 of the Basic following facts Penal Code which was valid tempore crimini (that is o that possible dismissals of ministers article 310 in connection with article 35, paragraph 2, are decided by the Prime Minister and National in connection with article 15, paragraph 2, of the Parliament (article 93, paragraph 6 of the Penal Code in force), in view of the fact that the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia); obligation of acting is prescribed by articles 133 o that the Government appoints and and 135 of the Constitution – By non-fulfilment of dismisses officials in ministries (article 90, point 5 that obligation to which the Supreme Commander of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia ); and the Army are duty-bound under the o that it is the Government's duty to Constitution, at the critical moment of time, when fulfill international commitments of the country the Unit practically started placing its demands and (article 90, point 1, of the Constitution of the voicing its threats, the monopoly related to the use of Republic of Serbia); compulsion means was practically yielded to the Unit. o and that the National Parliament, at The foregoing ensured the success of the the Government's proposal (article 90, point 4 of insurgency. the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia ), decides on promulgation of laws (article 73, point 2, of the Relevance: Links to assassination Constitution of the Republic of Serbia). Obviously the Special Operations Unit, or its Insurgency is an offence of jeopardy, whose current or former commander, or the late Dusan consequence is the state of danger for the 16

protective object of constitutional order and Conclusion security. On the other hand, the state of danger implies an increased possibility for causing Therefore, it is perfectly clear that the violations of the constituional order and security. defence of the first defendant, in part in which he Hence when that violation happens, the theory speaks about his loyalty to the Service, the Interior implies the side –effect of the offence of jeopardy Ministry, the government and Zoran Đinđić is totally (Bayer). false. The truth is totally inverse: namely that he in In our case, the insurgency produced the full awareness acted in line with the DPS policy, in state of danger (control was lost over Security line with the policy of the biggest opponent of Zoran Services) which made easier, as it indeed turned Đinđić and his government, doing his utmost by dint out, the violation proper-assassination of the Prime of insurgency, assassination and even his defence, to Minister of the republican government (at the very politically help opponents of Zoran Djinjic. hands of members of security services). Mind-set and will of those indicted for the Therefore the responsibility for the side- attack on the constitutional order is shaped in a effect is logically expanded to the responsibility certain, concrete political ambience. They are shaped for the consequence proper. gradually, in response to concrete political Such a stand is in fact taken in the very developments, notably: indictment, as spelled out on page 32: • hand-over of Slobodan Milošević to the "effects of insurgency encouraged Hague Tribunal ("an ignominous act"), Spasojević and Legija pursue their key idea – the • dismissal of the first defendant from the conequest of power, but now in other way and position of the Special Operations Unit Commander, with other means".. • launching of investigation into the Ibar Highway assessination, * * * • Carla del Ponte's letter requesting data Since I anticipate (one) certain objection to on the first defendant (about which the witness this proposal, I want to clarify that-though I MIJATOVIĆ has already spoken), request that the proposed evidence establishes • Armed insurgency ("Stop to the Hague") causal links between actions of this witness • Passing of the Act on Organized Crime, and forbidden consequences thereof, with • Establishment of the institution of which those indictees are charged- presentation of Special Prosecutor and of this court. proposed evidence would not result in Such a mind-set was strengthened through establishment of a possible existence of the awareness of the existence of political forces and criminal offence of assistance by the proposed state institutions or parts thereof, which also coveted witness, which, obviously cannot be the subject- the fall of government of Zoran Djindjic, and which matter of these proceedings. publicly backed them throughout their continued Criminal offence, in terms of article 14, attack on the the constitutional order. paragraph 1, is only the offence for which there is Intention of the perpetrator of the offence inculpation. Paragraph 2 of the same article of the committed in order to produce political consequences Penal Code expressly lays down that there is no is not formed in a vacuum, but rather in the political criminal offence – despite the existence of all arena. To fully understand such intention we must hallmarks thereof as determined by the lawfully understand that political arena. without culpability, that is a special subjective How the idea of attack on the constitutional relation between the perpetrator and the order by dint of assassination is born in perpetrators' offence. minds? Which pictures of political consequences Therefore the Law does not spell out the motivate them? absence of responsibility, but rather the absence of What political consequences do they expect? offence! What I propose is that questioning of On what are such expectations based? witness VOJISLAV KOŠTUNICA establishes the What do they want to prevent, and what do circumstances of the offence which is the they want to achieve? What is their understanding of that political subject-matter of these proceedings, and not arena? another offence by another person against whom How that arena impacts the formation of their these proceedings are not instituted. will?

Who can they rely on?

Who are their opponents, and who are their The purpose of today's proposals of ours, allies? is to prove, that contrary to the defence of the first All those developments unfolded in June defendant, during the aforementioned period existed 2001- 12 March 2003 period, in the political mood a clear and strong political closeness between the steeped in a bitter and impassioned conflict first defendant and the most virulent political foes of between the two distinctly opposed political camps, the Prime Minister Đinđić, rallied among the ranks of one calling itself the "the pro-reform camp", Democratic Party of Serbia, and very frequently-and embodied in Zoran Đinđić and his government, and we also tried to prove that-even co-ordination of the other, calling itself "the patriotic camp", their actions, both public and covert one. embodied in DPS and the then FRY President Kostunica.

TO THE DISTRICT PUBLIC PROSECUTION OFFICE SPECIAL PROSECUTION OFFICE B e l g r a d e

KTs. No. 2/03

Subject-matter: Proposal of Srdja Popovic, lawyer of the damaged party, RUŽICA DJINJDIĆ, for the expansion of indictment KTs. No. 2/03 of 21 August 2003, against MILORAD ULEMEK indicted before a Special Department of the District Court in Belgrade, k.p.no.5/03

On the basis of evidence produced 3. that "in implementation Zoran MIJATOVIĆ, who were for the at the main hearing relating to the of that plan ... was included the first time heard only at the main above subject (article 342, paragraph Special Operations Unit, as a well hearing, but also to the partial 1 of the Act on Criminal Proceedings) trained armed formation, in admission of ULEMEK himself, who conditions have matured for the obedience to Luković-Legija"; was also for the first time questioned expansion of indictment against 4. that the "first test of at the main hearing, in view of his Milorad ULEMEK charged with the those ambitions was the SPU escape during investigation. criminal offence of armed insurgency insurgency, which was politically (Obviously those testimonies according article 124, paragraph 2 of motivated as reflected in its demands must be viewed as interrelated to the Basic Penal Code, punishable for dismissal of the Interior Minister those of testimonies, notably the one under article 139, paragraph 1 of the and other personalities"; and of the witness collaborator and of the Basic Penal Code. 5. finally, that "the effects accused Saša PEJAKOVIĆ, who Justification relating to the of uprising ...encouraged Spasojević were interrogated during indictment KTs no. 2/03 of 21 August and Legija to pursue the principal investigation and questioned at the 2003 (see page 32) idea-conquest of power, but now in main hearing.) describes the factual state from other way and by other means." Therefore, in view of the course of which stems the existence of the (ATTACH. No.1) the evidence presentation procedure criminal offence of armed insugency, However, only the evidence to date, conditions have now matured in regard to the accused ULEMEK, produced at the main hearing with all for expanding the indictment against though he is not charged with that certainty proved all those facts the defendant ULEMEKA charged offence. Namely, in the quoted place constituting the gist of the criminal with the following: of the indictment it is maintained: offence of armed insurgency as Organizing and being a ringleader 1. that "at the top of spelled out by article 124, paragraph 2 of the action of the Special pyramid (criminal organization – of the Basic Penal Code, and Operations Unit aimed at remark by S.P.) were the defendant established responsibility of the endangering the FRY constitutional Luković-Legija and Dušan Spasojević"; defendant ULEMEK for that offence. order and security in collusion with 2. that the "whole I am above all referring to the late Dusan SPASOJEVIC in organization was so designed ....to testimonies by witnesses Rodoljub November 2001, as a former long- gear its activity towards the conquest MILOVIĆ, Zoran JANJUŠEVIĆ, standing commander of the SOU, of power"; Goran PETROVIĆ, Vladimir over which he retained control even POPOVIĆ, Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ and after the expiry of his function. 18

During that insurgency the said Unit Serbia, DT 72 no. 00-002/2003/86 of They were bent on entering the Unit's expressly disobeyed its superiors, 13 August 2003, page 24) – ATTACH. centre...but the commander refused voluntarily withdrew all its members No. 2 to receive them, and instead to Kula barracks, cut off all telephone "...they were all called by cell presented them with written ties with direct superiors and outside phones to convene urgently in Kula, demands of our world, withdrew its members from and then, once there, that is what I Command.....Mijatović took that security services of airport Belgrade, learnt later, their cell phones and piece of paper and then literally threw withdrew its members from escorts of weapons were seized, they were it at the commander...he told him protected personalities, fully armed placed in some premises and that we had no right to place such and using armed vehicles voluntarily compelled to agree with what that demands,...and that unless we occupied part of highway near "Sava group of people planned and to back immediately calmed down, they Centre" by Belgrade, and threatened the there formulated demands of would take different measures. to use force unless its demands were ringleaders." Commander Maricic then got met, namely that the Act on Co- (Transcript of statement of entangled in that row with the operation with the Hague Tribunal be witness Zoran MIJATOVIĆ at the deputy, and the meeting ended, if I passed by the National Parliament, main hearing, on 28 December 2004, may put it, in a catastrophic way." that the Interior Secretary, head of page 8) – ATTACH. No. 3 (Transcript of statement of State Security and his deputy be "After that I received a fax, as did defendant ULEMEK at the main replaced with a view to establishing the office of Minister Mihajlovic, who hearing, 14 June 2004, page 28) – control over the State Security was then on an official trip. And the ATTACH. No. 5 Services and thus foiling the fax more or less informed us that the "Then about half past one, when completion of legally prescribed tasks Special Operations Unit, as we already the blockade was effected, deputy of those Services, all of which resulted knew, committed an ignominous and Mijatovic came again...the then in direct endangering of the treacherous act, etc., blah blah, some commander of the Unit told him that constitutional order and security. By stupidities, and because of that were ....he he did not want to discuss and doing the aformentioned, he no longer subordinated to me, as comment at all Mijatovic's proposals, committed a criminal offence from head of section and the Interior though Mijatovic came back to article 124, paragraph 2, from the Secretary, Dušan Mihajlović. After smooth things over..." Basic Penal Code, punishable under that I tried again to contact them, (Transcript of statement of article 139, paragraph 1 of the Basic but, in the meantime, they cut off all defendant ULEMEK at tha main Penal Code. connections, how to put it, with hearing, 14 June 2004, pages 33-34) outside world, on someone's order, I – ATTACH. No. 5 Justification : assume on order of those who "Why did I go there? Because the organized everything. Therefore no- unit refused to see Goran Petrović" Factual quotations and legal one in Kula any longer responded to (Transcript of statement of qualification of the offence stem from our calls. Later we got to know that witness Zoran MIJATOVIĆ at the the following evidence: cell phones and other phones were main hearing, 28 December 2004, seized from all the Unit's members page 31) – ATTACH. No 3. 1 Disobedience, severance of and locked away. " communication, abandonment of (Transcript of statement of 2. Demands, threats, use of tasks witness Goran PETROVIĆ, at the force main hearing, 18 May 2005, page 27) "Uprising erupted in November – ATTACH. No.4 "Demands made by the Unit 2001 ...Commander of the Special "Maričić tried once again to get in were....adoption of Act on co- Operations Unit, on order of Luković touch with head of services....Head of operation with the Hague Tribunal, a (that is Ulemek – remark by S.P.) who services refused that, and instead purely political matter, that is the still exercised the function of of the asked him what entitled him to cut matter of lawmaker, National shadow commander of the unit, off all connections in the Kula centre. parliament, and not in the least invited the unit's members to Then he ordered him to come straight matter of police's concern or interest. abandon their duties and withdraw away to Belgrade headquarters...and The second demand was also of a into the barracks, together with the then a row with head of services purely political nature, and concerned unit members engaged as escorts of ensued ...by and large the then the replacement of a minister, that is protected personalities. They blocked commander refused to go to my resigation and dismissal of head some roads in Kula and highway near Belgrade..." and deputy head of the State Security Centre Sava." "Two hours later the then deputy Services ...." (page 19) (Report of the Commission of the Mijatović and the then head of the "...the official policy of the Government of the Republic of 7th Department drove into our yard. government whose member I was,

19 totally opposed those demands. In framework of that awkward, but the "They appointed Bracanović...In other words, that government urged a only possible compromise at that fact he was the key figure there. They full co-opertion with the Hague moment of time..." got total control over those services Tribunal, and not that a pertinent act (Transcript of statement of (the Security-Information Agency- or absence thereof serve as an excuse witness Dušan MIHAJLOVIĆ at the remark by S.P.)...they were mostly for non-cooperation with the Hague, main hearing, 15 March 2005, page interested in surveillance, for when we returned to the fold of 42) – ATTACH. No.6 interception measures. They tapped the United Nations we accepted a "Dušan when faced with that the phones according to their needs. I committment implied by such situation, that is, with situation in remember once that Dušan was membership, including the one which the possibility of an armed saying that in that body, whatever it relating to co-operation with the conflict was openly mentioned, is called, the Council for Security. And Hague Tribunal, and there is a solid decided to hand in his resignation..." during that meeting in the Security basis for direct application of rules of (Transcript of statement of Institute Žarko Korać suggested that the ICTY, that is for their direct witness Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ at the we arrest them all. But their people application by our judicial bodies." main hearing, 11 April 2005, page 14) were against it. So I know that Dušan "We witnessed how the pressure – ATTACH. No.7 commented it. They knew about all was brought to bear on other police "...In November (in the insurgency their talks, plans." members to join in the insurgency –remark by S.P.) both ours and theirs (Transcript of statement of ...to back it." destinies were defined. They decided witness collaborator Zoran "However, in parallel we were to destroy us, and we decided to VUKOJEVIĆ at the main hearing, on aware of the reality on the ground, destroy them. " 13 April 2004, page 58) – ATTACH. namely that the Serb police at that "On 11 March 2003 the only No. 8 moment of time did not have at its question which concerned us was the "That compromise was linked to disposal any other armed formation whereabouts of persons to be arrested ....fulfilment of Ulemek's wish ...that to counter Red Berets, to disarm and charged with the gravest crimes. Andrija Savić and Milorad them or carry out the pertinent That was the only question which Bracanovića be appointed ...as ministerial or head of Security concerned us. On 10 March witness- succesors of Petrović and Services decision on disbanding of collaborator gave his testimony and Mijatović...and when we took that that unit". (page 20) that testimony met all the necessary decision we....defined the State "... it was quite clear that if we prerequisites for prosecuting the Security Sector as an intitution in wanted to avoid any further Zemun Clan and Milorad Ulemek in which we could not have even confrontation and misfortune in the keeping with the Anti-Organized elementary, minimal faith. " country that some compromises had Crime Act " (Transcript of statement of to be made...in order to avoid a blood- "And obviously to disband the witness Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ at the bath which was hanging in the air in Special Operations Unit, for on 17 main hearing, 11 April 2005, page 12) view of a protracted agony of that March we planned to constitute the – ATTACH. No. 7 insurgency and the threat it posed to Council of Ministers of the State "I said that the insurgency of Red all accomplishments of my Union, in which, according to the plan Berets was the last act in a drama of government and its plans relating to Democratic Party was to take over the that synchronized, organized and the further reform of this country." Defence Ministry. The foregoing was orchestrated, joint, and ultimately (page 22) of special importance for us, since the successful destruction of the State "I considered it an armed Defence Ministry with its capabilities Security Services..." insurgency. And it was qualified as was the kind of guarantee with which (Transcript of statement of such by the State Security Services we could respond to dictate of force. " witness Vladimir POPOVIĆ at the leadership, and by myself, and the (Transcript of statement of main hearing on 13 April 2005, page government in the first witness Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ at the 60) – ATTACH. No. 9 communiques. It had all elements of main hearing, 11 April 2005, page 70) "Those two resignations ( of that phenomenon, for if someone to – ATTACH. No. 7 Minister Mihajlović and head of whom the state gave arms to do his services Petrović – remark by S.P.) lawfully job and in line with the rules 3. Instrumentaliztion of State were requested....because of the role of service engagement, starts acting Security Services of those officials in clarification of the unlawfully, and contrary to the said past crimes, of the crimes which were rules, and fully armed comes to "Their motives were to ovethrow the Milosevice era legacy, crimes Belgrade to make public his demands, this government. And they underscored by the Prime Minister in it can only constitute an armed accomplished that goal. In other his government policy-promotion insurgency. Afterwards that words the authorities could not address before the National formulation....was practically re- neutralize them." Parliament by the Prime Minister. formulated and accepted within the 20

Namely Zoran Đinđić then said that Ulemek Luković, told memers of the the Unit be transferred from the State Serbia shall become a normal society Unit, that they were in the midst of Security Sector, that is, placed under only when it clarifies tragic issues of protest or uprising, you were not very the direct command of the dissappearance of Ivan Stambolic, clear about that, and that he said that government of the Republic of Serbia, tragedy of Slavko Ćuruvija and those who did not want to join in whereupon head of Sector and obviously assassinations in Budva and were free to return their pistols and Minister Mihajlovic would be vested Ibar Highway." badges, and that none of the present in operational powers over the (Transcript of statement of dared do that ? Unit..." witness Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ at the Indictee Saša Pejaković: "Yes, but (Transcript of statement of main hearing, 11 April 2005, page 6) even more powerful people stated defendant ULEMEK at the main – ATTACH. No.7 that there was no way to counter hearing on 14 June 2004, page 37) them." ATTACH. No. 5 5. Role of indictee (Transcript of statement of "In November 2001, on the day ULEMEK as organizer and defendant Saša PEJAKOVIĆ at the when Generals Tomić and Pavković insurgency ringleader main hearing on 19 February 2004, were to leave for Moscow, and during page 18) – ATTACH. No. 11 the Red Berets insurgency, Mikelic "When I came to Kula I saw a "At the time Legija was stage- and Legija paid a visit to the generals. veritable chaos in front of the centre. managing the insurgency in Kula." Legija was in possession of There were hundreds of journalists (Transcript of statement of information of an imminent and cameramen, all of them trying to witness collaborator Zoran confrontation between the SOU and enter. And we deliberated our move. VUKOJEVIĆ at the main hearing on "Kobre", and since he thought that We seriously discussed both 13 April 2004, page 57). – ATTACH. "Kobre" were subordinated to the possibilitites, that is, the one of no. 8 Security Directorate of Chief of Staff stopping the protest and the other of "During the insurgency, as I have he asked for Tomic's pertinent continuing it if our move failed to already said, the chief, the true opinion. Tomić then gave him his produce any result. " commander was Legija. He staged – assurances of army's non- (Transcript of statement of managed the insurgency though intervention. " defendant ULEMEK at the main Gumar, and not Legija, was the (Note of the Military Security hearing , 14 June 2004, page 34) – formal commander of the SOU. " Services Directorate, strictly ATTACH. No. 5 (Minutes on interrogation of confidential, no. 1-31 of 22 June "While I worked in Spasojević's indictee Saša PEJAKOVIĆ in the 2003. to the Anti-Organized Crime security services, Legija once ordered office of investigating magistrate on Department ) – ATTACH. No. 12 us to go to the Unit in Kula. ...After 23 May 2003, page 8) – ATTACH. "During the insurgency and our arrival in the SOU seat in Kula, No. 10 related developments, by monitoring Legija convened all of us, security "I talked the whole night to talks between the Unit members with men, about dozen of us. Then he Ulemek in the SOU officer's others, we understood for the first discaded two or three, for they were canteen....After many hours we time, at least I grasped it for the first not members of the SOU. Then he reached a kind of agreement to invite time, that the Unit's command was told us that from that moment on, we Dusan Mihajlovic to Kula...." greatly influenced by Mr. Lukovic and were part of the protest or (Transcript of statement of those whom we mention, Spasojevic insurgency, I cannot recall the exact witness Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ at the and Ljubisa Buha Čume, that gang. term he used, and that those not main hearing on 11 April 2005, page For they wee directly involved in willing to join in were free to return 13) – ATTACH. No. 7 organization and backing of that their IDs and pistols and leave. No- "From the first to the last moment insurgency. " one dared oppose him. I don't know if Milorad Ulemek was the commander (Transcript of statement of he then mentioned the reason for the of the SOU. It certainly was not witness Dušan MIHAJLOVIĆ at the insurgency." Maricic, because he feared even main hearing, on 15 March 2005, "My opinion is that Legija Ulemek's shadow ." page 40) – ATTACH. No. 6 commanded that unit until its (Transcript of statement of "What is clear to me now, and dissolution." witness Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ at the what was clear to us during the very (Minutes on interrogation of main hearing on 11 April 2005, page insurgency, was the fact that the indictee Saša PEJAKOVIĆ, in the 19) – ATTACH. No. 7 upper echelons of the Special office of investigating magistrate, 23 "I came to the Ministry (of Operations Unit were totally May 2003) – ATTACH. No. 10 internal affairs – remark by S.P.) They subordinated to the informal President of Trial Chamber: Have took me to the Minister's office. Lukic influence of its former commander you stated that, then, during the and professor Andrija Savić were and that they had very close ties with protest, the defendant, Milorad there too. And there we agreed that head of Zemun Clan, Dušan

Spasojević, the man who practically 6. Role of the late DUŠAN conversations, some of which were co-ordinated that action and was SPASOJEVIĆ in the insurgency publicly disclosed, notably those frequently present in Kula and in the between the Unit members and SOU centre. " "In the early days of insurgency, Spasojevic and Buha. " (page 34) (Transcript of statement of one night after 22 p.m., when we had "As regards Buha I am not so sure, witness Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ at the all retired, Šare Nenad called me to but as regards Spasojević I know that main hearing on 11 April 2005, pages come down. He also called another the said instrumentalizaiton of the 6-7) – ATTACH. No. 7 colleague, I cannot recall his name Unit was closely linked to some of "A large part of the SOU members, now. He told us to wait in the hall of their criminal activities." (page 43) mostly simple people, uneducated the building. And then, after indeed a (Transcript of statement of people, some even without the long wait, the door next to the boiler witness Goran PETROVIĆ at the main primary school education, considered room opened and Šare Nenad hearing on 18 May 2005, page 34) – those who enlisted them as their appeared. He told us to go to bed. ATTACH. No. 4 absolute masters. And that large Behind his back I saw Dušan "It was a very unpleasant, brief number of people was consequently Spasojević, he waved at us. I did not conversation, the one in which easy to instrumentalize and wave ack because Škene at the time Spasojevic openly exposed his manipulate." told me that Spasojevic's arrival intentions, and clearly indicated his (Transcript of statement of should be considered a secret." role within the framework of the witness Vladimir POPOVIĆ at the (Minutes on interrogation of Special Operations Unit. He main hearing on 16 May 2005, page indictee Saša PEJAKOVIĆ in the practically acted as a SOU 11) – ATTACH. No. 13 investigating magistrate office on 23 representative. He said that the "...everyone knew that Gumar May 2003) – ATTACH. No. 10 protest would continue until their (Maričić – remark by S.P.) did not "I went to the government of demands were met, that Mihajlović command the Unit...he wielded no Serbia building. In the adjacent and Petrović would be replaced, that authority, he was not able to issue courtyard Ljubiša Buha and Dušan he and others in that regard enjoyed orders even to his wife, let alone to Spasojević were waiting for me. And bhe backing of all others. His words anyone in the Unit. It was a well- then Dušan told me 'don;t yield, this clearly demonstrated their resolve known fact that he was placed in that must be finished'." and intentions. " position by Legija. If Legija had (Transcript of statement of (Transcript of statement of appointed a scarecrow, even that defendant ULEMEK at the main witness Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ at the scarecrow would command the Unit. hearing on 14 June 2004, page 35) main hearing 11 April 2005, page 9) – Therefore Legija was an absolute ruler ATTACH. No. 5 ATTACH. No.7 and master of that Unit....until the "During the first meeting (during "...we did not know, before the day of 12 March...." the November 2001 insurgency – Red Berets insurgency, that the (Transcript of statement by remark by S.P.) with General Tomic, insurgency was directly linked to to witness Vladimir POPOVIĆ at the Legija asked Tomic if he could invite a the arrest of Dušan Spasojević and main hearing of 16 May 2005, page mate of his desiring to see a general that Dušan Spasojević's influence on 21) – ATTACH. No 13 who had apprehended Perišića. Soon that Unit was so enormous that for "I think that I have explained in afterwards, Dušan Spasojević, joined them that act was tantamount to the detail the role of Legija the last time. us. He was probalby sitting in his car, arrest of -their chief." But I can repeat that to the letter, awaiting to be received." (Transcript of statement of namely what the Unit was, what was (Strictly Confidential Note of the Vladimir POPOVIC at the main the exact role of of the Unit members, Military Security Services no. 1-31 of hearing on 16 May 2005, page19) – namely that there were 10 or 15 of 22 June 2003, to the Anti-Organized ATTACH. No. 13 them involved, and not more, that Crime Department) – ATTACH. No. Legija was considered among them 12 7. Awareness of jeopardy to the absolute master, and despite only "So when the insurgency broke the constitutional order 10 or 15 people with gangland ties, out we all had the aforementioned (premeditation) about 200 of them considered Legija foreknowledge, also because a their God and moreover, feared him. " number of Unit's members, on "So the only issue was whether we (Transcript of statement of grounds of their varied criminal would stage the blockade of airport witness Vladimir POPOVIĆ at the activities, was surveilled by the because of that morning's main hearing 16 May 2005, page 24) Deparment. Of course we had those announcement by Minister – ATTACH. 13 pertinent operational data, and they Mihajlovic relating to an imminent were confirmed during the hand-over of his friend, and party insurgency. I am primarily referring colleague, Admiral Jokic to the Hague to intercepted telephone Tribunal...However after having

22 discussed the blockade idea, we opted the crimes considered the legacy of Prime Minister got up and left the out....namely such an action, such a Milosevic regime era, and the crimes meeting." (page 28) decision, could have entailed the army underscored by the Prime Minister in "I advocated the thesis that the intervention, since the army was , in a his government policy promotion state had to defend itself by all way, in charge of all those federal address to the parliament. Then means, for only in that way it institutions." Zoran Đinđić said that Serbia would demonstrated its state attributes. If (Transcript of statement of become a normal society only when it in the state there is another force defendant ULEMEK at the main totally clarified the tragic issues of which has a bigger monopoly over the hearing on 14 June 2004, page .33) – disappearance of Ivan Stambolić, physical coercion, then such an ATTACH. No. 5 tragedy of Slavko Ćuruvije and organized gang, a grouping is ....more "I said that we were indirectly obviously Budva and Ibar Highway powerful than the state proper. " familiar with the plans relating to assassinations." (page 28) occupation of some important points (Transcript of statement of Lawyer Srđa Popović: "Do you in town and its vicinity, and I directly witness Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ at the think that at that moment (of mentioned Gazela flyover, Belgrade main hearing on 11 April 2005 page insurgency-remark by S.P.) the airport location, state TV building, 6) – ATTACH. No. 7 security and constitutional-legal even the government building "As regards the Special Operations order of the country were threatened, proper." Unit insurgency, that was in fact the is that your opinion?" (Transcript of statement of last stage of the conflict , which began Witness Goran Petrović: "If the witness Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ at the when it was realized that we, as the late Prime Minster asked the Minister main hearing on 12 April 2005, page new authorities were not ready, and head of Public Security 58) – ATTACH. No. 14 contrary to expectations, to meet Department... "What will you do if demands aiming to totally transform they come to the goverment building 8. Motive the character of society we were bent and throw me into the street", and on creating in Serbia. So the distance they replied 'Nothing', that it is clear "...I shall only expose the facts, on created between the Special that that there was a real and 19 October 2001 Carla del Ponte sent Operations Unit and the first man of grounded assumption that a coup a copious, three to four pages letter to that Unit, was months-long. It could be effected anytime, that a Duško Mihajlović requesting him to escalated when Ulemek provoked first criminal offence could be committed forward to her a complete a scandal in a Kula disco, and later in with impunity, and even that the documentation on the Special Stupica Club, after which he was power could be taken over by Operations Unit...and most explicitly removed from the Interior Ministry." someone else. So in such a situation she requested Zvezdan Jovanović and (Transcript of statement of that possibility was very real." (page Milorad Ulemek records. To be witness Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ at the 49) perfectly honest Milorad was in that main hearing on 11 April 2005, pages (Transcript of statement of letter mentioned under three or four 5-6) – ATTACH. No. 7 witness Goran PETROVIĆ at the main names, aliases, but the request was hearing on 18 May 2005, page 28) – clearly related to him. So we received 9. Consequences, qualifying ATTACH. No. 4 that letter on 19 October 2001, just a circumstances from article 139 of "After the Red Berets insurgency, month ahead of the Unit's the Basic Penal Code the government of Serbia formed the insurgency. So who was in the know Council for State Security". about that request for records on the "...I think that the Prime Minister "...majority of those meetings (of Unit's activities, as it was clearly several times ....asked above all Lukić the Council for State Security – stated, in Croatia, Bosnia and even in and Mihajlović what would they do if remark by S.P.) dealt with those Kosovo...I really don't know..." the Unit left Kula and came to organized gangs, Surchin gang, (Transcript of statement of Belgrade, here to the Interior Zemun gang, etc. And also with the witness Zoran MIJATOVIĆ at the Ministry? They just shrugged off that Special Operations Unit." main hearing on 28 December 2004, idea and kept saying 'Well nothing, it (Transcript of statement of witness pages 33-34) – ATTACH. No. 3 is not a good idea.' And finally he Zoran JANJUŠEVIĆ at the main "So, the SOU insurgency was asked them what they would do if the hearing on 14 March 2005, pages 4 linked to the showdown with people Unit raided the government's and 7) – ATTACH. No. 15 combatting the organzied crime." premises and threw him into the "...I had sporadic contacts with "Those two resignations (of street? They kept reiterating that it Mr. Savic, while I met more Minister Mihajlović and department was not a good idea, that no-one in frequently Mr. Bracanović, since he head Petrović – remark by S.P.) were that Unit should confront the police, used to invite us to his office....until I demanded ....because of their role in Gendarmerie or anyone else. Then the realized that he was lying, that he was clarification of the recent past crimes, making a fool of me, because he considered me an amateur in those 23 matters. When I grasped that he was that they knew what was happening, charged, in view of different natures lying I decided to stop attending we mistrusted State Security, and we of acts and consequences thereof). those meetings....many things he was knew that someone was giving This expansion is unavoidable in view telling me where contrary to the information to Spasojevic Dusan." of adherence to the principle of reality on the ground...Public security (Transcript of statement of legality (article 46, paragraph 1 of the was in possession of different data witness RODOLJUB MILOVIĆ at the Act on Criminal Proceedings) which and that made me realize that main hearing on 27 December 2004, duty-binds the prosecutor to institute something was wrong." page 17) – ATTACH. No. 16 the criminal prosecution proceedings (Transcript of statment of witness "But upon our return to Serbia we if conditions laid down by the law are Zoran JANJUŠEVIĆ at the main faced both the Washingon and met and if there is enough evidence. hearing on 14 March 2005, pages 7-8) Brussels question 'whose debts are we Lawmaker determined that in that – ATTACH. No. 15 writing off', that is, 'who hold the case the prosecutor could not be "...incoming (to Public Security reins of power in Serbia'? Are we in guided by purposefulness of from the Security-Information charge, when I say 'we', I am referring prosecution (principle of Agency –remark by S.P.) information to democratic authorities, or the opportunity), even if it could be and data, in the shape of typed texts, authorities are insurgents at the time justified by a public interest. It is information in writing, were largely demonstrating their power in the especially impossible in the case in inaccurate. They failed to indicate heart of downtown Belgrade." question, in which the supreme public what was happening on the ground, (Transcript of statement of interest-protection of constitutional to point out to the factual state. For witness Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ at the order and security of the country-was that reason we insisted, if a serious main hearing on 11 April 2005, page jeopardized. action was to be taken, to have some 12) – ATTACH. No. 7 technical devices to be able at least to 11 July 2005, subsequently listen again to some * * * segments of conversations, and draw (Srđa Popović, lawyer ) our own conclusions, instead of being In view of a state of report, the in Belgrade fed with some conclusions typed on Prosecution should expand the paper. Then Public Security indictment to include the offence of We join in the proposal : operational units and colleagues from the armed insurgency (in realistic (Rajko Danilović, lawyer) the State Security were at coincidence with other offences with (Radivoj Paunović) loggerheads. Many people admitted which the defendant ULEMEK is