30 May 2013 - ICTY

49488
1788. In its Final Trial Brief, the Stanišić Defence argues that there was close cooperation
between Arkan and the JNA and Badža, and not with Stanišić. 3585 The Stanišić Defence
submits that Arkan was supplied with weapons, equipment and supplies by the JNA and the
Serbian MUP, not the Serbian DB. 3586 According to the Stanišić Defence, Arkan and Badža’s
TO controlled the movement into and around the SAO SBWS and the Prosecution’s
conclusion, that because Arkan’s men were able to travel freely and obtain uniforms and
weaponry meant that they must have been under Serbian DB control, is ill-founded. 3587
1789. The Trial Chamber will now analyse the evidence suggesting a directing link between
the SDG and the Serbian DB in relation to the SAO SBWS in 1991. First, Borivoje Savić
testified that in May 1991, whilst he was in Belgrade, Arkan told him that Stanišić was his
boss. The Trial Chamber finds that this statement is inherently generic, is not clearly
connected to the operation in the SAO SBWS in 1991, and does not in and of itself
demonstrate that Stanišić directed the involvement of Arkan and the SDG in the SAO SBWS.
Second, Borislav Bogunović testified, inter alia, that Arkan was subordinate to the Serbian
MUP and Stanišić, rather than the JNA or the SAO SBWS Government. The foundation of
this witness’s knowledge in relation to this assumption is unclear and the Trial Chamber
therefore does not place weight upon this statement. Third, Witness C-1118 testified that
whilst he was detained at the Erdut training centre, in November 1991, he overheard a
conversation in which Arkan said that he was waiting for orders from Belgrade. The Trial
Chamber considers that this statement is vague and does not in and of itself show that
Accused directed the involvement of Arkan or the SDG in the SAO SBWS in 1991. Fourth,
Exhibit P1075 is an unsigned, undated document, which depicts the SDG as a paramilitary
unit that was in direct contact with the Serbian DB and MUP or which was engaged under the
guise of special units of the DB or MUP. However, despite Reynaud Theunens’s testimony,
without further substantiation, the Trial Chamber finds the report too generic to conclude that
the Accused directed the involvement of the SDG in the SAO SBWS. The majority, Judge
Picard dissenting, finds that neither in and of itself, nor cumulatively, does the evidence rise
to a level sufficient to establish that the Serbian DB or Stanišić directed the involvement of
the SDG in the SAO SBWS in 1991. The Trial Chamber finds that without further evidence,
the mere fact that the Accused were involved with the SDG at a later stage does not affect this
finding.
3585 Stanišić Defence Final Trial Brief, 17 December 2012, paras 443-445.
3586 Stanišić Defence Final Trial Brief, 17 December 2012, paras 442, 445.
3587 Stanišić Defence Final Trial Brief, 17 December 2012, paras 441-442.
Case No. IT-03-69-T 630
30 May 2013