30 May 2013 - ICTY

49662
responsible for inter alia personnel and salary issues. The DB’s administrations regularly
reported to the deputy chief and chief. The Stanišić Defence submits that the responsibility for
payments of per diems was within the competence of the Deputy Head of Service, the Head of
the 8th Administration, the Head of the Administration and Centres, and ultimately the
Common/Joint Affairs Service of the Serbian MUP. Stanišić’s responsibility was to ensure
compliance with the rules on the use of special purpose funds but not to check each of the
thousands of payments. 2278 The Trial Chamber accepts that Stanišić’s responsibility was not to
check or know of each and every payment made by the DB. Nevertheless, the Trial Chamber
finds, based on exhibit D115, that the chief of the DB’s tasks included making decisions on
how to employ assets and methods. That other people were also involved in payment
decisions or that Stanišić was not aware of every single specific payment is irrelevant in this
respect.
1280. The Stanišić Defence further submits, referring to the expert evidence of Milan
Milošević and the relevant documentary evidence (exhibit D841), that the annual budget of
special purpose resources was based on the proposal put forward by the Head of the Second
Administration, and up to the amount of 50,000 dinars, the Head of the Second
Administration did not need Stanišić’s approval to administer per diem payments. 2279 In any
event, it was only in 1996 that a system of effective control procedure to check the accuracy
of the lists at ground level was put in place at the Serbian DB. 2280 In relation to Milan
Milošević, the Trial Chamber considered in chapter 2, that his evidence was only relevant to
the understanding of how, on the basis of the framework in place, the MUP and the DB were
expected to operate, but it was of limited, if any, probative value in assessing how the MUP
and the DB actually operated. Consequently, the Trial Chamber will not rely on his expert
evidence in this context. Furthermore, the Trial Chamber notes that according to the SFRY
Instruction for the use of funds by the DB, cited by the Stanišić Defence, the use of resources
for, inter alia, operative actions, was done with the approval of the Chief of the Serbian DB,
who may have authorised chiefs of sectors to approve payments up to 50,000 dinars. 2281
However, the evidence received does not indicate if and how this provision applied in practice
at the relevant time.
2277 D608 (Milun Miljković, witness statement, 10 July 2004), pp. 3-4.
2278 Stanišić Defence Final Trial Brief, 17 December 2012, para. 183.
2279 Stanišić Defence Final Trial Brief, 17 December 2012, paras 189, 192; Annex VII. The Trial Chamber notes
that Annex VII appears to be erroneously entitled Annex VIII.
2280 Stanišić Defence Final Trial Brief, 17 December 2012, paras 190-191.
Case No. IT-03-69-T 456
30 May 2013