Reynaud Theunens, witness at the Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic trial

Franko Simatovic’s defense started the cross-examination of prosecution military expert Reynaud Theunens by arguing that under the SFRY law on defense, the MUP was ‘the responsible body of the social and political community’ which had the right to take part in preparing the citizens for the defense of the country. The witness agreed with this suggestion, noting that under the law, the police could not engage in such activities unless a war or state of emergency were declared. At the same time, the defense brought up legal provisions granting every SFRY citizen right to join the defense of the country.

Franko Simatovic and his former boss in the Serbian state security service Jovica Stanisic, are charged with establishing, training and resupplying the police and paramilitary units that took part in the crimes against non-Serbs in the wars in Croatia and BH.

The defense contests the conclusions of Theunens’s report that the Serbian MUP ‘controlled or in other ways aided’ the volunteer paramilitary units like ‘Arkan’s men’, ‘Seselj’s men’ and Captain Dragan’s ‘special unit’. As the defense lawyer noted, a protected witness stated that in June 1991 on their way to the battlefields in Croatia the SRS volunteers couldn’t carry arms with them in Serbia in fear of the police. The witness replied that the Serbian authorities soon changed their attitude towards the paramilitary units and as of the fall of 1991, they were allowed to form and operate.

The presiding judge asked the defense lawyer to clarify the issue, since on the one hand he was arguing that armed ‘Seselj’s men’ feared the police, and on the other, that it was the right of every citizen to get organized and join the defense of the country. ‘Why would the MUP prevent something that was the right of every citizen?’ Judge Orie asked. Defense lawyer Bakrac explained that the Serbs in Croatia and BH had the right to organize themselves for the purpose of ‘defense and self-protection’ after the republics declared their independence; at the same time volunteers groups couldn’t roam around Serbia freely, except if they were undergoing regular army or police training.

Theunens maintains that the Serbian MUP and the State Security as its integral part tolerated the activities of Zeljko Raznatovic Arkan’s paramilitary unit, to say the least. This prompted the defense lawyer to ask Theunens if the police could respond at all if it was well known that the Serbian Volunteer Guard was registered as ‘a social and political organization’ of the Ministry of Justice. The witness noted he didn’t probe that issue because it was best left to lawyers. The witness replied in similar terms when he was asked if it was possible to prosecute ‘Arkan’s men’ in Serbia for crimes they committed in Croatia and BH.

The cross-examination of the Belgian expert continues tomorrow; the court will sit the whole day.

Sharing