1 Friday, 8 June 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning.
7 Mr. Bolton, may I remind you of the affirmation that you had at
8 the beginning of your evidence still applies.
9 THE WITNESS: Yes.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
11 WITNESS: HENRY BOLTON [Resumed]
12 Cross-examination by Mr. Mettraux [Continued]
13 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour. Good morning, Mr. Bolton.
14 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
15 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I will simply start with a matter of
16 clarification which was drawn to my attention again kindly by the registry
17 yesterday. We tendered a document which was taken from Rule 65 ter 230 of
18 the Prosecution proposed lift of exhibits. We would simple wish to make
19 it clear that's the only document which we sought to tender yesterday were
20 the first three pages which we used in evidence, and for the record, I
21 will give the ERN number which is N001-5304, N001-5306.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
23 MR. METTRAUX: And with the assistance of the usher, I will give
24 Mr. Bolton his binder.
25 Q. Mr. Bolton, I'll kindly ask you to go back once again to the
1 document under tab number 2 of your binder and that is the special report
2 of the 16 of August, to the first page, please. And I'd like to draw your
3 attention to the third paragraph of that document. You remember yesterday
4 you gave evidence that in your view, the clothe or clothing worn by the
5 deceased were of the a civilian nature. Can you remember telling me that?
6 A. Yes, I can.
7 Q. If I draw your attention to the third paragraph of that report,
8 second sentence it says this: "All of the deceased were dressed in
9 civilian clothes." So that would be consistent your evidence, isn't it?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. And then it goes on to say this: "All of the deceased were
12 unarmed at the time the mission observed them. Although it must be noted
13 that from the conditions of the bodies that more than one day had passed
14 since these men had died. Some bodies had been rolled over or moved
15 slightly," and again that would be consistent your evidence is that
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. And then a report goes on to sound a bit of a cautionary note. It
19 says this: "The possibility that one or more of these person had been
20 carrying arms at the time of death cannot be excluded at this time." Is
21 that correct? Is that what it says?
22 A. That's what it says.
23 Q. And you would agree that at this stage, you could not exclude that
24 possibility, sir?
25 A. No. Nor was there any indication that they were armed either.
1 Q. And if evidence was given in this court that two automatic weapons
2 and a submachine-gun Thomson with matching ammunition was found in the
3 general areas where the bodies were found, you would consider that to be
4 relevant, I suppose, to whether or not those people had, in fact, been
5 carrying weapons at the time, is that correct?
6 A. That would be correct. However, around those bodies or in the
7 vicinity I did not observe any spent ammunition that would indicate the
8 type of weapon, specifically the named weapon that you just mentioned, the
10 Q. You're not excluding, sir, that at that time there may have been
11 such ammunition used or not used, is that correct?
12 A. I saw no indication of that.
13 Q. Thank you. And, sir, if a witness were to give evidence in this
14 courtroom that he or she saw gun-fire coming from the house or the group
15 of houses where those three men had been staying until that time, again
16 you would agree that this could be relevant to the issue as to whether or
17 not those people might have been carrying arms at the time. Is that
19 A. I do not know which houses you're referring to. However, if they
20 are houses that I entered, there was no indication of any firing from
21 those houses when I entered them.
22 Q. Well, you will recall that of the group of the four houses that
23 had received quite a great deal of fire, one of those houses had, I think
24 you described it as burned down, is that correct, or in part?
25 A. Again without being specific about which house -- a number of
1 houses had sustained damage. Then I can't-- I can't --
2 Q. I'm talk of a group of four houses which were in the general area
3 are you located the three bodies. Can you recall those four houses?
4 A. Are we talking about white houses on the right-hand side of the
5 road at the end?
6 Q. And in that general area, do you recall seeing one of the houses
7 which was still smouldering or which had been burned.
8 A. As I say there were a number of houses that had sustained that
9 type of damage.
10 Q. And did you enter any of the house that had burned down?
11 A. The houses that I entered had no indication within them that there
12 had been any firing from within them. In other words, there were no spent
13 casings remaining there at the time that I entered.
14 Q. And you said you entered two or three houses; is that correct?
15 That's what you said yesterday?
16 A. I believe I entered three possibly four houses.
17 Q. And you did not enter any of the houses that hadn't been burned;
18 is that correct?
19 A. There was a house shown on a photograph yesterday, a photograph
20 that I had taken, showing the location of three -- three bodies. You will
21 recall I annotated that -- I had annotated that photograph showing the
22 locations. I did not enter the building on the left-hand side of that
23 photograph which was damaged by fire.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 A. Other buildings I did.
1 Q. Thank you. You will remember, sir, that yesterday a number of
2 issues were raised about the report of this 16th of August about the
3 procedure in which it's being prepared and the way in which it was
4 processed within the organisation; do you recall?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And you said that you believed that Ms. Eileen Simpson might have
7 been the author of that document, but I think you indicated that you were
8 not certain about; is that correct?
9 A. I don't have direct knowledge of that being the case, but I cannot
10 envisage anyone else being the author of that.
11 Q. Would you agree that Ms. Simpson is a lawyer by profession?
12 A. I believe she is legally qualified, yes.
13 Q. And did you know at the time that she had been trial attorney in
14 the US?
15 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask the counsel to slow
16 down, please.
17 MR. METTRAUX: We've been warned twice now. Well, at least I have
18 been warned.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Three strikes and you're out.
20 MR. METTRAUX: I'll take that very seriously Your Honour.
21 Q. Did you know, sir, at that time that Ms. Simpson had spent two
22 years prior to your arrival in Macedonia?
23 A. I knew she was there prior to my arrival, I couldn't tell you for
24 how long.
25 Q. And were you aware, sir, from your experience with the OSCE that
1 HDO - that's human dimension officers - were generally lawyers; is that
2 correct? That's the general practice in the OSCE.
3 A. I myself am not a lawyer, yet I was a human dimension officer in
4 Kosovo and that is not -- often they have some form of legal training;
5 that is correct, yes.
6 Q. But I think you've indicated that Ms. Simpson, as far as you could
7 tell, had no military background; is that correct?
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. And is that also correct that one of the main responsibility of a
10 HDO, a human dimension officer, is to monitor and report about particular
11 event or incidents? Is that one of the main functions and role of the
13 A. Yes. And in that particular cases in Skopje, in that particular
14 field operation, yes.
15 Q. And is one of their responsibilities as well to keep contact with
16 the local authorities and international organisations which may be in the
18 A. Again that is not always the case, but in the case of the Skopje
19 field operation, I believe yes it was the case.
20 Q. And you've indicated, I think briefly, the procedure pursuant to
21 which such a special report is being prepared. And if I understood you
22 properly, the person would prepare the report and the report would then be
23 passed on to his or her superior; is that correct?
24 A. That is correct. At the time she reported normally to the head of
25 mission. However, the deputy head of mission was also very much involved
1 in these issues in Skopje at the time, and she -- I can envisage that she
2 may have passed the report to either of those. There were occasions - and
3 I do not know that it was the case on this occasion - when reports could
4 potentially be bypass or could bypass that chain and could go directly to
5 the secretariat.
6 Q. In that case you wouldn't be surprised at all if the report had
7 indeed gone to the deputy head of the mission? That would be the normal
8 procedure, wouldn't it?
9 A. I would not be surprised.
10 Q. And it would be the responsible of the deputy head to ensure the
11 accuracy and reliability of the report, wouldn't it?
12 A. In -- no, no. The deputy head or the person checking the report
13 would do two things: Check it for grammar and make sure the thing reads
14 correctly and also to ensure that it is appropriate, in other words, that
15 there aren't -- and I'm now talking not so much about human dimension
16 reports but political reports that may be substantive diplomatically, but
17 in this case, the job would to ensure it reads correctly.
18 Q. He will also take responsibility for the report, wouldn't he?
19 A. To an extent. In field reporting, the reporting officer, in other
20 words, the officer authoring the report takes responsibility for the
21 content of the report. Because they are actually reporting an event or an
22 incident that they have observed. The responsibility for clearing it for
23 dissemination is the responsibility of whoever it may be. In this case I
24 would presume that it would be the deputy head of mission or head of
25 mission, which is normally the case.
1 Q. But you would agree that the report goes out to Vienna and then to
2 the states as the report of the Skopje mission and not as the report of
3 Ms. Simpson? She doesn't even sign the report; is that correct?
4 A. In that sense, yes.
5 Q. And by contrast, sir, your report, the report of the 15 is a
6 report that is, as I understand it, for internal use only sent for
7 information in that case to a number of people in the HQ in Skopje; is
8 that correct?
9 A. It is not my decision as to how far it is disseminated. That is a
10 decision for the headquarters, and I inform them. They decide who they
11 are going to inform.
12 Q. Thank you. Sir, do you recall yesterday I asked you a number of
13 questions about the presence of the NLA in Ljuboten and I read the
14 following passage to you from again the same report. I will read it out
15 to you. It's the fifth paragraph at page 3.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Please read slowly. Thank you.
17 MR. METTRAUX: I will consider that not to be a strike.
18 Q. "Report from other international observers in the area indicate
19 that they were EAAG in the village in civilian clothes and that there was
20 an exchange of fire from deer rifles within the village."
21 Do you recall me reading that passage to you, sir?
22 A. I do. Sorry, could you direct me to where it is in the document?
23 Q. Sorry, it is page 3 of the report and it would be the fifth
24 paragraph, last sentence. It starts with the words: "Reports from."
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And yesterday you asked me or raised the issue of these
2 international observers and I promised I would come back to it, so I'm
3 going to come back to it now.
4 You would agree, sir, that in addition to the OSCE at the time the
5 UNN was also monitoring the activities in the region; is that correct?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. And they were also gathering information like you did at the time;
8 is that correct?
9 A. They were.
10 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I will just ask to go into private
11 session for a minute.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Private.
13 [Private session]
1 [Open session]
2 MR. METTRAUX: And if can I ask the registry to bring up --
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
4 MR. METTRAUX: If I may ask the registry to bring up document
5 1D140, which is ERN 1D001668.
6 Q. Sir, it is under tab 40, 4-0, of your binder?
7 Sir, as you can see from this document, it's -- the title suggests
8 it's an EUMM situation report on FYROM, and it's dated 12 August at 16
9 hours. Do you see that?
10 A. I see that, yes.
11 Q. And if I may draw your attention to the first document in that
12 paragraph which starts with "general situation." I will read it out to
13 you: "General situation: Macedonian force -- security forces continued
14 massive attack against positions of rebel National Liberation Army, NLA,
15 positions in the Tetovo area and north-east along the road to the Kosovo
16 border. NLA has moved closer to Skopje by gaining control over the
17 village of Ljuboten five kilometres north of Skopje outskirts."
18 Can you see that?
19 A. I can see that.
20 Q. Then it goes on to say this: "The highway between Tetovo and
21 Skopje is closed after reported NLA attack at Bojane, ten kilometers west
22 of Skopje." Just about this incident, sir, would that be the location of
23 the incidents which you witnessed and recalled yesterday?
24 A. I would imagine that they're referring to the same incident, yes.
25 Q. If I ask I can you to turn to what would the fourth paragraph in
1 the main text which starts with the word "Ljuboten." Can you see that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. It says this: "Ljuboten, five kilometre north of Skopje
4 outskirts, an area of mine explosions on 10 August, killing eight
5 soldiers, came under attack by NLA on 12 August."
6 Can you see this?
7 A. I can see this.
8 Q. It goes on to say: "And forced by several hundred rebels from
9 Kosovo according to Crisis Management Centre, CMC, information to UNN."
10 Now just pause for a second, sir, did you receive information at
11 the time that a number of reinforcement, perhaps as much as 300 men from
12 Kosovo who were destined for Ljuboten were intercepted somewhere around
13 Radishan? Is that information that you had in your possession?
14 A. No. We did have reports on a number of occasions passed to us --
15 passed to the OSCE and then on to me of people crossing the border from
16 Kosovo. We endeavoured on every occasion to try and verify this, and I
17 certainly cannot say that it did not occur, but I certainly cannot say
18 that we were able to corroborate it.
19 Q. It goes on to say this: "ICRC will try to evacuate civilians and
20 reportedly wounded. Police station in nearby ethnic Macedonian village of
21 Ljubanci is also under NLA attack while security forces are responding.
22 Situation unclear."
23 Sir, did you have that information from the EUMM in your
24 possession at the time?
25 A. The EUMM and the OSCE would have received that information if it
1 came from the Crisis Management Centre. It would have -- the normal
2 procedure is that it would have gone into joint central, the coordination
3 cell which was -- which fed information to both the EUMM and OSCE
4 monitors. The -- there was a lot of information going around in those
5 days. And the impression that this conveys is not the one that have I
6 from my observations on the ground, and I do not know what the source of
7 this information is.
8 Q. But are you saying you did not have that information; is that
10 A. I do not have that -- I did not have that information. I was
11 reporting information but receiving very little, and I was going requested
12 for information on a continuous basis.
13 Q. And what you said about the information coming from the CMC, do I
14 understand you properly that this information could have been transmitted
15 to the HQ in Skopje which would be the usual procedure?
16 A. If EUMM received it from the CMC I would imagine -- I would expect
17 the IC coordination cell to oversee it also.
18 Q. So it's likely in any case possible that the information was also
19 available to the person who prepared the report on the 16th of August. Is
20 it correct?
21 A. That is correct.
22 Q. Sir, there is another document which I would like -- sir?
23 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I would like to tender this document
25 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
1 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D28, Your Honours.
2 MR. METTRAUX:
3 Q. Sir, I think you've indicated yesterday that the ICRC was in or at
4 least close to the village of Ljuboten on the 12th; is that correct?
5 A. It's a question of defining "close." They were some kilometres to
6 the south. I do not recall the name of the precise location at which I
7 know they moved to temporarily before moving away again. But they were
8 some kilometres from the village of Ljuboten, to the south.
9 Q. And do you know if they moved around during that day to other
11 A. I don't believe they moved any closer to -- or certainly not to my
12 knowledge did they move any closer to Ljuboten than that. They were very
13 concerned about the security situation. The gun-fire and the detonations
14 of those days could be heard for some distance, and they did not want to
15 endanger their people by getting too close. So they were asking us for
16 assessments of the situation.
17 Q. And you would agree that they might have asked other people as
18 well for information?
19 A. I expect they did, yes.
20 Q. And you recall as well, and I think that was your evidence
21 yesterday, that they tried to organise a convoy and I think you said they
22 were forced to retreat because of the security situation; is that correct?
23 A. No. The -- there was discussion between ICRC, UNHCR, and
24 ourselves as to options and there had been also been requests by telephone
25 from villagers for assistance in organising an evacuation. However, for a
1 variety of reasons, security and others, it was decided that this was not
2 an option that three organisations wished to apply. So there was no
3 attempt to organise or plan an evacuation in those days.
4 Q. Thank you, sir. I'd now like to show you a document that is 1D126
5 and the ERN number is 1D001636 and that's under tab 19 in your binder.
6 Sir, again this document would appear to be from monitor Skopje to
7 HQ EUMM and is dated the 13th of August, 2001; is that correct?
8 A. It appears to be, yes.
9 Q. I'd like you to focus on the last paragraph on that document, if
10 you may, under the heading "security."
11 A. On page 1.
12 Q. Yes, please. And I'll read it out to you. It says this: "Reports
13 of fierce exchanges between ARM, that's the army, and EAAG in the Ljuboten
14 and Ljubanci areas at 1400 hours 12 July - and that would seem to be a
15 typo, 12 August - were confirmed late in the day by ICRC who had attempted
16 to organise a convoy of vehicles to extract Albanian citizens of Ljuboten
17 from the affected area. The ICRC team reported that when they arrive at a
18 spot between a police check-point and an army check-point in the general
19 area DM-385580 they encountered a roadblock manned by armed civilians who
20 were abusive and chased them away from the area."
21 Sir, I suppose you would agree that's the information which the
22 EUMM would have received from the ICRC?
23 A. Yes, but I don't believe it to be entirely accurate.
24 Q. And did you receive that information?
25 A. No. But I believe that -- not from EUMM but I believe that may
1 well very close to the location at which I said I knew that ICRC had moved
2 to. That being the case, the intention of ICRC was to establish what the
3 situation was, and they were unable to do so. This was not an attempt to
4 organise a convoy. This was an attempt to assess the situation and in
5 order to gain more information as to whether or not such a plan, such an
6 option, was a possibility or feasible.
7 Q. But you would agree, sir, that you don't know where the ICRC would
8 have obtained that information from. You're unable to say anything about
9 this; Is that correct.
10 A. Where ICRC had it?
11 Q. Yes.
12 A. Sorry, which information?
13 Q. Well, you've indicated or at least you've agreed with me that they
14 might have received information from sources other than you; is that
15 correct? That's what you said a bit earlier?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And so you are not able to state with any certainty where the ICRC
18 could have obtained that information which in turn they transmitted to the
19 EUMM; is that correct?
20 A. That is correct. But I do not believe that information to be
22 Q. But, again, you don't know what the source of that information is?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. And again, sir, that information could have been transmitted to
25 your HQ in Skopje. You don't know whether that is the case or not?
1 A. The OSCE coordination cell would have, I believe, received
2 probably a copy of this very report.
3 Q. So it's also perhaps a report that was in the possession of the
4 person who wrote the report on the 16th of August; is that correct?
5 A. That is possible, yes.
6 Q. If I --
7 MR. METTRAUX: I will tender this document, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
9 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D29, Your Honours.
10 MR. METTRAUX:
11 Q. Sir, I'd like to turn your attention to the report again under tab
12 2 at page 2. And simply to read this part of the report on that day. "In
13 addition to the mortar emplacement outside of town, there is an ethnic
14 Albanian armed group presence in town as well."
15 Can you see that?
16 A. Sorry, again can you direct me to --
17 Q. Yes, I apologise. This is the first paragraph. It's not a full
18 paragraph, it comes from the previous page and it starts with the word "in
19 addition." That would be the third line on the top of page 2.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Can you see it?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And it says: "In addition to the mortar emplacement outside the
24 town, there is an ethnic Albanian armed group presence in town as well."
25 Can you see that?
1 A. I can see that.
2 Q. And I suppose you would agree that your colleagues from the OSCE
3 would not have made this finding unless they had evidence to that effect;
4 is that correct?
5 A. Evidence or information.
6 Q. That's correct.
7 A. I would sum -- it could be either.
8 Q. And you -- you at the time also, sir, you were aware that there
9 were two NLA positions very close to the village of Ljuboten at the time;
10 is that correct?
11 A. Again, very close is -- is an ill defined phrase.
12 Q. I'll define it for you, sir. If we look at the bottom of the
13 same page, the very last paragraph with the word starting, "It is now
14 known." Can you see that? It's the very last line on this page you're
15 looking at.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. It says: "It is now known that there is an EAAG position north of
18 the village 'significant' position located in the area of Ljubotenski" --
19 it says Racila, and it should be Bacila. And it goes on to say, "Reliable
20 sources indicate that the second position may have been associated with
21 the mine strike on government forces in the area and that Macedonian
22 forces appropriately engaged this EAAG position with mortar fire from
23 below the village."
24 Can you see that?
25 A. I can see that.
1 Q. And again you would agree that that's a finding that your
2 colleagues from the HQ would not do without either evidence or
3 information; is that correct?
4 A. Yeah, that's correct.
5 Q. And did have you that information in your possession at the time?
6 A. I did have information that the -- that there were possibly NLA --
7 there was NLA activity in the area of -- the same location.
8 Q. Ljubotenski Bacila?
9 A. Yes, yes.
10 Q. Sir, I'll ask you now to turn to the last page of this document.
11 And go to the paragraph starting with the word "finally it appears."
12 Can you see that?
13 A. I can.
14 Q. And it says this: "It appears highly likely that there were EAAG,
15 in the village during the recent hostilities and that the EAAG have
16 influence in the village. In this context, the HDO finds reports that
17 ethnic Albanian villagers remained in their homes during the hostilities
18 'because they are loyal citizens who had no reason to leave,' profoundly
19 disturbing. The mission is unaware of a village free of EAAG influence in
20 which the majority of the ethnic Albanian population made the decision to
21 remain in their homes with their families when an armed conflict was
22 erupting in the village or nearby. It only happens with an EAAG
24 Can you see that?
25 A. I can see that.
1 Q. And then the report goes to say this in the next paragraph: "There
2 does appear to be an EAAG tactic involving the use of, at the very least,
3 'suggestions' and informal pressure on villagers to remain during
4 fighting. This tactic effectively results in the use of civilians as
5 human shields. It also leaves them exposed to incidents with troops. It
6 is intended to produce either government inaction in the face of
7 aggression or incidents that can be exploited for propaganda. It is,
8 thus, not only illegal, but the cynical abuse of a friendly, vulnerable
9 local population by armed groups."
10 Can you see that?
11 A. I can see that, yeah.
12 Q. And again, I suppose your colleagues would not make that sort of
13 findings without any evidence to back them up; is that right?
14 A. Or information.
15 Q. Or information. I think you have indicated, sir that in your
16 proofing note, however, you were unaware of any incidents of human shield
17 or the NLA having recourse to human shield in Macedonia as opposed to
18 Kosovo; is that correct?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. But you are not claiming that, in fact, such incident didn't take
21 place; is that correct?
22 A. There may have been such incidents, but I'm certainly not aware of
24 Q. Well, there's a couple of documents I would ask you to look at.
25 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, we haven't had time to upload those
1 documents for the simple reason that we received the proofing notes of
2 Mr. Bolton relatively late in the day, but we have copies both -- for the
3 Prosecutor and we will place one copy on the ELMO.
4 Q. Sir, this document will appear on your screen. It will be placed
5 on the ELMO. It is ... do you have it in front of you?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. If you look at the -- my own copy having disappeared, I will use
8 the one on the screen. From the bottom of the document you can see it's a
9 document which has been declassified by NATO; is that correct?
10 A. It appears to be, yes.
11 Q. And I will just ask you to focus on the comment or paragraph under
12 the date 8 June 2001. Can you see that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. It records the following incident or the following facts, in any
15 case: "FYROM security forces have undertaken military operations aimed
16 for elimination of the terrorist groups in Kumanovo-Lipkovo region at 5.00
17 a.m. this morning. FYROM army general staff spokesman, Blagoje Markovski,
18 said such activity continue due to the humanitarian crisis, mainly with
19 water supply crisis and saving of the civilians who are used as a human
20 shield by the terrorists. Markovski informed that the action is
21 continuing and that there are no injured and dead soldiers."
22 Can you see this?
23 A. I can see that.
24 Q. And you agree that it suggests that at least on that occasion
25 there was, in fact, use of human shield; is that correct?
1 A. It is. But I feel that I have to say that one of the problems
2 that we confronted as the international community in Macedonia was reports
3 that came to us either from the Crisis Management Centre or the
4 authorities, as this indeed seems to be, that we then attempted to verify
5 and were unable to do so. There seemed to be a problem with definition of
7 Q. In that case, I'll ask the registry to bring up document which is
8 now Exhibit 1D16, that's 1-6. Sir, you will -- it's under tab 13, 1-3, of
9 your binder. You will recall it is an internal OSCE e-mail to Ambassador
10 Stoudmann which records a number of recorded human rights violations by
12 And if I ask you to look at point 10 on that list, it says
13 this: "Initiating hostilities in area known to be inhabited by civilians,
14 including children. Videotape of the armed activity in Tetovo immediately
15 prior to the cease-fire shows children playing in the field immediately
16 adjacent to an area from which the EAAG initiated automatic weapons fire
17 and running away in terror as the shooting continues. Eight mortar rounds
18 were dropped almost randomly on the city."
19 Sir, would you agree that this incident in any case would a
20 recorded incident of use of human shield; is that correct?
21 A. It appears to indicate that, yes.
22 Q. Thank you. Then I will move on.
23 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I don't think we need to tender the
24 NATO documents. I don't think it is particularly useful.
25 Q. Sir, were you aware that on Saturday afternoon - that would be the
1 11th of August - there was a meeting of village leader in the village of
2 Ljuboten. Is that something that you were aware of?
3 A. Specifically I can't say that I was necessarily aware of that
4 meeting. But we did have quite regular telephone contact with villagers
5 at that time and we were aware there were consultations going on amongst
6 villagers as to what they were going to do.
7 Q. Sir, do you know who Commander Lisi is?
8 A. Lisi. No I don't recall that name.
9 Q. Moving on to another issue which you deal with in your -- in your
10 report of the 15th. I think you've indicated that four houses - and
11 that's the four houses I understand we have discussed earlier - and you
12 say, "This have been the objective of a military assault." Do you
13 remember saying this?
14 A. Yes. It's -- I don't actually recall saying it, but it's --
15 Q. It's in your report?
16 A. It's correct.
17 Q. And your understanding was, in fact, that quite a large amount of
18 fire of different sort had been directed at those houses; is that right?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. And that would also be consistent with firing being directed at
21 people inside the house; is that correct?
22 A. It was the houses that had been hit and there was no indication of
23 people having been hit there that I saw.
24 Q. But you would agree that in the fire, in any case, suggests that
25 that's what may have been targeted?
1 A. There was a huge amount of ammunition expended, judging by the
2 amount of empty cases and cardboard cartons for packing ammunition, small
3 arms ammunition, a great deal of it. And thus, the expenditure of that
4 amount of ammunition in an aimed, deliberate manner would indicate to me,
5 if humans were the target, then there would be a great deal of dead
6 humans. There were five. The houses had suffered a great deal of small
7 arms damage at relatively short range. With my military background, I
8 would say that that was either indiscriminate fire or fire from untrained
10 Q. I think one other thing you said yesterday in your evidence and in
11 any case in your statement was that you saw no signs of fortified
12 defensive positions. I'm not sure I have the right expression. But that
13 was my understanding.
14 A. Prepared defensive positions, that's correct, I didn't see any.
15 Q. And your evidence, sir, is not that such position did not exist
16 during the week and your evidence is that there was none on the 14th; is
17 that correct?
18 A. That is correct, and I must also say that was in the area of the
19 what I would call the tactical operation that occurred on the northern
20 road in the area of the bodies.
21 Q. Can you specify your answer?
22 A. Yeah. Ljuboten is quite a large village. The lower part of the
23 village, I did not examine for that purpose.
24 Q. And would you agree, I suppose, that had there been a defensive
25 position in the village at the time, that would be indicative of what was
1 in fact happening in the village, that there was in fact military, if I
2 may call it that, exchange between two sides?
3 A. Not necessarily.
4 MR. SAXON: Objection, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Saxon.
6 MR. SAXON: I believe my learned colleague had just -- has just
7 introduced his version of the events and I don't think that is really
8 appropriate. He suggests that had there been a defensive position in the
9 village at that time, that would be indicative of what was in fact
10 happening in the village. There was in fact military.
11 Is that my learned colleagues' interpretation?
12 MR. METTRAUX: I think the witness has -- the witness has --
13 JUDGE PARKER: It's all right, Mr. Mettraux. Mr. Saxon, you're
14 being a little too sensitive, I would suggest. I can see the thrust of
15 the question. It was a loaded question, but it was directed at a witness
16 well capable of dealing with a loaded question and I think everybody
17 understands the question and the answer.
18 MR. METTRAUX:
19 Q. Well, I unload this one, if I may. But you would agree,
20 Mr. Bolton, that a fortified position could have been removed, if there
21 had been one, any time between the 12th and the 14th when you visited the
22 village; is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I would now ask to move into private
1 JUDGE PARKER: Private.
2 [Private session]
11 Page 1730 redacted. Private session.
25 [Open session]
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
2 MR. METTRAUX:
3 Q. Sir, going back for a minute to the four buildings which had quite
4 a number of signs of fire, gun-fire. You would agree that those four
5 houses would have been used as a shooting or at least as an observation
6 post or position; is that correct?
7 A. I would not want to indicate that they were, because I have no
8 knowledge to that effect. However, they are on high ground and as such
9 there is a reasonable view of surrounding ground from there.
10 Q. And that would also be consistent with the markings on the house?
11 A. No. The markings on the house are consistent with the house being
12 hit by -- by projectiles from fire.
13 Q. And had the house been used as a shooting position? The markings
14 would -- I mean would have been indicative of a return fire; would that be
16 A. Had they been, yes.
17 Q. I'd like to turn once again to the report of the 16th of August,
18 sir, if I may for a minute. And this is under your tab 2 in your binder.
19 It's 1D24. And I'll ask you kindly to go to page 4 of that document. It
20 would be the fourth paragraph starting with the word "near the field." Can
21 you see that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And the conclusions of the OSCE in its special report on Ljuboten
24 concerning those houses reads as follows: "Near the field where the
25 bodies of the three men were found, there are two complexes of houses. On
1 the right side of the road is a group of four white houses. One of the
2 dead men in the field is the owner of the first white house. On the left
3 and in the immediately area of one body and the field with the other two,
4 is a group of two houses and a barn. The buildings on the left have been
5 burned and have been subject of considerable incoming weapons fire."
6 Sir that's consistent with what you have been telling us; is that
8 A. Mm-hm, yes.
9 Q. This --
10 A. Although at one point I did not have that information that the --
11 one of the dead one in the field was the owner of the first white house.
12 Q. For the remainder of the information, you would agree it's
13 consistent with yours?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And it goes on to say this: "This building are located where they
16 could be a useful observation point from which to monitor Macedonian
17 movements or direct fire upon them."
18 Can you see that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And again, that's not an unreasonable conclusion draw, is it?
21 A. It's not. I myself would not use them for that purpose, because
22 they are obviously -- they're quite prominent buildings.
23 Q. But they might have been?
24 A. But they may have been.
25 Q. Sir, another issue that I would raise with you concerning this
1 issue of defensive position. I think you've indicated, and correct me if
2 I'm wrong, that what you were referring the sort of defensive positions
3 that you had in mind were the sort of defensive position I think you said
4 you saw in other places; is that correct?
5 A. I did refer to, I believe, other defensive positions that I'd
6 seen, and I mentioned sandbagged windows and trenches but there can be
7 other forms of prepared defence. I saw no indication of prepared
8 defensive positions.
9 Q. Thank you. And you were not suggesting that, in your view, there
10 were no villagers with NLA presence in which no search position would
11 exist; is that correct?
12 A. Sorry, can you say that again?
13 Q. A little bit circumvented. You would agree that there could be
14 villages with NLA presence without search defensive positions?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you would agree that one of the tactics of the NLA to take
17 over villages was to incriminate -- incriminent -- incrementally take over
18 the village, insert people in the village, bring in logistics, and bit by
19 bit take over the village; is that correct?
20 A. I would not say that, no.
21 MR. METTRAUX: May I ask the registry to bring up document 1D136.
22 And it's ERN 1D001654.
23 Q. Sir, it's under your tab 34 in your binder. As you can see, it's
24 one of your own documents, if I may so. It comes from the spillover
25 monitor mission to Skopje and its title is Standard Operating Procedures
1 on monitoring and it's dated the 23rd of August. Can you see that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And if I may ask you to focus on the first paragraph of that
4 document. And I will read it out to you. "Ethnic Albanian armed groups
5 EAAG, have taken control of considerable areas of the country and to a
6 large extent held this against counter-offensive operations launched by
7 the government armed forces ARM. The modus operandi of the EAAG by and
8 large to is to occupy ground by infiltration requiring a great deal of
9 preparation before overtly declaring areas under their control. These
10 preparation include the insertion of supplies, arms, and equipment as well
11 as the preparation of the local inhabitants to be receptive to their
13 Can you see that?
14 A. Yes, I can.
15 Q. "Therefore, there are a number of indicatives, the hardening of
16 the local populations attitude to the government, lots of young men
17 hanging around looking at you suspiciously, or the noticably enhanced
18 security stance of Macedonian forces in the area could suggest that an
19 area is being prepared to be taken over or is ready. The sudden exodus of
20 women and children from a village is also a strong indicator that EAAG
21 activity is imminent. Normally these preparation are done there regions
22 where there is significant population of ethnic Albanians."
23 Can you see that?
24 A. I can.
25 Q. Now, I'd like you to have a look at paragraph 3 below. And in
1 particular with -- if can you see in the middle of that paragraph there is
2 a sentence starting with Skopje, can you see that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And it say this is: "Skopje has not yet been clearly defined.
5 However, it is apparent that they are dormant members of EAAG in the north
6 of the city. There is also information to suggest that the borders with
7 Albania and Kosovo are very porous. And that traditional smuggling routes
8 are regularly used now by the criminal fraternity to transport the
9 necessary supplies into areas in preparation for future EAAG operations.
10 These areas have also been mined and great care must be exercised when
11 having to operate within them."
12 Can you see that?
13 A. I can.
14 Q. And that's what the OSCE standard operating procedure on
15 monitoring says?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I will tender that.
18 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
19 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D31, Your Honours.
20 MR. METTRAUX:
21 Q. Sir, I'd like to rely if I may on your ballistic expertise.
22 You've indicated, I think, that you saw, I think you said hundreds of
23 casings of ammunition in the streets; is that correct?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. And I think you indicated that most or all of them were of the 762
1 millimetre calibre; is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And that's the sort of ammunition which would be used, for
4 instance, for Kalashnikov rifle or gun; is that correct?
5 A. Most of the family of Kalashnikov weapons use that calibre, yes.
6 Q. And the Kalashnikov, sir, was a weapon that was used at the time
7 by both sides, the NLA and the Macedonian forces; is that correct?
8 A. Various models of it from various origins but in effect the same
10 Q. And it is not your evidence, sir, that you were able to determine
11 whether any particular casing that you saw in the village came from one
12 gun rather than the other and by that I mean from either side; is that
14 A. That would be correct.
15 Q. I would also like to go back an incident which you have recounted
16 yesterday and also recorded, I believe in your statement about what you
17 believe to be diesel spillage on the street; do you recall?
18 A. I recall that.
19 Q. And I think you indicated that the -- you took this picture
20 because you found the presence of what you believe to be diesel on the
21 street and a smouldering house to be interesting. I don't want to use the
22 inadequate term, but I think it was your expression; is that correct?
23 A. That's correct. That's what I said.
24 Q. And I'm correct to understand as well that you didn't make any
25 analysis of the spillage on the streets. You just-- it was your guess
1 that it was diesel; is that correct?
2 A. That's correct. But if I may explain why I feel qualified to make
3 that judgment. I spent the first four or five years of my army career in
4 a tank unit, and I regularly spilt diesel all over me. I know very well
5 what it smells like, what it tastes like, and what it feels like; and I
6 believe that what was on the ground then was the same.
7 Q. Are you suggesting that at the time on the 14th it still smelled
8 of diesel; is that correct?
9 A. Yes, correct.
10 Q. And you don't know, sir, who put that diesel on the street; is
11 that correct?
12 A. I do not.
13 Q. Nor when; is that correct?
14 A. I do not.
15 Q. And you're also aware, sir, that after the events of the 12th a
16 number of houses in the village of Ljuboten were set on fire; is that
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. And I'd like to show you a report which is 1D135. And it's
20 ERN 1D001652.
21 And, sir, it's under your tab 31. You can see it is dated 17th of
22 August, and it comes-- it's sent to operations office Skopje, and it comes
23 from team location Radisani. That would be your team, wouldn't it?
24 A. Yes, it would.
25 Q. Is that a document you are familiar with? Do you recall that
2 A. I don't, but it certainly looks to one that comes from our staff,
3 our team, yes.
4 Q. If I may ask you to look at the first section of that document
5 under the time 17. It says: "Team tasked to visit Ljuboten in order to
6 investigate burning houses. It was discovered that one Macedonian house,
7 two Albanian houses, and one Albanian outbuilding had been destroyed by
9 Can you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And then it goes on to describe the incidents in more detail: "At
12 approximately 7.30 the team arrived in the village of Ljuboten to
13 investigate reports of house fires in the area. Investigation established
14 that at approximately midnight on 16/17 August, a Macedonian house on the
15 road leading north-west from the church and some 150 metres from the
16 church had burnt. It was also established that at approximately 11 hours
17 on the 17th August three Albanian properties had also been burnt, one
18 outbuilding, and two adjoining houses, all three on the same road as the
19 Macedonian house."
20 Then I would just like to draw your attention to the last sentence
21 of that paragraph. It says this: "Both Albanian and Macedonian villagers
22 stated that 'army paramilitaries,' and there's parentheses, (both
23 Albanians and Macedonians were clear that the personnel referred to were
24 not police) had been in the area of the village at the time the Albanian
25 properties burnt."
1 Can you see that?
2 A. I can.
3 Q. And that's, as we've indicated a document that would have come
4 from your office in Radisani?
5 A. Correct.
6 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I would also like to tender this
8 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
9 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D32, Your Honours.
10 MR. METTRAUX:
11 Q. Sir, I'd like move back one step to the 14th of August, 2001, and
12 your efforts to convince an investigating judge to come in the village.
13 At paragraph 22 of your consolidated statement you recount that the judge
14 to whom you talk through a policeman, we understand, had been advised it
15 would not be safe for him to enter the village with his team. Do you
16 recall having been told that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And you also turned down an offer which I think you made to him
19 for you to escort him inside the village; is that correct?
20 A. It is. We made a sequence of offers, each one of which required
21 negotiation with the Albanians to achieve. There were really two main
22 stages in that. One was to convey the judge in our own vehicles -- three
23 main stages. The second was to convey the judge in our vehicles with a
24 police escort in our vehicles. As I recall it, it was in our vehicles.
25 We offered to carry police, which is unusual for us because we do not
1 carry armed personnel in our vehicles. And the third stage was to have
2 him -- to allow him to be escorted by police in their own vehicles.
3 Q. But as far as you're concerned, is that correct that OSCE doesn't
4 bear any weapons; is that correct?
5 A. That is absolutely correct.
6 Q. And you would agree, I suppose, that the area at the time was not
7 entirely secure; is that correct?
8 A. In my judgment, at the time it was secure.
9 Q. In that case, sir, I will ask you to turn back to the report of
10 the 16 of August, and that's again under tab 2 of the report, under --
11 sorry, under tab 2 of the binder and it is the first page of that
12 document, sir. And it's again Exhibit 1D24. And I will ask you to focus
13 on the very bottom of that page, the last paragraph where the OSCE
14 official report about this incident says this: "It is important to
15 emphasis to anyone contemplating undertaking the full forensic examination
16 of these bodies or scene, that this site is in a conflict area that,
17 although calm on the date of this observation, is not entirely secure."
18 Can you see that?
19 A. Sorry. You're going to have to direct me again. I --
20 Q. It is very last sentence on page 1 and goes up to the top of page
21 2, sir. It's --
22 A. Sorry. In the italics, yes.
23 Q. Would you like me to read it again to you?
24 A. No, no. That's okay.
25 Q. And you would agree that's what it says, obviously?
1 A. Yes, that's what it says.
2 Q. And you also agree that on the 14th you saw two individuals which
3 you understood and your colleague understood to be members of the NLA; is
4 that correct?
5 A. That's correct. But it does not change the fact that I feel that
6 the area was secure enough for an investigation to take place.
7 Q. But you don't question the fact that someone else could have taken
8 a different view, obviously?
9 A. They clearly did.
10 Q. And is that correct, sir, also that the OSCE assisted at a later
11 time with the return of the police in the village of Ljuboten? Are you
12 aware of that?
13 A. That is correct.
14 Q. And would you agree that the police did not return until I believe
15 the early days of January of 2002?
16 A. That is correct. The OSCE assisted in re-establishment of regular
17 policing patrols. That was a different situation to the specifically
18 negotiated situation on the 14th, in which we had negotiated with the
19 villagers the access to the village of police and an investigating judge.
20 Q. But isn't that correct, sir, that even at the time of the
21 exhumation in April of 2002 at the time when you again had negotiated with
22 the villagers and made all sorts of arrangements, protection, security
23 with NATO, EUMM, OSCE, there was still concerns for the Macedonian
24 participants in that operation; is that correct?
25 A. That was at a different time, but correct.
1 Q. Well, I'll just direct you to one particular document. It's 1D151
2 and the ERN is 1D001697. And it's under tab 58 in your ...
3 Sir, we might come back to that document at a later stage, if time
4 permits. But you will see from it that it is essentially a draft
5 operational plan for the Ljuboten exhumation and it was drafted by
6 Mr. Tucker and amended by Mr. Smith. Can you see that on the top of the
7 document? That should be your tab 58.
8 A. 58. Sorry. I was on 57. I see it, yes.
9 Q. But the page I would like to draw your attention is the fourth
10 page of the document is that would be ERN 1770. There's a particular
11 paragraph, sir, which relates to the forming up point for the exhumation
12 party, as it's called. Can you see that?
13 A. I can see that.
14 Q. And it says this: "Due to the security considerations of the
15 members of the forensic institute, the exhumation party rendezvous at the
16 field station of OSCE (Henry Bolton) at location. It is imperative that
17 all party involved in this convoy are at the RV point in time for the
18 proposed coordinated departure." So you would agree at that time that
19 obviously there were still security concern for those people, the forensic
20 experts, or in any case that they had expressed those concerns to you?
21 A. It would be -- the issue was a sensitive one, and it was necessary
22 and we considered necessary to take all measures we could to ensure that
23 this whole activity was professionally organised and tightly organised,
24 thereby removing -- or decreasing any chance of something going wrong,
25 including people getting lost, going down the wrong road. There's a need
1 to organise the event. And that's what this document was for and that's
2 why we had the RV and why we wanted to ensure that everybody was together
3 and left together.
4 Q. And that's also why, sir, NATO provided security for the
5 operation; is that correct?
6 A. NATO provided security for the operation, that is correct. NATO
7 provided security for a number of activities, and they had their own
8 mandate. You would have to speak to them about that. But that is not--
9 it was due to the profile of this event and the whole exhumation process
10 and the publicity it was receiving. The situation was very different to
11 the situation that existed on the 14th in Ljuboten.
12 Q. But you would agree, sir, that it's actually upon the request, the
13 express request of the OTP that security was provided by NATO?
14 A. Yes. But that does not give us an indication of the threat level.
15 Q. I'd now like to turn to the issue of the actual exhumation sir.
16 And I understand that yourself were involved in some aspects of this
17 matter; is that correct?
18 A. Some aspects of it, yes.
19 Q. We'll deal with that in due course.
20 But, sir, I take it a step back so Their Honours understand
21 perhaps a bit of the process that led up to that. You were aware, no
22 doubt, of the efforts that were being made by the authority to organise
23 this exhumation, and I will ask the registry perhaps to bring up, that's
24 Rule 65 ter 109 and the ERN is 7332 ET. And, sir, it is under your tab
1 I will just go back to my original question, sir. Were you aware
2 of the efforts being made by various Macedonian authorities to organise an
3 exhumation in Ljuboten?
4 A. I was.
5 Q. And I would like you to focus on this particular document here.
6 As you can see, it comes from the Republic of Macedonia, Ministry of
7 Interior and it's dated 7 September 2001. Can you see that?
8 A. I can see that.
9 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, just a matter of clarification, this
10 document or at least a version of it already in evidence as P55. The
11 reason why we're using this one is there is a dating mistake which I think
12 way pointed out earlier. It referred to the 7th of August instead of the
13 7 of September, which is clearly wrong, so we prefer to use the correct
14 translation in that respect.
15 Q. And, sir, would you confirm that this is being sent to the public
16 prosecutor's office, Skopje, and to the duty investigative judge of lower
17 courts, Skopje II?
18 A. I'm sorry to be precise. I can see that that's to whom it's
19 addressed. I can't say that it was sent.
20 Q. I appreciate you being precise. And the title of the document
21 suggests that it's a motion. It's been interpreted as a motion or
22 recommendation for exhumation and autopsy, motion for exhumation and
23 autopsy; is that right?
24 A. Yes, that's what it says.
25 Q. And if I ask the -- ask you and the registry to turn to the last
1 page of this document, you can see that it has been signed by the
2 director, Mr. Goran Mitevski. Do you know who Mr. Mitevski was at that
4 A. I do.
5 Q. And he was director of the public security; is that correct?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. If I draw your attention to the last paragraph on that page, it
8 says the following: "Due to the aforementioned, we believe that the
9 motion for exhumation and autopsy is justified and should be accepted with
10 the aim of identifying the five corpses and the establishing the cause of
11 death of the five individuals from the village of Ljuboten."
12 Can you see that?
13 A. I can.
14 Q. Sir, were you aware of that particular motion or suggestion,
15 recommendation which was being made by Mr. Mitevski on the 7th of
16 September, 2001?
17 A. No, I wasn't.
18 Q. And, sir, were you aware of the fact that this motion or
19 recommendation had been made on behalf or at the behest of Mr. Boskoski?
20 A. No, I wasn't aware of that. And I have not seen this document
22 Q. Well, I'm going to show --
23 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I don't know if Your Honour wants to
24 admit this document separately or if Your Honour would prefer that perhaps
25 the translation issue whether this document may perhaps replace the one
1 with the --
2 Can we tender -- I'm advised by my reliable colleague that perhaps
3 we should try to tender that version as well.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon, do you have any view?
5 MR. SAXON: Given the error that was apparently made, no, Your
6 Honour, we have no objection.
7 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
8 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you very much, Your Honour. Thank you,
9 Mr. Saxon.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As exhibit 1D33, Your Honours.
11 MR. METTRAUX:
12 Q. Sir, I will ask you now look at a different document which is
13 under tab 44 of your binder, and it is D176, and the ERN number is
14 1D001904. Do you have that in front of you?
15 A. I do.
16 Q. As you can see from the first page of the document it's again a
17 document that comes from the Ministry of Interior, and its title is
18 "Information about the events in the vicinity of the Skopje village
19 Ljuboten." And the place and date are Skopje, November 2001. Do you see
21 A. I do.
22 Q. I'll ask you, sir, to go directly to the last page of that
24 MR. METTRAUX: And for the registry's benefit, that would be page
1 Q. And I'd ask to you look at the last paragraph. It says this:
2 "Having in consideration the importance of the exhumation as the
3 investigative act, in order to resolve the reasons for their death, the
4 ministers of interior -- the minister of interior, Mr. Ljube Boskoski,
5 immediately after the case has submitted the written recommendation to the
6 principal public prosecution office, Skopje II in Skopje to start
7 conducting the process of exhumation of corpse of the people in order to
8 continue with post-mortem and thorough examination."
9 Can you see this?
10 A. I can see this.
11 Q. But you have indicated you didn't have that information at the
12 time; is that correct?
13 A. No. I was aware there were numerous -- there was -- there were
14 various moves and pressures being applied and so on to ensure that an
15 investigation took place, but I wasn't privy to these documents or the
16 discussions that led to them.
17 Q. Well, we'll come back to that perhaps after the break.
18 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I think it's 10.30.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Mettraux. We will have the first
20 break and resume at 11.00.
21 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
22 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.
23 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, two quick matters of clarifications
24 for the record. The first one is in relation to document 1D33, which we
25 just tendered as a separate document. My legal assistant is indeed very
1 reliable. That was counsel that was not so reliable understanding the
2 message. There seems to be two documents, two separate documents with two
3 dates, one of the 7 of August and one of the 7 of September. The one of
4 the 7 of August was dealt by my colleague with the previous witness.
5 As for the document we've tendered, it's the same document as P55
6 with a different translation. Your Honour will see there are a difference
7 of wording. Ours is the CLSS translation and the Prosecution version is,
8 as I understand it, an internal translation.
9 The second matter, Your Honour, if I may, would be to simply
10 tender the last document which I showed to the witness before the break.
11 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received, subject to Mr. Saxon.
12 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, if we may, perhaps my colleague could
13 provide us can some chain of custody information regarding this last
15 MR. METTRAUX: With pleasure, we received it from the Prosecution,
16 Your Honour.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Well, it's got to come from a reliable source,
18 Mr. Mettraux.
19 MR. METTRAUX: I'll leave that judgement to Your Honour.
20 JUDGE PARKER: No, we're just helping Mr. Saxon at the moment.
21 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter document 1D176 will become Exhibit 1D34,
22 Your Honours.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
24 MR. METTRAUX:
25 Q. Mr. Bolton, you've indicated and fairly so, that did you not have
1 specific knowledge of the previous document that I've showed you.
2 However, were you aware of public calls made by Mr. Boskoski for an
3 exhumation in Ljuboten?
4 A. I do not recall them, but I'm certainly not going to indicate that
5 they did not occur, but I just don't recall.
6 Q. Well, if I may, sir, I'll show you a particular document which is
7 a -- again Rule 65 ter 130, and the ERN is N0009212. And, sir, it's under
8 your tab 45, I believe.
9 As you will see, sir, it appears to be a press article dated 15th
10 of August, 2001, and the title is "FYROM Interior Minister Boskoski
11 expresses satisfaction with OSCE attitude.
12 First, perhaps, let me ask you this: Were you aware of the fact
13 that Mr. Boskoski met with Ambassador Ungaro very shortly after the event
14 at Ljuboten?
15 A. I was.
16 Q. And were you aware of the fact that following that meeting, the
17 two of them had a sort of a press conference?
18 A. I do vaguely recall a press conference, yes.
19 Q. Well, if I may ask to you go into the middle of that document to a
20 paragraph which starts with the word "this discussion," can you see that?
21 A. Yes, I can.
22 Q. And this is a statement which is attributed to Mr. Boskoski. It
23 says this: "This discussion was motivated by the murder of five
24 terrorists that were dressed in civilian clothing when found; namely, the
25 Macedonian security forces were not allowed to approach the dead for two
1 days in order to do the investigation on-site along with the public
2 prosecutor and investigation judge."
3 Can you see that?
4 A. I can.
5 Q. Then if you go further down in this document, there is a paragraph
6 starting with the words "about the affair."
7 Can you see that?
8 A. I can.
9 Q. It say this is: "About the affair in Ljuboten, Boskoski informed
10 that by the time the expert time had arrived on site, the bodies were
11 already buried." And then there is a statement which is attributed to
12 him: "In order to know the truth an exhumation, acknowledged by the
13 public prosecutor, will have to take place."
14 Can you see I can?
15 Q. And then there's a statement which is attributed to Ambassador
16 Ungaro which says this: "The misunderstanding occurred as a result of the
17 intentional or unintentional misinterpretations of OSCE information for
18 the foreign media."
19 Can you see that?
20 A. I can see that, yes.
21 Q. And then is being recorded as saying this: "We do not make
22 judgements in advance. If we get some information through our observers
23 on site, we share this with the Macedonian authorities first and advise
24 them to do some research in which we are ready to assist."
25 And it goes on to say: "OSCE Ambassador to Macedonian asked Ljube
1 Boskoski to make the whole investigation of the affair of Ljuboten be as
2 transparent as possible in the name of justice."
3 Were you aware of such reports in the Macedonian press at the
4 time, sir?
5 A. There were very many reports in the Macedonian press at that
6 time. This particular one I don't recall, but it would seem to be an
7 account of what happened and does not contradict my recollection.
8 Q. And can you recall as well that the competent judicial authorities
9 of Macedonia actually continued to attempt to organise this exhumation
10 operation in Ljuboten?
11 A. I was not involved in that, and I -- I can't answer that question.
12 All I can say is that there were efforts from a number of international
13 agencies and in working -- working with the Macedonian authorities to
14 progress an investigation.
15 Q. And -- well, I'm going to show you a document and ask you whether
16 that's information you had in your possession.
17 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, it is 1D175 and the ERN number is
19 Q. And, sir, I believe it is under tab 39.
20 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, just for the record this document is
21 the same as P99 which has already been admitted. We understand that P99
22 does not contain a translation, a Macedonian translation of the English,
23 and that the English may in fact be a translation of a translation.
24 Q. But, sir, I'd ask you to look first at the first page of that
25 document. And you will see it comes from the public prosecutions of the
1 Republic of Macedonia and it has a number, A number 231/01 and it's dated
2 18 of November 2001, can you see that?
3 A. I can see that, yes.
4 Q. And the title of the document, sir, is information on the events
5 happened in the area of the village Ljuboten, Skopje, in the period August
6 10, 11, 12, and the 14, 2001.
7 Sir, at this stage I would simply ask to you go to the third and
8 last page or third of four pages, sorry. That's the page which has a
9 signature on it.
10 A. I can see that.
11 Q. And as you can see it has been signed by Mr. Stavre Dzikov, who at
12 the time was the state or public prosecutor of Macedonia; is that right?
13 A. I don't recall the name of the public prosecutor, no.
14 Q. Fair enough. I'll just ask to you focus on the middle paragraph
15 on that page starting with the words: "Since the bodies."
16 Can you see that?
17 A. I can see that.
18 Q. And it reads like that: "Since the bodies were already buried and
19 there was no autopsy done over them, in accordance to Article 244,
20 paragraphs 1 and 2 of the criminal procedural law, the public prosecutor,
21 on the basis of Article 148, paragraph 1 of the quoted law, submitted a
22 proposal to the competent magistrate judge for certain investigative
23 measures to be taken. For an exhumation, examination, and an autopsy of
24 the bodies in order to confirm the identity of the five buried bodies.
25 The reason of the death, time of the time, and the circumstances in which
1 the death appeared. It was proposed that this procedure is carried out by
2 the forensic and criminalistic institute within the faculty of medicine in
4 Sir, at the time were you aware of that particular request having
5 been made by the public prosecutor?
6 A. I have some recollection of being informed of it, but it's vague.
7 Q. Is that correct also that sometimes in November of 2001, the chief
8 Prosecutor of this Tribunal visited Macedonia; is that correct?
9 A. I believe so.
10 Q. Is that also correct, or at least information which you had in
11 your possession, that at the time the Macedonian authorities sought the
12 assistance of the Office of the Prosecutor to carry out this exhumation?
13 A. I do not recall that.
14 Q. You will recall, however, that the Prosecution, the Office of the
15 Prosecutor of this Tribunal, in the course of November 2001 got in touch
16 with your organisation in relation to the exhumation; is that right?
17 A. I'm aware that the OSCE provided assistance, and I can only
18 presume that that was as a result of an agreement. But if that was the
19 case, I was not party to that agreement or the discussions leading to it.
20 Q. Well, I'll perhaps ask you then to look at document 1D142. That
21 would be ERN 1D001674, and that's under the tab 49 of your binder.
22 As you can see, sir, is this is something called "investigators
23 notes," and it's such -- it basically is again the record, as you will
24 see, of a meeting between members of the OSCE and members of the Office of
25 the Prosecutor. And it says that the purpose of the meeting in question
1 was arranged by Mr. Andre Sidlik [phoen], operation officer ICTY, for the
2 visit of Mr. Dennis Milner, deputy chief of investigations.
3 Can you see that?
4 A. I can.
5 Q. And the time and date of the meeting is recorded as 9.45 Tuesday,
6 27th November 2001; is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And the location is offices of the OSCE in Skopje?
9 A. That's what it says.
10 Q. Is that correct? And then it lists the person present during that
11 meeting, and I understand they are three persons from the OSCE, Sandra
12 Mitchell, senior member OSCE. Andre Palmer, political advisor. Maurice
13 Kanavan, senior monitor OSCE. Is that correct?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. And I would understand that those people were colleagues of yours
16 at the time; is that correct?
17 A. Yes, they worked in a different location. They worked in the
18 mission headquarters, but yes. We were all in the same mission, and we
19 knew each other, yes.
20 Q. And then there's the name of three people from the Office of the
21 Prosecutor. I don't need to go through them at this stage, but you can
22 see them for yourself. And you will also notice, sir, that there seems to
23 be no member of the Macedonian authorities at the meeting; is that
25 A. That would appear to be the case, yes.
1 Q. If I can now just go to the first paragraph of that document on
2 the first page, starting with the word: "Mr. Dennis Milner, DM introduced
3 the representatives of the ICTY to those present. He stated the reason
4 for his visit was a follow-up to that of the Prosecutor."
5 Can you see that?
6 A. I can.
7 Q. And just before we turn the page, you will see that all of the
8 participants had been given initials when they're being referred to the in
9 the text. MC stands, for instance, for Maurice Kanavan and SM for
10 Ms. Sandra Mitchell.
11 If I can just ask you to turn to the next page, sir. And ask you
12 to focus on the third paragraph of that document which started with MC,
13 that would your colleague Mr. Kanavan. Maurice Kanavan stated that from
14 his point of view, the aim of his unit was to assist the security forces,
15 police, to re-enter villages such as Ljuboten.
16 Can you see that?
17 A. I can see that.
18 Q. And we then did confirm earlier that at the time that was one of
19 the thing that OSCE was attempting to assist with was the return of the
20 police in certain areas including Ljuboten, right?
21 A. That's correct; although, I'm not certain that we'd actually
22 started to do that on a regular programmatic basis at that point.
23 Q. I think-- I think -- would it be fair to say that it's one of your
24 colleague, Mr. Seford, deputy head of the mission at the time who prepared
25 the, if I may call it that, the matrix of the return together with the
1 Minister of Interior?
2 Q. That -- that's correct, yes. And it would have been sometimes,
3 perhaps in December of 2001; is that correct?
4 A. That's what I believe, yes. Around that time.
5 Q. If I may ask you now to turn to a paragraph further down this
6 document, and it starts with the word -- well, it's the last paragraph,
7 sir, of this page, and the comments are attributed to DM, which is Dennis
8 Milner of the ICTY. And what Mr. Milner is recorded as saying is
9 this: "It was vital that ICTY investigators obtain access to these areas
10 to conduct their investigations."
11 Is that right?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. And if you look at the previous sentence you will see that "these
14 locations," refer to Neprosteno and Ljuboten; is that correct?
15 A. That's what it says.
16 Q. And I would not -- I would like now to ask you to focus on a
17 position attributed to a member of your organisation and that's Sandra
18 Mitchell. That's the paragraph just above the one I've just read, and
19 it's recorded as this: "Sandra Mitchell stated there were clear human
20 rights issues involved in investigations. She sated that the OSCE did not
21 have a clear human rights mandate and did not have any employees in the
22 field with sufficient human rights experience. Great care would have to
23 be shown by the OSCE. She also stated that the OSCE would cooperate fully
24 with the ICTY. However, apart from the ambush of Macedonian security
25 forces of -- in May 2001, the OSCE did not have any file of interest to
1 the ICTY to hand over."
2 And there's another statement attributed to Ms. Sandra Mitchell on
3 the next page which I would like to point out to you. It's the third
4 paragraph, sir. It start SM again: "Sandra Mitchell again stated the
5 importance, in her view, of ICTY involvement in the judicial process. She
6 suggested the possibility of the ICTY providing guidance and/or advice to
7 the Macedonian judicial authorities on the review, preparation, and
8 subsequent prosecution of suspects within the jurisdiction of the
10 Can you see?
11 A. I can see that.
12 Q. Sir, were you informed at the time of those meetings, or did you
13 receive any general information that such meetings had taken place?
14 A. I was aware of meetings. I was not aware of their content.
15 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I will tender this document at this
17 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D35, Your Honours.
19 MR. METTRAUX:
20 Q. Sir, were you also aware that a number of subsequent meetings took
21 place in relation to the same matter?
22 A. If you're referring to meetings between the OSCE and ICTY --
23 Q. That's correct.
24 A. The answer is yes.
25 Q. I don't think we'll have the time to go through them at this
1 stage, but would it correct to say that you personally assisted in some
2 respect the Office of the Prosecution, in particular Mr. Tucker, with a
3 number of matters pertaining to the exhumation?
4 Perhaps can I be more precise. You visited-- did you visit the
5 location together with Mr. Tucker at one stage?
6 A. At one stage, yes.
7 Q. Thank you. Sir, I'd like to move on because we have to now add a
8 bit forward in time to the beginning of the year 2002, still dealing with
9 the issue of exhumation.
10 I'd like to show you a document which is number 1D146 with the ERN
11 1D001686 and that's number 53 in your binder.
12 Sir, again this is a letter which comes from the public prosecutor
13 office of the Republic of Macedonia with a number 14-2002 and it's dated
14 22nd January of 2002.
15 Can you see that?
16 A. I can see that, yes.
17 Q. And it's being sent to OSCE monitoring mission to the Republic of
18 Macedonia, Ambassador Mr. Craig Janis [phoen], Skopje; is that right?
19 A. That's what it says.
20 Q. And would you confirm that by this stage Mr. Janis had replaced
21 Ambassador Ungaro at the head of your mission?
22 A. He had.
23 Q. And, sir, if I may ask you, perhaps, to focus on the top
24 right-hand corner of this document. There's a handwritten annotation.
25 Would you be able to decipher those for us?
1 A. Below the N number you mean?
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. Yes. The first one appears to say HOM which I would understand to
4 be head of mission/DHOM, deputy head of mission/AR, I do not recall. That
5 is not a common abbreviation in the OSCE, and I can't recall at this time
6 what it may be. And then under that there is something that I suspect is
7 A. Palmer --
8 Q. Which would be Andrew Palmer?
9 A. -- Andrew Palmer, who --
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. -- was a member of the mission at the time.
12 Q. And the head of mission, deputy head of mission, and this AR would
13 that be the persons to whom the letter would be transmitted by Mr. Palmer;
14 is that what we should understand it to be?
15 A. I would understand it differently. I would understand it that
16 whoever annotated this document with those abbreviations and with
17 A. Palmer was the person who intended the document to be copied to them
18 including Mr. Palmer. That's what I would understand.
19 Q. Thank you. That's helpful, thank you. If we can go into the text
20 of that letter, sir, to the first paragraph you can see that it relates to
21 the events in the village of Ljuboten on 10, 11, and 12 August 2001.
22 Can you see that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And it also refers to a case number for that events as RO number
1 Can you see that?
2 A. I can see that.
3 Q. And it says that this case as opened in the public prosecutor's
4 office, Skopje. And that it was being prosecuted by public prosecutor
5 Dragoljub Jakic.
6 Can you see that?
7 A. I can see that.
8 Q. And then the purpose of the letter is in the second paragraph of
9 that letter and it says: "I would like to invite you to the preliminary
10 working meeting which will be held on 30 January 2002, at 1500 hours,
11 Wednesday, in the premise of the public prosecutor's office of the
12 Republic of Macedonia."
13 Can you see this?
14 A. I can.
15 Q. And then the signatory of that letter which would be again be
16 Mr. Jakic, public prosecutor, says that all further activities of the
17 prosecution, the court, and the forensics department with regards to
18 determining the victims in the Ljuboten events will be determined at the
19 working meeting.
20 Can you see that?
21 A. Yes, I can see that.
22 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I would like to tender this document
23 at this stage.
24 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
25 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D36, Your Honours.
1 MR. METTRAUX:
2 Q. Sir, are you aware of the fact that one such meeting, in fact,
3 took place subsequently?
4 A. Subsequent to this meeting?
5 Q. To this letter. Subsequently to the letter, yes.
6 A. So, in other words --
7 Q. As a result of the letter.
8 A. Okay. Specifically, no; in general I'm aware that they were
9 planning meetings with the prosecutor's office.
10 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, could we move in private session,
12 JUDGE PARKER: Private.
13 [Private session]
11 Pages 1763-1765 redacted. Private session.
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
9 MR. METTRAUX:
10 Q. Sir, I would like you to look at another document which relates to
11 the same issue and that's under tab 61 of your binder.
12 MR. METTRAUX: And for the registry's benefit, that's 1D154, ERN
14 Q. Sir, that's a document which has been disclosed to us again by the
15 Office of the Prosecutor. It's a UN -- a NATO declassified or
16 unclassified document, and as you can see from the title it relates to the
17 Ljuboten case, ICTY investigation, and that's dated the 30th of January
18 2002. Can you see that?
19 A. I can see that.
20 Q. Then there's EUMM meeting for Ljuboten case. And again the first
21 sentence record the following: "On 30 January 2002 EUMM attended a meeting
22 at the public prosecution department regarding events in Ljuboten on 10,
23 12 August. Among those present were deputy public prosecutor Cakic,
24 professor Aleksander Duma of the department of forensic medicine and
25 president of appealation court Ms. Filimana Manevska [phoen], Mr. Andrej
1 Silik of the ICTY, Ambassador Klaus Verlis [phoen] of NATO, EUMM and OSCE
2 represented the international community."
3 Can you see that?
4 A. I can see that.
5 Q. "Prosecutor Stavre Dzikov, it continues, "chaired the meeting, the
6 local authorities explained very briefly that the security forces had
7 acted against terrorists in Ljuboten during three days from 10 to 12
8 August 2001 after a mine incident in the area on 10 August."
9 Then it goes on to record a number of facts, and as you will see,
10 this document also contains the comments, the personal comments of the
11 EUMM representative that was present at the meeting. And we have already
12 gone over that, so I won't. But I will ask to you turn to the next page,
13 if you can. And first I'd like to ask you, sir, if you could explain what
14 Amber Fox is?
15 A. Amber Fox was the NATO monitoring mission at the time. A strange
16 name, I grant you, but that's what it was.
17 Q. And they were present in Macedonia?
18 A. They were, yes.
19 Q. Well, I'll ask you to focus your attention on the last paragraph
20 of that page which is entitled "Ljuboten exhumation" with a date of 5
21 April. Can you see that?
22 A. I can see that.
23 Q. It starts by saying: "Start for the Ljuboten exhumation, start
25 A. Sorry, I may have the wrong one. Sorry.
1 Q. It would be page number 2 of the document. It has the number
2 1D001706 --
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. -- on the top. And that will be the last, if you will --
5 A. Sorry, sorry. My mistake, yes.
6 Q. It goes on to say this: "OSCE, EUMM and ICTY are ready on the
7 ground. The exhumation is going to be performed by the public prosecutor
8 under supervision by the ICTY in a way so it is done by international
9 standards." Can you see that?
10 A. I can see that.
11 Q. "No interference is expected from the MOI but MOI activities in
12 other areas are expected in order to distract the attention away from the
13 media." Can you see that?
14 A. I can see that.
15 Q. And then there's a comment, which is attributed to amber fox or
16 NATO HQ and it says this: "Offered" -- "Offers made by MOI Boskoski to
17 provide the area with security were rejected on the basis of his possible
18 indictment by the ICTY since the mass grave is related to the incidents
19 that happened in this village on 10 August," end of comment.
20 Can you see that?
21 A. I can see that.
22 Q. Were you aware of the fact that the offers of assistance of
23 Mr. Boskoski had been declined in this matter?
24 A. I was aware that there had been offers of assistance, but that
25 there was general concern, as I understood it, for -- to avoid too much of
1 an overt policing presence in that area at the time, in order to -- to not
2 give the situation too high a profile and maybe create tension.
3 Q. And is it correct that the exhumation process, in fact, went
4 without a hitch, is that correct, it went well?
5 A. As far as I'm aware. I was not a party to that. Some of my
6 monitors were, and as far as I'm aware, there was no problem there.
7 Q. And no interference?
8 A. No interference.
9 Q. I'd like to turn to a different subject, sir. You have mentioned
10 a number of contacts, I believe, which you had with a number of members of
11 the Ministry of Interior. Would it be correct that you generally had a
12 good working relationship with the local police with whom you dealt?
13 A. I would say it was very good.
14 Q. And I think you've named two particular individuals with whom you
15 had regular contacts, Mr. Petre Stojanovski and Mr. Ljupco Bliznakovski;
16 is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And again, you had a good and friendly relationship with these two
20 A. Yes, that is correct. I would -- that's a correct description, I
21 think, yes.
22 Q. And you are on a first-name basis with those two individuals?
23 A. Not at this time.
24 Q. Later on in time?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And you have also indicated I believe that on a number of occasion
2 when you encountered difficulties in the context of your work, for
3 instance, to pass through check-points, you sometimes called
4 Mr. Bliznakovski with a view for him to assist you with going through
5 those check-points; is that correct?
6 A. That is correct. If I can add to that: We carried identification
7 and these cards that the monitors, OSCE monitors carried were intended to
8 demonstrate that we had freedom of movement. Often it was the case that
9 local police who were often reservists on check-points would obstruct that
10 movement. They felt they were doing their jobs. We, rather than
11 discussing the issue with them, would intervene with what we felt was the
12 appropriate level in the chain of command to ensure they were given the
13 appropriate information at that time thereby allowing us to move through,
14 and that was the reason for the contacts.
15 Q. So the person in the chain of command which you understood to be
16 capable of that was Mr. Bliznakovski?
17 A. Yes, that's correct.
18 Q. And is that also correct that the passes you've just mentioned
19 were delivered to you by the Ministry of Interior?
20 A. One of -- one of them were. We carried a lot of passes. But, yes,
21 the Ministry of Interior issued us with one of those passes.
22 Q. And are you aware, sir, of the fact that on a number of occasion
23 the OSCE headquarter either through its ambassador or its deputy had
24 expressed its satisfaction and gratitude to the Ministry of Interior and
25 Mr. Boskoski in particular for his assistance?
1 A. No, I was not informed of that.
2 Q. I'll then ask you to have a look at document 62 in your binder,
3 and it is a document ID155, with an ERN 1D001920. And the Macedonian is
4 1D155, 1D001919.
5 The reason why I mention the Macedonian is the original appears to
6 have been the Macedonian because it bears a signature and an annotation at
7 the top of the letter.
8 Sir, if I can go through that letter briefly with you. You can
9 see it's being addressed to Mr. Boskoski as Minister of the Interior; is
10 that right?
11 A. That is the address at the top of the letter, yes.
12 Q. And it's dated Skopje, 14 June 2001. And it is directed to "My
13 dear minister," and it goes on to say this: "Please allow me to express
14 my deepest personal gratitude and respect and that of the OSCE mission for
15 the exceptional level of understanding, cooperation, readiness and
16 efficiency which you and all the members of your valued ministry have
17 always demonstrated during our mutual contact. The permits given by the
18 Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Macedonia to our personnel,
19 international and local, are of critical importance for the work and
20 functioning of the office of the OSCE mission in the Republic of Macedonia
21 in accordance with our mandate."
22 And if you go to the bottom of the letter you will see that it has
23 been signed by the deputy head with a spelling mistake which might be a
24 result of the Cyrillic being translated into English, but that's Mr. Robin
25 Seford, the head of mission; is that correct?
1 A. Deputy head of mission.
2 Q. Deputy head of mission. I'm grateful.
3 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I will ask to tender this document as
5 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As 1D38, Your Honours.
7 MR. METTRAUX:
8 Q. Sir, I now wish to turn to a separate part of your evidence in
9 your statement which related to matters that you have observed in your
10 capacity as a head of your office in Radisani. You've indicated, I think,
11 in your statement that you had arrived sometimes towards the end of June;
12 is that correct?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. And you indicated, I think, that you arrived about six weeks prior
15 to the incident?
16 A. Yes, that is correct.
17 Q. Just a matter of clarification, sir: You were not being employed
18 as a consultant by the authorities; is that correct?
19 A. By the OSCE.
20 Q. By the Macedonian authorities?
21 A. No, I was not, no .
22 Q. Nor were you an employee of the ministry; is that correct?
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. And you worked solely for and on behalf of the OSCE; is that
1 A. That's also correct, yes.
2 Q. The reason I'm asking you, sir, is in the statement comment is
3 attributed to you to that the effect that you worked within the ministry.
4 I simply wanted to the clarify this with you.
5 A. Maybe I assist with that. Later I was employed as a consultant in
6 Macedonia, and in that role I worked within the compound of the Ministry
7 of Interior on a regular basis.
8 Q. And is that correct that that was later in time? Was it 2002 or
10 A. 2003, I believe.
11 Q. I'm grateful. Sir, at the time could you, so that we have an idea
12 of where your offices stand in the OSCE hierarchy, can you indicate who
13 was your immediate superior at the time?
14 A. The OSCE is not necessarily a simple beast to understand. The --
15 I reported, in theory, directly to the head of mission. However, the
16 paper reporting system to enable the paper to be managed in a reasonable
17 manner was correlated by the coordination cell. We had a director of
18 field operations. We had a deputy head of mission who oversaw that
19 process. So in effect, the reporting -- our reports went through a more
20 circuitous route than, if you like, the policy instruction coming down,
21 although that could follow both routes.
22 Q. And geographically, then -- and I'm -- am I correct to understand
23 that what you call your AOR, area of responsibility, was the Skopje area;
24 is that correct?
25 A. Not the entire Skopje area, as would be understood from looking at
1 the old regional administrative boundaries, but effectively --
2 effectively, the northern, and practically speaking, it was Skopje city,
3 slightly south of that and to the north.
4 Q. So it wasn't a nation-wide coverage; is that correct? It was this
5 limited part of the Skopje area?
6 A. For my team it was a limited area of responsibility, yes.
7 Q. And I think you've indicated already that it was very important
8 for you in your role and capacity to have contacts in that area and at
9 your level to assist with your mission and those contacts where at times
10 with Mr. Bliznakovski and Stojanovski; is that correct?
11 A. That is correct. But just as a point of clarification with
12 regards your earlier question, there were occasions when we deployed - I
13 don't know whether this is important - but there were occasions when we
14 deployed teams outside that area of responsibility to support teams in
15 Tetovo or Kumanovo. But your second point, yes, that's correct.
16 Q. And you also have contacts, as I understand, lower down the chain
17 of command with the local police; is that correct?
18 A. I and my teams had regular contact with members -- employees of
19 the Ministry of Interior, yes.
20 Q. And I think you've -- you can confirm that you had no contacts at
21 the ministerial level; is that correct?
22 A. Not at that time, that's correct.
23 Q. And you never met with minister -- then-minister Boskoski; is that
25 A. I hadn't then and -- no, I had not then, no.
1 Q. And did you have any contacts, professional contacts with Goran
2 Mitevski, you remember he is the director of public security?
3 A. No.
4 Q. And did you have any contacts with the head of the crime police
5 Mr. Zivko Petrovski?
6 A. No, not that I recall.
7 Q. You've indicated, however, I think, in your statement that you had
8 some contacts with Mr. Zoran Jovanovski; is that correct?
9 A. Yes, but that was subsequent to the events that we're talking
11 Q. Would it be correct to say that you have met him perhaps once or
12 twice in the year 2001? Would that be correct?
13 A. That's probably correct, yes.
14 Q. And I'm going ask your memory a lot there, but would it be correct
15 that your first meeting with Petre Stojanovski took place perhaps on the
16 13th or 14th of August? Would that be correct, as far as you can recall?
17 A. I'm not -- I cannot recall, but I don't think it was quite that
19 Q. So you think it might have been a little bit later?
20 A. Yes, and we're probably talking days or weeks later, but I -- I'm
21 not sure.
22 Q. And would that be the case also with Mr. Bliznakovski?
23 A. I'm trying to recall when. Let me explain the difficulty that I'm
25 When we set up team centre, we realised -- or I realised very
1 rapidly that we required good relations with the police, as this letter
2 from Mr. Seford appears to verify. In order to do our job, we needed to
3 have a good working relationship and that was something that I was keen to
4 establish. I do not recall -- I recall that we established that with Mr.
5 Bliznakovski and with Mr. Stojanovski, but I do not recall when we
6 initiated our contact with them.
7 Q. But would it be fair to say that one of the reasons for that was
8 that during the month of July, I think you've indicated, you were focused
9 primarily on the situation in Radusha; is that correct?
10 A. Radusha was an area of concern. There were others. Radusha was
11 one of them, yes.
12 Q. In your statement you are recorded as saying the
13 following: "Mr. Boskoski, during the summer of 2001 and subsequently was
14 able to involve himself in an operational matter within the MOI at any
15 level if he so wished."
16 I'm going to ask you a few questions about this, but you also are
17 recorded as saying this: "Very senior members of the MOI would sometimes
18 defer to Mr. Boskoski for decisions concerning issues that involved
19 low-level tactical policing [realtime transcript read in error "tackle
21 Is that correct? That's what you were recorded?
22 A. That is correct, yes.
23 Q. And --
24 A. That was my understanding, yes. I wasn't in meetings between
25 police officials, but that is my understanding of the situation, yes.
1 Q. And I think you actually indicate the basis for this belief of
2 yours by -- or with reference to two particular incidents, and please
3 correct me if I misrepresent those in any way. These are summaries of
4 what you are recorded as saying.
5 The first incident which is attributed to you is that on one
6 occasion, Ljupco Bliznakovski, commander of the Skopje police, and General
7 Jovanovski -- Zoran Jovanovski once told that you only the minister had
8 the authority to make adjustments to police shift assignments due to the
9 fact that shift patterns were established in ministerial directives and
10 regulations. Is that a fair summary?
11 A. Yes, that's a fair summary.
12 Q. The second example --
13 JUDGE PARKER: Could I interrupt, Mr. Mettraux, before something
14 goes off the screen. 72, line 13, I think my screen shows you asking a
15 question involving "low-level tackle policy." Was it "tactical policy?"
16 MR. METTRAUX: Yes. I don't think anyone was involved in
17 tackling. It would have been tactical, Your Honour, yes.
18 JUDGE PARKER: It could have been an important issue and I thought
19 it better to correct it --
20 MR. METTRAUX: I'm very grateful to you --
21 JUDGE PARKER: -- before we lose it.
22 MR. METTRAUX: -- Your Honour. Thank you very much.
23 Q. Sir, the second incident or event which is referred to in your
24 statement in relation to those assertions, statements attributed to you is
25 an example where you were apparently once told that the minister would in
1 some cases be responsible for deciding upon the removal of police
2 check-points. Do you recall mentioning that particular incident to the
3 Office of the Prosecutor?
4 A. I don't recall mentioning it to the Office of the Prosecutor, but
5 I remember the incident in which I was told this, yes.
6 Q. And I'd just like to understand your statement a bit better. But
7 your evidence, sir, is that you did not witness either incident yourself.
8 They were recounted to you by others; is that correct?
9 A. It is -- in the latter incident that you refer to, we, the OSCE,
10 felt that it was dangerous to the personnel within a police check-point
11 for it to remain where it was. We -- I proposed that it be moved to a
12 location that would enable it to continue doing its job but would offer
13 the personnel within it, the Ministry of Interior employees within it,
14 greater safety and security. I was informed that that was not possible
15 because it was part of a strategic plan that required the ministers'
16 approval to remove it.
17 Q. And can you remember who told you that?
18 A. That was General Zoran Jovanovski.
19 Q. But you didn't verify that information, sir, whether there was any
20 such thing as this policy in question?
21 A. No. I wasn't in a position to explore that policy further.
22 Q. Nor is that your evidence, sir -- and I'm just trying to establish
23 what is your evidence. You are not suggesting that Mr. Boskoski was
24 either required or legally responsible for moving check-points from one
25 place to the other?
1 A. I would say that in any organisation where a person in the
2 management chain exerts decision making or an influence over decision
3 making in that way, then there is an amount of responsibility. I would
4 consider that within the OSCE, the British Army, or any other organisation
5 to be the case. So I cannot say that there was no -- that he was not
7 Q. Well, perhaps my question should be better phrased. It's not your
8 evidence, sir, by law or by any policy you could have access to
9 Mr. Boskoski was the competent person or organ to order the moving or
10 removing of check-points; is that correct?
11 A. What is correct is that I believe now and I believed then that
12 the -- those people responsible for -- that responsibility for that
13 check-point and others should have been devolved to lower-level tactical
14 commanders. That certainly did not appear to be the case.
15 Q. But from your own observation, sir, you have never seen an order,
16 a decision or a body of rules which would place that particular
17 responsibility on to the Ministry of Interior; is that right?
18 A. That is correct. I have not seen anything in writing to that
20 Q. And, I mean you have indicated that you have never heard
21 Mr. Boskoski or witnessed Mr. Boskoski give an order or requests, search,
22 the removal of a check-points or the setting up of one; is that correct?
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. And moving on to the other issue which you have identified in your
25 statement concerning the police shifts, do you remember?
1 A. Mm-hm.
2 Q. And again, sir, it is not your evidence -- and again I don't mean
3 to be critical here. I'm trying to assess the nature of your evidence.
4 But you did not personally saw or witness Mr. Boskoski giving any order or
5 signing any documents in relation to police shifts; is that correct?
6 A. That is correct. However, it was made -- I was made aware on a
7 number of occasions that it was by ministerial directive that shift
8 patterns were established.
9 Q. Well, I was coming to that, and I'm grateful. But you've actually
10 never seen this directive or this regulation?
11 A. No, I haven't.
12 Q. And, well, I would like to show you a statement which was taken by
13 the Defence and it's ID158. It's ERN number 1D001712, and it's under tab
14 number 64.
15 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, for the record this is a statement
16 which the Defence has taken from Mr. Ljupco Bliznakovski, which has
17 mentioned already on a number of occasion. We have had Mr. Bliznakovski
18 sign the original document in his own language. That's the Macedonian.
19 The translation which is now on your screen is unofficial translation
20 of -- made by the Defence.
21 As Your Honour knows, we have had regular contact with the CLSS in
22 relation to translation issues. And there was one particular translation
23 matter which we raised with them. At this stage we're still discussing
24 this with the CLSS, and as soon as we get the correct translation or as
25 soon as we resolve this matter with the CLSS, we'll then put on the
1 official translation or we will verify the statement. We will have the
2 statement verified in English translated to Mr. Bliznakovski and signed by
3 him. But this is the situation at this stage.
4 Q. Sir, I'd like to you look at paragraph 3 of the statement of
5 Mr. Bliznakovski. It says this: "Asked who was responsible for
6 organising of the police shifts at the time, I can say that it was the
7 responsibility of the commanders of the police stations. If there was
8 need for consultation of a question in the area of police works, upwards
9 in the hierarchy, responsible for traffic, criminal, and operative works,
10 public peace and order JRM, it was SVR Skopje.
11 And, sir, SVR Skopje is Mr. Bliznakovski, isn't it?
12 A. He was there, yes.
13 Q. And he is saying that the responsibility for police shifts falls
14 primarily on police stations and in case of problems, on to him; is that
16 A. That's correct. That's what it says.
17 Q. And then at paragraph 4 it says this: "The Minister of Interior
18 had no role in organising, deciding or preparing police shifts and I know
19 of no example where the minister of the interior took any interest or was
20 involved in the matter of police shifts. Those were purely operative
21 matters which were not within the competence of the SVR. And at paragraph
22 5 it says: "I never suggested to anyone that the minister of the interior
23 would be competent to deal with such secondary operative matters, as noted
24 above, that was solely the responsibility of SVR."
25 Sir, I think in your statement you recalled Mr. Bliznakovski as
1 being among those who told that you story. Could it be that this version
2 of events which was given to you might have been given to you by someone
4 A. No, I don't believe so.
5 Q. But you would agree that the information provided by
6 Mr. Bliznakovski is in contradiction with your recounting or recalling of
7 the matter; is that correct?
8 A. I would agree that there's contradiction there, yes.
9 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, at this stage we just ask that this
10 document be marked for identification. I will come back to it a bit
11 later, and also it has not -- as I pointed out, there is an issue of
12 translation and there's another statement which will be referred to later.
13 And we will seek at a later time to tender it through Rule 92 bis, so we
14 will have to go through the process of certification.
15 So at this stage, we simply ask that the document be marked for
17 JUDGE PARKER: It will be marked.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D39, marked for identification, Your
20 MR. METTRAUX: Again, Your Honour, before the transcript
21 disappears in front of our eyes, I'm recorded as when reading paragraph 4
22 of the statement as reading that saying that "those matter were not within
23 the competence," and either I misread or was misunderstood. But it says:
24 "Those were purely operative matters which were within the competence of
25 the SVR," that's the last sentence of paragraph 4.
1 Q. Sir, I'd also like to refer to the evidence of another witness
2 who's given evidence before this Trial Chamber. It's witness M 36 and it
3 can be found at page 824. It's not, unfortunately, and I apologise, in
4 your binder. I will read the passage to you, but it's 824 of the
5 transcript. It's a witness who has appeared already in the context of
6 this trial.
7 And he say this: I think it was not the head of the police station
8 was setting them, that is the length of shifts, but the superior officers
9 depending on the situation. So the shift might be increased or reduced
10 depending on the assessment of the security situation and depending on the
11 staffing that was able to the police station.
12 So there again, sir, we have in evidence which is slightly
13 different from both yours and Mr. Bliznakovski, but the understanding of
14 this witness, M 36, is that the responsibility for police shifts was
15 either with the police station or with superior officers within that
16 station. Is that correct?
17 A. That's what it appears to say, yes.
18 Q. I'd now like to move on to another matter which you have discussed
19 in your statement and that's that you were once told - and I summarised
20 the incidents a bit earlier - that you were once told in one particular
21 incident that the minister himself, Mr. Boskoski, had insisted that a
22 particular check-point should stay where it was. Do you recall?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. And again, sir, and again I'm not meaning to criticise you for
25 this or not suggesting it was your duty, but you did not verify whether or
1 not Mr. Boskoski had indeed made that request; is that correct?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. And again, with the risk of repeating myself, you never saw a
4 decision of a minister or witnessed the Minister making a request either
5 this one or a request to the same effect; is that correct?
6 A. That is correct.
7 Q. Sir, I'd like to turn your attention once again to the statements
8 of Mr. Bliznakovski, which I think you still have in front of you, and ask
9 you to focus on paragraph 6 of that statement, the second sentence. It
10 says this: "The primary responsibility for those, that is the
11 check-points, would be at the level of the police SVR." And again, sir,
12 that would be the level at which Mr. Bliznakovski was operating; is that
14 A. Yes, it's right.
15 Q. "Those were the authorities that knew and were competent to decide
16 whether a check-point was necessary or needed or whether it should be
17 removed. Ultimately, from a hierarchical point of view, the professional
18 responsibility for such matters would go up to the head of the uniformed
19 police; although, I do not know of a single example where the head of the
20 uniformed police in the MOI was required or requested to intervene in
21 relation to such matters."
22 And then, sir, using your memory, can you recall who was the head
23 of the uniformed police at the time?
24 A. I think --
25 Q. Could it be Mr. Galevski?
1 A. I believe so, yes.
2 Q. And going on with the paragraph of Mr. Bliznakovski, he says
3 this: "I am aware that the matter of check-points was also discussed at
4 the Crisis Management Committee; and thus, in cooperation between the
5 government and the international organisation, OSCE, that were present at
6 the time in Macedonia."
7 Are you also aware, sir, of the fact that the issue of the
8 check-points was at times discussed at the Crisis Management Committee or
10 A. It was regularly discussed there, yes.
11 Q. There is another statement, sir, which I would like to show to you
12 at this stage, and it's --
13 A. Sorry, it's a little embarrassing. I don't not know whether it's
14 possible to take a one - or two-minute break?
15 JUDGE PARKER: We'll do better than that, I think. We will have
16 our second break now, resuming at a quarter to 1.00 and that will then
17 give us a full hour for the last session.
18 --- Recess taken at 12.15 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 12.49 p.m.
20 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, before we restart three very short
21 matters about documents which have been shown to this witness. There are
22 three documents which have been used with this witness. The first one is
23 under tab 58. I will not seek to tender this document at this stage Your
24 Honour. It's the record of a meeting -- sorry, it's the draft operational
25 plan for the Ljuboten exhumation. We will put that document through a
1 future witness, Mr. Tucker, who's scheduled to testify on behalf of the
3 There is another document, which is under tab 61 in the binder,
4 that's 1D154 and it's a NATO declassified or unclassified document, and I
5 would seek to tender this one, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon?
7 MR. SAXON: Just very briefly, Your Honour.
8 In order to keep all options open for the Prosecution, with
9 respect to tab 58 that my colleague has just mentioned, the draft
10 operational plan, there was always at least a possibility that the
11 witness, who I believe my colleague is thinking about, may not testify
12 given time constraints et cetera, et cetera. The Prosecution will not
13 oppose tendering this document at this time if my colleague prefers to do
15 MR. METTRAUX: Well, I think, Your Honour they are two matters.
16 Obviously if the Prosecution does not object to the tendering, it would be
17 acceptable to us to tender it. The other issue, Your Honour, is if the
18 Prosecution has now taken the position that this witness, Mr. Tucker, will
19 not come, we should be immediately advised of that fact and by immediately
20 I mean before the present witness has finished his testimony. If
21 Mr. Tucker is not to appear to as a witness in this case, I'm quite afraid
22 that there would be a great deal more questions for this particular
23 witness, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE PARKER: I can well image that prospect.
25 Let us deal with the documents first while Mr. Saxon is
1 considering your last comments.
2 MR. METTRAUX: With pleasure, Your Honour, and I will briefly -- I
3 think we have an agreement in relate -- with the Prosecution in relation
4 to the last document. It's the document under tab 39 and it's 1D175.
5 It's information about the Ljuboten event which I've shown to this
6 witness. The English version of that document is to be found in K 99
7 which has already been admitted in evidence.
8 However, the Macedonian version which is part of P 99 appears to
9 be an Macedonian translation of the English which is itself a translation
10 of an original Macedonian. We have identified, located the original
11 Macedonian documents, and what we would propose to do, if it's acceptable
12 obviously, to Your Honours, would be to replace the Macedonian translation
13 in effect of that document with our original, and I think the Prosecution
14 agrees with that proposal.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Well, on that assumption, are you saying that the
16 original is at tab 39 now?
17 MR. METTRAUX: That's correct, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE PARKER: And you'd like that now to be received as the
19 actual exhibit?
20 MR. METTRAUX: Well, what we would propose is since P99 is
21 already in evidence, in order not to have twice the same document, what we
22 would propose, if that's acceptable, is to -- if you're unplugging the
23 Macedonian translation or -- sorry, the Macedonian original into P99. If
24 I wasn't clear at this stage, the Macedonian --
25 JUDGE PARKER: No, that's clear, with the consent of the
1 Prosecution, the original Macedonian document will become part of Exhibit
2 P 99 in place of the Macedonian language version that presently forms part
3 of that exhibit.
4 MR. METTRAUX: I'm grateful.
5 JUDGE PARKER: And the court officer will put me in my place later
6 if that's technically impossible, and we'll sort it out.
7 Now, two other documents you've mentioned, and we need to deal
8 with them. First is at tab 58.
9 MR. METTRAUX: That's correct, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE PARKER: With my consent, you'd like to tender that
12 MR. METTRAUX: Well, we'll tender it if there is no objection at
13 this stage. It was 1D151, 1D0021697 to 17.000. And for the record, it is
14 the proposed draft operational plan for Ljuboten exhumation.
15 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
16 MR. METTRAUX: And --
17 JUDGE PARKER: Just a minute.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D40, Your Honours.
19 MR. METTRAUX: And the other document, Your Honour, is under tab
20 61 of your binder. And it's 1D154 with an ERN 1D001705 to 1706.
21 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
22 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D41, Your Honours.
23 MR. METTRAUX:
24 Q. Sir, I'd like to go back to the issues that we were discussing
25 before, which is the issue of the check-points you will recall.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. I'd ask you to turn to tab 70, 7-0, of your binder and ask the
3 registry's assistance to bring up document 1D159 with an ERN 1D001717 and,
4 sir, this is a statement taken by representatives of the Defence of
5 Mr. Boskoski from a person named Vojislav Zafirovski. Do you have that in
6 front of you?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 Q. And again, for the record, Your Honour, this at this stage is an
9 unofficial translation made by the Defence, and we will follow the same
10 procedure as mentioned earlier. Either we will have the statement read
11 back to Mr. Zafirovski and signed by him, or we will seek a translation
12 from the CLSSs. An official translation that is.
13 Sir if you can have a look at paragraph 3 of the document, it
14 describes in a rather lengthy paragraph the professional duties and
15 responsibilities of Mr. Zafirovski.
16 Can you see that?
17 A. I can see that.
18 Q. And can you see that he was first employed by the Ministry of
19 Interior in 1978. And up to this day, for 28 years, has been working in
20 various capacities within that ministry.
21 Can you see that?
22 A. I can see that.
23 Q. In relation to the check-point, sir, I would like to ask you to
24 focus on paragraph 5 of the statement of Mr. Zafirovski, and it says
25 this: "The Ministry of Interior is not responsible for deciding of the
1 location and the need for police check-points. The primary authority and
2 responsibility for positioning and removing of check-points is within the
3 heads of the sectors of internal affairs, the heads of the department of
4 internal affairs, head of the larger municipality police stations, or the
5 commander of the local police stations.
6 Furthermore, theoretically there might be instances where
7 regarding these matters the head of the uniformed police to be consulted
8 or even authorised for deciding even though I do not know if that has
9 happened in practice during the crisis in 2001."
10 Sir, once again, Mr. Zafirovski indicates that ultimately, the
11 last person who would be responsible for the issue of locating and the
12 need of police check-points would be the head of the uniformed police. Is
13 that correct?
14 A. That's what he's saying, yes.
15 Q. And that's again -- that was at the time in August 2001 in any
16 case, Mr. Risto Galevski; is that correct?
17 A. Yes. That's my understanding, yes.
18 Q. Well, keep the statement in front of you, sir. I'll come back to
19 it. But there is another issue which you've given evidence about it and
20 it's the fact that in your knowledge Mr. Boskoski signed a number of
21 orders of appointment of members of the police. Is that correct?
22 A. Again, that is information that I was -- I was given.
23 Q. And you understand your -- in your answer you are suggesting that
24 you haven't seen any such orders; is that correct?
25 A. I have not.
1 Q. But it is your understanding that the practice for Ministers of
2 Interior in Macedonia to sign orders of appointment preceded the time of
3 Mr. Boskoski and continued after his time; is that correct?
4 A. That is my understanding.
5 Q. I would like to show you another paragraph of Mr. Zafirovski's
6 statement, and it's paragraph 8. It would be the second page, sir, of
7 that statement.
8 And Mr. Zafirovski says the following: "The Minister of Interior
9 was and still is the person that signs the decision for assigning of
10 higher ranked police administrative. That was and still is the case,
11 because the ministry is one legal entity led by the minister. He had and
12 still has that right according to the law. In my experience, it was
13 generally done in accordance to the suggestions of the higher ranks in the
14 ministry, because the minister as a politician generally is not in a
15 position to know the person who are assigned at different positions in the
16 professional hierarchy."
17 So Mr. Zafirovski in effect agrees with you that Mr. Boskoski had
18 the power to make or to sign the decisions for assignment of higher
19 ranking police administrative, which is consistent with what you said?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. And I hope you will agree also with what Mr. Zafirovski explained
22 from his own experience and expertise which is that the selection or the
23 decision as to who should or could be appointed was made at a lower level,
24 and the decision would then be signed by the minister; is that correct?
25 Or is that a matter that is within your knowledge, I should ask you that
1 you to be fair.
2 A. I would use the same word as Mr. Zafirovski and say generally.
3 Q. Is that a matter which is within your knowledge? Would you be
4 privy to situations where either Mr. Boskoski would have personally
5 selected individuals to start with that?
6 A. I have no direct knowledge of that.
7 Q. Would you agree with me, or could you confirm in any case, that
8 many of the most senior members of the Ministry of Interior at the time
9 had been appointed not by Mr. Boskoski but by his predecessor?
10 A. I would imagine before Mr. Boskoski took up his post, the
11 appointments were made by others, yes.
12 Q. And is it correct that the first man of the police, Mr. Goran
13 Mitevski was actually pointed by the previous government, not the
14 government of which Mr. Boskoski was a member? Are you knowledgeable of
15 that fact?
16 A. I was probably aware of that, but I don't recall it now.
17 Q. And you will agree, I hope, that the first man of the police is
18 appointed not by the Minister of Interior but by the government itself.
19 Is that correct?
20 A. That's my understand.
21 Q. And are you also aware of the fact that the first man of the
22 police Mr. Zivko Petrovski was also appointed not by Mr. Boskoski but by
23 his predecessor?
24 A. I'm not -- I'm not aware of that. I don't know who appointed him.
25 Q. And are you aware of the fact that Mr. Galevski, the first man of
1 the uniformed police, had been pointed not by Mr. Boskoski but his
2 predecessor again?
3 A. Again I have no knowledge of that.
4 Q. You've indicated in your statement as well that in your experience
5 again, and we're obviously only talking about that here, you witness let's
6 say some reluctance to make decision within the chain of command. Would
7 that be a fair description?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And again, I think you've indicated that in your experience or in
10 your presence in any case people would often direct you to other persons?
11 A. That is correct. That is correct, yes, absolutely.
12 Q. Sir, I'd like to show you one other paragraph of Mr. Zafirovski's
13 statement where he described in quite some terms the way in which the
14 police functions in relation to operative decisions and it's at paragraph
15 6, if you can turn to that.
16 It says this: "On everyday basis, there are hundreds if not
17 thousands operative decisions made at all level of the hierarchy."
18 Can you see that?
19 A. I can see that.
20 Q. "For example, the following decision are done at the lowest level
21 of the hierarchy. The way and the tactics of acting in a specific
22 situation, who are the persons who will be identified and registered, who
23 are the persons who will be searched, which vehicles will be controlled,"
24 et cetera.
25 First is that consistent with your, let's say experience with the
1 contacts you had with the police?
2 A. Not entirely, no. For example it refers to traffic control,
3 vehicles will be controlled, et cetera. Now that is a low-level
4 operational task and that is conducted at a lower level. However, the
5 framework within which individual police officers may operate would be
6 often directed from above, or if there was a low level -- if we say
7 tactical operational response that's required then -- that was unusual,
8 out of the ordinary, then this would be something that they would not feel
9 confident to respond to, often, without further reference from their chain
10 of command.
11 And if I could add, that this is, as I believe, a matter of record
12 from the various agencies of the European -- of the international
13 community and is one of the reasons that the European agency for
14 reconstruction has been providing assistance to the Ministry of Interior
15 and the government in Macedonia to reform.
16 Q. And one of the reforms, sir, was to decentralise the police
17 further; is that correct?
18 A. To provide decision making at a lower level yes.
19 Q. And when you talk about referring up your chain of command, would
20 it be correct to say that the sort the matters which you have just
21 identified would generally be dealt with within the police station,
22 generally by the commander of the police station himself?
23 A. The items that are listed -- the activities listed here.
24 Q. The ones that you mentioned.
25 A. The unusual --
1 Q. Yes.
2 A. -- incidents? It depends on what they are. And once if we
3 observed a reluctance in the field on the part of employees of the
4 Ministry of Interior to respond, or if we were asking them to respond to
5 something, then we were able to observe their end of the communication but
6 were not in a position to observe the communication beyond that.
7 Q. It goes on to say this: "Furthermore, the following operative
8 decisions are made on a daily basis by the commanders of the police
9 stations: the composition and the strength of the police patrols, the
10 number of engaged employees, the type of weapons, the type of
11 communication means, matters regarding use of vehicles, et cetera, while
12 the following operative measures are created on a medium level in the
13 hierarchy. The way in the system that the police will work according to
14 which significant direction will be controlled on a higher level, which
15 protection means will be used by the police, operative planning,
16 activities of the police for acting on specific problem," and so on.
17 Is that consistent with what you just explained, Mr. Bolton?
18 A. Sorry. Just give me a moment to read through it again, if you
20 I don't -- I don't think this reads particularly well. But if I
21 understand it correctly, what Mr. Zafirovski is saying is that the higher
22 level -- there were certain activities that would require higher level
23 input, and that includes -- protection means and operative planning
24 activities. Is -- is that correct?
25 Q. Well, I have to agree with you that the translation perhaps is not
1 the best. But this is what it seems to say. And would you agree that
2 it's consistent, for example, with what you explained earlier with your
3 contacts with Mr. Bliznakovski?
4 A. I would say that these check-points formed part of an operational
5 planning activity and therefore would be at a higher level, yes.
6 Q. Thank you. And I would now ask you to turn to paragraph 7 of the
7 same statement which is on the second page of the statement.
8 Mr. Zafirovski says this: "In my experience and in accordance to
9 the law, the operative measures are not under the authority of the
10 minister because he is not the police administrative but the politics
11 figure. The operative activities were, are, and will be under the
12 authority of the professional police structure. Every attempt to suggest
13 that the Ministry of Interior would come to a decision for the leaving of
14 a check-point is not probable and is opposite to every police logic. For
15 me, as a police administrative who has been effectively working for 27
16 years in the police, it is unthinkable and absolutely unacceptable."
17 Again, sir, I'm not meaning to criticise you or to do that
18 otherwise, but you would agree that the evidence of Mr. Zafirovski differs
19 quite significantly from yours in relation to the matter of check-points;
20 is that correct?
21 A. It differs, that is correct.
22 Q. There is another matter discussed in your statement and that is
23 the issue of the reporting system within the Ministry of Interior, and I
24 think it would be fair to say that you have been relatively critical of
25 the way in which the reporting system functions; is that correct?
1 A. That is correct, I am.
2 Q. And your remarks were essentially to the effect that perhaps the
3 reporting system within the Ministry of Interior was not done as well or
4 as a professionally as one would hope would be the case. Would it be
6 A. That would be fair.
7 Q. And I think you also pointed out that the safekeeping of records
8 was again perhaps not as well done as it could or should have been; is
9 that correct?
10 A. That is correct.
11 Q. And but you also aware that sometimes reporting within the chain
12 of command would be done orally rather than in writing in reports; is that
14 A. That is my understanding, yes, and my observation.
15 Q. You would agree, I hope, that the fact that the country was in the
16 middle of a crisis may not have contributed to improving the way in which
17 the reporting functioned in the ministry?
18 A. I would not agree. I would imagine that that would provide a
19 higher incentive to ensure that reporting is both effective and rapid.
20 Q. It would also increase the incentive perhaps to report orally
21 because of the number of incidents; would that be correct?
22 A. At a certain level and for practical reasons, yes.
23 Q. Sir, I'd also like to ask you a few questions, if I may, about the
24 way in which the documents were being archived within the OSCE. Could you
25 explain, for example, the documents that we've seen of the 15th of August
1 would be prepared by you and then sent on to, in this case Ambassador
2 Ungaro and a number of other people. Who would be responsible then to
3 archive those documents?
4 A. That, I don't know. I know there was an archive system within the
5 mission headquarters, but I do not know who was responsible for that.
6 Q. Would it be correct that one copy of your report would be kept in
7 Skopje and another one would usually be sent to the headquarter in
8 Vienna? Would it be correct?
9 A. It would be correct. My understanding of that procedure, which I
10 have never been directly involved in myself and therefore I may be
11 mistaken, but my understanding of that system is that if the document is
12 transmitted on to Vienna, yes, it is archived in both locations.
13 Q. And as I understand the access to the OSCE archives would be
14 limited to OSCE personnel; is that correct?
15 A. I would imagine so. Again, I'm not directly aware of that -- that
17 Q. I have a strange proposition to put to you and I'm sure you're
18 going to be able to answer it reasonably. If it were to be the case that
19 documents went missing from the archives of the OSCE, you would not infer
20 from that fact that someone would have either done that in intentionally
21 or that was something suspicious about it; is that correct?
22 A. If -- that is essentially correct. If people do not apply the
23 procedures and the practice that is accepted within the OSCE field
24 operations, then, of course, a document may go missing, may turn up
1 Q. And if of all the daily log sheet, which as the name suggests, the
2 OSCE keeps daily in Macedonia, the only two missing were the ones for the
3 13th and 14th of August, and again you would agree that you would not
4 necessarily conclude that someone has been involved in a criminal
5 enterprise to hide those documents; is that correct?
6 A. I would want to satisfy myself that that was not the case.
7 Q. And if of all the daily reports from OSCE Radisani, which was your
8 office, were missing for the period 9 to 24th of August, 2001, had
9 disappeared, would you conclude from this that someone in this office or
10 someone in the archives was involved in a criminal enterprise to hide
11 those documents?
12 A. That would be insufficient to conclude that, but I would want to
13 find out -- I would want to investigate internally as to what the reason
15 Q. Sir, I would just ask to you look at two documents.
16 MR. METTRAUX: If it is possible for the registry to put both
17 documents next to each other.
18 Q. Sir, they are in under tab 71 and 72 in your binder. And for the
19 registry's benefit, they are 1D160, 1D001720, that's tab 71; and 1D161,
21 As you can see, sir, the first letter is a letter by the Defence
22 of Mr. Boskoski to the OSCE in Skopje to the attention of Mr. Victor
23 Ullum, the head of the rule of law section. And it refers to a telephone
24 conversation, and then the letter ask the OSCE to confirm what has been
25 discussed, namely that a number of documents are missing, in particular,
1 daily bulletin or daily log shoot for 13 and 14 of August. The absence of
2 records pertaining to 13 and 14 of August, and the absence of all
3 spillover daily reports from the Radisani team from the period 9 to 24th
4 August. Can you see that?
5 A. I see that, yes.
6 Q. And if you look on your right on the screen, or tab 72 if you
7 prefer, you will have and you will find the response to that letter by
8 Skopje, OSCE in Skopje, signed by Mr. Ullum and dated 12 February 2007,
9 and it says that as stated on the phone to Mr. Mettraux on 9 February 2007
10 I personally reviewed the archives of the OSCE spillover monitor mission
11 to Skopje looking for a daily log sheet or daily bulletin bearing the date
12 13 and 14 of August 2001. I was unable able to find any such document,
13 despite the fact that bulletins both of previous and subsequent date are
14 present in the mission archives. Furthermore, subsequent to your specific
15 request, I searched for and failed to discover any daily reports from the
16 OSCE SMMS, Radisani team, team centre for the period 9 to 24 August, 2001.
17 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, we would seek to tender those two
18 documents at this stage.
19 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Document 1D160 will become Exhibit
21 1D42, Your Honours, and document 1D161 will become Exhibit 1D43, Your
23 MR. METTRAUX:
24 Q. Sir, there is another area of your evidence that I would like to
25 discuss briefly with you. I think you've -- you've given some evidence
1 about special units. Do you recall that in your statement?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And I think you've indicated in your statement that on one or a
4 number of occasion, you took part in operations with the special police;
5 is that correct?
6 A. Subsequent to these events, yes.
7 Q. And can you recall the date of that or this event? Was it --
8 first, was it one occasion, was it two occasions?
9 A. It was a number of occasions; it was more than two.
10 Q. You've indicated it was either of the events that we are most
11 interested in. Can you remember the time-period when that was?
12 A. There were a number of events in which special units were
13 involved, and I believe the first one was probably in 2002 or early 2003
14 and then subsequently in 2005 and 2006. 2005, most probably.
15 Q. And could you tell me which unit, which special unit or special
16 police unit you operated with on those occasions?
17 A. I think "operated with" is too strong. I was present at
18 operations in which they were involved. The -- that was the Tigers.
19 Q. And can you remember who the commander of the unit at the time
21 A. Off the top of my head, off the top of my head, I can't. But I
22 was aware that the commander of the unit wasn't necessarily there during
23 those particular operations.
24 Q. And can you remember where you went observing those units?
25 A. One occasion was near the village of Blace and another occasion
1 was in the -- again, I can't remember the name of the village but near to
2 the town of Gostivar -- yeah, I need to ...
3 Q. Can you explain what role exactly you played with these units as
4 they were operating? Were you just going along with them?
5 A. Yeah. I was -- in one case I had been asked to attend the scenes
6 of an arms cache that was found at which the area was secured by the
7 Tigers. On another occasion -- so I was there in a monitoring role.
8 Another occasion, there was an arrest operation, a search and arrest
9 operation underway which I accompanied, again to observe it, in my
10 capacity as a UK advisor.
11 Q. Would you take part in the debriefings well?
12 A. I did take part in the debriefings, yes.
13 Q. On every occasion or ...
14 A. Not every occasion, no.
15 Q. I think you've indicated in your statement that it was your
16 understanding that Mr. Boskoski had the authority to give orders for -- to
17 the Tigers unit to go into a certain location; is that correct?
18 A. That is my understanding.
19 Q. And so that we understand your evidence properly, sir, you're not
20 suggesting that Mr. Boskoski was the only person who was able to give such
22 A. No, I'm not suggesting that, no.
23 Q. I will perhaps show you a document at this stage. It is under tab
24 73 which is 1D001723. It's a document signed by Mr. Goran Stravkovski,
25 it's dated the 19th of July, 2001, and it refers to the special task unit,
1 which was at the time the expression used for the Tigers. Do you agree?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And it says the following: "We notify you that with the act SD
4 number 231-493-1 of 10 February 1999 the ESZ, special tasks unit is
5 directly leads and commanded by the Ministry of Interior affairs, and that
6 means that the commander of the unit receives order and task directly from
7 the minister. Because the minister has assigned certain authority to the
8 head of the department for police, the commander of the ESZ receive orders
9 and tasks also from the head."
10 So you would agree that it, in fact, is consistent with your
12 A. Mm-hm, yes.
13 Q. You've indicated as well in your statement, sir, as I understand,
14 that you understood that it would be usual for special units such as the
15 Tiger to prepare a plan of action before going into operation; is that
17 A. I have no direct knowledge of the internal planning mechanism of
18 those units.
19 Q. But that was your understanding or at least the understanding that
20 you related to the Prosecution, that it would be usual to have such a plan
21 drawn up?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And it would also be usual, wouldn't it, for the special unit in
24 question to be registering in its log-book the fact that they were
25 operating in a particular area; is that correct?
1 A. If they maintained a log-book. I have no knowledge as to whether
2 or not a log-book was maintained.
3 Q. Fair enough. There is one more paragraph, sir, which I would like
4 to ask to you look at.
5 MR. METTRAUX: But before I do that, Your Honour, I will seek to
6 tender the previous document into evidence.
7 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
8 MR. METTRAUX: Sir, it's --
9 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D44, Your Honours.
10 MR. METTRAUX: I'm grateful.
11 Q. Sir, I will ask you once again to look at the statement of
12 Mr. Zafirovski which I hope you still have in front of you. It's under
13 tab 70.
14 A. Yes, I have it. Thank you.
15 Q. Can I ask you to turn to page 2, sir, and it would be paragraph 9
16 of that statement.
17 It relates to the involvement of the special unit. And
18 Mr. Zafirovski says this: "The involvement of the special unit is
19 connected to the respecting of the procedures which involved that there is
20 a need for a plan to be made for their intervention. There should a
21 formal written decision about it. Also, the intervention of that unit
22 should be registered in the unit's diary."
23 I think your evidence, sir, is that you don't know about those
24 procedures, and I don't want to put to you things that you don't know.
25 A. That is correct. I have no knowledge of these procedures.
1 Q. The usage of the special units such as Tigers should not be
2 confused with the usage of the special unit of the police.
3 Sir, at the time, were you aware of the difference between special
4 unit and what was referred to as posebna?
5 A. Not -- not at that time, no.
6 Q. And he goes on further down in the paragraph to say this
7 then: "The procedure for activating of the special unit," -- well, I think
8 I will skip that question, sir, if you don't know what the posebna is.
9 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, at this stage the cross-examination
10 would be tentatively finished and terminated with the caveat that was
11 mentioned before about the calling of Mr. Tucker as a witness. And I
12 don't know if Your Honour want to deal with this matter at this stage or
13 if it's more convenient that we deal with it later.
14 JUDGE PARKER: We will see if Mr. Saxon is in a position to add
16 MR. SAXON: Yes. I had -- the Prosecution actually had sent an
17 e-mail a short time ago to the Boskoski team and the Prosecution will keep
18 Mr. Tucker on its list of witnesses.
19 MR. METTRAUX: In that case, Your Honour, we're grateful for the
20 indication and grateful to Mr. Bolton for his patience. Thank you.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for that. Thank you, Mr. Mettraux.
22 Thank you.
23 Mr. Apostolski, is it convenient for you to proceed in the -- what
24 remains until a quarter to two?
25 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in agreement with
1 Mr. Boskoski Defence, I will not be asking any questions, so I think that
2 my colleague, Mr. Mettraux, who was quite thoroughly -- the witness was
3 thoroughly examined. So thank you.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Apostolski.
5 Mr. Saxon.
6 Re-examination by Mr. Saxon:
7 Q. Mr. Bolton, my colleague asked you a few questions about the --
8 your activities on the 14th of August, 2001. And he asked you -- you
9 explained of course that you wanted an investigative judge to come to the
10 village that day. But -- and you were trying to make that happen through
11 what you refer to as the command element of the Skopje police. Why was it
12 important to speak to the command element, as you termed it? Why couldn't
13 you just speak to the commander of Mirkovci police station, for example?
14 A. At this time we had very little communication or contact with the
15 police. Prior to my arrival in Macedonia, the communication had been --
16 or most of the liaison and communication had taken place between the
17 mission headquarters and the Ministry of Interior. Once we established,
18 if you like, regional areas of responsibility within the OSCE, we then had
19 to -- we then had to -- we then as I'd mentioned earlier, try and develop
20 a working relationship with the regional police command at the SVR level.
21 So at that time whilst we were aware of contact within the SVR at
22 the regional level, we didn't have contacts at the police station level.
23 I was aware of colleagues of mine who had met with police station
24 commanders, but I didn't have telephone numbers for them; and I didn't
25 have personal knowledge of them at that stage. But maybe one two, but
1 not -- not for that area. Therefore, we approached the only point of
2 contact that we had.
3 Q. If we could please, and if I could the assistance of the court
4 officer, could we see displayed Exhibit P239.
5 I'm wondering if we could zoom in a little bit more on this
6 photograph, please. Thank you.
7 I believe it was yesterday when you told my colleague that you
8 were not able to judge the distances from which particular deceased
9 persons had been shot. And I'm referring to, obviously, the bodies that
10 you saw on the 14th of August. But I'd like to direct your attention to
11 this photograph and this particular body, and I'm wondering perhaps if we
12 could zoom in a little bit more. Thank you.
13 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour?
14 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Mettraux.
15 MR. METTRAUX: Perhaps in fairness to the witness, I think the
16 question was asking in relation to the three other bodies, Your Honour.
17 Those were the bodies which were found further up in the village north. I
18 don't think the question was asked in relation to this particular witness.
19 If I'm wrong, I would be standing corrected, but my recollection is it is
20 related to the other witness. If Mr. Saxon could direct us to the
21 relevant page of the transcript, I would appreciate it.
22 MR. SAXON: One moment, please.
23 Well, I suppose it may be a question of interpretation. I'm
24 looking at what is, I believe to be, page 93 of the transcript from
25 yesterday, and Mr. Mettraux began asking the witness. At first he talked
1 about the first two bodies which the witness observed and the witness
2 said: "I was concerned at the manner in which they appeared to have met
3 their death," and then later on the witness mentions that "There were
4 two -- two were along or near the road where it passed through a
5 residential area. Three others were found in a field or a hill
6 immediately above the uppermost house at the edge of town."
7 And then the question was: "Based on the observations of the
8 scene, including the conditions of the bodies and the wound they received,
9 there is a particular concern regarding the circumstances of the deaths of
10 the two men found within the town."
11 I see now. And both of these individuals may have been shot at
12 close range, and there were numerous spent shell casings in the area of
13 the bodies.
14 And my colleague asked: "Is that consistent with your own
15 observations, sir."
16 The witness answered "yes."
17 And then it continues on the next page without a specific
18 reference to the other three bodies. However, the witness does say: "I
19 have no means to judge the distance from which they were shot or from
20 which the bullets hit them were fired."
21 So in the Prosecution's mind there is still some ambiguity here,
22 and I would seek leave to --
23 JUDGE PARKER: Well, certainly clarify that. I think the witness
24 appeared to be making a distinction between two bodies on the one hand and
25 the three on the other. So ...
1 MR. SAXON:
2 Q. With respect to the two bodies on the road, with respect to the
3 first body you see in this photograph, were you able to make any judgement
4 about the distance from which this person received bullet wounds?
5 A. From that position, you can only see a limited distance, which for
6 me provides a maximum range from which the rounds that hit that individual
7 could have been fired from. And in this case a bullet is a direct fire
8 weapon. So line of sight is generally required in order to hit your
9 target. And I would put the maximum range that that could occur from at
10 probably some 100 metres maximum. However, I would also say that from the
11 blood that you see there, the impact that caused some of that blood to be
12 there that is spread across the road to the bottom left-hand corner of the
13 photograph as we see it, would have in my judgement, in my opinion, and
14 based on my experience with gunshot injuries would be -- it would have to
15 be a close range shot with the body on or close to the ground.
16 Q. Mr. Bolton, later on there was some discussion between my
17 colleague and you regarding a shotgun?
18 A. Mm-hm.
19 Q. That you saw in the basement of a house. And actually I need you
20 to -- I need to ask you to actually complete a sentence that was not
21 completely, I believe, picked up in the record. And this is from
22 yesterday's transcript at page 103, starting around line 12. And you
23 began to describe the practical use of a shotgun, and this is what came
24 out in the transcript: "The practical use of such a weapon compared to a
25 rifle which has a higher velocity bullet ..." And then you said something
1 else which was not picked up in the record, and I'm wondering if you can
2 complete what -- the thought you were expressing at the time?
3 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I'm really sorry to interrupt again,
4 but the problem may be with the transcript and not with the evidence of
5 the witness. We have the official version of the transcript, and the
6 sentence appears to be complete. The record that Mr. Saxon is using is
7 apparently the informal, if you want, the version that we receive from
8 the --
9 MR. SAXON: Thank you for that. Then I will move on. I will move
10 on then.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, gentlemen.
12 MR. SAXON:
13 Q. My colleague earlier on showed you a document that had been signed
14 by the public prosecutor; I believe it was from the beginning of 2002. It
15 was 1D37. And where the public prosecutor, Mr. Zivko, emphasised that the
16 authorities had not been able to undertake an effective investigation.
17 And I know you've been trained as a police officer, Mr. Bolton.
18 When you were trained as a police officer to investigate possible crimes,
19 were you trained to speak to persons who might have witnessed the events
20 that might have been criminal act?
21 A. Yes, I was. It's a major -- an extremely major part of British
22 police training, to interview witnesses.
23 Q. And within the scope of witnesses in this context, would that
24 include any police officers who might have been present when the events
1 A. Yes, it would.
2 Q. Would you consider that an investigation that did not include such
3 interviews with present police officers, would you consider that such an
4 investigation would be competent and complete?
5 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I don't think this is a question that
6 is proper for this witness.
7 JUDGE PARKER: I think it is a proper question. If something
8 further isn't asked, the Chamber will about the implication of it. But
9 we'll allow the question at the moment.
10 THE WITNESS: I would feel that the investigation was certainly
12 JUDGE PARKER: And the Chamber's further question is: Are you
13 speaking of an investigation under the British system or an investigation
14 under the system that was in force in Macedonia at the time, bearing in
15 mind the role of an investigating judge?
16 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, in terms of police interviewing a
17 witness in this way, I would be applying it to the UK system. However, my
18 view is that any investigation that was undertaken in Macedonia at that
19 time, in which the investigating judge did not themselves undertake those
20 interviews with police witnesses, would also be incomplete.
21 MR. SAXON: I have a follow-up question on this point, Your Honour.
22 I know the hour is late. This will be my last question.
23 Q. Well, let me give you a hypothetical related to Macedonia in 2001.
24 Suppose hypothetically that the Ministry of the Interior initiated
25 a commission or a committee to investigate the possibility that a crime
1 had occurred.
2 MR. METTRAUX: Well, Your Honour, we have to object.
3 I really am sorry to object at every turn here, but I think the
4 Prosecutor has to establish a basis whether Mr. Bolton knows of any such
5 commission, knows of the role of any such commission. When shown the
6 document signed by Mr. Mitevski, he indicated he was not aware of that
7 request, thereby suggesting that he was not aware of the existence of the
8 commission in question. That was the reason for us not to ask him any
9 further question in that regard.
10 Furthermore, the question is completely hypothetical.
11 MR. SAXON: Well, hypothetical questions were certainly asked by
12 my colleague.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon, there is substance in the proposition of
14 Mr. Mettraux that you will need to establish some further foundation, and
15 that gives rise to an issue of time, and that is there simply isn't time
16 for you to do it now. Would you want the evidence to continue at a later
18 MR. SAXON: No, Your Honour. I will -- I will withdraw the
19 question at this point then.
20 JUDGE PARKER: I'm sure that Mr. Bolton will be grateful to you.
21 MR. SAXON: Then I have no further questions right now.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Saxon.
23 Mr. Bolton, you will be aware from the effect of that exchange
24 that the questioning by all counsel and the Chamber is at an end. We
25 would thank you for your attendance in The Hague and for the assistance
1 that you have been able to give to the Chamber, and you are of course now
2 able to return to your other interests and activities.
3 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE PARKER: We must now adjourn, already running a little late,
5 and we resume on Monday. It's in the morning at 9.00, I'm assured.
6 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I'm very sorry to interrupt. Would there
7 be any leeway from the Chamber after the witness leaves the room to spend
8 a few moments on some procedural issues?
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE PARKER: The word is not too long are in my ear.
11 Mr. Bolton, thank you very much. You can --
12 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE PARKER: The court officer will escort you.
14 [The witness withdrew]
15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
16 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, the Prosecution and the Defence have a
17 joint application to make to the Trial Chamber, and we are making this
18 joint application after consulting with our very capable court officer,
19 and it is an application that I will try to describe concisely and
20 clearly. If I don't, the agreement I have with Defence counsel is they
21 will correct me very quickly.
22 It simply is in regard to the so-called court files that were
23 recently admitted by the Trial Chamber from the bar table, and those would
24 be Exhibits P46 through P55. And the issue is simply this: The Defence
25 and the Prosecution wish to make a joint application to the Chamber for
1 permission that these particular exhibits be renumbered. The basis for
2 our application is that when the Trial Chamber admitted these exhibits,
3 they were admitted under a single number, and both the Defence and the
4 Prosecution are concerned that, in the future, particularly perhaps at the
5 98 bis stage and closing argument stage, when both parties and perhaps the
6 Chamber and their staff need to refer to particular documents within these
7 rather voluminous court files, it will be -- they will be very difficult
8 to find as a single number.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon, I think I can cut you short.
10 The Chamber would certainly be of the mind that if both
11 Prosecution and Defence can agree on a structure in which that -- a large
12 document, such as the court file, is conveniently broken up into separate
13 components for the purposes of becoming an exhibit, that the Chamber would
14 be entirely prepared to follow that breakup and have the numbering of the
15 exhibit follow that breakup.
16 MR. SAXON: Does the Chamber at this time wish to see a model that
17 has been devised for such a breakup, or can we simply advise the Chamber
18 at a later date of the work that has been done? Which would you prefer?
19 JUDGE PARKER: We would suggest that once you have reached
20 agreement it be made available so that it can be implemented.
21 MR. SAXON: Well, certainly agree [indiscernible] on the overall
22 structure. And if I could ask the usher's permission, if I could simply
23 pass these up to the Chamber, they would give the Chamber an idea of what
24 the parties are proposing to do with the Chamber's permission.
25 And the reason I'm taking extra time from the Court today is that
1 does -- this will involve a fair amount of work by the Prosecution team,
2 and the Prosecution would simply -- would prefer to provide this
3 sooner -- would prefer to begin this work sooner rather than later. And
4 the document in front of you just gives you the general idea of how we
5 will break down the individual documents contained within these court
7 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber is not in a position to comment on the
8 individual breaking down.
9 MR. SAXON: Sure.
10 JUDGE PARKER: And nor do we think that there would be reason for
11 us to do so, if all parties are in agreement that the breakdown is one
12 that is practical and will suit the needs of the trial.
13 So the idea, in principle, appears to the Chamber to be an
14 excellent one.
15 MR. SAXON: Thank you very much, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Is there any other urgent matter or is that it?
17 MR. SAXON: Not for the Prosecution, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE PARKER: We, therefore, adjourn. And we resume on Monday
19 at 9.00 in the morning.
20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.54 p.m.,
21 to be reconvened on Monday, the 11th day of June,
22 2007, at 9.00 a.m.