1 Monday, 16 July 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.21 p.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon.
7 May I remind you of the affirmation you made at the beginning of
8 your evidence and that still applies.
9 Now, I think Ms. Zivkovic has some questions for you.
10 WITNESS: QAMURAN REXHEPI [Resumed]
11 Cross-examination by Ms. Zivkovic:
12 [Witness answered through interpreter]
13 MS. ZIVKOVIC: [Interpretation] Good day, Your Honours. Thank
15 Q. Mr. Rexhepi, good afternoon. My name is Jasmina Zivkovic and
16 together with my learned colleague Antonio Apostolski I appear for
17 Mr. Johan Tarculovski.
18 Mr. Rexhepi, from your statement we see that you served a
19 conscription military service. Can you tell us which branch of the
20 military service you were serving in.
21 A. Driver.
22 Q. Did you have any training in handling infantry weapons while you
23 were in the army?
24 A. There was no such training. No. From the very first day I was a
25 driver. I don't know how to say that.
1 Q. You told my learned colleagues from the Prosecution and from the
2 Defence that the shelling and the shooting against the village of Ljuboten
3 started early in the morning on the Friday, the 10th of August, and you
4 stated that the shooting came from the mountains up north from the
5 direction of Brace's house and from the direction of the church. Is that
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And you saw it all from your house.
9 A. I have seen them from the house when they were shooting from the
10 direction of the church.
11 Q. Which means that you didn't see any shooting coming from the
12 direction of the Brace's house and from the mountains, if I understood you
14 A. We were hidden in the basement. If we go to the balcony you could
15 see them from the mountain as well. But from the Brace's house, it's far
16 away. It can be seen very well. And this is where the check-point was,
17 the police check-point was located.
18 Q. But considering the distance, you couldn't see who was shooting
20 A. The police was shooting. No one else could.
21 Q. Yes, but you couldn't see that from the distance where you were
22 at; is that correct?
23 A. Shootings were coming from that side, and that side was entirely
24 under the control of the police.
25 Q. You also told my colleague Residovic, confirmed that you knew that
1 the army was not shooting from the direction of the church; is that
3 A. Once again, please.
4 Q. You told my colleague Residovic that you knew that the army was
5 not shooting from the direction of the church. And in your statement you
6 also stated that you knew that the person was not a soldier, considering
7 that the army was outside the village. Can we agree with this?
8 A. Please state the question more clearly and shortly. Don't make
9 such long questions. I don't understand them.
10 Q. You know that the army was not shooting from the direction of the
11 church; is that correct?
12 A. Which army? The police or the army?
13 Q. Macedonian army.
14 A. The police was shooting there.
15 Q. And also when my colleague asked you you stated categorically that
16 the NLA was not responsible for the mine that killed the Macedonian
17 soldiers; is that correct?
18 A. Once again, please. Repeat the question.
19 Q. Mr. Rexhepi, my colleague asked you whether you knew something
20 about the tragedy when the mine was planted at Ljubotenski Bacila, and you
21 stated that you knew that the NLA had not been responsible for that
22 attack. Do you recall that?
23 A. The mine was put very far from the village. I don't know, but
24 it's not possible for the NLA to have put the mine there. It was under
25 the police control. The mine was put near to a police check-point. I was
1 not there.
2 Q. And you also stated that you knew that the terrorists were not
3 inside the village of Ljuboten; is that correct?
4 A. There was no NLA in Ljuboten village.
5 Q. My colleague has also asked you, did you know that many people
6 left the village as early as on the Friday, and you told her that you
7 didn't know, since Ljuboten is a large village. How would you know then
8 that there were no terrorists there?
9 A. If there were NLA soldiers, I believe that Macedonians would not
10 have been able to enter there to do massacres, to burn houses to kill
11 children, and so on. It wouldn't have entered the village as it didn't
12 enter any other village.
13 Q. But you must have heard about the frequent attacks of the
14 terrorists to the neighbouring villages, which took place before this
15 event in Ljuboten?
16 MS. REGUE: Your Honour, just a brief objection. My learned
17 colleague is assuming that the NLA are terrorists and I think that within
18 this question it should be distinguished if she's talking about the NLA or
19 if she's talking about another organisation, terrorist organisation. But
20 she is defining the NLA as a terrorist group within her question. And
21 that is the third time it has occurred.
22 JUDGE PARKER: That does seem to be a disputed issue in this trial
23 Ms. Zivkovic. So I think you need to decide whether you're asking about
24 the NLA or whether you're asking about terrorists and they may be quite
25 different in the minds of many speakers.
1 MS. ZIVKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I will reframe my
3 Q. Mr. Rexhepi, do you know, have you heard about the frequent
4 attacks by the NLA on the neighbouring villages, attacks that happened
5 before this event in Ljuboten?
6 A. What attack? There were no NLA attacks in our village. The other
7 villages are far away. You know that our village is surrounded by
8 Macedonian villages. It is the only Albanian village there. I cannot
9 speak of other villages. I can only speak of Ljuboten.
10 Q. But you know that the police stationed its check-point there and
11 that the army was deployed at those positions precisely because of the
13 A. The police did that only with the civilians, with villagers that
14 have day and night worked in their fields. The police knew perfectly hat
15 there was no NLA in Ljuboten. They are one million per cent sure about
17 Q. But you surely knew that the NLA was in the mountains, above
19 A. The police was in the mountains over Ljuboten. I don't know how
20 much you understand where Ljuboten is located. Two to three months
21 Ljuboten was surrounded by police.
22 Q. Were you at the check-point Kodra e Zajmit together with your
23 brother and your father?
24 A. Yes, with the whole family.
25 Q. And then you surely remember that your father tried to make the
1 police officer let your brother you yourself go free; is that correct?
2 A. No, I don't remember this, because my father was taken and let
3 down on the ground. When the children started crying, he then stood up
4 and went with the children and he was -- the police let him go at that
6 Q. Very well. In your statement you said that on Friday afternoon a
7 shell fell at about 10, 15 metres from you; is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. On Friday afternoon, if I understood well, you were first in the
10 house of Avdil Ali and then you stayed there for several hours and then
11 you returned to your own home. Is that correct?
12 A. First the bomb -- the grenade explode, and when -- after the
13 grenade exploded I went there in the basement. The grenade that killed
14 this child six or five-year-old year's child.
15 Q. Could you answer my question. My question was whether you went to
16 the house of Avdil Ali first.
17 A. When the grenade exploded I went there and I hid myself in the
18 basement. I flee from the grenade. I laid down on the ground when it
19 exploded and then I crawled until the house of Avdil, 30 metres away from
20 the place.
21 Q. And you stayed there for several hours and then you stayed at your
22 home -- you returned to your home; is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And upon your return home with the other members of your family,
25 you went to the basement, where you stayed until Sunday, 12th of August;
1 is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And on Sunday, you joined several other Ljuboten villagers in the
4 basement of Reshat Fazliu?
5 A. Yes, Reshat Fazliu.
6 Q. Reshat, I apologise. None of the persons in the basement had any
7 weapons on them.
8 A. No.
9 Q. And after that, considering the situation calmed down, you decided
10 to leave the village; is that correct?
11 A. Yes, that's correct.
12 Q. You were told that someone would come to pick you up, someone from
13 the international organisations?
14 A. After we arrived on the field of the village, we walked by the
15 river. No one told us if there were foreigners, internationals there. It
16 was just our opinion and our idea to leave the village. To leave the
17 village in order to stay alive. No one knew that someone would come to
18 pick us up.
19 Q. And do you remember what time it was when you started from the
20 village? Roughly, if you remember.
21 A. No, I don't remember. It was after 12.00. I cannot give the
22 exact hour.
23 Q. And when you were leaving the village, you didn't see any car
24 belonging to any of the international organisations in the village or down
25 the road you were walking.
1 A. No, we didn't see any. We were trying to leave the village
2 hiding, because people -- they were shooting from the -- from the side of
3 the church.
4 Q. Okay. You actually, if I understood you well, were among the last
5 ones to leave the village.
6 A. I think that there was a small group behind us. I was with a
7 larger group before. I think there were people that left after us. I'm
8 not sure. I just can tell of myself.
9 Q. Very well. And from this check-point, Kodra e Zajmit, you were
10 first transferred to the Butel police station, then to Karpos police
11 station. Is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You remember that my learned colleague from the Prosecution office
14 showed you a document, an Official Note.
15 MS. ZIVKOVIC: [Interpretation] 65 ter 149.
16 Q. Do you see this Official Note in front of you?
17 A. [No interpretation].
18 Q. And you can also see your name?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Are these the persons listed here -- were the persons listed here
21 with you?
22 A. In prison they were.
23 Q. This is an Official Note of the Cair police station?
24 A. I don't remember that the -- from the police -- Butel police
25 station we were given any documents. I don't remember this. I can tell
1 you about the people who were in prison for whom I read in the newspaper.
2 Q. Do you see the names that are listed here? Were those the people
3 that were with you together in the police station or in the cell? Of
4 course, if you could remember.
5 A. I couldn't see even myself in that cell. I was not conscious. I
6 couldn't see anyone or I couldn't know anyone there. We were beaten up
7 there. I had a lot of pain. I couldn't recognise people -- the people
8 who were there.
9 Q. Meaning that you don't know whether those persons were interviewed
10 or not; is that correct? That is, in the police station of Karpos.
11 A. We were all interviewed, one after the other.
12 Q. And you know that were all subjected to the paraffin glove test?
13 A. I don't know whether they were subjected to this test. I didn't
14 know whether I myself was subjected to this test, but it -- but I tested
15 positive. The police did whatever it wanted.
16 Q. But you surely know that -- do you know that this is the test
17 which determines whether fire-arms were used or not?
18 A. Once again, could you repeat it, please.
19 Q. You know that the paraffin glove test is a test which determines
20 the use of fire-arms.
21 A. There was no one who touched any weapon.
22 Q. Please respond to my question. Do you know that this is the test
23 that determines the use of fire-arms or not?
24 A. I don't know.
25 Q. Also when my learned colleague from the Prosecutor's office showed
1 you the same document, she asked you whether in the police station of
2 Karpos you were interviewed, and you responded to that that you weren't.
3 Do you remember that?
4 A. Which police station are you referring to?
5 Q. The police station where this Official Note comes from that you
6 can see on the screen, Karpos police station.
7 A. Only when we were subjected to the paraffin test, this was the
8 only contact. We were not interrogated. We were only beaten up. For 72
9 hours we were beaten up with everything they had in their hands.
10 MS. ZIVKOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown his
11 statement, 65 ter 2D00179, 2D02-0964, of 4th of October, 2004, page 6,
12 paragraph 30.
13 Q. In the second line of paragraph 30 of your statement you say the
14 following: "[In English] There were some 10 to 15 other people in that
15 office when I enter it. I remember that one of them was a female police
16 officer, and some men were wearing civilian clothes. I take it they were
17 some inspector, since they were discussing some professional issues with
18 one who interviewed me. The men in green T shirt was reading some
19 document that was accusing of me having been fighting in the NLA and that
20 I had thrown my uniform somewhere and that I had been armed and that I had
21 given myself up to the police but I told him that was not true."
22 [Interpretation] From this statement of yours, it seems that you
23 were nevertheless interviewed.
24 A. This was at the time when we were subjected to the paraffin test.
25 I think this was it.
1 Q. Okay. But you did discuss with some police officer.
2 A. No. I didn't speak anything.
3 Q. Mr. Rexhepi, I just read out what you said. My question was
4 whether what you have stated in your statement is the truth.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Thank you. You were taken before the court on Tuesday, and as far
7 as I could understand, you refused to have a lawyer, but one was assigned
8 to you ex officio?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And after that, you were taken to the Sutka prison, where you
11 physically attacked a guard; is that correct?
12 A. I would have beat him if I could, but I couldn't.
13 Q. Thank you. But during your stay in the prison, nobody beated you;
14 is that correct?
15 A. Even the doctor beat me. The doctor I went to see because I had a
16 headache. He kicked me in the stomach and he said, You'll have nothing,
17 then we have been mistreated in the prison as well.
18 MS. ZIVKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would ask again for the witness
19 to be shown his statement, 65 ter 2D00179 -- oh, that it is already
20 displayed on the screen. We only need to see page 7, paragraph 34. No, I
21 apologise. Page 7, paragraph 36.
22 Q. In the first sentence of this paragraph you say: "[In English]
23 125 days, during this time, there were no beatings anymore. We also got
24 food and water and were treated almost like the normal prisoners, although
25 the guards used to call us terrorists and our conditions were a bit
1 stricter that they were for the normal prisoners."
2 [Interpretation] Do you remember saying this?
3 A. After two months's time in prison, they started to different
4 acting, this was the case. They acted as the weather changed.
5 Q. And then there was a procedure against you before the Skopje Basic
6 Court; is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And you stated before this Court on the Friday, since you did not
9 have a lawyer, my colleague showed you the power of attorney of your wife,
10 but you claimed that you were not able to even report what happened to you
11 because you did not have a lawyer. Is that correct?
12 A. I don't understand. Could you please repeat the question once
14 Q. I will make this question a bit simpler.
15 Do you remember saying that during the procedure that was carried
16 out against you, you had no lawyer?
17 A. When we appeared before the court, you mean?
18 Q. Yes, of course, and during the procedure while you were in
20 A. I didn't have a lawyer. I told to the other person also that
21 there was a person that came to see me. He didn't show me any document.
22 He only asked me a few questions about my health and that's all. I didn't
23 have any lawyer. I didn't take any lawyer. Maybe the others took a
24 lawyer, but I was not shown any document.
25 MS. ZIVKOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown the
1 document 65 ter 2D00332.
2 Q. Mr. Rexhepi, do you see this document displayed in front of you?
3 MS. ZIVKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the translation that
4 you're able to see here is the working version, because we didn't have
5 these documents translated into English. And that is part of the Exhibit
7 Q. Mr. Rexhepi, do you know Enver Rexhepikovski?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Is he your brother?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Do you see that he gave the power of attorney to the attorney
12 Dragan Vasilevski, whereby your name is precisely mentioned. On 14th of
13 August, 2001, he was authorised to represent you? I apologise, that is
14 August 20.
15 A. But you are making the question to me whether I took a lawyer.
16 You are not asking my brother. I didn't take myself a lawyer. You are
17 asking me and not my brother. What was being done outside, I don't know.
18 I was in the prison. And the person that came to see me, he didn't say he
19 was a lawyer.
20 Q. Mr. Rexhepi, but you claim that you had not -- that have you no
21 attorney at all.
22 A. Of course I didn't have. He didn't say he was a lawyer. I don't
23 know who was that person that came to see me.
24 MS. ZIVKOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown -- I
1 Your Honours, could this be tendered as a Defence exhibit.
2 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 2D33, Your Honours.
4 MS. ZIVKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would ask now that the witness is
5 shown the document 65 ter 2D00331.
6 Your Honours, this is also a working version of the translation.
7 Q. Mr. Rexhepi, do you see this document displayed in front of you?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Do you see that this is a motion of the same lawyer, whereby he
10 informs the court for being your attorney, received on 22nd of August,
11 2001, by the Basic Court Skopje II?
12 A. Yes.
13 MS. ZIVKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would ask -- I would seek to
14 tender this document in evidence as well. That is also part of Exhibit
16 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
17 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 2D34, Your Honours.
18 MS. ZIVKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would also like to show the
19 witness document ERN number 0643. That is also P47 ERN number
20 0463-8891-029, and the English version is 0463-8919-01.
21 Q. Mr. Rexhepi, you said that your lawyer only came to see you, but
22 in front of you -- well, I don't know if you could see it or not, whether
23 you could see the Macedonian version. This is a decision whereby the
24 court rejects the appeal of your attorney. Do you see that?
25 A. Yes, I see it.
1 MS. ZIVKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 Your Honours, I have no further questions. Thank you.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Ms. Zivkovic.
4 Ms. Regue, are there questions in re-examination.
5 MS. REGUE: Yes, Your Honours. Good afternoon.
6 Re-examination by Ms. Regue:
7 Q. Mr. Rexhepi, good afternoon. I would ask to you listen carefully
8 to my questions before answering.
9 On Sunday, the 12th of August, before your house was set on fire,
10 did you see or hear any shell falling on your house?
11 A. You mean after the house was burned? Could you please be more
13 Q. Before your house was set on fire, did you see or hear any shell
14 falling on your house, before, right before?
15 A. No, I didn't.
16 Q. You were also asked about the house of Harun Rexhepi, your
17 neighbour. You testified that you found out that his house was burned
18 when you were in Sutka. Were you told which day the house was burned?
19 A. The three houses were burned on that same day, but I learned about
20 his house later, while I was in prison.
21 Q. And which is that same day? Could you state the date, please, for
22 the record?
23 A. I mean the Sunday, 12th August.
24 Q. My learned colleague also showed to you the paraffin test that--
25 with a positive result. Did you ever hold any weapon during the weekend
1 10 to 12 August 2001?
2 A. No, I didn't.
3 Q. Mr. Rexhepi, did you consider the NLA a terrorist organisation in
5 A. No.
6 Q. You were also asked that in Sutka prison you tried to attack a
7 guard. You answer that you would have beat him if you could. Why you
8 couldn't beat him, Mr. Rexhepi?
9 A. Because I was beaten and he was cursing me. He was calling me a
10 terrorist. He was saying that, You should be killed, you should be
12 MS. REGUE: And finally, Your Honours, could I please have display
13 Exhibit P00050, pages 45 to 54. And if we can go to the first page of
14 both versions. The next page. Sorry, the page before this one
15 N002-2128. The page before this one, please. Thanks.
16 If we could have an English version. Thanks.
17 Q. Mr. Rexhepi, you have been questioned about the procedures against
18 you. This is the indictment dated as we see in the upper left side 7th
19 September, 2001 from the Basic Public Prosecution to Skopje Court II. We
20 see indictment as a title and we see your name in the second paragraph.
21 If we could move now to the fifth page in both versions, English
22 and Macedonian, please. The English version, I think, doesn't correspond
23 with the ... The ERN should be N002-0132. 0132.
24 Mr. Rexhepi, I'm going to read to you the charges pressed against
25 you. It says in the middle paragraph: "On 12 August 2001, between 8.00
1 and 12.00 in the village of Ljuboten," they, meaning you and your fellow
2 villagers, "participated in an armed conflict as combatants against the
3 Republic of Macedonia, in such a way that during the intensive combatting
4 actions, acted against the armed forces of the Republic of Macedonia.
5 Located near the village with infantry fire-arms and ammunition. Up until
6 the moment when they were forced to withdraw disposing of the equipments
7 and equipment that they had while withdrawing."
8 Mr. Rexhepi, on 12 August 2001 between 8.00 and 12.00 hours did
9 you participate in an armed conflict against the Macedonian forces?
10 A. No, we were in the basement. We were there. Nobody took part in
11 such a conflict.
12 MS. REGUE: Your Honours, I have no further questions.
13 [Trial Chamber confers].
14 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Ms. Regue.
15 You'll be pleased to know, sir, that concludes the questioning
16 there is. The Chamber would thank you for your attendance here in The
17 Hague and for the assistance that you have been able to give.
18 The court officer will now show you out, and you may of course
19 return now to your home and your ordinary activities. Thank you.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 [The witness withdrew]
22 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
23 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour. Simply to indicate that we
24 would wish to make a number of short submissions at the end of the day in
25 relation to three related matters, Your Honour, but we believe there is
1 one that should be raised in private session prior to the next witness
2 being brought into the courtroom.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. I believe there may also be some from
4 Mr. Saxon.
5 Is that right, Mr. Saxon?
6 MR. SAXON: That's correct, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE PARKER: I think start with Mr. Saxon and move to you then
8 Mr. Mettraux.
9 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 First of all, the Prosecution would like to -- excuse me, the
11 Prosecution would like to correct a mistake, which it made when it sent
12 its most recent witness schedule to the Chamber and the parties. The next
13 witness, Mr. Risto Galevski, has an estimated time of three hours. That
14 is incorrect. According to the Prosecution's recent submission, that
15 should be three days or 11.25 hours, Your Honour.
16 Before the --
17 JUDGE PARKER: And of that time how long does the Prosecution
18 anticipate spending in its evidence in chief?
19 MR. SAXON: Two hours and 30 minutes, Your Honour. Two and a
20 half hours.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
22 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, before the next witness arrives, the
23 Prosecution would like to raise a matter regarding him and perhaps we
24 could move into private session, please.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Private.
1 [Private session]
11 Pages 3560-3563 redacted. Private session.
13 [Open session]
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much.
16 Well, as I have indicated we will consider those submissions over
17 the break.
18 Now, Mr. Mettraux, you have other matters to raise.
19 MR. METTRAUX: Very briefly, Your Honour, thank you.
20 The first one relates to the picture of the diseased Mr. Rami
21 Jusufi. It is a picture Rule 65 ter 608 which was used both by the
22 Defence and by the Office of the Prosecutor with Witness 171 and by the
23 Defence with Dr. Jakovski. We had failed at the time to tender this
24 document formally. We would wish to do at this stage. The Prosecution
25 has no objection, Your Honour, and I could give the ERN for the record.
1 It is 0501-626 and it is Rule 65 ter 608. It's a Prosecution document.
2 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As exhibit 1D104, Your Honours.
4 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you.
5 The other matter, Your Honour, which we would like to respond at
6 this stage is the Prosecution third proposed amended witness list. It is
7 a motion to withdraw I believe 13 witnesses from its list and the
8 application was made on the 12th of July of 2007.
9 The Defence would wish to indicate at this stage that we will have
10 no objection to the withdrawal of all 13 witnesses concerned by this
11 application. There are three matters, however, which we would wish to
12 place on the transcript at this stage on the record.
13 The first one is that it is the Defence understanding that the
14 Prosecution will not seek or at least not be permitted to seek to rely on
15 the statements or the evidence of the witnesses which they now seek to
16 withdraw from this its list.
17 The second matter which we like to place on the record at this
18 stage is that the application of the Prosecution in relation to the
19 withdrawal of these witnesses may in fact impact on the admissibility of a
20 number of documents, some of which may have been directly or indirectly
21 related to a particular witness and that the consideration in relation to
22 admissibility of evidence has been factored in by the Prosecution in its
24 The last and third matter which we would like to record at this
25 stage is that it is our understanding that the Prosecution will not be
1 permitted later on in its case to seek from the Trial Chamber to draw
2 certain inferences on particular facts when the witnesses or some of the
3 witnesses which are now being withdrawn were the most appropriate to give
4 positive evidence in relation to these facts.
5 Thank you, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
7 Is there anything, Mr. Apostolski.
8 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in respect to the
9 withdrawal of the witnesses by the Prosecution, I completely support the
10 position of my colleague, Mr. Mettraux, and I am at his side.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
12 Mr. Saxon.
13 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, it's difficult to respond on my feet to
14 the rather broad understandings that my colleague has just expressed.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Sorry. I thought they were the product of
16 discussion between you. Is that not so?
17 MR. SAXON: No, Your Honour. But let me try.
18 The Prosecution -- with regard to Mr. Mettraux's first point, that
19 Mr. Mettraux is making his submission not to object to the withdrawal of
20 these 13 witnesses based on the understanding that the Prosecution will
21 not seek to rely on the evidence of any of these witnesses or their
22 statements. The Prosecution cannot make that affirmation at this time,
23 because at a minimum, if there is a Defence case during this trial, the
24 Prosecution might seek to use one or more witness statements during
25 cross-examination of a Defence witness. So the Prosecution cannot affirm
1 the first point that my colleague raised.
2 With respect to the second point, whether -- and perhaps I didn't
3 understand it clearly, whether the Prosecution has factored in whether
4 these particular 13 witnesses would be the best person -- would be the
5 best witnesses with respect to the admissibility --
6 JUDGE PARKER: Is that the third or the second point?
7 MR. SAXON: I believe it is the second point, Your Honour. I
8 could be wrong.
9 Whether the Prosecution has factored in, whether evidence that may
10 be tendered in the future would have been appropriately tendered through
11 one of these 13 witnesses, again, the -- it's difficult for the
12 prosecution give a blankets affirmation of what it has factored in into
13 its thinking. However, I will say this. The Prosecution's position is if
14 in the future it has evidence which it feels it should and can tender, it
15 will seek to do it through an appropriate witness or from a motion at the
16 bar table. Whether evidence is tendered through what is termed the most
17 appropriate witness is a difficult calculation for the Prosecution to make
18 at this time, given the complexity of this trial and the complexity of the
20 There was a third point as to whether the Prosecution would not
21 draw any inferences from the evidence or the statements given by witnesses
22 whom the Prosecution now proposes be dropped from its list. Quite
23 frankly, the Prosecution doesn't understand this question. We're not
24 quite sure which kinds of inferences my colleague is referring to.
25 Certainly if there are inferences that can be drawn appropriately from
1 evidence that is to come in this case, the Prosecution may attempt to do
2 so, whether they are related to witnesses who have been dropped or not.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
4 Mr. Mettraux.
5 MR. METTRAUX: Simply, Your Honour, to indicate that we had given
6 the indication on Friday already, on Thursday or Friday of last week that
7 the matter would be raised. It wasn't possible on Friday to do so, so we
8 have done it today.
9 Concerning the last issue and the issue of inferences, this is
10 inferences which the Prosecution will seek to draw from the Chamber, not
11 from the evidence which was withdrawn.
12 Concerning the issue of the evidence, Your Honour, there are
13 document or there appears to be document which are on the Prosecution list
14 and which are directly or very intimately, if I may use that term, linked
15 to a particular witness. We do understand that there are situation where
16 a document could be tendered through a second or even a third best
17 witness. There are situation, however, where the fact of withdrawing a
18 particular witness particularly when that witness is the person who
19 prepared the document or otherwise knows about the circumstances in which
20 it was prepared, the Prosecution would have to take into consideration the
21 possibility that this withdrawal would be a factor relevant to the
22 admission or otherwise of the document.
23 As concern the issue of -- the first issue, the reliance on
24 evidence, there is also another matter which in fairness to my colleague
25 Mr. Saxon it is and the point that we are making also was the reliance
1 which other witnesses which the Prosecution intend to call may seek to
2 draw references which these witnesses may want to make to statements or
3 the evidence of witnesses who are being now withdrawn. It is it our
4 understanding that having taken the considered decision to withdraw these
5 witnesses, the Prosecution will not be permitted to rely on this statement
6 through other witnesses.
7 MR. SAXON: May I clarify one point, Your Honour?
8 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
9 MR. SAXON: With regard to my colleague's point that the
10 withdrawal of a witness or witnesses is a factor to be considered
11 vis-a-vis the admissibility of evidence through another witness, well, the
12 Prosecution disagrees. In the Prosecution's submission, the Trial Chamber
13 needs to make a decision regarding admissibility of evidence pursuant to
14 Rule 89 C. Those are the only criteria that the Prosecution has to --
15 excuse me -- that the chamber should consider. Prosecution does believe
16 that a number of documents, for example that the Prosecution initially
17 planned to tender through Ali Ahmeti may now be tendered through another
18 witness, but it is the Prosecution's position that as long as that witness
19 who remains on the list can properly authenticate the material and speak
20 to its relevance and probative value, whether another witness has been
21 withdrawn from the list should really not be an element in the calculation
22 regarding admissibility.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Not so unusually in this trial, it is
24 it not surprising the Chamber does not agree precisely with the position
25 taken by either party. The motion at the moment is for the withdrawal
1 from its list of potential witnesses of 13 of those witnesses. If that is
2 done, the Prosecution reasonably advances the view that that will assist
3 in the shortening of this trial, a trial at the moment that appears to
4 take -- appears to be expected to take in the Prosecution phase over twice
5 the time that was estimated for the Prosecution case at the beginning of
6 the trial. And that is an estimate if these 13 witnesses are withdrawn.
7 If not, the trial will be even longer.
8 The Chamber is concerned to ensure that the trial is conducted in
9 a shorter time. As is consistent with the fairness and adequacy of the
10 trial. And it certainly will not put time in the way of a fair
11 presentation of the Defence case, which is a matter which we have to keep
12 under observation at all times, even though it means that the length of
13 the trial will stretch out. But, of course, on the other hand, the longer
14 the trial continues, the more that delay is against the interest of each
15 of the accused and against the interest of other accused waiting their
16 turn to be tried. So the Chamber must balance those considerations.
17 With respect to these 13 witnesses, the Chamber will look at the
18 merit of the question, whether there is a reason why they should not be
19 withdrawn from the list. And the primary basis for that would be that to
20 do so would create an unfairness for the accused. In the absence of
21 demonstrated unfairness, if the Prosecution wishes to shorten the extent
22 of the case it presents, either by removing witnesses that are essentially
23 duplicating each or by narrowing some of the allegations that they rely
24 on, that is a matter essentially for the Prosecution's judgement and
25 decision. We are concerned that by doing so there will not be unfairness.
1 In the absence of agreement between the parties, the Chamber would
2 agree with the hesitation of Mr. Saxon about each of the three matters
3 that Mr. Mettraux has put forward. If at the moment there is no
4 sufficient demonstration of a reason why the witness list should not be
5 shortened and the Chamber were to agree to that shortening, the trial will
6 then continue on the basis of the witnesses who are called, and questions
7 of the admissibility of evidence will be determined according to the Rules
8 and the ordinary principles. And the fact that an exhibit might have been
9 tendered through another witness doesn't mean that it will not be
10 admissible if tendered through some other witness, even though the other
11 witness may not be able to say as much about the exhibit as the first. If
12 it is admissible through the other witness, it would normally be expected
13 to be admitted.
14 The same position would be taken by the Chamber with respect to
15 the other two issues raised by Mr. Mettraux. We will have to look at each
16 cause for objection, if there is an objection, about an exhibit or another
17 witness relying on it, or about the use of a statement, according to the
18 ordinary Rules applicable.
19 So. In the absence of agreement between the parties, the Chamber
20 would not be prepared to impose any one of the three types of limitations
21 or conditions advanced by Mr. Mettraux.
22 Now, I think, Mr. Mettraux, that leaves you in this position:
23 Either you must object to the witnesses or some of them being removed to
24 the list; and if so, then advance specifically what you see to be the
25 unfairness to your client from the withdrawal. Unless you satisfy us on
1 those matters, for the reasons indicated, the Chamber is likely to agree
2 to the witnesses being removed from the list.
3 You will probably want to reflect on that a little.
4 MR. METTRAUX: I think we can state our position, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Good. Thank you.
6 Well, please go ahead and state it. I've said those things to
7 make it clear to you that you will have to make decisions yourself at this
9 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour. Our position is that,
10 indeed, we will have no objection to the application made by the
11 Prosecution; and if indeed one of the three matters which we stated as a
12 matter of caution for the witnesses and evidence to come, the course which
13 we will take will be to object on an individual basis if and when
14 problems, if any, arise with particular witnesses, as we foresee might
15 arise with one or two witnesses.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
17 [Trial Chamber confers].
18 THE REGISTRAR: Could Mr. Mettraux be kind enough to repeat the
19 ERN number of the tendered page of 65 ter 608, please.
20 MR. METTRAUX: With pleasure. That would be 0501-6266, and that
21 would be 1D104. It is it also a Rule 65 ter 608, from the Prosecution.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for that, Mr. Mettraux.
24 In view of the position indicated by the parties, the Chamber
25 would indicate that it would grant the motion of the Prosecution for the
1 withdrawal of the 13 witnesses that has been proposed. Reasons have been
2 sufficiently indicated in the comments I made a moment ago which were
3 intended essentially to alert Mr. Mettraux to our position.
4 So that motion will be granted.
5 In view of the time, we now must take the first break. We will
6 resume at a quarter past 4.00 to receive the evidence of the next witness.
7 --- Recess taken at 3.44 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 4.18 p.m.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon, will you call the next witness.
10 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, the Prosecution will call General Risto
12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
13 MR. SAXON: Perhaps -- well, we've lost the usher, so ...
14 Your Honours, perhaps while we're waiting for witness, to use the
15 time, we have some binders with some exhibits that we hope to show to the
16 next witness. If Ms. Guduric could provide them to the Chamber and to the
17 Defence, please, and one for the witness.
18 [The witness entered court]
19 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Would you please read aloud the affirmation on the
22 sheet what is given to you now, please.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
24 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
25 WITNESS: RISTO GALEVSKI
1 [Witness answered through interpreter]
2 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much. Please sit down.
3 Before you commence your evidence, General, could I mention to you
4 a matter about our general procedures, which I would bring to your
5 attention, that is, that as a witness, you may object to answering a
6 question which you believe would incriminate you. The Chamber has no
7 particular reason to think that this issue will arise, but we have only a
8 general knowledge of matters about which you are going to speak and
9 because you were positioned -- still in a position of some seniority in
10 the police force of Macedonia, we think it useful that you be aware of
11 that in case in your own knowledge of your circumstances you see that that
12 difficulty might present itself.
13 Yes, Mr. Saxon.
14 Examination by Mr. Saxon:
15 Q. Sir, are you General Risto Galevski?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Are you a citizen of Macedonia?
18 A. Yes, I am.
19 Q. General, are you hearing me in your own language, Macedonian?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Can you describe your current employment, please.
22 A. Up until a few days ago, I was state advisor in the cabinet of the
23 Ministry of the Interior. Since the 10th of July, a decision appoints me
24 to the job of assistant to the minister for the sector of European Union.
25 I haven't started working at that position yet, actually.
1 Q. Can you describe, please, the education -- let me go back.
2 What year did you join the Macedonian police?
3 A. I am employed in the police of the Republic of Macedonia since 1st
4 of August, 1975.
5 Q. Did you start off as a routine police officer?
6 A. Yes, a routine police officer, in the patrols.
7 Q. Can you describe the education and training that you've received
8 during your police career.
9 A. After I graduated from the secondary police school in 1975, and
10 after I started working, as I have mentioned already, I enrolled at the
11 faculty for defence --
12 THE INTERPRETER: Faculty for -- interpreter's correction, faculty
13 for security.
14 A. -- As a part-time student, which would mean that I worked and
15 studied at the same time, I was a student while I was still working, in
16 order to graduate from the faculty for security. Apart from my regular
17 education, I also went to various courses, education activities, seminars,
18 et cetera.
19 Q. Did you receive, for example, police training abroad, outside the
21 A. Yes, on several occasions.
22 Q. Would you describe it?
23 A. The first one was in October 1995, in Sicily in Italy. I
24 remember it better than the others because it was the first time I went
25 abroad in such purpose, in such role. And it was interesting because the
1 topic was protection of privacy when using modern technologies.
2 Q. Can you recall, General, what your position was in August of 2001?
3 A. I was head of the police department, actually uniformed police
4 department in the Ministry of the Interior.
5 Q. Can you recall that on the 13th of August, 2001 the minister then,
6 Minister Boskoski, appointed you to be a member of a commission?
7 A. I am sure that I was appointed a member of such committee, but I
8 could not recall the date. I could not confirm or deny the date.
9 MR. SAXON: If we can call up, please, from e-court what is
10 Exhibit P00073.
11 Your Honours, this is tab 1 in your binder. And perhaps with the
12 court usher's assistance we could show him the same document in the binder
13 that is on -- we could show General Galevski the same document that is on
14 his desk.
15 Q. And if General Galevski could turn to the Macedonian version of
16 tab 1.
17 General, this is a document -- it says at the top Republic of
18 Macedonia, Ministry of Internal Affairs. Do you see that up at the top?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And then below that we see the date, 13 August 2001, and then it
21 says Skopje. Are you following me?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Below that we see the words decision to establish a commission.
24 And then part 1 says: "A commission is established to consider the
25 circumstances and analyse the activities under taken by the Special Forces
1 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to repel the armed attacks by
2 terrorist groups on the 12th of August 2001 in the village of
3 Ljuboten-Skopje." And then it says comprised of Goran Mitevski, director
4 of the bureau for public security, chairman; Risto Galevski, head of the
5 department for police, member; and Zivkovic Petrovski, head of the
6 department for criminal police, member. Now that second member, Risto
7 Galevski, that was you, right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And down in part 2 the decision says,"Based upon data reports and
10 other available materials from the relevant services of the Ministry of
11 Internal Affairs, as well as based upon information obtained in
12 conversation with members of the ministry, the commission for item 1 of
13 the decision has the task to review the circumstances and analyse the
14 activities undertaken by the Security Forces of the Ministry of Internal
15 Affairs, to repel the armed attacks of terrorist groups on 12 August 2001
16 in the village of Ljuboten-Skopje."
17 Then in part 3, "The commission is obliged immediately to start
18 carrying out the tasks and to prepare a report about the determined facts
19 with an opinion about the grounds, justification and regularity of the
20 activities undertaken by the Security Forces of the ministry."
21 Part 4: "The report from part 3 of this decision shall be
22 submitted to the minister of internal affairs."
23 And then down below we see the signature of Minister Boskoski and
24 the seal of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
25 Do you recall that this was the decision that made you a member of
1 this commission now?
2 A. Yes, I remember.
3 Q. Now, so there were three members of this commission, according to
4 this decision. Were all of them members of the Ministry of Interior?
5 A. Yes, they were.
6 Q. All right. Can you recall, General, how many times the three
7 members of the commission met to discuss the work of the commission?
8 A. Six years later, or somewhere around six years, I could not give
9 you a precise answer, although out of the three of us who were members of
10 this committee or task force, the head of the group or the president of
11 that committee, Goran Mitevski is a person I had regular contacts with,
12 although I had less frequent meetings with Mr. Petrovski, I could not
13 state exactly how less regular, due to personal reasons.
14 Q. All right. Would it help to you refresh your memory, General, if
15 I showed you the statement that you gave to members of the Office of the
16 Prosecutor in December of 2004? Would that help to you refresh your
17 memory about this point?
18 A. Maybe yes, maybe no. I don't know, I don't recall what I have
19 stated then, although I know --
20 Q. With the assistance the usher, we have copies of this statement.
21 If we could distribute them, please, to the parties and to the witness?
22 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, maybe it would be
24 proper for my colleague to ask the question first of the witness, for us
25 to hear what the witness knows and only later, if it is needed, to give
1 the statement to the witness. At this moment, the witness tried to give
2 some reasons and he was interrupted so we do not what the witness actually
3 tried to say.
4 Thank you very much.
5 JUDGE PARKER: In the view of the Chamber, what was said by the
6 witness was sufficient to indicate that he presently claimed not to have a
8 MR. SAXON: I believe we have copies for the Defence as well.
9 Q. And perhaps with the usher's assistance, General Galevski, could
10 you turn to paragraph 6 of that statement. I'd like to review it with
11 you, please.
12 And if we can start at the beginning of that paragraph it says the
13 following: "Being asked how the commission was conducting the
14 investigations, I reply that the commission did not work in the same
15 manner as the commissions normally worked. By this I mean it was mainly
16 Goran Mitevski who conducted the investigations. He then, as far as I
17 remember, kept myself and perhaps Petrovski informed about progress of the
18 investigation. I cannot remember any details, but I remember that
19 Mitevski was very nervous and very upset about the fact that he had to
20 work without any resources and without any real information. However,
21 since I know him, and I know he is a professional officer, I was confident
22 that he was doing his work in a professional manner."
23 And then the last sentence, General, says this: "I remember that
24 the members of the commission never met each other during the
1 Now, is this -- what is stated in paragraph 6, is this accurate?
2 Does it help you refresh your memory?
3 A. Yes. I would only like to clarify that the interpretation of the
4 statement is incomplete, since it reads here that I stated Goran Mitevski
5 had mainly been in charge of the investigation and that we did not meet.
6 I don't think I stated anything of the sort, because we met very
7 frequently, but not all three of us together.
8 Q. Can you turn to the first page of that statement, General
9 Galevski, the very first page. And if you could look at each page, you
10 see your signature on the bottom of each page, starting from the first
12 A. I don't see my signature on the translation. Let me look at the
13 original. Yes. It is right, but why has that conclusion been inferred, I
14 can't say. But let me clarify. Probably I misspoke.
15 Q. I need to clarify something. Have you been following along in the
16 Macedonian translation or in the English, General?
17 A. English.
18 Q. All right. I'd like to you please turn to the Macedonian trans --
19 I'd like to you please look at the Macedonian translation of your
20 statement so you can follow it in your own language.
21 MR. SAXON: Can the usher please assist General Galevski, please.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I follow the Macedonian
24 MR. SAXON:
25 Q. Okay, very well.
1 This is a statement, then, that you signed in 2004. Can we agree
2 that your memory of the events in 2004 would have been fresher than it was
3 today, three years further removed from 2001?
4 A. I don't know whether you will understand me properly, but day in,
5 day out, the events come clearer to me and I think I know more than the
6 events now than at three years later, and if you would like to listen, I
7 can explain why.
8 Q. Let me stick with the work of the commission for a few minutes, if
9 that's all right.
10 Do you recall, General, how many witnesses or other persons you
11 interviewed during the work of this commission?
12 A. I personally did not interview a single one, not directly.
13 Q. All right.
14 A. Since when I told you that I could explain why I see the events
15 now more clearly compared to the period immediately after the events--
16 Q. General Galevski, I would like to you answer my questions, all
17 right? Do you recall how many witness statements taken by other
18 commission members were shown to you?
19 A. I did not understand the question.
20 Q. Do you recall if other members of the commission, the other two
21 members, interviewed witnesses, took notes or took statements from them,
22 and showed these notes of their statements to you?
23 A. The committee was not the body conducting the investigation. As
24 far as I understood the task, it was a task force that needed to initiate
25 the mechanisms available to the ministry of the interior.
1 Q. General Galevski -- well, I'm going to let you finish that
2 response but then I have another question that I need to put to you.
3 Do you want to add anything more to your last response? You said
4 that the committee was not the body conducting the investigation.
5 A. Not literally since neither the director nor the head of the
6 criminal police department nor the police general will allow for the sakes
7 of their positions, the offices that they hold to go down the hierarchy
8 and interview persons who would be interesting for a more serious police
9 or pre-trial investigation.
10 Due to these reasons, the committee headed by the director Goran
11 Mitevski did what it could do. Unfortunately, there was nothing much it
12 could do. This is exactly what I wish to clarify for you, since, as far
13 as I know and as I have studied, in order to start any procedural action
14 after well-based suspicion is established or basic information are
15 obtained and we heard them through verbal information without any report,
16 without any tangible data, one should go on the scene and then inspect the
17 scene of the event.
18 Q. Can you ask you a question, General Galevski? You
19 said: "Unfortunately, there was nothing much it could do," there was
20 nothing much the committee could do. Why do you feel that why, or why did
21 you feel that way?
22 A. It couldn't do because we could not go to the scene, not just the
23 three of us. In a system like ours, it is an investigating judge and a
24 public Prosecutor together with an expert team from the forensics police
25 of the ministry of interior going to the scene in order to gather all
1 relevant facts from the actual scene. Unfortunately, it did not happen.
2 It was not possible for it to happen.
3 Q. All right. I asked you previously, and I need to ask you again,
4 whether any of the other commission members showed you any notes of
5 interviews of witnesses or statements given by witnesses to the
6 commission? Can you recall that? How many such incidents like that
8 A. I don't know how many, I remember that the director Mitevski from
9 time to time, every other day, or I can't remember how regularly when we
10 met, apart from the other ongoing working activities that we discussed,
11 the information that we exchanged he would also inform me about certain
12 reports or telegrams arriving from the police stations, official material,
13 official reports ...
14 Q. General Galevski, I need to interrupt you for a minute. Can you
15 please turn to paragraph 8 of that statement that you gave to my office in
16 December 2004? I want to go over something with you.
17 Do you see paragraph 8, General?
18 A. Yes, I see it.
19 Q. Paragraph 8 says this: "I never saw any witness or suspect
20 statements taken by the commission members; neither did I see any other
21 evidence that the commission would have gathered."
22 Does this refresh your memory now as to how often you were shown
23 statements of people who were interviewed or notes of interviews, relating
24 to events in Ljuboten?
25 A. This is an abbreviated version of the answer and it should have
1 been better to have the question in the exact form, how it was asked.
2 First I haven't read maybe all the materials due to the simple
3 reason that I had complete faith in the director Mitevski that he has seen
4 a document or minutes from the meeting of the committee, I would like to
5 clarify that no minutes were made during the meetings of the committee, so
6 this is the spirit in which this statement was given, this paragraph,
8 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be asked to move closer
9 to the microphone or to speak up a bit. We can't hear him clearly.
10 MR. SAXON: General, you're asked to move a bit closer to the
11 microphone and speak up, please.
12 Q. Do you recall -- I think I will move on.
13 Do you recall whether during the work of the committee you
14 received any information at all about the events in Ljuboten in August of
16 A. No specific information that something has really happened.
17 Meaning that the rules or the regulations were violated.
18 Q. General Galevski, do you recall whether Zivko Petrovski, the other
19 member of the commission, had an important role to play in the work of the
21 A. I already mentioned I didn't want to meet Zivko too much, neither
22 then nor now and therefore I would stress once again, I left at least my
23 part to be shared with director Mitevski and under my competences
24 everything that is a violation of the criminal code that is the
25 prosecution, the prosecution ex officio is under the criminal police which
1 was headed by Mr. Zivko Petrovski, while the uniformed police which I
2 headed was then and now is in charge of maintaining law and order and/or
3 to re-establish law and order if the law and order was in any way
5 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, can we move briefly into private
6 session, please.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Private.
8 [Private session]
21 [Open session]
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
23 MR. SAXON:
24 Q. General Galevski, do you recall whether Goran -- well, let me step
25 back for a minute?
1 What role did Goran Mitevski play in the commission; can you
3 A. With the very fact that he was appointed a head of the commission
4 speaks enough, that the most part of the activities and the organiser of
5 the activities was for him to do.
6 Q. General, do you recall whether you ever suggested that additional
7 investigations be carried out with respect to the events in Ljuboten?
8 A. I'm not sure whether I understood the question well. I know that
9 we insisted, especially me and Goran Mitevski and the Minister Boskoski,
10 when we used to meet to make all possible efforts and make an on-site
11 inspection in the village. Unfortunately, while I held that position that
12 did not happen.
13 Q. General, do you recall whether you ever suggested that the
14 committee should interview persons from the Albanian side; do you recall
16 A. I think that I might have stated something like that but that was
17 not a hearing that I heard, but the Ministry of Interior published an
18 announcement whereby they called upon all the citizens if they have any
19 comments or complaints about the work of the police to report on that and
20 the minister gave the task on that matter. I don't know whether that was
21 in writing or verbally to establish a task force that would meet with
22 these citizens, but no one came up to complain or to state something.
23 Q. Can you take a look, please, of paragraph 9 of your statement,
24 General? Do you see paragraph 9?
25 A. Yes, I see it.
1 Q. Paragraph 9 says this: "I several times suggested, for example,
2 that an on-scene investigation should be conducted and that we should
3 interview witnesses from the Albanian side. I was trying to remain
4 professional at all times toward all of our personnel no matter what
5 nationality they were. At one of the meetings with the Minister Boskoski,
6 I was ironically reprimanded by him, in terms that was too concerned with
7 the Albanians, because I stated that cases such as the beating of a fellow
8 police officer by the members of the Lions Special Forces just because he
9 was of Albanian nationality should not be tolerated."
10 General, does this accord with your recollection as to your
11 efforts to suggest that certain additional investigations should be made?
12 A. I think this is taken out of the context from a simple reason that
13 when I gave that statement, I think that I mentioned that but I didn't see
14 it here, I don't see it here. There was some cases -- there was say a
15 case when Albanian police officer was a participant in some incident, but
16 the comment of the minister was not such as it is mentioned here. That's
17 why I say it was taken out of context because I was born in a completely
18 different area of Macedonia, unlike the minister who was born and he was
19 raised together with the Albanians, and his reprimand was in the sense
20 that I could not be worried about the Albanians as much as he could,
21 because he had a lot of friends since childhood who were Albanian. My
22 statement was given in that sense.
23 Q. I see. Do you know whether the commission that you belonged to
24 ever interviewed any ethnic Albanian resident of Ljuboten; can you recall
1 A. The members of the committee, at least in my presence, did not do
3 Q. Can you recall whether the committee looked into allegations of
4 mistreatment by police officers towards ethnic Albanian detainees that
5 took place at different police stations, different check-points in the
6 Ljuboten-Skopje area? Did the committee investigate those allegations?
7 A. Not only as a member of the commission but as a head of the
8 department for the police ex officio, I insisted that my subordinates who
9 are in charge of the police in Skopje, in the city of Skopje, if-- if they
10 have any information, to present that information. But no one came up
11 with such information.
12 Q. I see. General Galevski, do you know whether any active or
13 reserve police officer was disciplined, punished or prosecuted for the
14 alleged misconduct that occurred in and around Ljuboten on the 12th of
15 August, 2001? Do you know that?
16 A. I think that there was no disciplinary proceeding at that moment
17 because no report was filed against anyone.
18 Q. And how about since that moment, are aware of any other
19 disciplinary proceedings since that time, since August/September 2001?
20 A. I could not remember, because at that time the events took place
21 so fast that I was -- that I'm not able to remember whether any
22 disciplinary action has been initiated for this, and I could also not
23 confirm for any other events in respect to the working discipline.
24 Q. General, do you recall whether the commission that was established
25 on the 13th of August, 2001 eventually produced a report?
1 A. Yes, of course.
2 Q. I'd like you to please turn to what is tab 2 in your binder.
3 MR. SAXON: And this is 65 ter number 259.
4 Q. If you please take a look at the Macedonian version.
5 MR. SAXON: And, Your Honours, once again we are often working
6 with copies of copies of copies, and so the date on the copies that are in
7 front of you is difficult to read. With the court usher's assistance I
8 would like to show General Galevski the first page from the original copy
9 that the Office of the Prosecutor received of this document.
10 Q. General, can you take a look at this copy, please, just for a
11 minute. You see that it says: "Republic of Macedonia, Ministry of the
12 Interior, number 10-32424," and then there's a date. Can you see that
13 that date is 4/9/2001?
14 A. Yes, 40S [as interpreted], this looks like a nine, but I could not
15 confirm it for sure.
16 Q. All right.
17 A. But at first glance it looks like it is 4th of 9th
18 [as interpreted].
19 Q. Okay. And perhaps if the usher could take that copy back. If we
20 could have it back, please.
21 This is a report, you'll see, submitted to the Ministry of the
22 Interior. The subject is an examination of the circumstances and an
23 analysis of the activities undertaken by the Security Forces for the
24 Ministry of the Interior to repulse armed attacks by terrorist groups on
25 12 August 2001, village of Ljuboten-Skopje. And then it says: "Submitted
1 by the commission formed by resolution number 07-581/01 on 13 August 2001.
2 General, can you turn to the very last page, please.
3 General, do you see on the very last page we see the name Goran
4 Mitevski, director for the bureau of public security, president of the
5 commission and then a signature. Is that Goran Mitevski's signature?
6 A. I think it is.
7 Q. Then we see below to the left, General Risto Galevski, head of the
8 police department, member of the commission. Is that your signature
10 A. Yes, it is.
11 Q. On the right side we see Zivko Petrovski, director of the crime
12 police department, member of the commission, and his signature.
13 A. I do not know whether that is his signature, but it is correct
14 that it writes here Zivko Petrovski.
15 Q. All right. If you could turn back to the first page, please. And
16 in the middle of the first page there's a paragraph beginning: "The
17 commission, made up of Goran Mitevski."
18 Do you see that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. "The commission, made up of Goran Mitevski, director of the bureau
21 for public security in the Ministry for Internal Affairs, in his capacity
22 as president of the commission," and then it refers to you and to Zivko
23 Petrovski. It says: "Acting pursuant to the resolution of the 13th of
24 August, 2001, began immediately to secure the entire written documentation
25 available from the relevant services of the ministry relating to the
1 activities of the Security Forces 12 August 2001 in the village of
2 Ljuboten-Skopje and, accordingly, these authorities held a discussion with
3 additional members of the ministry who had taken active part in the events
4 of this case."
5 In the next paragraph, which begins on the top of page 2 of the
6 Macedonian version, we see that a comprehensive review of the chronology
7 of the events was carried out with a professional review of the regulative
8 stability of this type of activity, on the basis of which the commission
9 affirms the following. And then we see a series of paragraphs that
10 provides more or less a chronology of certain events that occurred in and
11 around Ljuboten village.
12 Do you see that on page 2 in the Macedonian version, General?
13 A. Yes, I can see it.
14 Q. And then turning on to page 3 of the Macedonian version, in the
15 middle of page 3 of the Macedonian version at the bottom of page 2 of the
16 English version, there's a paragraph that says this: "In light of the
17 reaction which the police and armed forces of the Republic of Macedonia
18 were forced to take, the intensity of the actions taken by the armed
19 defence corresponded or was proportional to the attacks of the terrorist
20 groups. In addition, the incontrovertible fact must be considered that,
21 although above all else the members of the security are people expected to
22 be professionals with specific accountable legal powers, in such
23 situations," I'm continuing on the tap of page 3 in the English version.
24 "In such situation, the reality cannot be ignored that in these
25 circumstances there's both the human factor and a natural reaction to
1 survive in conditions where in fact his life has been placed into real
2 danger. And it is precisely this factor which, in the actions and the
3 activities carried out in the village of Ljuboten caused, in a negligible
4 number of individual events, within tolerable limits, the established
5 equilibrium of attack/defence to be destroyed."
6 Do you see what I've read there, General?
7 A. I wasn't able to really follow it. I lost it.
8 Q. Well, then I'd like the usher's assistance again, please, to go to
9 the middle of page 3. I was reading from a paragraph beginning:
10 "In light of the reaction which the police and Armed Forces of the
11 Republic of Macedonia were forced to take."
12 Do you see that paragraph?
13 A. Yes, it is okay.
14 Q. And are you able to follow me --
15 A. Yes, now it is okay.
16 Q. Okay. And you see at the end of that paragraph it says, "In a
17 negligible number of individual events within tolerable limits the
18 established equilibrium of attack-defence to be destroyed."
19 Do you see that?
20 A. Yes, I see it.
21 Q. If you could turn now, General, to what is page 5, the fifth page
22 in the Macedonian version, please. And towards the bottom of page 4 in
23 the English version, General, on page 5 in the Macedonian version there's
24 a paragraph that begins thus: "Bearing in mind the validity of the facts
25 and data presented."
1 Do you see that? It's just before the word "opinion" in your
2 language. Can you find the word "opinion"? Look at the paragraph above
3 that. It says: "Bearing in mind the validity of the facts and data
4 presented, which are based exclusively on the available written
5 documentation and the intelligence acquired through oral statements,
6 eye-witness accounts of the participants in the event where there is no
7 submission of written statements, complaints or other type of
8 substantiating statements to the Ministry of the Interior about the actual
9 event," and then it says: "The commission gives the following opinion."
10 Are you with me?
11 A. Yes, I'm with you. But the -- there's something left out. It's
12 the verbal expressions not written. That is what it says here.
13 Q. Are you reading from the Macedonian version?
14 A. Mm-hm.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. Yes, I'm reading in the Macedonian version.
17 Q. Is there something I've read in English that you feel is
19 A. I wasn't following you in English, since I don't understand it
20 well, but quoting from the written, you have said that in the informations
21 acquired in writing while it reads here "information verbally acquired."
22 Q. You're right, you're absolutely right, because it then says where
23 there -- it says, "The intelligence acquired through oral statements,
24 eye-witness accounts of the participants in the event where there is no
25 submission of written statements, complaints or other type of
1 substantiating statements to the Ministry of the Interior about the actual
2 event," and then we see the word "opinion." Do you see that?
3 A. Yes, I see it.
4 Q. The opinion reads like this: "The activities which were carried
5 out by the Security Forces of the Ministry of the Interior to repulse the
6 armed attacks of the terrorist groups on 12 August 2001 in the village of
7 Ljuboten-Skopje were well-founded, justified and properly undertaken, yet
8 there is evidently a slight tolerable degree of individual overstepping of
9 the boundaries of the prescribed powers carried out by a small number of
10 members of the Ministry of the Interior who actively participated in the
12 Do you see that, General?
13 A. Yes, I see it.
14 Q. On the next paragraph, which is at the top of page 6, General, in
15 your version, "Given the absence of written documentation from the
16 investigation, an autopsy of the bodies found in the village of
17 Ljuboten-Skopje, and in order to achieve comprehensiveness and
18 all-exclusiveness it is necessary for the authorities in the Republic of
19 Macedonia to undertake legal action, the exhumation of the bodies in the
20 presence of experts and of representatives of interested international
21 organisations which will have as a result the taking of all necessary
22 legal actions towards confirmation, all the relevant facts and receipt of
23 an answer to the open substantive question about this event."
24 General, this is -- is this the report that the commission
25 produced at the end of its work?
1 A. Yes, it is.
2 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I would seek to tender this document.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Did we clarify its date, Mr. Saxon?
4 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, to the best of the Prosecution's
5 knowledge, it is it dated --
6 JUDGE PARKER: No. The witness, does he know, can he help?
7 MR. SAXON: Well, the witness said to the best of what he could
8 see, it appeared to be 4 September 2001.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. It will be received.
10 Ms. Residovic.
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would just like to
12 ask to maybe verify the translation of the last paragraph, the one
13 preceding the opinion, because although I do not understand -- I don't
14 speak Macedonian, in the English translation I saw that in this
15 translation it is mentioned twice the word "written statements," while the
16 Macedonian version in the last sentence, it reads about written
17 submissions, which are not statements at all.
18 My objection goes in line that the English translation should be
19 made in line with the Macedonian version that I just read out, because
20 instead of statement, the word "written complaint" should be put. That
21 changes the sense of the text that was just read out.
22 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, the word "complaint" exists in that
23 paragraph in English. There is a phrase said, "Where there is no
24 submission of written statements, complaints or other type of
25 substantiating statements to the Ministry of the Interior."
1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours, I see that, but
2 the Macedonian version never mentions the word "statement," while the
3 lower part in the English, the word "statement" is mentioned twice.
4 MR. SAXON: Well, Your Honours, this is a final translation from
5 CLSS, but we can certainly ask them to review this.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
7 THE REGISTRAR: The document will be received as Exhibit P378,
8 Your Honours.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
10 MR. SAXON:
11 Q. General Galevski, you mentioned earlier in your testimony
12 regarding the work of the commission that there wasn't much that the
13 commission could do. What investigative work did the commission do?
14 A. I think that I have already replied to that question.
15 Q. Well, let me ask you a couple of specific questions then.
16 Do you recall whether the commission spoke to any of the ethnic
17 Albanians who were detained in and around Ljuboten on the 12th of August,
19 Let me rephrase my question. Did the commission attempt to speak
20 with any of the detained ethnic Albanian residents of Ljuboten?
21 A. I personally didn't, but the offices working in the field who
22 spoke with them made all the written materials available to the
23 commission, actually the president of the commission, Mr. Goran Mitevski.
24 Q. You see the officers in the field who spoke to them. Who is
25 them? Who was spoken to?
1 A. I think that the question was who spoke with the detainees in the
2 police stations.
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. In the police station, if you wish, I could give you a more
5 elaborate answer, who are the persons who question the persons who are
6 detained in the police station.
7 According to the applicable legislation in the Republic of
8 Macedonia, when the legal requirements are met, the authorised officers
9 have the right and duty to detain a person and when a person is brought
10 in, in a station, then the duty officer admits that person and conducts
11 the initial interview.
12 Q. Would sometimes a criminal inspector conduct an initial interview?
13 A. Can I continue where I stopped in order to explain the situation
14 to you more vividly?
15 Q. Sure.
16 A. So the duty officer admits the person regardless who has brought
17 the person in. These persons could be ordinary citizens, actually, if a
18 citizen is found in in flagrante situation in perpetration of a criminal
19 act, the duty officer conducts the initial interview in order to assess
20 who should then take the person over. If it is a situation of less severe
21 violation of laws, as we call it misdemeanour, traffic misdemeanour,
22 public order misdemeanour or any misdemeanour, the case is then processed
23 by the uniformed police, while if a law -- if an article of the criminal
24 code is violated then is the criminal police that handles the case, which
25 mean that the duty officer is obligated to call a colleague from the
1 hierarchy who covers that topical area, the topical area covering the
2 issue that the person had infringed and the person could later be a
3 suspect or an indicted person, which means that for a case in question
4 now, the authorised officers, actually the only authorised officers, are
5 those from the criminal police.
6 Q. And so would an inspector from the criminal police then interview
7 someone who has been detained for a serious crime?
8 A. Absolutely, yes. Not only they could, they have the duty to do
10 Q. And would that be standard procedure for that inspector to send an
11 Official Note or a report up the chain of command regarding the interview?
12 A. Yes, they have a duty to submit an Official Note.
13 Q. And are such Official Notes the kind of materials that your
14 committee reviewed prior to producing their report?
15 A. Let me repeat. I did not view them personally because this is not
16 within my job description. But certainly, Mr. Petrovski and of course the
17 president of the committee had seen them. I've learned this from the
18 discussions that I had with Mr. Mitevski.
19 Q. All right. I'd like to ask you, General, to turn to what is tab 3
20 in your binder. This is 65 ter number 285.
21 MR. SAXON: And, don't worry, Your Honours, I'm not going to
22 review every item in this 65 ter number, just a limited selection, I
24 Mr. Usher, I think we may need your help, if you could stay with
25 the witness, because this is some fairly lengthy material that is divided
1 up into separate documents.
2 If we turn to -- this is material that was received by the Office
3 of the Prosecutor pursuant to a request for assistance to the government
4 of Macedonia asking for information pertaining to a second committee that
5 was formed to investigate the events in Ljuboten village in August of
7 And perhaps if Mr. Galevski could be shown what is pages 8 to 9.
8 It's 65 ter number 285.5. It starts with ERN number N000-8907.
9 And if General Galevski could be shown the Macedonian version,
10 please, so he can follow along.
11 Q. General Galevski, this is a decision dated the 7th of March, 2003,
12 commission of -- "On establishment of a commission, a commission of
13 inquiry into the circumstances and facts related to the events and
14 incidents which took place in the territory of Ljuboten village, Skopje,
15 August 2001 was hereby established within the Ministry of Interior,
16 consisting of the following members."
17 Are you with me? Do you see what I've read?
18 A. Yes, I follow you.
19 Q. The first name is it Major-General Zoran Jovanovski,
20 under-secretary in the police department, chairman, and then there are
21 several other names below General Jovanovski's name. And if you turn the
22 page to the next page, the next page in the English version, part two
23 says, "The commission shall have the task to investigate and analyse all
24 materials and documents related to the events which took place in the
25 territory of Ljuboten-Skopje in August 2001, ascertain the composition and
1 capacity of the unit which took action in this period, including the
2 identity of each of its members individually, establish the causes and
3 circumstances surrounding the deaths of the victims and the material
4 damage inflicted, in order to establish the truth about the aforementioned
5 events," et cetera.
6 And then in section 3: "The commission shall prepare a report on
7 its activities and submit it to the minister of the interior no later than
8 2 May 2003."
9 And then we see down below that at this time in spring of 2002 the
10 minister of the interior was Hari Kostov. Do you see that?
11 A. Yes, I see it.
12 Q. Could you turn to the next page which is 65 ter 285.6?
13 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I object to this way of asking
15 questions. We do not see at all what is the basis for the Prosecutor to
16 ask these questions, because as far as we can see this is a document that
17 is it outside of the scope of the indictment 7th of March, 2003. We do
18 not know whether this witness knows -- actually, maybe this would be a way
19 that the learned colleague could frame his question about the existence of
20 another committee or anything, because we do not see here any foundation
21 for the aforementioned document to be shown to this witness.
22 Furthermore, the first person mentioned here General Major Zoran
23 Jovanovski is a person who is in the list of Prosecutor's witness and he
24 could be shown all these documents, and for these reasons we object before
25 establishing the foundation for this witness to be able to say anything
1 about these documents, we object to questions being asked of this witness.
2 Thank you.
3 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, may I start --
4 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
5 MR. SAXON: If I can start with the second objection first. Yes,
6 General Zoran Jovanovski will be called as a witness and yes, he will be
7 shown these documents. I'm only going to seek to mark these documents for
8 identification at this time.
9 Your Honours, as you know, one of the important issues of this
10 case is whether the accused took reasonable and adequate measures to
11 investigate the alleged crimes in Ljuboten, and punish the perpetrators.
12 Therefore, the work of the committee that Mr. Boskoski set up is obviously
13 of crucial interest, I believe, to the Trial Chamber, and what I want to
14 pursue with this witness is whether the -- some of the work done by this
15 second committee was also done by the first committee.
16 JUDGE PARKER: We see no reason, Ms. Residovic, to interfere with
17 the line of questioning at the moment.
18 But we do see the time, and we must now take the second break.
19 So we will resume at five past 6.00.
20 --- Recess taken at 5.33 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 6.05 p.m.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
23 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour. And according to the
24 Prosecution's calculations, I have one hour and 20 minutes to complete my
25 direct examination.
1 JUDGE PARKER: As you know, that cannot all be done this evening.
2 MR. SAXON: I understand that, Your Honour, yes.
3 I had asked to see 65 ter 285.6. On the screen we see what is
4 apparently the Macedonian version twice, and I'm wondering whether there
5 is an English version. But I will --
6 JUDGE PARKER: No English, Mr. Saxon.
7 MR. SAXON: All right. Well, the parties have the English version
8 in their binders, I hope.
9 JUDGE PARKER: At tab?
10 MR. SAXON: This is part of tab 3. This is part of tab 3, and it
11 is --
12 JUDGE PARKER: 285.6.
13 MR. SAXON: Yes, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
15 Q. General Galevski, this is a document from the Ministry of Internal
16 Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia, from the investigation committee
17 about the events and happenings in the village Ljuboten. It's dated 25
18 November 2003. It's part of the work of this second investigation
19 committee established by Minister Kosta. We see it is entitled
20 information on the activities undertaken by the investigation committee
21 about the events and happenings in the village of Ljuboten.
22 Do you see that?
23 A. Yes, I see it.
24 Q. Please take a look at the second paragraph that begins: "At the
25 first meeting."
1 Paragraph reads: "At the first meeting that was held on 12
2 November 2003 attended by all members of the committee a conversation was
3 carried out with Johan Tarculovski and the owner of the security agency
4 Kometa, Zoran Jovanovski, alias Bucuk. Do you see that?
5 THE INTERPRETER: We barely hear the witness so if you could
6 speak --
7 MR. SAXON: [Previous translation continues] ... Need to give an
8 oral answer, General, you need to speak up.
9 A. Yes, I see it.
10 Q. Did the members of your committee interview Johan Tarculovski?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Did the members of your committee interview the owner of the
13 Kometa security agency, Zoran Jovanovski, also known as Bucuk?
14 A. I don't think so.
15 MR. SAXON: If we can turn to what is 65 ter 285.11. It's the
16 25th page in the English version. And if the usher could assist the
17 witness to see the Macedonian version.
18 Q. General, this is an Official Note. It says at the top "submitted
19 by Staff-Sergeant Miodrag Stojanovski, policeman, administer." Do you see
20 that at the top?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. It is dated 20 November 2003. Subject, weapons issued to
23 volunteers in 2001. And it says this: "On 25 July 2001, a group from the
24 Kometa agency led by Johan Tarculovski employed at the security sector of
25 the RM MVR arrived at the police station OOV. They presented a list to
1 Commander Georgi Dimitrov and asked to be issued with weapons as volunteer
2 police reservists. The commander, having consulted his superiors at the
3 security sector, ordered me to issue the weapons. Half of the men from
4 the list were issued with weapons on 25 July 2001 and the other half on 26
5 July 2001, after which they were sent to the security training centre to
6 join other volunteers and fill out the questionnaires for police
8 Do you see that?
9 A. Yes, I see it.
10 Q. In August/September 2001, did your committee interview Miodrag
12 A. This is the first time I hear about any of this or that I see any
13 of this.
14 Q. If you turn the page, and this would be now 65 ter 285.12, it's an
15 Official Note, a bit longer this time.
16 No, that's not it. Hmm. Perhaps we could look at 285.13, and if
17 I could ask the usher's assistance, please.
18 No. I'm having a technical problem. I'm going to move on. I'm
19 going to skip this, please.
20 If we could simply move on to what should be 285.24.
21 This is a report dated the 6th of May, 2003, from the Ministry of
22 Interior, sector for analysis and research. And again it's a report on
23 the meeting of the commission investigating the events in Ljuboten
24 village, and it's a couple of pages long.
25 Q. General Galevski, just to make sure that I understand you and your
1 testimony is clear, is it your testimony that the information that your
2 committee received, it was information received in writing from various
3 sources of the Ministry of Interior?
4 A. Yes. On the basis of the official writs that the MOI received,
5 but not such official notes. That were written much later than the time
6 when we were operating as a committee. But while -- why were they written
7 then, this is a question in itself, because some of these Official Notes,
8 if these events actually happened, the police officers had the duty to
9 write them then, immediately and not three or four years later than the
10 actual events taking place.
11 Q. All right. Could your committee have spoken with these police
12 officers, General Galevski?
13 A. I didn't directly but my subordinates in charge of the uniformed
14 police in the city did, especially with the police officers in the region
15 Cair, certainly, and I must mention the names that were read in the
16 previous information in the previous document, I have heard mentioned for
17 the first time when I was interviewed by the ICTY investigator. I'm not
18 sure whether it was the first or the second interview.
19 At that time, then nobody mentioned any such names.
20 Q. All right.
21 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I would seek to mark 65 ter 285 for
22 identification, please.
23 JUDGE PARKER: It will be marked.
24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P379, marked for identification, Your
1 MR. SAXON:
2 Q. If we could turn now to what is tab 4 in the binder in front of
3 you, General Galevski.
4 MR. SAXON: This is, Your Honours, from 65 ter 257, which I will
5 again simply to be marked for identification.
6 If General Galevski could be shown the Macedonian version.
7 Q. This is a report to the government of "the former Yugoslav
8 Republic of Macedonia" on a visit to "the former Yugoslav Republic of
9 Macedonia" carried out by the European committee for the prevention of
10 torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, also known as
11 the CPT from 21 to 26 October 2001.
12 And if you turn to the third page, General, you will find the
13 table of contents. And I'd like to direct your attention, please, to
14 subsection D where it says cooperation between the CPT and the authorities
15 of "the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia." Do you see that?
16 A. [No interpretation].
17 MR. SAXON: Could the General's right microphone be turned on,
19 Q. You see that in subchapter D there are sections on consultations
20 at the central level and then a second section called cooperation at the
21 local level. A is places of detention, B is judicial authorities at the
22 Basic Court in Skopje, C is the institute of forensic medicine and medical
23 professionals at hospitals in Skopje.
24 Do you see that, General Galevski?
25 A. Yes, I see it.
1 Q. And then in part two we see it's called facts found during the
2 visit and action proposed. Underneath that we see a subheading, A,
3 torture and other forms of ill-treatment and then we see subsection 4,
4 it's called the Ljuboten cases.
5 Do you see that, General.
6 A. Yes, I see it.
7 Q. All right. If you could turn to what is page 8 in the English
8 version; it's page 7 in the Macedonian version.
9 Are you on page 7, General?
10 A. Yes, I'm on page 7.
11 Q. We see at the top of the page a letter B, establishments visited
12 and then below that number 3, the delegation visited the following places
13 of detention. And then there's a heading police stations and we see a
14 number of police stations in the list, including Bit Pazar police station,
15 Skopje; Cair police station, Skopje; Gazi Baba police station, Skopje;
16 Karpos police station, Skopje; Kisela Voda police station, Skopje.
17 Do you see that, general?
18 A. Yes, I see it.
19 Q. And then if you could look at the bottom of page eight in the
20 Macedonian version, this is the middle of page nine in the English
21 version, there is a section entitled cooperation between the CPT and the
22 authorities of the "the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia." Then we
23 see, one, consultations at central level. Do you see where I'm reading,
24 General Galevski?
25 A. Yes. Yes, I see it.
1 Q. Paragraph 7 says: "In the course of its visit, the delegation
2 Ilinka Mitreva, the minister for foreign affairs, as well as senior
3 officials from the ministries of justice, interior, and foreign affairs.
4 In particular, fruitful discussions on police matters were held with the
5 following officials from the minister of the interior, Goran Mitevski,
6 director of the bureau for public security; General Risto Galevski, head
7 of the police station," et cetera.
8 Do you recall meeting with this delegation in October of 2001,
10 A. I don't deny it, but I do not remember because I will repeat
11 again, the events taking place, the people I have meet were really
12 numerous, so I could not remember them all.
13 Q. All right, that's fine. If we could turn to what is page 19 in
14 the English version.
15 This is the bottom of page 17 in the Macedonian version, General.
16 MR. SAXON: No, I'm looking for page 19 in the English version; we
17 have 21 now.
18 Q. General, you see there's a number four and then it says: "The
19 Ljuboten cases."
20 Do you see that? This would be the bottom of page 17 in your
22 A. Yes, I can follow.
23 Q. Paragraph 27 begins: "The CPT's delegation examined a series of
24 cases of alleged ill-treatment emerging in the aftermath of an operation
25 by government Security Forces in the village of Ljuboten near Skopje on 10
1 to 12 August 2001. The delegation focussed its attention on the treatment
2 of those persons who had been deprived of their liberty by the police in
3 the course of or after the Ljuboten operation." Are you following with me,
5 A. Yes, can I follow.
6 Q. Further down in that paragraph there's a sentence beginning
7 with: "In addition."
8 And so the rest of the paragraph reads like this: "In addition to
9 the other information gathering activities it undertook to this end, e.g.,
10 visits to Cair, Karpos and Kisela Voda police stations, and examination of
11 prison and medical records, the delegation held lengthy discussions with
12 senior officials of the Ministry of the Interior, including the director
13 of the bureau of public security, the head of the police division, the
14 head of the internal control department."
15 So, again, that's another reference to you, would that be fair,
16 General Galevski?
17 A. No, I can't confirm because I don't see it here what are you
18 reading from this document.
19 Q. Are you reading paragraph 27?
20 MR. SAXON: Can the usher please assist the General.
21 A. Cases -- the Ljuboten cases. I was able to follow the first part
22 and then when you turned the page I lost it.
23 Q. Can you turn -- I'm sorry. Can you turn to the end of paragraph
24 27. Do you see the phrase "the head of the police division." Do you see
25 that there? It's in the second-to-the-last sentence, the penultimate
2 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's comment, the answer was barely
3 audible, we are not aware what the witness said.
4 MR. SAXON:
5 Q. General, do you see phrase "the delegation held lengthy
6 discussions with senior officials of the Ministry of Interior."
7 Do you see that?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Do you see halfway down that paragraph: "In addition to the other
10 information gathering activities."
11 A. It doesn't seem to be the same page.
12 Q. Are you on page 17?
13 A. Yes. 17 ends with a lengthy sentence where the item 4 says the
14 Ljuboten cases.
15 Q. Okay. Can you turn to the next page.
16 A. Next page.
17 Q. The next paragraph, does that begin with the words "the CPT's
19 A. No paragraph starts with "delegation."
20 Q. What does paragraph 27 begin with?
21 A. "KZT delegation, this is the Macedonian abbreviation,
22 interpreter's comment, that this is at the very beginning after the number
24 Q. Okay. Do you then see the second sentence begins "the delegation
25 focussed its attention."
1 Do you see that, second sentence?
2 A. Yes. This is it correct. This is on page 17, not 18.
3 Q. Okay. So see if you can follow with me now. "It has been alleged
4 that villagers had fled their homes during and immediately after the
5 security operation."
6 Can you follow with me there?
7 A. Yes, I follow you.
8 Q. Then there's a sentence: "The men, some 100 of them, were
9 allegedly beaten close to the check-point and then taken to the three
10 police stations in the capital."
11 Do you see that?
12 A. Yes, I see it.
13 Q. "... Where the beatings increased in severity." And then it
14 says, "In addition to the other information gathering activities it
15 undertook, that is, visits to Cair, Karpos and Kisela Voda police
16 stations, an examination of prison and medical records," are you following
17 with me now?
18 A. Yes, I'm following.
19 Q. "The delegation held length discussions with senior officials of
20 the Ministry of the Interior."
21 Do you see that sentence?
22 A. Yes I see it.
23 Q. And one of the senior officials mentioned is the head of the
24 police division. Do you see that?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. At that time that would have been you, wouldn't it?
2 A. Yes, this is the way it should be.
3 Q. Okay. Could you -- could you now focus on paragraph 29 and this
4 is on page 20 of the English version. It's page 19 in the Macedonian
5 version. Paragraph 29 refers to the commission set up on the 13th of
6 August, 2001 by the minister of the interior in order to examine the
7 circumstances and analyse the activities undertaken by the Security Forces
8 the Ministry of the Interior to repel the armed attacks by terrorist
9 groups on 12 August 2001.
10 Do you see that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And then below that it appears to quote the report of your
13 committee. It says: "The ad hoc committee expressed its opinion in a
14 document dated 4 September 2001 addressed to the minister for the interior
15 that, quote, the activities undertaken by the Ministry for the Interior
16 are well-founded, justified and legitimately implemented, though it has
17 been noted that there was a negligible or tolerable degree of individual
18 deviation from the limits of authorised action on the part of a small
19 number of members of the Ministry of Interior who actively participated in
20 the operation in question."
21 Do you see that?
22 A. Yes, I see it.
23 Q. Now, if you move down to Paragraph 30 we see the following. This
24 is still on page 20 of the English version at the bottom of the
25 page. "Notwithstanding the assessment by the ad hoc committee of the
1 Ministry of Interior, medical evidence collected by the delegation was
2 consistent with allegations of ill-treatment of the persons deprived of
3 their liberty in the context of or following the operation of government
4 Security Forces in Ljuboten."
5 Do you see paragraph 30, General?
6 A. [No interpretation].
7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's comment, it was --
8 MR. SAXON:
9 Q. Did you say yes?
10 A. Yes, I see it.
11 Q. Okay. You need to speak up for the interpreters.
12 In the middle of page 19 in your version, General, top of page 21
13 in the English version, we see case five,, And according to case five, the
14 first paragraph, it says: "A remand prisoner claimed that at the time of
15 his apprehension in Ljuboten on 12 August 2001 he was kicked on various
16 parts of the body by special police officers. He alleged that officers
17 continued to kick him and strike him with the butts of their fire-arms on
18 the way to the police station in Mirkovci and that the ill-treatment
19 continued at that establishment."
20 Do you see that?
21 A. Yes, I see it.
22 Q. He also stated that at one point special police carved the shape
23 of a cross into his back with a bayonet?
24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] May we ask the Prosecutor to tell
2 us at least what is the question for the witness, considering that we are
3 now reading about the cases and it is not the problem for us to hear what
4 is written there read, but my concern is what is the question of the
5 Prosecutor in relation to what he's reading now to the witness, especially
6 since the report is compiled a year later.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
8 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Although the events took place
10 MR. SAXON: The question, Your Honour, which will come in about
11 two minutes will be whether the committee that this witness participated
12 on also consulted the medical records at Skopje city hospital that are
13 mentioned two paragraphs below the lines that I just read.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Continue, Mr. Saxon.
15 MR. SAXON:
16 Q. The next paragraph refers to the hospital record from Skopje city
17 hospital of this person. And then it says in the following paragraph: "An
18 unusual feature."
19 Do you see that, General Galevski, there is a phrase beginning
20 with the paragraph "an unusual feature." Do you see that?
21 A. Yes, I see it.
22 Q. It says this: "An unusual feature of the person's report at city
23 hospital was that under the heading reasons given by the patient for
24 seeking medical attention, the typed phrase "he was beaten by the police,"
25 could be discerned underneath the row of Xs which had been typed over it.
1 In the space above the Xs the words 'for pain in the chest and in the
2 abdomen' had been typed. The delegation found that certain other medical
3 records at this hospital contained similar alterations (by overtyping with
4 Xs) of an initial entry reading 'he was beaten by the police.'"
5 Do you see that, General?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Tell me, General, did your committee consult the medical records
8 of the persons who were detained at Ljuboten and then later treated at
9 Skopje city hospital?
10 A. I'm not aware of that. Personally I have not participated in
11 such a checkups because if such checkups are made, these are made by
12 specially trained persons for violation of -- violations of this type who
13 are authorised to contact the medical personnel. It is it impossible for
14 everyone to go in a hospital and investigate, especially if wearing a
16 Q. I see. Tell us, General, suppose you had seen these records that
17 the delegation from the committee for the prevention of torture had seen,
18 these altered records from Skopje city hospital, do you think that would
19 have been relevant to the opinions in the report produced by your
21 A. I don't -- I do not know when this report was received by the
22 Ministry of Interior. It is not -- surely not at the time when the report
23 was written. It must have been quite later, in order to have it as a
24 relevant source of information, and surely if we would have received it in
25 time, we would have surely taken some actions in -- within our departments
1 and our services.
2 Q. I'm sorry, General, perhaps my question wasn't clear. You see,
3 persons who were detained at Ljuboten were subsequently treated at Skopje
4 city hospital beginning on the 13th of August. So my question was, if
5 your committee had seen the records that were produced related to these
6 injured persons from the 13th, 14th, 15th of August at Skopje city
7 hospital, would that have been relevant to the opinion expressed in your
9 A. Surely, but those people must have reported first within -- in the
10 Ministry of Interior because they were publicly called if they had any
11 comments to come and report, but no such report was made.
12 Q. Suppose they're dead. If you're dead, it's difficult to make a
13 report, isn't it?
14 A. Am I suppose to comment this remark of yours?
15 Q. Yes, please.
16 A. If I die, my sons would surely report or the wife or some of the
18 Q. I see.
19 A. Because Ljuboten is a lively village, densely populated, then
20 surely someone have seen something or have reported something.
21 Q. And if someone dies, either in police custody or after being taken
22 to Skopje city hospital by the police, would -- the police would have
23 written reports about that death, wouldn't they?
24 A. The police wouldn't have written it if the person had died in a
25 hospital, but that would have been written by the medical personnel,
1 especially in the forensics department whereby the causes of death would
2 have been established.
3 Q. Let's talk about that.
4 Can you turn to page 21 of the Macedonian version, please, page 22
5 of the English version. The top of page 21, General Galevski, there is a
6 subheading it says case 8, AQ. Do you see that?
7 A. I'm at page 21.
8 Q. 21, at the top of the page case 8 --
9 A. Yes, 21. What I can see at the bottom is case 5.
10 Q. Okay. Can you turn the page. Turn the page, please. On the
11 next page, do you see case 8?
12 A. No, I cannot see case 8.
13 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Before you walk away, can we
14 please just find number 8?
15 A. [In English] Okay. [Interpretation] Case 8, AQ.
16 Q. That's it.
17 A. Okay.
18 Q. The first paragraph of AQ, case 8 says: "Reference should also be
19 made to the case of Ljuboten resident AQ, who, according to reports by
20 non-governmental organisation, was taken into police custody in
21 mid-August. According to the information provided to the delegation's
22 doctors by the relevant medical and administrative staff, AQ had been
23 found on a street and brought to city hospital in Skopje were he was
24 admitted to the trauma ward at 5.00 a.m. on 13 August 2001."
25 Do you see that?
1 A. I see it.
2 Q. Okay. Then the next paragraph refers to the autopsy protocol for
3 this person known as AQ from Ljuboten. It says: "The notes of the
4 relevant autopsy dated 15 August 2001 from the institute of forensic
5 medicine recorded extremely numerous external injuries (excoriations,
6 bruises, haematomas on forearms, arms, thighs and calfs, posterior thorax
7 and lumbar region) of a shape and topography which indicate their cause to
8 be repeated blows with hard objects."
9 Do you see that, General Galevski?
10 A. I do.
11 Q. Take a look at the last sentence of that paragraph. This is what
12 it says: "The forensic pathologist concluded that the cause of AQ's death
13 was traumatic shock."
14 Do you see that. Do you see that?
15 A. Yes, I see it.
16 Q. My question for you is: Did your committee seek autopsy reports
17 from the institute of forensic medicine in Skopje related to persons who
18 were detained at Ljuboten?
19 A. Not aware of that.
20 Q. I see. If your committee had seen a report such as this, would
21 that have been relevant to the opinion of the report that was produced?
22 A. It is sure that the committee would have initiated other
23 activities, but it is not us who investigate it, especially I'm not
24 specialised to investigate homicides or violent crimes but we would have
25 asked that from the experts in charge of this topic or issue.
1 Q. In 2001 how long had you been a police officer?
2 A. In 2001?
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. In the entire 2001.
5 Q. No, I mean -- let me ask the question this. Tell us again, what
6 year did you join the police force?
7 A. In 1975.
8 Q. Okay. So in 2001, you would have been -- you had been a police
9 officer for 26 years?
10 A. Exactly.
11 Q. It didn't occur to you to try to review medical records in Skopje
12 city hospital or autopsy reports in the institute of forensic medicine as
13 part of the work of the committee?
14 A. I think I was clear in my previous statement. I was one of the
15 three members of the committee with a exceptionally large number of
16 activities I was in charge with, and I assisted the president of the
17 committee as I could, in respect of the affairs carried out by the
18 uniformed police, and it is up to the criminal police to investigate the
19 incidents like this. I didn't say that nothing has been done. I just
20 said that I was not aware of that. We could assume that the criminal
21 police also processed this case but never came to a specific results in
22 order to inform me that they have found something.
23 Q. I see.
24 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, could 65 ter 257 be marked for
25 identification, please.
1 JUDGE PARKER: It will be marked.
2 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P380, marked for identification, Your
4 MR. SAXON:
5 Q. General Galevski, could you please turn to what is tab 5 in your
7 MR. SAXON: This is Exhibit P352, Your Honours. It was admitted a
8 week or two ago.
9 If the Macedonian version could be shown to the witness, please.
10 Could the page be turned to -- it's probably now the third page,
11 which is actually the first page of the report. We see the words --
12 Mr. Usher. And could we please go back a page on the screen, please.
13 That's it. This is the second page in the Macedonian version.
14 Q. Could you turn to the second page in the Macedonian version.
15 General Galevski, this is a report called crimes against
16 civilians, abuses by Macedonian forces in Ljuboten, August 10 to 12, 2001.
17 Do you see that? Do you see that title?
18 A. Yes, I see it.
19 Q. This report was published by an organisation called Human Rights
20 Watch and it was published in early September 2001. If we could turn to
21 what is page 2 of the report which would be the third page in the
22 Macedonian version, so if we can go forward one page in the English
23 version, please. Looking for an ERN U000-0100.
24 Okay, can we go forward another page, please.
25 General Galevski, do you see the word "summary" at the top of the
2 A. I do.
3 Q. This is a summary of this report and if you move down to paragraph
4 3 it says this: "Macedonian police forces committed serious abuses during
5 their three-day operation in Ljuboten."
6 Further on in that paragraph it says: "During their Sunday
7 house-to-house attack, police forces shot dead six civilians. One man was
8 killed by police as he tried to close the door to his home when the police
9 entered the yard. Two men were summarily executed by police after they
10 were taken out of the basement in which they were hiding. Another three
11 civilians were shot dead by police after they attempted to flee their
12 home, which had been set afire by police shelling.
13 Two paragraphs further down there's a paragraph beginning
14 with: "The abuse continued."
15 Do you see that, General Galevski?
16 A. Yes, I see it.
17 Q. "The abuse continued for the hundreds of ethnic Albanian civilians
18 who tried to flee Ljuboten. At least three men were beaten unconscious by
19 ethnic Macedonian vigilantes in view of the Macedonian police and one was
20 shot and wounded as he attempted to flee the beating.
21 The next section says: "Over 100 men were arrested and taken to
22 police stations in Skopje where they were subjected to severe beatings."
23 Then the next sentences: "Atulla Qaili, age 35, was taken away
24 alive from the village by police officers and his badly beaten and
25 mutilated corpse was later recovered by family members from the city
2 The next paragraph begins: "The Ljuboten operation was carried out
3 by the Macedonian Ministry of Interior's regular and reservist police
5 General Galevski, did your committee know about these allegations
6 before it wrote its report?
7 A. I read something in the newspapers, if I'm not wrong, if I'm not
8 mistaken. But I have a comment. If I would have read this material at
9 that time I would have surely reacted because as it is mentioned here,
10 there has never been a three-day operation in the village of Ljuboten.
11 Because if one would speak of an operation, that operation lasted for
12 longer period of time because this operations lasted for months, because
13 the tasks of our troops were to guard Skopje, they never acted in Ljuboten
14 because Ljuboten was one of the more peaceful villages at that time
15 because it was known that it is used by the terrorist groups as a
16 logistical base, but --
17 Q. Well, about --
18 A. But there have never been any serious things in the village.
19 Q. I see. You say it was known that the village of Ljuboten was used
20 by the terrorist groups as a logistical base. Tell me, would that
21 knowledge have affected the way the committee carried out its
23 A. I don't understand your question.
24 Q. Well, you said a minute ago that it was known that the village of
25 Ljuboten was used by the terrorist groups as a logistical base. So what I
1 want to know is: Would the knowledge that the village -- that the
2 terrorists were using the village of Ljuboten as a logistical base have
3 affected the way the committee carried out and focussed its investigation?
4 A. It had no impact at all to the conclusion of the commission. And
5 I will repeat again the biggest impact was by the fact that we were not
6 able to enter the village of Ljuboten and make an on-site investigation.
7 That was the main goal of our task, but if you ask me why, if we knew that
8 there were individuals who were terrorists in that village, I say it more
9 responsibly the Macedonian police never took some rigorous or, as it
10 mentions here, I don't think, like overstepping of forces or similar
11 qualifications in places where there were civilians. On the contrary,
12 only -- even on our expense or even not enforcing our tasks completely,
13 the police tried to maintain the peace and order when it was positioned at
14 the check-points in order to avoid the suffering of civilians, and I do
15 not agree with these statements and qualifications because they are
16 arbitrarious [as interpreted].
17 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, there is a noise coming from
18 our booth. If it bothers you, we should call a technician.
19 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, it's a bit difficult for me to see the
20 time but it appears to be very close to 7.00.
21 JUDGE PARKER: It is virtually 7.00.
22 MR. SAXON: Should we break now?
23 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. We resume tomorrow in the afternoon at
25 So we must interrupt the evidence now, and if you could return
1 tomorrow. Thank you, General.
2 We adjourn now for the evening.
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.00 p.m.,
4 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 17th day of July,
5 2007, at 2.15 p.m.