1 Thursday, 19 July 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning.
7 General, may I remind you of the affirmation you made at the
8 beginning of your evidence which still applies.
9 Ms. Residovic.
10 WITNESS: RISTO GALEVSKI [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours.
13 Cross-examination by Ms. Residovic: [Continued]
14 Q. Good morning, General.
15 General, do you remember that yesterday we completed the testimony
16 when I showed you an Official Note by an investigating judge Ognen Stavrev
17 who was not able to enter the village of Ljuboten neither on the 12th nor
18 on the 14th of August, to perform the on-site investigation. Do you
19 remember that?
20 A. Yes, I remember.
21 Q. Considering that the on-site inspection attempts were made by both
22 the judge and the prosecutor it was obvious that they had information
23 about any reasonable grounds to suspect that there were dead people in the
24 village. Is that correct?
25 A. Yes, it is correct.
1 Q. And if you agree with me, General, it would be the Prosecutor only
2 who could start a procedure before -- against some persons if the identity
3 of those persons were known and that procedure would be taken before
4 investigating judge?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Otherwise, the police has no powers to interrogate people as
7 witnesses. They could only gather some information and compose an
8 Official Note on that. Is that correct?
9 A. Yes, it is correct, upon a request of the prosecutor.
10 Q. And the police could hold a citizen, a suspect or any other
11 citizen, in their premises for up to 24 hours. Is that correct?
12 A. Yes, it is correct.
13 Q. After that, persons can be held only if that decision is made by
14 the investigating judge. Is that correct?
15 A. Yes. But in other premises, not inside the police station.
16 Q. The police otherwise had no access to the judicial procedure they
17 can place before a judge. Is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, I am pointed some
20 mistake in the transcript. Maybe it is a different interpretation but it
21 is not a mistake so we may continue.
22 Q. When a person is detained for the duration of detention when they
23 need to in a hospital is that correct that then it is detention guards who
24 are securing his presence at the hospital?
25 A. Yes, court police officers.
1 Q. The court police is outside of the competences of the Ministry of
2 Interior. Is that correct?
3 A. Yes. They are in the Ministry of Justice.
4 Q. Also, the guards in the detention and in the remand prison Sutka
5 are not under the Ministry of Interior. They under the Ministry of
6 Justice. Is that correct?
7 A. Yes, it is correct.
8 Q. All right. Thank you for this information.
9 So after it was not possible to make this on-site investigation,
10 you stated twice already that your committee tried to gather information
11 down your lines of command, down the SVR Skopje lines and down other lines
12 in the hierarchy, to gather information about the events taking place in
13 Ljuboten and you stated that most of the work was done by Goran Mitevski
14 as the president of the committee. Is that correct?
15 A. Yes, it is correct. All the material that's arrived would go
16 directly to him.
17 Q. And can we agree that these are materials that otherwise arrive
18 from police stations up the line of command to the analytics department or
19 to you, your cabinet or through the criminal police, they would come to
20 the cabinet of the under-secretary for the forensic techniques and the
21 information that would arrive on the basis of the operational action,
22 Ramno. Would this be the information that you could have had available
23 when compiling your report?
24 A. Yes, they were available but I will repeat again they were all at
25 the directors, Goran Mitevski's.
1 Q. And as you stated, you relied also on the information that you
2 gathered from your subordinates, from the sector Skopje as well as the
3 part of the ministry of the criminal police which relied on the
4 information that arrived via these routes. Is that correct?
5 A. Yes, it is correct.
6 Q. Is it correct, General, also, that answering the Prosecutor's
7 question you stated that you were convinced that also some persons were
8 interrogated in relation to the events that took place?
9 A. In the police stations there were several peoples who were
10 interviewed, but I could not tell you the number or the police stations
11 where the interviews were taken.
12 Q. And these interviews would be generally a task for the criminal
14 A. Yes, precisely. And this is why I don't have any more precise
15 information because this is it outside of the scope of my work. It does
16 not belong to the uniform police.
17 Q. And, if, General, witness M83 would testify before this court that
18 after the event he was called to provide additional information about the
19 actions that he had taken, that would be in -- that would correspond to
20 this knowledge of yours, that the interviews in the field were conducted
21 before you had compiled this information?
22 A. Very logical.
23 MR. SAXON: Your Honour.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Saxon.
25 MR. SAXON: It might be appropriate to clarify whether witness
1 M-083 was testifying in regard to providing additional information to the
2 committee that this witness was a member of, or was he asked to provide
3 additional information two years later to a second committee, established
4 by a second minister.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
6 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't have the
7 page of transcript here, but it is certain that this witness testified
8 that Blagoja Toskovski called him sometime after the event and asked him
9 to provide additional information. If it is needed, I will find the page
10 in the transcript where this witness testified about that. But my
11 question is simple and I could refrain from asking this witness that
12 question because I could not directly quote the words of the witness but
13 they are in the transcript, and the witness has answered my question in
14 that way if my learned colleague remembers that.
15 JUDGE PARKER: [Previous translation continues] ... Would it not
16 be simple just to confirm whether he is speaking of his committee or the
17 second committee?
18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this witness could
19 not know about the other committee because he was not in the Ministry of
20 Interior then and this it is clear from --
21 JUDGE PARKER: [Previous translation continues] ... Ask the
23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Okay, I apologise.
24 Q. When you said that some people were giving statements and that
25 they were interviewed, did you mean that they were interviewed during the
1 work of your first committee?
2 A. I think that the inspectors from OVR Cair mostly interviewed
3 several persons. That was while the decision related to the first
4 committee was still valid.
5 Q. So these interviews that you are discussing were made before you
6 compiled your report on the 4th of September, 2001. Is that correct?
7 A. I can't say with 100 per cent certainty, but as far as I remember
8 it was so. I remember this from the discussions with the director
10 Q. And would it be correct -- actually, would you agree with the fact
11 that in page 1439 the witness interviewed before this Court testified that
12 he had been called by the authorised officers to provide additional
13 information about what he knows in relation to the events where he
14 personally participated. It was -- those were the interviews conducted at
15 that time?
16 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
17 A. Yes, I would agree.
18 MR. SAXON: Well, Your Honour, it still seems unclear to the
19 Prosecution whether witness M-083 was -- what time-period witness M-083
20 was referring to, whether he was referring to the time-period of
21 August/September 2001 or perhaps the time-period of the second
22 investigative committee that was not established until 2003.
23 JUDGE PARKER: The uncertainty is not with the evidence of this
24 witness but with the evidence of M-083.
25 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you very
1 much. I will leave this question. The testimony of that witness is very
2 clear in the page of transcript that I indicated. It is not necessary for
3 me to ask this witness to repeat what another witness has already
4 testified about before this Court.
5 Thank you very much and I apologise for this interruption.
6 Q. Is it true, General, that during the work of your committee you
7 received requests from the crisis management body, coordination committee
8 to submit certain information to them about the events that took place in
9 Ljuboten, and your information about those events?
10 A. Yes, I think there was such a request. It is not a committee, it
11 is a coordination body for crisis management. It was chaired by the
12 minister Filipovski.
13 Q. Thank you. And apart from the fact that you stated that you
14 received some information down the line of command from Bliznakovski is it
15 also correct that the criminal police for the sector Skopje was also
16 headed by an experienced professional, Petre Stojanovski, and neither you
17 nor director Mitevski had any reason to doubt the information received
18 from him?
19 A. Yes, of course we had full confidence in that.
20 Q. When we discussed the responsibilities of the minister established
21 by the Law on the Bodies of Civil Service, is it correct that one of his
22 responsibilities was to inform the government about the situation in the
23 area covered by him?
24 A. This goes without saying.
25 Q. And the minister has the duty to act upon the conclusions of the
1 government. Is that correct?
2 A. Yes, of course.
3 Q. Are you aware, General, that the report you compiled was reviewed
4 in a government session as well?
5 A. As far as I remember, I think it had been reviewed.
6 Q. Could you please look at the document in tab 12 -- actually, in
7 tab 114, I apologise. This is 65 ter 1D489, 1D4424, and the English is
9 This is a conclusion from a government's meeting, which
10 states: "Information on events and developments in the area of Skopje,
11 village, Ljuboten. The government reviewed the information about the
12 events and developments in the area of the Skopje village, Ljuboten, and
13 adopted it as a material to -- as information material together with
14 suggestions and comments proposed by the coordinated body for crisis
15 management and those that emerged during the session. Furthermore, the
16 government concluded that the minister of the interior and the Ministry of
17 Defence should prepare a joint information with the most recent data in
18 connection with the events and developments in the area of the Skopje
19 village of Ljuboten, which they should submit for government's review."
20 Is it correct, General, that from this conclusion of the
21 government it can be seen that this is a coordinated body and that the
22 government reviewed the information compiled by you?
23 A. Yes, of course it is correct, looking at this document, and I
24 think that this comes from the government.
25 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I would seek to tender this
1 document as Defence exhibit.
2 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As exhibit 1D134, Your Honours.
4 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. I would like to ask you now to look at the document there tab
6 108. This is 65 ter 1D488. 1D4416 is the Macedonian, while 1D4420 is the
7 English text.
8 You see here that the minister Ljube Boskoski submits a note to
9 the coordinated body for crisis management and precisely to the minister
10 Ilija Filipovski whom you have mentioned containing an information about
11 the events in Ljuboten, and of course -- and also information about the
12 events in Tetovo. Does this also corroborate the notion that the minister
13 informed all government bodies and the government itself very openly about
14 the findings you made reviewing the Ljuboten event?
15 A. Yes, it is correct.
16 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I would seek to tender this
17 document as Defence exhibit.
18 Q. Could you please look at the document in tab 109 --
19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, I propose that I
20 didn't wait for your decision. I would seek to tender this document as
21 Defence exhibit, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
23 THE REGISTRAR: As exhibit 1D135, Your Honours.
24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 Q. I would like to ask you now to look at the document in paragraph
1 109 -- in tab 109, 65 ter 241. N000-9253 is the Macedonian, and N000-9251
2 is the English.
3 If we look again at this information, you will agree with me that
4 this is an information that is sent as a memo to the coordinated body, not
5 only about the Ljuboten events, but also it contains a brief review about
6 the Tetovo events. Is that correct?
7 A. Yes, it is correct.
8 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters would kindly ask the counsel to
9 move closer to the microphone or use another microphone. We can't hear
10 her clearly.
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this document as
12 a Defence exhibit.
13 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
14 THE REGISTRAR: As exhibit 1D136, Your Honours.
15 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 Q. Before we move on and discuss other measures to be undertaken
17 after your report was compiled, I would like to ask you to look now at
18 this information in tab 113, and it is now P378. Otherwise, we have it in
19 e-court as 65 ter 239 as a Prosecutor's Exhibit.
20 And I would like to ask you to immediately look at the last page.
21 So this is an opinion, and it starts on the page 5 of this information,
22 and it ends on page 6, while the English text starts on page 4 and ends at
23 page 5.
24 I would like to look at the last paragraph of this opinion of
25 yours, and I would like to ask the interpreters to interpret from the
1 Macedonian text, because I think there are certain problems with the
2 English translation. And in this opinion of yours you state the
3 following: "In conditions of an objectively justified absence of written
4 documents from the on-site investigation and post-mortem of the bodies
5 found in the village of Ljuboten, Skopje region, and in order for the
6 analysis of the issue at stake to be comprehensive and multi-facetted, it
7 is necessary that the competent structures in the Republic of Macedonia
8 undertake legal actions exhumation of the bodies in presence of experts as
9 well as representatives of the interested international organisations,
10 which will have as its consequence undertaking of all necessary legal
11 actions aiming towards ascertaining all relevant facts and reaching the
12 answer to this open essential issue for this case."
13 Do you see this conclusion that you've made?
14 A. Yes, I see it.
15 Q. Is it correct, General, that the absence of on-site inspection, as
16 it is noted here, and a post-mortem was an objective fact due to which you
17 could you not say anything more in this information. Is that correct?
18 A. Precisely. I am repeating this several times already, without an
19 on-site investigation, nothing more could have been undertaken that what
20 had already been.
21 Q. Is it correct, General, that as you state here the following
22 actions could be undertaken only by certain competent structures in the
23 Republic of Macedonia and this competent structures for such affairs are
24 only the investigating judge and the public prosecutor?
25 A. Precisely.
1 Q. This is due to the fact that it is the exclusive competence of the
2 court to order exhumation and post-mortem; such request or such measure
3 could not be ordered by the police to anyone. Is that correct?
4 A. Yes, it is correct. We proposed this, but we could not order
6 Q. Is it also correct that without exhumation and post-mortem of the
7 bodies, first you could not know how many people were killed, what was the
8 status of those people, what killed those people, and under which
9 circumstances they were killed. Is that correct?
10 A. It is correct, yes.
11 Q. And is it also correct that writing this information, you
12 immediately wanted for the procedure to be completely public and
13 transparent so you proposed that there would be international entities
14 participating in the process of exhumation and post-mortem?
15 A. Precisely.
16 Q. So compiling this information you never hid anything that could
17 not be ascertained but you offered a direction of how one could arrive to
18 additional evidence about what took place in the village. Is that
20 A. Yes, it is correct.
21 Q. Considering this proposal that you made, and after the information
22 was reviewed by the government, if I understood your answer well, the one
23 you gave to the Prosecutor, you were not involved any longer in the work
24 of the committee because it was by compiling this information that the --
25 that the committee finished its part of work. Is that correct?
1 A. It is correct.
2 Q. But is it also correct that as a member of the collegium and also
3 because you yourself needed to provide additional information regarding
4 certain measures, you were still aware of measures that were undertaken in
5 the ministry for these events to be clarified in a legitimate way?
6 A. Yes, it is correct. And I still wonder why it was necessary to
7 stop the activities. And it is -- there is never in the applicable
8 legislation in Macedonia that a deadline within which an investigation
9 needs to be completed, stipulated.
10 Q. Is it true, General, that the minister himself was not very
11 satisfied with the fact that until the end of the work of the committee
12 you could not gather all the relevant information and then he presented
13 this dissatisfaction of his very often in the collegium?
14 A. I could not answer briefly by just saying yes or no but I remember
15 very well General Mitevski told me several times that the minister was
16 making pressure on him at least for us to work more intensively. I told
17 him that I took all the measures that I could have taken within the realm
18 of my competencies regarding the uniformed police.
19 Q. Would it be correct if I reminded you of the fact that the
20 assistant to the minister for the city of Skopje, Zoran Efremov, who had a
21 traffic accident that year and he had difficulties in performing his duty
22 was also by the pressure from the minister for this situation to be
23 investigated to the greatest possible extent and that he finally accepted
24 to leave this duty because he thought that he couldn't do more than what
25 had been done before?
1 A. I would agree with this conclusion because I met him -- I met
2 Mr. Efremov often walking on crutches from the minister's office and he
3 was not very happy.
4 Q. And is it also correct that at that time, at the beginning of
5 September, the minister had suspended also Ljupco Andonovski, head for
6 state security of Skopje, because he believed that more could have been
7 done in order to learn yet additional information about what actually took
8 place, and that only after additional clarification, Ljupco Andonovski was
9 reassigned to his duty. Do you remember that?
10 A. Honestly I don't remember details. I know there were personal
11 shifts but when exactly and were they related to this, I could not
13 Q. Considering that you yourself proposed exhumation and post-mortem,
14 and it could have been only proposed formally by the prosecutor and
15 enforced then by investigating judge, is it then true that the Ministry of
16 Interior could not wait any longer for the prosecutor and the judge to do
17 it on their own motion, so already on the 7th of September such motion was
18 sent to the investigating judge and to the public prosecutor for --
19 MR. SAXON: [Previous translation continues] ...
20 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Saxon.
21 MR. SAXON: Sorry for the interruption, but it appears that my
22 colleague is asking the witness to put himself in the mind of the then
23 minister of interior, Mr. Boskoski. Because she is asking the witness,
24 Isn't it true that the -- I heard minister. Did I read it wrong? I now
25 see Ministry of Interior. But it simply appears to me that she's asking
1 this witness to place himself in the mind of the minister and I don't
2 think this witness can do that.
3 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] It says ministry in this line. I
4 never said minister.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Could I suggest that it's a question too far,
7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Very well.
8 Q. Are aware, General, that the ministry raised an initiative with
9 the public prosecutor's office and with the court for the exhumation and
10 the post-mortem to be performed?
11 A. I think yes. I think there were several occasions on which this
12 was proposed.
13 Q. Could you now please look at the document in tab 120, that is 1D33
14 exhibit N000-7332, Macedonian page, and N000-7332-ET, the English page.
15 In the upper left corner you can see that it comes from the
16 Ministry of the Interior, the office of the public security and the date
17 is 7th of September, 2001. It is directed to the prosecutor's office and
18 to the duty investigating judge of the Basic Court II in Skopje. We see
19 in the middle of the document there is a motion for exhumation and autopsy
20 while at page 4 of this document, that is N00335, we can see that it is
21 signed by the director Goran Mitevski. Is this a document of the
22 ministry, General, that raises an initiative to the competent bodies to
23 carry out the exhumation and the autopsy?
24 A. Yes, this is that document.
25 Q. And if we look at the last page of this document, N000-7334,--
1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction 7335.
2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. And the English version is 7334-ET we can see the reason why this
4 initiative was raised whereby it is written that in addition, we think
5 that the proposal for exhumation and autopsy is grounded it should be
6 accepted in order to determine the identity of the five bodies and to
7 establish the cause of the death of the five persons from the Ljuboten
8 village. That is exactly what you proposed in your information. Is that
10 A. Yes, it is.
11 Q. I would like to ask you now to look at the exhibit found in tab
12 121, that is the Exhibit P55. N002-1 --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat the numbers.
14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. In the upper left corner you can see basic public prosecutor's
16 office, arrow number 1098/01 dated 10th of September, 2001, signed by the
17 deputy public prosecutor Dragoljub Cakic. This is ET N002-1148-1.
18 From this document you can see that the public prosecutor
19 immediately reacted at the initiative it was sent from the Ministry of the
20 Interior and asked to conduct certain investigating measures. Is that
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 Q. And according to the law on criminal procedure when the
24 perpetrator is unknown, only certain investigating measure could be
25 undertaken. Investigation could not be requested. Is that correct?
1 A. I'm not sure that I understood your question.
2 Q. According to the Law on the Criminal Procedure of the Republic of
3 Macedonia an investigation could only be carried out against known
4 perpetrators and for a specific act. Is that correct?
5 A. Yes, it is.
6 Q. If the perpetrator is unknown, then the prosecutor could only ask
7 to carry out certain investigating measures that is the case in this
9 A. Yes, the public prosecutor has the right to ask for additional
10 gathering of information in relation to certain events.
11 Q. In paragraph 2 you see that the public prosecutor's office in
12 relation to this case is acting pursuant to the regulation in the law upon
13 the written initiative of the Ministry of Interior. So is it correct that
14 this proposal that the prosecutor is authorised by law to raise and to
15 initiate according to the initiative that was sent to him by the Ministry
16 of Interior. Is it correct?
17 A. Yes, it is. But I would add that there were a lot of oral
18 initiatives in order to start these activities.
19 Q. General, I would like to ask you to look at the document found in
20 tab 123. That is exhibit 1D46, 1D1947, Macedonian version and 1D14-- 1948
21 in the Macedonian [as interpreted] version. In the upper right corner,
22 it-- can you see the number --
23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. This must be exhibit
24 1D46, yes, we have it displayed now.
25 Q. In the upper right corner we can see the number 1D--
1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Do we have the English translation
2 displayed? We still don't have it. 1D1948.
3 Q. In the Macedonian text in the upper right corner we see the number
4 ID.number.601/01. This number is not recorded in the English translation.
5 This is the number of the file under which certain cases
6 registered in the court. Isn't that correct?
7 A. I think it is correct.
8 Q. You can see that this is an Official Note of the investigating
9 judge Dragan Nikolovski, and if we look at its contents we can see that on
10 the 14th of September, 2001, the judge organised a meeting at the
11 institute for forensic medicine and criminalistics whereby the
12 representatives of this institute were present as well as the public
13 prosecutor Dragoljub Cakic as well as representatives of the minister of
14 the interior, from the homicide department, from the sector of the
15 Ministry of Interior of Skopje.
16 Do you see that, General?
17 A. Yes, I see it.
18 Q. Does that mean that the judge also very soon after he received the
19 proposal from the public prosecutor, reacted and started to carry out
20 measures that are necessary in order to initiate an exhumation procedure
21 for the bodies?
22 A. Yes, he reacted immediately -- that the court reacted immediately.
23 Q. Please look now at the document in tab 124. That is exhibit
24 1D73. The page is N005-0754, and the English version is N005-0754-ET.
25 This is an Official Note composed by two employees of the Ministry
1 of Interior, and if we look at the very beginning of this Official Note it
2 speaks that on the 14th of September in the premises of the institute for
3 forensics medicine and criminology a consultative meeting has been held at
4 which the judge, investigating judge Dragan Nikolovski was present and it
5 was related to the exhumation and the autopsy of the persons in Ljuboten.
6 This is an Official Note that also confirms that the investigating judge
7 held a meeting in relation to prepare the exhumation and the autopsy. Is
8 it correct?
9 A. Yes, I think this the same meeting at which -- for which the
10 investigating judge has provided a note. We can see that these are the
11 two colleagues from the Ministry of Interior who have filed this Official
13 Q. And if we look at the last paragraph on the first page, we will be
14 able to see that it reads: "Dr. Aleksej Duma, affirmed his willingness to
15 effect the exhumation and autopsy following the previously received order
16 from the IJ," meaning investigating judge, "and also stated that in order
17 to avoid any subsequent manipulation of the autopsy results of the buried
18 remains in the village of Ljuboten, he will arrange for supervisors to be
19 present during the investigation in the form of competent individuals from
20 the Skopje office of The Hague Tribunal.
21 Do you agree with me that not only you but also there were other
22 participants who wanted to find out what has happened in Ljuboten asked
23 hat the international community and this Tribunal are present when this
24 exhumation and autopsy were to take place?
25 A. Yes, you are correct.
1 Q. Please look at document in tab 127. That is exhibit P99. The
2 page is 1D1895, and the English version is 1D1900.
3 General, as we can see, this is an information coming from the
4 public prosecutor's office of the Republic of Macedonia dated the 18th of
5 November, 2001. So is it correct if we look at this title that this
6 information also refers to the questions of taking certain measures in
7 order to clarify the situation about what has happened in Ljuboten in the
8 period of 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th of August, 2001. So the state
9 public prosecutor's office was attempting to carry out this exhumation and
10 autopsy. Would you agree with me that this is line with what you know,
11 that the public prosecutor Stavre Dzikov participated in some meetings in
12 the ministry. That is the person signing this information.
13 A. Yes, completely correct. The very title of the information speaks
14 of the content although I could not comment the content because I have not
15 seen it until now.
16 Q. I would like to ask to you look at the last page of this
17 information which is 1D1899 and the English version is 1D1902. In the
18 last paragraph of this information, the public prosecutor of the Republic
19 of Macedonia writes that it is of utmost importance to point out that the
20 locals of the village of Ljuboten never asked to meet the public
21 prosecutor of the Republic of Macedonia, nor have they submitted any
22 written reports of information on the events happening on the indicated
23 date in the sense of Article 144, paragraph, of the Law on Criminal
24 Procedure which would provide us using -- which would allow us to use the
25 institute for -- for -- about the rumours heard.
1 So if we can see here, none of the local residents asked any-- for
2 any activities in the -- and they have never -- is this information in
3 line with your knowledge that the Albanian population at that time was
4 not -- did not want to contact the state bodies at all at that time?
5 A. Yes, this confirms it.
6 Q. As we saw from your information, and that was the information from
7 the meeting held together at the institute of forensic medicine, you would
8 agree with me that your efforts to involve the international community
9 were ongoing. Is that correct?
10 A. Yes, it is.
11 Q. But is it correct that you felt that the international community
12 does not want to give you the appropriate assistance, assistance that was
13 given in the case of Aracinovo although you did not know what were the
14 real reasons for this to happen. Was this your opinion at that time as I
15 say it now?
16 A. I can't surely say that did want to help the representatives of
17 the international community, especially the NATO people who I contacts
18 with most frequently, but their advice by them was they would cause a
19 greater incident if they would attempt to do it. Although I personally
20 think that if they tried to explain the Ljuboten residents in some correct
21 manner that a judicial investigating procedure is in course, that an
22 on-site investigation is going to be carried and the police is not going
23 to cause any problems, I'm sure that that would be completed in the best
25 But I will repeat again. Unfortunately, that did not take place.
1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour, briefly.
2 Q. I would like to ask you now to look at the document found in tab
3 132. I would like to ask you to look at the document found in tab 129
4 first. That is Exhibit P55. The number is N002-1146-10188
5 [as interpreted]. The English is N002-1234.
6 General, in the -- again in the upper left corner we can see that
7 the public prosecutor's office of the Republic of Macedonia on the 21st of
8 January, 2002 -- as Exhibit P55, number N002-1146-088, and the English
9 version is N002-1234.
10 So the state public prosecutor, Stavre Dzikov, with this
11 information, asks for a meeting on 31st of January, 2001 --
12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, 30th of January.
13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. -- in respect to the events in Ljuboten on the 10th, 11th, and
15 12th of August, 2001. Do you see that this is a call for a meeting?
16 A. Yes, I see it.
17 Q. Do you agree with me that this communication also speaks that the
18 competent bodies, the public prosecutor and the court, are taking measures
19 in order to carry out an exhumation and an autopsy but it is obvious that
20 they were not able to do that by themselves?
21 A. Yes, it is correct.
22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This should be a meeting that took
23 place on the 30th of January, 2001.
24 Q. Please now look --
25 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] 30th of January, 2002. The
1 information is of 22nd of January, 2002, and that is a call for a meeting
2 that needs to take place on the 30th of January -- the text makes it
3 wrong, actually. This is supposed to be 2002, not 2001.
4 Q. Now, please look into tab [No interpretation]. [In English]
5 meeting for Ljuboten case. On 30 January --
6 Do you hear the translation, general?
7 A. Yes, I hear it.
8 Q. "[In English] On 30 January 2002 EUMM attend a meeting at the
9 public prosecution department regarding events in Ljuboten on 10 to 12
10 August 2001. Among those present were deputy public prosecutor Dragoljub
11 Cakic, Professor Aleksander Duma of the department of forensic medicine
12 and president of appellation court Ms. Filimena Manevska, Mr. Andrzej
13 Szydlik of the ICTY, Ambassador Klaus Voellers of NATO, EUMM and OSCE
14 represented the IC. Public prosecutor Mr. Stavre Dzikov chaired the
15 meeting. The local authorities explained very briefly that the security
16 forces had acted against terrorists in Ljuboten during three days from 10
17 to 12 August 2001 after a mine incident in area on 10 August 2001 in which
18 eight soldiers were killed and another eight wounded. They stated that
19 there is unconfirmed information about 12 to 13 people having been killed
20 in Ljuboten during the action by the security forces and about five of
21 those having been buried in the village.
22 "Comment, the Human Rights Watch report of the incident claims
23 that the operation left ten civilians dead and resulted in the arrest of
24 more than 100 men, and refers to a government newscast on 12 August 2001
25 to the effect that minister of interior, Mr. Ljube Boskoski was present at
1 the scene that day.
2 As it turned out the meeting of 30 January 2002 concerned the
3 identification of the five bodies allegedly buried in Ljuboten since the
4 events of August 2001. Ambassador Voellers raised the issue of
5 investigating what actually happened, if crimes were committed and if so,
6 by whom, would be held responsible. Mr. Dzikov avoided giving a straight
7 answer to the question, claiming that investigation -- investigating teams
8 were ready to enter the village on 12 and 14 August but had been prevented
9 from doing so. The focus of the discussion remained on the possibility of
10 conducting an exhumation in Ljuboten to ascertain the identity of the five
12 "The ICTY presented a number of conditions regarding a possible
13 exhumation in Ljuboten. There should be no uniformed police present in
14 the exhumation site and no special forces. Security should be provided by
15 NATO in the presence of OSCE and EUMM. Max two bodies should be removed
16 from the site at one time to be taken to Skopje for examination and then
17 returned to the site before any more bodies were taken to Skopje.
18 "The Macedonian presence at the scene should be limited to what
19 would be essential for the investigation. The ICTY should be provided
20 with copy of all relevant documentation and if relatives of those buried
21 want to be present at the exhumation site, this should be permitted and
22 ICTY requested a written commitment from the authorities to act in
23 compliance with these demands at the request of Mr. Dzikov," and so on.
24 [Interpretation] General, I would like to ask you two things in
25 respect to this report of NATO about a meeting of 30th of January. Is it
1 correct that the state prosecutor clearly mentions here that the competent
2 bodies of the Republic of Macedonia were not able to enter Ljuboten on the
3 12th and the 14th?
4 A. Yes, that is correct that the prosecutor confirms it but also that
5 the ICTY representative confirms it in the last paragraph of this letter,
6 thereby suggesting to avoid having uniformed police over there. This is
7 sometime the beginning of 2002, and the event took place in mid-2001 so
8 even five or six months later the situation is such that the police is not
9 able to make an on-site investigation.
10 Q. That was my next question. Is it clear here, General, that
11 international community is of the position that the police should not make
12 an on-site investigation in the village?
13 A. Yes, that is correct.
14 Q. My learned colleague showed you the Human Rights Watch report
15 published on the 5th or 6th of September, 2001, and you said that you have
16 heard something about the content of that report in the media. Do you
17 remember that?
18 A. Yes, that is correct.
19 Q. In the recommendations that the Human Rights Watch directs to the
20 government of the Republic of Macedonia, it is requested to carry out an
21 impartial investigation by impartial bodies and already then, so that was
22 the beginning of September, it has been said that the police should not --
23 the Ministry of Interior should not participate in that investigation. Is
24 that fact contained in the report helping you to understand the problems
25 why you, as a police, were not able to carry out certain actions?
1 A. I couldn't even today say what are the reasons. I can only assume
2 but without facts I would not be able to make a conclusion. Although, it
3 was really strange.
4 Q. Thank you. Is it correct, General, that the residents of the
5 village of Ljuboten didn't want to communicate with police representatives
6 at that time?
7 A. There was such a problem for a long period of time. I very well
8 recall the implementation plan to return the police in this crisis areas.
9 The Ljuboten village, in that time, was one of the peaceful areas, but
10 after these events it entered the group of crisis villages.
11 Q. Could you look, General, now at the document in tab 131. This is
12 exhibit 1D9, page 1D1140. This document, General, contains the notes
13 compiled at the meeting between the members of the deceased family -- the
14 families of the deceased people in Ljuboten and representatives of
15 international organisations such as the OSCE and the ICTY. Do you see
16 this document before you?
17 A. Yes, only in English version.
18 Q. You can see here in paragraph 2 that this meeting was held on
19 Friday, March the 8th, 2002. Do you see this?
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 Q. If you look at the second page, 1D1141, at the very bottom it
22 says: "[In English] There was initial resistance by the spokesman of the
23 crisis community Mr. Saliu Kenan about the involvement of the Republic of
24 Macedonia agency. Feeling obviously running high and there was talk of
25 noncooperation by the villagers."
1 [Interpretation] What was said by the head of the crisis centre at
2 the meeting? Does it also show that the villagers were not ready to
3 discuss with the representatives of state authorities of Macedonia and do
4 you agree with that from what you know from 2001?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction 2002.
7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Now I'd like to ask to you look at the document in tab 132. This
9 is Exhibit P55, number N002-1146-048, and the English version is
11 You are certainly aware, General, that under the conditions
12 established by the ICTY at this meeting of January the 30th, eventually
13 started the preparations for the exhumation and autopsy of the corpses in
14 Ljuboten. Are you aware of the fact that this exhumation and autopsy were
15 being prepared?
16 A. I think that at that time I was at the police academy, but
17 followed this events through the media, the television, and press. And I
18 know that they did occur.
19 Q. From the exhibit you have before you, this is an order from the
20 investigating judge of the Basic Court Skopje II, you can see on the left
21 corner see this number, ED number 601-01. Do you see that?
22 A. No, not really.
23 Q. On the upper right corner there is an ID number 601/01, this is
24 the number that you saw before when the exhumation was proposed. Do you
1 A. Yes. This is an identification number, ID number.
2 Q. If you see the preamble of this order from the judge, you will see
3 that even when the international community involved and helped for the
4 exhumation and autopsy to start, that this issue is still recorded under
5 the number, under the same number as it was recorded when it was proposed
6 and the preamble itself says that the investigating judge of Basic Court
7 Skopje II, Dragan Nikolovski, acting upon the proposal and undertaking
8 certain investigation measures recorded under arrow number 1098/01 dated
9 10th of September, 2001, submitted by the basic public prosecution office
10 Skopje on exhumation and autopsy in accordance with Article 244 and 246 of
11 the code of criminal procedure adopted on 3rd April 2002.
12 So if we see this, you will agree that the initiative of September
13 the 7th that the prosecutor accepted on September the 10th and the
14 investigating judge immediately acted upon could not be executed unless
15 the international community accepted to participate in these exhumation
16 and autopsy procedure.
17 Is this entirely clear from this document?
18 A. Yes, it is entirely clear. This is the moment after which the
19 procedure started to get normal.
20 Q. But the procedure to know the facts, the true facts was in fact
21 started by the Ministry of Interior, by proposing an exhumation an
23 A. Yes, that's correct.
24 Q. If we go back now to the commission that was proposed by the
25 minister would you agree with me that by selecting Goran Mitevski as an
1 honest and experienced connoisseur of the police affairs that in fact the
2 minister appointed the true person that would know how and in which way
3 and pursuant to the laws the issues related to Ljuboten would be
4 adequately cleared out. Is this conclusion correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. But all your -- all the efforts that you invested could not give
7 adequate results because, from the very beginning you didn't have the
8 support from the international community and neither did the citizens of
9 the -- the residents of the village of Ljuboten wanted to cooperate and
10 give support to the authorities of the Republic of Macedonia. Is that
12 A. Yes, that's correct.
13 Q. My learned colleague showed to you also a document related to the
14 European commission on torture and inhuman treatment. I think this is how
15 it is called, torture prevention and inhuman treatment. Do you remember
16 that kind of document?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. And this document, as you could see, when it was shown to you,
19 that this information or that this report was submitted on January 16th,
20 2003. Do you remember that this was a date after which you were not
21 anymore with the ministry and after Ljube Boskoski was not minister
23 A. Yes, it was over a year. That was not at the interior ministry
25 Q. But this was -- document was marked for identification but we will
1 now go back to that document as of now. It is it important to say that
2 the visit that is referred to a meeting held on 21st to 26th of October
3 2001. Were you told at the time that your investigation was --
4 A. I didn't understand.
5 Q. Did anyone from the international community ever say to you that
6 the investigation that you had conducted was a sham investigation? Has
7 anyone told you that ever?
8 A. No, no one ever told me something like that.
9 Q. Has ever the government of the Republic of Macedonia told you that
10 what you did was something that was invented and faked and not true effort
11 to -- to reveal the truth?
12 A. No, the government adopted that information.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Could please the counsel slow down.
14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Is it correct that acting upon the conclusion of the government to
16 make a joint information with the defence ministry you submitted a draft
17 information to the Ministry of Defence and proposed the way in which the
18 work should continue?
19 Please look at the document in tab 115.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note would Ms. Residovic be so
21 kind to slow down a little. It is really difficult to interpreter
22 precisely at this pace.
23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This is 65 ter 1D --
24 Your Honour, I have been rightfully warned by the interpreters to
25 slow down, but yesterday I said I would finish before the break, but I
1 think I would need 15 minutes more after the break and this is the reason
2 why I am speeding up in order to comply with my promise given to the
3 Court. So would you allow me to -- 15 minutes to continue after the break
4 to continue my cross-examination?
5 JUDGE PARKER: The other way of complying with your time
6 indications is not to ask about so many things or to ask about them at
7 such length. I have mentioned that to start to encourage a greater
8 attention to the need for each question.
9 But you will certainly be able to finish after the break.
10 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Mr. General, before you you have a letter that minister of the
12 internal affairs sent to the Ministry of Defence. It is signed by the
13 sate secretary of the ministry of internal affairs, Branko Bojcevski. Do
14 you see this document?
15 A. Yes, I think I do, addressed to the state secretary of the defence
17 Q. The subject of this letter to the Ministry of Defence is a
18 proposal for a joint report, preparation for joint report. Do you
19 remember that before we saw the conclusion of the government that it is
20 necessary to compile a joint information, do you remember this conclusion
21 adopted by the government?
22 A. Yes, I do.
23 Q. Does this letter from the Ministry of Internal Affairs offering to
24 the defence ministry a working draft of a document and offering a way in
25 which to proceed is in fact a rapid reaction to fulfilling the conclusions
1 of the government. Is this correct?
2 A. Yes, that's correct.
3 Q. In addition to these concrete measures that you try to undertake
4 and you undertook in order to understand exactly what happened in the
5 given dates in and around Ljuboten, could you please tell me, General,
6 that the ministry, at the same time, was very seriously looking into the
7 suggestions related to some problems within the ministry itself, and as of
8 2001 started with systemic changes in the ministry in order to eliminate
9 an impossible mistakes in the work of the police officers?
10 A. The changes were being done all the time, but at the end of 2001,
11 after the framework agreement, as far as the equitable representation of
12 the non-majority part of the population, a very serious part of this
13 changes started in the ministry.
14 Q. Yesterday you said that 109 Albanian police officers had been
15 employed in September. Is that correct?
16 A. Yes, that's correct.
17 Q. That year, also a training of several hundreds of police officers
18 started in accordance with NATO standards. Is this correct?
19 A. Yes, that's correct. In the beginning of 2002, if it is relevant
20 for the Court, I would clarify that as of September 2001, the training of
21 109 police officers was conducted by the American embassy in Skopje, while
22 in 2002 the training was taken over by OSCE.
23 Q. And your decision to transfer to an institution that would do the
24 training of new personnel in order to have police officers that would be
25 released of all [indiscernible] and past burdens is one of the reasons why
1 you requested, in fact, to be transferred to the police academy. Is this
3 A. Yes. This was a new challenge for me and I was very pleased to
4 start that job.
5 Q. At the same time, all the police stations were sent and all police
6 administrations were sent instructions with precise -- precisely requiring
7 respect of human rights and all the rights of people that are brought in,
8 in police stations. Do you remember this?
9 A. Yes. In the interior ministry we also prepared some small flyers
10 containing instructions for all the police officers on the ground, both
11 active police officers and reservist police officers and there were also
12 large posters containing the instructions of how a person that was brought
13 in a police station should be treated.
14 Q. Just one question before the break.
15 At the time the cooperation with Danish competent institutions
16 with the Helsinki committee of OSCE started, and together with them, a
17 small brochure was prepared on the same issues and it was delivered to all
18 police stations. Do you remember that?
19 A. Yes, I remember that.
20 Q. Minister Boskoski signed also the agreement with the bar
21 association of the Republic of Macedonia because he thought that the
22 obligatory presence of a lawyer at the police station would be the best
23 way to prevent any possible abuse of power. Is this correct?
24 A. I think it is correct. I wanted to say this before. Minister
25 Boskoski is also signature of the -- of the agreement for the training of
1 ethnic police officers, if I can call them like that.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, maybe it is now time
4 to adjourn, and I won't have -- I won't need more than 15 minutes after
5 the break, and I will try to be even shorter. Thank you for allowing me
6 to do so.
7 JUDGE PARKER: We will resume at 11.00.
8 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
9 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
11 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, very briefly.
12 The Chamber will recall that during the first session there was
13 some discussion about the testimony of witness M-083 and the Prosecution
14 made an objection because it was unclear to the Prosecution whether
15 witness M-083 had spoken with Mr. Blagoja Toskovski during the work of the
16 first committee, August of 2001 or during the work of the second committee
17 in early or late 2003 and the Prosecution has now had an opportunity to
18 see the transcript of witness M-083's testimony and it's clear from the
19 record that witness M-083 was referring to August 2001, that is, the
20 time-period of the committee for which this witness was a member, and so
21 the line of questioning of my colleague was -- was proper.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for that. Ms. Residovic's recollection
23 was accurate then. Thank you.
24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I thank my learned colleague.
25 Before I start asking questions, I would like ask Your Honours to
1 receive the tab 115 as Defence exhibit. This is a proposal to prepare a
2 joint report with the Ministry of Defence which has been shown to the
4 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] 65 ter 14 -- 1D490.
6 THE REGISTRAR: [Previous translation continues] ... 137, Your
8 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. General, when my learned colleague the Prosecutor asked you you
10 stated that you did not have good relations and you don't have good
11 relations to this very day with the third member of the committee. Is
12 that correct?
13 A. Yes, it is correct.
14 Q. However, you as a member of the collegium of the minister surely
15 know that during that time there were problems in the work of your
16 colleague, the under-secretary for criminal police, that he was often
17 absent from work because of medical checkups?
18 MR. SAXON: [Previous translation continues] ...
19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
20 MR. SAXON: Can we go into private session, please.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Private.
22 [Private session]
11 Page 3819 redacted. Private session.
6 [Open session]
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
8 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. After the Ohrid agreement was signed, you personally and your
10 associates were tasked with returning the people from the place -- to the
11 places from which they were expelled. Is that correct?
12 A. Yes. People who were displaced from their homes and also was
13 tasked with establishing a normal regime of police patrols in those
15 Q. You remember that already that in early Autumn had you a
16 conference together with the minister and Goran Mitevski a press
17 conference where you explained which were the tasks for the police that
18 would enable the return of people to their homes?
19 A. Yes. I believe that this conference took place in the round hall
20 in the government's building.
21 Q. I will remind you, actually, I will put to you, General, that the
22 Prosecutor has offered P286 -- P276 as a video recording of that press
23 conference and it was received and the text of that video recording is in
24 tab 148, and this exhibit states that in that conference you stated that
25 the plan jointly prepared for this return in several stages and that the
1 first stage involves places under the least risk and in Skopje this would,
2 among the others, Ljuboten.
3 But my question is, General, is it correct that later because of
4 the significant problems with the return of the police to Ljuboten there
5 was a change of plan, and Ljuboten has been characterised as a location
6 under great risk. Do you remember that?
7 A. Yes, I remember.
8 Q. Could be please look at the document in tab 149. That is 65 ter
9 1D484, 1D4332 is Macedonian, and 1D4333 is the English text.
10 You have in front of you a document from the police department,
11 23rd of 11, 2001 is the date, and you have signed it, if I remember
13 A. Yes. I prepared this plan.
14 Q. And this is the annex to the main -- to the general plan, and from
15 the second paragraph one can see that there was change with regard to the
16 return of the security forces in the following settlement and in line 1 it
17 says in sector Skopje, Gornje Mojance, Orlanci [phoen] and Ljuboten. Is
18 that correct?
19 A. [No audible response]
20 Q. I would like to --
21 A. It is correct.
22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this document as
23 an exhibit.
24 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
25 THE REGISTRAR: As exhibit 1D138. And as the transcript did not
1 record the previous one, it was 65 ter 1D490 received as exhibit 1D137,
2 Your Honours.
3 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 Q. Could you please look now at the document in tab 150, General.
5 This is 65 ter 403, N004-9830, and the English is N004-9830-ET.
6 And I would like to ask to you move to the third page immediately,
7 that is N004-9832. And the English, N004-9831-ET, and it continues on the
8 next page.
9 You can see in this information about the security situation in
10 the crisis regions that the area of Skopje is described. In the second
11 paragraph it is stated, second paragraph of the Macedonian text: "In the
12 Skopje region on the 3rd of December, 2001, in the area of village
13 Ljuboten at the location Basinec and Kales Mara a group of several armed
14 persons attacked the positions of the army of the Republic of Macedonia."
15 Do you see that?
16 A. Yes, I see it.
17 Q. Were this incident and the similar ones which took place in
18 Ljuboten and around it, the reason why the security forces could not enter
19 Ljuboten before 2002?
20 A. Yes, it is correct.
21 Q. Could you please look now at the document in tab 151. This is 65
22 ter 1D461, 1D4246. This is a document which is part of 65 ter 268, and
23 this is why I will give his English enumeration as well. This is a plan
24 for return of the security forces into the regions where the displaced
25 persons were returned. Is that correct?
1 A. Yes, I think it is correct, although I have the version in the
2 English language here.
3 Q. But it says plan for the return of the security forces [In
4 English] [Previous translation continues] ... Return of the displaced
6 A. Yes, I know it, because we gave an English copy of it to the
7 representatives of the international community.
8 Q. [Interpretation] And this plan of -- for return also forces with
9 regards to the Skopje region, the village of Ljuboten as a place which
10 could not be entered in the first stage. It is, rather, a settlement
11 which is still under security risk and it should be entered into in a
12 later stage.
13 Do you remember that this plan provided this?
14 A. Yes, it is correct.
15 Q. Thank you very much.
16 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we would seek to
17 tender this document as Defence exhibit.
18 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] As well as the previous document,
20 65 ter 1D484, which -- no. 65 ter 403, that is the information about the
21 security situation. And it is in tab 150.
22 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 THE REGISTRAR: 403 will be received as exhibit 1D139, and 65 ter
25 1D461 as exhibit 1D140, Your Honours.
1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. General, you refer that when asked by the Prosecutor you actually
3 explained your conversation with Mr. Boskoski at the moment when the topic
4 of the discussion was the mode in which to provide for the Albanian
5 population and you then stated that the -- your place of birth does not
6 contain mixed population while Ljube Boskoski was born where Albanians and
7 Macedonians lived together. Do you remember that?
8 A. Yes, I remember.
9 Q. And knowing Mr. Boskoski, you can confirm before this Court that
10 he held no prejudice on either ethnic, national or religious basis towards
11 the peoples or towards his associates?
12 A. Yes, you are completely right. I would also add that we had
13 visited his native village, Celopak, several times and apart from his
14 neighbours, Macedonians, he also shook hands with the other residents,
15 Albanians. They were true neighbours.
16 Q. So he grew up together with the Albanians and he has friends
17 Albanians to this very date. Is it so?
18 A. Yes, I think it is correct. I have never heard him say a bad word
19 about the Albanians in general.
20 Q. His deputy throughout the crisis was an Albanian, and he are
21 friends to this very date?
22 A. I think, yes.
23 Q. And the last question I wish to ask you, General, you know that
24 pursuant to the framework agreement the Law on Amnesty was in preparation
25 and it was adopted?
1 A. Yes, it is correct.
2 Q. And am I understanding it correctly if I state that this amnesty
3 was provided for any person who was related to the conflict, without
4 making any distinction or division on national or ethnic or religious
6 A. Yes. It applied to everyone.
7 Q. And is it correct that this law provided that if there would be a
8 reasonable ground to suspect that a person had committed a crime but the
9 procedure was not instigated still, the procedure would not be instigated
10 at all?
11 A. Yes, it is correct.
12 Q. Is it correct that pursuant to this law, if a procedure against a
13 person had been instigated, then the procedure needed to be terminated.
14 Is that correct?
15 A. Yes, it is correct.
16 Q. Is it correct that if a person had been sentenced, then the
17 serving of the sentence needed to be terminated immediately?
18 A. Yes, it is correct.
19 Q. And is it correct that pursuant to that law, only later, so after
20 the adoption of the law in February 2002, even if it was found that a
21 police officer had abused the powers of his office, then the bodies of the
22 Republic of Macedonia would not be able to instigate a criminal procedure
23 against him, because that would be in breach to the Law on Amnesty. The
24 only exception was the possibility for the procedure to continue if it had
25 already been instigated before the International Tribunal. Is that
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Thank you very much.
4 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have concluded my
5 cross-examination of this witness.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
7 We understand from what you said yesterday, Mr. Apostolski, that
8 you have no questions. Is that still the position?
9 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. I have no
10 questions of this witness.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much.
12 Mr. Saxon.
13 Re-examination by Mr. Saxon:
14 Q. General Galevski, my colleague just asked you a couple of
15 questions about the amnesty law that was adopted in February 2002, and you
16 explained that if it -- even if it had been found that a police officer
17 had abused his powers, the bodies of the Republic of Macedonia would not
18 be able to instigate a criminal procedure against him because that would
19 be in breach of the law of amnesty. Do you recall that?
20 A. Yes, I recall.
21 Q. Well, would -- would it have been possible for the Ministry of
22 Interior to discipline a police officer for an abuse or abuses committed
23 prior to the adoption of the Law on Amnesty in February 2002?
24 A. I think that there is no retractive application.
25 Q. I don't know what that means. Can you say that in layman's
2 A. The law applied only to cases related to the conflict, which means
3 that if a police officer had abused powers in another way, of course the
4 disciplinary measures would apply.
5 Q. If a police officer had abused his powers -- if a police officer
6 had abused his or her powers in some way -- in a way that was related to
7 the conflict, could the Ministry of Interior still initiate disciplinary
8 proceedings or enforce disciplinary proceedings against that officer, even
9 after the passage of the amnesty law?
10 A. I think that the Law on Amnesty is clear and the disciplinary
11 responsibility is much lesser and insignificant compared to the criminal
12 responsibility. So if the public prosecutor and investigating judge are
13 not investigating a procedure for a person to be tried ex officio, then
14 the disciplinary responsibility becomes minor, insignificant.
15 Q. Does the Law on Amnesty that was adopted in February 2002 bar,
16 prohibit, Ministry of Interior from disciplining its police officers?
17 A. I think that the question is very complex. Certainly the Ministry
18 of Interior has forever and during the tenure of Mr. Boskoski had the
19 orientation to instruct and train its officers and make them upgrade their
20 skills, in order for them to --
21 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
22 A. -- to perform the tasks.
23 Q. What I asked you can be answered in just yes or no or I don't
24 know. I will repeat my question again.
25 Does the Law on Amnesty that was adopted in February 2002, did
1 that law prohibit the Ministry of Interior from disciplining police
2 officers for abuses committed during the conflict? Can you say yes, no,
3 or you don't know?
4 A. I couldn't answer this.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, I don't know how to
6 answer this.
7 MR. SAXON:
8 Q. All right. You told my learned colleague this morning that at the
9 end of 2001 systematic changes began to be made in the Ministry of
10 Interior in order to eliminate mistakes in the work of police officers.
11 Do you recall that?
12 A. Yes.
13 THE INTERPRETER: And the interpreters kindly ask for the noise in
14 the courtroom to be minimised. People are shuffling of pages. It really
15 impedes us in our work.
16 MR. SAXON:
17 Q. Were these reforms that were implemented beginning in late 2001,
18 were these encouraged by representatives of the international community
19 then working in Macedonia?
20 A. No. Because the intentions for such reforms dated a lot earlier
21 than 2001, a lot before the conflict. Thanks to the representatives of
22 the international community, they were actually implemented in the
24 Q. What kind of mistakes were these reforms intended to eliminate?
25 A. I don't know what mistakes you refer to. The mistakes that
1 employees are held responsible of are enumerated in the collective
2 agreement, while the reforms in the police started after the -- in
3 accordance with the -- with the obligations coming out from the
4 stabilisation association agreement with the European Union which was
5 signed somewhere in April 2001.
6 Q. I'm going to interrupt you there. Page 33 of the transcript this
7 morning, my colleague put to you the proposition that in late 2001
8 systematic changes began to be made in the Ministry of the Interior to
9 eliminate mistakes in the work of police officers, and you agreed with
10 that. So tell us, please, what kind of mistakes were these reforms
11 intended to eliminate, or if you don't know, you can say you don't know.
12 A. I wouldn't be able to respond in details, but, generally, yes,
13 because the police had inherited from the previous regime and it was high
14 time to change it in accordance with European standards. Therefore to
15 make an organisation and the police that would be in accordance with
16 police in the European countries.
17 Q. Okay. On Tuesday, General, at page 3660 of the transcript, you
18 explained that Minister Boskoski was one of the rare ministers of the
19 interior who convened the collegium of his closest advisors and
20 subordinates. Do you recall that?
21 A. This is my personal opinion, different from other ministers, he
22 almost regularly held such staff meetings. His -- the minister before him
23 did not that so regularly and his successors almost never had such staff
24 meetings. He nurtured this team-work.
25 Q. Yes. General Galevski, why did Mr. Boskoski hold these regular
1 meetings of the collegium; do you know?
2 A. Probably he thought this was the best for the work of the
3 ministry, to have all highest-ranking officials who would exchange among
4 each others, report each one on the area they cover, and to coordinate
5 their joint work on the ground.
6 Q. You mentioned that Minister Boskoski regularly convened these
7 meetings. How often during the crisis time of summer 2001 would
8 Mr. Boskoski convene such meetings? Daily, weekly, more than once a day?
9 A. I think there was not a precise pattern. Sometimes it was in one
10 day or two days but at least there was one meeting per week and this
11 depended also on the situation and on the problems on the ground.
12 Q. Sure. That makes sense. So during times of particular tension
13 when there was heavy fighting on the ground and soldiers or police
14 officers were killed, would the collegium be convened more frequently?
15 A. I wouldn't be able to precisely say in what kind of situation. I
16 know that we were very often in the cabinet of the minister where these
17 collegiums were held.
18 Q. All right. Yesterday at page 3742 of the transcript you explained
19 how in June of 2001 the public in Macedonia was very disturbed when they
20 heard that the police and the army were withdrawing from Aracinovo. Do
21 you remember explaining that?
22 A. Yes, exactly.
23 Q. So both police and army units participated in the fighting at
25 A. Yes, that's correct.
1 Q. You explained yesterday at page 3742 of the transcript that you
2 received personally from Minister Boskoski "the order to withdraw from
4 Now, just to be clear, that order from Minister Boskoski only
5 applied to the withdrawal of police units; correct?
6 A. That's correct. The minister issued to me that task but maybe it
7 was not noted exactly not to withdraw from the ground but to stop with
8 these activities.
9 Q. And after that order was issued by the Minister Boskoski, were the
10 activities of the police at Aracinovo stopped?
11 A. Yes, they did.
12 Q. Yesterday at page 3750 of the transcript you also explained that
13 during joint combat operations carried out by the police and army in
14 2001, "the question remained open, who is superior to whom, or who
15 commands to whom?"
16 Do you remember explaining that to the Chamber?
17 A. I think I said it as I will repeat it now. There was a dilemma
18 within the state leadership while us with the defence leadership, we
19 didn't have any problem and we were not burdened by who was in charge of
20 what. We just were interested in conducting our work professionally.
21 Q. Okay. So -- but in a practical sense, during those joint
22 operations, police commanders retained some level of command authority
23 over the police officers in their units.
24 A. I don't understand you. Who were the ones that had command
1 Q. I'm sorry. So during those joint operations in which both army
2 units and police units were involved, police commanders, commanders of the
3 police units, retained some level of command authority over the police
4 officers in their units.
5 A. Yes, of course.
6 Q. For example, police commanders operating in those joint operations
7 could still discipline their subordinates for infractions or misconduct.
8 Would that be fair?
9 A. Yes, of course they could.
10 Q. On Tuesday, you explained how in 2001, and still today, if the
11 minister of the interior was not satisfied with the performance of a
12 police officer, the minister could transfer that police officer to a
13 different position. This was at page 3678 of the transcript. Do you
14 recall explaining this to the Chamber?
15 A. I don't -- I'm not sure whether it was explained exactly that
16 way. The minister had the right to transfer a police officer to some
17 other position, but not those police officers -- lower-ranking of the
18 police officers. More of the higher-ranking police officers.
19 Q. And you also explained that punishment of police -- punishment of
20 a police officer by the minister can only occur after the completion of a
21 disciplinary procedure carried out by the permanent committee within the
22 Ministry of Interior that addresses disciplinary matters. Do you recall
23 that? Do you recall explaining this to my colleague?
24 A. Yes, that's correct. The minister can confirm the proposal of the
25 disciplinary committee or possibly to recheck it. So he has a right to
1 correct the proposed measure.
2 Q. Okay. We'll come to that in a minute.
3 And in 2001, that permanent committee for disciplinary matters
4 reported to the minister, right?
5 A. Yes. It is the minister who makes decision to establish such a
6 committee. Therefore, this disciplinary committee, of course, reports to
7 the minister.
8 MR. SAXON: If we can please show what is 65 ter 379, please.
9 And while we're waiting for it to come up, I have a document, a
10 one-page document, and perhaps if the court usher could provide the
11 parties and the Judges and the witness with a copy, and perhaps a copy
12 could be placed on the ELMO.
13 Your Honours, what you see on your screen is page 1 of the
14 collective agreement of the Ministry of Interior. And the Prosecution
15 does not have a full Macedonian version and that's why I've simply
16 distributed this one page because there is one particular Article I would
17 like to explore with the witness.
18 Q. And, witness, if you could -- first of all, if we could move to
19 the -- yep, that is correct ask the correct page, thank you.
20 Witness, if you could take a look at that page that has been put
21 next to you - I don't know if you need your glasses.
22 Mr. Usher, perhaps you can turn that page around so the witness
23 can see it. I'd like, General Galevski, if you could read to us what the
24 text of Article 149 says. It's the Article at the top of the page. But
25 I'd like you to read -- I'd like you to read it in Macedonian, please,
1 General. That's why you need to look at the hard copy that I've given
3 General? General -- general, can ask you something?
4 A. I can see also on the screen. Okay, Article 149.
5 Q. Are you looking at the Macedonian version?
6 A. Yes, on the screen, on the left side I have it in Macedonian.
7 Q. All right. Can you read what Article 149 says.
8 A. "If the minister does not agree with the proposal he can return
9 the case to a review if the factual situation is wrongly or insufficiently
10 viewed or some normative provision is wrongly implemented or may bring
11 different decision or this -- can be brought according to Article 139 of
12 this agreement.
13 Q. So Article 149 of the collective agreement confirms what you told
14 us before, that it is the minister of the interior who to this day has the
15 last word about whether to discipline someone or how to discipline someone
16 within the Ministry of the Interior?
17 A. Yes, that's correct.
18 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, at this time I would mark this collective
19 agreement for identification, please.
20 JUDGE PARKER: It will be marked.
21 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P382, marked for identification, Your
23 MR. SAXON:
24 Q. General, you explained yesterday at page 3678 of the transcript
25 that the committee investigating the role of the forces of the Ministry of
1 Interior who participated in the events in Ljuboten in 2001 did not
2 receive the name or names of any police officers who might have committed
3 misconduct. Do you recall explaining that?
4 A. Yes, that's correct.
5 Q. Suppose Minister Boskoski had received a name of a police officer
6 who allegedly committed misconduct in Ljuboten village, if Minister
7 Boskoski had received such information, it was within his powers to
8 transfer that police officer to another position or to ask the superior of
9 that police officer to present a report to the disciplinary commission?
10 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we object to this
11 line of questioning.
12 THE INTERPRETER: Sorry, we didn't get the last part,
13 interpreter's note.
14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] We object this way of questioning,
15 and we think that these assumptions are not based on the testimony of the
16 witness and they are speculative.
17 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I'm trying to clarify the information
18 provided to us --
19 JUDGE PARKER: Continue, Mr. Saxon.
20 MR. SAXON: Thank you.
21 Q. Suppose the minister had received the name or names of police
22 officers who committed misconduct in Ljuboten village back in
23 August/September 2001. What powers would the minister have had at his
25 A. He would not fire him immediately. He has on his disposal the
1 given bodies that would make -- reflect -- that would submit a report to
2 the minister and that would make him report -- reflect on what further
3 measures he would undertake.
4 Q. All right. So the minister had the authority if such a situation
5 arose to instruct his subordinates to submit a report about the person
7 A. Yes. Let me be more precise. This unit for internal control and
8 professional standards is directly related to the minister and it helps
9 the minister to check certain information he gets.
10 Q. All right.
11 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, this -- this
12 institution was mentioned even before at the previous answer.
13 MR. SAXON:
14 Q. Okay. In 2001, if Minister Boskoski had received such
15 information, a name or names of certain police officers, could the
16 minister also have directed the superior of that police officer, for
17 example, perhaps the head of the criminal police or the head of a police
18 station, to obtain relevant facts and provide the information to the
19 disciplinary committee or the -- the unit for internal control?
20 A. The minister would do this, but not with commander of the station
21 but with his most immediate advisors, the people most immediate
23 Q. And then the immediate subordinates of the minister would have the
24 duty to pass those instructions down the chain of command to the
25 appropriate persons; is that right?
1 A. Yes, in the -- in the interior ministry there is a clear hierarchy
2 which is very much respected.
3 Q. And the persons then who received these instructions lower down on
4 the chain of command would then have the duty to obtain the relevant
5 information and report it back up through the chain of command; is that
7 A. Yes. They should report back up through an Official Note, but the
8 situation, regardless of whether the findings are positive or negative.
9 Q. And that -- these procedures, these -- these procedures were
10 functioning as well in 2001; is that right?
11 A. I think they did, but in a very difficult manner, because most of
12 the people employed in the police were at the check-points and did not
13 really have the chance to make some misconduct because they were
14 permanently under the control of the -- of a superior.
15 Q. All right. Thank you. General, do you agree that sometimes, even
16 commanders, even superior officers make mistakes?
17 A. It is human to make mistakes and I do not exclude the possibility
18 for anyone to make mistakes.
19 Q. In 2001, what was the procedure within the Ministry of the
20 Interior when a superior breached his duty or superior or a police
21 commander to provide all of the relevant facts about possible police
22 misconduct up the chain of command or to the disciplinary committee or to
23 the unit for internal control? What happened then?
24 A. The regulations are varied for everyone, regardless of where a
25 person is positioned in the hierarchy.
1 Q. I'm sorry, there may be a problem either with the translation or
2 with the transcript. The response in the English transcript says: "The
3 regulations are varied for everyone."
4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, valid.
5 MR. SAXON:
6 Q. Ah. The regulations are valid for everyone, all right.
7 Well, then, understandably the regulations apply to everyone. But
8 suppose -- what would happen when a superior made a mistake or breached
9 his duty and did not provide all of the relevant information up the chain
10 of command; in other words, when a superior did not adhere to the
11 regulations, what would happen then?
12 A. I will repeat again. The regulations related to disciplinary
13 responsibility are valid for all and apply to all. The higher the
14 employee is positioned, the lesser is the possibility for him to be
15 involved in this breach of regulations. This is the reason why most often
16 such a cases, not only during the time of Minister Boskoski but also
17 before him and after him, were transferred to other positions as a
19 Q. Well, I'm not sure that you've answered my question, General. I
20 think my question was reasonably clear. What I need to know is, what
21 would happen if a superior - could be a police commander, a commander of a
22 police station, could be a squad leader, could be someone in between or
23 someone higher - what would happen if such a person did not fulfil his
24 duty to provide all relevant information up the chain of command or to the
25 disciplinary committee? Would anything happen?
1 A. I think that the whole -- this is the third or fourth time I will
2 be repeating. This is something to be dealt by this unit for internal
3 control. So this unit is in charge of the whole matter. They are the
4 ones t hat have to establish whether the commander, as you said, has shown
5 misconduct and is -- or is in breach of duty and it is this unit that
6 proposes measures against him, starting with disciplinary and there could
7 be even a criminal report, if the case is such.
8 Q. Are you aware of any such proceedings that were started by the
9 unit for internal control during 2001?
10 A. I think that at the time my colleague the deputy minister that was
11 in charge after that unit, his name was Slavko. I used to meet him very
12 often as he was going to the minister's office. This -- the very fact
13 that I met him there made me think that he was often engaged in such
14 matters. I do not know what cases he was involved in. He was not
15 supposed to inform me anyway.
16 Q. So then, General, we can take -- we can take it, then, that the
17 answer to my question, my last question, is no.
18 A. I don't know whether concrete checkups were made. There were
19 activities that were undertaken but I couldn't say on what cases.
20 Q. All right. On Tuesday at page 3648 of the transcript, you agreed
21 with the proposition put to you by my colleague that it is not the
22 competence of the minister of the interior to "operatively carry out tasks
23 nor to effectively control the police officers in the field."
24 Do you remember explaining this?
25 A. No. Who this refers to? Who are those that do not have the right
1 to do this?
2 Q. I'm sorry, maybe my question was unclear. My colleague put to you
3 a proposition that the minister of the interior, minister himself, does
4 not carry out operative tasks in the field nor does the minister
5 effectively control the police officers in the field. And you agreed that
6 that was a correct proposition.
7 A. Yes, that's correct.
8 Q. And then yesterday at page 3718 of the transcript you also agreed
9 with the proposition put to you by Ms. Residovic that just because a
10 person receives a uniform from the police and a weapon from the police,
11 that does not mean that the person becomes a police reservist under the
12 effective control of the ministry. Do you remember that you agreed with
13 that proposition as well?
14 A. I think that is a part of what I said. In order to be a member of
15 the police in addition to possessing uniform and weapons the person should
16 go through a checkup, examinations, to check his health background and
17 then to be assigned -- to be issued an identification card. This is --
18 this all is a set of things that make a person a police officer. Only the
19 uniform and the weapon are not sufficient.
20 Q. All right. General, can you define the concept of effective
21 control for us, please.
22 A. To be honest, the term "effective control" is not very clear to
24 Q. Okay. Thank you. Yesterday at pages 3712 to 3714 of the
25 transcript my colleague asked you some questions about the two committees
1 that the Ministry of Interior established to look into the events in
2 Ljuboten. One committee established by Minister Boskoski in August 2001;
3 and the second committee established by Minister Kostov in March of 2003.
4 Do you recall that?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. And you agreed with a proposition expressed by Ms. Residovic that
7 the tasks, circumstances, and possibilities of the two committees were
8 completely different. Do you recall that?
9 A. Yes, they were completely different.
10 Q. All right. With respect to the committee that was established by
11 Ljube Boskoski in August of 2001, you explained that the members of the
12 committee were the most responsible officers of the Ministry of the
13 Interior at that time. And you explained that therefore each of those
14 high-ranking officers, one of them, of course, was you, could use his own
15 line of command to ensure that the Ministry of the Interior investigated
16 the events in Ljuboten efficiently. Do you recall explaining that?
17 A. Yes, that is correct.
18 Q. And the person at the top of those lines of command was the
19 minister, Mr. Boskoski, is that right?
20 A. Yes, it is correct.
21 MR. SAXON: Can we -- perhaps with the assistance of the court
22 usher can we provide the binder of our exhibits to General Galevski again,
23 please. And if we could see Exhibit P00073 on the screen. It is in tab 2
24 of the Prosecution's binder, Your Honours.
25 I may have misspoke. I'm sorry, it's tab 1 of the Prosecution's
1 binder, Your Honours.
2 And if the usher could assist General Galevski by turning to the
3 Macedonian original version of what is in tab 1.
4 Q. Do you have the Macedonian version in front of you, General
6 A. Yes, I see it.
7 Q. I'd like to direct your attention, please, to part II. And in the
8 middle of part II it says this: "The commission, from item 1 of this
9 decision, has the task to review the circumstances and analyse the
10 activities undertaken by the security forces of the Ministry of Internal
11 Affairs to repel the armed attacks of terrorist groups on 12 August 2001
12 in the village of Ljuboten, Skopje."
13 Are you following with me?
14 A. Yes, I follow you.
15 Q. Now, would it be fair to say that to review the circumstances and
16 analyse the activities of those security forces, to do that, first, you
17 would need to know the composition of the unit or units from the Ministry
18 of the Interior that took part in the activities in Ljuboten on the 12th
19 of August, wouldn't you?
20 A. Yes, that's correct.
21 Q. And you would also want to know the capacity or capacities of the
22 unit or units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs that operated in
23 Ljuboten. Would that be a fair statement?
24 A. Yes. There are schedules and lists for all the deployed persons
25 up until the last participant.
1 Q. All right. Hmm. And can you tell us, please, where we would find
2 the schedules and lists for all the employees of the Ministry of the
3 Interior who participated in the events in Ljuboten on the 12th of August,
5 A. For the area of Ljuboten, since -- until Goran Georgievski got the
6 task from me to engage the posebna unit, active and reserve police forces
7 were engaged only from the territory of OVR Cair, meaning that this
8 information are found in OVR Cair, that is in the police stations of Butel
9 and Mirkovci on which territory the village of Ljuboten is, while about
10 the composition of the posebna units that I sent, there is still a
11 posebna, a Special Unit sector in the MVR so I think that this is the
12 place where you can find the entire lists of the police officers who were
13 participating in the serving as a live shield between the villages of
14 Ljuboten and the other residents of that area.
15 Q. All right. Can we turn please -- moving back to part II of the
16 decision, if we can turn now to part III. It says: "The commission is
17 obliged immediately to start carrying out the tasks determined in item II
18 and to prepare a report about the determined facts, with an opinion about
19 the grounds, justification and regularity of the activities undertaken by
20 the security forces of the Ministry."
21 Do you see that, General?
22 A. I do.
23 Q. So to prepare such an opinion regarding the activities, the
24 regularity of the activities of the security forces who were operating in
25 Ljuboten, you would need to analyse how the legal powers, the lawful
1 powers of that unit, were exercised, wouldn't you?
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. SAXON: If we can turn now, Your Honours, to what is in tab 3
4 of your binders. This is marked for identification P379.
5 Q. If you could turn to tab 3, please, General.
6 MR. SAXON: And perhaps if the usher to help the General, because
7 we need to turn to what is ERN N000-8907 which is up in the upper
8 right-hand corner, hopefully. It's about the fourth page in the
9 Macedonian version.
10 Q. General, you'll see that this is the decision from then minister
11 Hari Kostov to establish a second commission to look into the events in
12 Ljuboten. This is the decision of 7 March 2003. Could you turn to what
13 is the top of page 2 in the English but it's part II so it may be on the
14 first page of the Macedonian version. Part II begins with the words "the
15 commission referred to in part I." Do you see that general?
16 A. Yes, I see it.
17 Q. It says: "The commission referred to in part I of this decision
18 shall have the task to investigate and analyse all materials and documents
19 relating to the events which took place in the territory of Ljuboten,
20 Skopje, in August 2001, ascertain the composition and capacity of the unit
21 which took action in this period, including the identity of each of its
22 members individually, establish the causes and circumstances surrounding
23 the deaths of the victims."
24 And then in the last two lines: "Investigate how the legal powers
25 of the unit were exercised."
1 Are you following me, General?
2 A. Yes, I am following you.
3 Q. Would you agree, then, that the tasks of the two committees were
4 actually quite similar?
5 A. Yes, I agree.
6 Q. Tell me, General Galevski, could both committees have spoken with
7 one or more of the Ljuboten residents who had been detained on the 12th of
8 August, 2001?
9 A. I do not know when they have conversed but I would most
10 responsibly say that in 2003 as a free citizen I was able to go in
11 Ljuboten and talk to anyone, while in 2001 that was impossible.
12 Q. In 2001, could you go to Skopje city hospital?
13 A. I personally not, because if someone is to go there is the
14 inspectors of that police station that are covering this area.
15 Q. Is it your testimony, General, you were the head of the uniformed
16 police division, you're telling us today that in 2001 you could not go to
17 Skopje city hospital and speak with one of the injured persons who had
18 been detained by the police at or near Ljuboten.
19 A. I'm speaking about myself personally, me, as a uniformed police
20 officer, I'm not to go to the hospital. This is done by the police
21 officers from the police station. This is why one of the members was one
22 of the heads of the police stations. This question should be referred to
24 Q. So the members of the police station could go because they were
25 not in uniform? Is that why they could go to Skopje city hospital?
1 A. I do not know whether they were in uniforms and who were those.
2 Q. Okay. Could you have gone to the Skopje city hospital as a
3 private citizen and asked to speak to one of the -- one or more of the
4 persons who were originally detained by the police in or near Ljuboten on
5 the 12th of August, 2001?
6 A. I personally thought, and I still think, that it is inappropriate
7 for me to go and do that.
8 Q. I see. Could both committees, General Galevski -- actually, I
9 want to go back to your last response.
10 You said that you think it is inappropriate for you to go and do
11 that. Could you have done it? Could you have gone to Skopje city
12 hospital and tried to speak with one of the persons who been detained?
13 A. I think that then I would interfere with the competences of my
14 colleagues of the criminal police. Therefore, I think that I was neither
15 supposed to nor would even think about going and do such a thing.
16 Q. Could both of the committees investigating the events in Ljuboten
17 in 2001 have spoken with police personnel who participated in those
19 A. I couldn't say what was the number of the police officers in the
20 check-points around Ljuboten and what would it mean to talk to them.
21 Therefore, as a committee, as a commission, especially me as a head of the
22 uniformed police, had available my 30-something colleagues from the
23 headquarters or the staff that I was heading as well as my colleague
24 Ljupco Bliznakovski who was in charge of the city of Skopje. And it
25 was the -- it would be inappropriate to call people that you have no
1 information about at all or indications that some of them was
2 participating specifically. If some name or last name would have been
3 referred to me, then we would be able to discuss things about -- about the
4 things that you are referring to. Unfortunately, no one never -- no one
5 ever indicated a name of a person abusing authority on the field anywhere
6 as well as in Ljuboten.
7 Q. General Galevski, could both committees have gone to Skopje city
8 hospital and reviewed the medical records of Ljuboten residents who were
9 brought from police custody to the hospital following the events on the
10 12th of August, 2001?
11 A. Since you insist, I will once again respond to you more
12 specifically. That -- the methodology is established in our country how
13 is done and that would be done by the head of the homicide department,
14 this is Mr. Besini Ramicevic, upon an order of his head, Zivko Petrovski,
15 who is the head of the criminal police.
16 Q. If the methodology of the ministry is not producing adequate
17 results, who has the responsibility to ensure that the methodology is
19 A. This is a very broad question. And I think that for the specific
20 case it is the public prosecutor who has the authority to do something
21 because he was there from the very first moment.
22 Q. General Galevski, I'm not asking you anything about the public
23 prosecutor. I'm asking you about the Ministry of the Interior of
25 My question is: If the methodology, systems in place, set up in
1 place for the ministry, the members of the ministry to do its work, if
2 they're not functioning very well, who would have the responsibility and
3 the authority to change that methodology?
4 A. Regarding the operational affairs, the one most competent is the
5 director of the bureau for security, public security.
6 Q. And who does the director of public security report to?
7 A. To the minister of the interior.
8 Q. Okay. General, could both committees have reviewed the autopsy
9 report of Mr. Atulla Qaili who was healthy on the 12th of August, 2001,
10 before he was detained by the police, members of the police in Ljuboten
11 and then died the next day in Skopje city hospital? Could they have
12 reviewed the autopsy report that was prepared at the institute for
13 forensic medicine?
14 A. I'm not sure, but I think that the colleague that I mentioned
15 previously, the head of the homicide department, had done it or was
16 supposed to do it. That is his work ex officio to be informed about these
17 kind of events. If there is a violent death he is obliged to review all
18 the documents that are originating from the forensic medicine institute.
19 Q. And certainly this head of the homicide unit could have done this?
20 A. Not only that he could, he had to do it. He was supposed to do
21 it, and I believe that he has done it.
22 Q. Okay. Tell me, if the results of that autopsy report indicated
23 that the man, Atulla Qaili, had been beaten to death, would that
24 information have changed the opinion in the report that your committee
1 A. I'm not informed about this -- the existence of such a document.
2 Q. All right. Well, can you take my word for it. Suppose such a
3 document exists with that information, would that information have
4 possibly changed the opinion in the report that your committee issued?
5 A. I wouldn't like to speculate, because I've never seen such an
6 information, nor I know that that information has reached the ministry nor
7 that any of my colleagues have seen it.
8 Q. Okay. My colleague earlier today asked you about the testimony of
9 a witness who's known as M-083. (redacted)
17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
18 JUDGE PARKER: [Previous translation continues] ...
19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I think given the fact that
20 through the -- in addition to the pseudonym, also his position was
21 mentioned. I think that it would be good do redact this part from the
22 transcript that is available to the public.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
24 MR. SAXON: I'm grateful to Ms. Residovic for that. She's
25 absolutely right. And perhaps we could move into private session for a
1 minute, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Private.
3 [Private session]
18 [Open session]
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much.
21 It is necessary to break now for the tapes. We resume at 1.00.
22 --- Recess taken at 12.26 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 1.03 p.m.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Saxon.
25 MR. SAXON:
1 Q. General, earlier today I had asked you some questions about the
2 units of the Ministry of Interior and the army that were involved in the
3 fighting in Aracinovo. Can you recall, General, which units of the
4 police, of the ministry, were involved in that fighting?
5 A. It was like this. The [indiscernible] Vicinity of the
6 check-points had army forces and police forces, regular police forces
7 deployed. While in the days when there was direct action in the village
8 on the basis of a previously prepared plan, the village of Aracinovo was
9 divided into two sections viewed from Skopje towards the direction of
10 Kumanovo the main or the central street as considered the axis, the middle
11 of the village. To the left were the army forces and to the right the
12 police forces, who were composed of the posebna unit and the Special Unit.
13 Q. I've asked you a couple of times, General, whether it would have
14 been helpful if the committee that you served on in August and September
15 2001 had received information from persons who participated in the
16 operation in Ljuboten on the 12th of August, 2001. Do you think it also
17 might have been helpful if the committee had received information from the
18 persons who planned the operation in Ljuboten on the 12th of August, 2001?
19 A. First, no action was planned in Ljuboten. I said that at the very
20 beginning, if I remember well. And if there had been any activity of the
21 police forces that were deployed there previously in order to maintain law
22 and order in that region and to control the movements, an action could be
23 carried out only upon -- they were -- upon a provocation by the terrorist
25 Q. All right. Yesterday at page 3768 you explained that Minister
1 Boskoski at no time would skip over you or interrupt or interfere with the
2 chain of command that existed within the Ministry of Interior. Do you
3 recall that?
4 A. I think that this is the way it should be.
5 MR. SAXON: If I could have the assistance of the court usher,
6 please, I would like to show General Galevski again the statement that you
7 gave to the ICTY on the 2nd of December, 2003. And we have copies for the
8 General, the Chamber, and the parties.
9 Q. General, could you turn to the first page, please. No, just the
10 cover page. Do you see your signature there, at the bottom of that cover
12 A. I see my signature there.
13 Q. Can you turn to what is page 8, please. Page 8 has an item on it
14 called witness acknowledgment. Do you see that? Do you see your
15 signature there?
16 A. Yes. It is written in the English and my signature is there.
17 Q. And can you see that your initials are on the bottom of each of
18 the other pages?
19 THE INTERPRETER: Before the witness answers, could the
20 interpreters ask him to speak up. We have really difficulties
21 understanding whether it is in the positive or in the -- in the
22 affirmative or in the negative.
23 MR. SAXON: General Galevski, you've been asked by the
24 interpreters to please speak a bit more loudly so they can follow you.
1 Q. You see that your initials are on each page; is that right?
2 A. Yes, I see it.
3 Q. Can you turn, please, to paragraph 40 of this statement. It is
4 the very last paragraph.
5 Are you at paragraph 40, General?
6 A. Yes, I see it.
7 Q. Paragraph 40 says this: "Minister Boskoski did not always respect
8 the chain of command, however, but concerning the crisis areas I was
9 always consulted and informed about what was going on but I was never
10 informed that he would have made some personnel changes or when he would
11 have purchased something for the needs of the ministry. These are the
12 things I think he did wrong."
13 Do you see that? Do you see that?
14 A. Yes, I can see that.
15 Q. General, how do you reconcile what you told the Office of the
16 Prosecutor in December 2003 and what you told the Judges yesterday?
17 A. I'd like to have this in Macedonian -- you to have this in
18 Macedonian and if would you read it better, you would see that everything
19 that has been taken as activity related to the crisis areas, I have always
20 been consulted, not always as far as some personnel issues are concerned
21 which I can -- I'm still confirming and not on all cases, only in certain
22 cases. I do not understand.
23 Q. General, you have the Macedonian version in front of you. That's
24 what I wanted you to read. Do you have paragraph 40 of the Macedonian
25 version in front of you, General?
1 A. Yes, I have it, and I do not agree how it states here. It should
2 state "sometimes," not "never."
3 Q. It says: "Minister Boskoski did not always respect the chain of
4 command." Right?
5 A. Not always.
6 Q. Yes, yes. Now, how do you reconcile, now that we've done that,
7 how do you reconcile what you've told the ICTY in 2003 to what you told
8 the Judges yesterday, that at no time did Minister Boskoski interrupt or
9 go around the chain of command?
10 A. Yes, this is exactly what you said. I would clarify, we should
11 have a question as it has been asked while in the second sentence it
12 says: "As far as a crisis regions are concerned, I have always been
13 consulted." Therefore, as far as police work is concerned, and police
14 functioning concerned, I stand behind what you said. I was not always
15 consulted about the logistic affairs which are not under my competence.
16 We have a unit for joint affairs which is competent for these things and
17 probably the minister consults with a deputy minister in charge of these
18 kind of affairs, and he didn't have to consult me on that matter. This is
19 why I gave such a statement.
20 Q. So there were times when Minister Boskoski skipped over you within
21 the chain of command; is that right?
22 A. I will repeat again. It does not relate to taking professional
23 activities. It relates to some other marginal affairs. He sometimes, for
24 instance, went to -- to a ground without me knowing that. This is what my
25 statement referred to. And I consider that it was okay if the minister
1 was accompanied by the head of the uniformed police to go on the ground
2 and this is what he did sometimes, he went to the ground without being
3 accompanied in that way.
4 MR. SAXON: I'd like the usher's assistance, please, to show
5 General Galevski his statement from December 2004, please. We have
7 Q. If you could take a look, please, at the Macedonian version,
8 General, and if you could turn to what is paragraph 21.
9 Are you at paragraph 21 now, General Galevski?
10 A. No, I can't find it.
11 MR. SAXON: [Previous translation continues] ... It should have
12 ERN N000-9945 at the top, paragraph marked as 2-1.
13 Q. Are you looking at the statement from December 2004?
14 A. I think this is the one, but the number you are stating, 21, as
15 you said, I don't see it.
16 MR. SAXON: I need to look at the Macedonian copy.
17 Q. Could you -- we could do it another way, General. Can you look at
18 the penultimate paragraph and it begins at the bottom of page 5 in your
20 MR. SAXON: Can you give that to the General, please.
21 Q. General, it's paragraph 21 in the English version. It begins with
22 the words: "As far as I know."
23 Do you see that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. "As far as I know, at least until the fall of 2002, there were no
1 other bodies set up to investigate the events in Ljuboten."
2 And then it says this: "On the other hand, I must admit that the
3 then minister of the interior, Mr. Ljube Boskoski, often took decisions
4 and established some Working Groups or similar without keeping his
5 subordinates informed about this."
6 Do you see that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Can you recall, please, General, whether Minister Boskoski took
9 any decisions related to the events in Ljuboten, for example, after the
10 mine incident that killed eight Macedonian soldiers at Ljubotenski Bacila
11 on Friday, the 10th of August? Did the minister of the interior make any
12 decisions after that about what to do, what should be done?
13 A. I could not say.
14 Q. All right. How about on the next day -- let me actually go back
16 On that Friday, the 10th of August, after the mine explosion that
17 killed eight Macedonian soldiers at Ljubotenski Bacila, did the members of
18 the collegium meet from the Ministry of Interior?
19 A. I could not say what meetings were held. I know that in the
20 afternoon hours we had an announcement of problems arising in Radusa. I
21 was there on Friday. We were trying to make a shift of the people, and in
22 order to prepare on Saturday this team, to make the shift then with the
23 minister, we took on a alternative route to Radusa to take certain
24 activities. Therefore, as far as Ljuboten was concerned, I don't think
25 there were some special activities on our side. If there had been such
1 activities I believe I would have been informed or at least maybe I have
2 forgotten them.
3 Q. And is it your testimony today that after eight Macedonian
4 soldiers are blown up on the -- on Friday morning, the 10th of August,
5 that there were no special activities planned in response by the Ministry
6 of Interior?
7 A. The Ministry of Interior has never worked on the retaliation
9 MR. SAXON: Your Honour -- excuse me.
10 Q. General, why do you suggest that I was thinking about
11 retaliation? I didn't ask you that.
12 A. That is exact you do not ask me about you asked me what we
13 planned. We never planned any counteractivities if we were faced with
14 such a loss of people.
15 Q. That's not the question, though, that I asked you. My question
16 was: What activities of any kind did the members of the Ministry of
17 Interior decide upon, plan upon, after members of the ministry received
18 the news about the killings on the 10th of August?
19 A. I will repeat: The Ministry of Interior did not plan any
20 activities in the area of Ljuboten, with the exception of regular
21 activities related to the -- to our presence at the check-points around
22 the village just like around Skopje, Tetovo and Kumanovo. There were no
23 special activities planned.
24 Q. Now, you have explained to us, though, that sometimes the
25 minister, Mr. Boskoski, sometimes he made decisions without consulting
1 you. So how can you be sure that there were no such plans?
2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
4 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is misleading
5 the witness to say something that he didn't say. He said that the
6 minister consulted him concerning activities related to his field of work
7 and that he wasn't consulted about some personnel issues and other
8 marginal issues. To say that something that the witness didn't say is not
10 JUDGE PARKER: I'm sure Mr. Saxon will direct his question
12 MR. SAXON: I'll put my question a different way.
13 Q. Is it possible that Minister Boskoski made some decisions on the
14 10th or 11th of August without consulting you?
15 A. I think he wouldn't do that. I will repeat again. As far as -- I
16 will repeat this. Refers to issues concerning the crisis areas, he would
17 certainly not undertake any steps without informing me about that. If I
18 was unavailable, then some of my colleagues would have called and someone
19 was to be given that task. This is why I certify that there must have
20 been consultation. I said before where the exceptions could have
22 Q. Did Minister Boskoski accompany you to the Radusa area on the 11th
23 of August?
24 A. Yes, he was.
25 Q. So does that mean that you and the minister were together for an
1 entire day, into the evening?
2 A. I don't know how long exactly we were together. I know that
3 long -- most of the day he was there. In the evening he left earlier and
4 I stayed until after midnight.
5 Q. Well, during that time-period, most of the day when you and
6 Mr. Boskoski were together, was there any discussion about events
7 occurring in or around Ljuboten village?
8 A. We had fights in Radusa. We did not have time to discuss what was
9 going on in other places.
10 Q. Okay. General, at pages 3769 through 3770 of the transcript, you
11 described yesterday how after the events in Ljuboten on the 12th of
12 August, 2001, Minister Boskoski had a meeting with Ambassador Ungaro, the
13 OSCE representative. Do you recall that?
14 A. I don't remember whether it was precisely like that. 12th of
15 August, if it was Sunday, then I was on a trip and it is on Sunday that
16 the events occurred in Ljuboten that we are discussing here.
17 Q. I'm sorry, General, it may have been my mistake. You described
18 how after the events in Ljuboten there was a meeting between Ambassador
19 Ungaro and Mr. Boskoski. Do you recall that?
20 A. Yes, not only with Ambassador Ungaro but with many other important
21 ambassadors in Skopje. I don't exactly remember the schedule of the
22 meetings, the time of the meetings. I only that he had intense meetings
23 with several ambassadors.
24 Q. And you explained how after that meeting with Ambassador Ungaro
25 Minister Boskoski stated publicly that everything that took place in
1 Ljuboten must be investigated. Do you remember that?
2 A. I really don't remember. But knowing the situation I think this
3 is correct.
4 MR. SAXON: I'd like to show the witness a video-clip that is
5 Exhibit P00362.
6 Q. General, this is a video that you'll see that was made very
7 shortly after the meeting with Ambassador Ungaro.
8 [Videotape played]
9 MR. SAXON:
10 Q. General, you heard what -- the comments of Minister Boskoski and I
11 have a question for you. Did the comments of Minister Boskoski that a
12 massacre did not occur in the village of Ljuboten and that there was no
13 killing of civilians but of a terrorist extremist group, did those
14 comments have any influence on the investigations of the committee that
15 you worked on to review the conduct of the forces of the Ministry of the
16 Interior in Ljuboten?
17 A. This is the first time that I hear this statement. Probably at
18 that time I was busy with other activities, but listening to the
19 minister's statement now, I think that he said very clearly that it is
20 necessary to make an on-site investigation by independent institutions,
21 the prosecutor and an investigating judge, in order to confirm or to
22 deny --
23 Q. General, we've heard what Minister Boskoski said. I need to stop
24 you because you're not answering my question.
25 My question was simply this. My question was: Did the fact that
1 the minister made public statements to the effect that the persons who
2 were deceased in Ljuboten were members of terrorist groups, did that have
3 any influence on the work of your committee?
4 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think that this is
5 an unfair question because the witness clearly said that this is the first
6 time that he hears this is interview given by the Minister Boskoski.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
8 Carry on.
9 MR. SAXON:
10 Q. Can you give an answer to my question, General?
11 A. For me personally, even when -- if I would have heard this
12 statement, that would have no influence because I know myself, how I've
13 been working for my entire life and how professionally I carry out my
14 duties, no statement neither by the minister nor by any other else would
15 have any impact on me.
16 Q. You explained yesterday, General, at page 3769 of the transcript
17 that shortly after the events in Ljuboten you spoke with General Lange, a
18 NATO general, about the possibility of obtaining NATO support so that an
19 on-site investigation could be carried out in Ljuboten. Do you recall
20 explaining that?
21 A. Yes, not only with him, but also with the others that I had
22 contact with, with the members of the international community. But I
23 remember this person very clearly.
24 Q. And General Lange told you that due to the security situation in
25 Ljuboten village and the signing of the Ohrid agreement. It wasn't
1 advisable for an investigation team to enter Ljuboten, right?
2 A. Yes, that's correct. He suggested that it would be not a good
3 assessment to go to the village in order to avoid a bigger incident from
5 Q. Let me ask you this: After the events in Ljuboten on the 12th of
6 August, what would have been more difficult? Performing an on-site
7 investigation in Ljuboten village, or speaking with employees of the
8 Ministry of the Interior who participated in the events in and around
9 Ljuboten on the 12th of August? What would have been more difficult, do
10 you think?
11 A. Of course, it would be easier to discuss with the employees.
12 Q. Okay. On Tuesday you discussed the -- with my learned colleague
13 you discussed the formation of the rapid intervention unit, also known as
14 the Lions, and do you recall who the first commander of the Lions was?
15 A. Yes, I think it was Goran Stojkov.
16 Q. What was Goran Stojkov's job before he was appointed commander of
17 the Lions?
18 A. He was an employee of the ministry, in the sector for securing
19 persons and facilities.
20 Q. Does that mean he was a security guard or a body-guard?
21 A. I don't know what exactly his position was, but I know that he
22 worked in this department.
23 Q. All right. But if he is working in that department for security,
24 his job would be to provide security for officials or for buildings. Is
25 that fair?
1 A. Yes, that is logical.
2 Q. What qualifications did Goran Stojkov have for becoming commander
3 of the brigade eventually known as the Lions?
4 A. I think he has a higher education, but I would not like to -- I
5 couldn't confirm it for sure because I have talked with Goran on this
6 topic, he has undergone some other training, seminars, courses, but I
7 could not respond to your question more precisely.
8 Q. When you say that Goran Stojkov had a higher education, are you
9 referring to high school, secondary school?
10 A. No. I'm -- I think that he is a graduated lawyer. That is at
11 least what I know.
12 Q. All right. Did he get any education in criminal justice or police
14 A. No, the faculty of law is not within police studies.
15 Q. Did Mr. Stojkov get any education in security studies?
16 A. I couldn't confirm, but when he was admitted in that service, I --
17 surely one of the conditions to be employed at the service would be to
18 have such a qualification, which wasn't up to me, and I could not confirm
19 about it. That is the logical sense of the events.
20 Q. That would be logical, but you can't confirm it, right?
21 A. Yes, exactly.
22 Q. Prior to becoming the commander of the Lions brigade, Goran
23 Stojkov had never led police units, had he?
24 A. Not in uniform.
25 Q. Had Goran Stojkov, prior to becoming the commander of the Lions,
1 led any units in combat during the crisis in 2001?
2 A. No. I think Goran, since he became a commander of that unit, the
3 only -- only activities that they have in their bases were just exercise
4 activities. They never went in the field where the crisis regions were.
5 Q. Mr. Galevski, I'm talking about before Goran Stojkov became
6 commander, I want to know what his experience was. So my question is:
7 Before Goran Stojkov was appointed commander of the Lions unit, had he led
8 any units in combat or counterterrorism activities?
9 A. I think I responded to your question. I don't know when exactly
10 he was reassigned to this position from the security administration.
11 Before that, he never participated in the combat activities. At least I'm
12 not aware of that, and I think no.
13 Q. If you know, why, then, was Mr. Stojkov appointed to be the
14 commander of this very special unit?
15 A. I think that he has some military experience before his time in
16 the police, but I'm not sure. But I think that -- there's something in my
17 mind. I think that he has some kind of an army/military experience.
18 Q. 90 per cent of the men in Macedonia perform their military
19 service. Isn't that true?
20 A. Yes, that is correct. But as far as I know, Goran had undergone
21 some training in the special army units.
22 Q. I see. Was there a particular event, particular attack perhaps,
23 on Minister Boskoski that led to the start of the Lions unit?
24 A. I don't understand you.
25 Q. If you know, was there a particular event, a particular attack by
1 members of the NLA on Minister Boskoski that led to the start of the Lion
3 A. I think on two or three occasions there had been some such
4 attacks. While moving on the Tetovo-Skopje highway I remember well about
5 it. But that was the smallest reason to establish the Lions unit. The
6 Lions unit was established by a decision of the bodies, by the decision of
7 the president and of the government of the republic.
8 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I take note of the time. I believe I
9 need another ten or 15 minutes with this witness. I will still be under
10 my two-hour time-limit, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Are you in a position to complete that questioning
13 MR. SAXON: I can try, Your Honour, if you will give me that time
15 JUDGE PARKER: We can certainly get 10 or 12 minutes on the tape.
16 Or would you prefer that it be tomorrow?
17 MR. SAXON: I would prefer that it be tomorrow, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Well, we couldn't be sure of finishing your time on
19 the present tape, so the more practical course would appear to be, then,
20 to adjourn now.
21 We resume tomorrow at 9.00 in the morning.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,
23 to be reconvened on Friday, the 20th day of July,
24 2007, at 9.00 a.m.