1 Thursday, 30 August 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning.
7 May I remind you, sir, the affirmation you made at the beginning
8 of your evidence still applies.
9 Ms. Residovic.
10 WITNESS: BLAGOJA TOSKOVSKI [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
13 Cross-examination by Ms. Residovic: [Continued]
14 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Toskovski.
15 Do you recall that yesterday we ended our discussion with the
16 questions and your responses that it is possible that the Ministry of
17 Interior establish permanent and temporary conditions in group B
18 established to work on certain issues. Do you recall that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And do you recall that your response was that they cannot replace
21 the rights and the obligations of the bodies of the Ministry of Interior
22 nor the competencies of the court, the prosecution and other bodies
23 foreseen by law?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. In regards to the commission, the Prosecution also asked some
1 questions previously. Do you recall that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Mr. Toskovski, in this regards, I will put some questions to you,
4 additional questions later on. At this point of time, I would like to ask
5 questions in regards to the Prosecution question.
6 To the question of the Prosecution, first you said that you -- no
7 member of the commission spoke to you personally. Do you recall this?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Also, to the question of the Prosecution, you responded that your
10 report of 31st August, 2001 was composed at the request of your superiors
11 in regards to the investigation led after the events and activities of the
12 police forces. This is noted on page 66 and 67 of the informal
13 transcript. Do you recall having said this?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. You also said that this investigation was in connection with the
16 commission which Mr. Boskoski formed but also as supplementary information
17 for the court. Am I right in understanding correctly your answer?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In view that this information, as you responded to the
20 Prosecution, was requested by your superiors and that they, too, submitted
21 it to the commission, am I right in understanding when you -- when I say
22 that when you spoke about the superiors, you were speaking of
23 Ljupcevo Josevski and Ljube Krstevski as your direct superior in OVR Cair.
24 Did they request this information from you?
25 A. Yes, this is correct. They requested it.
1 Q. And you were aware that this information was requested by the head
2 of the crime police of SVR Skopje, Petre Stojanovski. Is this correct?
3 A. Yes, I am aware of that.
4 Q. And in view of the fact that you worked for a long time in the
5 crime police, can you say that Petre Stojanovski was, in effect, a very
6 experienced police officer and that the information and that the
7 commission was established, in effect, in OVR Cair came in effect through
8 him. Is this correct?
9 A. Yes, this is correct.
10 Q. Therefore, your superiors spoke with you and you received orders
11 from them, this one as well, to further investigate and verify the
12 information of August 10th and 11th which -- for which you compiled this
13 information. Is that correct.
14 A. Yes, this is correct?
15 Q. At this point of time when you received this orders and when you
16 prepared this information, composed and verified the date for the
17 information, you personally did not at all know the composition of the
18 commission established in the MVR. Is this correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And you personally never, in effect, saw the decision for the
21 establishment of this commission. Is this correct?
22 A. No, I have not seen that.
23 Q. And as none of them did not ask you in person as you responded to
24 the Prosecution so in the same manner, you have never spoke with any of
25 the members of the commission about the mandate of the commission. Is
1 this correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. In view of your responses yesterday about the competencies of the
4 commissions and the bodies which are obliged by law to carry out the work
5 of the Ministry of Interior, can you agree with me that, in effect, the
6 temporary commissions cannot and do not have the competencies to formally
7 hear out persons and to take over competencies of the units or sectors of
8 security in the area for which that unit or sector is in charge of?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. In regards with this, and seeking to ask you some further
11 questions, I would like to ask you, is it correct that, in effect, the
12 competencies and the overall pre-criminal and criminal procedure in the
13 Republic of Macedonia is regulated by the Law on Criminal Procedure?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. As a lawyer, and also as an inspector who has acted in accordance
16 with the law, can you confirm that, in effect, that the police in
17 accordance with the law cannot hear persons in the capacity of witnesses
18 or in the capacity of suspected persons?
19 A. I do not understand the question. Can you please repeat it.
20 Q. Is it correct that in accordance of the Law on Criminal Procedure
21 the police gathers information from citizens whether they be suspects or
22 are -- or have knowledge about certain facts but they never hear them as
23 witnesses. Is this in accordance with the Law on Criminal Procedure of
24 the Republic of Macedonia?
25 A. Correct.
1 Q. In effect, this law, which was in effect 2001, foresaw only that
2 investigative judge and then the presiding judge can, in effect, interview
3 or hear a witness -- a person in the capacity of a witness. Is this
5 A. Yes, this is correct.
6 Q. If you were, as an authorised person or anyone else in the police
7 took a formal statement from a person, would it be correct -- would my
8 interpretation of the Law on Criminal Procedure in the Republic of
9 Macedonia be correct if I were to say that such a statement taken by the
10 police would have to be taken out of the court list and could not be used
11 in front of the court?
12 A. Do you mean a written statement by a suspect?
13 Q. I mean if you were to take statements which someone would sign and
14 so forth and not the Official Notes, which you submitted together with the
15 criminal charges.
16 A. Yes, this is correct. They're apart from the procedure and
17 they're not valid in the criminal procedure.
18 Q. In view of your previous answer that the unit and sector of MOI
19 has the competency to lead all procedures of gathering information in a
20 possible crime or perpetrator, is it normal that the superiors and
21 superior officers rely on the information which they obtain from their
22 subordinates in the units and sectors?
23 A. Yes, absolutely.
24 Q. Yesterday, we looked a little bit at the Law of the Interior and
25 you spoke that you are an authorised official person, officer. However,
1 although it is in accordance of the law, the minister as an authorised
2 person -- is it correct that the minister was not an authorised person
3 which gathers information and leads an investigation on the ground;
4 rather, this person relies on the pre-criminal procedure led by the
5 authorised persons in the units and the sectors?
6 A. This is not the work of the minister to -- to go directly into
7 investigation of certain activities.
8 Q. And in your overall practice as a police officer as of 1986, had
9 you ever saw or heard that a minister personally investigated certain
10 things or that always regardless of the minister in question, if he needed
11 or she needed information relied on the -- on the Law on Internal Affairs
12 which must verify these facts?
13 A. Yes, this is correct. I do not know of a case of a minister
14 leading a case personally.
15 Q. A while earlier we mentioned the judge -- let us clarify that a
16 little bit further.
17 In accordance with the Law on the Criminal Procedure in the
18 Republic of Macedonia which was in effect in 2001, the investigation was
19 led by the investigating judge at the request of the authorised
20 prosecutor. Is this correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And when an information request or criminal charges about a
23 certain event, which can have elements of a criminal act is found in front
24 of the prosecution, or the prosecutor, is it correct that then the police
25 acts on the basis of the request of the public prosecutor to gather
1 additional information?
2 A. Correct. Once the criminal charges in -- is in the hands of the
3 prosecutor, he then has the right and the authorisation to lead further
4 this procedure and to request or to order certain things which need to be
5 done further.
6 Q. And if the prosecution asks of the police, the police is then
7 obliged to respond to this request of the prosecutor. Is this correct?
8 A. Yes. In any event, yes.
9 Q. When the investigation judge begins an investigation by bringing a
10 decision about the investigation, then the police then only assists the
11 investigative judge and exclusively at the request of the investigative
12 judge. Is this correct?
13 A. Yes, this is correct.
14 Q. Yesterday -- yesterday you responded to some of my questions that,
15 in addition, that you work on the basis of the law. You also operate --
16 you work on monthly and annual work plans which are adopted in the unit of
17 the Ministry of Interior.
18 I would now ask you to look at document after tab 9. This is
19 exhibit P177, page N005-0607; and in English it is N005-0607.
20 Here we see the plan, the work plan for the month of August 2001
21 which was adopted by the unit for internal affairs of Skopje, Police
22 Station Cair. And before we proceed with it, this is -- let us clarify
23 that this is the police station within the office of internal affairs of
24 Cair. Is this correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. I would now ask you to turn to page 4 of this document. This is
2 it N005-0602110 and the English version N005-0610-ET. Have you found this
4 And you see that, in effect, this plan was proposed by deputy
5 commander of the police station Cair Lieutenant Slave Jovanov and that the
6 plan was approved by Ljube Krstevski. Is this correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Therefore, is this -- does this document confirm what you say,
9 that the plans on the basis of which work is conducted in the police
10 station and in the unit is, in effect, within the competency of this unit
11 or police station. Is this correct?
12 A. Yes, this is correct.
13 Q. Please look at now the other page of this document. This is
14 N005-0608. The English version N005-0608-ET.
15 As you can see in the preamble of this plan for the month listed,
16 it is -- it reads that: "This plan of the Police Station Cair for the
17 month August 2001 will be realised based upon the plan programme of the
18 sector of internal affairs Skopje and the Police Station Cair for 2001, as
19 well as on the present security situation in the republic and the recent
20 events in Tetovo and the surroundings of Tetovo and the problems emerged
21 on the territory that will have to gain priority in undertaking
22 operational and tactical measures and activities in the course of the
23 month of August 2001 for which the following plan was prepared."
24 My question is, Mr. Toskovski: Is it correct that the assessment
25 of the security situation in a concrete area is within the competency of
1 the Ministry of the Interior of that area, and that on the basis of
2 that and its statutory powers, this body adopts its Work Plans
3 on the basis of which all of you work? That is to say, is it correct that
4 is it within the competent of the unit and the police station to assess
5 the security situation in its own area?
6 A. Yes, this is correct all assessments begins primarily from the
7 regional areas.
8 Q. In the organisation of the sector, security sector which we saw in
9 this rules of books which you also know carrying out your tasks, is it
10 true that there is a 24-hour operative centre?
11 A. Yes, this is correct.
12 Q. The authorised persons in the police stations and other authorised
13 persons are obliged about all elements which may have elements of
14 suspicions of having been a crime are obliged to inform the operative
16 A. [No interpretation]
17 Q. The duty operational centre was obliged then to inform --
18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] My apology. The transcript does
19 not include your answer to my question.
20 Q. My question was were bodies of the Ministry of the Interior obliged to
21 inform the Duty Operations Centre, could you please respond again?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. My question now is, does -- was this -- is this what happened in
24 practice, that the Duty Operations Centre of the city of Skopje was
25 obliged to immediately inform the duty -- the duty investigative judge and
1 prosecutor so as they could decide about further measures?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. In the meantime, the police had the obligation to secure the site
4 and evidence so that they are not destroyed but could not carry out any
5 kind of activities until the investigation judge decides about the
6 information received. Is this correct?
7 A. This is correct.
8 Q. The investigative judge in some situations or others can authorise
9 the police to go and conduct the work and -- under which case the police
10 could do all necessary measures. Is this correct?
11 A. It happens in some cases.
12 Q. However, if the investigative judge decides to go out on the spot,
13 then he forms the team which goes out on the site and then the police acts
14 only by assisting the judge and carrying out those orders which are given
15 by the judge. Is this correct?
16 A. Yes, this is correct. The investigation is carried out by the
17 investigative judge.
18 Q. In the course of yesterday, you were asked a number of questions
19 about the criminal charges which you prepared at the time between the 12th
20 and 14th of August, 2001. Is this correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. The criminal charges which you and your colleagues prepared were
23 signed by the head of the unit of internal affairs. Is this correct?
24 A. Yes, this is correct.
25 Q. At the time of these events of 10 to the 12th, you, as an officer
1 of the Ministry of Interior, knew that in the area of the municipality of
2 Cair there is mixed population. Is this correct?
3 A. Yes, I knew this.
4 Q. In the area of your municipalities also included parts of Skopska
5 Crna Gora and the border area towards Serbia. Is this correct?
6 A. Yes, this is correct.
7 Q. Both of these facts in the time of the crisis, especially at the
8 time when certain fights were led in the south of Serbia and also in the
9 area of Kumanov and Tetovo were of extreme importance for the defence of
10 the city of Skopje. Is this correct?
11 A. Yes, this is correct.
12 Q. Even prior to the 10th to the 12th of August, you knew that the
13 army of the Republic of Macedonia is for the purpose of protection of
14 Skopje from terrorist intrusions and attacks deployed its forces on the
15 mountain Skopska Crna Gora and on an important stretch, segment of the
16 municipality of Cair. Is this correct?
17 A. Yes, we were aware of this.
18 Q. In the bodies of the police other regular duties securing the
19 public order and peace in the areas which were not controlled by the
20 army, this was also part of your duty. Is this correct?
21 A. Yes, this is correct, as well as discovering crime occurring in
22 this area.
23 Q. Thank you. To the question of my learned colleague, you said that
24 you were aware that on the 10th of August at Ljubotenski Bacila eight
25 people died and a number of members of the army were wounded as a result
1 of a mine explosion?
2 A. Yes, I remember that.
3 Q. I would like to ask you now to look at the document in tab 10.
4 That is Exhibit P396. And you can see here that this is a telegram from
5 the Mirkovci police station, number 156 of 10th of August, 2001, and as
6 you can see it reads: "On the 10th of August, 2001, at 8.20 at the
7 check-point Ljubanci, the authorised officer, Trajkovski Tome has sent a
8 report that on the 10th of August, 2001, at an unspecified time at the
9 Basinec locality above the village of Ljubanci, Skopje region, a van of
10 the Republic of Macedonia has stepped on a mine. Through the contact with
11 the Major Despodov we were informed that when the vehicle returned from
12 the shift at the locality of Basinec it stepped on a mine and the car
13 turned over and eight soldiers of the army were killed while six were
14 injured. This information was compiled by the Mirkovci police station,
15 commander Slavko Ivanovski."
16 Do you see this?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And there is the information that you received from the Mirkovci
19 police station at the unit for internal affairs, Cair. Is that correct?
20 A. Yes. You can see this also from the address of the recipient,
21 which is noted here.
22 Q. Tell me, please, this Slavko Ivanovski, that is the commander that
23 you met on the 12th of August, at the Mirkovci police station. Is that
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Could you please look at the document in tab 11 that. Is Exhibit
2 P112. And this telegramme informs that already on the 10th it can be seen
3 that many villagers of Ljuboten leave the village. Is that correct?
4 A. Yes, it is correct.
5 Q. I would like to ask you to look now at the document in tab 12.
6 That is 65 ter 1D519, page 1D4746 and the English, N005-0498-ET. And this
7 is another telegramme from the Mirkovci police station where it is read
8 that: "On the 10th of August, 2001, at 1530, the patrol of the Mirkovci
9 police station, which is positioned above village of Ljuboten, and the
10 authorised officer Dusan Dodorov informed us that in the village of
11 Ljuboten at the stretch from the school toward the cemetery on the left
12 side of the road in the house of the Zendelovski family they noticed three
13 persons wearing black uniforms and armed with automatic weapons." Was
14 that also part of the information that you gathered when drafting the
15 criminal report that you spoke about yesterday?
16 A. Yes, I was aware of the information because I -- and all the other
17 employees are informed about the contents of these telegrams on a daily
18 basis. It is important that the telegrammes are sent to the OVR Cair as
19 so we have received all the information present here at meetings.
20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to ask
21 now that this document is now received as a Defence exhibit, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
23 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D145, Your Honours.
24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. I would like to ask you now to look at the document in tab 13.
1 That is Exhibit P150, page N005-0548, and the English is the same number
2 only ET added.
3 This is now an Official Note from the Mirkovci police station,
4 submitted by Sahin Sahin and Dragan Surlov and this note indicates that
5 there were movements of the villagers from the village of Ljubanci. Is it
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And I would move on to something else now. With regards to the
9 previous information about the actions of the NLA in the crisis regions,
10 were you aware that the NLA request the villagers to move out from a
11 village before they start attacking?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. I would like to ask you now to look at the document in tab 14.
14 That is the Exhibit P158.
15 MR. SAXON: Your Honours.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Saxon.
17 MR. SAXON: That last question and answer, I -- appears to be a
18 very general question and received a very general response, and I'm
19 wondering whether the -- my colleague could pursue with this witness
20 what -- in what particular situations he's referring to.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Can you indicate to me which particular question
22 you're identifying?
23 MR. SAXON: With regards to the previous information about the
24 actions of the NLA in the crisis regions, were you aware --
25 JUDGE PARKER: Line 17, 18.
1 MR. SAXON: 17 to 20, and then the response at page -- at line 21.
2 JUDGE PARKER: It is indeed general, but I will leave it to
3 Ms. Residovic whether she wants to pursue it more particularly or whether
4 you wish to do so in re-examination.
5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours, thank you very
6 much. I thought -- I meant to say that if my colleague thinks that some
7 questions are overly general, he can further clarify them in the redirect.
8 Thank you very much.
9 Could we now please look at the document in tab 14. That is
10 Exhibit P158. And that is the Official Note, number 1179.
11 Do you see now, Mr. Toskovski, that this Official Note submitted
12 by Sahin Sahin also speaks about the planting of the mine on the 10th of
13 August at Ljubotenski Bacila or at Basinec.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And the next note, the one in tab 15, that is Exhibit P151,
16 N005-0549, and that is the Official Note number 1180, again, submitted by
17 Sahin Sahin from the Mirkovci police station. It also indicates that
18 there were information that three persons wearing black uniforms armed
19 with automatic weapons entered the village of Ljuboten in the area where
20 the houses of the Zendeli family were?
21 A. Yes, I see that.
22 Q. Could you please look now at the document in tab 16. That is
23 Exhibit P114. That is -- that is -- very well. That is a report on the
24 registered events and measures undertaken and as you can see it is signed
25 by Ljube Krstevski, that is your head of the department. Is that so?
1 A. Yes, but somebody has signed it for him. There is an apostrophe
2 indicating that.
3 Q. And this report speaks about all the events that we know were
4 recorded by the police station at the actual scene, Mirkovci police
5 station. Is that so?
6 A. Yes, no doubt about that.
7 Q. I would like to ask you now when you saw those documents, I don't
8 know whether you had the opportunity to see many other documents, but I'm
9 interested in the following.
10 Several times, when asked by the Prosecutor yesterday, you stated
11 that the information indicated in the rationale for the criminal report
12 were received from the persons interviewed on the 12th, then from the
13 reports that you received from Sasa Simonovic and also on the basis of
14 other information that you had available at that time.
15 Tell me now, please, are the documents that I've just shown you
16 part of those other information that you took into consideration when you
17 were writing the criminal report and when you made the assessment, when
18 you concluded that there is reasonable doubt the crime has been submitted
19 which is -- committed which is a grounds for a criminal report?
20 A. Yes, this is precisely part of the other information that I used
21 at that time.
22 Q. And now, to save time, would it be correct that you had the
23 similar documents also for the 11th of August and not only the 10th of
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. When asked by the learned colleague the Prosecutor, you spoke
2 about your activities on the 12th of August. Do you remember that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. When you came to work on the 12th of August at 8.00 in the
5 morning, you stated that you discussed certain activities for that day.
6 In your statement, you stated precisely that you had discussed certain
7 military activities that the army of the Republic of Macedonia was engaged
8 in those days, in the area of the Cair municipality. Do you remember
9 that, or do you wish me to refresh your memory by showing you part of your
11 I will read it to you. In the item 11 you stated: [In English]
12 "On Sunday, 12 August 2001, I started to work at 8.00 in the morning in
13 the OOR. It was the normal time when I started to work. We were working
14 in 12 shifts -- 12-hour shifts. On this day, were some military activity
15 ongoing in the area of OVR Cair. When I came in the morning to work, I
16 learned that at this time some military activities have started. We
17 didn't have any official briefing. We spoke with colleague about the
19 So what you stated then, that at the beginning you were aware that
20 there were military activities taking place, is this what you actually
21 remember about the discussions in the morning at your workplace, in the
23 A. Could you please clarify the question? Could you please clarify
24 it, if you may?
25 Q. Yesterday when asked by my learned colleague, you stated that you
1 heard that there was a police action taking place. Do you remember that?
2 A. Yes, this is correct. Yes.
3 Q. In your statement to the investigator of the OTP in item 11, you
4 stated that you heard that there were some military activities taking
5 place, or rather, started, and that you then discussed that situation. You
6 further stated: [In English] "After some time, the head of OOR Josevski
7 told us that some joined police and army forces have some actions against
8 some terrorist group."
9 This is a quotation from your statement.
10 So I'm asking you now, when I now showed what you stated to the
11 investigator of the Prosecutor and confronted this with your yesterday
12 statement that there were police forces involved in some actions which of
13 two is correct now? Did you think that it was a joint action taking place
14 and that your superior informed you about this; or was correct what you
15 stated yesterday, that it was a police action?
16 A. Yesterday, probably the question was unclear. A joint action,
17 absolutely. We received a short briefing in the morning at 8.00 from our
18 head of department stating that, actually, there was a joint military and
19 police action taking place.
20 Q. Thank you. You testified in the afternoon that your superiors,
21 Ljube Krstevski and Josevski told you that you needed to go to the
22 Mirkovci police station where some persons were brought in and that you
23 needed to gather information and see what it was all about. Is that
25 A. Yes, it is correct.
1 Q. But I would like to ask you something related to your presence and
2 work in the Cair police station, where your office is, or actually the
3 office of the department of internal affairs, Cair.
4 Is it correct that during that day you saw that some persons were
5 brought in, in the station?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And at that time there were some hundred civilians in front of the
8 station, very hostile and they were threatening that they would break into
9 the police station. Is that correct?
10 A. Yes, this is correct.
11 Q. And is it correct that the police officers from the Cair police
12 station, which were not many, tried to take and took all measures in order
13 to prevent the breaking of those agitated citizens into the premises of
14 the police station Cair?
15 A. Yes, it is correct.
16 Q. Is it correct that at that time the police station Cair and the
17 OVR Cair received findings that many civilians armed with various
18 instruments were attacking the villagers of Ljuboten, moving from the
19 village towards the city and that it happened at Radisani and Radisanski
20 Pat [as interpreted] while the citizens were from -- villagers were from
21 the neighbouring villages?
22 A. Yes, we received this information. It is correct.
23 Q. And otherwise, you stated this also to the Prosecutor's
24 investigator when asked about it. You saw that the police officers
25 brought two injured civilians from Radisani where they were attacked and
1 injured by the local population. Is that correct?
2 A. Yes, it is correct. My colleagues brought them in a car.
3 Q. And the police immediately took them to a hospital, so that they
4 are offered adequate medical care?
5 A. Yes. Since there was no suspicion that these persons participated
6 in the combat activities, we immediately called an ambulance and the
7 persons were transferred to a medical institution. It happened at
8 different times. These two persons were not together. One was brought,
9 then another, after a certain period of time.
10 Q. And then you learned that those civilians also attacked some
11 journalists from the Danish radio and some taxi drivers that were taking
12 that road and that they already established a barrier to prevent the buses
13 from coming to Skopje, the buses that would have taken the villagers of
14 Ljuboten. Is that correct?
15 A. Yes, it is correct.
16 Q. I would like to ask you to look at the document in tab 23. That
17 is Exhibit P106, page N005-0476, while the English page is the same only
18 with the addition ET.
19 And you can see that this is a report from the department for
20 internal affairs, Cair, for the 12th of August, 2001. Is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. If you look at the second bullet point of that document, it says:
23 "At 1545 an authorised officer has brought Fetaovski Diljaver, born on
24 24th of April, 1981 from the village of Ljuboten in bad physical health.
25 The individual was found on the street in the village of Radisani where he
1 had earlier been accosted by the locals. He was transferred by ambulance
2 to Skopje City Hospital."
3 Does this information correspond to what you know about these
4 injured people beaten by the local population being brought to the
6 A. Yes, yes, this does correspond to this.
7 Q. I would like to ask you now to look at the document in tab 24.
8 That is Exhibit P157, N005-0563, with ET added to the English translation.
9 And do you agree with me that this is yet another report about the
10 events and measures taken by your department of internal affairs on the
11 12th of August, 2001?
12 A. Yes, it is correct.
13 Q. And is it correct that it contains certain findings that arrived
14 to the department on that day, and below towards the end, it says in the
15 last bullet point:
16 "Driton Vojka, born in 1974, residing in M. Mitevski street,
17 number 10-3/3, a taxi driver with the EVRO taxi association; and
18 Naser Ademi, born in 1979, residing at Dizonska street, number 21/35, a
19 taxi driver with the Euro Taxi Association. During the interview, they
20 stated they received a call to take passengers from the settlement of
21 Radisani towards Skopje, after which they headed towards Radisani with
22 their own cars. And when they arrived to the last bus-stop of the bus 57
23 in the village of Radisani, they were accosted and stopped by a large
24 group of citizens who threw themselves at them. But with swift
25 intervention of the authorised officer from the Cair police station, they
1 were taken out and brought to the Cair police station while their cars
2 were damaged at the scene by that mob of citizens and then they were
3 brought to the Cair police station for further processing. They were
4 towed to the station for further processing."
5 Is that one of the findings about the conduct of the civilians on
6 that day? You did say something about that in your statement, that you
7 gave to the Prosecutor's investigator.
8 A. Yes, it is correct. This report is authentic as well.
9 Q. When you went to the Mirkovci police station --
10 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.
11 Q. Before that I wish to ask you also, while we're still at the
12 events at Cair police station. Is it true that you never saw any police
13 officer or the police beating the persons brought in?
14 A. I've never seen anything of the sort in the police station.
15 Q. And although you saw that some persons were brought in at the Cair
16 police station, no one, no one from among the colleagues or any other
17 person told you that some police officer was beating the detainees?
18 A. Yes, it is correct. I never heard at the station that someone was
20 Q. And if I were to ask you whether it was correct that there was no
21 line of police officers in front of Cair police station through which the
22 detainees needed to pass and, allegedly, those police officers standing in
23 a line were beating those detainees, such allegations and assertions would
24 not be correct, is that true?
25 A. Yes, there was no such line of police officers who would be
1 standing there and beating them. I have never seen anything of the sort.
2 Q. And if someone would claim something of the sort, you yourself
3 haven't seen it and the further verification of information that you
4 carried out later never led you to conclude that someone from the Cair
5 police station beat the detainees or ill-treated them?
6 A. I have never seen and I have never heard that the detainees at
7 Cair police station were beated or -- beaten or ill-treated.
8 As far as the conduct of the employees at the Cair police station
9 is concerned, the previous notes that we just saw are self-evident. The
10 employees have rendered assistance to several citizens from the Ljuboten
11 village, those that were clearly not participating in any combat
12 activities. That's it.
13 Q. And if I remind you to what you stated to the Prosecutor's
14 investigator earlier, would that refresh your memory, that actually the
15 persons brought to the -- brought in at the Cair police station remained
16 there for a very brief interval of time. The list of their names was
17 made, and precisely because of the risk from that angry mob that was -- of
18 civilians that was in front of the police station, they were transferred
19 to other police stations. Is that correct.
20 A. Yes, precisely. Immediately, soon afterwards they were
21 transferred to other police stations in the city.
22 Q. My learned question asked you a number of questions about your
23 activities when -- in the late afternoon hours you arrived in the police
24 station Mirkovci. Do you remember this?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And you responded that upon your arrival you saw your female
2 colleague working on minor crime, juvenile crime, and an additional
3 colleague who was an analyst, who worked in analytics. Is this correct?
4 A. Yes, this is correct.
5 Q. Your colleague working on juvenile crime, if I were to refresh
6 your memory she was Sonja Ileva. Is this correct?
7 A. Yes, this is correct.
8 Q. Is it correct that you found out that later when you verified
9 the information asked by the Prosecution that you found out that
10 Sonja Ileva was in the Police Station Mirkovci because there was a minor
11 present there, that is to say, a person not over the age of 18 but above
12 the age of 14 and therefore criminally responsible?
13 A. Yes, this is correct.
14 Q. Yesterday you testified that around and in the station you noted a
15 number of policemen which you did not know from previously. Is this
17 A. Yes, this is correct.
18 Q. And most of them were in camouflage uniforms, which are usually
19 worn by reserve police officers. Is this correct?
20 A. Yes, this is so.
21 Q. You did not ask IDs or any information from any of these persons
22 who were in camouflage uniforms. Is this correct?
23 A. Yes, correct. This is not, to me -- up to me to do.
24 Q. Therefore, since this is not your competency and this is not what
25 you did, you did not at all know and to this day you could not claim with
1 certainty whether they were really of the reserve police forces or not.
2 Is this correct?
3 A. This is correct. I do not know.
4 Q. You also said you saw a number of persons who were wearing masks
5 and you said this was a customary, usual police mask. Is this correct?
6 A. Yes, this is correct.
7 Q. And that you met two colleagues from state security, or at least
8 so they identified themselves to you. Is this correct?
9 A. Yes, this is correct.
10 Q. And their identity, you did not verify -- did not check nor did
11 you later meet also with these colleagues. Is this correct?
12 A. Yes. I did not check nor did I meet them later.
13 Q. You also said that first you went to the commander of the police
14 station, Slavko Ivanovski, you asked of him and received initial
15 information about the persons who were brought in this police station. Is
16 this correct?
17 A. Yes, this is so.
18 Q. And he told you that they were brought in from the place of the
19 fighting. Is this correct?
20 A. Yes, this is correct. This is what he told me.
21 Q. The same things were told by your colleagues who identified
22 themselves to you as state security officers. Is this correct?
23 A. Yes, this is correct.
24 Q. And as you said in the statement which you gave to the
25 investigator of the Prosecution, they told you that they had completed
1 their work and that it is difficult to talk to them. Is this correct?
2 A. Yes, this is correct.
3 Q. You can say this, but my question to you is: Did you understand
4 that these persons did not wish to speak?
5 A. Could you please clarify your question.
6 Q. Since in your statement you said that -- in item 21, the sentence
7 next to last. You said: [In English] "That it is difficult to speak with
9 This is what your colleagues told you. My question to you,
10 therefore, is: How did you come to understand this warning given by your
11 colleagues? Did you understand this as these persons do not want to talk
12 or that they cannot talk?
13 A. It was -- this was said, that they -- in the context that they do
14 not want to talk.
15 Q. And you said that your colleagues gave you a list of names and
16 handwritten lists of seized objects about which your colleagues told you
17 that it was seized at the site of the fighting and that this was brought
18 in the police station together with the persons who were brought in. Is
19 this correct?
20 A. Yes, this is so.
21 Q. Also, you later said that -- you said that you later -- you
22 received the Official Note from -- from Sasa. Is this correct? And that
23 this Official Note was shown to you. Is this correct?
24 A. Yes, this is correct.
25 Q. When you noticed -- rather, when you visited the places where
1 these persons were at, you said that you noticed light injuries and that
2 you informed your head of department about this, considering and thinking
3 that it would be best for a doctor to see them first so as to conclude
4 whether they're capable to hold a conversation with you. Is this correct?
5 A. Yes, this is correct.
6 Q. And the doctor came, checked them, and then, only then, you began
7 your interview with -- with the detainees. Is this correct?
8 A. Yes. The doctor, also in the presence of a nurse, carried out a
9 medical checkup of all persons individually and rendered them medical
10 assistance to -- giving assistance for the injuries, some of the injuries
11 they had. And then I asked her whether the persons are capable and able,
12 from a medical point of view, to hold -- to have an interview held with
13 them, to which the doctor answered in the affirmative that one could
14 freely hold an interview with them, and that not a single one of these
15 persons has any serious visible injuries.
16 As a result of that, I later moved on to organising these
18 Q. And you recall directly answering the questions to my learned
19 colleague, you said that I'm not an expert whether these person have any
20 kind of internal injuries. Is this correct?
21 A. This is quite correct. Even the doctor could not assess whether
22 there were any kind of internal injuries. In effect, she was categorical
23 in stating that the injuries are light.
24 Q. In view of the previously received information from the commander
25 of the police station and from your colleagues from state security as well
1 as after the medical checkup conducted by the doctor, did it seem to you
2 at this moment, at that moment, that these are injuries which persons
3 could normally sustain in areas of fighting?
4 A. Yes. All injuries were customary, usual, which could be sustained
5 in areas where there is battle going on.
6 Q. And in view of the fact that no one, including the persons you
7 interviewed nor your colleagues did not point to you that some of these
8 injuries was sustained as a result of the police conduct, maltreatment by
9 the police, you did not at any which point of time did not suspect that
10 these injuries could have been sustained as a result of overstepping the
11 authorisation of the police. Is this correct?
12 A. No, I did not suspect or doubt this at all.
13 Q. Regardless of the larger number of police officers in and around
14 the police station, throughout this whole period of time when you were
15 holding the interview with these persons and you were in the police
16 station, did you -- did anyone beat these -- these detainees?
17 A. Not at all. There was no beating. They were not even touched. I
18 expressly ordered that no one come close to them except the internal
20 Q. When you were interviewing these persons, you did not beat anyone
21 personally. Is this correct?
22 A. Yes, this is correct.
23 Q. If someone would claim in front of this Court that in the course
24 of the investigation and questioning someone was maltreated or beaten,
25 then you could not at all agree with this statement. You would say that
1 it was incorrect. Is that so?
2 A. Yes, it is absolutely incorrect. While I was there, and I was
3 there for a long period of time, there was no maltreating or beating of
4 the detainees.
5 Q. When you later -- because of -- what was said publicly you heard
6 that some of these persons were beaten in the police station, did you,
7 with subsequent information, find out that someone was -- some concrete
8 individual in the police station was -- beat some of the detainees?
9 A. No, not even later. I did not get any such information.
10 Q. Did you find such information in some Official Note which you
11 looked over so as to prepare the information about the events from the
12 10th to the 12th at the request of your superiors?
13 A. No. I did not find any such information.
14 Q. Did you -- did you find out from any person or from documents you
15 checked, find out that the police beat citizens who were moving from
16 Ljuboten towards Skopje at the check-point, police check-points?
17 A. No, I did not receive such information nor have I found anything
18 to that extent.
19 Q. In effect, in further checks and verification of events, you had
20 the same facts as you did on the 12th, in the morning, when some persons,
21 injured persons by the citizens were brought in, that, in effect, hundred
22 of citizens on the Radisani road and on the road from -- to Ljubanci from
23 Ljubanci -- Ljuboten to Radisani, and that they were, in effect, beating
24 and injuring a certain number of citizens of Ljuboten. Is this the
25 information which you knew in the morning of the 12th? Is this
1 information which was later confirmed?
2 A. Yes. This information was confirmed each day.
3 Q. To the question of my learned colleague, you responded that the
4 statements of each individual, person, detainee, lasted about 10 to 15
6 Tell us, please, what is the reason for the interview to be of
7 such short duration. Is it because you did not want to ask, or that these
8 persons refused to answer in greater detail to the questions you asked
10 A. I wanted to get to valid information about what, in effect,
11 happened in the village and how the events were played out. However, I
12 did not meet the understanding of the detainees; that is to say, not a
13 single one of them wanted to speak or to clarify anything in regards to
14 these events. All of them refrained from commenting, saying that they saw
15 some shootings but that they did not know anything more about this.
16 Q. In view of the fact that you received information and the Official
17 Note about the seized weapons and that the persons refuted the use of
18 weapons, was it your normal practice at that moment to take the paraffin
19 glove test so as to check and to verify the alleged facts about, and
20 whether the hands or part of the hands of these individuals would have
21 nitrate particles or powder particles, was this the regular procedure in
22 checking the allegations of which you were informed?
23 A. Yes. In such cases, this is standard and obligatory procedure.
24 Q. My learned colleague asked you a line of questions regarding the
25 segment of your statement which says that -- that your head of department
1 was required or was requested that -- that he required of you to finish up
2 your job quickly. Do you recall this?
3 A. Yes, I do recall this.
4 Q. And then you -- you said that it was asked of you to act quickly
5 but that no one put any kind of pressure on you --
6 A. [No interpretation]
7 Q. -- to do things in ways other than what you thought was necessary?
8 A. Yes, this is correct.
9 Q. I would now ask you to see whether my understanding of the
10 criminal procedure is correct.
11 Is it correct that in order to file a criminal
12 report, it is necessary to have some grounds for
14 A. Yes, that is correct.
15 Q. The law formulates it as ‘grounds for suspicion’?
16 A. Yes, that is correct.
17 Q. This is not exactly ‘reasonable doubt’; this is some grounds for
18 suspicion. In order for a judge to conduct an investigation, there had to
19 be a greater degree of suspicion based on the facts available to the
20 judge. Is that correct?
21 A. Yes, that is correct.
22 Q. And for an indictment, there had to be grounds for suspicion.
23 Is that correct?
24 A. Yes, grounds for suspicion precisely.
25 Q. Is this one of the reasons that the police does not establish the
1 facts but just collects them and hands them over to the prosecutor to see
2 whether this is enough to start up a criminal procedure?
3 A. Yes, this is absolutely so.
4 Q. It is not up to the police to establish the absolute accuracy of
5 each fact that it collects. Is this correct?
6 A. Yes, this is correct. The prosecutor can say something to another
7 effect, to add something or to request additional evidence.
8 Q. In regards to your response, that you were asked to act in a swift
9 manner, which you repeated on two occasions yesterday, is it this -- due
10 to the fact that in accordance with the Law on Criminal Procedure of the
11 Republic of Macedonia the police has a very limited, very short period of
12 time in which it can detain a person and after which it is obliged to set
13 him or her free. Is this correct?
14 A. Yes, this is it correct. 24 hours is the time-frame within which
15 the police must declare itself whether it will submit charges or file
16 charges or whether it will set that person free.
17 Q. I would now ask of you to look at document P88, Article 118, page
18 N001-9074, Article 188, Article 6 -- paragraph 6, Article 188, paragraph
20 And it reads here: "Detention pursuant to paragraph 3, that would
21 be when the ministry brings the person in, can last up to 24 hours. After
22 the expiry of this time-frame, the authorised officer of the Ministry of
23 Internal Affairs is obligated to release the detainee or to proceed in
24 accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article."
25 That is actually the legal provision that you, yourself, now
1 mentioned, that you had just 24 hours, is that correct, and that is the
2 reason why you needed to work swiftly?
3 A. Yes, exactly.
4 Q. Only the investigating judge could allow that a person is detained
5 for a certain period of time without instigating a procedure but not
6 longer than 48 hours and then, if there was still not a request made by
7 the prosecutor, then the person would need to be set free. Is that
9 A. Yes, it is correct.
10 Q. And I would like to ask you to look at the -- this same law and
11 verify this in Article 186, paragraph 4, Macedonian page N001-9072. The
12 English page would be N001-9177-045. And let's look at this before we
13 complete with -- the first part of the examination.
14 And the first paragraph says: "Immediately after the interview,
15 the investigating judge will decide whether to set the person deprived
16 liberty free. If they believe that the person deprived liberty needs to
17 be kept, the investigating judge immediately informs about this the public
18 prosecutor, unless the prosecutor hasn't already submitted a request for
19 an investigation. If the public prosecutor within the 24 hours from the
20 time when he is informed of the pre-trial detention does not request
21 investigation, the investigating judge will release the person deprived of
23 Is this the competence belonging to the investigating judge only,
24 to hold the person for longer than 24 hours and up to 48 hours. Is that
1 A. Yes, it is correct.
2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Is that a convenient time?
4 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you.
5 JUDGE PARKER: We will have the first break now and resume just
6 after 11.00.
7 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.
8 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
10 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours.
11 Q. Mr. Toskovski, before the break we looked at the legal provision,
12 and you confirmed that it was applied in the practice, that it was only
13 the investigating judge who could authorise extension of pre-trial
14 detention and I would like to ask you now to look at the document in tab
15 65. That is Exhibit P262, pages 005-0470. And the English, the same
16 number with the ET added.
17 This is an Official Note, number 566. It says it was submitted by
18 T. Blagoja. Can you recognise this Official Note? Can you see that this
19 is a note that you compiled? Have you found it?
20 I apologise. It is in tab 65.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And that is the Official Note that you yourself wrote. Is that
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. On the 17th of August, 2001.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And that is yet another information that you had the duty to
3 submit to your superior officers in connection with the events and the
4 activities that you undertook?
5 A. Yes, it is correct.
6 Q. And this Official Note states: "In connection with the request
7 for the dispatch of operative information for the detainment of arrested
8 individuals from the village of Ljuboten, in numerous police stations in
9 Skopje, we inform you of the following.
10 "On the 13th of August, 2001, at around 1700 hours, at a planned
11 meeting that took place at the premise of SVR Skopje, OSOOK, in the
12 presence of the head of the OSOOK, Boic Milorad, deputy public prosecutor,
13 which is the expansion of the ZJO, Lazar Kantrandziski, in the role of the
14 acting municipal public prosecutor, and the deputy public prosecutor
15 Jovanovo Serafimovski, the following agreement was reached. "The
16 detained individuals from the area of village of Ljuboten where combat
17 activities of the joint security forces of the Republic of Macedonia took
18 place against the terrorist gangs, are to be held in the police station
19 until the completion of the entire pre-trial procedure because of the
20 large number of the detained individuals and shortage of time for a
21 completion of the entire procedure.
22 "The investigating judge of Basic Court Skopje II, Bekir Sani was
23 informed about the recommendations and the agreement reached by the
24 aforementioned deputies of the basic public prosecutor and the chief of
25 the OSOOK at the SVR Skopje. And a joint agreement was reached and the
1 investigating judge agreed with it and confirmed it, the investigating
2 judge within the Basic Court Skopje II, Bekir Sani, that the individuals
3 are held until the completion of the entire procedure."
4 Tell me now, please, whether this indicates that you were aware at
5 the moment when you wrote the materials that it is only the investigating
6 judge who could provide you with additional 24 hours so that you complete
7 the procedures?
8 A. Yes, we were aware of that. This is why we requested the
9 agreement to extend the time-frame.
10 Q. And that decision about detention was actually passed by the judge
11 of the Basic Court, Bekir Sani, in accordance with his legal competencies?
12 A. Yes, absolutely correct.
13 Q. This judge is of Albanian ethnic origin. Is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Thank you. In answer to my learned colleague you stated that the
16 criminal report you submitted was accompanied by the evidence that you had
17 gathered that far, but you were also waiting for the findings of the
18 paraffin glove test and you also had requested expertise on the weapons.
19 Is that correct?
20 A. It is correct.
21 Q. In your criminal report you indicated that you were waiting for
22 those findings to arrive. Is that correct?
23 A. Yes, it is correct.
24 Q. And once you received that evidence, as the law prescribes,
25 you submitted them as additional evidence attached to the criminal report.
1 Is that correct?
2 A. Yes, they were submitted additionally.
3 Q. I would like to ask you to look now at the document in tab 43.
4 That is Exhibit P46, page 04638774-041, and the English is D
6 This report bears the date of 27th of August, 2001, and it is sent
7 from your department of internal affairs, Cair. Is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. It is sent to the basic public prosecutor of Skopje. Is that
11 A. Yes, it is correct.
12 Q. And as you can see from the first sentence, it is related to your
13 criminal report of 13th of August, 2001. Is that correct?
14 A. Yes, it is correct.
15 Q. And in the last paragraph it is stated: "Attached to this report
16 are the expert testimony analysis of fire-arm number 10.2.6-30027/1, dated
17 16th of August, 2001, prepared by the MOI of Republic of Macedonia, sector
18 for forensics and a photo album related to the seized fire-arm -- fire-arm
19 seized of the above mentioned persons from the village of Ljuboten who are
20 charged with the criminal offence of terrorism. Is that correct?
21 A. Yes, it is correct.
22 Q. Could you now please look at the document in tab 44. That is
23 Exhibit P66, page 0463-8774-042, while the English is 0463-8815-0463-8815.
24 You see here a document from the sector for forensics or
25 criminalistic techniques from 14th of August, 2001 which is submitted to
1 the sector for internal affairs of Skopje, department of internal affairs,
2 Cair, and is related to the analysis of fire-arm. Is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And in the first paragraph, you can see that your department,
5 Cair, has submitted for analysis on 14th of August, 2001 the weapons that
6 were seized from the persons during the fights in the village of Ljuboten.
7 Is that correct?
8 A. Yes, it is correct.
9 Q. Thank you. And you immediately, the next day, sent the findings
10 to the competent prosecutor, isn't it so, as you are required to do under
11 the law?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You told me a while ago answering my question that the prosecutor
14 was not necessarily satisfied with what you had submitted with him and in
15 that case the prosecutor will request you to supply them with additional
16 information. Is that correct?
17 A. Yes, it is correct.
18 Q. My colleague the Prosecutor asked you whether fingerprints were
19 taken, lifted from the fire-arms. When the prosecutor received the
20 findings about the expertise on the weapons, it was not up to you as
21 police officers to establish whether the expert answered all the
22 questions. If the findings were deemed insufficient, the prosecutor was
23 able to request some additional expertise. Is that correct?
24 A. Yes, precisely.
25 Q. Actually, it is your duty just to forward the findings to the
1 prosecutor. Is that correct?
2 A. Yes, it is correct.
3 Q. When the judge receives the expert findings through the prosecutor
4 and the expertise could be related to anything, so fire-arms included,
5 then the court, if they are not satisfied with the results of the
6 findings, can request additional expertise from the same expert or assign
7 completely different experts. Is that correct?
8 A. Yes, precisely.
9 Q. The judge can do this independently upon its own motion, or upon a
10 request of one of the parties, the prosecutor or the defendant and the
11 defence counsel?
12 A. Yes, correct, precisely.
13 Q. The police, at any level, does not participate in the
14 investigating procedure in no way and it has no legal or actual
15 possibilities to learn what the finding is or to suggest to the judge
16 which activities need to be undertaken. Is that correct?
17 A. Absolutely. The police has no right of that sort.
18 Q. So based on the assessment of the prosecutor whether they will
19 admit or reject your criminal charges or whether they will ask for
20 additional clarification --
21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction the police could not
22 influence and has no legal powers to influence the decision of the
23 prosecutor whether to accept -- reject the criminal charges or request
24 additional information or the decision of the investigating judge about
25 which actions are to be undertaken.
1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Is that correct?
3 A. Yes, it is correct.
4 Q. The investigating judge was not bound by duty to agree with the
5 prosecutor's motion to run the investigation or to decide on detention and
6 then the judicial chamber would decide on this. Again, the police has no
7 influence here or legal powers?
8 A. Absolutely, police has no legal powers here.
9 Q. And as far as you know, the judge accepted the request of the
10 prosecutor and ran the investigation upon the criminal charges you
11 submitted and on the basis of evidence that you gathered in the first
12 stage. Is that correct?
13 A. Yes, the prosecutor accepted those.
14 Q. In the criminal procedure in the investigation, the police
15 officer, as any other citizen, could take part only if they are summoned
16 by the judge to be interviewed -- questioned as a witness. Is that
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And no investigating judge summonsed you to provide any
20 information about what you know or the evidence that you gathered. Is
21 that correct as well?
22 A. Yes. Yes, it is correct. I never received any summons from
23 the prosecutor or an investigating judge.
24 Q. The prosecutor nor the judge have never informed you that any of
25 the detainees have complained about having been beaten by the police.
1 A. No. No one has communicated any such complaints to me.
2 Q. And you, as a lawyer and as an inspector surely know that if the
3 judge in the course of investigation learns about some additional facts,
4 for instance, that a person had been injured or that a person died, then
5 the judge was able to take certain actions to verify the facts and had the
6 duty to inform the public prosecutor about that. Is that your
7 understanding of the competences of the court and the prosecutor?
8 A. Yes, it is so. If the criminal reports are admitted and a person
9 dies, the competence belongs to the court and the prosecutor's office for
10 any further investigation.
11 Q. I wish to remind you, to refresh your memory although you stated
12 that it is the law but I would still invite to you look at the
13 Prosecutor's Exhibit P88. And let's look at the Article 157, paragraph 1
14 in tab 3. That is -- we said Article 157. That is page N001-9063, while
15 the English is N001-9177-037.
16 And here in paragraph 1 you see that the investigating judge would
17 carry out other investigation activities, if needed, related to this or
18 derived from those, which is to say the -- from the activities that are
19 part of the investigation that the judge is concerned with. Are you aware
20 that this is the competence of the investigating judge?
21 A. Yes, I'm aware of that.
22 Q. I would like to ask you now to look at the following Article.
23 That is Article 158 in paragraph 2. It reads -- and that is on the
24 following page in the Macedonian text. It says: "If during the
25 investigation it appears that the investigation should be expanded to
1 another criminal offence or against another person, the investigating
2 judge will inform the public prosecutor about this. In such case,
3 investigation activities that would suffer from the delay could be
4 undertaken, but the public prosecutor must be informed about any activity
5 that is undertaken."
6 So am I correct in my understanding, if the investigating judge,
7 during the investigation, learned that the police possibly ill-treated
8 some of the detainees, then they needed to maybe start additional
9 investigating activities and inform the public prosecutor about them but
10 they had no obligation to inform the police about that. Is that correct?
11 A. Yes, it is correct. And if they had some information, they would
12 have undertaken investigation.
13 Q. And let's look now at Article 160. That is on the same Macedonian
14 page and reads on paragraph 1 that: "The parties and the injured party can
15 during the investigation give proposals to the investigating judge to
16 carry out certain investigating acts."
17 Does this legal provision also confirm that it is only the parties
18 to the procedure, the prosecutor, the injured party, and the defendant can
19 give proposals to the investigating judge regarding certain actions while
20 the police has no such powers?
21 A. Yes, precisely.
22 Q. My learned colleague also asked you some questions about your
23 findings or knowledge about the death of Atulla Qaili. Do you remember
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Considering that you wrote the criminal report on the 13th of
2 August, at the moment of writing that criminal report you still had no
3 information that Atulla Qaili had died. Is that correct?
4 A. Yes, it is correct. We thought that he was still in the hospital.
5 Q. The Official Note that the Prosecutor showed you was written by
6 you on the 14th, and then you stated that the information arrived on the
8 Considering the previous conversation, that information had
9 arrived after you had already finished the criminal report where the name
10 of Atulla Qaili was mentioned as well. Is that correct?
11 A. Yes, it is correct.
12 Q. And that was the reason why you immediately wrote the Official
13 Note to provide the information about your knowledge, your meeting with
14 Atulla Qaili when you were interviewing him, taking his statement. Is
15 that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Are you aware that also your other colleagues gathered certain
18 information about that fact, and that upon a court's request, when the
19 court learned that that person died, they performed the identification of
20 the deceased person by taking fingerprints and establishing the identity
21 of the deceased person as requested by the court.
22 Did you have that information?
23 A. Yes, only verbally.
24 Q. I would like to ask you also this.
25 Could you just please look at the document in tab 49. That is
1 Exhibit 1D69; N000-1253 is the page. We have the English translation as
3 Did you find this document yet?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. This is an Official Note written by the chief inspector
6 Zlatko Dosevski and which is related to the identification of the unknown
7 deceased person on the basis of the papillary lines and the identity was
8 established to be that of Atulla Qaili. Is that the document, are those
9 the facts that you learned verbally, that the identity of the person was
10 being verified?
11 A. Yes, correct.
12 Q. You also stated that the homicide department was maybe to supposed
13 to gather some additional information upon the request of the court. Do
14 you remember having said that to the Prosecutor yesterday?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. If I were to say to you that the brother of the deceased person
17 Atulla Qaili testified before this Court, Bejtullah Qaili, and that he
18 stated before this Court that the police came to his house twice and was
19 interested in the death of his brother, and although he had some
20 documents, he did not give those documents to the police, would this
21 statement also corroborate what you had stated, that probably your
22 colleagues from other department were trying to learn a bit more about the
23 actual death of Atulla Qaili as well?
24 A. Yes, yes, it is correct. Other colleagues and also us from the
25 operative department of the Police Station Cair repeatedly tried to gather
1 information not only on Atulla but also on the other persons, but the
2 route to cooperation was closed by the villagers so we had no opportunity
3 to get at any information.
4 Q. In view of your previous answers, that when the court or the
5 Prosecutor have information about a certain fact that it is up to them to
6 put requests to the police and ask certain verification and evidence, I
7 would point out to you and prior to that I would like to ask you: You
8 know the name of Jovan Serafimovski, the deputy public prosecutor from
9 Skopje. Is that correct?
10 A. Yes, I know the name.
11 Q. In effect, you cooperated with the prosecutors from Skopje for
12 years. Is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And this is one of the deputies who was present at the meeting
15 when you proposed to the judge that the detainees be kept for an
16 additional day. Is this the same deputy prosecutor?
17 A. Yes, the same one.
18 Q. In your statement to the investigator of The Hague Tribunal given
19 on the 19th of December and the 20th of December, 2005,
20 Prosecutor Serafimovski said the following: [In English] "With the
21 respect to the case of Qaili, Atulla referred to under number seven, I was
22 not aware on 14 August 2001 that the accused Atulla Qaili was already
23 dead. I learned about the death of Atulla Qaili by receiving a written
24 information from the investigating judge Velce Pancevski. It was my
25 obligation to find out of the cause of the death of Atulla Qaili. We
1 learned that he was injured during the clash with Macedonia security
2 forces in Ljuboten.
3 "I was informed from the media that police and army were in
4 Ljuboten. I don't know which unit of the police and army were involved.
5 I didn't know the units or the names of the police or army officers who
6 were directly involved in the death of Atulla Qaili. I didn't try to find
7 out who was involved in the death of Qaili, Atullah, because I was told
8 that a lot of security forces were involved in this events. In the
9 Official Note of the police it was mentioned that the security forces were
10 active in Ljuboten. That was all the information about the events that we
12 In line 25, page 46, it is stated in your statement while I had
13 said in his statement. There's to say, in the statement of Serafimovski.
14 Do you, Mr. Toskovski, agree with what the deputy prosecutor had
15 said, that it is his responsibility to undertake further measures in
16 clarifying the events and in what manner the death of Qaili occurred?
17 A. Yes, this is correct. This is his responsibility.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
19 MR. SAXON: I'm very sorry for the interruption. Just to clarify
20 the transcript a bit.
21 I believe a couple of words that Ms. Residovic read into the
22 record may not have made it into the transcript. This at about line 12
23 and 13 of page 47. "I didn't try to find out who was involved in the death
24 of Atullah it was mentioned and the security forces were active in
25 Ljuboten." I believe I heard Ms. Residovic say it was mentioned that lots
1 of security forces. I could be wrong about that.
2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This is it item 10. If necessary,
3 I can read it more slowly so that each word is included in the transcript
4 and perhaps the interpreters can themselves, by controlling what has been
5 read, correct the transcript. I don't know what would be the right way to
6 proceed, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE PARKER: If could you read that sentence again, please.
8 MS. RESIDOVIC: [In English] "We learned that he was injured during
9 the clash with the Macedonian security forces in Ljuboten. I was informed
10 from the media that police and army were in Ljuboten. I don't know which
11 unit of the police and army were involved. I didn't know the units or the
12 names of the police or army officers who were directly involved in death
13 of Qaili Atulla. I didn't try to find out who was involved in the death
14 of Atulla Qaili, because I was told that a lot of security forces were
15 involved in these events."
16 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much.
17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 Q. Mr. Toskovski, when an event happens which contains elements or
19 could have elements of a criminal act, you already said that the officer
20 on duty or the person from the MOI would have to inform the duty operative
21 centre which, in turn, would inform the -- the investigative judge,
22 prosecutor on duty. Is this correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. If one of the witnesses before this Court were to say that the
25 officer on duty from the police station informed the operative centre on
1 duty that there are people dead in the village, is that -- and that that
2 witness informed the officer on duty and that afterwards the duty centre
3 informed the investigative judge, then you would agree with me that the
4 police in this case has acted in accordance, as it should act?
5 A. Yes, this is correct.
6 Q. I would now ask you to look at the document in tab 61, 1D6,
7 Exhibit 1D6, and to look at page N000-7351, English version ET
8 0-7350-N000-7351. This is a draft translation.
9 Have you found this page? In the second paragraph -- the other
10 page, if you will. Second page. Also the second page of the English
12 The undersigned investigative judge Ognen Stavrev, is known to
13 you. Is this correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In the second paragraph of this document, it is said: "Regarding
16 the same case on 12th August 2001, the duty investigative judge was
17 informed by MVR-SVR-DOC, the Duty Operations Centre 92, at 1730 that in the
18 area of Ljubanci and Ljuboten villages in the area of Skopje there were
19 several killed members of the militaries of the Albanian terrorists, but
20 no one could come close to the bodies because at that moment the military
21 activities were still ongoing. The investigative judge informed the
22 deputy, a basic public prosecutor Roska Karova about the details received
23 by the MVR. Also, the investigative judge was informed that the safety of
24 the investigation authorities of the court and the public prosecution was
25 not guaranteed because of the clashes that were still ongoing. Due to
1 these reasons, no investigation activities were undertaken. More
2 precisely, due to the military clashes that were still ongoing between the
3 above mentioned paramilitary formations and security forces of the
4 Republic of Macedonia.
5 Doctor Aleksej Duma, director of the forensic institute and
6 criminology was also informed about the situation."
7 Tell us, Mr. Toskovski, did you know that on the first day the
8 investigative judge was informed to go on the spot but that he could not
9 do so because of these reasons?
10 A. Yes, this was known to me. He was informed.
11 Q. As inspector you also know that the decision about whether this
12 will be, whether he will go or not go on the spot, whether or not he will
13 overcome or oversee the circumstances under which the investigation would
14 be carried out only to the investigative judge. Is this correct?
15 A. Yes. I know that at this moment a decision to go out on the spot
16 is reached by the judge, the investigating judge. The police only assists
17 and possibly gives an assessment upon the request, upon his request about
18 the security situation on the ground.
19 Q. Please look at the first page of the same document. From the
20 first part, in paragraph 2 it is stated that:
21 "The investigative judge Ognen Stavrev, deputy public prosecutor
22 Milan Gelevski and Dr. Zlatko Jakovski from the forensic institute and
23 criminology, already at 1400 hours arrived at the premises of the police
24 station Cair in Skopje where officials from MVR crime police were present,
25 led by the head of the section Ruse Stamatovski. But investigation on
1 site did not take place because the basic prosecutor and the security
2 forces, the head of OVR Cair, Ljube Krstevski, had told them that in the
3 village of -- village of Ljuboten, the security forces could not guarantee
4 their safety or more precisely, the security forces had not entered the
5 Ljuboten village and that one could still hear shootings from fire-arms."
6 My question: Did you know that on the 14th of August, two days
7 after the events, the investigating group, together with the judge
8 Ognen Stavrev, on two occasions came to the police station Cair and that
9 in the first case, there was no site investigation because of the reasons
10 listed here, while in the second case because the bodies had already been
12 A. Yes, this was known to me.
13 Q. On the basis of this understandings, this knowledge which you had
14 and all other which we looked at earlier, you prepared the information
15 which your superiors requested from you, and which is given on the 31st of
16 August. Is this correct?
17 A. Yes, this is correct.
18 Q. As inspector, my question, whether it is correct that without
19 verification of the information which already appeared in the public, that
20 in the village there are killed persons, there was absolutely essential to
21 carry out site investigation in order to see if there were really people
22 killed, how many of them are there, who are the persons that are killed,
23 how the death of these persons occurred, under which circumstances, by
24 what means and all other relevant questions which are necessary in order
25 to do something more in the investigation of this event.
1 Do you agree with me?
2 A. Yes, I agree, absolutely. Without site investigation about the
3 first -- first step in the pre-trial procedure one cannot proceed further,
4 one cannot establish whether in a concrete case there is a criminal act,
5 what kind of criminal act. In effect, we have no case until we carry out
6 site investigation and initial interviews at the spot, with persons.
7 Q. Even in regards to the works which you carried out in accordance
8 with your job description which also includes, as you said, fires, arson
9 of all kinds, the information that there are houses on fire in the village
10 could not be verified without having gone to the site to establish whether
11 those houses were on fire, how many there were, how they were set on fire,
12 what forces set them on fire and so forth.
13 A. Yes, this is correct. In even cases such as this, it is essential
14 to go and carry out a site investigation and for experts to establish the
15 reasons for the fire.
16 Q. When a death is in question, or, let's say, fire, as you just
17 mentioned, it is regular for the team who would go on the site to include
18 experts, doctors, forensic medicine or experts or chemical materials and
19 other materials and so forth. Is this correct?
20 A. Yes, this is correct.
21 Q. The Prosecutor asked you a number of questions about what you did
22 after the events, and you responded that, first, as a person who has to
23 investigate certain information about what transpired although, and, if
24 so, requested by the superior officer or the court, that you, once again,
25 spoke with Sasa and that you received the identical information which he
1 gave you earlier and which were written in his report. Is this correct?
2 A. Yes, this is correct. With the police officer Sasa, I had an
3 additional interview, conversation, about the circumstances, who and from
4 where he took over these persons, where he brought them, and their answer
5 was identical to his information. Rather, the Official Note which he
7 Q. In this conversation, Sasa did not point out the names of the
8 persons from which he took over the -- and the persons which he brought in
9 and the weapons which he brought in. Is this correct?
10 A. He could not tell the persons from him -- from whom he took the
11 weapons and the persons that were detained.
12 Q. As a result, naturally you could not speak with those persons if
13 you did not have the information who these persons were. Is this a normal
14 situation in which an inspector finds himself?
15 A. Yes. If one does not know the persons, one cannot conduct an
16 interview. Other information -- but I and my colleagues not only I but
17 colleagues from the operative unit of the OVR Cair, we attempted to get
18 additional information after the events, any kind of information.
19 However, we were not successful in this.
20 Q. You just answered my following question. Not alone, you did not
21 check this information on your own but also other colleagues. There were
22 others who tried to obtain information from the Albanians. Is this
24 A. Yes, absolutely. All are charged with duties to gather and to get
25 to any and all kind of information, if this is possible.
1 Q. I would now ask you to look at document in tab 58. This is
2 Exhibit P148. It is -- it is on page N000-0546 [as interpreted]. This is
3 the Official Note number 564. This note was prepared by Gjurceski,
4 Ljubomir. Do you know this person, the inspector in your unit for
5 internal affairs?
6 A. Yes, I know him. Gjurceski, Ljubomir.
7 Q. This note was prepared immediately after the events. Evidently,
8 some facts are checked and verified. If you are to look at this note, you
9 will see that your colleague on the 14th of August, around 1800 hours
10 spoke with Sali Imetov who lived in Skopje and is otherwise from Ljuboten.
11 And in paragraph 2 it reads: "In the exchange of fire between the
12 terrorist groups of the ONA and the joint security forces of the Republic
13 of Macedonia at the village of Ljuboten, nine persons were killed from the
14 village of Ljuboten, for whom he gave the following identity and place of
16 Is this person, the Albanian, who was not among the suspects,
17 confirm your previous information that there was an exchange of fire
18 between terrorist groups from among the ranks of the NLA and that this was
19 the reason why, in your information and the criminal report, in effect,
20 spoke about this fight with the terrorist groups?
21 A. Absolutely. All of the information which -- which came to us,
22 including this Official Note, confirmed this and there was no dilemma that
23 there was such groups and that there was such combat activities.
24 Q. In view of the fact that this was an information from citizens who
25 was not in the -- in Ljuboten, which -- they would not be able to verify
1 the facts of what really transpired on the 12th of August in Ljuboten. Is
2 this correct?
3 A. Yes, this is correct. We needed cooperation of citizens from --
4 villagers from the village of Ljuboten in order to establish the actual
6 Q. However, regarding the question of the Prosecutor about what you
7 used, you and your colleagues also used this kind of knowledge to draft
8 the Information that you prepared at the request of your superiors.
9 Is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And if we were to say that from the events to this -- to your
12 information, 20 days had passed, could one say that throughout this whole
13 period of time, you attempted to get to additional relevant data?
14 A. Absolutely. We were constantly trying to do this. This was in
15 our interest.
16 Q. In answering to the question to my learned colleague you also, on
17 page 55, 16 and 17 line of the transcript, you mention that in addition to
18 these interviews, you also had data from the analytics sector. Is this
20 A. Yes, this is correct.
21 Q. In the analytics sectors of OVR Cair, flow in information from
22 police stations and the Official Notes of the authorised persons. Is this
24 A. Yes, this is correct.
25 Q. There's information which police stations or OVR Cair prepares for
1 superior bodies. Is this correct?
2 A. Yes. All informations and notes flow there.
3 Q. When you spoke -- answered the question, at the moment you -- when
4 you came to the police stations Mirkovci, you said that, in addition to
5 Sonja Ilieva you saw a colleague also from the sector of analytics. Is
6 this correct?
7 A. Yes, this is correct.
8 Q. And in the preparation of this information, in effect, you looked
9 over all which analytics had available at the moment, the analytics of
10 Cair had available at that moment?
11 A. You mean about the criminal report? Yes.
12 Q. And later, when you worked at the request of your superiors in
13 verifying certain information, did you then also look at the information
14 which came in the sector of analytics after the events?
15 A. Yes. I followed the incoming information constantly later on, as
17 Q. Earlier, in answering my question, you added a part of an answer
18 where you had the doors were closed because the Albanians did not, for the
19 most part, want to give you information. Is this something which I heard
20 you respond as an answer to my question?
21 A. Yes, this is so.
22 Q. Is it correct that, in effect, not only then but also from the
23 beginning of the crisis, the villagers of Ljuboten did not report death of
24 persons in Ljuboten to authorised persons. Therefore, the official
25 bodies, it was impossible to establish how many people died in that period
1 and who these persons were?
2 A. Yes, this is correct.
3 Q. I would now ask you to look at the document in tab 62. This is
4 prepared by Aceski Robertino. The source for this information was
5 Nada Pesic. This is Exhibit P149.
6 This is information which states that: "The inspector, on the
7 15th of August, 2001, in the official premises of OVR Cair held a
8 conversation with Dr. Nada Pesic from the home call service in Cair who
9 informed that during 2001, they have noticed that inhabitants of Albanian
10 nationality do not ask of the service to issue them death certificates for
11 deceased persons. They do not report the deceased persons. And although
12 they are buried, they are still registered with us as alive."
13 Is this -- does this information confirm your understanding that
14 it was very difficult to establish who was dead and who was not, who was
15 alive or who was not alive at a given village where Albanian population
17 A. Yes, it was impossible, because we had no access to the village,
18 and we had no contact with the villagers.
19 Q. In addition to all of these activities by which you tried to
20 verify various information as requested by your superiors, the Prosecutor
21 asked you whether you at that time spoke with Johan Tarculovski,
22 Zoran Jovanovski, did you know these persons at all in 2001?
23 A. No. I had not seen them at all, nor I had heard of them.
24 Q. To the question of the Prosecution whether you were given comments
25 by your superiors about the information which you prepared on the 31st of
1 August, you answered no.
2 My question: When you said no, does this mean that you personally
3 were given no comment, any kind of comment?
4 A. Do you mean by superiors?
5 Q. The question was stated in general form. The Prosecutor asked you
6 whether your superiors gave you some comments about this information. You
7 responded no. I'm interested to know in saying no, does this mean that
8 not a single person of your superiors, direct or further up did not give
9 you personally any kind of comment. Is this what you had in mind when
10 saying no?
11 A. Yes. No superior did not give any kind of comment.
12 Q. However, you do not know or could you know what others did,
13 especially you were not able to know what this commission did, that is to
14 say, the minister of interior. Is this correct?
15 A. Absolutely. I did not know.
16 Q. At that time you probably knew that in August 2001, the assistant
17 to the minister for the city of Skopje was Zoran Efremov. Is this
19 A. Yes, I know this.
20 Q. And you knew he had a very -- a car incident and he was wearing
22 A. Yes, I know this.
23 Q. And you knew that, probably, that at that time the head for state
24 security for Skopje was a person Adonov or Adonovski?
25 A. I do not know him.
1 Q. I would like to ask you now, are you aware that at the beginning
2 of September that head of state security for Skopje was suspended from
3 duty, and that the assistant to the minister for Skopje was transferred to
4 another post. Have you heard of that?
5 A. I heard about the assistant, while I was not aware of the case of
6 this person from state security.
7 Q. Of course, in the duties you performed, you didn't know the
8 reasons for those two measures. Actually, for the first one, because you
9 haven't heard about the second one.
10 A. Yes. From the position I held then, I couldn't know the reasons
11 for any of the personnel decisions.
12 Q. When you answered Prosecutor's question related to this
13 information, you said also that after you made all these checks and wrote
14 this information, that the court requested additional information from you
15 and that this information was forwarded to the court as well. Is that
17 A. Yes, correct.
18 Q. I would like to ask you to look at the document in tab 66. That
19 is Exhibit P135.
20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, it is in tab 68.
21 That is Exhibit P50. The page is N002-084, while the English is ET
23 Q. This is a document of 3rd of September, 2001, and it is sent to
24 the Basic Court Skopje II, investigation unit, and signed by your head of
25 department, Krstevski Ljube. Is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And you can see here that the Basic Court Skopje II and on the
3 basis of their request 436-01, 438-01 and 439-01 of 30th of August, 2001
4 are forwarded the information number 593 from the department for internal
5 affairs, Cair, related to the events and measures taken in the area of
6 Ljuboten village from 10 to 13 August 2001. That is actually the
7 information that you had written previously. Is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And this document confirms that what you testified before this
10 Court was accurate, that this information was forwarded to the court as
12 A. Yes, correct.
13 Q. Tell me, please, has some of the persons mentioned in the report
14 or their families filed any complaint or a petition to the OVR Cair
15 against any of the police officers?
16 A. As far as I know, there was no such petition filed.
17 Q. Are you aware whether any of the defence counsels for the accused
18 persons reported any of the police officers or any other person who
19 ill-treated the villagers of Ljuboten, regardless of whether those would
20 be persons held in police custody or any other persons?
21 A. No, I have never heard of anything of the sort.
22 Q. You stated that the Albanian population was closed for any
23 communication with the police. Is it correct that also police patrols
24 could not enter the village any longer and patrol throughout the village?
25 A. It is correct. For a longer period of time the police patrols
1 were not able to enter the village.
2 Q. Before I ask you several more questions in relation to this, in
3 order to complete this stage of the testimony, when preparing your
4 information you didn't know whether your superiors, the minister and the
5 ministry, took any other actions and you cannot testify about this?
6 A. Yes, it is correct.
7 Q. So now, if I were to ask you, since it was not possible to carry
8 out the onsite investigation since the persons were buried already, will
9 you agree with me if I say that the relevant information about the causes
10 and circumstances of death could be ascertained if exhumation of the
11 bodies is performed and subjected to autopsy. Would this be the proper
12 way to gather additional information?
13 A. Yes, this would be possible. This would be the additional option
14 through which we could gather valid information.
15 Q. We spoke about the investigation earlier, but let me ask you one
16 more question in relation to this.
17 Is it correct that actually the criminal procedure and the
18 investigation can be ran against a precisely identified known perpetrator,
19 one could not run a procedure against an unknown perpetrator. Is that
21 A. Yes, it is correct. We need to have the subject and that would
22 mean we need to ascertain what has happened, who are the participants and
23 then we file a criminal report. Unless we have a subject we could not
24 proceed, unless an unknown perpetrator.
25 Q. The court and the prosecutor, actually, the prosecutor, when the
1 perpetrator is unknown can only request that the court carries out certain
2 investigative activities. Is that correct?
3 A. It is correct. They ask us to carry out certain actions, and if we
4 arrive at certain data indicating who the perpetrator is, we inform them,
5 inform the investigating judge or the prosecutor and they then continue
6 with the procedure, and that information would, in that case, be
7 accompanied by a special report.
8 Q. But if it would be needed to perform the exhumation and the
9 autopsy as a special investigating action, then it could not have been
10 done by the police. This could have been done by the court only upon the
11 proposal of the prosecutor. Is that the legal provision stipulated in the
12 law of the Republic of Macedonia?
13 A. Yes, absolutely.
14 Q. And if we take this hypothetically, until the 31st of August you
15 could not arrive at knowledge about the perpetrators. Wouldn't it be
16 normal then for the prosecutor who was at that time aware of the suspicion
17 that there are dead bodies in the village, that the prosecutor gives a
18 proposal to the investigating judge to perform the activities of
19 exhumation and post-mortem?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And if the police confronted with the impossibility to learn any
22 additional information initiate with the prosecutor and with the
23 investigating judge the start of the exhumation and post-mortem then,
24 actually, the police would do -- would go even beyond its legal duties,
25 legally proscribed duties. Is it so?
1 A. Yes, that is correct.
2 Q. I would like to ask you to look at the document in tab 85. That
3 is Exhibit 1D33, page N007-332, and the English version
5 Have you found this document?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You see that this is a document from the Ministry of the Interior
8 of the Republic of Macedonia. Is that so?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you see that this document is sent to the basic public
11 prosecutor's office Skopje and the duty investigating judge. Is that
13 A. Yes, correct.
14 Q. And that this act -- through this act, the Ministry of the
15 Interior proposes that exhumation and post-mortem are performed. Is that
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. I would like to ask you now to look at the next document in tab
19 86. That is Exhibit P55. NOO2-1146-003, Macedonian; and the English is
20 ET N002-1148-002-1148-1.
21 Have you found that document?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And you see that this is now the basic public prosecutor's office,
24 sending a proposal to undertake certain investigation actions to the Basic
25 Court Skopje II and to the investigating judge. Is that correct?
1 A. It is correct.
2 Q. And you can see now in paragraph 2 of this act it is stated: "The
3 public prosecution office, in relation to this case, acting pursuant to
4 Article 148, paragraph 1 of the Law on Criminal Procedure and upon the
5 written initiative of the MOI, which has been handed to the aforementioned
6 organ during duty outside of regular working hours on the 7th of
7 September, 2001, gives a proposal on undertaking certain investigating
8 actions and then the investigating judge is stated the proposal. What
9 needs to be done within this investigation activity."
10 Considering the tasks that you performed, as you stated, when
11 this -- you stated that you would not receive this documents so I'm not
12 asking whether this document existed or not, what I'm asking is whether
13 these documents confirm that the ministry actually went beyond its legally
14 prescribed duties and went to propose that the exhumation and post-mortem
15 are performed on the bodies in the village of Ljuboten?
16 A. Yes, it is correct.
17 Q. Let's go back to the questions that I interrupted previously, so
18 that we finalize the aspect of the testimony about the activities of the
19 bodies and what was expected from them to do.
20 You stated that the Albanian population was not cooperating with
21 you and that the police patrols could not enter the village. Is that
23 A. Yes, it is correct.
24 Q. Tell me, for how longer afterwards were you working in the OVR
1 A. I worked in the OVR Cair approximately until 2005.
2 Q. Very well. Thank you very much. So you could know - I'm asking
3 whether you actually know and if you know please confirm this - that
4 actually the first police patrol and it was a mixed patrol accompanied by
5 NATO forces Amber Fox and OSCE entered the village of Ljuboten at the
6 beginning of 2002 only. Is that correct?
7 A. Yes, it is correct.
8 Q. I would like to ask you now to look at this document that is in
9 tab 92. In tab 91, please. That is 65 ter 1D491.2.
10 We have in front of us a request for information that the Defence
11 of Mr. Boskoski sent to the Ministry of the Interior on the 26th of April,
12 2007, and in item 1 it is requested that we are told when the Macedonian
13 police entered the village after the events in 2001, and continued
14 performing its regular duties.
15 I would like to ask you now to look at the document in tab 92.
16 That is a 65 ter document, 1D522. This is 1D4757, while the --
17 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, Macedonian 4755,.
18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. The English 4757.
20 This is an order from -- of January 2nd, 2002, and type of service
21 is patrol. Is that correct?
22 A. Yes, correct.
23 Q. On the second page, 1D4756 there is a report that was written and
24 which states that: "On the 2nd of January, 2002, between 10.00 and 1400
25 hours we acted pursuant to the order number 1, and we entered the village
1 of Ljuboten, together with the OSCE Mission and Amber Fox, during which
2 there was a discussion with the local villagers about many local issues of
3 interest for the service."
4 Does this document confirm what you know and what you have
5 testified about that this was the first day that the police patrol entered
6 the village and that it was accompanied by foreigners?
7 A. Yes, it is correct.
8 Q. Please look now at the document in tab 93, 65 ter 1D523, page
9 1D4759, while the English page is 1D4761.
10 And this is, again, an order to carry out duty of January 3rd,
11 2002, and we have the names of the persons who were part of the motor
12 patrol and we can see again when reading the names that it was a mixed
13 patrol, containing both Macedonians and Albanians. Is that correct?
14 A. Yes, it is correct.
15 Q. On the second page of this document, there is a report of the
16 persons who were part of the patrol. And we can see here again, that on
17 that day, the village was entered, according to the pilot plan for
18 entering the village, and that there was communication with the local
19 population. Does this also correspond to what you know about that time?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. In tab 94, you find 65 ter document 1D524, that is 1D4763, 1D4764.
22 That is an Official Note written on January 3rd, 2002, by the officers who
23 participated in the pilot plan for entering the village of Ljuboten and
24 who had informed in the same manner about the pilot plan for entering the
25 village of Ljuboten.
1 Does this also correspond to what you know, that the village was
2 entered by mixed patrols and in the presence of the international
3 community for the first time?
4 A. Yes, I know that.
5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
6 tender the Defence exhibits.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
8 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, the Prosecution would object on the basis
9 of relevance. All these documents show is that in early January 2002,
10 there were apparently joint patrols between members of the Macedonian
11 police and NATO forces in the village of Ljuboten. These documents do not
12 help us in any way with the issue of when, after the events on the 12th of
13 August, when police patrols began again in Ljuboten or any kind of a
14 police presence began again in Ljuboten.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel, please.
17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, before I answer this
18 question, would like to ask the witness to look at the document in tab 90.
19 Maybe that document will respond to the question asked by the Prosecutor.
20 JUDGE PARKER: We'll do that after the break.
21 Before we break, the Chamber would like to draw to your attention,
22 Ms. Residovic, that in a large part questions you are putting to this
23 witness about the legal order in Macedonia at the time, are questions that
24 have been put to previous witnesses, in particular a prosecutor of
25 Macedonia who has given evidence, and of which -- and which have not been
1 the subject of dispute. In other words, a lot of what is being asked is
2 simply repetitive in an area where there is not any apparent dispute.
3 And the Chamber would therefore encourage you to consider, again,
4 the need to ask many of the questions that are being asked. We recognise
5 that in some matters this witness is contributing a new element, but you
6 are also quite persistently dealing with the legal structure in Macedonia
7 at the time, which appears already to be well established in the evidence.
8 We adjourn now and resume at five past 1.00 and you can deal with
9 that matter then.
10 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours.
11 --- Recess taken at 12.32 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 1.06 p.m.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
15 Q. Mr. Toskovski, I would now ask to you look at document in tab 90.
16 And prior to that, I would just ask you, because you said that up until
17 2005 you were in the municipality of Cair. Is it correct that even up
18 until then, the police was not able to carry out its regular duties in
20 A. I don't know correctly when this began. I think it was somewhat
21 earlier we began with the regular activities in Ljuboten, but I do not
22 know the exact -- the precise date.
23 Q. However, even then, the population refused to accept summons from
24 the courts or to pay various fines that they were given and so forth?
25 A. Yes, in that respect, there was resistance. Other than that, some
1 of our forces started patrolling.
2 Q. I would now ask to you look at 65 ter 1D491.1.
3 JUDGE PARKER: We still have the objection to deal with,
4 Ms. Residovic.
5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the objection was
6 about other documents. I asked you that we look at this document so as it
7 would be more simple to provide answers to the question. But, if so
8 required, I will first give the response to the question.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Carry on.
10 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 Q. Mr. Toskovski, this is, in effect, the response to the question
12 which the Defence asked to the present head of the Police Station Cair.
13 And in the first line, it is stated the following. Point 1 was when the
14 first police forces entered the village on the 15th of May, 2007, the
15 response was the following.
16 "On the first item of the request where an information is
17 requested when the Macedonian police entered the village of Ljuboten after
18 the events of 2001, we inform you that according to the pilot plan at the
19 time for patrolling with mixed police forces and the order for performing
20 duty number one, on the 2nd of January, 2001, at 10.00 a.m. a mixed police
21 patrol composed of four authorised official persons accompanied by the
22 Amber Fox and the EU monitoring mission entered the village of Ljuboten."
23 The next to last paragraph says to the question of the Defence:
24 "There is a temporary patrolling service in the village and the tasks of
25 policemen are performed by the police in heavy conditions due to reasons
1 that the local population does not cooperate with the police and ignores
3 Do you see that this is written in the report of the commander of
4 Police Station Cair, higher inspector Selami Enver. He -- Selami Enver is
5 an Albanian. Is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] My apologies, in the line 22, it
8 is stated: "2nd of January 2001." It should be "2nd of January, 2002."
9 Q. After this, I would like to respond to the objection of my learned
11 The documents that were shown to the witness, and which the
12 witness was aware of personally, first of all, clearly show that mixed
13 police forces of the Republic of Macedonia for the first time with the
14 support of international forces could enter the village to conduct their
16 Second, the response of the head of the police station, it is also
17 evident, that this information is accurate, that there is -- it was
18 difficult to carry out police task, even to this day, in the village of
20 The relevance of these documents is in that the indictment of the
21 Prosecutor accuses Minister Boskoski that he did not undertake measures
22 until May 2002.
23 I think that in this way I have responded why these documents were
24 deemed relevant from the point of view of the Defence of Mr. Boskoski.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
1 MR. SAXON: Well, Your Honour, the Prosecution now has an
2 additional layer to its objection. Its prior objection related to
3 relevance. We must now object to admission based on the grounds of
4 probative value. The witness, a couple of moments ago, page 69, line 20,
5 told Ms. Residovic it was somewhat earlier, earlier than January 2002,
6 when the police began their regular activities in Ljuboten. Therefore,
7 Prosecution submission the information in these documents is simply not
8 reliable and should not be admitted, Your Honour.
9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps it was a
10 mistake. The question was, Prior to 2005, and the witness answered
11 someone -- somewhat earlier than that date. That can be found in the
12 question -- in page 69, line 16 and 17.
13 JUDGE PARKER: The -- are you -- can you identify that reference
14 again, Ms. Residovic?
15 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. It is page 69, line 16, 17
16 to be more precise: [In English]"But as until 2005, you were in the
17 municipality of Cair, is it correct that even up until then, the police
18 was not able to carry out? I don't know correctly when this began. I
19 think it was somewhat earlier."
20 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
21 MR. SAXON: Then I stand corrected, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber will not admit these documents as not
25 demonstrated to be of sufficient relevance to the events alleged in the
2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
3 Your Honours, I have just a few more questions for the witness.
4 Q. Please look at the document in tab 71. This is 65 ter 1D149, page
6 Do you have this document? The tab is 77 -- 71. This is a
7 document that's in the English language, and it is sent to the 20th of
8 February, 2002. You see the upper heading. Do you see the 20th of
9 February, 2002? And then it reads: [In English] "Letter of Agreement
10 between Office of the Prosecutor ICTY and the Public Prosector firm of
11 Macedonia herein referred to as the Republic of Macedonia."
12 It is sent to, it reads: "Dear Mr. Dzikov."
13 Do you see this?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Did you know who Mr. Dzikov was?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Who was Mr. Dzikov at this time?
18 A. He was the public prosecutor of the Republic of Macedonia.
19 Q. Thank you. Now, please look at bullet 4. It reads: [In English]
20 "No Macedonian security forces, MUP or military, will be involved in the
21 exhumation process."
22 Just a while back, Mr. Toskovski, we saw that the Ministry of
23 Interior initiated the legal procedure for exhumation and autopsies of the
24 bodies in Ljuboten. From this document, it becomes clear that the Office
25 of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal, in this item 4, clearly states that
1 Macedonian forces, MOI or military, cannot be involved in the exhumation
3 Mr. Toskovski, in addition to the fact that you did not have
4 cooperation with the Albanian population, did you, in 2001 and 2002, felt
5 that you were not -- not being assisted by the international forces who
6 were in Macedonia and that -- so that in order you could clarify in full
7 what happened in Ljuboten?
8 A. If you could clarify your question, please.
9 Q. In this document, in point 4, one can see that the Prosecutor of
10 The Hague Tribunal in this letter who sent to the prosecutor Dzikov in
11 regard to the exhumation in the village of Ljuboten requests that the
12 Ministry of Interior or the military cannot be involved in the exhumation
14 My question is: Was it known to you that in 2001, that is to say
15 2002, that the Macedonian police was not allowed to take part in the
16 process of exhumation and that at the end only the criminal technical --
17 the police forensics could be part of the exhumation process?
18 A. Yes, I'm aware of this.
19 Q. Thank you very much.
20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further
21 questions for this witness.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much.
23 Mr. Apostolski.
24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Before my learned colleague takes
25 the floor, on page 74, line 1, there is no the word we're missing the word
1 no, which makes the meaning of the sentence totally opposite.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
3 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. At
4 the onset I would like to inform you that I will be very short in
5 questioning this witness.
6 Cross-examination by Mr. Apostolski:
7 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Witness. My name is
8 Antonio Apostolski, and together with my colleague Jasmina Zivkovic, I'm
9 Defence counsel for Mr. Johan Tarculovski.
10 Is it correct that prior to interviewing the detainees on the 12th
11 of August, 2001 you informed them about their rights according to the law,
12 that is to say, that they have the right to the presence of counsel during
13 the questioning?
14 A. Yes, this is correct. I informed them of this.
15 Q. Is it correct that none of them requested the presence of counsel?
16 A. Yes, this is correct. They did not request so.
17 Q. Thank you. When asked by my colleague Residovic, you answered
18 that it is a normal procedure that detained persons be given a paraffin
19 glove test so as to establish whether a person used a fire-arm. Do you
20 recall this?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Is it correct that this is the only method used in the Republic of
23 Macedonia at that period of time for establishing whether a person had
24 used a fire-arm?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Is it correct that even today in the Republic of Macedonia the
2 paraffin glove test is the only method used to establish whether a person
3 had used an arm, a weapon?
4 A. Yes. We do not have other methods, expert in that respect, I
6 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] If the witness could please be
7 shown 2D00342.
8 Q. Do you see this document before you?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. This is a letter from the Ministry of Interior, to the Ministry of
11 Justice which, from the Ministry of Justice was forwarded to the Defence
12 of Tarculovski. Do you see in the upper left counsel, Republic of
13 Macedonia, Ministry of Interior?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. SD number 15-2-2455/1 of 25th of April, 2007?
16 A. Yes, I see.
17 Q. If you would focus your attention on the lower part of the text in
18 the given moment in laboratory conditions the only method which is used to
19 establish whether a person had shot or was in a contact with a used
20 fire-arm is the method of analysis of traces of powder particles taken
21 from the upper part of the hands of the suspect by standard procedure by
22 application of liquid paraffin, or with follies especially for that
24 And could the witness, please, be shown the second page.
25 First of all, do you concur what I just read out to you?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. As you can see on the second page of this document, continues
3 with: "We note that for this purpose there are other available methods of
4 analysis for which it is necessary to have sophisticated and expensive
5 equipment which the Ministry of Interior at this moment does not possess."
6 Do you agree with this part of the text?
7 A. Yes, this is correct.
8 Q. And as you can see, the document is signed by the Minister of
9 Interior, Gordana Jankolovska, MA?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Thank you very much?
12 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would seek to
13 tender this document into evidence and I would have no further questions
14 for this witness. And I would like to inform the Court that the
15 translation of this document is a working document prepared by the
16 Defence counsel for Mr. Johan Tarculovski.
17 JUDGE PARKER: The document will be received.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 2D47, Your Honours.
19 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE PARKER: I note at line 3 what was said by the registry
23 officer is inaccurately reported as Exhibit 1D47. It should be Exhibit
25 Re-examination by Mr. Saxon:
1 Q. Mr. Toskovski, briefly, my learned colleague during one of her
2 questions to you earlier today, it's at page 10 of the transcript,
3 referred to the criminal charges that you prepared between the 12th and
4 14th of August, 2001.
5 MR. SAXON: Can we please show the witness Prosecution Exhibit
6 P31, please.
7 Q. And, Mr. Toskovski, you see the criminal report that you produced?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. You see the date at the top of the page. It says 13th of August,
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Is it fair to say, then, that you completed this criminal report
13 on the 13th of August?
14 A. I do not understand the question.
15 Q. Did you complete this criminal report on the 13th of August, the
16 day that it is dated.
17 A. I can't remember precisely.
18 Q. Well, normally, why do you put a date on a document; let's start
20 A. When the document is completed, it is dated, yes.
21 Q. So is it most likely that you produced this document and completed
22 it on the 13th of August?
23 A. It is possible that it was started on the 13th of August and
24 completed on the 14th. The date does not necessarily mean that it was the
25 date when the document was completed.
1 Q. Okay.
2 A. If I may clarify something else.
3 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
4 A. When I was reading this document, I started it on the 13th, and I
5 put the date, 13th. It is possible that it was finished on the 14th,
6 while the typist then just typed, literally, the materials as I have
7 written them.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, line 79, 15, writing,
9 instead of reading.
10 MR. SAXON:
11 Q. You mentioned earlier today that the employees of the ministry
12 rendered assistance to several persons from Ljuboten who had been injured.
13 This is at line -- page 24 of the LiveNote transcript today. And you
14 explained one example was shown to you from what is Exhibit P106, a man
15 who was found in Radisani, a man from Ljuboten who was found in Radisani
16 with injuries. And you explained that assistance was given to those
17 injured persons who were clearly not participants in the combat action.
18 Do you remember that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Why was it clear, why was it so clear that these individuals had
21 not participated at all in the combat activities in Ljuboten?
22 A. First, the location where persons were found; and, secondly, the
23 injuries they had sustained and the eye-witnesses who stated that they
24 were injured by civilians. And also the persons themselves confirmed
25 this. They themselves, those who were rendered assistance.
1 Q. The injured persons confirmed this. So they provided you with the
2 same confirmation that the ten arrested persons in Mirkovci gave to you on
3 the night of the 12th and 13th of August. Is that right?
4 A. No. The persons who were at Mirkovci did not want to discuss
5 things. They just gave brief and meager answers, as opposed to these
6 persons that we're mentioning now who were rendered assistance. They
7 spoke not with me, with my colleagues and --
8 Q. In your --
9 A. -- and they clarified the events, the location and everything in
11 Q. In your Official Note number 535 which we saw yesterday, the
12 persons who you interviewed at Mirkovci police station told you that they
13 did not participate in combat actions. So I'm trying to understand what
14 the difference is between what these other injured people told you and
15 your colleagues and the persons who you interviewed at Mirkovci.
16 A. There is a huge difference. The people at Mirkovci station were
17 detained from the scene of combat activities. And objects were found on
18 them, weapons and ammunition.
19 Q. If someone was detained outside of Ljuboten, such as, I believe,
20 these individuals who you have referred to were simply sent to a medical
21 clinic. If someone was detained outside of Ljuboten and no weapons or
22 ammunition were found on them, would you agree then that there would be no
23 indication that those persons had taken part in combat activities?
24 A. Each case has its own merits. I cannot make general assumptions.
25 It depends on the person and the case.
1 Q. Okay. But I'd like you to answer my question. If someone was
2 found, say, a kilometre or two outside of Ljuboten without any weapons,
3 would that indicate to you that that person was a terrorist or not?
4 A. Not necessarily. If we have some other additional information and
5 evidence, then we would instigate a procedure against such person as well.
6 So the fact that a person is found outside of Ljuboten alone, on its own
7 standing does not mean that the person did not participate in any of the
9 Q. But if you had no other additional information?
10 A. We will try to get information, if we're able. And if we don't --
11 I do not understand the question.
12 Q. I will move on.
13 You mentioned that the persons at Mirkovci, those ten persons who
14 you met with on the 10th, 12th of August -- excuse me, on the 12th, 13th
15 of August, you explained that not a single one of them had any serious
16 injuries and that all the injuries were normal for an area in which a
17 battle had been going on.
18 MR. SAXON: Can we show the witness, please, what is Exhibit P14.
19 Q. Mr. Toskovski, this is Atulla Qaili, one of the persons who you
20 interviewed on the night of the 12th and 13th of August in the Mirkovci
21 police station. This photograph was taken after his autopsy, which
22 occurred on the 13th of August. Do you see the injuries on Mr. Qaili's
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did you notice any such injuries when you spoke with Mr. Qaili in
1 the Mirkovci police station?
2 A. Not in that extent. I think this picture was taken after his
3 death, so the photograph is not clear.
4 Q. Well, in other words, you -- it's true this picture was taken
5 after his death. But my question was: Did you see the injuries that we
6 see here on Mr. Qaili when you spoke with him?
7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Ms. Residovic.
9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I think it would be fair that the
10 witness is told what Dr. Jakovski said, and to distinguish the injuries
11 that he is asked about, because the doctor testified about some
12 post-mortem lividity and something of the sort, so it would be good to
13 indicate those facts to the witness.
14 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber will not interfere, Mr. Saxon. If you
15 want to expand your question, yes, but it will otherwise, perhaps, affect
16 the weight that might be attached to any answer.
17 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, may I work beyond a quarter to 2.00 today
18 to try to finish with this witness or shall we bring the witness back
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE PARKER: We're not able to sit beyond a quarter to because
22 the court is in use. So it appears that it must be tomorrow, Mr. Saxon.
23 MR. SAXON: I will have some more questions for the witness
24 tomorrow morning, perhaps 15 or 20 minutes, and then I will finish.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
1 Well, in that event, we must adjourn now. We'll resume tomorrow
2 at 9.00.
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.43 p.m.,
4 to be reconvened on Friday, the 31st day of August,
5 2007, at 9.00 a.m.