1 Monday, 17 September 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon.
7 May I remind you, General, of the affirmation that you made which
8 still applies.
9 Ms. Residovic, do you have something more for us?
10 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours. No, Your
11 Honours. What you had during the last week was enough, but I have a
12 proposal to make. You received in evidence the plan for the deployment of
13 the security forces that is Exhibit 1D177, the document has been shown to
14 this witness and has been received with the draft translation. The court
15 officer informed us that the official translation has arrived and I would
16 like to ask the Chamber to replace the old draft with the official
18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for that. We foreshadowed that would
19 occur and it will be done.
20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I would like that the
21 witness is given these documents that he already had on Friday and we
22 would like the assistance of the usher.
23 While the witness is given these documents, Your Honours, I would
24 like to remind you that on Friday at the beginning of the questioning of
25 this witness, by mistake I didn't show you a document, for which the
1 Defence proposes to only be marked for identification. I would like to
2 ask now that you see the document in tab 144. And I would like to remind
3 that this document - this is 92 bis statement of Kristo Zdravkovski which
4 has been received in evidence as Exhibit 1D125, MFI and has been shown to
5 the witness, Risto Galevski. In this statement, Kristo Zdravkovski, the
6 head of the security sector in Bitola has mentioned that on the -- on the
7 occasion of the Bitola events, criminal reports have been filed against
8 around 100 persons. In line with that information, the Defence would like
9 to ask you to look at the document in tab 145 which is 65 ter 1D583.1,
10 page 1D5342, and the English is 1D5343.
11 So the Defence asked from the Ministry of the Interior to inform
12 us whether the report -- the criminal reports have been filed and what are
13 persons against whom these criminal reports have been filed.
14 I would like to ask you to look into the document in tab 146,
15 which is 65 ter 583.2, 1D5344, and the English version is 1D5346. The
16 ministry responded to us, quoting the exact number of criminal reports and
17 the dates where these reports were filed to the basic prosecutor's office
18 in Bitola with the names of the persons that have been reported.
19 Given that we are following the decision that you made a couple of
20 days ago and the directions that you gave in that sense, I would like to
21 have this document, 65 ter 583.2, is marked -- to have this document
22 marked for identification and the Defence will either call the witness
23 or -- or present the original criminal reports. The Defence will
24 additionally tender this in evidence.
25 JUDGE PARKER: I'm not clear whether you want to tender something
1 now or you're saying that you're going to tender the original criminal
2 reports at some later time.
3 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since this 65 ter
4 583.2 would accompany the 92 bis statement of Zdravko Krstevski [as
5 interpreted] as I previously said, I would just like to ask to have this
6 document marked for identification, and we will later, when we will be
7 proposing to -- to tender -- to receive in evidence the statement we will
8 attach the criminal reports to it.
9 JUDGE PARKER: It will be marked for identification.
10 THE REGISTRAR: As exhibit 1D188, marked for identification, Your
12 WITNESS: ZORAN JOVANOVSKI [Resumed]
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 Cross-examination by Ms. Residovic: [Continued]
15 Q. [Interpretation], General, good afternoon. Responding to my
16 questions previously, you said that at the time when your committee start
17 with its work that you only had the decision to establish the commission
18 of 13th of August, commission that was established by Mr. Boskoski and the
19 report of that commission while -- while you learned about other documents
20 in a later stage. Do you remember that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Is it true that the Minister Hari Kostov, did not give you then
23 also the information that he received from Goran Mitevski, an information
24 that the previous minister of defence, Vlado Buckovski, did -- discovered
25 or reviewed after the elections were over in 2002?
1 A. I did not have that information available.
2 Q. So the commission did not have the information available, an
3 information that suggested that the president of the Republic of Macedonia
4 was involved in the organisation of this action in Ljuboten. Is that
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Responding to the previous questions you said that your commission
8 worked in a conditions different than the conditions of the commission
9 established by Minister Boskoski. Is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. At the time when you worked in the commission, in the public
12 already some names appeared, and you were then able to call those persons
13 and to interview them. Is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. However, as you said, the commission also on the basis of the
16 interviews of those persons, was not able to come to reliable informations
17 about the person who were in Ljuboten and also was not able to find out
18 what really happened there.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Is it correct that during the work of your commission that the
21 Albanian population was not willing to cooperate with the Macedonian
22 authorities, especially with the police?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. You will agree with me that the situation was much more difficult
25 in 2001.
1 A. Completely.
2 Q. You are able to know this from your position as a person directly
3 engaged in the return of the police forces in the crisis areas. Is that
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. The ministry, immediately after the signature of the Ohrid
7 Agreement, continued with the previous activity to employ a larger number
8 of Albanians in the police. Is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. That project started already by the end of 2002 --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, it started during
12 the -- by the end of 2000.
13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. It continued in 2001 in cooperation with the American embassy, and
15 the crisis momentarily interrupted the full implementation of that
16 programme. Is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. But right in the beginning of September of 2001, the procedure was
19 continued, an announcement was published in the media, and 107 Albanians
20 were employed at the time in the police, so that was more than the project
21 envisioned. Is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. I would like to ask you, General, to look at the document in tab
24 141. That is 65 ter 1D580, page 1D5330, and the English version
25 is 1D5331.
1 General, you see that this is a report which was composed by the
2 department for international cooperation in European -- in European
3 integration of the Ministry of the Interior and it relates to a meeting of
4 the director of public safety with Mr. Gary Bennett, from the US embassy
5 in the Republic of Macedonia. Do you see that this is that document?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And the report itself says that on the 4th of September, 2001, a
8 meeting was held between the head of public safety, Goran Mitevski and
9 Mr. Gary Bennett, assigned for coordination of the assistance of the
10 embassy of the United States for training of personnel in the area of
11 safety with the aim of reviewing the details of the process of recruiting
12 personnel at the police academy.
13 Does this confirm that the ministry waited no time but right after
14 the conditions were right, continued in cooperation with the American
15 embassy to implement this programme?
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. Is it correct that although at the beginning there were -- that it
18 has been envisioned that 100 candidates will be employed out of whom the
19 majority were supposed to be Albanian, that at the end, after this
20 procedure has been completed, 107 Albanians were employed and there was
21 nobody else employed at that time in the ministry?
22 A. That is correct.
23 Q. Even though a large number of Albanians were employed in the
24 beginning of September in the Ministry of Interior, the attitude of the
25 part of the Albanian population to provide the relevant information and to
1 cooperate with the Ministry of Interior did not change, and they continued
2 to be unprepared to cooperate with the police. Is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. I would like to ask you now to look at the document in tab 183.
5 That is Exhibit P104. This is it an Official Note, number 735, and that
6 is an Official Note, as you can see, that was filed by the -- to the
7 department of the internal affairs of Cair and the subject is interview
8 conducted with the person Kenan Salievski.
9 General, do you agree with me if I were to say that it would be
10 important for the police and it would be right for the police to learn
11 about certain information in the village through the heads of that
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. From this Official Note, it is visible that Salievski Kenan
15 promised to provide the requested information about the identity of the
16 deceased persons that the Basic Court Skopje I requested, but as it is
17 visible in the last paragraph, and I quote: "On 16th of November, 2001,
18 Salievski Kenan called us by telephone at the department for internal
19 affairs, Cair, and told us that after having consulted the village board
20 from the village of Ljuboten, he cannot give us any information neither
21 about the event nor about the deceased persons."
22 Does this information confirm that also in November 2001 it was
23 impossible for the police to learn about the information that would be
24 important for the execution of a certain procedure in the village of
25 Ljuboten itself?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. I would like to ask you now to look at the document in tab 181,
3 which is 65 ter 1D518. And again it is found on page 1D4744, and the
4 English is 1D4745, and again this is an Official Note of the department
5 for internal affairs in Cair, dated 15th of November 2001, and this is
6 a -- a note about the interview within -- with the persons Selim from the
7 village of Ljuboten.
8 In this note, it is said that an interview was held with a person
9 named Selim from Ljuboten about the event that took place on the 12th of
10 August in the village of Ljuboten, whereby during the fights between the
11 security forces of the Republic of Macedonia and the terrorist gangs
12 stationed in the village of Ljuboten, eight persons have died, and that
13 this Selim has named eight persons that allegedly have been killed and
14 have been buried in the Ljuboten cemetery. Do you see that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. I would like to ask you now to look at the document in tab 182.
17 That is 65 ter 1D521, the page is 1D4751, and the English version is
19 We have in front of us now the information that the sector for the
20 interior affairs of Skopje, the department of the interior affairs of
21 Cair, on 19th of November, 2001, have submitted to the Basic Court Skopje
22 II, the department of investigations. Do you see that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Beneath it says -- it says subject or reference, your file ID
25 number 601/01, of 19th of September, 2001.
1 Do you remember, General, that yesterday we spoke about the fact
2 that, based on the initiative of the Ministry of Interior, initiated to
3 the court and the prosecutor's office, that the prosecutor proposed to
4 carry out investigative actions, exhumation and post-mortem, that at that
5 time a meeting has been held at the institute for forensic medicine, and
6 that it has been clearly concluded that that procedure could only be
7 carried out when additional information would be found about the persons
8 that have been -- that had deceased, about the place where they were
9 buried, and other relevant facts.
10 Do you remember that we were reviewing those documents?
11 A. I remember, but it wasn't yesterday; it was on Friday.
12 Q. Okay. Thanks a lot. That was really on Friday.
13 The first paragraph of this information, of the department
14 of -- the interior, respond to the request of the court. Tell me,
15 General, is this the way in which the police reacts when they have a file
16 in the hands of the court? The police actually assists the court in
17 response to the requests that are filed to the police by the court. Is
18 that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. The text goes on saying that an interview has been held with
21 Salievski Kenan, and the content of the Official Note is included, that
22 Official Note that we previously looked at which says that the villagers
23 were not willing to provide the names and other information about the
24 deceased persons. Do you see at this first page that that is now the
25 interpretation of the information that the police -- the police was able
1 to acquire?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. I would like to ask you now to look the second -- at the second
4 page of the Macedonian version. That is it 1D4752, and the English is
6 The first English paragraph and the second Macedonian paragraph
7 says the following: "In view of the fact that the security situation in
8 this particular region does not permit the undertaking of any kind of
9 operations from our side, we inform you that, apart from the
10 aforementioned, we are not able to perform any other check-ups or
11 investigations and are therefore unable to fully respond to your request.
12 "Regarding the security situation and when it will improve and
13 will become favourable for undertaking of any kind of operations, we
14 inform you that we are able at the moment --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, we are not able to
16 provide an answer to these questions because they do not depend on us.
17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] But, rather, on higher
18 international and domestic factors. However, should the security
19 situation improves, you will be notified in a timely fashion."
20 Q. Do you agree with me, General, that the head of OVR Cair actually
21 points to the fact that the police of OVR Cair is not able without the
22 assistance of the international community to come to additional
23 information about the village of Ljuboten?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And you see at the end that attached to this information the
1 Official Notes 564, 735, and 736 are sent to the court, so the notes that
2 we just looked into. We looked at 735 and 736.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And I ask you again: That is the way in which, in accordance to
5 the law the police reacts, when it receives a request from the court, it
6 tries to ascertain the facts that the court is requesting and then about
7 its knowledge or the impossibility to acquire knowledge informs the court.
8 Is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like kindly
11 ask now, I seek for these two documents, 65 ter -- 65 ter number 1D518 and
12 65 ter 1D521 to be tendered into evidence.
13 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
14 THE REGISTRAR: 1D518 will become Exhibit 1D189. 65 ter 1D521
15 will become Exhibit 1D190, Your Honours.
16 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. General, please tell me during the operation of your commission
18 and although maybe you said already something in this regard, is it
19 correct that the representatives of the international community,
20 irrespective whether we are talking about the OSCE or the representatives
21 from the ICTY, they did not submit to you the statements that they
22 received at that time from certain people from the village of Ljuboten?
23 A. They did not submit any notes.
24 Q. Also, they did not submit any other material which would be
25 helpful regarding Ljuboten.
1 A. No, they didn't.
2 Q. In 2001, the position that you used to hold in the police
3 department, probably in the public media you could have acquired knowledge
4 about certain reports from the Human Rights Watch which used to talk about
5 certain alleged atrocities carried out on the civilians in the village of
6 Ljuboten. Were you able to hear such information in the public media?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Earlier or during the time when you were the president of the
9 commission that was established by Minister Kostov, did you receive the
10 Human Rights Watch report?
11 A. No, I didn't.
12 Q. I would ask you now to look at the document which can be found in
13 tab 152, and this is 65 ter 1D344. The page is 1D3263.
14 You can find these in the larger second binder, because in the
15 third binder, I think, the documents starts from 155. So the documents in
16 tab 155 onwards can be found in the third binder. So this document can be
17 found in tab 152.
18 Did you manage to find it?
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. This is a document that can be seen on the screen, and you can see
21 on the top left-hand corner it is a Human Rights Watch document, as you
22 can see, and it is addressed to the chief public Prosecutor,
23 Mrs. Carla Del Ponte. Can you see it?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. Can you now please turn to the second page of this document. In
1 fact, this would be the third page. This is it 1D3265, and in the second
2 paragraph of this letter, where the report is being send to the Prosecutor
3 of the ICTY, Elizabeth Andersen the executive director of Human Rights
4 Watch writes the following: "[In English] We are troubled by reports that
5 Minister of Interior, Ljube Boskoski in Ljuboten on 12th August that they
6 day that the worst abuse were committed. We respectfully request that
7 your government commence a prompt investigation into his role and the
8 conduct of Macedonian troops under his command."
9 [Interpretation] Now, I ask you to take a look at the document in
10 tab 153. This is Exhibit P352, and I kindly ask for us to immediately
11 look at page which is 000-0101. Beneath you can see page number 3 and in
12 the middle it reads "recommendation."
13 Can you please turn one more page. Yes, very well. This is
14 precisely the page.
15 And, General, I would like to turn your attention to these
16 recommendations. In the first paragraph it reads: "To the Macedonian
17 government." And then it reads: "[In English] Investigates and prosecute
18 the person responsible for the abuses in Ljuboten. Conduct a credible,
19 impartial and transparent investigation into the allegation of government
20 abuses in Ljuboten, including the role of minister of the interior
21 Ljube Boskoski and the forces under his command. The authority who carry
22 out the investigation should be independent from the government agency
23 involved in the Ljuboten operation, particularly the ministry of the
25 [Interpretation] Can you see this recommendation that was provided
1 by Human Rights Watch by which it clearly shows that the forces from the
2 Ministry of Interior cannot participate in the investigation. Can you see
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. From the previous note and especially from these recommendations
6 can you see that the Human Rights Watch claims that in the village of
7 Ljuboten the atrocities have been committed by forces under the command of
8 Mr. Ljube Boskoski?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. My question, General, is the following. After you have collected
11 certain documents and you have interviewed certain people, is it correct
12 that the commission could not clearly define and establish which forces
13 were there in the village of Ljuboten?
14 A. Yes. It was not possible to establish who was there in Ljuboten.
15 Q. After you have collected the evidence and you interviewed the
16 people, is it correct that the commission could not establish that those
17 people who were in Ljuboten were under the command of Mr. Ljube Boskoski?
18 A. Yes, that is correct.
19 Q. Is it correct that after the completion of the work of your
20 commission, on the basis of the evidence that you could collect, you did
21 not at all know whether the people who were in the village were members of
22 the army, the police, or at all they did not -- were not members of the
24 A. Yes, that is correct.
25 Q. Thank you. Now I would like for you to look at the document in
1 tab 157. First of all, the document in tab 155, actually. You can find
2 this document in the second binder at the very beginning. And this is
3 Exhibit 1D41.
4 Very well. It is already on the screen.
5 Did you find this exhibit?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. The title is Ljuboten case, ICTY investigation. And the date is
8 30th of January, 2002. And at the bottom: "[In English] Downgraded to
9 NATO unclassified."
10 [Interpretation] So we are talking about a NATO the document and
11 the transcript was received by the Defence from the Prosecutor's office.
12 In the second paragraph of this document, there is a comment in
13 abbreviation is there which reads Comm. And it reads: "[In English] The
14 Human Rights Watch report on the incident claims that the operation left
15 10 civilians dead and result in the arrest of more than 100 men."
16 [Interpretation] Can you see this, can you see that this is
17 written here?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And then it continues: "[In English] And refers to the government
20 newscast of 12 August 2001, to the effect that minister of the interior
21 Mr. Ljube Boskoski was present at the scene that day."
22 [Interpretation] Can you see that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. From this comment itself, is it clear that future investigation to
25 be led by the ICTY is based on the information that was provided by the
1 Human Rights Watch in its report?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Now I ask you to look at the last paragraph, which reads the
4 following. But before that, in the paragraph, the one before last it
5 reads that Mr. Dzikov - and you know who Mr. Dzikov is - do you know who
6 Mr. Dzikov is? Who was he at that time?
7 A. I think that he was the chief public prosecutor.
8 Q. Very well. That Mr. Dzikov at that time informed that the
9 investigation team was not able to enter the village on the 12th and 14th
10 of August. And in the last paragraph, you can read: "[In English] The
11 ICTY presented a number of conditions regarding a possible exhumation in
12 Ljuboten. There should be no uniformed police present at the exhumation
13 site and no special forces. Security should be provided by NATO."
14 [Interpretation] Can you see this that at this particular meeting
15 also the representatives of the International Tribunal have laid these
16 conditions, that on the site, on the exhumation, there shouldn't be any
17 uniformed police?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And in the fourth line from the bottom in this last paragraph it
20 says: "[In English] The Macedonian presence at the scene should be
21 remitted to what would be essential for the investigation, the ICTY should
22 be provided with copies of all relevant documents, and if relatives of
23 those buried (the identity of the deceased are apparently known) want to
24 be present at the exhumation site."
25 [Interpretation] So you would agree with me, General, that in the
1 further stages of the implementation of the procedure of exhumation and
2 autopsy, the recommendation of Human Rights Watch has been followed, that
3 is to say, not to allow the police participation in the process of
4 exhumation and autopsy?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now I will ask you to look at the document in tab 158. This is 65
7 ter 1D149.
8 Did you manage to find this document?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. You can see that this letter, dated 20th of February, 2002, and as
11 you can see on the bottom of the page, it was sent to Mr. Dzikov, the
12 chief public prosecutor, in the Republic of Macedonia. And on the second
13 page of this document - can you please turn to the second page - one can
14 see that this letter to Mr. Dzikov has been sent by Patrick Lopez-Torres
15 chief of investigations at the OTP office of the ICTY. Can you see that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now I will ask to you go back to the first page so that we can see
18 item number 2. So let us see page number 1, items 2 and 4. This is 65
19 ter 1D149. In the title it says: "[In English] Dear Mr. Dzikov, further
20 to previous meetings with representatives of the OTP and verbal argument
21 in relation to evidence in Ljuboten during 2001, I hereby document and
22 present to you the conditions agreed for the progress of the relevant
23 exhumation and subsequent judicial investigation process."
24 [Interpretation] Item 2 reads: "During the exhumation and
25 investigation process, no uniformed personnel other than the NATO task
1 force Fox troops will be present at the graveyard site."
2 [Interpretation] And then item 4 reads the following: "[In
3 English] No Macedonian special forces, MUP or military will be involved in
4 the exhumation process."
5 [Interpretation] General, this is the 20th of February, 2002.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
7 MR. SAXON: I'm very sorry to interrupt. I believe that my
8 learned colleague may have misspoke just one word when she began to read
9 the first paragraph after the salutation, dear Mr. Dzikov. That first
10 line reads: "Further to previous meetings with representatives of the OTP,
11 and verbal agreements," my learned colleague said the word arguments and
12 that is what appears in the transcript.
13 Sorry for the interpretation.
14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much for this
15 correction. The mistake is, of course, a result of my poor English and I
16 believe that you approve of that, and it is correct that it reads
18 Q. General, from this letter is it clearly visible that the
19 Prosecutor from the ICTY communicates with national chief public
20 prosecutor as the only authorised body that in the Republic of Macedonia
21 can propose or instruct the courts how to implement a certain procedure in
22 the criminal proceedings?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. From these items 2 and 4, is it clear that the ICTY repeats what
25 has been concluded earlier by the NATO on the meeting on the 30th of
1 January, that throughout the process of exhumation and the further
2 investigative process the police cannot be included?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. On the 20th of February, 2002, you were already an under-secretary
5 for police at the Ministry of Interior. Is that correct?
6 A. Yes, that is correct.
7 Q. However, nobody informed you about these conditions and reasons
8 for which the police cannot participate in the further exhumation and
9 investigation. Is that correct?
10 A. Yes, that is correct. Nobody informed me.
11 Q. The common procedure, according to our Law on Criminal Proceeding
12 was that concern tasks and the assistance will be requested by the court
13 from the police and then the police is obliged to provide such an
14 assistance. Is that correct?
15 A. Yes. The police always has to assist to the Courts.
16 Q. But it is clear that even the procedure that was initiated by the
17 police on the 7th of September, 2001 where it participated by providing
18 certain data and information to the court so the exhumation can be carried
19 out, the autopsy as well, with these conditions, it has been terminated
20 and the further participation of the police was no longer possible in this
21 process. Is there correct?
22 A. Yes, that is correct.
23 Q. So, as the most responsible person in the Ministry of the
24 Interior, the under-secretary of police, you were not aware of that, and
25 you were not aware either as the president being the president of the
1 commission established by Mr. Hari Kostov?
2 A. Yes, that is correct.
3 Q. However, as you previously stated, you could feel that there was a
4 change in the stance of the international community regarding the police,
5 and then by performing your tasks, you could see that there was an
6 obstruction or at least shifting the police away from the further
7 investigation related to the village of Ljuboten.
8 A. Yes, that is correct.
9 Q. A few more questions regarding a different topic.
10 Let us go back, first of all, to the reports by the commission --
11 the first commission.
12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.
13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. You have read that report, and please tell us whether at any
15 moment you thought that the report of the first commission presided by
16 Goran Mitevski was a false report?
17 A. No. I never doubted this report, nor I thought that it was a
18 false -- I believe that it was a sincere and precise report.
19 Q. Did you at any moment, being the president of the commission, or
20 did your commission came to the conclusion that this report was prepared
21 with bad intent or the purpose was to intentionally hide certain facts?
22 A. We never doubted this report at any moment.
23 Q. Did you, General, think at any moment that the commission which
24 was presided by Goran Mitevski conducted a false investigation?
25 A. No, I never doubted this at any moment.
1 Q. Bearing in mind the composition of the commission that prepared
2 this first report, do you agree with me that the Minister Boskoski could
3 rely on the information that they have drafted?
4 A. Yes, completely.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Saxon.
6 MR. SAXON: That also seems to be asking for a legal conclusion
7 that is in the hands of this Chamber.
8 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I ask this kind of
9 question previously, and the questions were always related to the issue,
10 because he answered that bearing in mind the composition the minister
11 could rely on their report, and also previously he already relied that
12 bearing in mind the position of the first commission, the minister could
13 also rely on the information that was provided by this commission.
14 I can avoid repeating the questions that were answered on Friday
15 by the witness, but I don't think that there is anything else there to the
16 suggestion -- related to the suggestion and the instructions that you gave
17 me previously.
18 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber will not stop you asking that question,
19 Ms. Residovic.
20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.
21 Q. General, having in mind the composition of the commission that was
22 established by the Minister Boskoski, did you, as a president of the
23 commission, and did the commission believe that the Minister Boskoski can
24 rely on their information?
25 A. Completely, yes.
1 Q. General, you know that immediately in the Ohrid Framework
2 Agreement of the 13th of August, 2001 they have expressed their readiness
3 for the people who were related to the conflict for them to be guaranteed
4 amnesty. Is that correct?
5 A. Yes. In the agreement.
6 Q. Now I kindly ask you to look at the document that can you find in
7 tab 185 in the third binder that you have. This is 65 ter 1D163. The
8 page is 1D1724.
9 General, you see here a letter from the president of the Republic
10 of Macedonia. Is that so?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. You see the coat of arms for the Republic of Macedonia at the top.
13 And then it is signed by Boris Trajkovski, the president of the Republic
14 of Macedonia of that time. Is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. The letter is sent to George Robertson and it reads the following:
17 "[In English] Dear Secretary-General, I hereby confirm that the NLA will
18 be able to benefit from the opportunities offered by the government for
19 reintegrating into society in accordance with my plan and programme for
20 overcoming the crisis. In this context, the government of the Republic of
21 Macedonia will offer immunity from penal proceedings for all former
22 members of the NLA who have voluntarily disarmed with the exception of
23 those suspected of having committed crimes for which the United Nations
24 International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia is competent."
25 [Interpretation] Do you see that?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Is this a clearly presented will of the Macedonian government and
3 the president to -- to have put under amnesty all those who -- who carried
4 out certain acts as sabotage and terrorist groups at that time in the
5 territory of the Republic of Macedonia except for those who conducted
6 severe criminal acts. Is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You know that already in November the president, with his
9 decision, pardoned a large number of persons against whom a criminal
10 procedure has been instigated, also pardoned those persons from Ljuboten
11 against whom there has been a procedure before the Basic Court II Skopje
12 in Skopje. Are you familiar with that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now please look at the document in tab 186. That is Exhibit P83.
15 The page N000-9207, and the Macedonian page is N000-9977.
16 You're familiar with the Law on Amnesty, General, right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And this law did not make a distinction between the Macedonians
19 and Albanians. The amnesty related to all the persons involved in the
20 conflict. Isn't it so?
21 A. Yes, all the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia.
22 Q. And if we look at Article 1, paragraph 2, that is clearly said in
23 the: "[In English] The amnesty also applies to persons who have prepared
24 or committed criminal acts related the conflict in the year 2001, before
25 the first of January 2001."
1 [Interpretation] So not only the persons that committed these acts
2 during 2001 until 26th of September 2001 as it is said in paragraph 1, but
3 also to those persons that have committed such crimes even before the 1st
4 of January, 2001. Is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. So that was a general Law on Amnesty, and the only excluded those
7 persons against whom a procedure has been initiated in front of the
8 International Tribunal?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And that has clearly been stated in the last paragraph of Article
11 1 of this law, which is found on the second page of the law. You could
12 take a look. That is N000-9208 in the English, and the Macedonian -- at
13 the first page, last paragraph in the Macedonian version.
14 So thereby it is said that the provisions of Article 1, 2, and 3
15 of this Article, do not apply to persons who have committed criminal acts
16 related to and in connection with the conflict in 2001, which are under
17 the jurisdiction and for which the ICTY for prosecution of persons
18 responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law in
19 the territory of former Yugoslavia will instigate proceedings.
20 Is it true, General that when your commission was working that you
21 did not know that the ICTY initiated a procedure against any person in
22 relation to the Ljuboten events, certain defined persons?
23 A. We were not informed about the ICTY's activities.
24 Q. You only knew that the Prosecution asked to have five cases
25 deferred, among which the Ljuboten case was there, not certain persons,
2 A. In general, we knew about Ljuboten, but we didn't know about the
3 specific persons.
4 Q. Tell me now, General, bearing in mind the legal provisions, would
5 it be true that even if you managed to find some information about some
6 doubts that certain persons have overstepped the authority on 12th of
7 August or the following days, that is in relation with Ljuboten, that in
8 respect with this law you would not be able to carry out any further
9 pre-criminal activities. Is that correct?
10 A. Yes, according to the law -- pursuant to the Law on Amnesty we
11 were not able to initiate any criminal or misdemeanour procedures that
12 were involved in this case.
13 Q. Also, if certain procedure has been initiated at the prosecutor's
14 office or in the investigating judge's office, these cases would have had
15 to have been discontinued. Is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And if a certain person would happened to be sentenced, the
18 serving of the sentence would have to be discontinued, right?
19 A. Yes, that is correct.
20 Q. But these are only assumptions, and you already said that the
21 commission were not able to even determine and the reliable facts based on
22 which it would be able to know that some person has committed some
23 criminal act. Is that right?
24 A. Yes. As a committee we were not able.
25 Q. And at the time that you used to work, due to the short periods
1 for expiration -- due to the short periods for expiration of the statute
2 of limitation, you were not able to carry out any other activities, right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. But based on the facts that you determined in the commission, the
5 commission was not able to even determine that some persons have committed
6 some acts that would be disciplinary violations, right?
7 A. Yes.
8 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this ends my
10 Q. Witness, I thank you.
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] But I just like to ask Your
12 Honours now to admit in evidence the documents that I showed to the
13 witness. That is 65 ter 1D149, that is the letter addressed to Mr. Dzikov
14 of 20th of February, 2002; then 65 ter 1D344, that is a letter sent by
15 Human Rights Watch to the head of the Prosecutor's office of the ICTY; and
16 65 ter 1D163, a letter of President Trajkovski sent to the general
17 secretary of the NATO.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Each of those will be received.
19 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 1D149 will become Exhibit 1D191. 65 ter
20 1D344 will become Exhibit 1D192. And 65 ter 1D163 will become Exhibit
21 1D193, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Ms. Residovic.
23 Mr. Apostolski.
24 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.
25 Good afternoon, witness.
1 I wish to inform Your Honours that in cooperation with
2 Mr. Boskoski's Defence all the topics that I wanted to ask about were
3 asked about by my colleague Ms. Residovic and I have no further questions
4 for this witness.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Apostolski, indeed.
6 Mr. Saxon, would it be worthwhile perhaps having the break at this
7 point, Mr. Saxon.
8 MR. SAXON: I would be grateful, Your Honour, yes.
9 JUDGE PARKER: It would suit the Chamber if we resumed at ten
10 minutes past 4.00.
11 --- Recess taken at 3.28 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 4.12 p.m.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my apologies. I
15 would like to mention that the documents that I showed to the witness, I
16 showed document in tab 141.
17 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel repeat the numbers, please.
18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] That is 65 ter 1D580. That is a
19 meeting between the director of the public security bureau Goran Mitevski
20 and a representative of the American embassy in respect of the employment
21 of the new members in the police that would be of Albanian ethnicity.
22 I apologise, I forgot to tender that document as a Defence
23 exhibit, so I would like to tender it now.
24 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
25 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D194, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Mr. Saxon.
2 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Re-examination by Mr. Saxon:
4 Q. General Jovanovski, thank you for keeping me honest, General.
5 On Wednesday, this is at page 4897 of the transcript, you
6 explained that in 2001 during joint operations with the Macedonian army,
7 commanders of units of the Macedonian police would receive orders from an
8 army superior, and then the commanders of the police units would issue
9 orders to the police officers in their units who would carry out the
11 Do you recall explaining that?
12 A. I do.
13 Q. And on Friday at page 4977 of the transcript, you explained that
14 if a police officer committed an act of misconduct during a joint
15 operation, the army commander would have the duty to produce an
16 information and inform the police commander. Do you remember that?
17 A. I do.
18 Q. When the police commander got that information, would the police
19 commander then have a duty to start a disciplinary procedure concerning
20 the police officer who allegedly committed the act of misconduct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. General, suppose during a joint operation back in 2001, a police
23 commander personally observed one of his police officers, one of his
24 subordinates, committing misconduct, what duty would the police commander
25 have then?
1 A. So depending on the region, so in the regions that were not part
2 of the crisis, then it would not be obliged to inform them -- the army
3 commander under whose command he would be, the commander would take
4 disciplinary measures himself, that is to say, would propose disciplinary
5 measures while in the regions that were in the crisis regions, it would
6 inform the army commander and would take an initiative to start a
7 disciplinary measure or for an appropriate punishment.
8 Q. All right. So I if I can summarize what you just explained to us.
9 So, then, during a joint operation, a joint army/police operation, if a
10 police commander saw a member of his unit commit an act of misconduct, the
11 police commander would inform the army commander of what had happened, and
12 then the police commander would take the initiative to start a
13 disciplinary measure that was appropriate for his subordinate. Is that
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. All right. You mentioned, General -- this was on Friday, and this
17 is at page 4978 of the transcript that during these joint police and army
18 operations there would be morning and evening meetings where issues were
19 discussed between police commanders and army commanders. What kinds of
20 issues would be discussed at these meetings? Can you help us with that.
21 A. It depends on the events. We had both morning and evening
22 meetings. It sometimes happened that we only had a morning or just
23 evening meetings; it depended. We were deciding day by day. At these
24 meetings, the security situation was reviewed and measures and activities
25 were proposed to be taken in the future period, and reports were made
1 about the measures taken in the past period.
2 Q. And at these meetings, would the army and the police commanders
3 try to reach agreements as to how to proceed in the future, or the next
4 day or how to resolve particular issues related to the joint operation?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And occasionally, were problems of discipline discussed at these
7 morning or evening meetings during these joint operations?
8 A. Inter alia, disciplinary events, yes.
9 Q. Thank you. And so at that point at a morning meeting or at an
10 evening meeting if a police commander was not previously aware of acts of
11 misconduct or possible acts of misconduct performed by one of his
12 subordinates, the police commander would become informed at one of the
14 A. Yes, or in the course of the day, of the following day.
15 Q. All right. And during or after such joint operations, for example
16 using you as an example, you were a commander of a posebna unit, would the
17 heads of the posebna units inform their superiors in the Ministry of the
18 Interior about their activities whether police officers had been wounded
19 and killed, other important things, other important information?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. At page 4873 of the transcript, you explained to my colleague that
22 in the first half of 2001 only the Tigers unit reported directly to the
23 minister. Do you recall that?
24 A. I do.
25 Q. And then you explained that all the other police units had their
1 own chain of command within the public security bureau. Do you recall
3 A. I do.
4 Q. Who was the person at the top of the chain of command in the
5 Ministry of Interior?
6 A. When the special Tigers unit was under the -- was headed by the
8 Q. My question wasn't directly related to the Tiger unit. Because
9 you had explained that other police units had their own chain of command.
10 They didn't report directly to the minister, like the Tiger units did.
11 They had to work up through a chain of command and so my question is: Who
12 or whom was at the very top of the chain of command in the Ministry of
14 A. For the uniformed police, the chain goes, commander of a police
15 station is responsible to the head of sector; and then, at the same time,
16 the head of the uniformed police in the sector is responsible to the head
17 for public law and order in the police department. The head of the
18 department for public law and order is responsible to the under-secretary
19 for of police. And the under-secretary is responsible to the director of
20 the public security bureau, while the director is responsible to the
22 Q. Who, then, was most accountable for the acts and conduct of police
23 officers in 2001?
24 A. We cannot talk about the most responsible person because the
25 responsibility is divided each and every one is held responsible for their
2 MR. SAXON: I'd like to show the witness, please, a video-clip
3 from 65 ter 988. This is at -- from time code 1:43:27 to a 1:44:05. This
4 is video footage shot on the 15th of May, 2007, after an accident that
5 occurred at a police training exercise at a place called Lajunovo [phoen].
6 I'm not going to play the entire video clip, I'm just going to play about
7 30 seconds of it.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Can you please ask the Defence counsel to switch
10 on the microphone, please.
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm not aware which particular
12 year was mentioned. We received the translation that it was 2007. But,
13 anyways, we would like to know whether this was at the time that is being
14 covered by the indictment.
15 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, I misspoke. It was video footage shot
16 on the 15th of May, 2002. However it shows -- it contains some speech by
17 the accused Mr. Boskoski which is relevant to his intent and his
18 accountability during the time-period relevant to this indictment.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Please proceed.
20 MR. SAXON: Okay. If we can show that video.
21 [Videotape played]
22 MR. SAXON:
23 Q. General Jovanovski, you saw then Minister Boskoski speaking there?
24 A. Yes, yes, he is. This is his statement.
25 Q. Would you agree at least that even Minister Boskoski believed that
1 he was the person most accountable for the activities of the police?
2 A. As far as I could understand, he was talking about his actions and
3 not for the rest of the police.
4 MR. SAXON: Well, can we play the video again, please.
5 [Videotape played]
6 MR. SAXON:
7 Q. Did you hear the minister say: "As commander of the Macedonian
8 police, he is most accountable." Did you hear him say that?
9 A. Yes, I did.
10 Q. Okay. Would you agree with me, then, that even Minister Boskoski
11 believed that he was the person most responsible or accountable for the
12 actions of the Macedonian police?
13 A. Yes. The same as he mentioned at the very beginning of his
14 statement when he said that it is very difficult to determine who is
15 accountable for the events, whether the security or someone else. So this
16 is something that he said as well.
17 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I would seek to tender this video-clip.
18 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
19 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P437, Your Honours.
20 MR. SAXON:
21 Q. General Jovanovski, at page 4879 of the transcript, you explained
22 that the police station commander, as a direct superior of the uniformed
23 police, should instigate a disciplinary procedure if one of his officers
24 commits an act of misconduct. Do you recall that?
25 A. Yes, I do.
1 Q. General, suppose back in 2001 a police station commander failed to
2 do his or her duty to instigate a disciplinary procedure, who then would
3 discipline the police station commander for failure to do -- for failing
4 to do his duty?
5 A. The commander of the sector for interior.
6 Q. Okay.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, the head.
8 MR. SAXON:
9 Q. And if the head of the sector for the Ministry of Interior fails
10 to do initiate such a proceeding, who would step in then to initiate a
11 disciplinary proceeding?
12 A. The head of the sector, he has to assess the situation and give
13 information whether such a procedure should be instigated or not.
14 Q. What if the head of sector -- what if the head of the sector fails
15 to carry out his responsibility?
16 A. Then we have a professional standards unit or internal control
17 which reviews all the cases and initiates a disciplinary proceeding
19 Q. But, of course, that professional standards unit has to be
20 informed about the fact that there was an act of misconduct in the first
21 place. Is that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. General Jovanovski, can the minister, or in 2001 could the
24 minister inform the professional standards unit about information that an
25 act of misconduct might have occurred?
1 A. I don't know -- I didn't understand the interpretation. Can you
2 repeat your question, please.
3 Q. Back in 2001, if the minister had information available that a
4 member of the police might have committed an act of misconduct, could the
5 minister provide that information to the professional standards unit?
6 A. If the minister had such information, he could have provided it.
7 However, all information is sent in parallel to the internal control to
8 the public security bureau and to the intelligence directorate.
9 Q. All right. And would the same concept work with respect to the
10 permanent disciplinary committee? If the minister, in 2001, had
11 information that a member of the police had committed an act of
12 misconduct, could the minister have provided that information or sent a
13 proposal to the permanent disciplinary committee of the ministry to
14 commence a disciplinary proceeding against the police officer, or the
15 member of the ministry?
16 A. Individually, so the minister to initiate a disciplinary
17 proceedings, he wouldn't do that. This would be done by the immediate
18 superiors. So as I already said, the initiative comes from the superiors
19 officers and from the internal control. Now the minister as an official,
20 as an individual, there is a difference here, so if there is certain
21 information during these daily meetings we would review it, and jointly we
22 would submit it to the commission on disciplinary and material
24 Q. I see. And who would have the -- at your daily meetings or at the
25 collegium of the ministry, who would have the final word as to whether
1 such information should be submitted to the permanent commission for
2 disciplinary proceedings?
3 A. Probably the director of the bureau or the head of the
4 organisational unit.
5 Q. You said probably. If the minister himself felt strongly about an
6 issue of -- related to discipline, could the minister direct that
7 information or a proposal be submitted to the permanent disciplinary
9 A. As an information can be sent but a proposal for the initiation of
10 a disciplinary proceedings cannot be done. So just an information, as an
11 information can be given, but for him to give a proposal for disciplinary
12 proceedings, no. So there is a separate commission that would review this
13 kind of information and would decide whether a disciplinary proceeding
14 will be commencing or not.
15 Q. Sure. But my question is really, did the minister have the
16 authority to instruct his subordinates at the collegium to submit a
17 proposal to the permanent disciplinary commission. That's my question.
18 A. He cannot give instructions because the work of the disciplinary
19 commission is provided by the rules. So he can only provide information.
20 Q. And could the minister instruct his subordinates to provide such
21 information to the permanent disciplinary commission?
22 A. Normally, this would be done by the immediate superiors or the
24 Q. I know you've said normally. I'm asking whether the minister
25 himself, using his authority, could direct one of his subordinates in the
1 collegium to provide such information to the permanent disciplinary
3 A. At the meetings, it was possible to give not to order if he has
4 received some kind of information, he could convey this information and we
5 would review it and process it. So as a minister, he did not collect any
6 information or process information. This is what is something that is
7 being done by the subordinate services or departments.
8 Q. Sure. But once the minister had such information, he could direct
9 his subordinates to send that information to the disciplinary commission,
10 couldn't he?
11 A. That is correct.
12 Q. I'd like to move on to another topic, General.
13 Last Wednesday - it seems like a long time ago now - at page 4888
14 of the transcript, you explained to my learned colleague that in 2001,
15 members of the Ministry of Interior tried to take all necessary measures
16 to find -- or to identify the perpetrators of crimes committed against
17 ethnic Albanians in places like Bitola, and parts of Skopje. Do you
18 recall that?
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. And do you recall at the time explaining to Ms. Residovic and the
21 Chamber that over 80 per cent of such cases were clarified and finalised
22 and that criminal reports were initiated against perpetrators of
23 Macedonian ethnicity. Do you recall that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. General, during that process, at that time, how did the members of
1 the Ministry of Interior identify the perpetrators of such acts? How did
2 they do that?
3 A. This was happening in Bitola, and I cannot comment and I can't be
4 very precise about how our colleagues in Bitola did that.
5 Q. Okay. Well, let me ask you a few questions and if you're not able
6 to answer just say so, that's fine. If you don't know, that's fine.
7 Do you know whether your colleagues in Bitola spoke with the
8 victims themselves?
9 A. At that time I was working in the police department, and these
10 activities are undertaken by the department for forensics or crime police.
11 I don't have plenty of information about the operation of the crime
12 police, at that period.
13 Q. Okay. Well, during that period, let's move away from the efforts
14 to clarify the events in Bitola, during the crisis period back in 2001,
15 could the members of the crime police, the criminal inspectors, would they
16 still try to speak with witnesses of a crime? Is that still part of their
17 normal duties?
18 A. As far as I know, we were an open ministry, and we were ready for
19 talking with anybody, anybody that might have come to us.
20 Q. Okay. Would that include, for example, talking to police officers
21 who might have been witnesses of an alleged crime?
22 A. Probably.
23 MR. SAXON: Can we show the witness, please, Exhibit P96. And
24 we'll need to go to page -- we'll be looking at the rule book, I believe,
25 for the organisation of the work of the Ministry of Interior.
1 Yes. Could we move, please, to page 42 of the English version and
2 the bottom of page -- well, and page 25 in the Macedonian version.
3 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
4 JUDGE PARKER: We don't reach seven pages on any of the
5 translations we have.
6 MR. SAXON: All right. If you allow me, Your Honour, to proceed
7 with just using the Macedonian version, I can ask the witness to focus on
8 that so that we understand what it says.
9 Could we enlarge what is Article 167 --
10 Q. Do you see Article 167 at the bottom of the page, General?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And do you see where in Article 167 it says that after -- I
13 believe it says after the police possessed sufficient information
14 regarding suspicion that a crime has occurred, they can send a criminal
15 report or should send a criminal report and send it to the public
17 Now we see the English version coming up but we've lost some of
18 the Macedonian version. And I see that in the English version of Article
19 167 there is a mistake in the translation. It twice says: "Public
20 defender," and that should say "public prosecutor."
21 And, General, if -- do you see where it says, General, that the
22 authorised official composed a criminal report which is delivered to the
23 competent public prosecutor? It's in the first four or five lines.
24 A. This refers to the actual act of filing criminal charges. So if
25 on the basis of collected information and other undertaken measures and
1 activities in order to confirm or document them, and there is a reasonable
2 suspicion that the criminal offence has been committed which is being
3 prosecuted, ex officio, the appropriate person, official will prepare a
4 criminal report.
5 Q. Okay. Can any authorised official of the Ministry of the Interior
6 who has sufficient information indicating that a crime has been committed
7 compose a criminal report and send it to the public prosecutor?
8 A. If there is a reasonable suspicion, then yes.
9 Q. So that means, then, that the minister of the interior and other
10 members of the collegium, if they have information that provides them with
11 reasonable suspicion, they could compose a criminal report and forward it
12 to the public prosecutor. Is that right?
13 A. If they have, yes. And this is being done by the crime police
15 Q. Okay. In other words, the information is being collected by the
16 crime police department.
17 A. Yes. It collects the material evidence, expert reports and
18 everything else, and like it says here, it is being submitted to the
19 public prosecutor who will then accept or reject such criminal report.
20 So the public prosecutor is the one who has the last word with
21 respect to the submitted criminal report.
22 Q. Sure. Okay. I was just a bit confused by your last answer to my
23 last question, because I asked you whether the minister of the interior
24 and other members of the collegium could compose a criminal report and
25 forward it to the public prosecutor. And you answered, if they have, yes.
1 Does that mean if they have sufficient information, yes, they can do that?
2 A. The minister and the members of the collegium do not do this. I
3 will repeat it again. The filing of criminal charges is being done by
4 inspectors in the crime police who would collect all the evidence,
5 schematics, photographs, and everything else that can corroborate the
6 criminal charges and this is what is being submitted to the public
7 prosecutor. So the minister is not the person who files the criminal
8 charges nor us as under-secretaries or heads of departments.
9 Q. I understand that the filing of criminal reports would not
10 normally be part of the daily work of yourself, your colleagues in the
11 collegium or the minister himself. But you told us a few minutes ago that
12 any authorised official of the Ministry of Interior who has sufficient
13 information indicating that a crime has been committed could compose a
14 criminal report and send it to the public prosecutor.
15 So, just trying to understand, the minister is an authorised
16 official, isn't he? He has that authority, if he chooses to use it?
17 A. In the Ministry of Interior, there are several categories of
18 authorised personnel. So we also have cleaning ladies who are authorised
19 but they are not the ones who would file a criminal report. So we know
20 precisely in the ministry who would file criminal reports and who would
21 appear before the court in order to defend such a criminal report, which
22 means that the minister, and we as under-secretaries or heads do not file
23 criminal reports. But as citizens, if we have certain information, we
24 would give this information to the inspectors. This is our civil duty.
25 Q. Okay. On Wednesday Ms. Residovic asked you about a working group
1 set up by the Macedonian government for the purpose of collecting evidence
2 about potential war crimes that were perpetrated in Macedonia in 2001.
3 And you explained that in 2001, you were not aware of the activities of
4 this working group. Do you recall that exchange?
5 A. I do.
6 Q. And you also explained that later on you learned about the
7 existence of this working group concerning war crimes, and you heard that
8 the documents collected by this working group had been destroyed by the
9 new government. Do you remember that?
10 A. I do.
11 MR. SAXON: Can we please show the witness what is Exhibit P00081.
12 And this is the criminal code of Macedonia. And if we can turn to page
13 139 in the English version and page 149 in the Macedonian version, please.
14 Q. General, we're starting here at chapter 34 of the Macedonian
15 criminal code as it stood in 2001. And this chapter is entitled, as you
16 can see, crimes against humanity and international law.
17 Do you see that? I'm not sure if the General can see the title
18 that I just read, because it's -- oh, perhaps he can now.
19 Do you see that, General?
20 A. I can only see the title.
21 Q. Okay. And if --
22 MR. SAXON: Can we please scroll down on the Macedonian page,
23 please. To see the rest of that page. Thank you.
24 Q. General, we see that Article 403 deals with the crime of genocide.
25 Do you see that?
1 A. I do.
2 MR. SAXON: Can we turn the page, please -- and before we do that,
3 the bottom of the English page, we see a subheading: "War crimes against
4 the civil population."
5 Can we turn the page in both versions, please.
6 Q. And we see, General, -- we see Article 404 there, war crimes
7 against the civil population, which begins: "A person, who, by violating
8 the rules of international law, during a war, armed conflict or
9 occupation, orders an attack upon civil population, a settlement, certain
10 civil persons or persons incapacitated for combat," et cetera, et cetera,
11 et cetera. And then at the bottom of that paragraph it says: "Shall be
12 punished with imprisonment of at least ten years or with life
14 Do you see that?
15 A. I see it.
16 Q. And then we see at the bottom of the page in English Article 405
17 is entitled: War crime against the wounded and ill. If we can scroll
18 down in the Macedonian version, please. Maybe if we can turn the page in
19 the Macedonian version. And if we could also, please, turn the page in
20 English version.
21 And I'm very grateful to Ms. Guduric for her patience with me.
22 We see at the top of the next page in English what is described as
23 war crimes against wounded and ill and then we see, war crimes against
24 prisoners of war, use of prohibited combat means, et cetera.
25 Do you see those crimes in the Macedonian version, General?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. General, when you and your colleagues refer to war crimes in
3 Macedonia, you're referring to the crimes that are contained here -- were
4 contained here in chapter -- I believe it was 34 of the criminal code?
5 I didn't hear a response, I'm sorry.
6 A. I didn't understand your question.
7 Q. I'm sorry. Then I will repeat it. I will repeat it.
8 The crimes that we've just looked at here in chapter 34 of the
9 criminal code from your country, were these the kind of crimes that were
10 considered as war crimes in Macedonia in 2001?
11 A. I'm not that qualified to answer this question of yours.
12 Q. All right. That's fine.
13 MR. SAXON: If we can remove that exhibit, please.
14 Q. Last week, General, you answered a number of questions --
15 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
16 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Apologising to my colleague, I
17 wouldn't like to disrupt, but at page 43/14 of the transcript my colleague
18 said to the witness that the Defence asked him whether he knows whether
19 the Macedonian government established a working group to examine the war
20 crimes. I just would like to point out that my question was at page 4899,
21 line 23 -- 4899, page 4889. And I asked then about the working group
22 established by Minister Boskoski, and there was no mention of any working
23 groups established by the Macedonian government.
24 That's what I would like to clarify.
25 MR. SAXON: And I'm grateful for the clarification.
1 Can we show the witness, please, what is Exhibit 1D182. And if
2 Your Honours still have the binders provided by Ms. Residovic, it would
3 be -- this is the document at tab 87.
4 And that is not the exhibit that I was looking for. That is the
5 Human Rights Watch report.
6 The document I was hoping to see was formerly 65 ter 1D562, which
7 I understood now to have an exhibit number of 1D182. Ah, there we are.
8 Thank you.
9 Q. General, if you can, turn to -- do you have tab 87 there in the
10 binder that is with you?
11 A. [In English] You're speaking of this document?
12 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters cannot hear the witness.
13 MR. SAXON:
14 Q. Perhaps, General, it would be easier for now just to follow along
15 on the screen, please.
16 General, you may recall this document. It was sent by the
17 internal affairs department of Cair on the 26th of April, 2001. And it's
18 an overview of places from which the Albanian terrorists might surface and
19 target buildings of vital importance.
20 Do you remember this document?
21 A. I do.
22 Q. Could you turn, please, to the second page in your version, and
23 we'll be looking at, for those following in English, the last two
24 paragraphs in the English version. Actually, the last three paragraphs, I
25 should say, on page 2.
1 General, there's a paragraph, it says: "In the event of the
2 appearance of terrorist groups and a possible threat to the buildings, we
3 recommend the setting up of check-points at the following locations in the
4 area of Cair -- Cair police station."
5 And then there are several locations mentioned. Do you see that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And the next paragraph, it says: "In the area of Mirkovci police
8 station, with the aim of monitoring the situation and preventing any
9 possible threat to the vital buildings, we recommend the following
10 strategic points," and then several points are listed there.
11 Do you see that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. So, just to be clear, at that time the commander of the sector of
14 the Ministry of the Interior for Cair sent recommendations up his chain of
15 command to the Ministry of Interior in Skopje about the placement of
16 check-points. Is that a correct reading of this document?
17 A. This is not a recommendation but it is an overview. So this is an
18 already completed document whereby the head of SVR Cair provides the
19 overview of places where a check-points would be erected.
20 Q. Well, you saw the use of the word "we recommend," the words "we
21 recommend," in those two paragraphs, right? You saw that phrase, "we
23 A. Well, not recommends. It would be proposes.
24 Q. All right. Would it -- a better English translation perhaps to
25 say we propose the following locations. Is that better?
1 A. I don't know whether I'm very -- whether I have expertise in
2 English ...
3 Q. No, I'm searching for the right word in your -- I'm searching for
4 the right understanding in your language. And so my question for you is:
5 If you feel the understanding of what is written there is "we propose,"
6 just tell us. That's fine.
7 A. In this document, the proposal is already given. We propose that
8 the check-points are there and there.
9 Q. All right. Okay. What, then, would the members of the Ministry
10 of Interior in the Skopje department do with these proposals?
11 A. They accept them and they put them in their operational maps.
12 Q. Okay. Would these proposals be passed further up the chain of
13 command within the Ministry of the Interior?
14 A. If we request, they're sent to us. Otherwise, they remain in
15 their organisational units.
16 Q. Okay. And if, when you say "we," you mean persons who were in
17 high-ranking positions within the ministry. Is that fair?
18 A. No. I meant my department and my associates.
19 Q. All right.
20 A. Speaking strictly about this issue, there is a sector for special
21 units that processes these issues. So the under-secretary personally does
22 not deal with these issues. We have a line established whereby -- a
23 communication line who carries out these tasks.
24 Q. I guess my question is simply this. Eventually, who would make
25 the final decision approving or rejecting the proposals coming from -- in
1 this instance, Cair?
2 A. The heads of SVR Skopje.
3 Q. All right. Now these check-points, these police check-points that
4 were set up, who manned them, who operated them?
5 A. Mixed active and reserve police officers.
6 Q. And why was it important to have a mixture of active and reserve
7 police officers manning the check-points?
8 A. The total number of active police officers and the tasks -- the
9 tasks given were not able to be carried out in 24 hours only by active
10 police officers. Bearing in mind the terrain that needs to be covered and
11 the time-frame, reserve police officers are called to assist in order to
12 man the check-points and the durations of time.
13 Q. Okay. In these mixed groups of active police and reserve police
14 officers at these check-points, who would be in command?
15 A. In the order for execution of duties, a police officer is assigned
16 responsible or responsible worker and it is always an active police
17 officer or an appropriate officer, if there is such a person in the police
19 Q. Okay. So at these check-points in these mixed groups of active
20 and reserve police officers, the reserve police officers would be
21 subordinate to at least one of the active police officers who was
22 present -- who would be present. Is that right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. General, what were the duties or the tasks of the police
25 officers who manned these check-points?
1 A. Depending on the location of the check-point, they had various
2 duties and competences. For example, if we say that patrol that is
3 patrolling the Djonska [phoen] street that is in the -- inside the city
4 and its task is to control suspicious persons, suspicious vehicles and to
5 carry out preventative actions.
6 Q. And, for example, suppose we were to reflect upon a check-point in
7 2001 that was in one of the crisis areas, what responsibilities or duties
8 would the police officers have there?
9 A. That is to control identity, to check the items and persons that
10 are transported, to act preventatively, to receive information,
11 complaints, remarks, et cetera.
12 Q. And you explained that at the check-point itself, an active police
13 officer would be in charge. Above those active police officers, who would
14 be supervising or commanding the operations of -- of these check-points?
15 Whose responsibility that would be?
16 A. The police station commander.
17 Q. All right.
18 MR. SAXON: Can we take a look, please, at what is now Exhibit
19 1D184. And perhaps we could ask the usher's assistance. It may be that
20 the binder on the floor behind the General might have this tab. It's at
21 tab 131 of the binder provided by Ms. Residovic.
22 The General may need some help because the binder is pretty full
23 and it's ...
24 Q. General, you may recall this document. It was a document that
25 Ms. Residovic showed to you last week. And we see it's a report regarding
1 a meeting between the minister of interior, Ljube Boskoski, the head of
2 the public safety bureau, Goran Mitevski with Ambassador Daniel Speckhard,
3 the assistant Secretary-General of NATO on the 5th of September, 2001.
4 And we see here, again that there is some discussion about how the police
5 check-points were being manned at that time in September of 2001. And you
6 see a little ways down the first page, we see that Minister Boskoski
7 expressed the following with respect to what has been said, because
8 Ambassador Speckhard asked that people at the check-points not be police
9 reservists or members of the special task unit or posebna. And
10 Minister Boskoski replied that: "There are members of the reserve forces
11 of the police at the check-points but not members of the special task unit
12 or posebna."
13 Do you see that?
14 A. I do.
15 Q. General, how would Minister Boskoski obtain that information about
16 which units of the police were manning the check-points?
17 A. Well, most likely, as far as I can see, the director
18 Goran Mitevski was also present at the meeting.
19 Q. All right.
20 A. He might have -- he might have had the information from him.
21 Q. All right. So this would have been information passed up the
22 chain of command until it eventually reached the minister. Is that fair?
23 A. I can't understand you, what your question is.
24 Q. Well, I guess the information that Goran Mitevski received, would
25 he have received it from lower down on the chain of command? Would that
1 be the normal situation?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. General, was Minister Boskoski the kind of minister who kept his
4 promises to the international community?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Lower down on the page, we see that it says: "Regarding the
7 attitude of the police, Minister Boskoski stated that all members of the
8 Ministry of Interior had been given the rules for conduct of the security
9 forces and that everyone who breaches their authorisations or powers will
10 be held responsible pursuant to the Law on Internal Affairs."
11 Do you see that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. This decision to distribute the rules of conduct to all the
14 members of the Ministry of Interior, who made that decision; do you
16 A. I don't recall.
17 Q. Okay. General, what did Minister Boskoski do pursuant to his
18 affirmation here in the report, in the meeting, what did Minister Boskoski
19 do to ensure that police officers who were deployed at police check-points
20 who allegedly abused their authority or committed acts of misconduct were
21 head responsible, according to the Law on Internal Affairs? What did he
22 do to make sure this happened?
23 A. Personally, as a minister?
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. Well, it is written well here what he stated, that all the members
1 will be issued rules for conduct of the security bodies and everyone that
2 will overstep those authorities will be held responsible pursuant to the
3 Law on the Interior.
4 Q. You're absolutely right; that's what it says here. My question --
5 and I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear. My question actually goes a step
6 further than what is written here. My question is: After the minister
7 made this commitment that everyone who breached their authority would be
8 held responsible pursuant to the Law. After the minister made that
9 commitment to Ambassador Speckhard from NATO, what then did
10 Minister Boskoski do to make sure that this happened, that persons who
11 violated their authority were held responsible?
12 A. As a department for police, we took steps, we prepared these
13 brochures that we distributed both to the active and the reserve police
14 officers. And whose idea was it, was it the minister's or the Director
15 Mitevski, I don't know. I don't know whose idea was that. But as we got
16 the order from Mitevski, as a direct superior and we carried it out. We
17 printed them and distributed all these brochures to the people that were
18 manning the check-points.
19 Q. I understand that. And again, I'm sorry if my question isn't
20 clear. Let's forget for a moment about the distribution of the rules of
21 conduct to the police at the check-point. Let forget about that for a
22 minute, okay?
23 My question actually refers to the rest of the -- the remaining --
24 the last part of the same sentence, where Minister Boskoski makes a
25 commitment that everyone or anyone who breaches their authority will be
1 held responsible pursuant to the Law.
2 My question is: What measures did Minister Boskoski take, what
3 instructions did he give, if any, to make sure that persons who needed to
4 be held accountable were held accountable?
5 A. As you say, this commitment refers to all the superior officer who
6 work and who are heading all the subordinates that are manning the
8 Q. All right. I'm trying to understand your response.
9 Well, what, then, did Minister Boskoski do to ensure that these
10 superior officers did their job in that respect, that they held people who
11 violated their authority responsible? Did Minister Boskoski give
12 instructions to people like you, people in the collegium? What was done
13 to make sure that this commitment was fulfilled?
14 A. After these meetings would end, after we have these morning
15 meetings, the positions and recommendations are -- people are informed
16 about these positions taken before the international communities. And we,
17 as subordinates are the ones who would then carry out those
19 Q. Okay. Based on what you're told to do by the minister?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. And did you and your colleagues in the collegium make your
22 best professional efforts to ensure that everyone who breached their
23 authority, police officers manning check-points, were held accountable,
24 according to the Law and Rules of the Ministry of Interior?
25 A. I think yes.
1 Q. Okay. On Friday, General, and I'm sorry I do not have the exact
2 transcript page on this point, you agreed with a question put by my
3 learned colleague that in September 2001, with respect to these
4 check-points, the police gave authority to the international community in
5 order to help avoid acts of abuses of power by police officers. Do you
6 recall that?
7 A. That we provided authority? I don't understand you.
8 Q. I'm -- I'm paraphrasing a question that was put to you by
9 Ms. Residovic on Friday, asking you whether you agreed that, with respect
10 to these check-points and related to this report that we see in front of
11 us, whether certain authority was given to members of the international
12 community, members of NATO or the OSCE to assist in whatever they could at
13 check-points to avoid abuses.
14 Do you recall that?
15 A. So we are not talking about giving authority but a joint
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. Where we are trying to be open and transparent and to call them to
19 be present at our check-points, the international factors would who would
20 observe and follow police work, so if there is any misconduct for them as
21 an international factor to inform us so that we can undertake the
22 necessary measure for further prosecution. So we are not giving the
23 authority; we just call them for joint cooperation.
24 MR. SAXON: And for the record, Your Honours, this discussion
25 occurred on Friday at page 4997 of the transcript.
1 Q. All right. Just so we understand, General - help us with this -
2 after the Ohrid agreement then, in August of 2001, did the Ministry of
3 Interior's chain of command continue to function?
4 A. Yes, it did.
5 Q. Were orders still sent down the Ministry of Interior's chain of
6 command and reports still sent up the chain of command?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Did the Ministry of Interior's disciplinary procedures still
10 A. They never stopped.
11 Q. Okay. And you personally, General, in your role then as deputy
12 under-secretary, did you continue to give orders to your subordinates?
13 A. Yes, I did.
14 Q. And were your orders carried out?
15 A. This is a very wide question.
16 Q. To the best of your knowledge.
17 A. Yes, they were.
18 Q. Okay. And did you, General, continue to carry out the orders of
19 your superiors?
20 A. Yes.
21 MR. SAXON: Can we show the witness, please, what is now Exhibit
23 Q. And this is an announcement that you saw last week, General, from
24 December 2001, where the Ministry of Interior -- of Internal Affairs
25 guarantees that it will not arrest, detain or bring in citizens of
1 Macedonia who are former members of the NLA who voluntarily hand in their
2 weapons. Do you see that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Who gave the order to issue this announcement, this public
6 A. I cannot recall precisely who issued the order for this
8 Q. All right. Were police officers at the station level, at the OVR
9 level informed about this order, about this announcement and the policy
10 that it contains?
11 A. Yes. And precisely this announcement created a problem because of
12 the lack of speed of the judicial bodies because they did not disseminate
13 a list of the people who have been pardoned in accordance with the Law on
14 Amnesty. Otherwise, we followed these kind of instructions.
15 MR. SAXON: Your Honour -- Your Honours, would this be an
16 appropriate time to take the second break? It would be a convenient time
17 for me.
18 JUDGE PARKER: If that's convenient, Mr. Saxon.
19 We will resume at five past.
20 --- Recess taken at 5.31 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 6.06 p.m.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
23 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honours.
24 Can we please show the witness what is now Exhibit 1D107.
25 Q. And, General Jovanovski, it's actually the very first document in
1 the binder that was given to you.
2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, Your Honours, this
3 was a document that was in the first binder, and I think that we did not
4 bring this first file for the witness, so maybe the witness could be shown
5 this document just on the screen.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
7 MR. SAXON: I could also give the witness my copy, except that...
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters would kindly to ask Mr. Saxon, if
9 possible, to turn the right microphone off.
10 MR. SAXON: Can we please turn to Article 26 of this document,
11 which in the English version is on page 21.
12 Q. And General Jovanovski, on page 4867 of the transcript on
13 Wednesday, my learned colleague showed you this document. And she
14 reviewed with you Article 26, which provided that the collegium of the
15 Ministry of the Interior is composed of the minister, the deputy minister,
16 the head of the public safety -- public security bureau, the head of the
17 security and counter-intelligence administration, the heads of the
18 departments for police and department for criminal police, and the state
20 Do you recall this?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And you were present at a number of the meetings of the collegium
23 in 2001 and 2002. Is that right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. At page 4869 of the transcript, you indicated at those meetings,
1 that at those meetings, depending on the matters being discussed at the
2 collegium, Minister Boskoski would issue orders to you or to other members
3 of the collegium and then those orders would be passed down the chain of
4 command of the Ministry of the Interior.
5 Do you recall explaining that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, if we can turn our minds back to Article 26 for a minute.
8 According to Article 26 of Exhibit 1D107, the head of the administration
9 for security and counter-intelligence was also a permanent member of the
10 collegium. And my question then is this: In 2001, depending on the
11 nature of the issue being discussed by the collegium, would
12 Minister Boskoski also issue instructions or tasks to the head of the
13 administration for security and counter-intelligence as well?
14 A. Yes, he was present.
15 Q. I know that he was present. My question was something different
17 My question is: Back in 2001, would Minister Boskoski also issue
18 instructions or tasks to the head of the administration for security and
19 counter-intelligence, depending on the issue that was being discussed by
20 the collegium?
21 A. According to the type of tasks and operations that have been
22 conducted by the administration, during these meetings we did not discuss
23 to a great extent the operations and the work of this administration.
24 Q. Okay. But were there times -- were there occasions when the
25 collegium met during the crisis time in 2001, where Minister Boskoski
1 would request that the head of the administration for security and
2 counter-intelligence either carry out a particular task or to try to
3 obtain certain information about what was going on in the crisis areas or
4 some other -- some other issue?
5 A. During the collegiums, I don't remember.
6 Q. Okay. Apart from the -- apart from the collegiums, can you recall
7 whether the head of the administration for security and
8 counter-intelligence would, depending upon the issue and the problem, try
9 to obtain certain information to assist the minister or the other members
10 of the collegium?
11 A. I wouldn't know that.
12 Q. Okay. Do you know whether the head of the administration for
13 security and counter-intelligence in 2001, would, depending on the issue,
14 share information with Minister Boskoski?
15 A. I'm not aware of that.
16 Q. Okay. Well, on Wednesday last week, at page 4877 of the
17 transcript, Ms. Residovic asked you whether Mr. Boskoski ever set up a
18 committee to investigate an issue that had reached him, to shine a light
19 on a certain situation, so to speak, to be informed about perpetrators of
20 certain activities.
21 Do you recall that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And you agreed that this was also a manner in which
24 Minister Boskoski tried to learn more information about an issue; do you
1 A. I don't know whether this was specifically for Mr. Boskoski, but
2 every single minister at the ministry would establish such a commissions.
3 Q. All right. And on Thursday, starting at page 4941 of the
4 transcript, you explained to Ms. Residovic that as part of your role as a
5 member of the headquarters for Operation Ramno, you received information
6 from the public security sector, as well as from the state security
7 sector, the directorate for security and counter-intelligence.
8 Do you recall that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And at pages 4941 to 4950 of the transcript, we can see that
11 Ms. Residovic showed you a number of documents that had been produced by
12 members of the state security sector related to the events in Ljuboten
13 during 2001.
14 Do you recall that?
15 A. Yes.
16 MR. SAXON: And just for the record, Your Honour, I'm referring to
17 exhibits 1D157 through 1D163, and exhibits 1D165 through 1D168.
18 If we can please show the witness what is 65 ter number 251,
19 please. And if we could -- first of all, this is a document, it's dated
20 the 14th of August, 2001. It's from the minister of the interior, office
21 for security and counter-intelligence, sector for analytics research and
22 information, and the title is, Activities of the National Liberation Army
23 in the village of Ljuboten and its surroundings.
24 Do you see that, General?
25 A. Yes, I do.
1 Q. And this document, the first paragraph, talks about a terrorist
2 group led by Xhavid Asani and Nazmi Sulejman having moved to the area of
3 Skopska Crna Gora where they're preparing to undertake or where they had
4 undertaken preparatory activities to continue their armed activities and
5 terrorist actions against members and buildings of the Ministry of
6 Interior and the army of the Republic of Macedonia.
7 Below that, it says: "The terrorist group has determined the
8 village Ljuboten as their main logistics base."
9 Do you see that, General?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And then a couple of paragraphs down below, it talks about the
12 mine explosion on the 10th of August at Ljubotenski Bacila where a number
13 of Macedonian army soldiers lost their lives. Do you see that?
14 A. Yes, nine soldiers lost their lives.
15 Q. Can we -- can we, in both versions, can we scroll down so we can
16 see the rest of page, please.
17 And then at the bottom it says: "Submitted to Ljube Boskoski, the
18 minister of internal affairs, and Nikola Speceski [phoen], head of the
19 sector for counter-intelligence."
20 Do you see that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Can we agree, then, General, that certain information obtained by
23 the directorate for security and counter-intelligence concerning the
24 events in Ljuboten was also provided to Minister Boskoski? Can we see
25 that from this document?
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I'd seek to tender this document, please.
3 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P438, Your Honours.
5 MR. SAXON: Can we now show the witness what is Exhibit 1D165,
6 please. And this is a document from the 6th of September, 2001, and it is
7 from the security and counter-intelligence division of the Ministry of the
8 Interior. And it talks about, as we've seen before, a meeting which took
9 place on the 4th and 5th of September, 2001. And the source provides
10 certain information about the events in Ljuboten village.
11 Q. Do you see that, General?
12 A. Yes.
13 MR. SAXON: Can we turn to the next page, please, in both
15 I'm sorry, can we turn to the very last page in both versions.
16 Q. If we could focus now on that last paragraph. And that last
17 paragraph says: "The aforementioned information that Sali Mamer as a
18 member of a 30-strong paramilitary group was at NLA positions in the
19 village of Ljuboten on the 12th of August this year, only serves to prove
20 that there were really members of this terrorist group in the village of
21 Ljuboten between 11 and 14 August. And that the action of the security
22 forces of the Republic of Macedonia, on 12 August, was undertaken for the
23 neutralization of the terrorists in the area and was not directed against
24 the civilian population of the village, as was recently tendentiously
25 claimed by the humanitarian organisation Human Rights Watch which is
1 striving to present the casualties in the ranks of the NLA as civilian
2 casualties of the supposed repressive Ministry of Interior action."
3 Do you see that? Do you see that, General?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. General, do you think that members -- operative members of the
6 administration for security and counter-intelligence, with their resources
7 and abilities for obtaining information, could have identified the members
8 of the Ministry of Interior who were present in Ljuboten on the 12th of
9 August, 2001?
10 A. I cannot understand what you're trying...
11 Q. Well, we've seen from these documents and the other documents that
12 my learned colleague showed you last week that the department for security
13 and counter-intelligence, UBK/DBK was able to obtain quite a lot of
14 information about the events in and around Ljuboten, both before the
15 events of August 2001 and even afterwards.
16 So my question is: With all of their abilities for obtaining
17 information, do you think that the members of the administration for
18 security and counter-intelligence could have identified the members of the
19 Ministry of Interior who were present in Ljuboten on the 12th of August,
21 A. I'm not a competent person to give this kind of comments.
22 Q. Okay. On last Thursday at page 4909 of the transcript,
23 Ms. Residovic asked you whether when the Lions Brigade was established it
24 was composed of existing members of the police, either from the posebna
25 unit or from the reserve police forces, and you replied yes. Do you
1 recall that?
2 A. I do.
3 Q. Do you recall who was the commander of the Lions Brigade in 2001?
4 A. That was Goran Stojkov.
5 Q. What was Mr. Stojkov's job before he became the commander of the
7 A. I can't precisely tell what position he was on. I don't recall.
8 Q. All right. Do you know if Mr. Stojkov took part in the combat
9 activities during the crisis period in 2001?
10 A. I can take the freedom to say that he never participated in any
11 combat activities.
12 Q. All right. On Thursday -- actually, let me step back for a
14 How do you know for a fact that Goran Stojkov never participated
15 in any combat activities, if you don't even know what position he held
16 before he became commander of the Lions?
17 A. Because after he became a commander of the Rapid Deployment Unit
18 he was under the command of the police department, of the department for
19 the police.
20 Q. I'm sorry, the problem was with my earlier question. Before
21 Mr. Stojkov became commander of the Lions, do you know whether he took
22 part in any combat activities during the crisis period in 2001?
23 A. As far as I remember, he never participated in combat activities.
24 Q. Okay. Then tell us, please, what qualified Mr. Stojkov to become
25 the commander of the Lions?
1 A. Since we serve in the army, he served in the special units in the
2 army, and he had such recommendations.
3 Q. All right.
4 A. Let me clarify. That he was not the only one who command -- who
5 commanded with the Rapid Deployment Unit, but he had an entire parties
6 below him. He had a platoon commanders and company commanders that were
7 actually commanding with the operations.
8 Q. What was Mr. Stojkov's relationship like with Minister Boskoski?
9 A. As far as I was able to see, it was a professional one.
10 Q. On Thursday of last week, at page 4909 of the transcript, you told
11 the Trial Chamber that no paramilitary groups became part of the Lions,
12 regardless of the fact whether they existed anywhere in Macedonia. Do you
13 remember that?
14 A. During the time of the crisis, every -- every of the troops in the
15 regions were called names of animals depending on the area that the animal
16 lives in. We had sarplaninci in Tetovo, we had snakes in -- we had other
17 animals, lynxes, we had an entire zoo. That's what they used to call them
18 themselves, but they didn't act in a paramilitary fashion.
19 Q. But I guess my question is simply this: During the crisis time in
20 2001, did paramilitary groups exist?
21 A. No.
22 MR. SAXON: Can we show the witness, please, what is Exhibit 227,
23 and I'm only going to show the first part of the video.
24 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
25 MR. SAXON: I'm asking for Exhibit 227. It is a video.
1 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
2 JUDGE PARKER: We have a photograph with that number.
3 MR. SAXON: Then I stand -- I stand corrected, Your Honours. This
4 was a clip which my learned colleague showed the witness and it is from 65
5 ter number 979. It was made in November of 2002 at the ceremony where the
6 Lions received their employment contracts. And it's time code 00:31:16 to
8 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I think it is a mistake. It is
9 not 2002. I think it is 2001.
10 MR. SAXON: I stand corrected. I'm grateful to Ms. Residovic.
11 She's absolutely right; it was November 2001. I misspoke.
12 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
13 JUDGE PARKER: The videos are not in e-court. They must be
14 published by the parties.
15 MR. SAXON: I understand that, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Here we are.
17 [Videotape played]
18 MR. SAXON:
19 Q. General Jovanovski, you heard the commentator saying in the future
20 the Rapid Deployment Unit will be called the Lions as it was called at the
21 time of the fiercest fighting?
22 A. That is just a reporter's comment.
23 Q. I know that. And I want to ask you a question about it, okay?
24 At what battle, or battles, did the Lions get their name?
25 A. Speaking about the Lions, it will take a lot of time. That is
1 connected with the history of the Macedonian nation.
2 Q. Well, I understand that the Lions have a particular symbol,
3 symbolism in the Macedonian nation. The -- and we see the insignia there
4 on -- insignia of the Lion on a person's cap there. But my question is:
5 You heard the comment of the journalist that the Rapid Intervention Unit
6 will be the Lions as it was called at the time of the fiercest fighting.
7 My question is simply this: What operations or combat operations
8 did the Lions or the precursors of the Lions get their name?
9 A. I can freely say that they never received this name in any
10 operation. But the name Lions is connected with the Macedonian history.
11 Q. Okay.
12 MR. SAXON: If we can now remove that exhibit, please.
13 Q. At page 5008 of the transcript on Friday, you explained that --
14 Your Honour, I would still seek to tender that clip, if I may?
15 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
16 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I'm hearing from my more organised
17 colleagues today that this clip has already been exhibited. So I will
18 withdraw my request to tender it.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Can we learn the exhibit number so that the
20 transcript reveals it? You're being coached, I see.
21 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is P277.
22 JUDGE PARKER: I am very grateful.
23 MR. SAXON: So am I.
24 Q. Moving on to a different topic, General, at page 5008 of the
25 transcript on Friday you explained that according to Macedonian law, the
1 police have no authority to interview persons as witnesses. Do you recall
2 explaining that?
3 A. I don't recall saying this precisely.
4 Q. Okay. Would you take my word for it, or do you want me to ... It
5 was in response to a question from Ms. Residovic where she asked you
6 whether it's true that the Macedonian police have no authority to formally
7 interview persons as witnesses, and you said yes.
8 Does that make sense to you?
9 A. If the witnesses are part of a judicial investigation.
10 Q. Okay. All right. But the police do have the authority to collect
11 information from citizens. Isn't that right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. As part of that authority, would a criminal inspector member of
14 the crime police have the authority to speak with police officers who were
15 present at the scene of a crime and gather information from them?
16 A. Yes, they can speak with anyone.
17 Q. All right.
18 MR. SAXON: Can we show the witness what is now Exhibit 1D33,
19 please. 1D33.
20 On Friday, General Jovanovski, Ms. Residovic showed you this
21 document at page 5034 of the transcript, and you may recall this is the
22 proposal from the Ministry of the Interior dated the 7th of September,
23 2001 to the public prosecutor's office and the investigating judge in
24 Skopje that an exhumation be performed in the Ljuboten village. Do you
25 recall that.
1 A. I do.
2 MR. SAXON: Can we now show the witness what is Exhibit P55,
4 And I have not done what I should have done, but I'm very grateful
5 to my colleague Ms. Regue for saving me once again.
6 If we can turn to what is N002-1148 within Exhibit P55.
7 Perhaps Ms. Walpita could tell us what -- in terms of the broken
8 down exhibits numbers, what number this would be. I see Ms. Guduric has
9 found it already.
10 Q. You'll see here, General, this is the proposal of the public
11 prosecutor just three days later, to the investigative judge to carry out
12 an exhumation. And so we can see here that the public prosecutor acted
13 quite quickly on the initiative of the Ministry of the Interior. Is that
15 A. Yes, if this is what it reads here.
16 Q. Tell me, General, do you think that the Ministry of the Interior
17 could have proposed that the public prosecutor and the investigative judge
18 identify and interview the members of the Ministry of Interior who were
19 present in Ljuboten on the 12th of August, 2001? Could the Ministry of
20 Interior have made that initiative?
21 A. I'm not aware about it. I don't know.
22 Q. Well, if the Ministry of the Interior was able to make proposals
23 to take these kinds of initiatives and send them to the public prosecutor
24 and the court, was there anything stopping them from sending other kinds
25 of proposals to the same judicial bodies?
1 A. As I said, I don't work in that part of the ministry, so this
2 practice is not familiar to me.
3 Q. Well, I understand that the practice may not be familiar to you.
4 But can you think of anything that would have prevented the Ministry of
5 the Interior from making additional proposals to the public prosecutor and
6 the investigative judge?
7 A. If the -- if the investigating judge would have asked, we as a
8 ministry would have send those information to him. If we had it.
9 Q. I'm not asking about sending information. I'm asking about
10 sending proposals, sending initiatives.
11 A. Yes. But the judicial bodies have already started their
12 activities and this is now under the competence of the judicial bodies.
13 Q. That's right. And for that reason, in this case, the Ministry of
14 the Interior took the initiative to send a proposal to the judicial
15 bodies. Isn't that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Would anything have stopped the Ministry of the Interior from
18 providing additional proposals?
19 A. I don't know.
20 Q. Okay. On Friday at page 5012 of the transcript, you explained to
21 my learned colleague that during a meeting of the committee that you led
22 in 2003, you said this: "An Official Note might be prepared. A report or
23 minutes. This is a final document that has three names, so to say,
24 Official Note, report, or minutes. It all depends on the person that
25 would make it and the person who would make it would title it in a certain
2 General Jovanovski, can you tell us, please, what do you mean by
3 the term "final document"?
4 A. A final document, when the meeting is over, or the gathering, so
5 then the final document is being prepared. For instance, when this
6 session finishes then we will have the transcript from today. This would
7 be the final document.
8 Q. All right. Did all such final documents form part of the official
9 record of the work of the 2003 commission that you led?
10 A. Yes, it would.
11 Q. At page 5017 of the transcript, Ms. Residovic asked you whether,
12 when you led the commission in 2003, you had or could have had documents
13 that were then in the files of the public prosecutor and the courts, and
14 you answered no. Do you remember that exchange?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. General, can you cite to any Macedonian law that prevents members
17 of the Ministry of the Interior from asking permission to review materials
18 in the files of the public prosecutor or the courts?
19 A. I am not aware whether such law exists. However, the
20 investigative bodies do not provide the files to be reviewed by the
22 Q. But it's not prohibited to ask to see such files, is it?
23 A. I'm not aware of that.
24 Q. On Friday, at page 5026 of the transcript, Ms. Residovic asked you
25 whether, from the information provided to the commission that you led by
1 Johan Tarculovski, you could determine whether Johan Tarculovski -- excuse
2 me, whether you could determine whether Mr. Tarculovski was in the village
3 at all and with whom. Do you remember that question?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And you replied that the commission could not determine this from
6 Johan Tarculovski's statements nor from the statements of other persons
7 who were called to speak to the commission. Do you remember that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And at page 5027 of the transcript, Ms. Residovic asked you
10 whether the commission could conclude whether Minister Boskoski had any
11 connection with Mr. Tarculovski with respect to the events in Ljuboten,
12 and you responded no. Do you remember that?
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 MR. SAXON: And I'm wondering if we could give back to
15 General Jovanovski the Prosecution's binder of materials. And if we could
16 turn to what is tab 12 of this binder. It's part of the exhibit marked
17 for identification P00379, and it's also Rule 65 ter 285.12.
18 Q. Can you turn to tab 12, please? You've got it there, General,
19 right? And can you turn to the Macedonian version, please. It's there --
20 it's there. That's it, General. And if we can turn to page 2 in the
21 English version, in the English version, and page 3 in the Macedonian
22 version, please. And I may need the assistance of the usher to assist
23 General Jovanovski find certain parts in the Macedonian version.
24 If we could have the assistance of the usher, please. This is the
25 Official Note written by Ljube Krstevski on the 19th of November, 2003.
1 There's a typo in the date, in the English version. And if we could turn
2 to page 2 of the English version.
3 And General Jovanovski, if you could take a look at what is the
4 fourth page in the Macedonian version, please. Could you turn to the
5 fourth page in the Macedonian version.
6 And, Mr. Usher, if it would assist, I've highlighted the passage
7 that I'd like General Jovanovski to look at.
8 Can we have the second page of the English version, please.
9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] There is a slight confusion on the
12 screen. We can see from the Prosecution binder a handwritten text and a
13 translation in English, but as far as we can see, this is not the
14 statement by Ljube Krstevski. So now we don't know whether the Prosecutor
15 wants to show the statement by Ljube Krstevski or the statement by another
16 person, Vanco, or I'm not quite sure what his name is.
17 JUDGE PARKER: I wonder, whether, Mr. Saxon, it might be better to
18 continue in the morning.
19 MR. SAXON: I think that would be a prudent course, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Might save everybody some time in the long run.
21 You've got something else, Ms. Residovic.
22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. Regardless of
23 the fact that my learned colleague praised me about our organisation of
24 evidence, we still believe that there is some kind of confusion regarding
25 the video footage that my learned colleague wanted to propose or tender as
1 evidence. Namely, as it was mentioned by my colleague, this was a video
2 footage that the Defence counsel presented to the witness, but the Defence
3 presented just P277. However, now, when we checked the transcript with
4 the wording that was said on the video footage that was shown to the
5 witness today, we can see that this is not the same video material.
6 I think that the video footage that my learned colleagues has
7 shown to the witness in the direct examination and it was stopped, and
8 that is why I think that tomorrow it might be good for the learned -- my
9 learned colleagues to see this video again, thus avoiding the possibility
10 for this video to be accepted as evidence, since maybe he would like for
11 this video footage to be tendered into evidence.
12 Thank you.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for that. And we will leave that to the
14 mature reflection of Mr. Saxon overnight.
15 MR. SAXON: I'm honoured, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE PARKER: We will resume tomorrow at 9.00.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.57 p.m., to
18 be reconvened on Tuesday, the 18th day of September,
19 2007, at 9.00 a.m.