1 Tuesday, 18 September 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning.
7 Could I remind you once against, General, that the affirmation
8 still applies and we're now on the last run, I believe.
9 Mr. Saxon.
10 WITNESS: ZORAN JOVANOVSKI [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter].
12 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honours. And just one brief
13 housekeeping matter. Last evening after court the Prosecution and the
14 Defence solemnly reflected on the video-clip that I -- that the
15 Prosecution had shown to General Jovanovski yesterday, and this is time
16 code 00:31:16 to 00:32:59, from Rule 65 ter 979, and we clarified
17 yesterday that this is not Exhibit P0027, and so at this time the
18 Prosecution would move to tender this particular video-clip.
19 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
20 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P439, Your Honours
21 Re-examination by Mr. Saxon: [Continued]
22 Q. General, where we left off yesterday, we were about to look at one
23 of the Official Notes produced during the work of your commission in 2003.
24 But before we look at that, General, perhaps I should start, General, just
25 focus on my question for now, please.
1 I need to start with a more basic question. Why did the
2 commission that you led in 2003 create records of its work and of its
4 A. Are you referring to the official final document? Documents of
5 the meetings or ...
6 Q. I'm referring to everything, all the records. Why were records
8 A. It is needed to leave a trace that we've been working something.
9 So what has been said or what has been worked to be documented in a way.
10 Q. Okay. So the purpose of the records was to document the work --
11 what the committee did. Is that fair? Okay.
12 If we can turn to what is tab 12 of General Jovanovski's binder,
13 and I misspoke yesterday, and unfortunately -- fortunately, my colleagues
14 of the Defence caught my mistake. This is a document that is actually 65
15 ter 285.13. It's from the exhibit that's marked for identification,
16 P00379. And I'd like to ask the usher's assistance, please. To save
17 time, I've marked a copy of the Macedonian version, the points which I
18 would like to direct General Jovanovski's attention.
19 General Jovanovski, you can see that this is a document to the
20 sector for internal affairs of the ministry of internal affairs, there's a
21 typo in the date in the English version. It should say 19 November 2003,
22 rather than 2001. But if you turn to the last page, General, you'll see
23 that this is an Official Note written by Ljube Krstevski, who was the head
24 of the department for internal affairs in Cair. Do you see that?
25 A. I'd like to correct you. At the time he wrote this Official Note
1 he was not the head of SVR Cair.
2 Q. Thank you. I -- I take your correction, you're absolutely right.
3 In 2001, the summer of 2001, Mr. Krstevski was the head of the department
4 for internal affairs for Cair. Is that right?
5 A. Ljube Krstevski describes the events of 2001 in 2003.
6 Q. Correct. And we see in the very top paragraph in the -- take a
7 look at the first page, General. The first page, General. The very first
8 paragraph. Ljube Krstevski describes his appointment as head of the
9 department for internal affairs, Cair. Do you see that?
10 A. I do.
11 Q. If we can move, please, to the second page in the English version
12 and the third page in the Macedonian version. Then I may be off by one,
13 General. The fourth page in the Macedonian version.
14 We'll just wait a minute for the e-court versions to come up.
15 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, let us just state
16 that the date is wrong in the translation. The Official Note says 19th of
17 November 2003, while the translation says 2001.
18 MR. SAXON: Thank you. I said that a couple of minutes ago, I
19 think, yeah. Okay.
20 Q. General, I'd like to direct your attention down a little bit in
21 the middle of the page to a passage -- this is on page 2 of the English
22 version, and I believe now it's page 5 of the Macedonian version. It --
23 there's a passage where it says -- where Mr. Krstevski writes this is, and
24 he's talking about the 10th of August after the mine explosion at
25 Ljubotenski Bacila. And then he says: "The next day the soldiers were
1 buried." The next day would have been the 11th of August. "At that time,
2 I was called personally on the phone, cell phone 070243818. Minister
3 Ljube Boskoski phoned and told me that a person by the name Johan would
4 come to me who is in his personal security and that if he requests any
5 services, I have orders from him to carry them out."
6 Do you see that, General?
7 A. I would like to make a correction in the translation.
8 Q. All right.
9 A. Ljube Krstevski has not been called by the minister, but here it
10 reads that I was called on the phone by Minister Boskoski and who told me
11 all that. So the minister called on the phone but whether the minister
12 called on the phone that's irrelevant.
13 Q. Thank you, General for that clarification and then later on it
14 says: "On the 11th, around 1500 hours some people in police uniforms
15 arrived at the grounds of police station Cair about whom I later learned
16 that they are reservists from (illegible) of the Ministry of Internal
17 Affairs. In (illegible) of police station Cair entered
18 Ljubomir Gjuricinovski and started to tell that Bucuk, a nickname, had
19 arrived from people from (illegible) and he complained that they had been
20 given uniforms and weapons."
21 Do you see that, General?
22 A. I do.
23 Q. Can we turn now to page 3 in the English version and the next page
24 in the Macedonian version.
25 General, do you see on the next page there's a paragraph towards
1 the top of the page, beginning: "That night around 1800 hours."
2 Do you see that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And it says this: "That night, around 1800 hours, deputy
5 commander Stojanovski and deputy commander Bliznakovski called me and
6 ordered me to go to a meeting with commander Slavko Ivanovski, a
7 representative of the army of the Republic of Macedonia - I later found
8 out it was Major Despodovski - which I refused. But I was told that I had
9 to go in order to show -- in order to know what the intentions are of the
10 group of Johan and Bucuk which was already on the positions in the
11 recreation centre above village Ljuboten so that it would be regular. I
12 took along the analytic chief Borce, the representative of defence
13 preparations, Ilija Stefanovski and together with Commander Slavko, we
14 went to the meeting. At the meeting, I insisted that minutes are taken
15 which we already even started, but because of Johan, Bucuk and I think
16 there was one more person by the nickname Kunga we could not take
18 Have you been following with me, General?
19 A. I have.
20 Q. Can we turn now, please, to page 4 in the English version and the
21 next page in the Macedonian version.
22 And in the English version, near the top -- near the top of the
23 English version Mr. Krstevski is talking about the events of Sunday, the
24 12th of August after Minister Ljube Boskoski arrived in the Ljubanci area.
25 And do you see there's a passage there, General, that begins: "While the
1 minister was there."
2 Do you see that, General?
3 A. I do.
4 Q. And that's says: "While the minister was there, Johan's group was
5 bringing around 10 captured Albanians from village (illegible) when they
6 neared the check-point at around 50 metres, a person, reservist of the
7 army of the Republic of Macedonia ran towards the group and hit one of the
8 persons," et cetera.
9 Do you see that?
10 A. I do.
11 Q. And then lower down in that paragraph, and we may need to turn the
12 page in the Macedonian version, you see there's a sentence that says:
13 "After 1430 hours, all persons from the unit that were led by Johan left
14 with their (illegible) from the village Ljuboten and the recreation centre
15 in village Ljubanci."
16 Do you see that, General? If you go to the next page and look for
17 the number 1430.
18 Can you see that?
19 A. I can see the number, but I can see something else written here.
20 Q. Okay. Can you go a few lines below that. You'll see the number
21 1430 mentioned once or twice again. We're looking for a sentence that
22 says: "After 1430 hours, all persons from the unit that was led by
24 A. I found it.
25 Q. Okay. General, would you agree that Mr. Krstevski's statement to
1 the commission in 2003 would allow the commission to determine that
2 Mr. Tarculovski was in the village of Ljuboten on the 12th of August,
4 A. No.
5 Q. And why not?
6 A. Because when Ljube Krstevski were called for an interview in the
7 commission, he was visually disturbed. I might say that he was even
8 agitated. The sentences that he spoke were unrelated to one another and
9 had no logical sequence in them. He was mixing people, mixing positions,
10 and we just asked him to write -- to sit down and write what he knows.
11 But it is also visible in the note that he changes his positions, because
12 he told us one thing and then he wrote another thing in the Official Note.
13 It is not a characteristic of a minister to call by phone and
14 issue orders when Ljube Krstevski has his own superiors from whom he
15 receives his orders.
16 Q. You've reviewed parts of this Official Note that we've looked at
17 today, have you, General? Where Mr. Krstevski has written about the
18 events of the 10th of August, the 11th of August, and the 12th of August?
19 You've seen what we've reviewed today?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Well, would you agree that these sentences written by
22 Mr. Krstevski are in a logical sequence and are related to each other?
23 A. Exactly because of that, these persons mentioned here were called
24 and they were interviewed and we were not able to determine from those
25 interviews that they have been present at the certain place at a certain
2 Q. All right. So if I understand you correctly, based on the
3 information that Mr. Krstevski gave to the 2003 commission, the commission
4 decided to interview or speak with additional persons. Is that right?
5 A. Not only from Mr. Krstevski's note but also from all the
6 interviews with the persons listed in the final report of the commission.
7 Q. Okay. You say it is not a characteristic of a minister to call by
8 phone and issue orders.
9 Actually, I'll come back to that in a moment.
10 MR. SAXON: Can we show the witness, please, what is Exhibit
12 Before we get to that --
13 Q. Mr. Jovanovski, would you agree that there's no record -- there's
14 no information in any of the records of the committee that you led in 2003
15 indicating that Mr. Krstevski seemed agitated when he spoke to the
16 committee. Would you agree with that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. If you take a look, please, at this document on the screen
19 in front of you, General. It's dated the 6th of July, 2001, from the
20 Ministry of the Interior. And you'll see this is a decision appointing
21 Ljube Krstevski as the head of the department of the Ministry of the
22 Interior, Cair, beginning on the 1st of August, 2001. Do you see that?
23 A. I do.
24 MR. SAXON: Can we move down so that we can see the bottom of each
25 page, please. Perhaps can we, please, go to the next page in each
2 Q. Do you see, General, that at the end of this document we see this
3 decision is signed by Ljube Boskoski, then the minister of the interior?
4 A. Yes. I don't know exactly now, according pursuant to which law or
5 which rule. An employer in the ministry is the minister. The minister is
6 the one who signs all the decisions to hire or to fire someone.
7 Q. Thank you, General. General, back in August 2001, Ljube Krstevski
8 was the head of OVR Cair, and can we agree that the village of Ljuboten
9 fell within the authority of OVR Cair?
10 A. Yes.
11 MR. SAXON: Can we show the witness what is Prosecution Rule 65
12 ter 232, please.
13 Q. You'll see, General, this is a document dated the 12th of August,
14 2001. It's the report on registered events and measures undertaken as
15 part of Operation Ramno. And can we scroll down so that we can see the
16 bottom of each page, please. And if we could go to the next page in the
17 Macedonian version, just in the Macedonian version.
18 You see, General, this is a report sent by Ljube Krstevski on the
19 12th of August during which he's talking about -- or he is relaying
20 information related to the Ljubanci and Ljuboten area. Do you -- have you
21 seen that?
22 MR. SAXON: Can we go back to the first page in the Macedonian
23 version, please.
24 Q. We see that: "At 1040 hours shots and detonations could be heard
25 from the upper part of Ljuboten village, along the road to Rastak. A
1 number of houses were burning and the movement of eight to ten individuals
2 was noticed around them."
3 Do you see that, General, in the middle of the page?
4 A. Yes, I see it, but I don't see there a registration number or a
5 signature of the person, of the head, and I'm not sure whether the head
6 have seen this document at all.
7 Q. Well, that may be. Can you see down below that the -- it
8 says: "At 1540 hours the Ljubanci check-point reported that 100 people
9 were noticed at MV Buzalak walking along the ridge."
10 Do you see that?
11 A. I do.
12 Q. As head of the Ministry of Interior for OVR Cair was it part of
13 Ljube Krstevski's duties to compile such information and report it up his
14 chain of command?
15 A. Yes, it was.
16 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I would seek to tender this document.
17 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P440, Your Honours.
19 MR. SAXON:
20 Q. General Jovanovski, can you think of a reason why the commission
21 formed by Minister Boskoski in August 2001 could not have interviewed
22 Ljube Krstevski?
23 A. I cannot comment about the work of the first commission.
24 Q. I know you didn't work on the first commission, but I'm simply
25 asking you in your opinion, can you think of a reason why that first
1 commission could not have interviewed Ljube Krstevski?
2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it -- the right
3 question for the witness might be whether the witness knows if the first
4 commission interviewed Ljube Krstevski, not to offer a response
5 immediately, a response that was not based in the questions up to now.
6 JUDGE PARKER: The point is that the first step has not yet been
7 clarified by the witness.
8 MR. SAXON:
9 Q. General Jovanovski, do you know whether the commission established
10 by Minister Boskoski in 2001 interviewed Ljube Krstevski?
11 A. I don't know.
12 Q. Okay. Today -- excuse me, yesterday you told the Trial Chamber
13 that the situation for the police was much more difficult in 2001 than in
14 2003 due to problems that the police had returning to the crisis areas.
15 Do you recall that?
16 A. I do.
17 Q. Was it very difficult in 2001 for members of the Ministry of the
18 Interior to speak with police officers who worked in police stations?
19 A. I can't understand your question. Who -- to speak with whom?
20 Q. Well, if members of the Ministry of the -- members of the Ministry
21 of Interior, criminal inspectors or other members of the ministry or the
22 police wanted to inquire about events that occurred within police stations
23 in Macedonia during 2001, was such a -- such an activity, such an inquiry
24 very difficult?
25 A. I think it was a bit more difficult to work in 2001 and to inquire
1 among colleagues because they had extended working hours and they had less
2 time to rest.
3 Q. So that would have meant that the colleague would have been on
4 duty for longer periods of time in 2001, right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And so at least some of those colleagues who worked in police
7 stations would have been easier to locate, isn't that correct, because
8 they would have been spending more time at their place of work?
9 A. Well, they were not predominantly in the police stations. They
10 were predominantly at the check-points and patrolling.
11 Q. All right. But, of course, if they were at check-points or
12 patrolling, their commanders would know where they were. Is that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Last week at page 4869 of the transcript, Ms. Residovic asked you
15 whether Minister Boskoski fully respected the opinions, suggestions and
16 recommendations of his directors and under-secretaries. And it appears
17 that, from the transcript, in response to that question, you said: "That
18 was not a great virtue of his, but he always asked us to have the last
19 word on a matter."
20 Do you remember that exchange?
21 A. I remember the conversation, but I don't remember that I provided
22 this specific answer.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. It was always the last word would be given by us professionals.
25 Q. All right.
1 A. So the last part of the sentence is correct, but the first part of
2 the sentence, I don't remember if I have spoken such words.
3 Q. Okay. After you and your colleagues at the collegium would have
4 the last word on a discussion or a debate about a matter, would it be then
5 up to Minister Boskoski to make a decision?
6 A. After we agree, then this is all agreed.
7 Q. All right. And then -- all right. I will -- I will leave that
9 At page 4876 you told Ms. Residovic that there was no need for the
10 minister to check or corroborate information that he received from you.
11 Do you recall that?
12 A. Can you please repeat the question, because the translation
13 somehow ...
14 Q. My question was: Last week at page 4876 of the transcript, you
15 told Ms. Residovic and the Chamber that there was no need for the
16 minister, Minister Boskoski, to check or corroborate information that he
17 received from you and your colleagues. Do you recall that exchange?
18 A. Yes, I do; that is correct.
19 Q. My question is: If the minister believed that he needed more
20 information about a particular issue, could the minister have ordered one
21 of his subordinates - you or someone else - to obtain more information?
22 A. Not me, but the directors. The direct subordinates would be the
24 Q. All right. So then if Minister Boskoski believed that he needed
25 some more information, then Minister Boskoski could have ordered one of
1 his directors to try to obtain more information, and then those orders
2 would be passed down the chain of command. Is that fair?
3 A. Yes, that is correct.
4 Q. And in 2001, did the minister -- did Minister Boskoski issue or
5 give such orders, when appropriate?
6 A. This is a general question.
7 Q. Yeah.
8 A. I'm not aware of that.
9 Q. A few minutes ago we were talking about the meetings of the
10 collegium and discussions that occurred there, and you told the Chamber
11 that after we agreed, then this is all agreed. After these discussions
12 and a consensus is formed about a particular matter, would then
13 Minister Boskoski issue tasks or instructions or orders to his directors,
14 based on what was agreed, based on the consensus that had been reached?
15 A. After the agreement, I don't remember that he would comment
16 additionally during the collegium.
17 Q. All right. But he could issue orders related to agreements or
18 consensus that were reached at the collegium, right? He had that
20 A. I already answered that besides his immediate subordinates, during
21 the meetings he can ask from his director any type -- for any type of
23 Q. Okay.
24 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, at this time I have no further questions.
25 Thank you.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Saxon.
2 You will be pleased to learn, General, that that concludes the
3 questions to be asked of you, so your evidence is at an end.
4 The Chamber would express its appreciation of your assistance and
5 for your having come to The Hague to assist in this trial.
6 You may, of course, now return to your normal activities and the
7 court officer will show you out.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much for your
10 [The witness withdrew]
11 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
12 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution would seek
13 to tender the documents that are included in what has been marked for
14 identification as P00379. And --
15 JUDGE PARKER: They will be received.
16 Mr. Mettraux.
17 MR. METTRAUX: Well, Your Honour, I'm afraid we have a few
18 objection in relation to a number of documents which form part of this
19 package. Perhaps I will let Mr. Saxon finish, if that is appropriate.
20 MR. SAXON: I'm perfectly willing to listen to the objections and
21 respond to them if necessary.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Mettraux.
23 MR. METTRAUX: Well, Your Honour, in that case there are two sets
24 of objections concerning partly overlapping documents and I will identify
25 the two sets of objection.
1 The first set of objection concerns material which pertains more
2 specifically to information provided by co-accused, co-defendant
3 Mr. Johan Tarculovski to the second commission and I will identify those
4 for the record by their number. The first one is Rule 65 ter 285.6, which
5 is part of MFI 379. The second is 285.7 and it is also 285.19, again part
6 of 379. Rule 65 ter 285.10, which is also 285.22, 285.24 which is also
7 285.25, and we understand that Mr. Saxon would or might also seek to
8 tender what is MFI'd as P51.
9 The second set of objections, Your Honour, applies to those
10 documents as well as a number of other proposed exhibits and I would also
11 identify them for the record. This is 285.11, which is also 285.23,
12 285.14, 285.1, 285.2, 285.3, which is also 285.15. 285.6 which is also
13 285.18, MFI P435, 65 ter 285.12, and 285.13.
14 Concerning the first set of documents, Your Honour, that those are
15 the documents which contain information attributed to Mr. Tarculovski and
16 given to the second commission. The Defence submit that should this
17 evidence be admitted the -- the Defence would be prejudiced in this case,
18 since it cannot compel Mr. Tarculovski to appear as a witness and
19 therefore, cannot test the reliability or otherwise of this material and
20 information. In other words, the Defence is unable to confront the
21 evidence which, in turn, would violate the fundamental right of
22 Mr. Boskoski to confront evidence which may be relevant to his case.
23 Furthermore, and even if the Defence had the right to compel
24 Mr. Tarculovski, which we understand we don't, Mr. Tarculovski will have
25 the right to remain silent which, in effect, would lead to the same
1 result, the Defence being unable to exercise its right to confront the
2 evidence. Furthermore, and as indicated during the evidence of both
3 Ms. Groseva and Mr. Jovanovski which we have just heard.
4 JUDGE PARKER: I think you may need to slow down a little
5 Mr. Mettraux.
6 MR. METTRAUX: I think it's a fair warning, Your Honour. I may be
7 in trouble with the interpreters, otherwise.
8 The second basis we submit for the non-admission of the first set
9 of document was that during two of the three sessions at which
10 Mr. Tarculovski was heard by the commission, he was unrepresented and Rule
11 42(A)(i) would as a result have been violated. The Tribunal has had
12 occasion to point out that Rule 42 applies not only to interviews
13 conducted by the Office of the Prosecutor but also by any other
14 authority. And perhaps to save a bit of time I will not read the passage
15 in question, but simply indicate for Your Honours' assistance a decision
16 of the Trial Chamber in the Delalic and other case of the 2nd of September
17 of 1997, in particular paragraph 43 which refers and turns to Article 14.3
18 of the ICCPR and Article 63(C) of the ECHR as a basis for its ruling.
19 This is the decision of Zdravo Mucic motion for the exclusion of evidence.
20 The same point is being made in Article 551(C) of the ICC statute
21 which, in effect, has adopted the approach of the Trial Chamber in this
23 The other reason or one other reason in any case for which the
24 material pertaining to Mr. Tarculovski should not be admitted is the
25 indication given by the witnesses, again Ms. Groseva and Mr. Jovanovski,
1 that Mr. Tarculovski was not -- was not given the warning provided for in
2 Article 42, Rule 42(A)(iii) of our Rules which requires that the suspect
3 or the person who should be regarded as such should be given the warning
4 that the material in question should be -- could be used against him in
5 further proceedings.
6 I will also draw Your Honours's attention to the statement of the
7 Appeals Chamber of this Tribunal which noted the following. A
8 prerequisite for admission of evidence must be compliance by the moving
9 party with any relevant safeguards and procedural protection and that it
10 must be shown that the relevant evidence is reliable. This is Kvocka
11 Appeals Chamber judgement 28th of February, 2005, paragraph 128. The same
12 point was made by the Celebici Appeals Chamber in its judgement at
13 paragraph 533.
14 The consequence of the failure to comply with Rule 42 has again
15 been highlighted by the Trial Chamber in the Delalic case, the same
16 decision that I mentioned earlier and I will again cite from the decision
17 itself. It says this: "It seems to us extremely difficult for a
18 statement taken in violation of Rule 42 to follow within Rule 95 which
19 protects the integrity of the proceedings by the non-admissibility of
20 evidence obtained by method which casts substantial doubt on its
22 And, Your Honour, the third point which specifically applies in
23 that context to the material provided by Mr. Tarculovski to the commission
24 is its general lack of reliability. This point has been made quite
25 clearly by both Ms. Groseva and certainly by General Jovanovski to the
1 effect that the material was regarded by them as being unreliable. We
2 understand that the Prosecution has not taken this issue in re-examination
3 in any case as pertaining to the assessment made by General Jovanovski in
4 that respect.
5 We understand that a finding as to the reliability or otherwise is
6 to be made by the Trial Chamber and not by the witness. However, we
7 believe that the view of the members of the commission who took down that
8 evidence or information provided by Mr. Tarculovski in those circumstances
9 is highly relevant to assessing its reliability or otherwise. And there
10 again, Your Honour, we are back to the original problem or issue which we
11 mentioned at the beginning is the inability or impossibility for the
12 Defence of Mr. Boskoski to compel Mr. Tarculovski with a view to test this
14 Concerning the second set of documents, Your Honour, and there
15 again the submissions I'm going to make will also apply to the material
16 which Mr. Tarculovski has provided to the commission. There's a number of
17 additional evidence, but I will start, if I may, with the -- an objection
18 which applies specifically to document 285.6, which is also 285.18, which
19 contains information which was provided by Mr. Krstevski, Mr. Jovanovski,
20 Bucuk, by Mr. Bliznakovski and by Mr. Stojanovski.
21 All of these individuals have at one point or another been
22 interviewed by the Prosecution or been regarded by the Prosecution as
23 suspects in this case. As such they should have been given the rights, we
24 submit, of Rule 42. And they haven't in those circumstances as we've seen
25 the Rules have not been respected. And even if, as may be submitted, the
1 Rule 42 would not apply to persons which are not defendants in a
2 particular case we would submit that the failure of the commission to
3 guarantee those rights would be highly relevant to the reliability or
4 otherwise of the material provided by these people.
5 Again, the individuals who testified before the commissions were
6 not offered the rights to be represented or, in any case, we have no
7 evidence of that in relation to these people. They were not given the
8 right to remain silent, they were not informed that the material in
9 question could be used in the context of criminal proceedings. The
10 material, or the proceedings, we call them that, were not in any way
11 subjected to any sort of judicial oversight which we suggest is relevant.
12 I will also make a general point which has been made in evidence
13 through both Ms. Groseva and Mr. Jovanovski is that material collected by
14 the commission would not be admissible in evidence before Macedonian
15 courts because of the nature of the process and the lack of guarantees.
16 We understand that this in itself would not be sufficient to exclude the
17 material from admission in this Tribunal which has its own rules of
18 admission of evidence. We submit, however, that this is once again an
19 indication of the care with which this material should be handled and the
20 general lack of reliability thereof.
21 Reliability, again, Your Honour, a number of factor which we
22 submit is very relevant to the issue of reliability is the fact that these
23 interviews were neither audio or videotaped that. Records are not in any
24 way verbatim records of what was said, that they are merely summary taken
25 by various individuals and at the time, as we've understood, written down
1 by some of the individuals who were heard by the commission. The
2 witnesses have also indicated significant differences between the
3 different versions given by the witness even within one single document.
4 The witnesses have also indicated that truth or otherwise of the
5 information contained therein was not in any way verified by the
6 commission. The statements or informations were not taken under oath
7 there was no warning and no sanction of any risk of perjury, in other
8 words, the persons heard by the commission did not have any obligation and
9 were not in any way told that they had an obligation to tell the truth.
10 For some of them, Your Honour, there may have been good reason to lie to
11 the commission.
12 We will also indicate that in our view, in the submission of the
13 Defence, the material in question would be incapable of establishing the
14 truth of its content. The Prosecution has made the point last week that
15 to the extent that a party should seek to prove a fact evidence should be
16 called on that point. We believe that this would certainly apply in this
17 particular instance and that the only fact that would have been proved by
18 those record is the fact that these individuals were heard by the
19 commission and that they gave a particular version to the commission. We
20 submit, however, that the material is incapable of proving the truth of
21 its content.
22 There are other submissions in relation to MFI 251, Rule 65 ter
23 285.1, 285.2, 285.3, 285.13, Your Honour. All of those documents are, in
24 effect, letter exchanged between the Prosecution and one particular member
25 of the commission, Mr. Besim Ramicevic. Your Honour, last week ruled in
1 relation to two proposed documents of the Defence that those, in effect --
2 I apologise, that those documents, in effect, could not be admitted as
3 exhibits following an objection of my colleague Mr. Saxon on that point.
4 We would make the exact same point in relation to these four documents.
5 For all purposes those documents should be regarded as statements of the
6 persons signing them and as such, cannot be admitted as exhibits.
7 Concerning MFI 251, we will also indicate at this stage that
8 during the evidence of both Mr. Jovanovski, General Jovanovski and
9 Ms. Groseva, the document has been said to be unreliable in several ways
10 and was prepared and provided to the Prosecution in violations of the
11 rules or the principle which was applicable to the commission. Again,
12 Your Honour, we are not suggesting that in itself would be a basis
13 sufficient to exclude this document, but again we believe that this would
14 be relevant to assess the reliability of this document.
15 Finally, I will make submission in relation to document 285.13,
16 which we understand Mr. Saxon is also seeking to tender. This is one of
17 the last documents showed to General Jovanovski. It is a note written
18 down by one of the proposed (redacted)
19 In relation to this particular --
20 MR. SAXON: Your Honour.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
22 MR. SAXON: Can we move into private session, please.
23 JUDGE PARKER: I'm not immediately persuaded that there is need.
24 Unless Mr. Mettraux is going to say something beyond my expectation.
25 MR. METTRAUX: I would be surprised if I do, Your Honour.
1 MR. SAXON: Well, the name of a --
2 JUDGE PARKER: There's a name.
3 MR. SAXON: A name of someone who has received protective measures
4 from this Trial Chamber.
5 JUDGE PARKER: It will be redacted.
6 MR. METTRAUX: I'm grateful to my colleague and I apologise, Your
8 Concerning the evidence of this particular individual, Your
9 Honour, we would like to indicate that -- well, perhaps we should move
10 into private session then, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon was well ahead of us. Yes, Mr. Mettraux.
12 [Private session]
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
9 MR. METTRAUX: I would also indicate that the points made earlier
10 in submissions concerning the reliability of the material should not
11 solely be regarded, we submit, as a matter of weight but as a matter of
12 admission. We submit that the material in question is so unreliable that
13 the Chamber should take the view in this particular instance that the
14 material should not be admitted and that it should not simply be regarded
15 as a matter of weight.
16 There are two other matters which I simply note for the record as
17 I understand that my colleague Mr. Apostolski may want to consider in
18 relation to the submissions for his client, Mr. Tarculovski, but which are
19 also relevant to the Defence of Mr. Boskoski is the fact that obviously
20 Mr. Tarculovski has a right not to incriminate himself and that he has a
21 right to remain silent which, again, may be a factor relevant to Your
22 Honours decision as regards the admission of material pertaining to him.
23 In view of the submissions, we would submit that pursuant to
24 Article 21 of the statute, 89, 95 and 42 of the Rules, Your Honour, the
25 documents which were identified at the beginning should not be admitted.
1 Thank you.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Mettraux.
3 Mr. Apostolski.
4 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
5 I fully support the objection by my co-counsel Mr. Mettraux and to
6 this Chamber I would like to point out a few more elements.
7 Although we know that this Tribunal has its own rules for
8 admissibility of evidence, I would like to point out to the Chamber that
9 on the basis of the evidence collected in this manner refer -- related to
10 the operation of the commission, a decision by a Macedonian court cannot
11 be based on it, and they cannot be presented as evidence in the criminal
12 procedure before the courts in the Republic of Macedonia. And that is why
13 I believe that this kind of evidence should not be admitted by this Court.
14 In this manner, the Macedonian law provides protection for the
15 fundamental human rights and we believe that this Court should also
16 protect the human rights at least to the same extent as it is being done
17 by the Macedonian law.
18 Also I would like to point out that at the period when the
19 statement by Mr. Tarculovski was taken by the commission, the ICTY
20 Prosecution office was already in charge of the Ljuboten case and that is
21 why the -- taking the deposition would be a bypass of the rules determined
22 in Rule 42 of the Rule Book and this would be a -- presented that this
23 Court takes a certain documents as evidence without telling the accused
24 his rights.
25 Mr. Tarculovski, when he was giving his statement, was not warned
1 about his right to keep silent, and he was not represented by a lawyer
2 during these interviews which would mean that Rule 42 was violated.
3 Thank you very much, Your Honours, and I would propose for this
4 kind of evidence not to be admitted by the Court.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Tarculovski -- your client, I think,
6 is -- continues to be either embarrassed or flattered. I apologise,
7 Mr. Apostolski.
8 Mr. Saxon.
9 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, the Prosecution, in order to save time,
10 reduced its submissions today has produced a skeleton argument of its
11 arguments on this matter, and we have copies for everyone here today. We
12 would like to distribute them now to the Court.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE PARKER: This is a skeleton with some substance still on the
15 bone, by the look.
16 MR. SAXON: I'll explain. I will explain the contents of it, Your
17 Honour, but we're not going to review all of it today, unless the Chamber
18 wants me to.
19 The first --
20 JUDGE PARKER: Can I indicate that the Chamber is moving toward a
21 view that in view of some of the matters raised, it could be useful to
22 have in the end a written outline from all parties. That doesn't mean
23 that we will not value brief oral submissions now to help us focus, but I
24 think all counsel can appreciate that, as the matter is presented by
25 Mr. Mettraux and Mr. Apostolski, there are some significant issues that
1 need to be determined and which will have effects beyond this particular
3 So make your submissions, but bear in mind that they will need to
4 be consolidated into a written submission to follow.
5 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Very briefly, the -- most of the first page of this skeleton
7 argument simply refers to the applicable rules and applicable
8 jurisprudence on this matter. Most of the jurisprudence actually has been
9 already mentioned by my colleague Mr. Mettraux, most but not all of it.
10 There's a decision also from this Trial Chamber in the Mrkisic trial and a
11 decision from the Prlic Trial Chamber that are also relevant to the issues
12 that are now before the Chamber related to this evidence.
13 Your Honour, in respect though to decision that the Trial Chamber
14 must make, first of all, the determination as to whether this material is
15 relevant will clear -- the Prosecution submits that the relevance of the
16 material is obvious. And that, then, leaves two more questions for the
17 Trial Chamber to review: Were these materials obtained under any form of
18 oppression or coercion and are these materials reliable.
19 And if you turn to page 2 of the skeleton argument, you'll see the
20 Prosecution submissions that with references to the transcript that
21 there's no evidence that any of this information was provided to the 2003
22 commission under oppression or any form of coercion. And we have several
23 comments from both witnesses Tatjana Groseva and General Zoran Jovanovski
24 on this matter.
25 Moving on, Your Honour, the evidence of Mr. Groseva and
1 General Zoran Jovanovski actually demonstrates that the material produced
2 by the 2003 commission is reliable. Both witnesses talked about how the
3 work was -- the work of the commission was performed, and how the records
4 of the commission and its work and its discussions were recorded.
5 And if I can particularly direct your attention to the fact that,
6 with respect to one of the -- one of the minutes related to
7 Johan Tarculovski, the minutes that Mr. Tarculovski and General Jovanovski
8 signed on the 12th of November, 2003. Both General Jovanovski and
9 Mr. Tarculovski who was assisted at the time by counsel had the
10 opportunity to review them prior to signing them. That's at page -- pages
11 47229 and 4844 of the transcript.
12 Your Honour, attached to our skeleton argument we have -- is a
13 corroboration chart. If you turn to the fourth page of the materials that
14 are stapled together there. And what the Prosecution has done is created
15 a chart with respect to the primary documents that are contained within
16 exhibit marked for identification 379 that shows for each document where
17 there is already admitted evidence corroborating the materials, the
18 particular material produced by the 2003 commission. And if you could
19 turn to the fourth page of the corroboration chart, one of the -- there is
20 the interview provided by Mr. Tarculovski on the 6th of May, 2003. And
21 you will see there is a blank box next to the statement that
22 Minister Boskoski gave Mr. Tarculovski a verbal order to solve the
23 situation in Ljuboten.
24 Your Honour, the Prosecution has left that box blank because to
25 date there is no admitted evidence that would corroborate that statement
1 of Mr. Tarculovski. However, I simply want to bring to the attention of
2 Your Honours that --
3 JUDGE PARKER: Can I say that at least one Judge has got each
4 alternate page only of the written outline or skeleton.
5 MR. SAXON: Can we --
6 JUDGE PARKER: I appear to have all pages. That's an undue
7 favouritism, Mr. Saxon.
8 JUDGE THELIN: I would appreciate to have the even numbers as
10 MR. SAXON: Ms. Walpita, do you have an extra full copy?
11 JUDGE PARKER: Two extra.
12 MR. SAXON: Two extra full copies.
13 MR. METTRAUX: I would appreciate one, thank you.
14 JUDGE PARKER: It may prove to be a good thing that we anticipated
15 written submissions, Mr. Saxon.
16 MR. SAXON: It may well be, Your Honour.
17 I will simply remark that there is some corroboration of the
18 statement of Johan Tarculovski that he received an order from
19 Minister Boskoski to solve the situation in Ljuboten. That corroboration
20 is provided in the Official Note written by Ljube Krstevski, which is part
21 of P00379. It has not yet been admitted.
22 With respect to the admissibility of 251, what has been marked for
23 identification of Exhibit P00251, and again, when you have the full copy
24 of our corroboration chart, and as well on this page 3 of the skeleton
25 argument you will see that Witness M-053, confirmed the information
1 contained in Exhibit P251. And Witness Tatjana Groseva at page 4738,
2 confirmed that the information contained in the commission's report,
3 reports, dated 6th of May and 28 May, 2003 are similar to that in P -- or
4 similar to that in Exhibit P00251.
5 My learned colleague has argued that P00251 should not be admitted
6 because it is effectively a letter from a member of the Ministry of the
7 Interior, but the Prosecution would suggest that the corroboration of the
8 material contained in exhibit 251 distinguishes it from other such letters
9 provided by the Macedonian government and would, therefore, argue that it
10 is admissible in this case.
11 Can we go into private session, please for a moment.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Private.
13 [Private session]
6 [Open session]
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
8 MR. SAXON: Just finally and briefly, Your Honour, the -- my
9 colleagues raise the argument that several of the persons who were
10 interviewed by the 2003 commission were subsequently treated as suspects
11 by the Office of the Prosecutor. Again, Your Honour, the Prosecution
12 feels that this is really beside the point. The point is that we have a
13 situation here that -- to the Prosecution's knowledge is not covered
14 specifically by any of the Rules or specifically by any of the
15 jurisprudence. We have a situation where what is effectively an internal
16 administrative proceeding was taking place over some months in 2003 under
17 the auspices of the Macedonian Ministry of the Interior. So then again,
18 the issue then is whether these documents have sufficient reliability to
19 show their probative value so that they can be admitted at this time.
20 And in the Prosecution's submission, when you have our full
21 corroboration chart and our full outline, if we are ordered to produce
22 one, then these documents are admissible.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux and Mr. Apostolski, in view of the now
24 firmed view of the Chamber that there should be written submissions, it
25 would seem unnecessary to call on you for a reply.
1 MR. METTRAUX: We agree, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
3 That being so, the Chamber would thank counsel for their
4 interesting submissions. We'll await the receipt from all three parties
5 of written submissions in which the documents in question are clearly
6 identified and arguments where they differ relating to each of them,
7 similarly identified.
8 It would appear to the Chamber that five sitting days or let us
9 say a week ought to be allowed, Mr. Saxon, for you to prepare your
11 MR. SAXON: Very well, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE PARKER: We would allow three days beyond that to
13 Mr. Mettraux and Mr. Apostolski. You know essentially what is put against
14 you, but three additional days in case something new emerges in the
15 written submissions.
16 So a week to Mr. Saxon and ten days from now for Mr. Mettraux and
17 Mr. Apostolski with their written submissions.
18 Should there be anything entirely novel in the submissions against
19 you, Mr. Saxon, you can have two days beyond that. But we would not
20 anticipate that you will need to respond.
21 We will reserve our decision, of course, on the motion in light of
22 those matters.
23 This seems to be an appropriate time to have the break, and we
24 will resume at 11.00.
25 --- Recess taken at 10.22 a.m.
1 --- On resuming at 11.04 a.m.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Are we ready now for the next witness, do you
3 think, Mr. Saxon.
4 Oh, Mr. Dobbyn.
5 MR. DOBBYN: Good morning, Your Honours. At this point the
6 Prosecution will be called witness Eli Cakar. Who is witness M-0160.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. There are no protective measures, are
9 MR. DOBBYN: No, Your Honour.
10 THE INTERPRETER: The counsel is kindly asked by the interpreters
11 to mind the microphone and not cover it by evidence or ...
12 [The witness entered court]
13 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. Would you please take the card that
14 is given to you and read aloud the affirmation.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
16 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Please sit down.
18 First, may we apologise that you were brought into court and then
19 had to leave again. There were some issues of significance which were
20 being raised with the Court and they were being dealt with. So we welcome
21 you back again.
22 Now I think Mr. Dobbyn has some questions for you.
23 MR. DOBBYN: Thank you, Your Honours.
24 WITNESS: ELI CAKAR
25 [Witness answered through interpreter]
1 Examination by Mr. Dobbyn:
2 Q. Good morning. Madam, is your name Eli Cakar?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Are you a Macedonian citizen?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And in August 2001, were you working as a television reporter?
7 A. Yes, I was.
8 Q. And previously have you given statements to members of the Office
9 of the Prosecutor?
10 A. Yes, I have.
11 Q. Do you recall on Sunday, the 16th of September, signing another
12 statement that effectively consolidated your prior statements?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And with the usher's assistance, I would like to show Ms. Cakar
15 the document which bears ERN N006-5034, N006-5050.
16 Ms. Cakar, do you see the document in front of you?
17 A. I do.
18 Q. Is your signature there at the bottom of page one?
19 A. Yes, it is.
20 Q. And can you look -- take a look at each page in the document and
21 tell us whether you signed each page at the bottom.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Can you turn now to page 15, please. Are you on page 15?
24 A. Yes, I am.
25 Q. Do you see a paragraph with the title in English witness
1 acknowledgment? And can you tell us whether that is your signature at the
2 bottom of that paragraph?
3 A. Yes, it is.
4 Q. Now, after signing that consolidated statement on Sunday, the 16th
5 of September, did you then make some additions or corrections to that
7 A. After I signed it?
8 Q. On -- yes.
9 A. No.
10 Q. Did you make any additions or corrections to that statement on the
11 16th of September?
12 A. Yes. There were some corrections that were more of a technical
14 Q. And were those corrections recorded in a separate document, also
15 dated 16 September 2007?
16 A. Yes, they were.
17 Q. And could I please have the usher's assistance again to show the
18 witness the next document, which has the ERN N006-5051, N006-5056.
19 Ms. Cakar, do you see your signature at the bottom of that
21 A. I do.
22 Q. And did you sign every page of this document at the bottom?
23 A. I did.
24 Q. And could you turn to page 5, where, again, you will see a
25 paragraph entitled witness acknowledgment. And can you tell us whether
1 that's your signature at the bottom, under that paragraph.
2 Do you see your signature there?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. And together, would this consolidated statement and the addendum
5 accurately reflect what you would say if you were to testify orally?
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. DOBBYN: At this point, Your Honours, I would seek to tender
8 Ms. Cakar's consolidated witness statement and the addendum thereto
9 pursuant to 92 ter.
10 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
11 Ah, Ms. Residovic.
12 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the English addendum
13 to the consolidated list has some comments on the evidence. In line with
14 your decision, the comments should not be admitted in evidence.
15 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honour, in our submission we have asked that
16 those comments not be admitted.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Well, I certainly haven't seen them. You can be
18 assured of that, Ms. Residovic. The document -- the statement and the
19 corrections will be received.
20 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P441, Your Honours.
21 MR. DOBBYN:
22 Q. Now, Ms. Cakar, in paragraph 6 of your consolidated statement, you
23 refer to a video-clip that you produced and which was shot in the Ljuboten
24 area on 12th August, 2001.
25 MR. DOBBYN: And at this time I would like to show the witness is
1 a video which is 65 ter 309 with ERN V000-3494, and I would like to show
2 the clip running from 4 minutes and 35 seconds until 7 minutes and 56
4 [Videotape played]
5 MR. DOBBYN: And can we stop it here, please.
6 Q. Ms. Cakar, is that your voice that can be heard on the video-clip?
7 A. Yes, it is.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. DOBBYN: Can we continue playing the clip, please.
10 [Videotape played]
11 MR. DOBBYN: And can we stop there, please.
12 Q. Ms. Cakar, in paragraph 25 of your consolidated statement, you
13 described your cameraman recording some weapons and being told by
14 Minister Boskoski that: "These are the weapons that we took from the
15 arrested terrorists."
16 Are the weapons that you have just seen on the video the weapons
17 that you referred to in paragraph 25 of your consolidated statement?
18 A. I'm not sure at this moment whether Minister Boskoski said it, but
19 from some people that were there, we were explained that this was the
20 weapon that was seized from the terrorists. And that is -- these are the
21 weapons that were recorded by the cameraman.
22 Q. So just to clarify, these are in fact the weapons that you refer
23 to in paragraph 25 of your witness statement?
24 A. Let me just see.
25 These are the weapons that were seized from the terrorists and it
1 was shown here.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MR. DOBBYN: And if we could continue playing the clip, please.
4 [Videotape played]
5 MR. DOBBYN: And stop it there.
6 Sorry, can we just go back to 6 minutes and 25 seconds.
7 [Videotape played]
8 MR. DOBBYN: If we play it from there, perhaps, and stop it.
9 There. Thank you.
10 Q. Ms. Cakar, do you recognise anyone on the screen in front of you?
11 A. I recognise Minister Boskoski.
12 Q. And is that the figure in the centre of the picture pointing up
13 into the sky?
14 A. Yes, it is.
15 Q. And where exactly was Minister Boskoski when he was captured on
16 film here?
17 A. He was in the yard of one of the houses that were outside of the
18 village of Ljuboten.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MR. DOBBYN: And if we could continue playing the video-clip until
21 the end, please.
22 [Videotape played]
23 MR. DOBBYN:
24 Q. Ms. Cakar, is the video-clip that we've just seen the video that
25 you referred to in your consolidated statement, the video that your
1 cameraman shot and that you produced in relation to the events in Ljuboten
2 on 12th August 2001?
3 A. That is the video material that was shot by the cameraman. I
4 don't know whether your question refers to it.
5 Q. Did you produce this video-clip?
6 A. It was shot by the cameraman of the Macedonian Television.
7 Q. Ms. Cakar, is this the video that you refer to your consolidated
9 A. Yes.
10 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, I would seek to tender this video.
11 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
12 Oh, Ms. Residovic.
13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, regarding the
14 proposal that was just given by the Prosecutor, I would like to mention
15 that the video material that was shot by the cameraman of the Macedonian
16 Television was shown to the witness Peter Bouckaert, and it is admitted as
17 P363 MFI. It is true that that material does not contain a Macedonian
18 text that we saw in this material, and the logo of the Macedonian
19 Television but we would like for the Prosecutor to explain us in what
20 relation is this P633, which was shown to Bouckaert and whether the
21 current video-clip would receive a number to avoid a possible confusion
22 about two identical video recordings.
23 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, if I can clarify. The video-clip that
24 was shown to Mr. Bouckaert was a clip from a longer video. The longer
25 video also includes a clip that is very similar to this one, but the clip
1 that was marked for identification is a completely different video to the
2 one that has been shown here. It is a video of an interview with
3 Minister Boskoski, not the parts that we've just been shown here.
4 JUDGE PARKER: This video will be received as a distinct exhibit.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P442, Your Honours.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, in the previous
7 paragraph it should say P363 instead of P633.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, let me just mention
10 that -- that the witness Bouckaert was shown a video and that is
11 registered as P363 MFI and we would like that the Prosecutor sees that
12 video recording and that does not refer to any statement of Minister
14 JUDGE PARKER: Both counsel seem to be in clear agreement over
15 one thing: For our material purposes, the two videos are identical.
16 We will receive this one. The other is marked for identification
17 if there is any dispute concerning the evidence of Mr. Bouckaert. But the
18 other one is not an exhibit in evidence in the trial.
19 Carry on, please, Mr. Dobbyn.
20 MR. DOBBYN: Thank you, Your Honours.
21 Q. Ms. Cakar, do you know of a location known as Brace's house?
22 A. If you can please repeat the location.
23 Q. Do you know of a location that is known by the name of Brace's
25 A. I just learned about that. In the statements that I saw with
1 the -- with your investigator, I recently learned that that location is
2 called like that.
3 Q. And the location that you came to be -- you came to know as being
4 called Brace's house, were you at that location on 12th August 2001?
5 A. Yes, I was.
6 Q. And in your consolidate the statement, you describe spending some
7 time in the yard of a house in the presence of Minister Boskoski from
8 where your cameraman shot much of the video footage. Was this the place
9 that you have since learned was known as Brace's house?
10 A. What we just saw in the video-clip, that was the yard I was in on
11 12th of August.
12 Q. And that was the yard where Minister Boskoski was also. Is that
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Now, could we show what's just been admitted as Exhibit P441, the
16 consolidated statement. And if we could go to paragraph 22, which is on
17 page 9 of the English version, page 10 of the Macedonian version.
18 Ms. Cakar, if you look at paragraph 22, do you see where you
19 state: "On my way out, I saw a group of people, who, according to the
20 minister, are going to be immediately sent to a police station. I think
21 he mentioned the police station Avtokomanda. According to Minister
22 Boskoski, these people were arrested during the action."
23 Do you see that paragraph?
24 A. I do. And if I may add something, during my statement, I
25 mentioned that I didn't see because I was running and with the angle of my
1 eye I somehow noticed the presence of people. And on several occasions I
2 insisted that it is noted in that way. So I cannot say absolutely whether
3 I have seen something, but somehow with the angle of my eyes, somehow I
4 think -- I think I was aware that there were some people there.
5 Q. Well, these people that you became aware of, could you describe
6 exactly where they were located?
7 A. When we exited the yard through the door, I think there were some
8 people on the left side.
9 Q. And how far from the door were they?
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. Ms. Cakar, if you were shown a map that you drew, would that help
12 refresh your recollection as to the location of these people?
13 Sorry, I'll ask that again. If you were shown a map that you drew
14 in the presence of an Office of the Prosecutor investigator would that
15 help refresh your recollection as to where these people were located?
16 A. I can only tell you that after I left at the door, I just ran
17 towards the parked vehicle, and I never turned my head towards there. I
18 just have a feeling that somehow with the angle of my eye I saw some
19 people, but I never turned my head and I didn't look into that direction.
20 Q. With the usher assistance, I would like to show Ms. Cakar a map, a
21 sketch that she drew on -- it's dated 30th November, 2003. It is -- it
22 was attached to the consolidated statement but we are not seeking to admit
24 Ms. Cakar, do you see towards the bottom on the left-hand side
25 there's a heading Brace's house with a sketch underneath it. Do you see
2 A. Yes. It wasn't me who draw this sketch, but it was drawn upon my
4 Q. And do you see that in the middle of the page there are the words
5 "arrested people," with an arrow, one pointing up, one pointing down. Do
6 you see that?
7 A. Could you assist me? I can't see.
8 Q. In middle of the page, there are two words written in English,
9 "arrested people." From there, there are two arrows: One going upwards
10 on the page, one going downwards. Do you see that?
11 A. Yes, I think I know what you're referring to.
12 Q. And then on the lower sketch do you see the words "three to four
13 metres." Do you see that?
14 A. A bit more difficult to see from here.
15 Q. Perhaps if you look at the hard copy.
16 A. Yes, I see what you're saying.
17 Q. So does this refresh your recollection as to how far away from you
18 these people were located when you saw them?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Where was Minister Boskoski when he told that you these people had
21 been arrested during the action?
22 A. The minister gave me general informations in the yard before we
23 left, but at that moment I did not know about what people he was speaking
24 about in general. I just received some general information before we left
25 that terrorists have entered from Kosovo, that there was an action, and
1 that people are arrested.
2 Q. If you could look at paragraph 22 of your statement, please.
3 And if we could go over to the next page where paragraph 22
4 carries on.
5 The first full sentence on that page of the statement that you
6 signed says: "According to Minister Boskoski, these people were arrested
7 during the action."
8 And in this paragraph you were talking about the group of people
9 outside the gate. So can you tell us where Minister Boskoski was when he
10 told you that these people had been arrested during the action?
11 A. Minister Boskoski was not that specific. However, my assumption
12 was that he was talking about these people.
13 Q. Well, you left the yard with Minister Boskoski, didn't you?
14 A. Yes, I did.
15 Q. So he left through the same gate as you did?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And you caught a glimpse of this group of people there, didn't
19 A. I already told you I did not see those people but I was aware that
20 there were some people standing around, because I was running.
21 Q. Was Minister Boskoski running?
22 A. I don't know.
23 Q. Taking into account what had you been told and where these people
24 were located, was it your impression that Minister Boskoski knew these
25 people were there?
1 A. I don't know.
2 Q. Now in paragraph 25 of your statement, you are refer to some
3 weapons that -- that you filmed?
4 MR. DOBBYN: If we go to paragraph 25.
5 Q. You state there: "The weapons shown in the video were placed
6 close to the car I was using for my way back to Skopje. I think it was
7 placed on the left side of the sidewalk of the road in the direction of
8 Skopje. This was the place where the cameraman recorded the weapons.
9 Minister Boskoski told me, These are the weapons that we took from the
10 arrested terrorists."
11 Do you see that?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. Who actually showed you these weapons?
14 A. I was in the car when the cameraman was filming the weapons, and I
15 don't remember precisely whether some people maybe who were around there
16 with the minister who showed them. So they were left on the road a bit
17 lower from the house in the direction towards Skopje.
18 Q. When you were seated in the car and your cameraman was filming
19 these weapons, where was Minister Boskoski?
20 A. I cannot recall.
21 Q. Where was the minister when he told you, These are the weapons
22 that we took from the arrested terrorists?
23 A. Here in the statement things are being written as it was a direct
24 speech of the minister. When we were discussing this with the
25 investigator, I was not in a situation. I could not remember everything
1 specifically so that I would be able to formulate this and to quote
2 somebody. Everything was -- was paraphrased. So as it is written here it
3 is very precise and at this particular moment I cannot be quite sure.
4 Even at the moment when I was providing my statement, I was not able with
5 100 per cent preciseness to formulate the wording so that they can be
6 placed in the statement as a quote.
7 Back then, I received information that these were weapons that
8 have been seized by -- from the arrested terrorists. This is what I can
10 Q. But you did read the statement, review it and then sign it. Isn't
11 that correct?
12 A. Yes. However, when I was giving my statements, on couple of
13 occasions, and during the preparation of the consolidated statement, I was
14 pointing out these things on several occasions, and although at that time
15 maybe -- it was not so important to be so precise. However, I insisted on
16 people being precise, and maybe we had certain problems with the
17 translation, because maybe I was misunderstood, because I tried and I
18 insisted on preciseness throughout the procedure. And maybe I was not
19 aware about the context, maybe. For the investigator, the preciseness was
20 not so important.
21 Q. Well, your precision is appreciated, and I have no further
22 questions for you at this time.
23 MR. DOBBYN: Thank you, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Dobbyn.
25 Ms. Residovic.
1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours.
2 Cross-examination by Ms. Residovic:
3 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Ms. Cakar. My name is Edina
4 Residovic and together with my colleague Guenael Mettraux, we represent
5 Mr. Ljube Boskoski.
6 I will kindly ask you to answer several questions of mine, but
7 before I ask you the questions, I will ask you to pay attention for the
8 benefit of the interpretation. Namely, I guess that you understand the
9 language that I am using, and I understand the language that you speak.
10 However, my question and your answer have to be interpreted so that the
11 Honourable judges and our learned colleagues in the courtroom can hear and
12 understand the question and your response; and that is why I kindly ask
13 you, Ms. Cakar, to wait for my question to be interpreted and respond to
14 the question only then.
15 Did you understand me?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Thank you. You were born in Strumice in the Republic of
18 Macedonia. Is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You have completed the studies of journalism. Is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You have graduated in 1987 and you started working at the
23 Macedonian Radio and TV station. Is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. From 1987 to 1987 you were volunteering and in 1989, you were
1 employed with a full-time job. Is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Can you tell me how long did you work at the Macedonian TV and
5 A. I was working there until January 2004, 12th of January, 2004.
6 Q. Can you tell us where you work at present?
7 A. Now I work at the ministry of local self-government.
8 Q. Thank you. Is it correct, Ms. Cakar, that when you started
9 working for the Macedonian TV and radio, first of all, three years you
10 were working for a programme that was treating the problems in the local
11 communities in the Republic of Macedonia?
12 A. Yes, that's correct. I was working in the so-called Skopska
13 programme as it was called back then.
14 Q. Afterwards for several years you have been working as a reporter
15 in the Macedonian parliament. Is that correct?
16 A. Yes, around ten years.
17 Q. And in 2001, you were working as a reporter from the Macedonian
18 parliament. Is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. During this period, in 2001, was the crisis period in the Republic
21 of Macedonia. Is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Having in mind the crisis period, there were certain changes in
24 the editorial policy of the Macedonian Radio and TV which was supposed to
25 refer or relate to the issues of that crisis. Is that correct?
1 A. I did not -- I didn't understand your question well.
2 Q. Bearing in mind the crisis at that time in the Republic of
3 Macedonia, is it correct that there were certain changes in the editorial
4 policy and the editors have issued additional tasks or requests from the
5 reporters and journalists?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And those changes in fact were closely related to the crisis
8 itself. Is that correct?
9 A. Yes. In general, yes.
10 Q. However, until that August 2001, you were lucky enough and you
11 could fulfil your tasks of a reporter from the parliament and you did not
12 go to the crisis regions. Is that correct?
13 A. I used to go previously as well, but I was not part of the first
14 field team. I was going there if there was a need, if there were plenty
15 of events, plenty of incidents I would go there and if we did not have
16 enough staff.
17 Q. In your statement, you testified that on the 12th of August, your
18 editor-in-chief told you that you were supposed to go to the field for a
19 particular task.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. My learned colleague just showed you the video footage that was
22 filmed by your colleague, the cameraman, this particular day where -- when
23 you were in the courtyard of the house for which you found out later on
24 that it was called Brace's house. Is that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Before this day, you were never present at this particular
2 location where this footage was recorded. Is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. In fact, you have never earlier been to the village of Ljuboten
5 either. Is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And if I understood it well, as you claim in your consolidated
8 statement, this day you did not enter the village of Ljuboten either. Is
9 that correct?
10 A. Yes. The house was not inside the village of Ljuboten. It was
11 outside of the village.
12 Q. So this day you just came to the house where the video footage was
13 recorded and you didn't go anywhere else from this house and then you
14 returned to Skopje. Is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Is it correct, Ms. Cakar, that neither then on the 12th of August,
17 when you were in the courtyard of this house, nor today you don't know
18 whether this house is part or belongs to the village of Ljuboten or the
19 village of Ljubanci?
20 A. No, I'm not aware.
21 Q. This day when the editor-in-chief told you that have you to fulfil
22 this task, you were the journalist on duty at the Macedonian TV and Radio.
23 Is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. In fact, throughout the crisis in the Macedonian TV and Radio,
1 duty teams have been organised, teams of journalists and cameramen who
2 were working and on duty throughout the weekends as well. Is this
4 A. Yes. We had teams on duty during the weekend and during the
5 weekdays in the morning hours.
6 Q. And these journalists and cameramen teams rotated and there was no
7 strict rule which team and when will be working during the weekend. Is
8 that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. The manner of work of each and every team would depend on the
11 specific situation. Is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. In your statement, in the consolidated statement, in item 8 you
14 said that in the initial information about Ljuboten you received on the
15 12th of August, 2001. Is this correct that you received this information
16 only on Sunday, 12th of August, 2001?
17 A. Yes. And generally what was going on, this information I received
18 by the end of the day.
19 Q. Although this was the 12th of August, at the moment when you
20 received this task to go to the field, you didn't know at all what has
21 happened on the 10th of August at Ljubotenski Bacila. Is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. The only thing you knew about what was going on in the vicinity of
24 Skopje was about the fights in Radusa because your colleague Sonja was
25 reporting about these events. Is that correct?
1 A. Yes, this is what I remembered, because I think this was an event
2 that happened one day earlier, on Saturday. This is something that
3 happened during my duty.
4 Q. Can you please tell me if it is correct that your editor-in-chief
5 gave this task to you after 1200 hours or if you can be more precise. Can
6 you recall when your editor-in-chief gave you this task?
7 A. I cannot be very precise, but I'm rather sure that it wasn't
8 before noon. It was after 12.00.
9 Q. In your statement, you say that this happened around -- or between
10 1200 and 1400 hours. Now you just told us that it was after 12.00. After
11 giving your statement until the present day, when thinking about these
12 events, were you able to remind yourself and remember about a more
13 specific time when you were given this task?
14 A. I cannot be fully precise. However, if one takes into account
15 that our duty shift would not start before 10.00 or 11.00 a.m., so I went
16 to work, and this did not happen at the very same moment. So probably
17 there was an hour or two between the moment when I came to work and when I
18 got the task. And we did not depart immediately. I think that there were
19 a couple of hours before we actually went to the field.
20 Q. Thank you. Your editor-in-chief also told you that there will be
21 an official vehicle coming to pick you up. Is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And, as you have stated in your statement, you have reacted
24 fiercefully regarding this task that you were given. Is that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And if I have understood well, you said that the first reason for
2 your reaction of this type was the fact that you were the only journalist
3 on duty and you did not like to leave your duty at the Macedonian TV
4 station, bearing in mind the possible news that might be received this
5 particular day.
6 A. Yes. And because we have been working seven days a week, maybe
7 more than ten hours a day, this was it. I was also tired, and I was on
8 duty there.
9 Q. In several of the items in your statements, you say that you were
10 afraid. The question is whether this fear about your personal safety, if
11 you go to a particular region where there is danger, was this one of the
12 reasons for your particular reaction for the task provided by your editor?
13 A. Yes. As I already mentioned, I was tired, and every single time
14 when we would have gone to the spot, this would mean that you can find
15 yourself at a location where there -- where there might be some shooting,
16 and this created pressure for me.
17 Q. As a journalist, did you have any kind of insurance at that time?
18 A. There was no insurance of any kind, and we were not safe from any
19 point of view, no equipment, no flakjackets or any greater experience or
20 training how to behave in these kind of situations.
21 Q. However, although you reacted in this manner, you had to accept
22 and you did accept the task that was provided to you by your editor?
23 A. Yes. Because at the end of the day, he had the final word, so it
24 wasn't any issue of choice.
25 Q. And following this overall conversation, you were picked up by an
1 official vehicle, a regular official vehicle, and together with the
2 cameraman you were taken to the building where the Ministry of Interior of
3 the Republic of Macedonia is located. Is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And you waited there around 30 minutes, until the moment when the
6 Minister Boskoski came out of the building and he joined you. Is that
8 A. We were waiting for half an hour, maybe longer.
9 Q. Bearing in mind that it was obvious that you were scared, the
10 minister offered to you to travel in the car that he would use, and the
11 cameraman went to another car. Is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. In your statement, you have said that throughout the journey you
14 were rather scared. Is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. In item 13 of your consolidated statement, you claim that the
17 minister along the road was trying to convince that there was nothing to
18 be scared of. Is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. He was showing you the scenery, he was telling how wonderful is
21 the nature in this area that you were travelling through. Is that
23 A. Unlike me, the minister was behaving rather normally and not to
24 use a wrong word but he was relaxed. He was acting normally and this is
25 what we discussed. He was talking about the nature, how beautiful the
1 nature in this particular region where we were at that particular moment.
2 Q. And although you were afraid, you still managed to ask the
3 minister what is the destination of your journey, but he did not respond
4 to this kind of questions. Is that correct?
5 A. I insisted all the way, all the time on information, Where are we
6 going, why are we going there, what is going on from the very first
7 moment, but I didn't receive any answer to these questions of mine.
8 Q. The minister did not answer this question but he continued to
9 discuss the nature that you have been travelling through. Is that
11 A. Yes. Generally, he was talking about these kind of informal
13 Q. And the manner in which he led the conversation and did not
14 respond to your questions, can you tell me whether you have got the
15 impression if the minister knew at all what was going on and where you
16 were precisely headed to?
17 A. I don't know whether he knew, but maybe he didn't, because I
18 didn't receive any kind of answer to my questions at any moment, direct or
19 indirect; simply, the minister behaved as if he did not listen to my
20 questions. He was continuing speaking on the topic that he has already
21 started speaking on.
22 Q. And being a journalist, probably you had information that the
23 minister quite often would have a very open conversations with the
25 A. He was open to the journalists, and it was generally known that he
1 wanted to be present in the media and he had regular contacts with them.
2 Q. In item 14 of your consolidated statement, you say that you left
3 from Skopje around 1400 hours. When we remind ourselves about the moment
4 when you got your tasks and what you did at that moment when you left
5 Skopje together with the minister, the question is whether this statement
6 of yours is correct, that you did not leave from Skopje before 2.00 p.m.
7 that day?
8 A. Yes, that is correct. Not before 2.00, because I am sort of sure
9 that we came back around 5.00, so when now going back, if we stayed there
10 for an hour and a half, I don't know how long it takes to travel to -- to
11 the spot. Maybe half an hour. So it is not possible for us to leave
12 Skopje before 2.00.
13 Q. You also said that along the way you made a stop at a police
14 station. Is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Neither you nor the minister left the vehicle at this particular
17 moment. Is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In item 15 of your consolidated statement, in relation to the
20 question of the investigator, was it possible that a police vehicle was
21 taking you from this police station, you answered that you do not exclude
22 this possibility that you received a police escort from this police
23 station. Do you remember this?
24 A. Basically, I don't know but I do not exclude this as a
25 possibility. I don't know.
1 Q. Very well. Before the house for which you later on found out that
2 it is called Brace's house, you stopped at a police check-point. Is that
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. As you mentioned in your statement, the minister shook hands at
6 that place with the persons that were found there.
7 A. Yes. We stayed there just for a little while. There was some
8 informal shaking of hands.
9 Q. And those persons were wearing camouflage uniforms, right?
10 A. I don't know uniforms very much. I cannot make a distinction, but
11 to me, camouflage means this multi-coloured uniform.
12 Q. And you don't know at all who these persons were that the minister
13 shook hands with, whether they were members of the police or the army.
14 You did not have any precise knowledge about who those persons were.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. At the place where you briefly stayed, you heard strong gunshots
17 which really increased your fear.
18 A. Yes. While we were at the check-point, at this moment, the
19 shooting was louder or the strongest shooting during the period that I
20 spent there.
21 Q. And at that time you were not able to precisely conclude where
22 does the fire come from, right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. When my learned colleague showed you the video, is it true that
25 the first part of the recording showed part of the road in a sequence with
1 the check-point where you stayed for a while?
2 A. I cannot remember with certainty now how were these sequences
3 edited in the material, but I remember that part of the shots that we used
4 for the material were shot at the check-point and that the other shots
5 were shot in the yard of the house. No other recordings were made on
6 other places.
7 Q. The house you were standing in front of is somewhere between the
8 check-point where you stayed briefly and the village of Ljuboten which is
9 visible in the distance, right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And as you mentioned that in your statement, and you said today --
12 oh, you didn't say it today.
13 You said in your statement that you and the cameraman were running
14 from the car to the yard while the minister walked normally, right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Responding to my question earlier about the timing, you -- you had
17 in mind the period that you stayed in a certain area and if I heard you
18 well, you said that you spent around one to one and a half hour in the
19 yard, right? Is that your response that you spent one and a half hour at
20 the most in the yard?
21 A. I cannot be completely precise, but I think it was not longer than
22 one and a half hours.
23 Q. And if you say that you left Skopje by 2.00 at the latest, then
24 you were not able at all to arrive in the yard of this house earlier than
25 2.30, right?
1 A. I'm not sure how long does it take from Skopje to that house, and
2 how much time is needed to travel, but if you bear in mind that, I don't
3 know, we stayed, like, five or ten minutes, we stopped at the police
4 station on the way, so -- and we also spent some time at the check-point,
5 so I assume that we had arrived at around 1500 hours.
6 Q. Thank you. Your editor sent you for the assignment, and you were
7 aware of that. You were aware of the fact that you should come with a
8 certain information from that assignment, and that -- and that information
9 would be published, right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And that was the reason you asked the minister in the yard of the
12 Brace's house to give you a statement, but the minister refused to give
13 any statements, right?
14 A. Yes. I asked the minister for -- even when we arrived, I asked
15 him to get a recorded statement, but the minister didn't give any
16 statement, and at that point he didn't give any statement to me. But I
17 needed that information in order to make my story, and I kept insisting to
18 get a statement, to get at least some information, general information
19 about what is going on, why we are here.
20 Q. And during the time you spoke with the minister and were asking
21 for information, you were sitting at a stone chair with the minister
22 inside the yard of this Brace house, right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And in that informal conversation, in that one and a half hour
25 period while you stayed there, you received several of those information
1 that you later transferred in your news that some action is in course,
2 that the terrorists have entered the village, and the -- that some weapons
3 have been seized and that a number of terrorists have been arrested. I
4 very abbreviated this information, but my question is the following:
5 Whether in that informal conversation that you have in the yard whereby
6 you tried to find out some information, was that the manner in which you
7 learned about those information at that time?
8 A. Yes. Practically what I got was general information without any
9 other details.
10 Q. And bearing in mind what you already said about Minister Boskoski,
11 did you think that the minister is hiding some information from you or
12 that he sincerely said what he knew?
13 A. I did not insist to get other information after I asked questions,
14 I was trying to get an answer, and after I got these answers, I don't
15 know, I felt that that is it.
16 Q. The video that you were shown and that was shot by your cameraman,
17 you recognised Minister Boskoski who was showing something with his hand
18 in the air. Did you want to record the minister at that place?
19 A. Well, the minister was there, we were there, and since a TV crew
20 is present at the field then, it is present there to register what is
21 going on, and it was a normal thing if the minister was there to have him
22 videotaped in that situation.
23 Q. As you said in your statement, the minister wanted to be recorded
24 posing, not as really showing something to you, right?
25 A. Well, before starting to videotape, the cameraman asked him
1 whether he could tape him, and the minister was aware that he is being
2 taped. So at least from my position where I was, I didn't really see that
3 something was happening outside of the fence. I didn't have an impression
4 that, I don't know, there's something specific going on outside of the
6 Q. In paragraph 17 of your statement somewhere in the middle of it,
7 you said that: "I had the impression that the minister wants to be
8 videotaped as a hero. He was aware about the camera presence."
9 Please tell me, is also today your feeling that he wanted to be
10 seen by the camera as some kind of an important person there and that that
11 wasn't any practical activity of the minister to really show you something
12 or to really explain you something, but it was more of a pose, right?
13 A. I said previously that the minister wanted to be present in the
14 media, bearing in mind that there was nothing going on, nothing special
15 going on at that time there, nothing significant. I think that was more
16 of a -- at that moment, that was more of a posing.
17 Q. Basically, from the place you were staying at you were not able to
18 see anything, right?
19 A. From the yard that we were in, it was very difficult to see the
20 village or the houses in the village, and what was shown at the recording
21 is practically that was just recorded by the camera. We were not able to
22 see with the naked eye to see all this. We could just have a grasp of the
23 houses, and we were able to see some smoke and that was it.
24 Q. From that place, you were not able to see nor to follow any attack
25 that was allegedly carried out by the police forces, right?
1 A. Yes. We were not able to see anything else from there but some
2 houses unclearly and some smoke from one or two places.
3 Q. The minister, as well as you, was not able to see anything else,
4 but you just said, some smoke and some houses?
5 A. Well, yes, bearing in mind that we were at the same place.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Dobbyn.
7 MR. DOBBYN: I'm sorry to interrupt, but I was just going to say
8 that the witness is being asked to speculate on what the minister actually
9 saw. I don't believe she can speak to that.
10 JUDGE PARKER: The witness may be able to say what she could see
11 standing by the minister, if we want to be very careful.
12 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. Thank you.
13 Q. So you were standing at the same places where the minister stood,
15 A. At the -- not at the same moment when the cameraman was taping,
16 but a few minutes before it and a few minutes after that, I was standing
17 in the same place.
18 Q. And from the -- from the place you were standing, you were not
19 able to see anything else but what you just testified before this Court,
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Especially, you weren't able to observe any police action that
23 might have been taking place in Ljuboten, right?
24 A. Yes. At that moment, nothing else was able to be seen, and
25 nothing was happening in the field except for sporadic gunshots.
1 Q. So during the time you spent in the Brace house, you already
2 explained everything that you were able to see but you were able to see a
3 weak sporadic fire, right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. If I were to say that that fire was directed from the village
6 towards the place where you were standing, would you agree with that or
7 were you not able to assess where the sound of the sporadic fire was
8 coming from?
9 A. I'm not able to assess.
10 Q. Ms. Cakar, if someone were to testify before this Court the
11 following: "[Previous translation continues] ... [In English] Known at
12 the Chinese wall, Mr. Boskoski was able to view the ongoing attack by his
13 police forces in Ljuboten," [Interpretation] Then you wouldn't be able to
14 confirm it, right?
15 A. Please, could you say it once again? I lost it in the translation
16 because I'm hearing both you and the interpreter at the same time.
17 Q. "[In English] From behind a wall known as the Chinese wall,
18 Mr. Boskoski was able to view the ongoing attack by his police forces in
19 Ljuboten," [Interpretation] Then you wouldn't be able to agree with this
20 statement, because something like that wasn't visible?
21 A. Yes. I cannot agree, because something like that wasn't visible
22 and couldn't be seen.
23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to mention the page
24 of the transcript just for the transcript. That is number 359.
25 Your Honours, it might be a convenient time now.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. We adjourn now, to resume at 1.00.
2 --- Recess taken at 12.28 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 1.03 p.m.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Ms. Residovic.
5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. If I understood you well, Ms. Cakar, the cameraman taped certain
7 documents on this wooden -- of this stone table the identity cards and the
8 passports which we were able to see in the recording that was shown?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. You were able to see that those were not documents issued by the
11 Macedonian authorities, right?
12 A. Yes. From what I was able to see, yes.
13 Q. You were told that those documents were seized from the
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Also in your statement you said that before leaving the garden,
17 another group of persons entered the yard.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In your consolidated statement, in quotes, it has been put that
20 those were the "special forces," and in your -- in the interview that you
21 had with the Prosecutor once arriving in The Hague, you clarified that you
22 have said that those are the so-called special forces because they were
23 not wearing the regular police uniforms. Is that clarification of yours a
24 clarification of that term special forces?
25 A. I would like to make it precise. In the statement when I came
1 here in The Hague, it was written special forces. I wanted to clarify
2 with the investigator and I insisted to leave that out because I never
3 used that term, special forces. Because I already said previously I have
4 no knowledge and I am not to be sure and decisive about what type of
5 uniforms they were, whether those were the special force or not. I can
6 only confirm that they were wearing uniforms. They were not wearing
7 civilian clothes and that was it. And at that moment I wanted to clarify
8 that. I never previously have said that those were the special forces
9 from a simple reason that I don't know how the special forces look like.
10 Q. And in the preparation for your testimony, you clearly said to the
11 Prosecutor that you were sure that only those persons were not wearing the
12 regular police uniforms, that is to say, the blue police uniforms,
13 regularly worn by the police?
14 A. Yes, I only made it precise that I was aware that those were not
15 the regular police uniforms as we can see the police officers wearing them
16 on the streets.
17 Q. You did not see any insignia or badges on the uniforms of those
18 persons that entered the garden at that time, right?
19 A. Yes, I also said in my statement that I didn't notice any special
20 insignia on the uniforms.
21 Q. And in your statement you also said that the minister only
22 casually said, How are you, something like that, right?
23 A. That was when we were leaving, and there was no time for some, I
24 don't know, some longer conversations. That was something informal,
25 something like an informal brief conversation on passing by. It wasn't
1 even a conversation like, How are you, how are you doing?
2 Q. And for the entire time that you spent in the yard of the Brace
3 house you never noticed the minister issuing orders to someone, right?
4 A. Yes. There were no such situations.
5 Q. And when you bypassed that group that the minister just casually
6 greeted with, How are you, you did not notice the minister calling by name
7 any person or that the minister have recognised any of the persons, right?
8 A. That lasted just briefly, without any formalities or
9 personal -- or addressing personally someone.
10 Q. In the afternoon, after your return to the radio and television
11 house, you said you made a news report for the 5:00 newscasts, right?
12 A. Yes. I reported via the telephone in the 5.00 newscast on my
13 return, when returning on the way to Skopje, before we came to Skopje.
14 That's how I was able to locate the time. I was called on the telephone
15 to give a telephone report for the 5.00 news before we arrived in Skopje,
16 but we have already departed from the house. So that was -- that took
17 place sometime on the road.
18 Q. And when you came, you started preparing the news segment from the
19 task that you just completed, right?
20 A. Yes, a complete news story with a video footage as well.
21 Q. And as you said in paragraph 29 of your consolidated 92 ter
22 statement, you said: [Previous translation continues] ... [In English]
23 "Later showed this to my editor Dimovski that we only have a short scene
24 with the minister. He was not satisfied with me. I first wrote the text
25 for commenting the video and he read it. His comment was, Where is the
1 minister here? I told him that we do have a part of the video showing the
2 minister observing the situation. He told me to put this scene in."
3 [Interpretation] Did it really happen in that way, that your
4 editor asked you to put that shot of the minister in your story?
5 A. Actually, the editor expected to have more video footage that
6 captured Minister Boskoski, but I just told him that we only had that shot
7 where the minister is.
8 Q. And after that, you prepared an information in which you would
9 show the minister and said that the minister is observing the situation.
10 Is it correct that -- that also that approach of yours wasn't enough for
11 the editor and that the editor requested that you write that the minister
12 is heading the operation?
13 A. The editor insisted to put wording whereby the role of the
14 minister, role, the position of the minister will be maximally accentuated
15 during that day. That wording was, I don't know, it wasn't enough strong
16 for him. Although I insisted, I did not agree with him because from what
17 we were able to observe in the field, practically that was -- that wording
18 that the editor insisted on was not appropriate to what I saw in the
20 Q. This request of your editor, please tell me, did it originate
21 partially from the editorial policy that was supposed to respond to the
22 requirements of the times of crisis when certain energetic activities
23 needed to be shown to the people, to the audience?
24 A. There was a tendency to exaggerate certain issues, to show
25 something in a more dramatic way.
1 Q. When you mentioned to present in a dramatic way, did you
2 understand in that way the comment of your editor also that he didn't like
3 not seeing a lot of shooting in the -- in the videotaping, that the sounds
4 of the battle are not heard very well?
5 A. The first time the material was edited, these sounds were in
6 the -- in the original, as recorded, but the editor insisted to have a
7 better drama, bigger drama, to have larger parts of silence between the --
8 between the voiceover where we would be able hear more shooting.
9 Q. In paragraph 31 of your consolidated statement, you said the
10 following: "The editor ask me, Is there shooting, is it dramatically. I
11 explained that at that time there was not a lot of shooting, then the
12 editor insisted that I correct this."
13 [Interpretation] Is this, in fact, the manner in which your editor
14 asked for you to include this kind of dramatic events in your report?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And did you do so?
17 A. The material was worked on again, and upon him insisting, we
18 provided for more breaks between the text, the voiceover on the footage
19 and the shooting sounds have been taken from the footage when we were at
20 the check-point and not in the garden, because when we were staying at the
21 check-point, the shooting was louder.
22 Q. And this sound of the previous shootings that you could hear, you
23 have repeated it on several occasions in order to show the situation as
24 being more dramatic. Is this correct?
25 A. The audio recording of the check-point basically is the audio
1 presented in this material, and not the shooting, the sound from the
2 period which we spent in the yard of the house.
3 Q. This means upon the request of your editor, you included in your
4 report the wording that the minister managed the operation, although you
5 were aware that this is not correct and that at any moment he did not
6 manage with anything while he was staying in the Brace's house courtyard.
7 Is that true?
8 A. It is a fact that when we were at this particular location up
9 there I was not a witness of this type of situation. However, this was
10 included in the narrative part of the report, upon the request from the
11 editor. I reacted back then, I disagreed with this kind of approach. I
12 insisted that we should be more precise, maybe at that moment this did not
13 look so important to me. I could not even imagine that this kind of
14 situation might appear, what is going on right now. But from my personal
15 professional experience, generally speaking not for this case only,
16 generally speaking, I think that this kind of approach in a certain
17 situation even if a person believes it is justified, I think that in the
18 future this can be quite counterproductive. And that is why even then I
19 insisted that this should not be the case. I insisted for a more specific
20 formulation and for things to be shown as they really happened.
21 Q. However, you were not able to convince your editor and you had to
22 act in accordance with his instructions. Is that correct?
23 A. Yes. There was an established hierarchy and, of course, his word
24 was always the last one.
25 Q. The minister came with you and he left the Brace's house together
1 with you. Is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Accordingly, since you mentioned in your report, newscast that he
4 managed the overall operation for the whole day, this would be also a
5 rewarding presentation that would not correspond to the events that you
6 witnessed. Is that correct?
7 A. Yes. This kind of formulation does not correspond to the events
8 that I witnessed during these few hours in the courtyard of the house.
9 Q. You just mentioned that you could not even imagine at that time
10 that those additions and that dramatization of the situation could have
11 had, as you said, these kind of consequences.
12 Now I would like to ask you, Ms. Cakar, did you very soon in the
13 media, in the public media, you heard that the Human Rights Watch
14 organisation claims that Mr. Ljube Boskoski was in charge and he managed
15 the operation in Ljuboten?
16 A. I could see on the TV these kind of materials, and at that time
17 there was a video footage presented from the report from the Macedonian TV
18 and Radio.
19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown now
20 Exhibit P352, page U000-0114, and this is the Human Rights Watch report
21 dated 6th of the September, 2001. The e-court page is E000-114.
22 Q. Can you please take a look at the fourth paragraph of this report.
23 It is in English, I will read it out and then you will receive the
24 interpretation in Macedonian.
25 And it reads: "[In English] The minister of the interior,
1 Ljube Boskoski, was himself present in Ljuboten on Sunday, August 12th
2 2001, the day that the worst abuses documented in this report took place.
3 The Macedonian national television, MTV, broadcasted that they, a copy of
4 which was obtained by Human Rights Watch, shows Minister Boskoski on the
5 balcony of an ethnic Macedonian's home on the northern outskirts of
6 Ljuboten, surrounded by several armed policemen. According to the state
7 television newscast, Minister Boskoski was present during the entire
8 operation in the village."
9 [Interpretation] On the top it reads 46, and in the bottom of the
10 page it says this is a report of the Macedonian Television dated 12th of
11 August, 2001.
12 Is this something that you have understood quite soon, that this
13 dramatically and incorrectly presented situation of Minister Boskoski is
14 being used in order to point out towards his possibly -- possible
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Ms. Cakar, did anyone from Human Rights Watch or any other
18 international organisation call you to ask you in what manner and how did
19 you film and how did you produce and present this newscast?
20 A. No, never.
21 Q. Did anyone at any time from Human Rights Watch ask you whether all
22 the facts that you have mentioned in your newscasts are correct or not?
23 A. No.
24 Q. I will show you now one part of the statement by the witness
25 Peter Bouckaert given before this Court.
1 The question was -- this is page 2058 of the transcript and the
2 line is from 1 to 7. 2958. "[Previous translation continues] ... [In
3 English] We see on the left-hand side of this sketch, we see a road going
4 up to the top of the page. We see a circle with an asterisk inside it and
5 we see the words Boskoski house. What information were you recording
7 "Answer: There was a house on the street which was pointed out to
8 me as being the house where Mr. Boskoski had been present and had been
9 filmed for national television during a part of the operation in
11 [Interpretation] As you can see, the witness Peter Bouckaert
12 relies on the national TV station. Was this the report, the newscast that
13 you produced, and the video footage that was filmed by your colleague, the
14 cameraman this day?
15 A. The video footage that was broadcasted, the only scene with the
16 Minister Boskoski is the one where he stands in front of the fence.
17 Q. Also on page 3074 of the transcript, Mr. Bouckaert was asked the
18 following question: "[Previous translation continues] ... [In English]
19 Under the subheading."
20 [Interpretation] This is the part of the report of the Human
21 Rights Watch that I have shown to you.
22 [In English] "Responsibility of the security forces and the role
23 of the Minister of the Interior Ljube Boskoski, do you see that?
24 "Answer: Yes.
25 "Question: And this section is essentially made of three
1 photographs. Is that correct?
2 "Answer: Yes.
3 "Question: And the only reference, footnotes or authority given
4 in the section is to MTV newscast on 12th of August, 2001. Is that
6 "Answer: That's correct.
7 "Question: Is that also correct, Mr. Bouckaert, that you didn't
8 seek to contact the television or the journalist which had prepared that
10 "Answer: That's correct."
11 [Interpretation] Ms. Cakar, once again I am asking you, and this
12 is something that Mr. Bouckaert confirmed in his statement. Peter
13 Bouckaert nor anyone else from the Human Rights Watch organisation did not
14 contact you in order to check the validity, the truthfulness of the
15 information that was provided and presented in your newscast.
16 A. Yes, that is correct. They never contacted me nor they spoke to
18 Q. On page 3075, the question put to Mr. Bouckaert was the following
19 [Previous translation continues] ... [In English] "You allege that
20 Mr. Boskoski had been present during the entire operation. Is that
22 "Answer: No. We quote the state television newscast saying that
23 Mr. Boskoski was present during the entire operation and we say later on
24 that Mr. Boskoski has knowledge, that he was present at Ljuboten on
25 Sunday, but maintained that he arrived around 4.00."
1 [Interpretation] Ms. Cakar, you can now see that your information
2 that the minister was present throughout the overall operation was taken
3 over in the report presented by Human Rights Watch?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Was this the reason for which spontaneously earlier you mentioned
6 that you were not able at that particular moment that this could have so
7 far-reaching consequences?
8 A. It is true that I could not guess that this can have such
9 consequences but still I disagreed with this kind of approach. Even today
10 I disagree. Even more now when I can see the consequences.
11 Q. Ms. Cakar, do you believe that some people, especially people in
12 those international organisations during the time of crisis, they were
13 rather free taking over the -- taking the news from the Macedonian
15 A. I would not like to be the judge of that, but I believe that they
16 should have contacted me and to try and talk to me before releasing this
18 Q. And as one can see from the Human Rights Watch report, they
19 immediately believed the information that was given in this newscast which
20 was prepared in order to show the situation and the role of the
21 Minister Boskoski in a dramatic way, which did not correspond with his
22 true position that particular day. And I would like to ask you, since you
23 mentioned it spontaneously yourself, are you aware that because of certain
24 things that have not happened, then significant, very difficult
25 consequences might have happened and indeed they did.
1 A. I already mentioned at that particular moment I was not aware
2 about a particular situation like this. But generally speaking, I was
3 always aware that this kind of approach in the future can cause certain
4 consequences or can have counter-effects. In this moment, I am also aware
5 that this has happened.
6 Q. And how do you feel?
7 A. In order not to feel sorry today, back then I reacted immediately,
8 but now I'm sorry maybe for not being more persistent, although I doubt if
9 I was able to change anything at that particular moment.
10 Q. Thank you very much.
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions for
12 this witness, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Ms. Residovic.
14 Mr. Apostolski.
15 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't have any
16 questions for this particular witness.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
18 Mr. Dobbyn.
19 MR. DOBBYN: Yes, Your Honours, I do have a few questions, if I
20 can just have a moment to organise here.
21 Re-examination by Mr. Dobbyn:
22 Q. Now, Ms. Cakar, in response to a question from my learned
23 colleague earlier on, you answered that it was not -- you agreed with her
24 that you were not able to conclude where firing was coming from while you
25 were in the general Ljuboten area on the 12th of August, 2001. Do you
1 recall that?
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 Q. Do you recall where smoke was coming from on that day?
4 A. One or two locations one could see a smoke in the direction of the
5 village of Ljuboten.
6 Q. And do you recall what was shown in the video-clip of people
7 crouching behind a wall? Do you recall that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And where were they looking towards?
10 A. The courtyard wall was in the direction towards the village of
12 Q. So while gunshots were going off on that day, everyone's attention
13 appeared to be directed towards Ljuboten. Would that be a fair comment?
14 A. There was only a sporadic shooting that could be heard, and I'm
15 not sure whether there was a lot of shooting at that moment. During this
16 period, while we were in this courtyard, we could only hear weak sounds,
17 sporadic fighting.
18 Q. Thank you. I do understand that. My question to you is, is it
19 correct that everyone's attention appeared to be directed towards the
20 village of Ljuboten?
21 A. When people were standing right next to the wall, they were
22 looking towards the village, because the village was located at this side
23 of the house. However, at that moment, as I already mentioned, there was
24 nothing really special going on there. Almost nothing, with the exception
25 of the smoke that we could see on one or two locations and just -- we
1 could see the houses.
2 Q. Okay. And with regards to your answer which you also gave
3 earlier on and you have repeated now that there was nothing special going
4 on, there were gunshots weren't there, even if sporadic, there were
5 gunshots, weren't there?
6 A. Yes, there were sporadic gunshots.
7 Q. And there were -- you could see at least one or two houses that
8 were on fire, couldn't you?
9 A. One could see smoke. I think it was two locations where smoke
10 could have been seen. But we were not able to see precisely whether it
11 was a house burning from this particular location the visibility was not
12 clear. However, we could see smoke coming from two locations, from the
13 direction of the village.
14 Q. And you also testified earlier on that you got a glimpse, even a
15 fleeting glimpse of some people were being detained during the operation.
17 A. I will repeat. I was running and I was aware about the presence
18 of people to my left side, but I did not turn and I did not see them.
19 Q. Okay. Well, I just want to get clear on this. You testified that
20 you didn't believe there was anything special going on, but you were aware
21 that there were gunshots, there were houses on fire, and that there were
22 people who you understood had been seized in this operation. Is my
23 understanding correct here?
24 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Apostolski.
25 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I object to this
1 line of questioning, because the witness never mentioned that there were
2 houses burning in the village nor did she say that she knew there were
3 houses on fire.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Dobbyn.
5 MR. DOBBYN: I can rephrase that, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Well, go ahead. I would have thought, though, that
7 if the video film that was taken as she was there looking indicated the
8 scene in front of her, knowledge of fire was inevitable, but Mr. Dobbyn
9 will rephrase.
10 MR. DOBBYN:
11 Q. So my question to you is that, in light of your statement that
12 there was nothing special going on you were aware, weren't you, that there
13 were gunshots, you were aware that there was smoke coming from the
14 village, and you were aware that there -- there were people who had been
15 seized in the operation. Is that correct?
16 A. That there are people arrested, I didn't see that. This is
17 something I received as an information, that during the action people have
18 been arrested who will be taken to a police station later on.
19 Q. Now, you've also testified in response to some questions that --
20 actually, Your Honours, is this a good time to break or ...
21 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, we do have another trial continuing at 2.15,
22 so we must now adjourn and we will need to continue your evidence tomorrow
23 morning at 9.00.
24 So we must now adjourn with a view to continuing tomorrow.
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,
1 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 19th day of
2 September, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.