1 Wednesday, 19 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 If I could remind you, Ms. Cakar, that the affirmation that you
8 made at the beginning of your evidence still applies.
9 And now Mr. Dobbyn.
10 MR. DOBBYN: Yes, Your Honours, just before I continue with
11 questioning there is one quick matter I would like to bring up.
12 Yesterday, a video was shown and it was admitted as P442. At that time,
13 my learned colleague, Ms. Residovic, stated that the same video had
14 already been marked for identification as P363 through the witness Peter
15 Bouckaert. And at that time I stated that this was not the same video.
16 And this is at page 5159 of the transcript.
17 Having had the chance to review it, I stand corrected now and I
18 thank my colleagues for bringing this to my attention. They are the same
19 video, they appeared twice on our 65 ter exhibit list. And to avoid
20 confusion, I would propose that with the Chamber's permission that P442 be
21 removed from the exhibits and P363 which was marked for identification now
22 be admitted as they are the same video and it would clear up the issue of
23 having this other video just marked for identification and not admitted.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Very well.
25 Ms. Residovic.
1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, as I already said
2 yesterday, it is true the video recording itself and everything that was
3 said by the witness is completely identical on both videos.
4 However, the video footage that was shown yesterday, there is a
5 time stamp or a notification about the time. I cannot really suggest to
6 the Chamber, but it might be good for the previous one, from the Witness
7 Bouckaert to be taken off the list. Because, after all, this video
8 material has been shown to this witness and the time is identified on the
9 video footage.
10 Thank you.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
12 At the moment, I would be prepared to leave both and let confusion
14 MR. DOBBYN: If that is the position the Chamber wishes to take,
15 then certainly we don't have any issue with that.
16 WITNESS: ELI CAKAR [Resumed]
17 [Witness answered through interpreter]
18 Re-examination by Mr. Dobbyn: [Continued]
19 Q. Now, Ms. Cakar, yesterday, and this is at page 5188 in the
20 transcript, in response to a question you agreed that the shooting that
21 could be heard in the video-clip was not actually recorded when you were
22 at the location known as Brace's house. Do you recall saying that?
23 A. Yes, I remember when it was recorded in the yard of the house.
24 Q. Sorry, I'm just not quite clear from your answer. Was the sound
25 of the shooting that can be heard in the video, was that recorded while
1 you were in the yard of the house or not?
2 A. No. The shooting sound is from the time when we were at the
3 check-point before we actually arrived in the courtyard of the house.
4 Q. And this was on the same date, the 12th of August, 2001?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Was Minister Boskoski at the same location at the check-point when
7 this shooting was taking place?
8 A. Yes, he was.
9 Q. And also yesterday at page 5190, you agreed with my learned
10 colleague's proposition that Minister Boskoski had not been managing
11 anything while he was present in the Ljuboten area. Do you recall saying
13 A. I was there around two hours, so from 3.00 to 5.00 p.m. and during
14 these couple of hours, while we were in the courtyard of the house, I did
15 not notice for the Minister Boskoski to communicate with anybody or to
16 have any formal conversation. I haven't noticed such a thing.
17 Q. Were you at Minister Boskoski's side throughout those entire two
19 A. We were in the courtyard, in one part of the courtyard, together
20 with the cameraman and few more people who were accompanying
21 Minister Boskoski that particular day.
22 Q. And my question is: Were you right at his side for those two
24 A. Yes, I was there in the courtyard of the house.
25 Q. Were you privy to all the conversations he had with anyone else
1 during those two hours?
2 A. In general, I was there quite close to him, but during a portion
3 of that time, I was moving around with the cameraman. But, in general, I
4 was there, right close to him.
5 Q. My question is: Were you privy to all conversations he had and
6 could you say precisely what he said during any of these conversations?
7 A. As I already said, mainly throughout the time I was close to him,
8 but I cannot precisely recall all the conversations, but I know that these
9 were not formal conversations. I can recall this because of the fact
10 since these conversations did not represent an information for me
11 personally. From these conversations, I did not get any information about
12 what was going on. If there were formal conversations, I would have
13 received at least some kind of information about what was going on there.
14 Q. Why do you say would you have received some kind of information?
15 A. I would have certain knowledge. I would get some idea. If there
16 were such conversations taking place, I would have had some knowledge
17 about what was going on, but I didn't have any.
18 Q. Are you saying it was Minister Boskoski's practice that if he gave
19 directions or orders to his subordinates he would then pass those
20 directions or orders on to the media?
21 A. I think that this was the only occasion that I actually
22 accompanied Minister Boskoski at such an event. I don't have the
23 experience, I wouldn't know how Minister Boskoski would act in certain --
24 such situations.
25 Q. You stated that during a portion of the time you were moving
1 around with the cameraman. Correct?
2 A. We were sitting in the courtyard, in the upper right-hand corner,
3 at a table made out of stone, and I remember right next to this table
4 there was a small low stone wall, and we were sitting there with the
5 cameraman when Minister Boskoski went to the wall, the cameraman went
6 there to take the shot. I was standing right next to the cameraman. We
7 completed the filming. We went back. We sat at the same table, and this
8 is how we spent this hour, hour and a half.
9 Q. Who was it that told Minister Boskoski that terrorists had entered
10 from Kosovo and that there was an action going on to arrest them?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. I'm sorry, if I could make that more clear. I'm asking who told
13 Minister Boskoski this.
14 A. I don't know, I don't recall.
15 Q. So that was a conversation that you weren't privy to?
16 A. Yes. Before we entered the courtyard, this is the general
17 information I received when we were sitting at the table, the minister was
18 with several people around him, but I cannot remember what was this
19 conversation. The only thing I remember is that I received this
21 Q. So if you don't remember this conversation, can you say for
22 certain whether or not Minister Boskoski gave any directions or orders
23 whether formally or informally during this time?
24 A. While I was there, in my presence, he did not issue such
25 instructions. I was not a witness of such a situation.
1 Q. Would it be fair to say that you don't know what was said outside
2 of your presence?
3 A. Yes, it would.
4 Q. Now, at page 5175 of yesterday's transcript, you agreed again with
5 my learned colleague that Minister Boskoski was very open with journalists
6 and you said that it was known he wanted to be present in the media. Do
7 you recall that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And you've testified that throughout the crisis period in 2001,
10 you were a parliamentary reporter. Correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. During this crisis period in 2001, as minister of the interior,
13 did Ljube Boskoski often appear in the media and on the television?
14 A. Yes, quite often.
15 Q. And what would he be doing during these appearances on the
17 A. Sometimes he was giving a statement, sometimes they would register
18 his presence at a particular location. He was filmed, registered in
19 different kind of situations.
20 Q. When you say they would register his presence at different
21 locations or at particular locations, what sort of locations are you
22 referring to?
23 A. Wherever he would go in his function, his position as a minister.
24 Q. Would he ever be recorded appearing in other crisis areas?
25 A. Well, I remember, I specifically recall one more material. This
1 is not what I did, but this was when Minister Boskoski was touring several
2 regions, and I remember that he was accompanied by a crew from the
3 Macedonian Television, and I remember there was a news story made about
5 Q. And do you recall what regions or what locations these were?
6 A. I don't remember specifically. I did not work on this material.
7 However, I know it was made, and this was -- it was not that far
8 away from the time when this event happened that we are discussing here
9 today. It was right before or after these particular events.
10 Q. In these media appearances, would he comment on the security
11 situation in Macedonia at that time?
12 A. He was responding to the questions by the journalists or giving a
14 Q. And in this appearance where he was touring the regions or any
15 other appearances that you were aware of, was he also recorded in the
16 presence of Ministry of Interior units or forces?
17 A. I don't know. I cannot recall about such details.
18 Q. Okay. You also testified that on the occasion when you were
19 directed to -- to go the Ljuboten area, a car from the Ministry of
20 Interior came to pick you up. How often would it happen that a car from
21 the Ministry of Interior would be sent to pick up a reporter?
22 A. In my situation, personally, this was the first time. As a
23 journalist, I found myself in such situation for the first time.
24 Q. Well, actually, my question doesn't just apply to you personally,
25 but in general. How often were vehicles sent from the Ministry of
1 Interior to pick up reporters?
2 A. I cannot answer this question, because I was not at a position
3 where I would have insight in these kind of issues.
4 Q. Well, if I could perhaps refer you to paragraph 10 of your
5 consolidated statement, and there you stated: "My chief told me, You and
6 the cameraman have to go on duty. An official car from the ministry is
7 coming to pick you up. I was very concerned about my safety. Normally we
8 have our own cars but it was very clearly said to me, An official car is
9 coming to pick you up. I'm not 100 per cent sure about the word ministry
10 but whenever this phrase was used, it was clear to us that it is a car
11 from the ministry."
12 Do you recall that?
13 A. Yes. Then I also said that I was not sure whether when the task
14 was assigned to me, whether the editor actually told me a car from the
15 Ministry of Interior is going to come and pick us up. But if the editor
16 would say so, then I could have assumed that the car comes from the
18 Q. Well, from this part of your statement I've just read, doesn't
19 that show that -- that it did happen on other occasions, that cars from
20 the ministry would come to pick up reporters? Or is my understanding of
21 that incorrect?
22 A. I assumed that it was a car from the Ministry of the Interior,
23 because it looked most logical to me at that moment. This was a ministry
24 that was dealing with the security issues, and Minister Boskoski was the
25 exposed figure at this particular period.
1 Q. Are you aware of vehicles from the Ministry of the Interior
2 picking up any reporters, any other reporters --
3 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the witness, at
4 least three times responded to the same question, and I believe that this
5 kind of questions are no longer fair for this witness.
6 Thank you.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Ms. Residovic.
8 Carry on, Mr. Dobbyn.
9 MR. DOBBYN:
10 Q. Are you aware of any other occasions where any other reporters had
11 been picked by vehicles from the Ministry of the Interior and taken to
12 crisis areas?
13 A. I already said. I found myself in such situation for the first
14 time. I did not hold the position where I would have insight in the
15 general developments.
16 From my position, I only had insight in what was going on with me
17 and my personal tasks.
18 Q. Okay. Thank you. I will move on then.
19 Could you perhaps tell us in general terms what sort of image did
20 Minister Boskoski have in the media?
21 A. Image of a minister who would like to see himself in the media.
22 Q. In your statement, and it was raised again on cross-examination
23 yesterday, you said it was your impression that the minister wanted to be
24 recorded as a hero. Do you recall that?
25 A. Yes, I do.
1 Q. Was it your impression that he perhaps tried to cultivate this
2 image himself through other appearances?
3 A. Simply this was his style, at least this is how I interpreted
4 these kind of issues. I didn't see these as a will to improve something,
5 just as a style of fulfilling his function.
6 Q. In your view, do you believe he had the image of someone who was
7 an involved leader, someone who was a hands-on sort leader or was he more
8 of a type of minister who would stay in the background?
9 A. I don't understand this question well.
10 Q. Well, from his appearances in the media, in your view was his
11 image of someone when a security situation arose would perhaps go out in
12 the field or was he more likely to remain back in his office and deal with
13 the situation from there?
14 A. I don't know. I haven't analysed him to this extent.
15 Q. Okay. Moving on, at page 5188 of yesterday's transcript, you
16 agreed with my learned colleague that your report was arranged or massaged
17 to make it appear more dramatic. Do you recall that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In 2001, during the year of the security crisis, were there many
20 such broadcasts that were massaged to show Minister Boskoski in a more
21 dramatic light?
22 A. I cannot really tell, because I was not involved much in this part
23 of the work.
24 Q. So, to your knowledge, the only report that was massaged or shown
25 in such a way was this particular report shot in -- about the incident in
1 Ljuboten. Is that right?
2 A. No, I didn't say that.
3 Q. Well, perhaps you could clarify your answer for me, please. What
4 did you mean?
5 A. I already mentioned yesterday, there was a tendency of stronger
6 emphasis placed on certain issues. However, I was not a journalist who
7 would be involved in the monitoring of these events on a daily basis, and
8 that is why I cannot confirm this conclusion of yours.
9 Q. Okay. Well, what was the purpose of this tendency to place a
10 stronger emphasis on certain issues. What was the purpose of that?
11 A. I guess, at that moment, I don't know. Probably it was an
12 editorial policy issue maybe to raise the level of optimism or maybe to
13 improve the trust in the security forces, I don't know. This is how I
14 would understand it.
15 MR. DOBBYN: Just one moment, Your Honours, please.
16 Q. Do you think this was also done to improve the trust in the
17 leaders of the security forces?
18 A. No, I did not have that impression at the time.
19 Q. In your consolidated statement, you refer to a close relationship
20 between your editor and Minister Boskoski. Do you recall that?
21 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this question was
22 not being asked, was not asked in the cross-examination and my colleague
23 did not elaborate that directly.
24 JUDGE PARKER: No, but I believe the subject has been adequately
25 raised by the tenor of much of the cross-examination.
1 Yes, Mr. Dobbyn.
2 MR. DOBBYN: Thank you.
3 Q. I will repeat that question for you, Ms. Cakar. Do you recall in
4 your consolidated statement referring to what appeared to be a close
5 relationship between your editor and Minister Boskoski. Do you recall
7 A. Yes, that could have -- they knew each other.
8 Q. And you testified that the way your report ended up being
9 presented was as a result of decisions made by your editor. Is that
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And what do you think his reason for doing this was?
13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I object to this
15 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
16 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] The witness cannot know what the
17 intention of her editor was.
18 JUDGE PARKER: She has expressed a general opinion as to the
19 purpose of certain adjustments to the tone of broadcasts published.
20 Mr. Dobbyn, carry on.
21 MR. DOBBYN: Thank you, Your Honours.
22 Q. Do you think that this adjustment to the video that your editor
23 suggested, did this have the effect of -- in this video, perhaps, showing
24 the leadership skills of Minister Boskoski in a better light?
25 A. At that moment I did not try to penetrate his motivation. I did
1 not think about his motivation at all, because simply, I just did not want
2 to take that task willingly. I did not want to create and massage this
3 material in the way that was suggested.
4 Q. I understand and I appreciate that this was not something that you
5 wished to do. But in your view, what was the overall effect of the
6 difference between the report you wanted to give and the report your
7 editor made you give?
8 A. In the recorded material, those shots that were made when the
9 Minister Boskoski was standing next to that fence, at that moment there
10 was -- there was no shooting, and initially that's what the material
11 looked like. Only when the clips from the check-point were shown, only
12 then we could have heard shooting which only -- which were only strong
13 during that short time interval and this is all that we had. And this was
14 inserted to accompany the picture when the audio part was recorded. I
15 insisted that this remain like this and in the text to hear that the
16 Minister Boskoski was only there in the afternoon, in the immediate
17 vicinity of the Ljuboten village.
18 Q. Didn't your editor also insist on a clip of the minister being
19 present in the video that was shown?
20 A. I did not understand you well. I apologise.
21 Q. Well, in paragraph 29 of your consolidated statement, you said
22 that your editor Dimovski commented: "Where is the minister here? I told
23 him that we do have a part of the video showing the minister observing the
24 situation. He told me to put this scene in."
25 Do you recall that?
1 A. Yes. However, he expected that there would be more footage, and
2 we only had that clip, only those few shots.
3 Q. And in paragraph 30 of your consolidated statement, you stated:
4 "In my version of the text for the comment I was planning to comment, the
5 minister of the interior was observing the operation of the security
6 forces. Also, this comment, the editor didn't like. He insisted that I
7 say that the minister directed the operation."
8 Do you recall this?
9 A. Yes, I do. The editor insisted on using a stronger phrasing, a
10 formulation in which the role of the Minister Boskoski will be more
11 prominent while I insisted on a formulation that would only show that he
12 was only there in the immediate vicinity in the afternoon.
13 Q. And did your editor tell you why he wanted the role of
14 Minister Boskoski to be more prominent?
15 A. No, there was no explanation.
16 Q. Now, yesterday, and again this is at page 5149 of the transcript
17 you agreed with my learned colleague that your report, as relied upon by
18 Human Rights Watch actually contained false information and that you
19 disagreed with this approach. Do you recall that?
20 A. In order to express myself more precisely I would say that in the
21 first part, wherein the report which pertains to the Minister
22 Ljube Boskoski, that talks about him, it does not correspond to what the
23 Macedonian Television team observed in the course of the hour and a half
24 that was in the field.
25 Q. How many other news reports with false information were you
1 involved in making?
2 A. I was never in a situation like that before.
3 Q. So throughout your reports that you were involved in throughout
4 the crisis period in 2001, this was the only report that you feel
5 contained false information?
6 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we would like to ask
7 our colleague to list the page in which the witness said that she used
8 false information, because we cannot -- that she used false information
9 because I cannot identify it in the transcript. I apologise.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
11 Mr. Dobbyn, can you?
12 MR. DOBBYN: Well, Your Honours, starting at page 5193 and
13 continuing into 5194 there were questions about the presence of
14 Minister Boskoski and the length of time he was present and particularly,
15 the information in the report that he was present throughout the entire
17 JUDGE PARKER: Mm-hm. Continue, Mr. Dobbyn.
18 MR. DOBBYN:
19 Q. So I'll repeat my earlier question which was: In the reports that
20 you prepared throughout the crisis period in 2001, are you saying that
21 this was the only report that you were involved in, in which false
22 information was put across?
23 A. This was the only case in which the influence of the
24 editor-in-chief was so important because on that day he was present there.
25 There have been other situations and events where he was not directly
1 present, although it would have happened quite often that he was present
2 at the desk where the news were produced.
3 However, in this situation, he was present there and, in that
4 manner, he was able to directly influence the contents.
5 Q. And this is the only report of yours in which that was done?
6 A. He wanted to have insight, understanding and influence about
7 almost everything that came out of the journalist's text.
8 This was not an unusual practice. However, he was not always in a
9 position to be able to do that. And, as I said, it was not unusual that
10 he shows interest and that he tries to influence the texts that
11 journalists wrote. And not only those that dealt with anything that came
12 from the crisis regions, but about everything else that was presented in
13 the Macedonian Television news.
14 Q. I am actually asking something a little more specific than that,
15 and I would ask to you please listen to the question and just answer my
17 And my question is: Was this report about the events in Ljuboten
18 the only report that you were involved in which contained false
20 A. You know what? When a journalist produces a report --
21 Q. I'm sorry to cut you off --
22 A. I must answer -- I apologise as well. Because I cannot generally
23 accept the formulation "false information."
24 Q. Really, this is a -- a question which really only calls for a yes
25 or no answer. And my question to you is this the only report of yours
1 that ever contained information which turned out to be incorrect, not
2 true? Yes or no.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Thank you, Ms. Cakar.
5 MR. DOBBYN: And I have no further questions, Your Honours.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Ms. Cakar. You will pleased to know
8 that concludes the questions to be asked. The Chamber would thank you for
9 your attendance in The Hague and the assistance you have given. And the
10 court officer will now show you out.
11 [The witness withdrew]
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
14 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution would call
15 Mr. Howard Tucker.
16 JUDGE PARKER: While that is being arranged, could the Chamber
17 draw the attention of all counsel to two matters which will affect the
18 programme next week.
19 First, on the Wednesday of next week, there has been called a
20 Plenary of Judges, which will commence at 12.00, and it is not clear
21 precisely when it will finish. Out of caution, the Chamber believes it
22 should sit at 3.30 rather than 2.15 on the Wednesday, and that will allow
23 us two complete hour-and-a-half sessions until 7.00.
24 The second issue affects Thursday. On that day, the Chamber has
25 to deliver judgement in another matter. The nature of that other matter
1 and the size demands that we use one of the larger courtrooms, and it is
2 therefore necessary to fit in with another Trial Chamber and the Appeal
3 Chamber which is also delivering a decision on that day in the same
5 As a consequence, the Chamber is not able to commence the delivery
6 of its judgement until mid-afternoon. It appears to the Chamber in the
7 circumstances that it is really impractical to think of sitting in this
8 trial on the Thursday. We would have perhaps three quarters of an hour
9 before and perhaps three quarters of an hour after, which is really not of
10 great use and is very disruptive to the evidence of whoever happens to be
11 the witness and whichever counsel happens to be dealing with the witness.
12 So we believe, regrettably, that for the reasons indicated, it
13 will be necessary not to sit on Thursday of next week.
14 [The witness entered court]
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning, sir.
17 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Could I ask you to please read aloud the
19 affirmation on the card that has been given to you.
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. I solemnly declare that I will speak the
21 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much. If you could sit down.
23 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
24 WITNESS: HOWARD TUCKER.
25 JUDGE PARKER: And Mr. Saxon has questions for you.
1 Examination by Mr. Saxon:
2 Q. Good morning, sir. Is your name Howard Tucker?
3 A. Yes, it is, Your Honours.
4 Q. And are you an investigator working for the Office of the
6 A. Yes. Currently I'm the head of office at the field offices in
8 Q. And when did you begin your work with the Office of the
10 A. I came on secondment initially in April of 1998, and then returned
11 as an investigator in the following year in May of 1999.
12 Q. And, Mr. Tucker, do you recall signing a witness statement for the
13 Office of the Prosecutor on the 25th of March, 2006?
14 A. I do, yes.
15 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask the witness to come
16 closer to the microphones. Thank you.
17 MR. SAXON: Mr. Tucker, the interpreters have asked if you can
18 move up a bit closer, sit a bit closer to the microphone so they can hear
19 you clearer. Thank you. And I should remind you and myself that because
20 we're speaking in the same language, both you and I need to try to pause
21 between sentences so that the interpreters can catch up with what we're
23 A. Yes, I understand sir.
24 JUDGE PARKER: The other word of advice, Mr. Tucker, would be try
25 to speak to Mr. Saxon or to the Bench which will encourage your voice to
1 be a little bit louder.
2 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 MR. SAXON:
4 Q. And, Mr. Tucker, do you recall on that same day, the 25th of
5 March, 2006, that your statement was certified by an officer of the
6 registry of this Tribunal?
7 A. I do, sir, yes.
8 Q. And that was done -- and again, Mr. Tucker, remember to -- let's
9 pause for a moment between my question and your answer so that we don't
10 strain the goodwill of the interpreters.
11 And that certification was done pursuant to 92 bis. Do you recall
13 A. I do, sir, yes.
14 Q. And on that occasion, did you have an opportunity to review your
15 statement in your native English language?
16 A. I did, sir, yes.
17 Q. And are the contents of your statement true and correct to the
18 best of your knowledge?
19 A. They are, yes, sir.
20 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, at this time I would seek to tender the
21 statement of Mr. Tucker under Rule 92 bis.
22 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
23 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P443, Your Honours.
24 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, in summation, as you have already heard,
25 Mr. Tucker is a investigator currently working for the Office of the
1 Prosecutor. In early 2002, Mr. Tucker was tasked with monitoring the
2 exhumation project that was scheduled to take place at the Muslim cemetery
3 in the village of Ljuboten. Mr. Tucker took part in meetings with
4 representatives of the government of Macedonia, and other representatives
5 of the international community regarding preparations for the exhumation
6 that occurred in Ljuboten.
7 When the exhumation began at Ljuboten on the 7th of April, 2002,
8 Mr. Tucker was present and carried out such tasks as the recording of his
9 own observations during the exhumation, liaison work with a NATO Explosive
10 Ordinance Disposal team that was also present, liaising with relatives of
11 the deceased and with judicial authorities and securing evidence found at
12 the graves with ICTY evidence security tape.
13 Mr. Tucker was also present at the Macedonian Forensic Institute
14 while autopsies were performed on the exhumed bodies. During the
15 autopsies, Mr. Tucker took possession of and recorded any ballistic
16 material that was found in, around, or on the body or in the clothing of
17 the deceased.
18 Q. Mr. Tucker, in your statement, you describe in detail how the
19 exhumations of deceased persons at the Muslim cemetery of Ljuboten were
20 carried out in April 2002, and you also describe the autopsies that were
21 performed after the exhumations at the Macedonian Forensic Institute in
23 My first question for you is this: Prior to the start of the
24 exhumations in early April 2002, did any meetings take place to discuss
25 plans to carry out the exhumations?
1 A. Yes, Your Honour, there were many meetings starting from November
2 2001, right up until the day prior to the exhumation.
3 Q. And did you participate -- let me step back for a minute.
4 When you say "many meetings starting from November 2001," were
5 those meetings in November 2001 focused on the Ljuboten exhumation or the
6 exhumations of other sites of potential crimes in Macedonia?
7 A. Other sites of potential exhumations in Macedonia.
8 Q. All right. When did you begin -- when did meetings, planning
9 meetings for the exhumation at Ljuboten begin, approximately?
10 A. In the early part of 2002.
11 Q. Did you participate in these meetings?
12 A. I did.
13 Q. Who else participated in these meetings with you?
14 A. The various authorities of Macedonia. The international
15 community, and NATO.
16 Q. Let's go a little bit more slowly.
17 When you say, "the various authorities of Macedonia," could you be
18 a bit more specific please. Which authorities or which institutions are
19 you referring to?
20 A. The Macedonian Ministry of Justice, the Skopje Forensic Institute,
21 and the Ministry of Interior police.
22 Q. Okay. And when you refer to the international community, can you
23 be a bit more specific? Representatives of which institutions or
24 organisations were at those meetings?
25 A. The organisations of OSCE, EUMM and NATO represented by task force
1 Fox, as it was referred to.
2 Q. Mr. Tucker, what was your role in these meetings?
3 A. My main function was that of a monitor. However, at the meetings,
4 I played the role of coordinator between all the various agencies that
5 were involved in the exhumation project.
6 Q. And at times did you make suggestions or recommendations at these
8 A. I did.
9 Q. And were your suggestions accepted or not?
10 A. Yes. They were -- they were accepted and some weren't.
11 Q. So if I can understand your response, some of your suggestions
12 were accepted, but some were not?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Mr. Tucker, why were these meetings necessary before the
15 exhumation -- let me step back.
16 Were these meetings necessary before the exhumation in Ljuboten
17 could take place?
18 A. Yes, they were, sir.
19 Q. And why -- why was that?
20 A. The situation in Macedonia at that particular time was quite
21 tense. And in order for the exhumation project to be successful there had
22 to be a great deal of issues covered and decided upon before the
23 exhumation could proceed.
24 Q. Can you give a few examples of some of these issues that needed to
25 be discussed and worked out.
1 A. I suppose the first one would be the general security conditions
2 in relation to the Macedonian authorities who were going to be present and
3 conducting the exhumation.
4 Q. Mm-hm?
5 A. It was necessary to liaise with the family of the victims because
6 there was a lot of distrust from their perspective in relation to anything
7 to do with the Macedonian authorities. Similarly, from the Macedonian
8 authorities side, there was a great deal of concern about the -- about the
9 security of the party who would attend there. Agreement had to be
10 conducted or discussions with NATO, OSCE, and the EUMM on how they could
11 contribute to the security situation generally and to assist the process
12 of the exhumation going forward.
13 Q. And in addition to that, would it be fair to say that there were
14 other matters that also had to be discussed and agreed upon?
15 A. Absolutely. The -- the actual practicalities of the process of
16 the exhumation on what roles were to be taking place and the order of the
17 exhumations, the integrity of the scene, the scene being the Muslim
18 cemetery, the integrity of the remains of the victims and any artifacts
19 that were found during exhumation and the general process for the
20 autopsies and the similar concerns about the integrity of the remains and
21 any artifacts found.
22 Q. And, Mr. Tucker, at any time during these discussions, during the
23 planning meetings was there ever - and I'm talking about these meetings
24 that began in the first part of 2002 - was there ever a suggestion that
25 the ICTY or the international community, or both, had taken control of the
1 Ljuboten investigation?
2 A. No, sir. That was never -- as far as I was concerned an issue.
3 It was always going to be an exhumation conducted by the authorities of
5 Q. And during these planning meetings --
6 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
7 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I apologise. This is not an
8 objection, but simply to indicate perhaps for the sake of the record and
9 for Mr. Saxon that the witness at page 25, line 12 has answered or the
10 question of my colleague, I apologise was "has," rather than "will" take
11 control, I think this was the question of Mr. Saxon.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
13 MR. SAXON: I'm grateful. That was my -- that was my question.
14 Past tense, had taken, rather than will take. Thank you very much.
15 Q. Mr. Tucker, during these planning meetings, were any agreements
16 made about certain tasks that you would perform during the exhumation
18 A. Yes, sir. There were various functions that developed during the
19 courses of the meetings that I would end up being responsible for.
20 Q. And can you describe, then, the tasks that you performed when the
21 exhumations began?
22 A. I mentioned earlier one of the primary functions was the security
23 coordination for the exhumation and that included the safety and security
24 of all parties present. That involved liaising closely with the NATO
25 forces and the Exploded Ordinance Disposal Unit. The other functions that
1 I adopted was that of, I suppose I would call it in my own field from
2 home, a scenes of crime officer and be responsible for certain aspects of
3 the integrity of items and artifacts that were recovered and found.
4 Q. All right.
5 A. I was a family liaison officer, if you like, with the relatives of
6 the victims.
7 Q. All right.
8 A. And a coordinating liaison officer between the exhumation team and
9 OSCE and EUMM.
10 Q. At this time, Mr. Tucker, I have some documents that I would like
11 to show you.
12 MR. SAXON: And, Your Honours, I believe we have some binders with
13 some materials to provide to you and to the Defence and we should have a
14 copy for Mr. Tucker as well.
15 And can I ask, please, if a copy of Mr. Tucker's statement could
16 please be provided to him because there are some very specific details
17 that the witness may need to refresh his memory upon.
18 Q. And, Mr. Tucker, in your statement you describe how exhumations
19 were performed two bodies at a time and at the scene each body was given a
20 number as it was removed from the cemetery and placed in a body-bag.
21 Can you please turn to what is tab 1 in your binder, please. This
22 is Rule 65 ter number 71. The English ERN begins N000-4283 and Macedonian
23 ERN N000-4206.
24 Just preliminarily, Mr. Tucker, were you also present when
25 autopsies were performed in the Forensic Institute of Macedonia?
1 A. Yes, I was, Your Honours, for each of the exhumations and
2 autopsies that took place.
3 Q. And you'll see in front of you in tab 1 it's a document dated the
4 9th of April, 2002. It's called section protocol. And this is a report
5 describing an autopsy that was done on a body known as number 1. Do you
6 see that?
7 A. I do, sir, yes.
8 Q. And at the end -- the last page we see that it is signed by
9 Dr. Aleksej Duma and Dr. Zdravko Cakar and Zlatko Jakovski. And do you
10 recall that these were the doctors who were performing all -- some or all
11 of the autopsies?
12 A. Some of the autopsies, yes, Your Honours.
13 Q. All right. And can you recall from your memory the actual
14 identity of body number 1, which person that was?
15 A. I can't from memory.
16 Q. Would it help to you refresh your memory if you take a look at the
17 page in your statement where you discuss that?
18 A. It would, Your Honours, yes.
19 Q. Could you please take a look at page 4 of your report -- of your
20 statement, please. And are you able to see towards the bottom of the page
21 the name of the person who was given ID number 1?
22 A. I can, yes, Your Honours.
23 Q. And who was that?
24 A. That was Rami Jusufi.
25 Q. Just so the -- Rami Jusufi, right?
1 A. Rami Jusufi.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Mettraux.
3 MR. METTRAUX: Perhaps if that facilitates things for Mr. Saxon,
4 we won't take any issue with the naming of each and every body and the
5 names that have been associated by Mr. Tucker in the statement. If that
6 facilitates the questioning by Mr. Saxon.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Mettraux.
8 MR. SAXON: Very well. Then I'll simply note for the record that
9 in the 92 bis written witness statement that has now been admitted into
10 evidence, beginning on page 4, the names and identity number of each body
11 that was exhumed at the village of Ljuboten can be found, and these
12 numbers, then, will be corresponding to these autopsy protocols that we're
13 now showing the witness.
14 At this time, Your Honour, I would seek to tender this document.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
16 MR. METTRAUX: I believe it is 1D78, Your Honour. We believe it
17 is already in evidence through Dr. Jakovski.
18 MR. SAXON: Very well. I was not aware of that. Thank you.
19 Q. Mr. Tucker, I'm not going to show you the autopsy report on body
20 number 2 because that autopsy report is also already admitted into
21 evidence. But if you could -- before we leave this particular deceased,
22 can you turn to tab 2, please.
23 A. Yes, sir.
24 Q. In tab 2 is also Exhibit 1D77. And were you present when the
25 clothing of the deceased was examined?
1 A. Yes, sir, I was.
2 Q. Very well. And if we can turn now to what is tab 3, please. This
3 is 65 ter number 63, and this is another section protocol, you'll see,
4 Mr. Tucker, it is dated the 12th of April, 2002. This document is signed,
5 if you go to the last page, by Drs. Duma, Boskovski and Stankov. And was
6 this another autopsy were you were present after the exhumation of this
7 particular body?
8 A. Yes, sir, it is.
9 Q. And what role, if any, did you have to play vis-a-vis ballistic
10 material or materials that were found in or around or on a body at the
12 A. It was my responsibility to take these artifacts from the
13 pathologists finding them, to record them and secure them in evidence --
14 for evidence, I should say.
15 Q. And could you turn now -- excuse me, before you turn the page --
16 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, I would seek to tender this document.
17 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P444, Your Honours.
19 MR. SAXON:
20 Q. If you turn now to what is tab 4, we see this is a clothing, and I
21 should say, for the record, tab 4 is 65 ter number 66. The English
22 version begins with N000-4295.
23 This is the -- you'll see this is a document dated 30 May 2002,
24 Mr. Tucker, do you see that?
25 A. I do, sir, yes.
1 Q. And this particular document is signed by -- it says it is a
2 clothing examination of the body known as number 3, and you see at the end
3 that this examination was done by Dr. Popovska and it is also signed by
4 Dr. Aleksej Duma.
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. From an investigative point of view, what was the purpose of these
7 examinations of clothing?
8 A. There are several factors related to the examination of the
9 clothing. Initially to obtain details for potential identification
11 Q. What else?
12 A. Then to examine the clothing for any signs of any damage that
13 maybe correspond to any injuries found on the remains of the deceased.
14 And also to examine the clothing for any -- any ballistic or other type of
15 foreign material that may have some evidentiary value.
16 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, would seek to tender the document that
17 is at tab 4.
18 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
19 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P445, Your Honours.
20 MR. SAXON:
21 Q. And if we take a look, please, Mr. Tucker, at tab 5, this is 65
22 ter number 62, the English ERN begins with N000-4299. And you'll see this
23 document is dated the 13th of April, 2002. It is another section
24 protocol. It is the autopsy of body number 4, which, according to
25 Mr. Tucker's statement at page 6 would be Kadri Jashari. And if you look
1 at the last page, Mr. Tucker, you'll see that this section protocol says
2 that the autopsy was performed by Drs. Cakar and Stankov and this protocol
3 was also signed by Dr. Aleksej Duma.
4 Do you see that?
5 A. I do, sir.
6 Q. Mr. Tucker, what was the position of Dr. Duma at the time?
7 A. Professor Duma was the director of the Forensic Institute and
8 therefore the head of the unit.
9 Q. And was Dr. Duma one of the gentlemen or persons who participated
10 in the planning meetings for the exhumations at Ljuboten?
11 A. Yes, sir, he was.
12 Q. Okay.
13 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I would seek to tender the document at
14 tab 5, please.
15 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
16 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P446, Your Honours.
17 MR. SAXON:
18 Q. If you can turn now, please, to tab 6, Mr. Tucker, this is 65 ter
19 number 68. The ERN, English version, begins with N000-4310 -- excuse me,
21 Mr. Tucker, this is a -- this is the section protocol for body
22 number 5, which according to page 9 of your statement is -- was the body
23 identified as Xhelal Bajrami. And it is dated 15th of April, 2002. And
24 we see at the end the autopsy was performed by Drs. Boskovski and Davceva
25 and the report was also signed by Dr. Duma. Do you see that?
1 A. I do, sir.
2 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, I would seek to tender this document.
3 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P447, Your Honours.
5 MR. SAXON:
6 Q. Mr. Tucker, if you can turn, please, to what is tab 7 in your
7 binder. This is 65 ter number 77. The English ERN begins N000-4310.
8 This is a document dated the 15th of April, 2002 from the medical faculty,
9 Forensic Institute and Criminology from the University Kiril and Metodij.
10 And this is a report of the clothing examination of body number 5,
11 Mr. Xhelal Bajrami. And, again, if you go to the last page, Mr. Tucker,
12 you'll see that the examination of the clothing was performed by
13 Drs. Boskovski and Davceva and then the report was also signed by the
14 director, Professor Duma. Do you see that?
15 A. I do, sir.
16 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I would ask that this document be
17 tendered, please.
18 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
19 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P448, Your Honours.
20 MR. SAXON: If you could turn, Mr. Tucker, to what is tab 8 in
21 your binder. And this is 65 ter number 73. The ERN version begins -- the
22 English version begins with ERN N000-4312.
23 Q. Mr. Tucker, you will see there is another section protocol dated
24 16th of April, 2002. And it is an autopsy report for what is referred to
25 as -- here as body number 6, which, at page 9 of your 92 bis statement we
1 see that that person, that body was the body of Sulejman Bajrami. And if
2 you go to the last page, Mr. Tucker, you'll see that there were actually
3 three doctors who performed this autopsy, Drs. Gutevska, Janevska and
4 Davceva and the report was also signed by Dr. Duma. Do you see that?
5 A. I do, sir.
6 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, I would seek to tender this document,
8 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
9 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P449, Your Honours.
10 MR. SAXON:
11 Q. If you could turn, please, to what is tab 9 in the binder in front
12 of you, Mr. Tucker. And this is 65 ter number 72. The ERN of the English
13 version begins with N000-4316.
14 Mr. Tucker, you will see that this is another report about an
15 examination of clothing. It is dated the 16th of April, 2002. Again, the
16 report is being sent to the Lower Court Skopje II, the investigating
17 judge. And if you turn to the last page, Mr. Tucker, do you see that
18 this examination of the clothing was performed by three doctors,
19 Drs. Gutevska, Janevska and Davceva, and that the report was also signed
20 by Professor Dr. Duma. Do you see that?
21 A. I do, sir.
22 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I would ask that this document be
23 admitted, please.
24 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
25 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P450, Your Honours.
1 MR. SAXON:
2 Q. Mr. Tucker, if you could turn, please, to what is tab 10 in the
3 binders in front of you. This is 65 ter number 74. The ERN of the
4 English version starts at N000-4323. You'll this is another section
5 protocol, Mr. Tucker, it's dated the 19th of April, 2002. And this
6 autopsy report deals with body number 8. Body number 8 you identify in
7 your written witness statement at page 12 as belonging to
8 Muharem Ramadani.
9 If you turn to the last page, Mr. Tucker, do you see that this
10 autopsy report was signed by Drs. Cakar, Gutevska and Popovska and that
11 the report was also signed by Professor Dr. Duma. Do you see that?
12 A. I do, sir.
13 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, at this time I would ask to tender this
14 document, please.
15 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
16 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P451, Your Honours.
17 MR. SAXON:
18 Q. Finally, Mr. Tucker, I'd like to ask to you turn to what is tab 11
19 in the binder in front of you, please?
20 MR. SAXON: And, Your Honours, this is 65 ter number 65. The
21 English version begins with ERN N000-4327.
22 Q. Mr. Tucker, if you take a look at the first page of the document
23 you'll see that it is a clothing examination, dated the 19th of April,
24 2002, referring to the body number 8, whose autopsy report we saw a moment
25 ago. And do you see at the last page, Mr. Tucker, that the examination of
1 the clothing of Mr. Muharem Ramadani was performed by Drs. Cakar, Gutevska
2 and Popovska, and the report was also signed by Dr. Duma. Do you see
4 A. I do, sir.
5 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, at this time I would seek to tender this
7 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
8 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P452, Your Honours.
9 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, at this time I have no further
11 JUDGE PARKER: That would seem a very convenient moment,
12 Mr. Saxon, for the first break, and we resume at 11.00.
13 --- Recess taken at 10.27 a.m.
14 --- On resuming at 11.05 a.m.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
16 Oh, you have now concluded. Your last words.
17 MR. SAXON: At this time my last words, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
19 MR. SAXON: At this time I believe the floor belongs to
20 Mr. Mettraux.
21 JUDGE PARKER: So encouraged, Mr. Mettraux.
22 MR. METTRAUX: Absolutely, Your Honour. I'm grateful to
23 Mr. Saxon.
24 Cross-examination by Mr. Mettraux:
25 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Tucker, my name is Guenael Mettraux and
1 together with my colleague Edina Residovic, I'm appearing on of behalf
2 Mr. Boskoski.
3 A. Good afternoon, sir.
4 MR. METTRAUX: And perhaps before we start, I would kindly ask
5 that the court usher if he could give the documents back to Mr. Saxon
6 which are now in front of Mr. Tucker.
7 Q. Mr. Tucker, you've indicated to Mr. Saxon earlier on that in the
8 course of the year 2001 and 2002, you had a number of meetings with the
9 Macedonian authorities. Is that correct?
10 A. That's correct, sir, yes.
11 Q. And you've also indicated to Mr. Saxon that in March and April of
12 2002 you had a number of meetings pertaining to the exhumation of
13 Ljuboten. Do you recall that?
14 A. I do, sir, yes.
15 Q. And you've indicated pursuant to a question of Mr. Saxon that
16 there were also a number of meetings which you had with the Macedonian
17 authority in relation to another exhumation or other exhumations and you
18 indicated that such meeting took place in the year 2001. Is that correct?
19 A. That's correct, sir, yes.
20 Q. And, Mr. Tucker, would those meetings relating to another
21 exhumation, would they be the exhumation relating to crimes committed in
22 the Neprosteno area. Is that the meetings you were referring to?
23 A. That's correct, they are, sir, yes.
24 Q. And those meetings, Mr. Tucker, took place at the beginning of the
25 month of November of 2001, the 9th, the 11th, the 13th, the 16th, the
1 18th, and the 24th of November of 2001. Is that correct?
2 A. I don't remember the precise dates, but it was in November 2001.
3 Q. I'm grateful. Is that correct also Mr. Tucker that there were a
4 number of other meetings later on in the month of November of 2001 which
5 you attended on 27th, 28th, and 29th of November?
6 A. Again, I can't remember specifically the dates, sir, I would need
7 to have something to look at to be able to confirm that.
8 Q. I will -- Mr. Tucker, I will show you the records of those
9 meetings in a minute but would you agree that those meetings, the later
10 meetings of the 27, 28, 29 had to do both to the Neprosteno investigation
11 and the Ljuboten investigate of the OTP. Is that correct, sir,?
12 A. I don't remember, sir.
13 Q. I will come to that in a minute. Is that correct, however,
14 Mr. Tucker, that during those various meetings with the Macedonian
15 authorities the Macedonian government undertook to provide you with the
16 assistance needed for your own investigations. Is that correct?
17 A. For our own -- I don't remember anything about conducting our own
18 investigations, no, sir.
19 Q. Well, on the 27th of November of 2001, is that correct that the
20 then minister of justice, an ethnic Albanian, at the time had stated to
21 you that the Macedonian government had agreed to provide whatever
22 assistance was required by you. Can you recall that?
23 A. I can remember a meeting with a minister but I can't remember
24 contents at this time.
25 Q. Can you recall that the minister of the time had undertaken to
1 provide you with manpower and your other needs. Can you recall that?
2 A. I don't remember that, no, sir.
3 Q. And can you recall, perhaps, that this meeting had to do, in part
4 at least with the Ljuboten investigation. Do you recall that?
5 A. I don't recall the specifics, no.
6 MR. METTRAUX: In that case I ask the registry perhaps to assist
7 Mr. Tucker to show what is Rule 65 ter 1D611.
8 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask the witness to speak
9 closer to the microphone, please.
10 MR. METTRAUX: Mr. Tucker, I think you are being asked if you
11 could move a little bit closer to the microphone.
12 And, Your Honour, we also have binders both for the Court and the
13 Prosecution, as well as for Mr. Tucker and which may assist the matter.
14 The 65 ter number is 1D611 with an ERN 1D005526 and I can see that is
15 already on the screen.
16 Q. Mr. Tucker, this will be under tab 28 of your binder.
17 A. Thank you.
18 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, we believe there are no Macedonian
19 version of the document.
20 Q. Mr. Tucker, I'll go through the document with you, if I may.
21 If you look at the top of the document first, this is information
22 taken in the form of an investigator's notes and under the title there is
23 the purpose of the meeting and it says that it is a meeting arranged by
24 Mr. Andrzej Szydlik, an operation officer of the ICTY for the visit of
25 Mr. Dennis Milner, deputy chief of investigations. And the time and date
1 are 27th of November of 2001, and the time is 12.30. Can you see that?
2 A. I can, sir, yes.
3 Q. And then you will see there's a location --
4 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask the counsel and the
5 witness to take a break between the questions and the answers so the
6 interpreters can make it and translate everything. Thank you.
7 MR. METTRAUX: Mr. Tucker, that was the second warning if we could
8 pace ourselves between questions and answer.
9 Q. There's an indication of a location which is the office of the
10 Ministry of Justice in Skopje and there's a list of persons present.
11 There is the Macedonian minister of justice whose name, I believe,
12 is Ixet Memeti. Do you remember his name?
13 A. I don't remember the gentleman's name. I apologise.
14 Q. And there is an assistant to the minister, Ms. Nedzana Mojseva
15 [phoen]; Mr. Milner, the deputy chief of investigations; Mr. Szydlik;
16 yourself, and an interpreter, Ms. Brajovic.
17 If I can ask you to go down in this document, there is a paragraph
18 starting with the word: "Mr. Dennis Milner." Can you see that? It is
19 the first paragraph. It says this: "Mr. Dennis Milner introduced the
20 representatives of the ICTY to those present. He stated for -- the reason
21 for the visit was a follow-up to that of the Prosecutor."
22 Perhaps I will interject a question at this stage. Do you recall
23 that Ms. Del Ponte visited the Republic of Macedonia on the 20th and 21st
24 of November, 2001, do you recall that event?
25 A. I'm aware that Madam Prosecutor did visit Macedonia, but I don't
1 recall the dates.
2 Q. And if you go to the next paragraph, DM which is Mr. Dennis
3 Milner, stated that it was his responsibility to assess the current
4 situation in Macedonia relating to the investigations into the Nepostreno
5 and Ljuboten. Can you see that.
6 A. I can, sir, yes.
7 Q. And then it says: "He explained that the ICTY realised that there
8 were more cases than this, but in respect of them, the dedicated
9 investigation team had been appointed by the Prosecution to assess the
10 available evidence."
11 Can you see that?
12 A. I can, yes, sir.
13 Q. And if I may ask the registry to turn to the second page of that
15 Perhaps I'll simply ask you at this stage to confirm that the
16 notes were in fact taken by yourself. Is that correct, Mr. Tucker, if you
17 look at the bottom of the document?
18 A. Yes, that's correct, sir.
19 Q. And if I ask to look at the first paragraph on the top of the page
20 there are some comments attributed to the minister and that would the
21 minister of justice mentioned on the previous page. But I'd like to turn
22 to the second paragraph where the minister says the following: "He also
23 stated that the authorities had agreed to provide whatever was required to
24 conduct the investigations (manpower and other needs)."
25 Can you see that?
1 A. Yes, sir, I can see that.
2 Q. Then there's another statement attributed to the minister, he then
3 said: "He then spoke for a while about political issues involving the
4 Nepostreno and Ljuboten investigations. He finished his speech by saying,
5 I expect the ICTY to undertake specific actions about these two cases,
6 Nepostreno and Ljuboten."
7 Do you see that?
8 A. Yes, sir, I do.
9 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I will simply ask that this document
10 be MFI'd at this stage. We will seek later on to tender it; it will be
11 used again.
12 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D195 marked for identification, Your
14 MR. METTRAUX:
15 Q. Is it correct, Mr. Tucker, that in the context of other
16 meetings which you had with the Macedonian authorities, in particular the
17 competent investigative organs of the state of Macedonia you were given
18 the same assurances of assistance. Is that correct?
19 A. That is correct, yes, sir.
20 Q. And in particular on the same day that is the 27th of November of
21 2001, you met with then state prosecutor Mr. Stavre Dzikov. Do you recall
23 A. Can you repeat the date, sir.
24 Q. The same day, Mr. Tucker, it would be the 27th of November, 2001.
25 A. I don't remember the date, but I assume there is an investigator's
1 note that applies to that meeting.
2 Q. That's correct, and I will show it you in a second, sir. But can
3 you recall or do you have a memory of the fact that during that meeting,
4 Mr. Dzikov the state prosecutor offered full cooperation to the Office of
5 the Prosecutor in relation to these investigations?
6 A. I do. But I think there is an important distinction that I should
7 make here at this stage, if Their Honours allow me.
8 I think, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you're suggesting
9 that the Macedonian authorities were going to supply the Office of the
10 Prosecutor with resources for the Office of the Prosecutor to conduct
11 investigations. I think that's basically what you were asking me, sir.
12 Q. Well, I should be more precise. At this stage, Mr. Tucker, I'm
13 simply asking you whether the authorities are undertaken to assist you?
14 A. It is actually the other way around.
15 Q. Well, if we can turn to what is 65 ter 1D612. It has an ERN
17 And this is again, Mr. Tucker, another one of those investigator's
18 notes which was prepared at the time by yourself.
19 A. Mm-hm.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
21 MR. SAXON: I'm very sorry to interrupt. It's just if my colleague
22 could please tell me what tab --
23 MR. METTRAUX: I apologise. Thank you, Mr. Saxon. Your Honour,
24 this is tab 29.
25 Q. And perhaps going quickly through the header of this document,
1 Mr. Tucker, you will see it is again an investigator's note the purpose is
2 similar to the previous one. It was again arranged by your colleague
3 Mr. Szydlik. The day is the same, the time is 1505, and those present
4 include Mr. Dzikov, the public prosecutor of Macedonia, an assistant to
5 Mr. Dzikov, Mr. Milner, Szydlik yourself and again your interpreter
6 Ms. Brajovic. And if I can ask you to focus on the first full paragraph
7 on this page I will read it for the record.
8 "The public prosecutor welcomed the representatives from the ICTY.
9 He stated that he was surprised to hear that the Prosecutor, ICTY, had
10 only opened investigations into two cases, cases Nepostreno and Ljuboten.
11 He felt there were many cases that required the interest and attention of
12 the Tribunal. However, he assured those present of the full cooperation
13 of his department during the investigation."
14 Can you see that?
15 A. I can, sir, yes.
16 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, there again we would simply ask at
17 this stage that this be MFI'd.
18 JUDGE PARKER: It will be marked.
19 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D196, marked for identification, Your
21 MR. METTRAUX:
22 Q. And, Mr. Tucker, can you now remember that the next day that would
23 be the 28th of November of 2001, a general agreement of cooperation was
24 reached between you and the authorities competent to investigate the
25 Ljuboten event in Macedonia. Do you have a memory of that?
1 A. My memory is, is that the -- an agreement was made for the
2 Macedonian authorities to investigate with us acting as monitors.
3 Q. And the authorities with which you reached that agreements were
4 the judicial authorities. Is that correct?
5 A. I would be guessing. I can't remember who it was, who that final
6 decision was made.
7 Q. Well, perhaps I can help you here.
8 If you can turn to tab 31, Mr. Tucker, please. That would be Rule
9 65 ter 1D613 and it has an ERN of 1D00-5530. Again, no Macedonian. There
10 again, Mr. Tucker, this is another one of those investigator's notes which
11 were prepared by yourself as is evident from the last page if you wish to
12 look at the last page. And it is dated the 28th of November of 2001, the
13 meeting was again for the same purpose. It took place at this higher
14 public prosecutor office in Skopje, and present were Mr. Serafimovski, the
15 acting higher public prosecutor; Mr. Dragoljub you called him Mr. Sokic, I
16 believe it is Mr. Cakic; Mr. Dragan Nikolovski, investigative judge;
17 Mr. Nica, a criminal judge; Mr. Ljubomir Joleski, another criminal judge;
18 Ms. Maja Konevska, deputy public prosecutor; Mr. Milner; Szydlik;
19 yourself; and the interpreter, Ms. Brajovic.
20 And if I can ask the registry to turn to the last page of that
22 And again, Mr. Tucker, you can confirm that is a note that was
23 prepared by you, by yourself?
24 A. Yes, I can, Your Honours.
25 Q. And the last sentence in this document or the last sentence in any
1 case of your summary of this meeting reads that a general agreement of
2 cooperation was established and promises of future close contact assured.
3 Can you see that?
4 A. Yes, sir, I can.
5 Q. And is that correct to understand this sentence as suggesting that
6 the agreement was reached by the people who were present during that
8 A. Yes, sir, it is.
9 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, if we could MFI this document again,
11 JUDGE PARKER: It will be marked.
12 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D197, marked for identification, Your
14 MR. METTRAUX: I'm grateful.
15 Q. Is it correct, Mr. Tucker, that this willingness or readiness of
16 the authorities to assist you were given at all levels of the states, and
17 by that I mean ministerial, judicial and forensic. Is that correct?
18 A. The agreement was not to assist us but to conduct the
19 investigation and use us as a monitor, sir.
20 Q. Well, perhaps I should go back to what is under tab 29 of your
21 binder, which has now an MFI of 1D196. If I may ask the registry to turn
22 to the second page of that document.
23 And, Mr. Tucker, perhaps as a preliminary matter I'll ask you to
24 confirm that to refer to Mr. Djikov I believe you used the letters "PP"
25 for public prosecutor. Is that correct?
1 A. That's correct, sir, yes.
2 Q. And if I may ask to you look at the fourth paragraph on the second
3 page which starts with the words: "PP stated."
4 Can you see that?
5 A. I can, sir.
6 Q. And Mr. Dzikov says this: "Public prosecutor Mr. Dzikov stated
7 that the willingness of the authorities to cooperate with the Tribunal is
8 at all levels of the administration, including ministerial, judicial,
9 forensic, crime scene technicians, (police) and the security force."
10 Can you see that?
11 A. I can, sir, yes.
12 Q. And you would agree, I hope, that what the public prosecutor was
13 stating there is that he and the Macedonian authorities were willing to
14 assist you, or the Tribunal in any case. Is that correct?
15 A. No, sir, I read it exactly as it says there, that the Macedonian
16 authorities are willing to cooperate with the Tribunal, exactly as it
18 Q. And this undertaking was to cooperate with yourself, the Office of
19 the Prosecutor?
20 A. With the Office of the Prosecutor, yes, sir.
21 Q. Is that correct also, Mr. Tucker, that your contacts with the
22 Macedonian authorities date back, and when I mean your contacts I don't
23 mean your personally, but the contacts of your office go back to the year
24 1999 and 2000 during and after the Kosovo crisis. Is that correct?
25 A. I can't comment on that. My involvement with Macedonia was from
1 the November of 2001, sir.
2 Q. Can you recall perhaps that on the 28th of March of 2001,
3 Ms. Del Ponte, the chief Prosecutor made a public announcement to the
4 effect that she believed that should serious violations of international
5 humanitarian law were committed, the Tribunal would have jurisdiction over
6 the territory of Macedonia, can you recall that?
7 A. Not specifically, no, sir.
8 MR. METTRAUX: Perhaps I can assist again. If the witness could
9 be shown what is Rule 65 ter 1D626. It has an ERN starting with
11 Q. Mr. Tucker, this is under tab 8 of the binder.
12 Mr. Tucker, I will come back on the first few pages of this
13 document a little bit later. But we can see from the title of that first
14 page that it contains a list of materials given by the Macedonian
15 authorities during the visit of the chief Prosecutor to Skopje on 20
16 November 2001. Do you agree?
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. I will come back in a moment to the list of document provided to
20 But at this stage I would ask the registry to go to page
21 1D00-5598, please.
22 This document contains a number of summaries of statement and
23 comments made by different international players and in this page there is
24 one attributed to Madam Del Ponte dated the 28th of March of 2001. And I
25 would like to start with the second paragraph of this statement where
1 Madam Del Ponte said that: "It is not clear whether crimes of war were
2 committed and expressed hope that the existing of this court jurisdiction
3 will act as a warning and will prevent those criminal acts."
4 Can you see that?
5 A. Yes, sir, I can.
6 Q. And then there is a comment attributed directly to her which
7 reads: "I hope that all questions will be resolved in a peaceful and
8 democratic manner, she said. And pointed out that if the war crimes are
9 committed, the Tribunal in The Hague will begin an investigation to
10 resolve these crimes."
11 Can you see that?
12 A. I can, sir, yes.
13 Q. And then there's another comment attributed to Ms. Del Ponte which
14 says: "Madam Del Ponte said that as soon as possible an investigation team
15 will be sent to work with the Macedonian authorities in finding out what
16 is happening in the country. And in the meantime, the Tribunal will
17 maintain close contact with the authorities in Macedonia for exchanging
18 information about its activities."
19 Can you see that?
20 A. I can, sir, yes.
21 Q. And I don't wish to ask you to comment upon the accuracy or
22 otherwise of the content, but do you recall Madam Del Ponte making that
23 statement at the time?
24 A. I don't, sir, no.
25 Q. Is that correct that on the 9th of November of 2001, the Office of
1 the Prosecution of this Tribunal announced the formal opening of an
2 investigation into the events of Ljuboten and Nepostreno. Is that
4 A. Could you repeat the date, please, sir.
5 Q. The 9th of November, 2001.
6 A. No, I don't believe that is correct, sir. I may be wrong but to
7 my knowledge the official investigation wasn't opened until the first few
8 months of the following year.
9 Q. Well, perhaps I'll ask the registry, then, to show what is now
10 Exhibit P391.
11 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, this has already been admitted. This
12 is a Prosecution request for deferral --
13 Q. Mr. Tucker, this is under tab 24 of your binder.
14 A. Thank you.
15 Q. And I will draw your attention to page 3 of that document,
16 Mr. Tucker, if I may. This is N000-9883-0.
17 And I will draw your attention to paragraph 3 of the Prosecution
18 request. I will read it out to you, it says this: "On 9 November 2001,
19 the Prosecution formally commenced an investigation into allegations
20 concerning the activities of the NLA, National Liberation Army in
21 Macedonia during 2001 including the existence of a number of mass graves
22 involving Macedonian civilian victims killed in Neprosteno."
23 Can you see that?
24 A. Yes, sir, I can.
25 Q. And it goes on to say: "On the same date, the Prosecutor also
1 formally commenced an investigation into allegations concerning the
2 activities of Macedonian forces against Macedonian Albanian civilians in
3 Macedonia during 2001 including the alleged crimes committed in Ljuboten.
4 Can you see that?
5 A. Yes, sir, I can.
6 Q. And you would agree, I hope, that the investigation or the formal
7 opening of the investigation, of the Prosecutor's investigation into the
8 events of Ljuboten took place on the 9th of November of 2001. Is that
10 A. That is correct. I was mistaken. It was her exerting her primacy
11 over the case.
12 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honours, simply for the record I will indicate
13 that this date the 9th of November, 2001 was also the date noted and taken
14 into consideration by the Trial Chamber in its decision of 4 October 2002,
15 for the deferral of five cases, including the case Ljuboten.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
17 MR. METTRAUX:
18 Q. Can you recall, Mr. Tucker, that a few days later on the 21st of
19 November of 2001, the chief Prosecutor Madam Del Ponte actually formally
20 announced the opening of the investigation into the Ljuboten events, or
21 you don't recall?
22 A. I don't recall, I'm sorry.
23 Q. Would you agree that all through the year of 2001 and 2002 your
24 office, the Office of the Prosecutor received assistance and support in
25 relation to your Ljuboten and Neprosteno investigation. Do you agree with
2 A. I still don't agree with that, no.
3 Q. Well, can you agree then that in late August of 2001, I believe on
4 the 31st of 2001 [sic], the state prosecutor appointed a liaison person to
5 be the contact person for the ICTY do you recall that?
6 A. No, my first involvement in Macedonia I think I said earlier was
7 in November of 2001.
8 Q. And can you recall a person by the name Maja Konevska?
9 A. I can, but I'm not sure in what context, sir.
10 Q. Well, I will show you a document in a minute which may assist.
11 MR. METTRAUX: But perhaps for the record at line -- at page 51,
12 line 25, there is a reference to the 31st of 2001, it should be the 31st
13 of August of 2001.
14 Q. Is it correct that one particular way in which the Macedonian
15 authorities provided assistance to your office was by providing you with
16 information documents and material which were relevant to your
17 investigations into the events of Ljuboten and Neprosteno. Do you agree
18 with that?
19 A. I know the Macedonian authorities supplied numerous documents to
20 the Office of the Prosecutor.
21 Q. And among that information or material that was provided to you by
22 the Macedonian authorities and here, Mr. Tucker, I only talk of 2001 and
23 2002, you would agree that some of that material pertained to the Ljuboten
24 incidents. Do you agree?
25 A. I don't know specifically the dates. The first documents I was
1 aware of were in 2002, but I don't discount the possibility there being
2 documents supplied earlier.
3 Q. There is a number of particular document that I would wish to ask
4 you at this stage and would you agree or can you agree that no later than
5 18 -- I'm being prompted by my colleague to slow down, Mr. Tucker, which I
6 shall duly do.
7 Is that correct, Mr. Tucker, that no later than the 18th of
8 September of 2001, your office was in possession of the report of the
9 commission set up by Mr. Boskoski to look into the events of Ljuboten.
10 Can you agree with that?
11 A. I can't again, sir, my first involvement with the Macedonian
12 situation was in November of that year.
13 Q. Perhaps I'll ask the registry to show Mr. Tucker what is Rule 65
14 ter 1D654. It has an ERN 1D005870, this document has a Macedonian
15 translation which is 1D00-5864. This is tab number 9, Mr. Tucker.
16 It seems to be under tab 10, Your Honour, perhaps in your binder.
17 There may be a slight difference. Your Honour, I will simply explain for
18 the record one different translation of this document is already in
19 evidence. The reason for using this particular translation - and I will
20 ask the registry kindly to go back to the previous version - may become
21 apparent in a second, but ...
22 Mr. Tucker, do you have that document in front of you?
23 A. My document at tab 9 --
24 Q. That's correct.
25 A. Is the 000 -- sorry, 0011 document.
1 Q. That's the document. Mr. Tucker, do you recognise this document
2 as the report prepared by the commission set up by Mr. Boskoski to look
3 into the events of Ljuboten?
4 A. I don't believe that I have seen this document before, sir.
5 Q. Well, at this stage I will simply ask you, perhaps, to focus on
6 the very top of that document. And in particular, in the fax line that
7 appears at the very top of that document. Can you see the fax line?
8 A. Yes, sir, I can.
9 Q. And it says and I will read it: September 18, 2001; 1602; from UN
10 ICTY and then there's a telephone number. Can you see that?
11 A. Yes, sir, I can.
12 Q. And if you look at the Macedonian original, a few page later,
13 1D00-5864 and again at the top of the page you will see there's again the
14 same fax line. A little bit later at 1605. Is that correct?
15 A. That is correct, sir, yes.
16 Q. And you would agree that these documents came from your own
17 office, UN ICTY. Is that correct?
18 A. Without being able to confirm the telephone number, I couldn't
19 actually -- I have not seen the document before, so I can't really confirm
21 Q. But you agree that the fax line at the top indicates that it came
22 from, in any case, a UN ICTY office?
23 A. If we assume the documents are genuine, yes, sir.
24 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I don't think we need to tender this
25 other translation. It's simply relevant the record will reflect the
1 matter which we want it to underline.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
3 MR. METTRAUX:
4 Q. And I hope you can agree, sir, that in light of the nature of the
5 material that is provided there, this material must have come from the
6 Ministry of Interior. Can you agree with that?
7 A. That's what it says on the translated document.
8 Q. And perhaps I should put it more fairly to you. I will ask the
9 registry to bring up what is Rule 65 ter 282. It has an ERN of N001-8564
10 there is a Macedonian translation, N001-8564, MF.
11 Mr. Tucker, that should be under tab 10 of your binder and I will
12 ask you a bit later about those requests for assistance which you called
13 RFA, as I understand.
14 At this stage, I would like to go to the second page of the
15 document. Simply for you to confirm that this particular request for
16 assistance from your office, the Office of the Prosecutor to the
17 Macedonian authorities was prepared or sent on the 13th of January of
18 2005, and was signed by senior trial attorney Mr. Andrew Cayley. Is that
20 A. That is correct, sir.
21 Q. And if we may go back to the first page, please.
22 I'll ask to you focus on the third paragraph of that document. It
23 says this: "Among the analysed material provided to the OTP by the
24 Ministry of the Interior of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is a
25 report of the commission formed with the decision number 07-581/01, on 13
1 August 2001." And then there is a paragraph which comes from this report.
2 Would you agree, Mr. Tucker, that this in fact is the same report
3 as was mentioned earlier in this statement reveals or indicates that the
4 document had come from the minister of interior?
5 A. I think without -- without being able to read the document
6 completely and then compare it with -- it is a very difficult comment for
7 me to make because I'm not familiar with the former document.
8 Q. Well, perhaps I will simply ask you to turn back to tab 9 for a
10 And it refers to a particular number on the first page and that
11 number is 07-581-01, would you confirm that this is the same number as the
12 one mentioned on your RFAs. Do you agree with that?
13 A. Yes, sir. It is the same number.
14 Q. I'm grateful. And I suppose, then, that you can agree that the
15 report prepared by the commission set up by Mr. Boskoski was available
16 your office no less or no later than two weeks after it had rendered its
17 report. Is that correct?
18 A. By referring to the contents of the RFA we referred to, it would
19 appear so, yes, sir.
20 Q. And I suppose that you can also agree with the proposal that the
21 Ministry of Interior which provided you with that document was not exactly
22 trying to hide from you the efforts that had been made to uncover what had
23 happened in Ljuboten but that they proactively informed you about this.
24 Would that be fair?
25 A. Again, without familiarising myself with both documents, I think
1 would be very rash of me to make any comment on that, sir.
2 Q. I would simply ask you if you can to comment upon the fact that
3 the Ministry of Interior provided you that information. I'm not asking
4 you, Mr. Tucker, to make any comment about the content of the document.
5 It would be unfair to you. But would you agree that, in this case, the
6 Ministry of Interior in fact proactively sought to provide with you
7 information pertaining to the work that they had carried out in this
8 matter. Is that correct?
9 A. Certainly correct to say that a report was submitted and received
10 by the Office of the Prosecutor.
11 Q. And it was submitted by the Ministry of Interior, do you agree?
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. Is that correct or is that within your knowledge, sir, that on the
14 same date, the 18th of September of 2001, again, at the latest you were
15 provided with other information by the Ministry of Interior concerning
16 their effort to find out what had happened in Ljuboten. Do you know that?
17 A. I don't, sir. I think it is appropriate for me to say that my
18 involvement with this particular issue extended from November 2001 until
19 the conclusion of the exhumation and autopsies.
20 Q. Well, --
21 A. -- with the exception -- I beg your pardon, with the exception
22 then of the submission of certain articles to the Dutch Forensic
24 Q. I'm grateful for that. But I will seek your assistance in
25 relation to another document, if I may, Mr. Tucker, and that is under tab
1 11 of your binder. This is a document which is MFI as 1D146, N000-0021,
2 the Macedonian being N000-0017.
3 Mr. Tucker, again I won't, in view of your previous answers I
4 won't ask you to comment on the content of the documents but I would
5 kindly ask you, again, to look at the very top of the document. Again
6 there is a fax line there. Can you see that?
7 A. I can, sir, yes.
8 Q. And you will see that it mentions the same date as the previous
9 document, that is the September 18 of 2001. The time is one minute before
10 the other fax, 1601, and it again comes from UN ICTY with a fax number.
11 Can you see that?
12 A. Yes, sir I can.
13 Q. And I suppose you can agree again in view of the title that you
14 can read on the document and in view of our previous discussion that this
15 document must have come again from the Ministry of Interior. Is that
17 A. Yes, it is, sir.
18 Q. Is that correct that during the relevant time or the relevant
19 period I'm again talking of 2001 and 2002 when as far as you can testify
20 to that, you received information pertaining to the Ljuboten incident from
21 other state organs. Is that correct?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 Q. Can you recall in particular that on the 18th of November of 2001,
24 the then state prosecutor or public prosecutor Mr. Stavre Dzikov provided
25 you with information which the Macedonian authorities had collected in
1 relation to the events of Ljuboten. Can you recall that?
2 A. I don't remember the specifics, no, sir.
3 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness, please, be shown what is Rule 65
4 ter 1D626 this is under tab 8 of the binder, it has an ERN of 1D005-590.
5 Q. Before you dive into the document, Mr. Tucker, are you aware of
6 preliminary meetings taking place between your office, the Office of the
7 Prosecutor and the competent state organs of Macedonia in relation to the
8 events of Ljuboten taking place sometime in August of 2001?
9 A. Not directly no, sir. I am aware that they must have taken place
10 but I'm not aware of the specifics.
11 Q. Are you aware, perhaps, of a particular meeting between
12 Mr. Matti Raatikainen and the state prosecutor Mr. Dzikov late in August
13 of 2001?
14 A. No, sir.
15 MR. METTRAUX: With the assistance of the registry, if we can go
16 to page 4 of that document, that would be 1D00-5593.
17 Q. Mr. Tucker, this is tab 8 and this will be the fourth page of this
19 As you can see from the top of that document, this is a document
20 or a letter coming from the public prosecution office of the Republic of
21 Macedonia. This is dated November 18th, 2001. And it is directed to
22 Madam Carla Del Ponte, the Prosecutor General of the ICTY through the
23 office in Skopje, Mr. Szydlik. Is that correct?
24 A. Yes, sir, that is.
25 Q. And perhaps just to put the letter in its proper context.
1 Mr. Dzikov says the following: "Within the frame of the cooperation
2 between the international organisations and institutions, the public
3 prosecution office of the Republic of Macedonia and the public prosecutor
4 of the Republic of Macedonia in fight against organised crime have had a
5 number of contacts and meetings with the representatives of the
6 international organisations and institutions."
7 And then there are two other paragraphs. I would like to draw
8 also your attention to the last paragraph on that page. It says that: "On
9 June 26th 2001, in the premises of the public prosecutor of the Republic
10 of Macedonia, the public prosecutor met Mr. Andrzej Szydlik, an
11 operational officer of the ICTY in the Republic of Macedonia.
12 I'll stop here for a second, Mr. Tucker. Were you aware of that
13 particular meeting between Mr. Szydlik and Mr. Dzikov on the 26th of June,
15 A. No, sir.
16 Q. I'd ask you to turn now to the next page. It would be 5594. And
17 then Mr. Dzikov records another meeting between himself and
18 Mr. Raatikainen. It says: "On August 29, 2001, again in his office, the
19 public prosecutor of the Republic of Macedonia met Mr. Matti Raatikainen
20 an investigative team chief --"
21 Perhaps I will stop there for a minute. You can confirm that
22 Matti Raatikainen is one of your colleagues, is that correct? Or was one
23 of your colleague.
24 A. Yes, he was actually my supervisor. He was the investigative team
1 Q. I'm grateful. And the letter goes on to say this: "We have both
2 considered all possible ways of mutual cooperation having the aim of
3 efficient collection of evidences for criminal offenses committed against
4 humanity and the international law."
5 Can you see that?
6 A. Yes, sir, I can.
7 Q. It goes on to say: "So that we can indict offenders who have
8 committed or have ordered the committal of severe violences against the
9 1949 Geneva Conventions on the territory of the Republic of Macedonia in
10 the course of this year."
11 It goes on to say this: "Mr. Raatikainen informed that the
12 Tribunal started to interview several persons regarding the events in
13 Macedonia and the report on the interview has been already submitted.
14 "They have started, he said, to do researching and procedures to
15 officially conduct an investigation in the Republic of Macedonia for the
16 criminal offences under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal." Were you aware
17 of that particular meeting, Mr. Tucker?
18 A. I was not, no, sir.
19 Q. And were you privy to the content of that meeting?
20 A. No, sir.
21 Q. Then in the next paragraph it say this: "The deputy public
22 prosecutor Madam Maja Konevska has been assigned for your correct and
23 comprehensive informing. She is in charge for the direct contacts and
24 complete cooperation with the representatives of the ICTY's office in
25 Skopje to prosecute offenders who have committed offences prescribed in
1 the international law and coming under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.'?
2 And I think you have indicated already that you were not aware at
3 the time that Mr. Konevska [sic] had been assigned that role as a liaison
4 officer or was a contact person with the ICTY. Is that correct?
5 A. That's correct, sir.
6 Q. And in the next paragraph, Mr. Dzikov also indicates that he is
7 attaching information pertaining to the events of Ljuboten in the period
8 from August 10, 11, 12 to August the 14th. Is that correct?
9 A. Yes, sir, that's correct.
10 Q. We will go into this material in a moment, Mr. Tucker, but first I
11 would like to ask you about this meeting. Would you agree that the
12 meeting between Mr. Raatikainen, your former superior, and Mr. Dzikov was
13 intended to provide for means and ways of cooperations between the state
14 prosecutor and the Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal. Is that
16 A. Yes, sir, that's correct.
17 Q. And from that letter I can also see that at the time
18 Mr. Raatikainen had informed the state prosecutor that the Office of the
19 Prosecutor, your office, had started interviewing witnesses in relation to
20 incident occurring in the country. Is that correct?
21 A. That's correct, sir.
22 Q. And you also informed the local authorities through Mr. Dzikov
23 that the Prosecution had in fact started to do researching and procedure
24 to officially conduct an investigation in the Republic of Macedonia. Is
25 that correct?
1 A. Yes, sir, that's correct.
2 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honours, perhaps we will seek to tender this
3 document at this stage. We will come back to it on a number of occasion
4 but that may be simpler, perhaps, to tender it at this stage.
5 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
6 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D198, Your Honours.
8 MR. METTRAUX:
9 Q. Mr. Tucker, were you aware of the fact that this particular
10 meeting of the 29th of August of 2001 between Mr. Dzikov and
11 Mr. Raatikainen had been publicised in Macedonia. Were you aware of that
13 A. No, sir, I was not.
14 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown Rule 65 ter
15 1D623. It has an ERN of 1D00-5579, 5578 in Macedonian.
16 And, Mr. Tucker, it should be under tab 7A, like Alan, in your
17 binder. And you see this is, again, a document coming from the office of
18 the public prosecutor of Macedonia. It is dated the 31st of August of
19 2001. It is directed to the public media with a title of announcement.
20 And if you focus on the first paragraph it says that on 29 August of 2001,
21 the Macedonian public prosecutor, Mr. Stavre Dzikov had a work meeting
22 with Mr. Matti Raatikainen, leader of the ICTY investigation team.
23 Can you see that?
24 A. Yes, sir, I can see that.
25 Q. And if I can ask you to go to the second paragraph of that
1 document. It says that Mr. Raatikainen informed that: "Since March this
2 year, ICTY had started to monitor the events in the Republic of Macedonia
3 and that a month ago a few persons were interviewed in and a report was
4 sent to the ICTY. Thus, an investigation had commenced and the procedure
5 was open for the beginning of an official process of investigation in the
6 Republic of Macedonia into committed crimes which are in the jurisdiction
7 of the international Tribunal."
8 Can you see that?
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I would seek to tender this document.
11 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
12 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D199, Your Honours.
13 MR. METTRAUX:
14 Q. Mr. Tucker, you have already indicated to me that you couldn't
15 remember the exact date, I believe, of Madam Del Ponte's visit to the
16 Republic of Macedonia. Can you agree, however, that Madam Del Ponte
17 visited the area towards the end of November of 2001, together with a
18 group of members of the Office of the Prosecutor. Is that correct?
19 A. I'm sure the events would be well publicised, but I can't comment
20 on the actual timing of the event, sir.
21 Q. But you can confirm and perhaps I will show you again the document
22 which is under tab 8 of your binder which is now Exhibit 1D198. You can
23 agree, Mr. Tucker, that during that visit and the document records it on
24 the 20th of November of 2001, the Prosecutor was provided with a set of
25 documents by the Macedonian authorities. Is that correct?
1 A. Which document is this, sir?
2 Q. This would be tab number 8 in your binder, Mr. Tucker.
3 A. Yes, sir.
4 Q. And if we can turn to the second page of this document, please.
5 Can you agree that under number 7 of this document there's a
6 reference to information regarding the events in the vicinity of the
7 Skopje village of Ljuboten. Is that correct?
8 A. Yes, sir, that's correct.
9 Q. And we will come back later to this document but simply for your
10 assistance, if we can turn to page 1D00-5615 of this document. You would
11 agree, sir, that this appears to be a document from the public prosecution
12 office of the Republic of Macedonia, dated the 18th of November of 2001
13 and it concerns the events that happened in the area of the village
14 Ljuboten, Skopje, in the period August 10, 11, 12, and 14th, 2001. Do you
16 A. Yes, sir, I agree.
17 Q. We can put that document aside for a moment. We will come back to
18 it in a moment.
19 Is that correct that in 2002 and in the years that followed, the
20 Office of the Prosecutor solicited material and information from the
21 Macedonian authorities which pertained among other things to the Ljuboten
22 events. Is that correct?
23 A. I am aware that that is so, although I wasn't directly involved
24 with that investigation at that time.
25 Q. And from a formal point of view, would you agree that many of
1 those questions are made in the form of request for assistance, RFA, of
2 the same sort that we have seen a bit earlier?
3 A. Yes, sir, that's correct.
4 Q. And although that may be an obvious question for you, Mr. Tucker,
5 would you agree that those RFAs are being sent by the Prosecution to the
6 authorities which the Prosecution understand to be able to provide them
7 with the material mentioned in these RFAs. Is that correct?
8 A. That's correct, sir. There is a set protocol for the submission
9 of RFAs to member countries.
10 Q. And are you able to confirm the proposition that in the period
11 between the 12th of August of 2001 and the month of May of 2002, the
12 Office of the Prosecution only sent one particular RFA to the Macedonian
13 authority. Is that correct, or is that something you have within your
15 A. It's not something I can comment on, sir. I don't know.
16 Q. Well, perhaps I will assist by pointing to a particular document
17 which is under tab 12 of your binder, Mr. Tucker. It is Rule 65 ter
18 1D669, 1D00-5925.
19 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, this is a document that was provided
20 to us by the Office of the Prosecutor upon our request earlier this year.
21 This is a document that records the RFAs sent to the government of the
22 Republic of Macedonia covering the period August 2001 to January 2007, as
23 can be seen from the top of the page. I believe that this would be the
24 third page in the version that is on e-court.
25 Q. And if you look at the table, Mr. Tucker, are you able to confirm
1 that the first entry in that particular document is dated the 30th of
2 January of 2002, and follows an RFA number INV/T/9141/AC/TL/MR-T 07-TL 12.
3 Can you see that?
4 A. Yes, sir, I can see that.
5 Q. And will you agree at least from on the basis of that document and
6 the information provided to us by the Office of the Prosecution that this
7 was the first document or the first request for information sent by the
8 Office of the Prosecution to the Macedonian authorities since August of
10 A. Yes, sir, I can.
11 Q. I will ask you, sir, now to turn to tab 30 -- 13, I apologise,
12 1-3 --
13 A. 1-3.
14 Q. -- of this binder. As you can see this is a letter which has a
15 format slightly different from the previous document that was shown to you
16 in the more formalised form of an RFA, but I hope that you can confirm
17 that this is a letter sent to the multi-lateral organisation section of
18 the ministry of foreign affairs of the Republic of Macedonia; that is
19 dated the 30th of January of 2002; and that it is signed, again, by
20 Mr. Andrew Cayley, STA for the Office of the Prosecutor. Is that correct?
21 A. Yes, sir, that's correct.
22 Q. And if you look, perhaps, on the first page on the top left-hand
23 corner of that document you will agree, I hope, that the number of that
24 document is the same as the one that I showed you in the previous document
25 in the table that was provided to us by the Prosecution. Is that correct?
1 A. Yes, sir, that's correct.
2 Q. And if I may ask you to turn to the next document in your binder
3 that would be Rule 65 ter 1D655. It has an ERN 1D00-5876. And I will ask
4 you that, is that correct or is that within your knowledge that because
5 you had not received a formal or complete response from the authorities
6 from the ministry of foreign affairs, at that time you sent a second
7 request or a reminder, I should say, in relation to the document that
8 we've seen a bit earlier and that this reminder is the document that you
9 have now in front of you. Can you agree with that?
10 A. This is tab 13A, sir?
11 Q. That's correct.
12 A. Yes, I can.
13 Q. And if you look at the date of the document that is the 5th of
14 August of 2002, it is again coming from Mr. Cayley, STA of the Office of
15 the Prosecution, and it is sent again to the ministry of foreign affairs
16 of the Republic of Macedonia. Is that correct?
17 A. Yes, sir, that's correct.
18 Q. And in the first paragraph of the document, Mr. Cayley's referring
19 again to the same number, the reference number of the previous RFA. Is
20 that correct?
21 A. Yes, that is.
22 Q. And in the second paragraph he says: "We note that no response has
23 been received to date; therefore, we kindly ask you to provide us with a
24 reply by 30th of September 2003, and to quote our reference."
25 Is that correct?
1 A. That's correct, sir, yes.
2 Q. Mr. Tucker, did you ever found out or did you every take an
3 interest in finding out --
4 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
5 MR. SAXON: Again, my apologise for interrupting. Just perhaps a
6 comment or a suggestion. Perhaps just so that the transcript in months
7 ahead will be clear, perhaps my colleague could formulate his questions to
8 the witness when he is asking -- when he uses the word "you" in a question
9 a few minutes ago, I think my colleague is referring to the Office of the
10 Prosecutor. And I'm just wondering whether the record may be clearer in
11 the future if my colleague could use the term of the OTP or the Office of
12 the Prosecutor in that context. That's all.
13 MR. METTRAUX: Mr. Saxon is probably quite right, Your Honour. I
14 believe the "you's" in most cases had to do with the Office of the
15 Prosecutor. I will specify when the question refers particularly to
16 yourself, Mr. Tucker.
17 A. Thank you, sir.
18 Q. If you can look at the documents on the -- well, let me ask the
19 question again. Did you ever find out or did information ever come in
20 your possession as to the reason why the ministry of foreign affairs of
21 the Republic of Macedonia had been unable to provide you with the
22 information that had been sought by Mr. Cayley?
23 A. Unfortunately, sir, I can't answer that. My involvement I
24 mentioned earlier was only from November 2001 until April/May of 2003 --
25 2002. And purely on the basis of monitoring the exhumation process.
1 Q. Well, in that case I will show you the next document at this
2 stage, which is under tab 13B of your binder. It is Rule 65 ter 1D656.
3 And it has an ERN of 1D00-5877.
4 Are you aware of the fact, sir, that when the ministry of foreign
5 affairs appeared to be unable to provide the material sought by the Office
6 of the Prosecutor, you directed a request to Mr. Dzikov, the state
7 prosecutor. Are you aware of that?
8 A. I'm not aware of it, sir, but that wouldn't be unusual.
9 Q. And if I can ask you to look at the document now in front of you.
10 You will see it is -- or I will ask you to confirm that, again, this is
11 entitled a second reminder RFA 12. That is dated the 14th of October of
12 2002. That it is signed by Patrick Lopez-Terres, chief of investigations
13 and that it is directed Mr. Stavre Dzikov, prosecutor general of
14 Macedonia. Is that correct?
15 A. Yes, sir, that is correct.
16 Q. And if you look at the first paragraph of this document, it again
17 refers to the same RFA. Is that correct?
18 A. Yes, sir.
19 Q. And the letter of Mr. Lopez-Terres says that: "We note that no
20 response has been received to date; therefore, we ask you to provide a
21 rely no later than 30 October 2002, and to quote our reference."
22 Is that correct?
23 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters would kindly request Defence
24 counsel to speak a little bit slower. Thank you.
25 MR. METTRAUX: I apologise, Mr. Tucker. The record hasn't picked
1 up your answer.
2 A. Yes, it is, sir.
3 Q. I'm grateful. Are aware of the fact that when asked about this,
4 the state prosecutor Mr. Dzikov informed the Office of the Prosecution
5 that they had looked carefully for the material requested, that they had
6 provided you with the material that they had already received or been able
7 to locate and that they continued looking for this material. Are you
8 aware of this?
9 A. No, sir, I was not.
10 Q. Could the witness please be shown what is -- that not be the
12 Mr. Tucker, I will come back to that in the -- after the break.
13 Is it correct that after you have sent a request for information
14 to the Macedonian authorities or for that matter to any state authorities,
15 it is not your responsibility, and by that I mean the Office of the
16 Prosecutor, to figure out or to investigate where, in effect, the
17 information will be coming from within the state institutions?
18 A. I think as a general rule is that correct, yes, sir.
19 Q. And in other words although some material may say come back from
20 the ministry of foreign affairs, the material in question might have been
21 obtained or might have been generated by another organ or institution of
22 the state. Is that correct?
23 A. Yes, sir, that's correct.
24 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I am mindful of the time and I wonder
25 whether that is the proper time for a break.
1 JUDGE PARKER: I think we can accommodate your hope, Mr. Mettraux.
2 It's a little early, but --
3 MR. METTRAUX: That would allow me to locate the document in
4 question, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. We will be able, then, to have a break
6 now, resuming at ten minutes to 1.00.
7 --- Recess taken at 12.15 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 12.51 p.m.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
10 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honours. The reason for the
11 mysterious disappearance of the previous document has been established,
12 Your Honour. We had sought not to scare the Chamber by distributing only
13 one binder today to Your Honours. The document is in a second binder
14 which we will provide to you tomorrow. However, we have identified the
15 number of the document and it is an exhibit already. It is Exhibit 1D75.
16 Q. And, Mr. Tucker, we'll walk backward a little bit into the
18 I apologise, I'll ask you for this particular document to look at
19 it on the screen. As can you see from the top left-hand corner this is
20 again a document that comes from the public prosecution of the Republic of
21 Macedonia. It is dated the 14th of August of 2002. It is addressed to
22 Madam Carla Del Ponte, ICTY OTP and the subject is response to the request
23 for information submitted by the Prosecutor of the ICTY.
24 You will recall a moment ago before the break asked you if you
25 could recall a response by the state prosecutor, Mr. Dzikov to your
1 request and I mean the requests of the Office of the Prosecutor for
2 particular information. And I was asking more specifically whether you
3 could recall a response by Mr. Dzikov to the effect that they had looked
4 for the material in question carefully, that they had identified and
5 provided some of it and that they continued to look for it. Do you recall
7 A. I do, sir, yes.
8 Q. And if I can ask the registry to go to the fourth page of that
9 particular document. This would be N000-9915. It is page 4. This would
10 be a few pages down the line, please.
11 Thank you. That is the right page. Mr. Tucker, I will ask to you
12 look at the last paragraph on this page and perhaps it could be expanded a
13 bit for you to be able to read it. This is the paragraph starting with
14 the words: "In relation to the repeated request."
15 And perhaps before I start reading this paragraph for the
16 transcript, Mr. Tucker, can you recall now that one of the documents that
17 I had shown to you a reminder, RFA reminder was dated the 5th of August of
18 2002. Do you recall that?
19 A. Yes, sir, I do.
20 Q. And for the transcript I will read the response of Mr. Dzikov. He
21 says this: "In relation to the repeated request, dated 5 August 2002,
22 with reference number NSK-630-02 of the prosecutor of the International
23 Tribunal, in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence
24 of the International Tribunal, to forward to the international Court all
25 relevant information in relation to the investigations and criminal
1 proceedings related to the above-mentioned cases and all relevant
2 investigation and other official files of the authorities of the Republic
3 of Macedonia, including all relevant court records, the public prosecutor
4 of the Republic of Macedonia informs you that up to date most correctly
5 and most conscientiously has forwarded all relevant information in his
6 possession to the Prosecutor of the International Tribunal. Including
7 concrete material written evidence and, at the same time, the interest is
8 existing to continue forwarding all relevant information."
9 Can you see that?
10 A. I can, sir, yes.
11 Q. And then he says: "With regard to the relevant court records, you
12 should address the court which was most conscientiously cooperating until
13 now having in mind the position of the court in the Republic of
15 Can you see that?
16 A. Yes, sir, I can.
17 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I'd seek to not tender this document,
18 since it is already admitted.
19 Q. Mr. Tucker, you have indicated earlier in response to my question
20 that it wasn't your responsibility, the responsibility of your office to
21 look into the internal functioning of a particular state or government and
22 that this was essentially for the authorities to figure out. Do you
23 recall telling me that?
24 A. Yes, sir, I do.
25 Q. And in relation in particular to the Ljuboten or Neprosteno matter
1 for that matter, if material was received by the Prosecution from, say,
2 the ministry of foreign affairs, you would have no indication or no reason
3 to believe that the material could not have come in fact from another
4 institution; that is, that the ministry of foreign affairs obtained it
5 from another organ of the state. Is that correct?
6 A. Yes, that I believe to be true.
7 Q. And in this particular case, it could well be the case that some
8 of the information provided to you by the Macedonian authorities had come
9 from the Ministry of the Interior of Macedonia. Is that correct?
10 A. That is possible, yes, sir.
11 Q. And it is also possible that some of the material which was
12 eventually sent to the Office of the Prosecutor by the Macedonian
13 authorities had been provided by Mr. Boskoski as minister of the interior
14 directly. Is that correct?
15 A. I don't know -- I don't know if that is true. I guess it is
17 MR. SAXON: Your Honours.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
19 MR. SAXON: My objection is -- is the following. Virtually
20 anything is possible, Your Honours, and I think perhaps the question,
21 perhaps to make it helpful to the Trial Chamber should be rephrased
22 perhaps -- should, was it likely, was it probable because quite frankly
23 anything in this world is possible, although there are many, many, many
24 things that are very unlikely.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Even that the evidence in this case will finish
1 next week, Mr. Saxon.
2 MR. SAXON: That would also be unlikely, Your Honour. Possible.
3 MR. METTRAUX: I think I rely on the Court's rules of likelihood
4 rather than Mr. Saxon. But I will put the question, perhaps, more
5 squarely to yourself, Mr. Tucker, and in doing that, I will ask the
6 registry to show to Mr. Tucker which is already Exhibit P402. It has an
7 ERN N000-9704-ET-01.
8 We believe the Macedonian version would start at page 98 and 99.
9 Q. Mr. Tucker, this would be under tab 14, 1-4, of your binder.
10 A. Okay.
11 Q. This is a translation of an expert or excerpt or a chapter of the
12 book written by Mr. Boskoski. It has been provided to us by the
14 If you look at the first page of that particular excerpt,
15 Mr. Tucker, you will see that Mr. Boskoski in his book mentioned that in
16 the year of 2001 and 2002, he had intensive meetings and then follows a
17 list of particular individuals, internationals, and your name appears in
18 this list. Can you see that?
19 A. Yes, I do, sir.
20 Q. And I suppose that you can recall having met with our client on
21 quite a number of occasions. Is that correct?
22 A. I certainly can for the 2001. I can't recall anything in 2002.
23 Q. And do you recall approximately how many times you met with
24 Mr. Boskoski at the time?
25 A. I would imagine maybe half a dozen times at various meetings,
1 maybe more.
2 Q. And some of those meetings, you will agree, had to do with the
3 issue of the Ljuboten investigation. Is that correct?
4 A. I actually can't remember any discussions about Ljuboten. My
5 recollections are in connection with Neprosteno.
6 Q. I will come back to that in a moment.
7 MR. METTRAUX: But if I may ask the registry to turn to the second
8 page of that particular document.
9 Q. And I will ask to you do the same, Mr. Tucker, the next page of
10 this particular document. And if I may draw your attention on the first
11 full paragraph of this book and I will read it for the transcript. It
12 says this: "On one occasion I was thanked for the good collaboration and
13 abundant material which we had delivered to The Hague Tribunal. My
14 interlocutor emphasised that he knew Macedonia was going through very
15 difficult times and that The Hague Tribunal had not opened any proceedings
16 at all. But in terms of human rights violations, he added, one of the
17 ambiguous cases in Ljuboten would need to be investigated. I replied
18 that the Macedonian authorities stood at the Tribunal disposal and would
19 provide all the facts available to help clarify this case which certain
20 individuals were exploiting with the aim of having me directly indicted."
21 Can you see that?
22 A. Yes, sir, I do.
23 Q. And you would agree that at least from this passage of
24 Mr. Boskoski's book, it would suggest that material had been provided by
25 his ministry to The Hague Tribunal with his knowledge and possibly, since
1 we are in the realm of possibilities, with his approval. Is that correct?
2 A. According to this paragraph, yes, sir.
3 Q. I'm grateful.
4 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, this document is already in evidence.
5 Q. Is that also correct, Mr. Tucker, that immediately after the
6 events in Ljuboten your office had obtained information from various
7 sources as to what had happened in the village?
8 A. I beg your pardon, this is after the exhumation, sir?
9 Q. No, before, I'm sorry. I will put the question again to you.
10 Is that correct that within days of the incident in Ljuboten which
11 happened between the 10th, 12th of August of 2001, your office obtained
12 information pertaining to that particular incident. Are you aware of that?
13 A. I'm not aware of that, no, sir.
14 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown Rule 65 ter 129.
15 It has an ERN N000-9235 in the English, and it is N000-9235, MF, in the
17 Q. And it is under tab 15, 1-5, of your binder.
18 If I can ask you, perhaps, by starting at the very bottom of that
19 document, you will see it is a so-called morning press summaries. And if
20 you look at the footer of that document you will see that it is-- it says
21 it has been prepared by ICTY Skopje TOB. Can you assist us, what does TOB
23 A. I'm trying to find that on the document, sir. The -- under the
24 title residents flee from Ljuboten?
25 Q. That's correct, Mr. Tucker, yes. If you look at the footer down
1 it says: "Prepared by ICTY Skopje TOB." Do you know what "TOB" stands
3 A. No, I don't, sir.
4 Q. In any case, the date of that particular document is Wednesday,
5 the 15th of August of 2001. Is that correct?
6 A. That's the date, yes, sir.
7 Q. And if I ask to you perhaps look or scan through briefly this
8 particular section of the document which you identified under the title
9 residents flee from Ljuboten 'Sunday's' victims buried, you will agree
10 that this document contains information - true or false - about what is
11 said to have happened in the village of Ljuboten during that weekend. Is
12 that correct?
13 A. Yes, sir, that's correct.
14 Q. And from the footer of that document, again, I suppose you will
15 agree that this information would have been in your possession at the
16 latest on 15th of August, 2001. Is that right?
17 A. I can't authenticate the documents, so I'm not sure how I can
18 possibly say that.
19 Q. But you would agree that this is -- the footer of that document
20 suggests that this indeed was the case?
21 A. It does, sir, yes.
22 Q. If I can ask you it turn to tab 16 of your binder, and if I may
23 ask the registry to bring up what is Exhibit 238. P238.
24 Are you aware, sir, that within a few days, again I'm talking of
25 the 10th to the 12th and following days of August of 2001, your office
1 came in possession of information pertaining to the events of Ljuboten
2 through the OSCE, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
3 Are you aware of that?
4 A. Yes, I became aware of that in 2002, early 2002.
5 Q. Are you also capable of confirming that this particular
6 information which you have in front of you, which is a spot report
7 pertaining to this incident, was provided to your office no later than the
8 20th of August of 2001?
9 A. I don't know when it was delivered, but I am aware of the contents
10 of this report.
11 Q. Perhaps I will ask you to look at the very top of that document
12 once against, Mr. Tucker. It has, again, a fax line which indicates that
13 the document came from UN ICTY. It has again the same telephone number as
14 the previous document and the date, 20 August 2001 at 1429. Do you agree
15 with that?
16 A. Yes, sir, I do.
17 Q. And, perhaps, I should have asked you that. Are you familiar with
18 this particular document?
19 A. I think the -- I'd be safer to say the contents of the document
20 rather than the document itself, sir.
21 Q. Are you aware that the content of this document suggests that five
22 men in civilian clothes were found dead in the village of Ljuboten during
23 that weekend. Are you aware of that?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. Is that also correct, Mr. Tucker, that no later than the 21st of
1 September of 2001, your office, the ICTY OTP, had received a report from
2 Human Rights Watch pertaining to the event of Ljuboten. Is that correct?
3 A. I'm not aware of that, sir.
4 Q. In that case, I will just ask you to turn to the next tab in your
5 binder that. Is tab 17, 1-7.
6 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, this is it Exhibit P352, it's already
7 been admitted through Mr. Bouckaert.
8 Q. Mr. Tucker, this is the cover letter of the report written and
9 prepared by Human Rights Watch concerning the events of Ljuboten. And as
10 can you see from the cover page, the report itself was sent to
11 Mr. Morton Bergsmore [phoen] Of the legal officer in the OTP. The letter
12 is date 6 of September of 2001, and if I can ask you to look at the bottom
13 right of the document there is stamp saying ICTY investigations, 21st
14 September, 2001. Can you see that?
15 A. Yes, sir, I can.
16 Q. And that would suggest, wouldn't it, that this particular document
17 was received no later than 21st September, 2001 by the OTP. Is that
19 A. That's correct. I can confirm the stamp, yes.
20 Q. Is that also correct or are you familiar perhaps with the
21 contents, perhaps, of the Human Rights Watch report in relation to the
22 events of Ljuboten?
23 A. Yes, sir, I am.
24 Q. And are you aware of the fact that allegations are being made in
25 the report that a massacre took place in Ljuboten and that individuals who
1 committed crimes in that village had been under the authority of
2 Mr. Boskoski at that time, are you aware of that?
3 A. Yes, sir, I am.
4 Q. We have discussed a number of contact which you had with the
5 Macedonian authorities concerning, generally, the Ljuboten and Neprosteno
6 investigations. Is that also correct that you sought assistance or
7 cooperation from the Macedonian authorities in relation to the exhumation
8 process at Ljuboten. Is that correct?
9 A. Yes, sir. We sought the cooperation of the Macedonian
11 Q. And the Macedonian authorities agreed to provide you this
12 assistance. Is that correct?
13 A. They agreed to undertake the -- the exhumation process.
14 Q. But you, the Office of the Prosecutor, or representative of that
15 office also made it clear to the authorities at the time that their
16 assistance to allow you to enter into the village was critical for your
17 own investigation. Is that correct?
18 A. That's not to my knowledge, no, sir.
19 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown what is under tab
21 Q. Mr. Tucker, this is Exhibit 1D35. This is, again, an
22 investigator's note and I will simply ask you to turn to the third page to
23 confirm again that it has been prepared by you.
24 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, this is tab 27.
25 Q. Mr. Tucker, can you confirm that this particular investigator's
1 notes has, again, been prepared by you?
2 A. Yes, I can, sir.
3 Q. And if we can go back to the first page, we will see again that
4 the purpose is similar to the purpose of the other such meeting which we
5 have already gone through. It is a meeting arranged by Mr. Szydlik,
6 operation officer of the ICTY for the visit of Mr. Dennis Milner, deputy
7 chief of investigations. It again took place on the 27th of November of
8 2001 at 9.45 in the office of the OSCE in Skopje. And in attendance were
9 Sandra Mitchell, senior member of the OSCE, Mr. Palmer and Canavan again
10 from the OSCE, Mr. Milner, Mr. Szydlik and yourself. Is that correct?
11 A. That's correct, yes, sir.
12 Q. And if we may turn to the second page of that document, please.
13 And I will ask you, Mr. Tucker, to focus on the last paragraph of that
14 document which starts with the words: "DM stated that MR."
15 MR. METTRAUX: For the record, Your Honour, DM would be Mr. Dennis
16 Milner, deputy chief of investigations and Mr. MR is Mr. Tucker's former
17 superior, Mr. Raatikainen who the documents indicate was not present but
18 mention during the meeting.
19 Q. Mr. Tucker, the passage in question says the following: "Denis
20 Milner stated that Matti Raatikainen had basic details in The Hague for
21 both investigations: Neprosteno and Ljuboten. He felt that it was
22 important for the ICTY and OSCE to continue the liaison over these issues.
23 It was vital to ICTY investigators obtain access to these areas to conduct
24 their investigations. Personal introductions by OSCE would be very
1 Can you see that?
2 A. Yes, sir, I can.
3 Q. And the point that was being made by Mr. Milner in this particular
4 instance, wasn't it, was that the Office of the Prosecutor sought to have
5 access to the village to conduct its own investigation. Is that correct?
6 A. To that village and other areas, yes, sir.
7 Q. Is that correct, also, that the --
8 MR. METTRAUX: Well, Your Honour, perhaps before I move on could
9 we mark this document -- it is an exhibit, I am sorry. I apologise,
10 Mr. Tucker.
11 Q. Is that correct that the Macedonian authorities at the time and,
12 I'm again talking of the year 2001 and 2002, made allowance for you to
13 participate as fully as you wished into the collection of information and
14 investigation conducted by the competent Macedonian authorities?
15 A. Sorry, sir, could you repeat the question.
16 Q. In the year 2001 and 2002, is it correct that the competent
17 Macedonian authorities made allowance for the Office of the Prosecutor to
18 be able to participate in whatever aspect of the investigation they wished
19 to be involved in. Is that correct? Or is that something that you are
20 aware of?
21 A. I'm not aware of it in that context, no, sir.
22 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown once again what
23 is Exhibit P391. This again, Your Honours, is the Prosecution request for
24 deferral of cases dated 5th of September, 2002.
25 And it is under tab 24, Mr. Tucker, of your binder.
1 And I will ask the registry to move to page N000-9883-51.
2 Mr. Tucker, this is one of the documents which the Office of the
3 Prosecutor attached to its application for the deferral of a number of
4 cases to the jurisdiction of the ICTY and this particular document is to
5 be found in annex H, yes, annex H of the document. This is a summary
6 provided by the domestic authorities about each and every case which you
7 had sought deferral for.
8 This would be page N000-9883-51, Mr. Tucker. That would be, I
9 believe, page 61 on the top right-hand corner, if it is easier for your
11 A. Thank you.
12 Q. The particular page, Mr. Tucker, should say case V in Roman, case
14 A. Forgive me, sir. I'm going by the reference number at the top
15 right-hand of the page.
16 Q. Yes. And it goes in reverse order, Mr. Tucker, so if you go
17 forward, this would be number 61.
18 A. Thank you, sir. I've got it now.
19 Q. If I can ask you to focus on this case IV, case Ljuboten, you will
20 see there's a summary of some of the steps taken by the Macedonian
21 authority in relation to the case of Ljuboten. And it starts by saying
22 that: "On September 10th, principle public prosecutor office Skopje
23 addressed to the investigative judge from the principle Court Skopje with
24 request for initiation of an investigation proposing the security measures
25 concerning the events happened in locality called Ljubotenski Bacila."
1 And then there is a description of this particular event and I
2 would like to bring you're attention to a sentence that starts with the
3 phrase: "On August 14, 2001 at 1255 hours, the Ministry of Interior
4 informed deputy public prosecutor and the investigative judge that there
5 are five dead bodies in the village Ljuboten."
6 Can you see that?
7 A. Yes, sir, I can.
8 Q. And it goes on to say: "The ministry immediately informed an
9 expert team composed of the magistrate judge of the principle Court Skopje
10 II, Skopje, principle public prosecutor and experts from the Ministry of
11 Interior to examine the site."
12 Can you see that?
13 A. Yes, sir, I can.
14 Q. It goes on to say: "Besides the continuous monitoring activities
15 of the security situation in the village by the Ministry of the Interior,
16 the expert team did not succeed to examine the site. There were constant
17 shootings and movement of uniformed armed terrorist groups, so the expert
18 teams did not ever reach the site nor have carry out their legal
19 authorisations out of security reasons to examine the site where five
20 people, terrorists, members of the so-called NLA were killed."
21 Can you see that?
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. And it goes to say: "After this, the Ministry of Interior has
24 informed them that the local villagers already buried the bodies but not
25 on the local village graveyard."
1 And then there's a passage that I don't need to read for the
2 transcript. But the last paragraph on this page starts with the word:
3 "After this, in procedure was included a team of Prosecutor from the
4 International Criminal Court that was done to allow to the Prosecutor of
5 ICTY, Ms. Carla Del Ponte to carry out her own parallel investigation and
6 help according to Article 18 from the statute and Rule 8 from the Rules of
7 Procedure and Evidence."
8 Can you see that?
9 A. Yes, sir, I can.
10 Q. And at the time, sir, were you aware that this had been done by
11 the Macedonian authorities?
12 A. At the time, are we talking the 5th of September, 2002?
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. No. I had no involvement in the investigation at that time, sir.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
16 MR. SAXON: Sorry for the interruption. I see at page 87 of the
17 transcript line 18, the last word of that line should be "parallel", not
18 the word that is there currently. Thank you.
19 MR. METTRAUX: Mr. Saxon is quite right. We don't know the place
20 of Bilovac, but it could in fact -- it should in fact be, "her own
21 parallel investigation." I'm grateful to Mr. Saxon.
22 Q. Is that correct, Mr. Tucker, that the Macedonian authorities had
23 insisted to obtain your assistance with the exhumation process in
25 A. I'm not aware of that. I was directed to go there to act as
1 monitor by the Prosecutor, our Prosecutor, I should say.
2 Q. Are you aware of the fact that the Macedonian authorities had
3 given indication or made submissions to your colleagues that the
4 involvement of the ICTY was perceived as being necessary to enable them to
5 carry out this exhumation?
6 A. I wasn't at the time that I -- that I went to the exhumations but
7 that was made perfectly clear to me by the parties when I arrived in
8 Macedonia for both exhumations.
9 Q. And is that correct that you subjected your agreement or your
10 approval to participate to a number of conditions. Is that correct?
11 A. I'm not sure.
12 MR. SAXON: Your Honours. Again, can it be clarified who "you"
14 MR. METTRAUX:
15 Q. Mr. Tucker, I'm not suggesting you, personally, decided on the
16 conditions that should be set to the involvement of your office but would
17 it be correct to suggest that the Office of the Prosecutor as an organ of
18 this Tribunal set a number of conditions and put a number of requirements
19 to its approval to participate in the exhumation in Ljuboten. Are you
20 aware of that?
21 A. I'm aware of an agreement that took -- that was arrived at whereby
22 the participation of the ICTY would be -- would be undertaken, yes. I'm
23 not sure if I would class them as conditions. The situation as it was in
24 Macedonia dictated very careful planning and agreement between the
1 Q. Well, perhaps assist you in a minute with those particular
2 conditions or requirements set by the Office of the Prosecution. But you
3 would agree, I suppose, that had those conditions been unacceptable to the
4 Macedonian authorities, the Office of the Prosecutor would have declined
5 to participate in this operation. Is that correct?
6 A. I don't believe that to be the case at all, sir. I think if there
7 had been any objections by Macedonian authorities to any of the conditions
8 of the agreement, then we would have negotiated until such a time as we
9 found agreement to proceed.
10 Q. Is that correct, then, that all of the conditions and requirements
11 set by the Office of the Prosecutor in relation to its involvement were
12 all accepted by the Macedonian authorities?
13 A. Yes. They agreed in full, to my recollection.
14 Q. And perhaps I will ask you to look at a document under tab 18,
15 1-8, of your binder. This is already an Exhibit, Your Honour. This is
17 Mr. Tucker, do you recall that the first time those conditions
18 were put forth by your office was during a meeting on the 30th of January,
19 2002 with representative of the Macedonian states and other
20 internationals? Do you recall that?
21 A. I don't remember the first time or the date sir, but it was --
22 it's certainly early in 2002.
23 Q. Well, if I can ask to you look at first, perhaps, the top of this
24 document and for your assistance, Mr. Tucker, this is a document provided
25 to us by your office, the Office of the Prosecutor and it is a NATO
1 declassified or unclassified document.
2 And on the top left-hand corner it says that it concern Ljuboten
3 case, ICTY investigation. Can you see that?
4 A. Yes, sir, I can.
5 Q. And it is dated the 30th of January of 2002 and it refers to a
6 meeting for the Ljuboten case. Can you see that?
7 A. Yes, sir, I can.
8 Q. And if I can draw your attention to the first paragraph of this
9 document it says that: "On January 30th of 2002, EUMM attended a meeting
10 at the public prosecution department regarding events in Ljuboten on 10/12
11 August 2001. Among those present were deputy public prosecutor
12 Dragan Cakic, Professor Aleksej Duma of the department of forensic
13 medicine, the president of the appellant court, Ms. Filimena Manevska,
14 your colleague Mr. Andrzej Sydzlik of the ICTY, Ambassador Klaus Voellers
15 of NATO, EUMM and OSCE represented the international community." Can you
16 see that?
17 A. Yes, sir, I can.
18 Q. And it says that the prosecutor Mr. Stavre Dzikov chaired the
19 meeting. Is that correct?
20 A. That is, sir, yes.
21 Q. If I can ask to you look at the last paragraph on that document on
22 the bottom of the page, Mr. Tucker, the one starting with the word: The
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. The document say this: "The ICTY presented a number of conditions
1 regarding a possible exhumation in Ljuboten. There should be no uniformed
2 police present at the exhumation site, and no special forces. Security
3 should be provided by NATO in the presence of OSCE and EUMM. Maximum two
4 bodies should be removed from the site at one time, to be taken to Skopje
5 for examination, and then returned to the site before any more bodies were
6 taken to Skopje. The 'Macedonian' presence at the scene should be limited
7 to what would be essential to the investigation. The ICTY should be
8 provided with copies of all relevant documentation, and if relatives of
9 those buried (comment, the identity of the deceased are apparently known)
10 want to be present at the exhumation site, this should be permitted."
11 And if I can ask you to turn the page, Mr. Tucker. "The ICTY
12 requested a written commitment from the authorities to act in compliance
13 with these demands at the request of Mr. Dzikov, Mr. Szydlik promised to
14 present the demands in writing to the authorities. A working meeting
15 between the ICTY and the local authorities, with fewer participants, is
16 envisaged in the near future."
17 As you pointed out, Mr. Tucker, a -- sometime later in fact on the
18 20th of February of 2002, the agreement that had been reached between
19 Mr. Dzikov and the state prosecutor between yourself, the Office of the
20 Prosecutor, and Mr. Dzikov, the state prosecutor, the Office of the
21 Prosecutor put its conditions or demands in writing to the local
22 authorities. Is that correct?
23 A. I have a couple of comments, if I may. The extract that you're
24 referring to was a document that was not prepared by the ICTY; it was
25 prepared by EUMM and the phraseology within it is theirs, not ours.
1 Q. But you would agree that this would reflect the understanding of
2 those present at the meeting that you were setting conditions and
3 demands. Is that correct?
4 A. Up to a point. But not exactly, I'm not being awkward, but there
5 was a lot of discussion between ourselves and the Macedonian authorities
6 on how to facilitate this operation to take place. The Macedonian
7 authorities could not go into the area, in fact I think if I remember
8 rightly they refused to go into the area to try to facilitate this
9 operation and we, and particularly me, had to act as a go-between with the
10 villagers and the relatives of the deceased and the family of Ljuboten.
11 So that is a bit of a background to this particular conditions, as you put
13 Q. We will go into the issue of the entry into the village in some
14 time, Mr. Tucker. But I should ask you this, were you present at this
15 particular meeting?
16 A. No, sir, I wasn't.
17 Q. So you are not able to say whether the terms, conditions or
18 demands, as they are put down there would fairly represent what was being
19 said during that meeting. Is that correct?
20 A. That's correct, sir.
21 Q. And if I can ask you turn to tab 19 of your binder, which is
22 already an exhibit as 1D191. Mr. Tucker, this is, I believe, the document
23 which you refer to a moment ago which is a letter of agreement sent by
24 Mr. Patrick Lopez-Terres chief of investigations of the Office of the
25 Prosecutor and it is being sent on the 20th of February of 2002, to
1 Mr. Stavre Dzikov, prosecutor general, Skopje. Do you agree with that?
2 A. To a point. It was actually signed by Dennis Milner on behalf of
3 Mr. Lopez-Terres.
4 Q. I see that, that's correct. And that would be Dennis Milner, your
5 colleague, who was present during other meetings which we have discussed
6 before. Is that correct?
7 A. That's correct. He was deputy chief of investigations at that
9 Q. I'm grateful. If we could go back to the first page of that
10 document, Mr. Tucker, the title of that document is letter of agreement
11 between Office of the Prosecutor, ICTY, and the public prosecutor FYR of
12 Macedonia herein after referred to as the Republic of Macedonia and the
13 letter is addressed to Mr. Dzikov. Is that correct?
14 A. Yes, sir, that's correct.
15 Q. And it goes on to say this: "Further to previous meetings with
16 representatives of the OTP, and verbal agreements made in relation to
17 events at Ljuboten during 2001, I hereby document and present to you the
18 conditions agreed for the progress of the relevant exhumation and
19 subsequent judicial investigative process."
20 Mr. Tucker, I understand you indicated that you were not present
21 at the meeting of 30th of January of 2002, and I don't mean that as a
22 criticism but you would agree that Mr. Lopez-Terres or, in any case, Mr.
23 Milner conceived of those as being conditions. Is that correct?
24 A. That's correct, yes, sir.
25 Q. And if we could go down the list of those conditions there's on
1 under number 1 it says that: "The authorities of the Republic of Macedonia
2 agreed to undertake an exhumation of ten marked and identified graves
3 situated in a graveyard at Ljuboten. And acknowledge that the full
4 judicial investigation in relation to the cause of death of the human
5 remains interred at this location has commenced."
6 Can you see that?
7 A. Yes, sir, I can.
8 Q. And the second condition set by your office to its involvement was
9 that during the exhumation and investigation process, no uniformed
10 personnel other than NATO/task force Fox TFF troops will be present at the
11 graveyard site.
12 Can you see that?
13 A. Yes, sir, I can.
14 Q. The third condition is that personal security during the
15 exhumation process will be undertaken in agreement with and by task force
16 Fox TFF troops to be arranged through the representative of OSCE and EUMM.
17 Is that correct? That's the third condition set.
18 A. That's correct, sir, yes.
19 Q. And under condition number 4, Mr. Lopez-Terres was requesting that
20 no Macedonian special forces, MUP, or military will be involved in the
21 exhumation process. Is that correct?
22 A. Yes, sir, that is correct.
23 Q. Simply for the transcript at page 95 line 4, it should say that
24 special forces, f-o-r-c-e-s. And it should say, "MUP, M-U-P, or military,
25 will be involved in the exhumation process."
1 You have indicated, Mr. Tucker, that you met on a number of
2 occasion with Mr. --
3 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, the transcript continues to challenge
4 me but referring to MUP which stands for the police with the word
5 "municipal". The transcript should reflect MUP, Your Honour, not
7 Mr. Tucker, you have indicated that you had met with Mr. Boskoski
8 on a number of occasions and there's one particular meeting which I would
9 like to discuss with you. Can you recall meeting informally with our
10 client in a restaurant in Skopje, a restaurant called Restaurant Uranija
11 and the meeting was attended by your colleague Mr. Szydlik, Mr. Boskoski
12 and Mr. Goran Mitevski. Can you recall that particular meeting?
13 A. The only time I can remember meeting Mr. Boskoski in a restaurant
14 is when he came and was having dinner with Professor Duma and others. I'm
15 not sure if that's the same occasion.
16 Q. Well, can you recall a particular meeting which followed the time
17 we just discussed, the end of the month of February, when you and
18 Mr. Boskoski met and Mr. Boskoski and Mr. Mitevski asked you why the
19 police could not be involved in the exhumation process at Ljuboten. Do
20 you recall Mr. Boskoski or Mr. Mitevski asking you this question?
21 A. I can't, sir.
22 Q. Do you recall indicating to Mr. Boskoski or Mr. Mitevski that you
23 personally, Mr. Tucker, would have no problem with this but that your
24 superior had decided otherwise. Do you recall telling them that?
25 A. No, sir, I don't.
1 Q. Perhaps to clarify this, Mr. Tucker, I understand that the
2 decision was not taken by you, but would you know who decided that the
3 police should not be involved in the exhumation process at Ljuboten?
4 A. When you say the police we had -- we actually had the crime
5 technicians there.
6 Q. That's correct. I referred to the security forces.
7 A. I don't know whose decision that was but I would guess it would
8 have been probably Madam Del Ponte's.
9 Q. But perhaps you will recall another meeting on the 29th of
10 November of 2001 when you met with Prosecutor Dragoljub Cakic do you
11 remember that?
12 A. I have had many meetings. If I met him, I would think there would
13 be an investigator's note there for it.
14 Q. There is indeed. And we'll come to this note in a moment. But
15 can you remember at this stage that there was indeed at the end of
16 November 2001 a meeting, a preparatory meeting for the exhumation process
17 in Ljuboten which was attended by members of the Office of the Prosecutor
18 including yourself and prosecutor Cakic. Do you remember that?
19 A. I can't specifically. I thought, from my recollections, that
20 those meetings took place in early 2002, but it may well have taken place
21 at the end of that period that you speak.
22 Q. We will see the investigator's notes in time.
23 A. Thank you.
24 Q. But can you recall that during one of those meetings, you perhaps
25 or in any case, one representative of the Office of the Prosecutor back in
1 November of 2001, had already aired the suggestion coming from you that
2 the security forces of the Republic of Macedonia should not take part in
3 the exhumation operation in Ljuboten. Do you recall that?
4 A. I can vaguely and it is something that's not, I don't think,
6 Q. Well, I'll ask the registry perhaps to bring up what is Exhibit
7 P55.40, 4-0.
8 Mr. Tucker, this would be under tab 20 of your binder.
9 A. Thank you.
10 Q. And I'll ask to you focus on the second of two Official Notes
11 which are mentioned in this particular document. The second one refers to
12 a meeting of 29 of November of 2001. With a previous improvement, it
13 says, from the Prosecution and in the presence of my colleague, Maja, at
14 the premise of the basic public prosecution office number 67, I had met
15 with the representative of The Hague's Tribunal at? The superior
16 prosecution? Previous day on their request. Can you see that?
17 A. I can, yes, sir.
18 Q. And continues by saying: "During the conversation, I had found
19 that they would like to hear my opinion on their proposal on presence of
20 international security forces at the spot during the exhumation instead of
21 uniformed persons from the Ministry of Interior and also presence of their
23 Can you recall that, Mr. Tucker?
24 A. No, sir, I can't.
25 Q. And it says: "Afterwards, I have told them that I have no
1 authorisation in making decisions on this issue neither are my colleagues,
2 the public prosecutor and the superior prosecutor, I had announced?
3 Criminal procedure? The investigative judge and they to pass this
4 information to their superior and to the court."
5 Can you see that?
6 A. Yes, sir, I can.
7 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, would it be a convenient time?
8 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
9 We must adjourn now for the day to resume tomorrow at 9.00.
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.43 p.m.,
11 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 20th day of
12 September, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.