1 Tuesday, 23 October 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.27 p.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon.
7 The late sitting of the previous trial has caused us to have to
8 commence later this afternoon; I'm sorry about that.
9 And while mentioning that delay in our programme, could the
10 Chamber mention that next Wednesday, it will be unable to sit as
11 programmed, because of the need to allow another trial to proceed. We
12 simply don't have enough courtrooms to go around at the moment. So if you
13 can take that into account as you look at your programming of next week.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE PARKER: It may be two weeks, not next week; I'm being
16 reminded that I'm getting ahead of myself. It's a good thing there's
17 three Judges, not one.
18 Now Mr. Saxon.
19 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 As the Chamber may recall, on the 20th of June of this year, there
21 was a discussion about several pending Prosecution motions seeking leave
22 to drop certain witnesses from the Prosecution's list, Rule 65 ter list,
23 of witnesses. And on that day specifically, with respect to the
24 Prosecution's fifth motion to withdraw certain witnesses, there was a
25 discussion, there were some comments with respect to Mr. Peter Matthiesen
1 and the Prosecution -- excuse me, the Trial Chamber indicated that at that
2 time would not make a final decision as to whether to granted
3 Prosecution's motion with respect to Mr. Matthiesen; rather, the Trial
4 Chamber preferred to wait until after the testimony of Mr. Hutsch was
5 finished and then perhaps the parties could revisit the matter.
6 Since the end of Mr. Hutsch's testimony, the Prosecution has
7 spoken with Mr. Apostolski, because it was really -- it was the Defence
8 for Mr. Tarculovski that in June opposed the Prosecution's motion on this
9 point. And Mr. Apostolski has informed the Prosecution that the
10 Tarculovski Defence will no longer oppose the Prosecution's request to
11 have Mr. Matthiesen removed from its witness list.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Saxon. I see Mr. Apostolski's
13 agreement with that. Thank you.
14 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Good afternoon Your Honour.
15 I can only confirm what has been said by my learned colleague Dan
16 Saxon. So regarding the witness, we have no special stance and we would
17 leave to the Chamber to decide upon it.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Apostolski.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE PARKER: The -- Mr. Saxon, the Chamber would therefore, in
21 respect of your fifth motion, grant leave for the withdrawal of the name
22 of Mr. Matthiesen from the list of witnesses.
23 Good afternoon, Mr. Bezruchenko. I'm sorry you have been kept
24 waiting this long.
25 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE PARKER: May I remind you of your affirmation which still
3 THE WITNESS: Certainly, sir.
4 JUDGE PARKER: And I expect that Mr. Mettraux still has a few
6 MR. METTRAUX: The suspicion is accurate, Your Honour.
7 WITNESS: VIKTOR BEZRUCHENKO [Resumed]
8 Cross-examination by Mr. Mettraux: [Continued]
9 Q. Good afternoon Mr. Bezruchenko. Good afternoon, Your Honours.
10 A. Good afternoon sir.
11 Q. Could the witness please be shown exhibit P232, please. It's
12 under seal.
13 Mr. Bezruchenko, you will recall the document. This is the same
14 document as I was showing to you yesterday when we left off. Do you
16 A. Yes, I recall that.
17 Q. And do you recall that you've indicated that you weren't certain
18 whether you had or hadn't seen this particular document, but you recall
19 having seen similar document relating to receipt for guns and ammunition.
20 Do you recall saying that?
21 A. That's right, sir. I recall saying that I did not remember if I
22 saw this specific document.
23 Q. And are you aware from the evidence of a witness called M-54 that
24 this document had been prepared by this witness. Is that something within
25 your knowledge?
1 A. No, not really.
2 Q. Are you aware, Mr. Bezruchenko, whether your office, and your
3 colleagues made any effort to verify whether the individuals which are
4 mentioned by names in this particular document as having received weapons
5 in the Cair police station on the 11th of August had in fact become de
6 jure members of the MOI? Are you aware of that?
7 A. No.
8 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown what is Rule 65
9 ter 1D554.1.
10 Q. What will appear on your screen, Mr. Bezruchenko, is a letter sent
11 by the Defence of Mr. Boskoski to the Macedonian authorities asking them
12 to verify the names of -- well, I'm sorry, to verify in relation to the
13 name of a number of people whether the people in question have been
14 receiving salary from the MOI during the period 1st August to 30 September
15 2001. Can you see that on the letter?
16 A. I can see that, sir, but frankly speaking, I don't quite
17 understand what is the relation between this document and my report, since
18 A, none of the names, as I can see here, are mentioned in my report; and,
19 B, as I mentioned previously, none of the crimes committed in Ljuboten
20 were in fact described in my report.
21 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, Mr. Saxon is on his feet.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
23 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, unless Mr. Mettraux can show that this
24 document or this line of questioning is somehow relevant to the
25 credibility of Mr. Bezruchenko, the Prosecution does not understand what
1 the relevance of this document or this line of questioning is.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
3 MR. METTRAUX: Well, Your Honour, we believe it's relevant to a
4 number of things. The first one is indeed a issue of credibility of the
5 witness. You will recall, Your Honour, that this particular witness has
6 raised issues pertaining to the need for verification of the fact that a
7 number of individuals believed by the Office of the Prosecutor to have
8 partaken in the alleged crimes in and around Ljuboten were or weren't
9 members of the MOI.
10 The question I'm asking in relation to this, the other issue we
11 believe is relevant is that in his report Mr. Bezruchenko is not limiting
12 his evidence despite what has been claimed only to issues pertaining to
13 the armed conflict but he is seeking to give evidence, inter alia, in
14 relation to matters of disciplinary measures which Mr. Bezruchenko claims
15 Mr. Boskoski had at the time, a pre-condition of the relevance of that
16 very evidence, Your Honour, is the fact that the individual in question
17 must have been members of -- de jure members of the MOI at the time.
18 Mr. Bezruchenko knew from the analysis which is made of
19 Mr. Boskoski book that at least there were some serious doubt as to
20 whether that was the case or not. What the Defence is pursuing in this
21 matter are those lines and in particular the fact that at some stage the
22 Prosecution appear to have changed, so to say, its tack on the case and
23 that the verification of whether or not these peoples who they claim were
24 part of the MOI have ceased to be verified and that they have adopted in
25 its place a theory of operational control and other theories which are to
1 be found in Mr. Bezruchenko's report.
2 JUDGE PARKER: All of that is very interesting, in particular as
3 part of a final address, Mr. Mettraux, but it really is straining
4 relevance to this witness and his report, because you're going into
5 matters which he has not dealt with, which he has not taken into account.
6 If you're simply wanting to have it confirmed that he didn't take certain
7 things into account because he didn't know about it, fine, but that's not
8 what you're doing. You're going much beyond that. And you're really
9 trying, as it were, to establish the contrary of a proposition by looking
10 at facts and issues that have not been considered by the witness at all.
11 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, in that case, I will move on from this
12 particular question. As indicated to you, the belief of the Defence as to
13 the particular relevance of this question was that a number of
14 propositions are being made in the report, which, in effect, are contrary
15 to the factual basis or part of the factual basis which was known to
16 Mr. Bezruchenko, but I will comply with Your Honour's indication in
17 relation to this since the witness has indicated that he had no knowledge
18 of this particular document.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
20 MR. METTRAUX:
21 Q. Mr. Bezruchenko, simply a matter related to this one but one which
22 I hope you are aware of. Is that correct you as you reviewed the evidence
23 which was given as part of these proceeding, you became aware of the fact
24 that the -- the fact that a person received a weapon and ammunition from
25 the police or from the MOI would not per se be sufficient to -- for this
1 person to be regarded as a de jure member of the police. Are you aware of
2 that evidence?
3 A. I don't think this evidence is reflected in my report,
4 Mr. Mettraux.
5 Q. I'm grateful for this indication. But the first question,
6 Mr. Bezruchenko, was whether you were aware of the evidence in question.
7 A. Could you kindly reformulate your question, please.
8 Q. Certainly. Are you aware that -- and I will perhaps give you the
9 exact date which may assist you.
10 Are you aware that on the 13 of June of 2007 evidence was given by
11 a Prosecutor witness to the effect that the fact that a person would have
12 been given gun and ammunition by the police would not be sufficient for
13 him or her to become a de jure reserve policeman or woman. Are you aware
14 of that evidence?
15 A. Well, I would perhaps split my answer in two specific points.
16 Well, I don't recall any such evidence specifically related to 13
17 June 2007. This is one thing. And the second thing, as a matter of
18 general comment but not necessarily related to this specific situation and
19 this specific case I would say that normally it doesn't suffice for a
20 person with a weapon to be a member of any official organisation, for that
21 matter, Ministry of Interior as well.
22 Q. I'm grateful for that.
23 Your Honour, simply for the record, it is the evidence of M-053
24 the 13th of June 2007 at page 1971.
25 Is it correct, Mr. Bezruchenko, that in your report, the report
1 which you've submitted in these proceedings, you make a number of
2 references to so-called special units of the Ministry of Interior. Is
3 that correct?
4 A. Yes, that's correct.
5 Q. Is it correct that in the course of the investigation carried out
6 by your office you received information from the Macedonian authorities
7 that neither the Tiger units nor the Lions unit had been involved in the
8 events in Ljuboten. Are you aware of that information?
9 A. Yes, I am.
10 Q. Then I would like you to turn your attention, once again, to what
11 is P466, exhibit P466. It's again your report, Mr. Bezruchenko, and I
12 will ask you to turn, please, to page 103 of the report.
13 Perhaps to assist you, Mr. Bezruchenko, that would be one of the
14 two charts which is included in your report. Can you locate it?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And the title of that document it indicates that it is a chart of
17 the Ministry of Interior and there's a date, August 2001. The first
18 thing I would like to ask you is: Who prepared that particular chart,
19 Mr. Bezruchenko?
20 A. I did.
21 Q. And did you prepare it with the assistance of any other members of
22 the team of the Office of the Prosecutor?
23 A. Yes, that's right, in technical matters.
24 Q. And when you referred to the date on the top left-hand corner or
25 that would be the bottom left, depending how you look at it, to August
1 2001, what date in particular, if any, were you referring to,
2 Mr. Bezruchenko, in the month of August of 2001?
3 A. End of August 2001.
4 Q. So that would be -- would it be correct to suggest that this would
5 be after the 21st of August of 2001?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And that would be a chart that would be relevant, simply for the
8 record, the 21st of August of 2001 is the date at which the new book of
9 rule was adopted, is that correct, of the Ministry of Interior?
10 A. I would kindly ask you to specifically direct me to the specific
12 Q. Certainly, Mr. Bezruchenko. This would be Exhibit 1D66.
13 Do you recognise that document, Mr. Bezruchenko?
14 A. I think I do.
15 Q. And if we can turn to the next page that may assist your memory as
16 to the particular date of that document.
17 Can you see the date at the bottom left of that document,
18 Mr. Bezruchenko?
19 A. Yes, that's right.
20 Q. And that would be the 21st of August of 2001. Is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And as you indicated before, was the chart that is included at
23 page, I believe, 108 of your -- 103, I apologise, of your report based on
24 these particular rules as amended?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And simply to look with you at those particular -- this particular
2 amendment, rather, if you can turn your attention to Article 1 of the
3 document, you will see that it refers to the fact that the special tasks
4 unit Tiger from Article 7 is moved to the part, "department for police,"
5 in Article 4 and becomes item 6. Can you see that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And if you can turn to the next page, please, Mr. Bezruchenko, of
8 that document.
9 MR. METTRAUX: And for the registry as well, please.
10 Q. And if you can look down at the chart in question, in particular
11 under the section "department for police." Can you see that?
12 A. That's right, sir.
13 Q. And can you locate the special tasks unit Tiger within that
15 A. Well, as far as I can see, this is -- was in the department of
16 police and public safety bureau.
17 Q. And that's what the previous page of the document said. Is that
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And you will agree also that the special tasks unit is separate
21 from the sector for posebni or special unit. Is that correct?
22 A. Well, it should be under the sector.
23 Q. But do you agree that in fact, as this chart makes clear, it never
24 became a part of the sector for special unit, contrary to what your chart
25 suggest, but that it simply integrated in the department of police. Do
1 you agree with that?
2 A. Well, my interpretation of this diagram is slightly different,
3 sir. Well, I don't really think that this is indeed the case. My
4 interpretation of this diagram will be that in fact the three special
5 police units were reporting indeed to the department of police but through
6 the sector of special units.
7 Q. But do you agree, Mr. Bezruchenko, that your interpretation is
8 contrary to this diagram. Do you agree?
9 A. No. It is not contrary to the diagram which is present in my
11 Q. Well, perhaps we'll go back again to the previous page of this
12 document. And if you look at the first or the last sentence of Article 1
13 it says that it becomes the unit Tiger from Article 7 is moved to part A,
14 department for police in Article 4 and becomes item 6.
15 Can you see that?
16 A. Yes, I can.
17 Q. And perhaps to assist --
18 A. Could you please come back to this chart for a moment again.
19 Q. Certainly.
20 MR. METTRAUX: This would be the next page, please, for
21 Mr. Bezruchenko.
22 Q. And perhaps to assist you further, Mr. Bezruchenko, we can go back
23 to the original or the previous version of the book of rules. Those were
24 dated January of 2001, and that would be Exhibit 1D107, please.
25 Do you recognise that document, Mr. Bezruchenko?
1 A. Yes, that's right.
2 Q. And you will recall that the previous document mentioned that the
3 Tigers unit was moved from Article 7 to Article 4 and becomes item 6.
4 So if we can go to Article 7 first of that initial version. It's
5 at page 1D00-4399.
6 And if you look at this Article, Mr. Bezruchenko, it says
7 this: "Organisational forms that conduct determined expert work at the
8 public security bureau and for the office security and
9 counter-intelligence are, one, special tasks unit Tiger is a uniformed
10 unit of the ministry which is under direct management and command of the
11 minister. The minister with the special act may authorise the head of the
12 department who manage the department for police to conduct affairs to
13 enable, organise, exercise activities and other organisational issues in
14 connection with the work of the unit."
15 Do you see that?
16 A. Excuse me, sir, are you referring specifically to Article 6?
17 Q. It would be Article 7, I apologise if you don't have it on your
18 screen, Mr. Bezruchenko.
19 A. I don't.
20 MR. METTRAUX: Could the Macedonian version of Article 7 also be
21 placed in front of Mr. Bezruchenko, please. Thank you.
22 Q. Can you see, Mr. Bezruchenko, the introductory sentence followed
23 by paragraph 1 of that article which refer to the Tiger unit. Can you see
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And if we can turn now to what is page 1D00-4414.
2 It would be 1D00-4414, please. Thank you very much.
3 Mr. Bezruchenko, can you now locate where the Tigers unit was in
4 the initial rule book. Can you see where it is on the chart?
5 A. You mean on the right side of the screen?
6 Q. On either the Macedonian or the English. Are you able to locate
7 the special task unit Tiger?
8 A. Well, I don't think it is here.
9 Q. Well, perhaps it is --
10 A. I see the sector for special units here.
11 Q. Well, if you look on the top right-hand corner, the second from
12 the top under the security and counter-intelligence administration head.
13 Can you see that?
14 A. That's right.
15 Q. And can you confirm that as indicated under Article 7 of this rule
16 book the -- at the time in January 2001 and according to that regulation,
17 the special tasks unit Tiger had three links, institutional link. One was
18 to the minister, one to the public safety bureau and one to the security
19 and counter-intelligence administration head. Do you agree with that?
20 A. Well, if you could somehow adjust this diagram on the screen,
21 because I am' afraid it is not really fitting properly.
22 Q. Thank you. Are you able to locate --
23 A. Yes, I see this unit now. Well, in fact as far as I can see from
24 this diagram, there is a direct link between this unit and the Ministry of
25 Internal Affairs.
1 Q. That's correct.
2 A. But I don't really think that there is a direct link, as you are
3 suggesting, between this unit and the security and counter-intelligence
5 Q. But do you agree that these pointed and half-drawn lines also
6 indicate, according to the rule book of the ministry that there were
7 relations or links to the counter-intelligence and, as mentioned by
8 Article 7, the public safety bureau. Do you agree with that?
9 A. Well, I would agree that in fact all those organisational elements
10 and they are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, which are directly
11 under the special task unit Tiger were in fact the elements which were
12 providing services to the security and counter-intelligence administration
13 while -- but not necessarily perhaps being directly responsible to this
14 administration because by -- simply by virtue of their services, they were
15 supposed to provide service for the entire ministry.
16 Q. And looking perhaps one column to the left, Mr. Bezruchenko, do
17 you agree that already at the time in the rule book of January of 2001 the
18 sector for posebni or sometimes called sector for special units was
19 already within the bureau for public safety under the head of the
20 department for police. Can you locate that sector?
21 A. Well, if I read correctly, and this is a very small font, well,
22 the last box on this right vertical line is sector for posebna units.
23 Q. And you agree, Mr. Bezruchenko --
24 A. This is a bit strange because this is a mix of Macedonian and
1 Q. But you agree that this particular sector comes under the
2 department for police. Do you agree with that it?
3 A. It Would appear that it would come under the public safety or
4 security bureau.
5 Q. And within that bureau it would come within the department of
6 police. Do you agree with that?
7 A. It would appear from this diagram, yes.
8 Q. And if we may turn back somewhat in this very document to page
9 1D00-4393, you will recall that the previous document that I showed you,
10 the rule book of 21st of August of 2001, referred to the fact that the
11 Tigers were moved on the 21st of August to Article 4. And I would like to
12 show you what Article 4 is. And it's at the bottom of the page, please.
13 Can you see Article 4, Mr. Bezruchenko?
14 A. Yes, I can.
15 Q. And this is, you will agree, a section which relates to the
16 department for police. Do you agree with that?
17 A. That's right.
18 Q. And if you may turn to the next page, please.
19 THE INTERPRETER: And can we please ask the counsel and the
20 witness not to overlap.
21 MR. METTRAUX:
22 Q. Mr. Bezruchenko, do you agree that this Article 4 says the
23 following. This is the second sentence. It says: "The police are
24 composed of the following organisational forms?"
25 Can you see that?
1 A. Well, if you are specifically referring to Article 4, sir, I'm
2 afraid not.
3 Q. Well, perhaps I should help you. You see there's a first
4 paragraph as a whole. Can you see that? Which started with the
5 word: "The police implement."
6 Can you see that?
7 A. I can see that, yes.
8 Q. And if you look at the next sentence after this paragraph, there's
9 another: "The police" in capital letters.
10 Can you see that?
11 A. The police are composed of the following --
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. -- organisational units, yes.
14 Q. Yes, thank you, Mr. Bezruchenko. And it says this: "The police
15 are composed of the following organisational forms." It says 1, duty
16 operating centre; 2, sector for public peace and order; 3 sector for
17 security in-road traffic; 4, sector for border crossing; and then there's
18 5, sector for special units which is composed of the centre for animal
19 training and training, if we can go to the bottom of the page, please.
20 Can you see that?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. And now we can perhaps go back to the next document which I showed
23 you a moment ago, which is Exhibit 1D66, please.
24 And if we can turn to the next page again, please.
25 Mr. Bezruchenko, that's the same rule book that I showed you a
1 moment ago from the 21st of August of 2001 which amend the previous
2 version. And if you look once again at this last sentence of Article 1
3 you will see that the unit special tasks unit Tiger is moved from Article
4 7, which I have read to you, to the part "a department for police in
5 Article 4 and becomes item 6."
6 Can you see that?
7 A. Yes, I can.
8 Q. So do you agree that on the basis of what I have just shown you,
9 the Tiger unit came or became part of the department for police on the
10 21st of August of 2001?
11 A. I'm not entirely certain if this can be interpreted this way,
12 sir. You also recall there was another decision made by the president of
13 the country as well as by Mr. Boskoski as well regarding the incorporation
14 of certain special police units into the so-called temporary unit or as a
15 provisional unit.
16 Q. Well, let's stick with the Tigers Mr. --
17 A. [Overlapping speakers] ...
18 Q. -- Mr. Bezruchenko, let's stay with the Tigers for a moment. We
19 will look later at the issue of the other unit which you have mentioned.
20 But do you agree that at that stage the Tigers unit was placed not -- or
21 was placed, rather, within the department for police but not within the
22 special -- the sector for special or posebna unit but as an independent
23 sector within that department. Do you agree that's what the document
25 A. It would appear so, sir, but it would probably require additional
2 Q. Do you agree also that -- and perhaps I should show you the next
3 page on that document again. This is page 1D00-2409.
4 Do you agree that perhaps if it can shall -- yes.
5 At this point in time on the 21st of August of 2001 do you agree
6 that the unit which will later come to be known as the Lion units does not
7 yet appear on this diagram. Do you agree with that?
8 A. No, it doesn't.
9 Q. And the reason for it, I'm sure you will agree, is that these
10 changes which brought a new unit inside the make of the ministry took
11 place or was adopted in early September of 2001. Is that correct?
12 A. I'm not aware of any specific date, sir, but my general impression
13 from reviewing the related and the relevant documents was that the unit
14 which later received the name Lions was fully operational and fully formed
15 sometime by November 2001.
16 Q. But simply -- I'm grateful for that, Mr. Bezruchenko.
17 But simply in relation to the structural issues and the location
18 of the particular unit -- and instead of asking you off the top of your
19 head, I will show you what is Exhibit 1D61; that may assist you.
20 Mr. Bezruchenko, those are translated in the English as the rules
21 on amendment and additions to the rules on the organisation and work of
22 the Ministry of Interior. It's dated Skopje, September 2001. Can you see
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And if one may turn to the next page, please.
1 If you can look first at the bottom left-hand corner, it suggests
2 that the date at which those amendments were adopted is the 5th of
3 September of 2001. Is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And if you can look at the Article 1 of that document. It refers
6 to a number of -- the various editions, so to say, of the rules and the
7 last one being the 21st of August of 2001 which we have seen a moment
8 ago. And it says that "a new subsection 5.1 is hereby added" and states
9 "5.1 lines rapid intervention battalion" and then it says "the previous
10 subsection 5.1 is now subsection 5.2." Do you agree with that?
11 A. I agree with that, sir, but I don't quite see how this document is
12 actually fitting in my report since I was describing the structure of the
13 Ministry of Interior as it stood in August 2001 .
14 Q. And was it your view at the time in August 2001 that the Lions
15 were part of the sector for special unit, Mr. Bezruchenko?
16 A. Well, my view was that this unit was already in the process of
17 being formed as the appropriate decisions had been taken sometime in June
18 2001, but I don't think that this unit was fully formed and fully
19 operational in August 2001.
20 Q. Well, I'm grateful for this clarification in this case, Mr.
21 Bezruchenko. That's -- we may move forward on this issue.
22 Do you recall being asked a number of questions from Mr. Saxon and
23 also making a number of statements in your report about what you claim was
24 the command and control of the MOI. Do you recall making those comments?
25 A. Yes, sir.
1 Q. And perhaps before starting with this particular issue with you,
2 I'd like the registry to show you once again Rule 65 ter 1D724, please.
3 Mr. Bezruchenko, you will recall this document from yesterday.
4 This is your summary and analysis of 24th April 2004.
5 And if we can turn to page 18 of that document. That would be
6 page 1D00-6428, please.
7 And I'd like you to turn your mind again to paragraph 3,
8 Mr. Bezruchenko. That's the first paragraph on this page. And I will
9 road out what you said there. "Throughout the Albanian-Macedonian
10 conflict Boskoski displayed a strong hands-on approach which was
11 manifested in his activities to raise special police units, frequent
12 visits on the front line police units, as well as his direct involvement
13 and control of combat operations of those units. In the process, he was
14 exposed to risk to his life several times. This kind of behaviour and
15 style of leadership reflect the attitude of a military commander who feels
16 that he alone is in charge, assume responsibility for his actions and
17 personally leads his troops into action."
18 Do you agree that already in April of 2004, Mr. Bezruchenko, and
19 before you became an expert for the Prosecution, you had pretty strong
20 views and arrested views about what you thought the nature of
21 Mr. Boskoski's control, as you call, and involvement was. Is it correct?
22 A. May I ask you a question, Mr. Mettraux?
23 Q. Well, please, Mr. Bezruchenko.
24 A. Have you actually read this document in its entirety?
25 Q. Well, I have, Mr. Bezruchenko, read those parts which are
1 available in the English. At this stage I will ask to you answer my
2 question, which was whether you agree that before you had sat to write a
3 report as a expert on behalf of the Prosecution, you had already strong
4 views and made very clear findings as what you believed was Mr. Boskoski's
5 style of leadership, to use your terms, and the fact that he behaved like
6 a military commander. Do you agree with that?
7 A. Well, I would say that this was the impression I picked up after
8 having read this book in its entirety. Many pages of this book are
9 actually describing the visits of Mr. Boskoski to the front. I think he
10 describes no less than seven or eight incidents when he was personally
11 involved in a very serious risk of his life, as he called, attempts on his
12 life, which apparently took place during his visits to the front line,
13 when he was with the troops and directing them.
14 Q. And do you agree, Mr. Bezruchenko, that what you have done in your
15 report is essentially to mold those views which you held already in April
16 2004 into your expert report. Do you agree that's what you did?
17 A. Well, not necessarily. I don't really think that I mentioned the
18 name of Mr. Boskoski at all in relation to his presence in Ljuboten. I
19 don't think so.
20 What I am describing there is just his role as the minister of the
21 interior; that's all.
22 Q. Is it correct that, as I indicated earlier and as you confirmed in
23 evidence and also in your report, you have referred on a number of
24 occasion to what is known in the military doctrine as the principle of
25 command and control, which is in local terminology none as rukovodjenje i
1 komandovanje. Is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Is it also correct, Mr. Bezruchenko, that this expression is a
4 military term which has a specific military meaning in military doctrine.
5 Do you agree with that?
6 A. Which one are you specifically referring to, sir, operational
7 control or RiK?
8 Q. RiK.
9 A. Yes, it is a military term.
10 Q. And just for the transcript, RiK refers to command and control in
11 the English language.
12 Mr. Bezruchenko, as a matter of introduction, are aware of any
13 precedent or any authority from your field of military expertise where
14 this concept of command and control was used and made to apply to
15 non-military body or organs? Are you aware of any such case?
16 A. Yes, I am.
17 Q. And could you indicate what case, please?
18 A. The whole history of the war in Bosnia is awash with examples of
19 this kind.
20 Q. But as a matter of doctrine, Mr. Bezruchenko, are you aware of any
21 authority which would suggest that this in fact is the case?
22 A. Well, I was not really specifically exploring the issue of any
23 authorities which would actually make any specific comments on this
24 particular situation. As far as I know, with the exception perhaps of
25 very few people, any special reports on this issue had been made. I don't
1 think any special reports had been made.
2 Q. Well, thank you for that. You have also indicated yesterday and
3 again briefly today that you had followed the proceedings with a view,
4 inter alia, to update your amended report. Do you agree with that?
5 A. I was following these proceedings, that's right.
6 Q. And did you become aware, as you followed the proceedings, of
7 evidence led in this courtroom that would contradict the suggestion made
8 by you in your report that the principle of command and control, or RiK,
9 would apply to the activities of the Ministry of Interior of Macedonia?
10 A. There was a number of witness statements which I imagine would
11 indeed contradict my view.
12 Q. And did you feel you should make reference to the statement or the
13 evidence of this witness in your report?
14 A. No, sir, for the reasons which I explained previously, one of them
15 being is that generally speaking, I was trying to avoid as much as
16 possible any speculative statements and was trying to rely on documents
17 which actually would provide hard evidence.
18 Q. But you will agree, I hope, Mr. Bezruchenko, that where the
19 evidence was believed to fit your theories, you indeed relied on the
20 evidence given in this trial. Is that correct?
21 A. Well, that was not the principle and it was not the main
22 criteria. Actually it was not criteria at all. In my work, I was trying
23 to be completely objective and reflect the strong facts and the situation
24 as it was, to the best of my knowledge.
25 Q. Are you aware for instance, Mr. Bezruchenko, of evidence being led
1 in this trial to the effect that the employees of the Ministry of Interior
2 did not need any particular orders, whether from the ministry or from the
3 minister, to conduct their work and duties. Are you aware of that
5 A. Well, sir, I'm afraid you will have to qualify your statement. I
6 don't quite understand what you mean.
7 Q. Well, my question is this, Mr. Bezruchenko, in the course of
8 following the proceedings in this case and the evidence which was given by
9 Prosecution witness and witnesses, did you become aware of the evidence of
10 a witness who said in this courtroom that employees -- perhaps I will read
11 it out to you.
12 That employees in general of the Ministry of Interior did not need
13 specific order or particular orders from the ministry or the minister of
14 the interior to conduct their work and duties. Are you aware of any such
16 A. Well, sir, I believe just as a matter of general comment I would
17 say that there is nothing contradictory in this statement because
18 obviously, you know, any smooth running organisation, every person and
19 every employee knows what his functions and responsibilities are and what
20 he is supposed to do, but this is only a general statement which should
21 apply to a generally acceptable and normal situation. There may be other
22 situations which would require direct interference of authorities a level,
23 two levels, three levels above.
24 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, simply for the transcript, this is the
25 evidence of Mr. Toskovski of the 29th of August, 2007.
1 Q. Have you become aware in the course of -- of following the
2 proceedings in this case of the evidence of another witness, witness
3 M-056, who explained that an order in the police is not the same as an
4 order in the army. Do you agree that evidence?
5 A. Which specific order would you mean, sir?
6 Q. Well, the witness in question was asked more generally whether
7 there was any difference, I apologise, between a order received in the
8 military context and an order received in the context of the military of
9 the interior [sic]. Are you aware of that evidence?
10 A. Yes, I am.
11 Q. And did you make a reference of that particular evidence or that
12 particular statement anywhere in your report?
13 A. Well, no.
14 Q. And you will agree that this would be a pretty significant piece
15 of information if one were to seek to apply military doctrines and
16 military ideas to a different setting. Do you agree with that?
17 A. Well, not necessarily, sir. Well, in fact the major operational
18 activities in this field were limited mostly to deployment and combat
19 operations, whether this required deployment of special police units,
20 taking the villages back while sweeping the terrain, isolating the NLA
21 units and so on and so forth. So in this sense, I don't really thing that
22 the essence of the orders would differ very much. So formally, even in
23 the ways they were prepared and written and described, of course there
24 could be differences.
25 Q. Then perhaps I should ask you whether you are you aware of the
1 evidence of another Prosecution witness, a man of military background, who
2 indicated in his evidence that apart from the army no other state organ
3 functioned according to the military principle of subordination which you,
4 Mr. Bezruchenko, mentioned as a criminal factor in relation to the command
5 and control doctrine which you say applied to the MOI. Are you aware of
6 that evidence, Mr. Bezruchenko?
7 A. If you could refresh my memory and specifically tell me which unit
8 you mean, I would probably recall that.
9 Q. Well, the evidence perhaps to assist you was the evidence of
10 Mr. Mitre Despodov of the 25th of June of 2007 and this would be at page
11 2605. Do you recall the evidence being given by Mr. Despodov on that
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 Q. And did you make reference or did you take any account of this
15 evidence when you prepared your report?
16 A. Mr. Despodov's statement was certainly very interesting for me and
17 certainly was important in shaping my understanding of how the command and
18 control system worked in the army of Macedonia. But I don't think that
19 Mr. Despodov was sufficiently qualified to say how the command and control
20 system worked in any other institution of the country.
21 Q. So, your view, Mr. Bezruchenko, is that because you believed
22 Mr. Despodov to be not sufficiently competent in this matter, you
23 disregarded his evidence in so far as pertain to this particular issue.
24 Is that --
25 A. [Realtime transcript read in error] As far as the army is
1 concerned, he was absolutely and fully competent and in fact I had no
2 reasons not to trust his statement. But as far as the Ministry of
3 Interior and any other institutions as you mentioned he referred to are
4 concerned, well, I don't really think I could take this statement on its
5 face value.
6 MR. SAXON: Before we go on.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
8 MR. SAXON: I believe perhaps our hard-working court reporter may
9 have missed the words as far as the military is concerned at the very
10 start of Mr. Bezruchenko's last answer.
11 MR. METTRAUX: I am grateful to Mr. Saxon.
12 Q. But perhaps, Mr. Bezruchenko, you will remember the evidence of
13 Mr. Galevski, General Galevski of the police. Do you recall Mr. Galevski
14 giving evidence?
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 Q. And do you recall Mr. Galevski making the point in particular that
17 the minister of the interior did not have the power to order the use of
18 police forces in military or combat activities. Do you recall that?
19 A. I do think -- yes, I think I do. I think he said something like
20 this, that's right.
21 Q. And is it something that you felt you should refer to in your
22 report and if so, have you done so?
23 A. No.
24 Q. And do you agree that this would explain the fact that
25 Mr. Boskoski or that you did not or were not able to refer to any combat
1 order signed by Mr. Boskoski, is that correct, because he didn't have the
2 power to order the use of police forces in military and combat
3 activities. Is that correct?
4 A. I'm not certain, sir. The fact that the special police units were
5 in fact committed into combat operations were involved in fighting on
6 daily basis and Mr. Boskoski was frequently seen with these units on the
7 front would lead me to believe that he was at least a part of the
8 decision-making group in the Ministry of Interior, whereas operational
9 decisions as to the use of these units were concerned.
10 Q. Well, my question will be this for you. Did you see any such
11 order or indication of involvement of Mr. Boskoski in the decision-making
13 A. As I mentioned previously, I did not see any orders apart from
14 those which we already discussed signed by Mr. Boskoski.
15 Q. And those would be the orders, you call them the orders but which
16 in fact are telegrams of redeployment. Is that correct?
17 A. Yes, they are telegrams but they are also orders.
18 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, simply for the record, the evidence of
19 Mr. Galevski to which reference was made was transcript of the 18th of
20 July of 2007.
21 Q. Isn't it correct, Mr. Bezruchenko, and perhaps I should go back
22 for one second to what is Rule 65 ter 1D724 again. And if we can go back
23 to page 18 once again, please.
24 And if I may draw your attention this time on paragraph 5 of your
25 analysis and I will read it out to you. You said this: "Boskoski
1 admitted that he was in Ljuboten in the afternoon on 12 August on specific
2 request of President Trajkovski and Prime Minister Georgievski. This
3 admission presents a new and important angle of the investigation and
4 possibly could provide exculpatory evidence. A decision should be made if
5 the role of Prime Minister Georgievski in the chain of command should be
6 explored in the course of investigation."
7 Do you recall making that comment?
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 Q. And is it correct, Mr. Bezruchenko, that the concept which you
10 have relied upon of operational control and RiK, command and control, is
11 in fact an intelligence device to go around the problem that legally and
12 as far as the government is concerned, the control of the police was in
13 the hands of the prime minister. Do you agree with that?
14 A. Not necessarily, sir. Let me make a general comment first.
15 If you recall on the very first day of my testimony, you asked me
16 what my functions and responsibilities in the military analysis unit were,
17 and I started giving my account of those functions and responsibilities
18 but you actually interrupted me. Well, let me finish this account now.
19 One of the functions of the [indiscernible] is in fact to provide
20 senior individuals in a time of conflict, either in the context of the
21 crimes committed or in the context of a specific time-period related to a
22 conflict. That may include very senior people, including army commanders
23 and ministers. So this is the first point, my first point to your
25 My second point to your question actually as to what you describe
1 as intelligent device, well, I don't really know what actually is there to
2 believe that the concept of operational control is an intelligence
3 device. The concept of operational control is a concept of operational
4 control as it has been described in numerous military regulations.
5 Q. Is that correct, Mr. Bezruchenko, that in his book Mr. Boskoski
6 indicates, as you summarized, that he had gone to Ljuboten or Ljubanci on
7 the 12th of August of 2001 at the request or at the behest of the prime
8 minister and the president of the republic. Is that correct?
9 A. If you read my report carefully, Mr. Mettraux, you have probably
10 noted that I don't really mention the name of Mr. Boskoski in relation to
11 his visit to Ljubanci or Ljuboten at all.
12 Q. Well, for the time being I'm asking you, Mr. Bezruchenko, about
13 this particular document which you have prepared on behalf of the Office
14 of the Prosecutor in your capacity as a military analyst, and the first
15 question is whether you recall what is noted in this particular analysis,
16 namely the fact that in his book Mr. Boskoski indicated that he had gone
17 to Ljuboten or Ljubanci on the 12th of August of 2001, on behalf or at the
18 behest of the president of the republic and the prime minister. Do you
19 recall that?
20 A. If you are referring specifically to this document which is on the
21 screen now, this is an analytical document which is describing a certain
22 source and book and which draws certain analytical conclusions.
23 Q. And is that correct also that as indicated in your book, you
24 suggest at the end of this particular paragraph, paragraph 5, that during
25 interviews of senior military -- well, first you say that in the course of
1 further investigation -- sorry. I have -- here it is.
2 You say: "A decision should be made if the role of Prime Minister
3 Georgievski in the chain of command should be explored in the course of
5 Do you recall making that comment?
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 Q. And do you recall also that at a later stage, some months later,
8 the Office of the Prosecutor in fact went to interview the former prime
9 minister, Mr. Ljubco Georgievski. Do you recall that?
10 A. Yes, I think such a interview was made.
11 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown Rule 65 ter
12 1D865, please.
13 Q. Do you recognise the record of the statement taken from Mr. Ljubco
14 Georgievski, Mr. Bezruchenko?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And if the registry could please turn to page 3 of that document.
17 That would be 1D00-752, please.
18 I'd ask you, Mr. Bezruchenko -- if this could be enlarged somewhat
19 for the witness, please. Thank you.
20 I'll ask you, Mr. Bezruchenko, to turn to paragraph 11 of this
21 document. Mr. Georgievski, Ljubco said the following: "As was reading
22 the material prior to coming here for interview I found that Ljuboten
23 operation took place on Sunday of 12th of August 2001. What I remember
24 from that day is that I arrived to my office at 11.00 a.m. or 11.30 a.m.,
25 since I had a habit of going to work little bit later on Sundays. Some of
1 my associates informing me that OSCE representative were looking for me
2 regarding some urgent matter. I did not pay special attention to that
3 message because at the time the diplomatic corps was constantly contacting
4 me during -- regarding urgent matters. Then the OSCE representatives
5 spoke again with someone from my office and said that something bad was
6 happening in Ljuboten. After the second call, I decided to contact the
7 minister of the interior, Ljube Boskoski. This call I made somewhere
8 between 12.00 p.m. and 1.30 p.m. Since I was in the office, I believe
9 that I used stationary phone to make the call."
10 Then if we can turn to the next paragraph, please. This is what
11 Mr. Georgievski recounted: "When I called Mr. Boskoski, I told him about
12 the inquiries OSCE made and I asked him what was happening in Ljuboten. I
13 remember clearly that he was surprised when I asked him this question. He
14 answered that he has no idea what was going on in Ljuboten. Then I asked
15 him to check what happened in Ljuboten."
16 And it says: "In the next couple of days when I spoke with the
17 minister of the interior Ljube Boskoski about Ljuboten events, he
18 mentioned that at approximately the same time when I called him on Sunday
19 he received a phone call from president of Macedonia Boris Trajkovski, who
20 asked him to go to Ljuboten personally and help in calming and resolving
21 the situation."
22 Can you see that?
23 A. Yes, I can.
24 Q. And do you recall Mr. Georgievski in fact confirming the statement
25 of Mr. Boskoski which he made in his book about the fact that he had been
1 asked by the prime minister and the president to go to the village to calm
2 things down?
3 A. Yes, this is what it says.
4 Q. Is it correct also that another person to whom the office, your
5 office had talked to was Mr. Zlatko Keskovski who at the time was the head
6 of the security of the president of the republic. Do you recall?
7 A. I think such a statement was made, yes.
8 Q. And in fact you had used that particular statement in your
9 original version of your report. Is that correct?
10 A. If you can specifically indicate which the statement was related
11 to, I could probably tell you.
12 Q. Well, for the time being, the statement that I would like you to
13 consider, if you may, is in Rule 65 ter 1D526, please. It's 1D00-4772, if
14 it is of any assistance.
15 Mr. Bezruchenko, while the statement of Mr. Keskovski is reaching
16 our screens, I will start reading the paragraph in question, which is
17 relevant here. It would be at page 11, please, of the statement, and
18 that would be page 1D00-4782.
19 And if we could focus, please, on paragraph 52. I'll read this
20 paragraph for you, Mr. Bezruchenko. It says this, Mr. Keskovski is
21 talking about phone call which he is making and he said: "I explained the
22 driver that the president wanted to spoke to the minister. The driver
23 put Ljube Boskoski on the phone and gave the phone to the president. I do
24 not remember from which phone I was calling. I know what the president
25 was saying but I did not hear the answers of Ljube Boskoski. The
1 president informed Boskoski about the difficult situation in Radisani and
2 asked him if he knew anything else about what was happening there. The
3 president told Boskoski to go there personally and calm down the situation
4 because it was important to sign Ohrid Agreement. The president also told
5 Boskoski to call him later and inform him about the situation."
6 Do you recall reading that particular paragraph of the statement
7 of Mr. Keskovski as you were reviewing the material, Mr. Bezruchenko?
8 A. I think I read this paragraph, that's right.
9 Q. And do you agree that, again, this statement or the information
10 provided by Mr. Keskovski confirms the information contained in
11 Mr. Boskoski's book to the effect that he went to the village at the
12 behest of, in this case, the president. Do you agree with that?
13 A. And this paragraph basically confers with what I have seen in the
15 Q. Do you agree that -- and you have indicated yesterday, I believe,
16 that as part of the interviews which you've taken part in, you have
17 interviewed the -- Mr. Vlado Buckovski who in 2001 for part of the year
18 and at the time relevant to the charges was the minister of defence of the
19 Republic of Macedonia. Is that correct?
20 A. I was involved in this interview, but I wouldn't say I really
21 interviewed the minister.
22 Q. Can you recall now, Mr. Bezruchenko, that in the course of that
23 meeting Mr. Buckovski, the minister of defence, had made it clear to you
24 the police forces of the Ministry of Interior were under the control of
25 the prime minister, Mr. Georgievski. Do you recall that?
1 A. I recall that he said something to this effect.
2 Q. And is it correct, Mr. Bezruchenko, that that particular phrase or
3 that particular statement made by the then-minister of defence, you had
4 referred to in the original version of your report at paragraph 401. Is
5 that correct?
6 A. Just a second, sir.
7 Well, I think the exact phrase as it's -- it was present in the
8 previous version of the report was "however, according to minister of
9 Defence Boskoski this idea never worked and the unit was never created
10 because Georgievski wanted to keep control of police in his hands."
11 This is what I said previously.
12 Q. And is that correct that this sentence which you have read has
13 been removed from the amended version of your report?
14 A. That's right.
15 MR. METTRAUX: Would that be a convenient time, Your Honour?
16 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. We adjourn to resume in half an hour.
17 --- Recess taken at 3.44 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 4.17 p.m.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
20 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Q. Mr. Bezruchenko, I'd like to make a parentheses at this stage. Do
22 you recall that yesterday I suggested to you that the reason why you had
23 been selected to be the expert by the Office of the Prosecutor was not
24 because of your expertise but because you shared the views of the OTP
25 team. Do you recall me putting that proposition in slightly different
1 terms to you yesterday?
2 A. I recall your questions and I think my answer was basically no.
3 Q. Is it correct, Mr. Bezruchenko, that you were asked to prepare a
4 so-called expert report sometimes between the late summer of 2005 and the
5 early Autumn of 2005. Would that be correct?
6 A. Well, I'm not sure, but that may have been 2004 as well.
7 Q. Is it correct that on the 7th of November of 2005 you appeared on
8 the Rule 65 ter list as a proposed expert witness. Is that correct?
9 A. Well, I was not really working on this specific list, but indeed
10 there was an opportunity for me to appear on this list, as I recall.
11 Q. And you've indicated, I believe in your evidence in chief that you
12 had been working for the Office of the Prosecutor since the year 2003. Is
13 that correct?
14 A. Yes, that's right.
15 Q. And could you indicate whether you had been immediately assigned
16 to the team investigating the events in Macedonia or whether you had been
17 assigned at that time to any other team?
18 A. Well, I recall that I began my work with the ICTY, I think on 7
19 May 2003, and I was immediately assigned to this case.
20 Q. And is that correct that this is the only case -- or is it correct
21 that it's the only case you've been assigned to since those days?
22 A. Not necessarily. I have been working on other cases as well.
23 Q. Is it correct, however, that your primary activity were with this
24 particular team. Is that correct?
25 A. Well, I would say that activities with this team would take the
1 bulk of my time or at least 50 per cent of my time.
2 Q. And you've indicated, and I have shown a document to you in
3 evidence already that during that period of time when you worked for the
4 Office of the Prosecutor you prepared a number of summary and analyses.
5 Is that correct?
6 A. Well, this is exactly in line with my duties.
7 Q. And can you recall approximately how many reports or memorandum
8 you would have prepared for this particular team, the Macedonian team,
9 Team 7, in relation to your activities?
10 A. I don't remember how many documents were prepared, but firstly I
11 would like to say that they were not necessarily prepared for the team, as
12 you specifically presenting it. These documents were also for my own
14 Q. And is it correct that those documents, as I believe you've
15 indicated yesterday, had to do, in part, with the alleged armed conflict
16 but also with the accused or the suspects and you also indicated, I
17 believe, with the events in the village of Ljuboten? Is that correct?
18 A. These documents mostly related to the armed conflict in Macedonia,
19 that's right.
20 Q. And it also referred, and perhaps to a lesser extent, you've
21 indicated, but also to the accused or suspects in this case and to the
22 events in the village. Is that correct?
23 A. As I mentioned previously, I was involved in a number of
24 interviews mostly of military personnel like Mr. Despodov, for instance,
25 and I was essentially provided expert knowledge for the investigator to
1 carry on with his interview.
2 Q. And we've seen already from your analysis at least one document
3 that we received from the Office of the Prosecutor that your contribution
4 and your suggestion extended to Mr. Boskoski. Is that correct?
5 A. As I explained previously, one of my functions as a member of the
6 military analysis unit is to place officials under investigation into the
7 context of crimes or context of events related to armed conflicts.
8 Q. I think you've indicated, Mr. Bezruchenko, that you can't remember
9 how many memos or summaries you have produced and that's only normal. But
10 can you remember approximately how many there would have been. Would we
11 talking of half a dozen, a dozen, several dozens, are you able to say?
12 A. Perhaps a dozen.
13 Q. And -- and that would cover the time from 2003 up to these days.
14 Is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Is that correct that -- or are you aware that in the month of May
17 of 2005 the Defence of Mr. Boskoski challenged the jurisdiction of this
18 Tribunal on the basis that there had been no armed conflict in Macedonia
19 in 2001. Is that a fact that you are aware of?
20 A. I recall this fact, yes, that's right.
21 Q. And is it correct that as a result, the Office of the Prosecutor
22 decided that it would be necessary for the case to find a -- an expert
23 that could possibly give evidence about this matter. Is that correct?
24 A. Well, I don't really know if there existed any direct link between
25 these two events as you described them. I just cannot comment on that.
1 Q. Well, are you aware of the fact that the Office of the Prosecutor
2 sought to identify a potential expert that could give evidence about the
3 issue of an alleged armed conflict in Macedonia in the year 2001?
4 A. Well, if this was the case, I was not aware of it. At least,
5 well, I was not really in the picture of what was going on in this
7 Q. Can you recall that in fact, Mr. Bezruchenko, you and other
8 individuals from the Office of the Prosecutor interviewed a man called
9 Steven Sulejman Schwartz. Do you recall that interview?
10 A. I don't think it was a formal interview. We just had a very brief
11 meeting with this person.
12 Q. But do you recall meeting with that person, Mr. Bezruchenko?
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 Q. And do you recall what the purpose of that meeting was?
15 A. I think -- I think that there was an idea of involving him as a
16 military -- no, sorry, not military. He would not really have any
17 military background. As a political expert for this case.
18 Q. Is it correct that this person was introduced to you as a expert
19 who had written extensively about the region?
20 A. This is what he said.
21 Q. But is it correct that this is the way the person had been
22 introduced to you prior to the meeting?
23 A. No, not really. I don't think so. In any case, I didn't really
24 come across his name as a source of any major publication about Macedonia.
25 Q. Do you recall what the position of Mr. Schwartz was about the
1 alleged existence of an armed conflict in the Republic of Macedonia at the
3 A. Not really. I only know that Mr. Schwartz is now in Bosnia and he
4 is serving as one of major advisors on the political issues of Islam to
5 [indiscernible] Sulejman in Bosnia.
6 Q. Do you recall what the position of Mr. Schwartz was in relation
7 to the structure and functioning of the NLA, the National Liberation Army?
8 A. Not really.
9 Q. Well, perhaps I can assist you there. I will show you what is
10 Rule 65 ter 1D864.
11 Mr. Bezruchenko, what will appear in front of you is an
12 investigator's notes prepared by -- well, by the Office of the Prosecutor
13 and the meeting took place on the 24th of August of 2005, and as
14 investigators, the names of those conducting the interviews are Deidra
15 Sampson, Viktor Bezruchenko and Rafael La Cruz. Can you see that?
16 A. Yes, I can, but I would like to say again that in fact I don't
17 really think this was a formal interview. We simply had lunch with this
18 person, and we had a brief discussion with him about what he knows about
19 Macedonia, and he basically can't really produce any significant knowledge
20 on the conflict. He failed in fact to mention the most fundamental names
21 of individuals.
22 Q. Well, let's look first perhaps, Mr. Bezruchenko, at the first
23 subheading in that document, which is the purpose of the interview. Can
24 you see that?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And I will read it out to you. It says this: "Steven Schwartz
2 was introduced to the team as an authority on Bosnian Mujahedins and also
3 has a very good knowledge, and also has a very good knowledge of the
4 conflicts in Kosovo and Macedonia. He is a journalist and has authored
5 publications on the Balkan conflict."
6 And then it says: "In a cursory meeting with the team including
7 trial attorney Bill Smith and team leader Harit Sandhu, it was put forward
8 to Mr. Schwartz that we are seeking an expert witness with a good general
9 background knowledge of Macedonia during and around the period of the
10 conflict in 2001. Mr. Schwartz presented that he may be that person and
11 agreed to a more detailed interview from which we can draw an assessment
12 of his knowledge."
13 Can you see that?
14 A. Yes, I can see that. I think that perhaps the key word in this
15 particular paragraph is "cursory," which again confirms my view that it
16 was a very brief meeting, and I didn't really get an impression from this
17 meeting that Mr. Schwartz, despite his time in Bosnia, either spoke any of
18 the languages spoken in the area or had any sufficient military
20 Q. But, Mr. Bezruchenko, the cursory meeting to which the first
21 sentence refers to refers not to the meeting which you had, but a meeting
22 between Mr. Smith, Mr. Sandhu and the witness. If you look at the last
23 sentence the way in which your meeting is referred to is as a more
24 detailed interview. Can you see that?
25 A. Is this on the next page?
1 Q. No. It's the last sentence of the second paragraph.
2 A. Can you scroll down this document, please.
3 I can see that the last paragraph on this page is, "Further videos
4 can be found in his CV which is attached."
5 Q. No. I apologise, Mr. Bezruchenko. If you can go back up the page
6 and remain within the subheading "purpose of interview," and if you go to
7 the second paragraph which starts with the word "in a cursory meeting."
8 Can you see that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you agree that the cursory meeting which is being referred to
11 here is a meeting including trial attorney Bill Smith and team leader
12 Harit Sandhu. Do you agree with that?
13 A. Yes, that's right.
14 Q. And if you look at the last sentence in that paragraph it says
15 that Mr. Schwartz presented that he may be that person and agreed to a
16 more detailed interview from which we can draw an assessment of his
18 So do you agree that the more detailed interview is in fact what
19 comes next in this document?
20 A. Apparently so. That's right. I remember that he was saying that
21 he could be the person who could be contacted on the issues related to
22 conflict in Macedonia.
23 Q. And do you agree that the next words that follows is the word "the
25 Do you agree with that?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Could the registry please turn to the next page, please.
3 And you can see that he -- he was asked, among other things, about
4 Mr. Boskoski, about structures, and about the NLA on this page. Do you
5 agree with that?
6 Perhaps can you scroll down a bit for the witness, please?
7 A. Yes, please.
9 Q. And if you can focus on the bottom of the page, about his
10 knowledge of the NLA. I would like to read to you what is noted
11 there: "Schwartz has had no personal contact with the NLA but has had
12 contacts with persons close to the NLA. He has a basic knowledge of the
13 formation of the UCK MP and the evolution of the NLA which he called --
14 which he calls the second UCK. He does not believe the NLA is a outgrowth
15 of the KLA."
16 And then he told you this: "He does not see the point of the NLA,
17 believes the group was provocative, adventurous and unnecessary. He
18 considers them an opportunistic bunch of persons who became," and if we
19 can turn to the next page, "who became violent when they began to be taken
20 on by the Macedonian security forces."
21 And he adds that "The structure was not well organised like the
22 KLA, created quickly and improvised."
23 Can you see that?
24 A. Yes, I can.
25 Q. And can you now recall Mr. Schwartz telling you this?
1 A. Yeah. We had lunch basically with this person, as I mentioned,
2 and we were talking during the lunch and he was telling us all these
4 Q. And you will agree that, should this information have been
5 accepted or presented by you, this would have been a rather, let's say,
6 difficult type of evidence, and by that I mean that it directly
7 contradicts the case which you are trying to present to this Chamber.
8 Would you agree with that?
9 A. First of all I would like to correct a mistake in the statement it
10 not UCP MP. It is UCP MB, which stands for liberation army of Presevo,
11 Medvedja and Bujanovac.
12 Q. Well, I'm grateful for that, Mr. Bezruchenko. Would you be able
13 to answer the previous question? And if you wish, I can --
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. -- put it to you again.
16 A. My impression was that Mr. Schwartz in reality had pretty limited
17 opinion of what was going in Macedonia and which was basically taken from
18 various international media. I don't really think that he spoke to any
19 sufficient degree any of the languages spoken in the area, be it B/C/S or
21 The other point which sort of struck me about Mr. Schwartz was
22 that he didn't really have any relevant qualifications in terms of
23 military knowledge to make any judgment about the military organisations.
24 Q. Is it correct that your office, Mr. Bezruchenko, took the decision
25 not to call Mr. Schwartz as an expert. Is that correct?
1 A. I'm not aware if this decision was taken or if there was any
2 specific person who made this decision. But apparently the services which
3 Mr. Schwartz offered were not accepted.
4 Q. And do you agree also, coming closer to you this time, do you
5 agree that you made no reference to the information provided to you by
6 Mr. Schwartz during this interview in your report. Do you agree with
8 A. In fact, in a sense this is information did not really differ very
9 much from numerous media articles which appeared on the subject in
10 Macedonia. Well, I didn't really find anything new in this information,
11 no facts, no exact knowledge, no specific date.
12 Q. And in answer to my question, you did not refer to that particular
13 document in your report. Is that correct?
14 A. No, I did not.
15 Q. And if I can ask to look now at the bottom of the page, that's
16 page 1D -- yes, thank you. It is the correct page.
17 You will see there's a section of the document which is referred
18 to as "interviewer's comments." Can you see that?
19 A. Yes. There are some comments here.
20 Q. And if I can draw your attention in particular to the very last
21 paragraph on that interviewer's comments, and I will read it out to you.
22 The interviewers said this: "My concerns about using him as an expert
23 witness are, 1, he was never in Macedonia for an extended period and was
24 not there during the conflict. His contacts were limited local Albanians,
25 not officials and not Slav Macedonians. He is not an academic expert on
1 the area."
2 So you would agree that this is essentially the basis or the
3 reason why at the time it was considered that Mr. Schwartz was an
4 inadequate choice as an expert witness. Is that correct?
5 A. This is what appear from this document.
6 Q. And if I may ask you this: Is that correct that in the crisis
7 period in 2001 you were not personally in the Republic of Macedonia. Is
8 that correct?
9 A. That's correct, I was not.
10 Q. And in fact you were I believe - and correct me if I'm wrong -
11 working and studying in Sarajevo at the time, is that correct?
12 A. Yes. I was in Bosnia then.
13 Q. And I don't mean that as a criticism, Mr. Bezruchenko, but you
14 will agree that are not an academic expert on the area, either? Do you
15 agree with that?
16 A. On Macedonia?
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. Not academic expert, no.
19 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask the speakers not to
20 overlap. It is for our sake and for the transcript's sake.
21 MR. METTRAUX: I apologise for the absence of breaks during the
22 questions and answers.
23 Q. Is it correct, Mr. Bezruchenko, that the knowledge which you have
24 acquired about the functioning and the structure of the Macedonian
25 authorities and the relevant documentation which you have reviewed to
1 acquire that knowledge was acquired as a result and as part of your work
2 as a military analyst for the Office of the Prosecutor.
3 A. Yes, that's right.
4 Q. And prior to that time, had you no particular contacts with the
5 Macedonian authorities in the region -- or the Macedonian authorities or
6 the representative of those authorities is that correct?
7 A. Not at that time, no, I didn't have.
8 MR. METTRAUX: And could we please turn to the next page of that
9 document, and if we can go to the top.
10 Q. There's another paragraph. It says this: "Mr. Schwartz' contacts
11 are limited to journalists and person at the local level who could be used
12 as leads for more qualified information on Macedonia. As such, we suggest
13 that he can be used as an alternative if other leads do not prove to be
15 Can you see that?
16 A. Yes, I can.
17 Q. Are you aware, Mr. Bezruchenko, of any other interviews or
18 interview of potential candidates by the Prosecution to try to identify a
19 expert who could give evidence about the matters which have been touched
20 with Mr. Schwartz, in particular the NLA and the conflict?
21 A. Well, no, I don't think that we contacted anyone else. At least I
22 was not really involved in any interviews in relation to these specific
23 persons. I don't think so.
24 Q. Is it correct that in your report and again in court you have
25 referred to a particular book known in English as War in Macedonia. Do
1 you recall that?
2 A. Are you referring to the book by Mr. Damjanovski and Kuzov?
3 Q. That's correct, Mr. Bezruchenko.
4 A. Yes, I used this book.
5 Q. And did you interview any of the three authors of this book which
6 you called experts? Did you interview any of those three people, to your
7 knowledge, this is?
8 A. No, unfortunately not.
9 Q. Is it correct that within a couple of months of the interview with
10 Mr. Schwartz, you had become the listed Prosecutor expert on its Rule 65
11 ter list. Is that correct?
12 A. I don't quite understand, sir, what you mean by have become a
13 expert. Well, yes, my name was put on the list.
14 Q. And is it correct that the decision to select you as an expert to
15 appear and to give evidence on behalf of the Prosecutor was taken at some
16 stage during the 24th of August of 2005 and the 7th of November of 2005.
17 Can you recall that?
18 A. I'm not aware of that. I'm only aware of the fact that I was
19 asked to prepare my report and that I might be possibly asked to provide
20 evidence in court.
21 Q. Can you recall, Mr. Bezruchenko, when you were first asked by the
22 Office of the Prosecutor to prepare this report?
23 A. Well, I don't remember exactly because several years have passed
24 already, but I think it was either in 2004 or 2005, probably end of 2004
25 or maybe 2005.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
2 MR. SAXON: This question and the answer were covered in the last
3 session, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
5 MR. METTRAUX:
6 Q. Is it correct, Mr. Bezruchenko, that even after the time when you
7 had been asked to become an expert for the Prosecutor, you continued to
8 provide advice and assistance to the Prosecution team?
9 A. In which sense, Mr. Mettraux?
10 Q. Is it correct, for instance, that you were consulted by colleagues
11 of yours from the Office of the Prosecutor in relation to particular
12 witnesses, first?
13 A. To particular documents, first of all, I was asked to interpreter
14 this or that document, in fact. Well, regarding the witnesses, I'm not
15 certain, really. I think at some point in time I stopped being involved
16 at working with witnesses.
17 Q. Is it correct that even during pre-trial and in the trial you were
18 asked for -- to provide your expertise in relation to a number of
19 documents which were to be used at trial by the Office of the Prosecutor.
20 Is that correct?
21 A. Not really. In fact, after my report was completed, I almost had
22 no opportunity to comment on this or that document, because by and large,
23 the report was done.
24 Q. Is it correct, Mr. Bezruchenko, that you were consulted in
25 particular in relation to a filing made by the Office of the Prosecution
1 where the Prosecution sought to tender a number of document, that they be
2 admitted by the Trial Chamber and you were asked by counsel what the
3 relevance and importance of those documents were?
4 A. Could you kindly qualify your question, Mr. Mettraux, which
5 documents you are referring to and what is the approximate date of the
7 Q. The documents in question, Mr. Bezruchenko, are documents which
8 appeared at the time on the Rule 65 ter list of the Prosecution and for
9 which the Prosecution made an application for admission. I do not have
10 the exact number of the Rule 65 ter in front of me and I will seek to find
11 it for you later today, and the filing was made, I believe, earlier this
12 year. Do you recall that?
13 A. No, I don't, Mr. Mettraux. I say again if you specifically
14 indicate to me which document you are referring to, I might be in a
15 position to help you. Otherwise, I'm afraid not.
16 Q. In that case I will come back to you with the information,
17 Mr. Bezruchenko.
18 Is it correct that a lot of the information which you used to
19 prepare your report had in fact been contained in the various reports and
20 memorandums which you had prepared for the Office of the Prosecutor at an
21 earlier stage. Is that correct?
22 A. Not really. I am afraid you're overestimating the role of the
23 memos and memorandums, because they were not initially intended to be the
24 basis for my report. In fact, the work in earnest of the report began
25 quite late when I was directly asked to prepare this report. Otherwise,
1 these documents were prepared in reference to interpretation of various
2 documents like the book by Mr. Boskoski.
3 Q. Is it correct, Mr. Bezruchenko, that at the time when the
4 Prosecution asked you to become the expert in this case, they would have
5 been fully aware of what your position was in relation to the matter which
6 you were asked to provide expert evidence upon. Do you agree with that?
7 A. Well, I cannot really tell what kind of judgment my colleagues or
8 any persons who would be involved in this matter would make about my
9 views. It was entirely undiscrete matter for them only, but I would say
10 that by the time I began doing my report, from my research, from Internet,
11 from numerous media materials, as well as from some documents, I had
12 already some basic, but not conclusive ideas about the conflict in
14 Q. Is it correct however, Mr. Bezruchenko, that at the time when the
15 Prosecution asked you to become the expert in this case, they would have
16 known from you that you held the view that there had been a conflict in
17 Macedonia in 2001. Is that correct?
18 A. Well, it is not really a public secret, Mr. Mettraux, that this
19 conflict did take place. I'm not the only expert, or, rather, I'm not
20 really the only person who has been dealing with this issue who maintained
21 this point of view.
22 Q. But simply to answer my question, Mr. Bezruchenko, and I will
23 repeat it, is it correct that at the time when the Prosecution asked you
24 to become the expert in this case, they would have known from you that you
25 held the view that there had been a conflict in Macedonia in 2001. Is
1 that correct?
2 A. Not really. I don't think that I made a particular point of
3 bragging about my knowledge of the conflict in Macedonia.
4 Q. Well, did you perhaps tell them that, in your view, there had been
5 a conflict in Macedonia in 2001 during discussions or otherwise?
6 A. Well, I think both my colleagues and I were reading numerous
7 international reports and media reports which actually related to what
8 happened in Macedonia in 2001 as conflict. So I simply think there is no
9 other word to describe it but the word "conflict."
10 Q. May I take your answer, Mr. Bezruchenko, as an agreement that in
11 fact you had made your position quite clear to your colleagues that, in
12 your view, there had been a conflict in Macedonia in 2001?
13 A. If the implication of your question, Mr. Mettraux, is that I was
14 specifically expressed the views that a conflict in Macedonia as described
15 in legal terms was taking place in Macedonia in 2001, this was not the
17 Q. And did you make your position clear as regard your field of
18 expertise, the military analysis that, in your view, and according to the
19 doctrine of military expertise, there was a conflict in Macedonia in 2001?
20 A. I could not really understand your question, Mr. Mettraux. What
21 actually do you mean?
22 Q. Well, perhaps I will ask you the question again.
23 Is it correct that at the time when the Prosecution asked you to
24 become the expert in this case they would have known from you that you
25 held the view that there had been a conflict in Macedonia in 2001, and I
1 will specify according to your military understanding of that term. Would
2 that be correct?
3 A. I don't think they specifically knew it from me. As I say it was
4 not a public secret; it was open knowledge.
5 MR. METTRAUX: Can the witness please be shown Rule 65 ter 1D724,
7 Q. Mr. Bezruchenko, that is, again, your summary and analysis of
8 Mr. Boskoski's book and I will ask the registry to turn to page 17,
9 please. That is 1D00-6427. And if you can scroll down a little bit to
10 the paragraph numbered 1. Thank you.
11 Mr. Bezruchenko, if can you focus again on paragraph 1 of your
12 analysis, you said this: "Boskoski's views were formed under the strong
13 influence of radical Macedonian disguised as patriotism, he espouses
14 strong nationalist idealogies -- idealogy." And then it says: "Boskoski's
15 uncompromising support for the military option during the conflict."
16 Can you see that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And what you referring there to is a conflict according to your
19 understanding of this term in military doctrine. Is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And I may turn to the next page, please.
22 If we can go to the top of that page, please. Thank you.
23 In paragraph 3 you said and you referred to "throughout the
24 Albanian-Macedonian conflict." Is that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And again that would be a reference to your military understanding
2 of this notion. Is that correct?
3 A. That's right.
4 Q. So you would agree, Mr. Bezruchenko, that at least as early as
5 24th of April of 2004 and you've indicated that was prior to the time when
6 you were asked to become an expert by the Prosecution, the Office of the
7 Prosecutor would have been fully aware that you held the view that,
8 according to the doctrine or the military doctrine, you took the view that
9 there was and had been a conflict in Macedonia in 2001. Is that correct?
10 A. If I may explain it in the following way, Mr. Mettraux.
11 There was indeed a conflict in military understanding of this term
12 going on in Macedonia in 2001. Or in fact it was following this conflict
13 even when I was in Bosnia as soon as this conflict began, because it was
14 extremely interesting to follow what was happening and it was definitely
15 an extension of other conflicts in the, as I would describe, political
16 space of the former Yugoslavia.
17 Well, on the other hand, the implication of the question whether
18 my colleagues knew only from me and exclusively from me that there was a
19 conflict going on, then your assertion is completely wrong.
20 Q. I apologise, Mr. Bezruchenko, if you understood my question to
21 have that suggestion built in it. It was a question that related to your
22 position and whether you had made that position known to them, your
23 position, so you would agree if I rephrase it, that you made your personal
24 position quite clear to your colleagues at least in this document. Do you
25 agree with that?
1 A. This document is based on the analysis of the book which was
2 produced by Mr. Boskoski. And I think, I think he uses the same words in
3 describing the events in Macedonia.
4 Q. I'm grateful for that, Mr. Bezruchenko.
5 I will ask you this about your report. Could you indicate who, if
6 anyone, assisted you in locating and identifying material which you
7 believed to be relevant to preparing your report?
8 A. No one.
9 Q. Is your answer to be understood as suggesting that all of the
10 material which is referred to in your expert report was in fact identified
11 and selected by yourself?
12 A. Well, the way it worked was like this. Part of the material was
13 found in the open sources, like media, I was specifically studying various
14 Macedonian newspapers and magazines relating to the period of the
15 conflict. A lot of material was also derived from various international
16 sources which were open sources again, and finally, whenever I felt there
17 was a specific need to fill in certain gaps in the analysis, which
18 unfortunately happens now and then, well, I would describe what kind of
19 documents I would need, and my colleagues and I would come up with
20 specific RFAs, that is request for assistance.
21 Q. So if I understand, and I wish to understand your answer clearly,
22 Mr. Bezruchenko. The responsibility to locate or to identify material
23 that would be or could be relevant to the preparation of your report was
24 your responsibility. Is that correct?
25 A. I would say by and large, yes, but not entirely. Unfortunately,
1 unfortunately, I could not get the full access to the Macedonian military
3 Q. And perhaps to understand when you say "not entirely," is your
4 qualification of the answer limited to the fact that on some occasions
5 access to certain document had to be obtained from third parties. Is that
6 the only qualification you make to your answer?
7 A. Could you please qualify your answer -- your question, sir.
8 Q. Yes, I simply want to be clear on the qualification which you gave
9 to my question.
10 You have said, "I would say by and large, yes, but not entirely."
11 That was the question whether you were the one with the responsibility to
12 select and locate and identify the material. And then you said
13 unfortunately, you did not have full access to the Macedonian military
15 My follow-up question was whether the limitation which you've
16 mentioned in your answer as to who was responsible to locate and identify
17 material was limited to the difficulties which you had to have full access
18 to military archives or whether there were other factors relevant.
19 A. I have no answer for this question. I think we were all under
20 pressure. There were various tasks facing us and basically there were
21 other priorities. That's it.
22 Q. Perhaps you could indicate whether any other members of the team
23 of the Office of the Prosecutor assisted you in locating and identifying
24 material which would be or could be relevant to the preparation of your
1 A. I think that Mr. Thomas Keuhnel, the investigator on a number of
2 occasions provided some documents.
3 Q. And did anyone else assisted you in your task to prepare a report
4 from the Office of the Prosecutor?
5 A. Well, not really in -- if you mean the writing the actual report
6 and the analysis, certainly assistance was provided, that's right.
7 Q. What about the identification and location of document; in
8 addition to Mr. Kuehnel, did anyone else provide you or suggested document
9 that would be or could be relevant to the preparation of your report?
10 A. I think some documents were provided through witnesses.
11 Q. And any other members of the Prosecution team, Mr. Bezruchenko?
12 A. Not to the best of my knowledge.
13 Q. Is it correct that the mandate or the task which you were given or
14 the scope, I should say of the task which you were given to prepare your
15 report changed slightly over time? Do you agree with that?
16 A. No, not really.
17 Q. Well, do you agree, for instance, that in the original request
18 which was made of you there was no request to provide a so-called, I think
19 you called it military chronology of the events in the village Would that
20 be correct?
21 A. Well, I don't think that such a thing as military chronology of
22 events in the village ever existed. Well, if you are specifically
23 referring to my section of the report which deals with the events in
24 Ljuboten, this was compounded on the basis of numerous document, but I
25 don't really think that there is something which can be described
1 collectively as military chronology of events in the village ever existed
2 in Macedonia archives. I doubt it.
3 Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Bezruchenko. I didn't wish to ask you about where
4 that chronology was. I was asking indeed, as you correctly identified, to
5 the part of your report on the event of Ljuboten.
6 Is that correct that this particular part of your report was
7 requested of you at a later stage?
8 A. Well, we have been made -- we have made a number of requests for
9 various documents and they were all, not necessarily all, of course, but
10 well, we received the replies at various points of time. Some were pretty
11 late. Some were received pretty early.
12 Q. And simply for the record, is it correct that you refer to that
13 part of your report as a military chronology -- I am sorry, military
14 integrated events? Is that the way you described them in the village of
15 Ljuboten on 10, 11 and 12 August 2001?
16 A. Perhaps if you could specifically indicate the page and paragraph.
17 Q. Yes. That would be paragraph 21, Mr. Bezruchenko, at page 4. It
18 says section 4 presents a narrative of the military integrated events in
19 the village of Ljuboten on 10, 11 and 12 August of 2001.
20 Is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And simply to be clear on this point. Is it correct that the
23 original request which was made of you to prepare a report did not include
24 a narrative of military integrated events as occurred in the village of
25 Ljuboten. Is that correct?
1 A. Mr. Mettraux, I'm afraid you're asking me something which doesn't
2 exist. Well, I don't really think that, as I mentioned previously, there
3 exists any document which could be described as a narrative of military
4 integrated events which occurred in the village of Ljuboten.
5 Let me repeat again. This section of my report was based on a
6 number of documents, quite a big number of documents, which had to be
7 properly analysed and put in the proper context.
8 MR. METTRAUX: Can the witness please be shown exhibit P466,
10 Q. Mr. Bezruchenko, that's your report again.
11 And I will ask the registry to turn to page 4, please, of that
13 It would be a few -- yes. Thank you very much.
14 If you could focus, please, on the top of the page, please.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Can you look at paragraph 21 of your report, Mr. Bezruchenko?
17 A. Yes, I can see that.
18 Q. Can you see that you refer to section 4 of your report as a
19 narrative of military integrated events in the village of Ljuboten on 10,
20 11 and 12 August of 2001?
21 A. Yes, I can see that. But you probably missed my point,
22 Mr. Mettraux. What I was saying was that I never requested from
23 Macedonian authorities anything which might be described as a single
24 comprehensive narrative of military integrated events in the village of
1 Q. I'm grateful for that specification, Mr. Bezruchenko, but my
2 question was this. Is it correct that over the course of time the scope
3 of the expertise which was asked of you changed?
4 A. In which sense, Mr. Mettraux?
5 Q. Is it correct that at some stage during the preparation of your
6 report you were asked by the Office of the Prosecutor to add certain parts
7 of your reports -- or add parts to your report, I should say.
8 A. Well, I had a plan. We had a discussion of this plan with my
9 colleagues and it was adopted with minor changes.
10 Q. And when you refer to the plan that you discussed with your
11 colleagues, that would be your colleagues of the Office of the
12 Prosecutor. Is that correct?
13 A. Yes, that was Mr. -- I think I referred to these persons in my
14 report on the very first page. This was Mr. Dan Saxon and Bill Smith.
15 Q. And do you recall that -- or I should ask you this. Is it correct
16 that one of the part of the report which was asked of you at a later date
17 not in the original request was this narrative of military integrated
18 events in the village of Ljuboten. Is that correct?
19 A. I assume that was probably something which was a part of the
20 original plan.
21 Q. Is it correct that one of the aspects of your report which was
22 later asked of you or asked of you to add to your report was the part of
23 the report which relates to the alleged disciplinary responsibilities
24 within the Ministry of Interior. Is that correct?
25 A. I don't think so.
1 Q. Well, let me ask you this then. Is it correct that on 7 of
2 November of 2005 when the Prosecution provided for the first time the list
3 of proposed witnesses, in addition to yourself, a person was proposed as
4 an expert about the functioning and the structure of the Ministry of the
5 Interior, in particular as related to conduct of criminal investigation
6 and disciplinary matters. Do you have a memory of that?
7 A. I don't, and honestly speaking, that was not really my concern.
8 My concern was to do the report in time.
9 Q. Do you recall that the name of that proposed expert at the time
10 was Professor Marijanovic. Can you recall his name?
11 A. No, I don't recall.
12 Q. Do you recall that Mr. Marijanovic was -- or the professor in
13 question which was contacted was asked questions about the structure and
14 was approached about the structure and the functioning of the Ministry of
15 Interior. Are you aware of that?
16 A. I don't think I ever met Professor Marijanovic.
17 Q. But are you aware, sir, of the fact that he was approached and
18 asked questions about the structure and functioning of the Ministry of the
20 A. No, I'm not.
21 Q. Are you aware perhaps that at the time, Mr. Marijanovic indicated
22 to the Office of the Prosecutor that he could not agree with the nature of
23 the case which the Prosecution was trying to put forth. Are you aware of
25 A. Well, as I mentioned previously, Mr. Mettraux, I never had a
1 chance to talk to Mr. Marijanovic. I never met him and I don't know what
2 he might have told to my colleagues or anyone else.
3 Q. Is it correct, sir, however, that as a result, you were asked to
4 increase the scope of your report by adding several parts of material
5 pertaining to the Ministry of the Interior. Is that correct?
6 A. I don't think so, because at the very start, my task was to
7 describe the two major components of the security forces of Macedonia
8 which is the army and the Ministry of Interior, and of course this task
9 cannot be really approached in a cohesive and regular manner without
10 describing the legislation pertaining to the Ministry of Interior as well
11 as its structure.
12 Q. And just so that the record is clear on this point,
13 Mr. Bezruchenko, is it correct that you have never worked for the Ministry
14 of Interior of Macedonia Is that correct?
15 A. No, I never worked for the Ministry of Interior of Macedonia.
16 Q. And you never lectured or published any article concerning the
17 structure and functioning of the Ministry of Interior of Macedonia; is
18 that correct?
19 A. That's right.
20 Q. And as you've indicated earlier in your evidence your knowledge of
21 the functioning and the structure of the Ministry of Interior was acquired
22 as part of your work for the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY. Is
23 that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. I'd like now to turn to a slightly or in fact a completely
1 different issue, Mr. Bezruchenko, and it relate to your discussion in your
2 report of the president of the Republic of Macedonia. Do you recall
3 giving or making statements and comments in your report about the
4 president of the Republic of Macedonia?
5 A. I was describing the various powers in relation to the president
6 of the Republic of Macedonia, mostly, I think, as his role as commander in
8 Q. And you will recall, simply to refresh your memory,
9 Mr. Bezruchenko, do you recall that during your examination in chief you
10 were also asked by Mr. Saxon to comment upon a number of orders and
11 decisions which had been signed by the president of the Republic of
12 Macedonia. Is that correct?
13 A. Yes, that's right.
14 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, simply for the record, this would be
15 tab 10 to 25 of the OTP binder.
16 Q. And is it correct that the section which deals with the president
17 of the Republic of Macedonia in your report, Mr. Bezruchenko, is to be
18 found at paragraph 32 and more specifically at section 188.8.131.52; is that
19 correct? And perhaps I should assist you in locating the page.
20 MR. METTRAUX: If the registry can please bring up page 66 of that
21 document, please, that is on the screen.
22 Q. Do you agree, Mr. Bezruchenko, that this particular section of the
23 report which is located under number 184.108.40.206 is the part of your report
24 that deals with the role of the president. Is that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Is it correct also that this particular section of the report
2 deals with the Macedonian army generally. Is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Is it also correct that you did not deal with the powers of the
5 president in relation to the forces of the Ministry of the Interior in
6 your report. Is that correct?
7 A. Well, I think I just provided the description of the basic
8 legislation related to the defence system.
9 Q. But in the section that deals with the Ministry of Interior do you
10 agree that there is no section relevant to the role of the president. Is
11 that correct?
12 A. No, not really.
13 Q. Sorry, just to clarify your answer, Mr. Bezruchenko. Are you
14 suggesting that you devoted a section or a part of your report dealing
15 with the Ministry of Interior to the powers and responsibility of the
17 A. What I'm suggest is that the role of the president is, to my mind,
18 adequately described under paragraph 220.127.116.11 and there was no real need to
19 carry on with any other descriptions in the part of the report dealing
20 with the Ministry of Interior.
21 Q. I'm grateful for that.
22 MR. METTRAUX: If the registry could turn to page 69, please.
23 I believe it would be the next page, please. Thank you.
24 Q. Is it correct that -- Mr. Bezruchenko, that is the part of the
25 report that deals with the role of the government. Is that correct?
1 A. Is this page 67, sir?
2 Q. 69, please, Mr. Bezruchenko.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And is it correct that this is the part of your report that deals
5 with the role of the government. Is that --
6 A. Yes, that's right.
7 Q. And again, this is the same part of your report that deals
8 generally with the army, ARM, is that correct?
9 A. Yes. Because this is the part of my report in which I'm
10 describing the general system of defence.
11 Q. And is it correct that in the part that deals with the forces of
12 the Ministry of Interior you have not dealt with the role of the
13 government in a distinct section. Is that correct?
14 A. No. I did not, because I don't think it was really necessary,
15 since, as I say, the role of the government is described in paragraph
17 Q. And I would like to ask you a few general question which may be of
18 relevance here, Mr. Bezruchenko, about the issues of terminology.
19 You would agree that generally in military matters a proper use of
20 term is an important matter. Is that correct?
21 A. Yes, of course.
22 Q. And it is equally important for you to use the proper terms when
23 using them in your report. Is that correct?
24 A. Of course.
25 Q. And you would agree that the concept or the notion of order in
1 military doctrine has a particular significance or a particular meaning.
2 Is that correct?
3 A. Yes, that's right.
4 Q. And perhaps I should show you a document that I have shown you
5 already in the past.
6 This would be Rule 65 ter 1D928.
7 Mr. Bezruchenko, that's, again, the department of defence
8 dictionary of military and associated terms that we have seen before.
9 And I ask the registry please to turn to page 396. It is at
10 1D00-7884, please.
11 And if the registry could please scroll down a little bit on this
12 page and focus on the middle of the page. Thank you.
13 Mr. Bezruchenko, can you locate the entry under the title
14 "order?" Can you see that entry?
15 A. Yes, I can.
16 Q. And the -- the lexicon defines it in the following term: "A
17 communication, written, oral or by signal which conveys instructions from
18 a superior to a subordinate. In a broad sense the terms order and command
19 are synonymous. However, an order implies discretion as to the details of
20 execution, whereas a command does not."
21 Do you agree with that definition that it's a generally
22 authoritative definition in the military field. Would you agree with
24 A. I agree that this definition is generally authoritative. However,
25 I would say that this definition may be limited to specific cultural
1 differences and application in specific armed forces. And as a general
2 comment I would like to ask you, Mr. Mettraux, which particular document
3 related to the Ministry of Interior or Ministry of Defence that you're
4 applying this definition to?
5 Q. Well, there is a number of documents, Mr. Bezruchenko, that I will
6 kindly ask you later to comment upon.
7 At this stage I would like to ask you this. Is it correct that in
8 military doctrine the concept of order is different from, for instance,
9 the concept of decision?
10 A. Yes, it is normally different.
11 Q. And, Mr. Bezruchenko, I will apologise to you, but I will provide
12 you with the page which contains the definition of the dictionary, the
13 same dictionary. It has not been uploaded by my own fault, by the
14 definition it gives is as follows. It says: "An estimate of the
15 situation, a clear and concise statement of the line of action intended to
16 be followed by the commander as the one most favourable to the successful
17 accomplishment of the assigned mission"?
18 A. I don't see it on the screen, sir.
19 Q. No, Mr. Bezruchenko, unfortunately by my own fault, you won't be
20 able to see it today, so what I will simply do is to ask you whether the
21 definition that I have given you would be a pretty accurate expression of
22 what you understood to be a decision in military terms?
23 A. Not necessarily as applied in the Macedonian army, sir.
24 Q. And are you suggesting, Mr. Bezruchenko, that the definition of
25 orders or decisions as defined in the military doctrine of the United
1 States would vary from those which you say were used in the Macedonian
3 A. They could.
4 Q. But you understand them to be different or is it simply a
5 possibility that you are raising?
6 A. Well, it is simply a possibility, because I would say that in fact
7 as you are well aware, Macedonian army had a very rich cultural and
8 historical heritage from the JNA, and therefore it had its own traditions
9 and its own ways of command and control related to decisions and
10 implementing these decisions and orders.
11 Q. And would you agree, Mr. Bezruchenko, with the suggestion that it
12 would be pretty relevant to determine the exact nature or the purport of a
13 particular document to establish whether it was an order or a decision?
14 A. Yes, in general terms only [Realtime transcript read in error
16 Q. And you would also agree that it would be relevant, for instance,
17 to know the nature of the authority which was exercised by the person
18 rendering the order for the decision. Is that correct?
19 A. Sir, I don't quite understand what you mean by "horizonitally."
20 Q. I didn't think I made a reference to "horizontally." I'm -- I
21 apologise, Mr. Bezruchenko. Would you agree that the term that would be
22 used in a particular document might or could be relevant to determine the
23 nature of the authority which was exercised by the person which adopted or
24 signed the document in question? Do you agree with that?
25 A. What -- if I may ask you, sir, what do you actually mean by nature
1 of authority?
2 Q. Well, let me ask you that way. Would you agree that the type of
3 authority or the extent of authority which is exercised by a person when
4 he or she issues an order as opposed to a decision or another form of
5 documentation of that sort, could be different. Do you agree with that?
6 A. Sir, again, I have to ask to you -- I'm sorry, I'm really sorry,
7 but I have to ask you to you qualify your question. Are you specifically
8 referring to technical authority, are you specifically referring an extent
9 of authority? You are simply mixing up these two things.
10 Q. I apologise, Mr. Bezruchenko. The record didn't pick up the word
11 which you said was being mixed up. The record said "are you referring to
12 a" and then "mixed up two things."
13 A. Yes. What I was trying to say was that you appear to be mixing up
14 two things in the same question. First you are saying it is type of
15 authority. Then you add "or" and say extent of authority.
16 Q. Very well. Then I will ask you first about the type of
17 authority. Would you agree that the type or that the nature of the
18 document in question that is being exercised in a document could vary or
19 could be indicated by the terms or the name of the particular document?
20 Do you agree with that?
21 A. There are various sorts of orders, of course. There are
22 administrative orders, there are logistical orders, there are warning
23 orders, there are [indiscernible] orders, there are operational orders.
24 There are various orders.
25 Q. But do you agree that the type [Realtime transcript read in
1 error "time"] of authority could vary between, say, an order on the one
2 hand and a decision on the other. Do you agree with that?
3 A. Well, with all my due respect, Mr. Mettraux, I will have to ask
4 you again, what do you actually mean by the type of authority and again I
5 must note it appears that the record is not really entirely correct. It
6 says "time of authority," not "type of authority," if I understand you
8 Q. Well, based on the two definitions that I have read to you,
9 Mr. Bezruchenko, of what constitute a decision or an order according to
10 the military doctrine, would you agree with that proposition that the
11 nature of the authority which is being exercised is different in one case
12 and in the other. Do you agree with that?
13 THE INTERPRETER: Would counsel and witness please slow down their
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot really agree do it, because
16 I don't really understand what you mean, sir.
17 If you are specifically referring to a interrelation between an
18 order and a decision, normally at least in the military terms, order is
19 based on a decision.
20 MR. METTRAUX:
21 Q. Well I'm grateful for that, Mr. Bezruchenko.
22 MR. METTRAUX: Would that be a convenient time, Your Honour?
23 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Mettraux.
24 We resume at 6.00.
25 --- Recess taken at 5.28 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 6.03 p.m.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Mettraux.
3 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour. And perhaps an indication
4 at the start of this session, it may be hard to believe, but it seems that
5 we have gone faster than was foreseen in relation to several parts of
6 questioning of Mr. Bezruchenko and the Defence shed in light of Mr.
7 Bezruchenko's evidence a good part of its questions.
8 As a result of it, Your Honour, we believe that the Defence may
9 have to ask for a shorter session during this session which may perhaps
10 speed things up when we restart this witness rather than slow -- slow
11 things down, we believe it may be more efficient, but for the time being I
12 will simply try to move forward until the point where -- which we reach
13 where it may become better to interrupt rather than continue. Obviously,
14 with the leave of the Chamber.
15 Q. Mr. Bezruchenko, I apologise for the delay. Is it correct that
16 the president of Macedonia, the president of the republic, Mr. Trajkovski
17 was legally competent to issue orders to his subordinates. Is that
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Is it correct --
21 A. [Overlapping speakers] ...
22 Q. Thank you. Is it correct that in your examination in chief you
23 were in fact shown a number of documents by Mr. Saxon which specifically
24 referred to the document being an order with a reference to "I order" as
25 signed by the president; is that correct, do you recall?
1 A. I have seen a number of such documents, I think for the most part,
2 and the proper translation for these documents would be decision. In fact
3 they were mostly decisions.
4 Q. Well, do you agree that perhaps with this. Is it correct that a
5 number of the documents which you were shown were decisions whereas some
6 others were in fact orders. Do you agree with that?
7 A. Yes, I think so.
8 Q. And if I may ask you to look at your report once again,
9 Mr. Bezruchenko. That would be page 67 of your report.
10 That's exhibit P466, please.
11 And I'll ask you, Mr. Bezruchenko, to focus particularly on
12 paragraph 251 of your report and the following.
13 Is it correct that in paragraph 251 to 257 of your report you
14 refer to a number of decisions issued by President Trajkovski? Do you
15 agree with that?
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. And do you agree also that you were shown a number of documents by
18 the Prosecution which referred to the expression "orders" during your
19 examination in chief? Do you recall those?
20 A. Well, I recall those documents, but I cannot really tell at this
21 point of time which of those were actually decisions and which of those
22 were actually orders, but, yes, I remember those documents, of course.
23 MR. METTRAUX: And perhaps to expedite matter, Your Honour, we
24 will come back on a number of those documents but those referred to as
25 orders shown to Mr. Bezruchenko are exhibit P472, P476, P477, P478,
1 Exhibit 1D100 and exhibit P479 and they are in the binder of the
3 Q. Is it correct, Mr. Bezruchenko, that the use of the expression
4 "order" in relation to documents signed by the president of Macedonia is
5 not a random matter but one that depends on the legal basis which is being
6 used to sign a particular document. Do you agree with that?
7 A. Well, I don't think really that in legal terms, so I am probably
8 not really in a position to comment on that. But if you are looking for
9 my view on this matter I would probably comment by saying that there is
10 not really serious difference in terms of a decision and order in the
11 legal term, since both types of documents convey the same idea. That is,
12 the will of the president to carry out a certain action.
13 Q. Well, is it correct, Mr. Bezruchenko, that when the legal basis
14 for the document was Article 15, 11 of the Law of Defence and that would
15 be the old law, Mr. Bezruchenko, the document would be named and it would
16 be legally considered to be a decision. Are you aware of this fact?
17 A. I think so, yes.
18 MR. METTRAUX: And, Your Honour, simply for the record this would
19 be tab 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 21 of the OTP binder.
20 Q. And is it correct, Mr. Bezruchenko, that when the legal basis used
21 or in relation to which the president signed a document was Article 15, 10
22 of the Law on Defence, the old law, the document in question would be
23 characterised as an order. Is that correct?
24 A. Well, I'm not certain about this point. Because essentially I was
25 really concentrating on the analysing of the Law on Defence which was
1 passed in June 2001 which was more pertinent in fact and more
2 comprehensive in a sense of addressing military matters.
3 Q. Well, perhaps I'll simply ask you to confirm this then.
4 MR. METTRAUX: If the witness could be shown exhibit P476,
5 please. That would be at tab 18 of the Prosecution binder, Your Honour.
6 Q. Mr. Bezruchenko, we will come back on a number of these documents
7 together. But at this stage I would simply ask to you look at the
8 preamble of this document signed by Mr. Boris Trajkovski, president of the
9 Republic of Macedonia. It's dated the 7th of June of 2001.
10 Is it correct that in the preamble the legal basis referred to in
11 relation to this document is Article 79, paragraph 2 of the constitution
12 and Article 15, item 10 of the Law on Defence. Is that correct?
13 A. Yes, that's right.
14 Q. And if we can turn to the next document in the Prosecution binder,
15 tap 19. And it's exhibit P477, please.
16 And again I'll simply ask to you look at the preamble for the time
17 being on this document, Mr. Bezruchenko. Do you agree that this is again
18 an order signed by the president, Mr. Trajkovski? This one is dated the
19 8th of June 2001 and the legal basis for this document is again Article
20 79, paragraph 2 of the constitution of the Republic of Macedonia and
21 Article 15, item 10 of the Law on Defence. Do you agree?
22 A. Yes, I do.
23 Q. And perhaps to show you another one. It's exhibit P478, please.
24 It is in tab 20 of the Prosecution binder.
25 And while it shows up on the screen, Mr. Bezruchenko, can you
1 recall at this stage that the Article in question had to do with the
2 mobilisation of the army or is it something beyond your memory?
3 A. Which specific Article are you talking about?
4 Q. I apologise. It's Article 15, item 10. Can you recall what it
5 related to?
6 A. And this is the new law or is it the old law?
7 Q. It's the old law, Mr. Bezruchenko.
8 A. Well, obviously the Article - and this is my assumption - is
9 related to mobilisation.
10 Q. I'm grateful for that. And you agree that the preamble again of
11 this order is Article 79, paragraph 2 of the constitution and Article 15,
12 item 10 of the Law on Defence. Is that correct?
13 A. I do. And as far as I recall, Article 79 actually stipulates the
14 powers of the president as his role of the commander in chief.
15 Q. I'm grateful for that. And I will ask you a couple of questions
16 about this afterwards.
17 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, simply for the completeness of the
18 record, I would also direct the Chamber's attention to Exhibit 1D100 which
19 is tab 22 of the Prosecution binder and exhibit 479 which is tab 23 of the
20 Prosecution binder.
21 And I'll ask the registry to please go back to the report of
22 Mr. Bezruchenko. That would be exhibit P466, please. And in particular,
23 at page 111, please. 107; I apologise.
24 Q. Mr. Bezruchenko, this is a paragraph that we've seen already a
25 couple of times. And at paragraph 371 of your report you say
1 this: "Several Macedonian Ministry of Interior documents suggest that
2 minister of interior Boskoski exercised operational control of police
3 forces which was manifested in orders to deploy police at various crisis
5 Can you see that?
6 A. Yes, can I.
7 Q. And would you agree that you then refer to 29 -- I believe 29
8 different telegrams and in all but two of them you suggest that those are
9 orders or at least that they are ordering certain matters. Well, first I
10 should perhaps ask you this perhaps. Is it correct that you sought to
11 represent in your report these 29 telegrams as orders from Mr. Boskoski?
12 A. Sir, if you assume that the definition of an order which you have
13 just provided me as taken from the dictionary of military terms is
14 correct, and I would like to remind you that this definition speaks of an
15 order as conveying specific instructions, then, I think I had sufficient
16 grounds to interpret these telegrams in fact as orders.
17 Q. And do you agree that in only two cases of those telegrams, you
18 have referred to them as authorising something. Is it correct? That's at
19 paragraph 372 and 374 of your report. Do you agree with that?
20 A. Yes, that's right.
21 Q. Is it correct, however, Mr. Bezruchenko, that none of those
22 documents which you have characterised as orders in your report actually
23 bear that title. Is that correct?
24 A. I think you're right. I think the proper title is a telegram, but
25 I think I mention it in my report as well.
1 Q. Is it correct also that in none of them is the injunction or the
2 word to order something used by the minister? Do you agree with that?
3 A. Perhaps you could come back to one of those orders and take a look
4 at them again?
5 Q. Certainly, Mr. Bezruchenko. If we can turn perhaps randomly to
6 exhibit P468, that would be, if you have the binder, Mr. Bezruchenko, tab
7 6 of the Prosecution binder.
8 THE INTERPRETER: And the interpreters kindly ask you once again
9 to avoid overlapping.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I take a look at the Macedonian
11 copy as well, please?
12 MR. METTRAUX:
13 Q. Certainly. I have a paper copy, Mr. Bezruchenko. I think the
14 Macedonian version is at the back of the English in your binder.
15 A. I'm afraid not.
16 Q. With the assistance of the usher there is -- it is apparently on
17 the screen, Mr. Bezruchenko, but I will give you the --
18 A. It is fine if it is on the screen already.
19 Thank you very much.
20 Q. So you can you confirm at least as far as this particular document
21 is concerned that Mr. Boskoski or first that the document does not bear
22 the title of an order. Is that correct?
23 A. No, it doesn't bear this title. It clearly bears the title of
25 Q. And do you agree also that Mr. Boskoski or the person who prepared
1 the order on his behalf did not use the term or the expression ordering or
2 "I order," do you agree with that?
3 A. Yes, I agree with that.
4 Q. Is it correct also that what this document or the phrasing of this
5 document is in fact quite different. In the second line of that document,
6 if you can see, it says that it is needed that certain things happen. Can
7 you see that?
8 A. Well, there are various ways of expressing it in English. I would
9 rather say for the sake of security measures, 50 policemen will be. But
10 you can also translate it this way as needed. But to be more precise I
11 would rather say "will be."
12 Q. And do you agree that in the next paragraph it says the policemen
13 should be equipped. Can you see that?
14 A. Yeah. Should be or will be.
15 Q. And in the last sentence of that second paragraph, the expression
16 which is used and again in the last paragraph of that document is
17 Mr. Boskoski asking things. He asked to take hand radio and asked to
18 conduct. Can you see that?
19 A. I'm sorry, sir. Say it again.
20 Q. Yes. If you can locate the last sentence in the second paragraph
21 of the text of the order, as you call it, it uses the phrase "the senior
22 officers are asked to take hand radio link equipment." Can you see it?
23 A. Well, I think what it really says is that the commanders will
24 carry the hand-held radio, reserve batteries and the charger.
25 Q. But if you look at the English translation of this document,
1 Mr. Bezruchenko, do you agree that the way it has been translated by CLSS
2 is that what in fact the minister of the interior is doing is to ask a
3 number of things. Do you agree?
4 A. I don't see in the sentence the word "ask," sir.
5 Q. Well, if you look at the English translation perhaps,
6 Mr. Bezruchenko, which is on your screen, I believe, as well, there is a--
7 the last sentence of the second paragraph uses the expression "the senior
8 officer are asked," and then in the last sentence there is the phrase "the
9 senior officers before the departures of the unit are asked."
10 Can you see that?
11 A. I can see that, sir, but what I'm say something is that this word
12 is indeed in the English translation of this document, but I don't really
13 see this word in the Macedonian copy of this document.
14 Q. And you will agree as well, Mr. Bezruchenko, that this document as
15 well as the other telegrams to which you have referred to in your report
16 do not refer to any particular legal basis on which this particular
17 telegram was prepared or issued. Do you agree with that?
18 A. It doesn't seem to mention any particular clauses of the Law on
19 Internal Affairs or any other document.
20 Q. And perhaps it is a obvious question, Mr. Bezruchenko, but do you
21 agree that from this document it cannot be determined whether prior to
22 this telegram being sent there had been discussions and an agreement
23 between, on the one hand the Ministry of Interior and perhaps Mr. Boskoski
24 himself, and the sector in Kocani. Do you agree with that?
25 A. Yes. I think the telegram could be sent without any prior
2 Q. And do you agree that it could also be sent after discussions or
3 agreement having been reached in relation to this document? Do you agree
4 with that?
5 A. Yes, it could be both.
6 Q. And I'd like to go back now to your report for a second,
7 Mr. Bezruchenko, and I'll ask you please to turn again to paragraph
8 18.104.22.168 of your report, and particularly to paragraph 250 of your report,
10 A. Paragraph 250, sir.
11 Q. Yes, please. It's page 66.
12 A. Okay.
13 Q. Is it correct that at paragraph 250 of your report you refer to
14 Article 18 of the Law of Defence concerning the functionings and
15 responsibility of the president relating to defence. Is that correct?
16 A. Yes, that's right, sir.
17 Q. And I think you have clarified the matter already in your previous
18 answer, Mr. Bezruchenko. But is it correct that in addition to this
19 particular provision, the constitution of the Republic of Macedonia also
20 endowed the president with particular competencies or responsibilities as
21 regarded the Armed Forces. Is that correct? And I think you have
22 referred to Article 79 of the constitution.
23 A. Well, we're talking about different things here. We are talking
24 about constitution and -- or we're talking about the law.
25 Q. Well, let me ask the question in that way, sir. Is it correct
1 that in addition to the Law of Defence, and you've specifically referred
2 to Article 18 of that law, the constitution itself, Article 79, in
3 particular 79, paragraph 2 of the constitution, gave some powers to the
4 president of the Republic of Macedonia in relation to the Armed Forces,
5 which are detailed in part in the law itself. Do you agree with that?
6 A. Yes, Article 79 of the constitution stipulates that the president
7 of the Republic of Macedonia is in effect commander in chief of the armed
9 Q. And do you agree that at some stage or on occasions the president
10 of the Republic of Macedonia would sometime act in relation to those Armed
11 Forces directly on the basis of Article 79 of the constitution, without
12 referring otherwise to the Law of Defence. Do you agree with that?
13 A. I think it was totally within the discretionary powers of the
15 Q. I'm grateful for that, Mr. Bezruchenko.
16 MR. METTRAUX: In view of the answer, Your Honour, I will simply
17 refer to exhibit P481 and exhibit 1D52, Your Honour, and I believe the
18 time has been reached to act upon my original warning, Your Honour, if
19 that would be possible, to perhaps take the recess?
20 JUDGE PARKER: You would like now to adjourn with a view to
21 continuing when next the evidence of this witness can continue; is that
23 MR. METTRAUX: That's correct, Your Honour, and I'm very grateful.
24 JUDGE PARKER: And do we understand that it may be convenient to
25 everybody if the evidence of this witness is further interrupted for
1 Thursday and Friday?
2 MR. METTRAUX: That would certainly be the case of the Defence,
3 Your Honour. We'd be very grateful. But it would depend on Mr. Saxon.
4 MR. SAXON: Well, Your Honour, the Prosecution has told the
5 Defence it will not object to this interruption if it's being done for the
6 convenience of the Defence.
7 MR. METTRAUX: We're grateful to the Prosecution, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE PARKER: I'm sorry to say, Mr. Bezruchenko, that the
9 proceeding seems to be taking the course that we need to interrupt your
10 evidence yet again, which I know puts an additional strain on you and your
11 memory, and it would seem to be expected that your evidence will continue
12 on Monday of next week.
13 THE WITNESS: That's perfectly all right, sir.
14 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber therefore will adjourn now, to resume
15 on Thursday, tomorrow being a UN holiday, at 2.15.
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.29 p.m., to
17 be reconvened on Thursday, the 25th day of October
18 2007, at 2.15 p.m.