1 Thursday, 15 November 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning.

7 Mr. Ostreni, the affirmation still applies.

8 Yes, Ms. Regue.

9 MS. REGUE: Good morning, Your Honours.

10 WITNESS: GZIM OSTRENI [Resumed]

11 [Witness answered through interpreter]

12 Re-examination by Ms. Regue: [Continued]

13 Q. Good morning, General Ostreni.

14 A. Good morning.

15 Q. General, do you recall that it was put to you that you did not

16 produce the rules and regulations of the NLA until after the Ohrid

17 Agreement was signed on the 13th of August, 2001?

18 A. [No interpretation]

19 MS. REGUE: If we could please call exhibit P498, page 1, the Rules

20 of Services of the NLA.

21 Q. General, if we focus on the upper left side of document where

22 there is a stamp with a date.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. General, can you see the date written above the stamp?

25 A. Yes. Yes, I can.

1 Q. The date indicates that it is the 2nd of May, 2001. What this

2 date indicates, General?

3 A. This is the date on which the Rules of Service were completed. It

4 is signed by the commander of the NLA, and it is filed in the archive

5 books.

6 Q. General, with regards to the other rules and regulations, when, on

7 which dates, were they finally produced, signed by the commander of the

8 NLA, and filed, if I can recall, approximately.

9 A. I first worked on the rules. I assigned duties to people under my

10 control, then I started to work on the formations. So during March and

11 April, the rules and the formations were completed, and I continued to

12 work on other documents.

13 Q. But my question was, General, when were they finally produced, the

14 other rules and regulations. I'm not asking for an approximate date, but

15 for an approximate month, or period, month.

16 A. Approximately, this rule book was produced in March and April.

17 During the same period of time, I worked on the formation, and I continued

18 to work during May and June on other documents; and as they were

19 completed, I was submitting them.

20 Q. So when these other documents were finally filed? In which month?

21 A. I don't remember exactly. But, systematically, as I would finish

22 a document, I would submit it to the protocol. Maybe can you see the

23 number better on the protocol.

24 Q. Can you tell us the month, approximately, when you submitted the

25 regulations, the rules, the rest of the regulations and the rules, aside

1 from the one that we see on the screen.

2 A. As I said, I submitted them systematically, in addition to this

3 one in April; and in May, I submitted the other documents.

4 Q. Thanks.

5 MS. REGUE: If we keep in the same document, can we go to please,

6 to the cover page of this document, to the Rules of Service.

7 Q. If we focus, General, on the lower part of the document, we see

8 your name on the right side. General, by the time that this document was

9 filed on the 2nd of May, 2001, were you already performing your tasks as a

10 Chief of Staff of the NLA?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Thanks.

13 MS. REGUE: We can remove the document from the screen.

14 Q. General, when you were asked about the number of NLA personnel

15 casualties or victims, you testified that the War Veteran Association

16 would have the relevant documents and figures. What is the War Veteran

17 Association, General?

18 A. The War Veteran Association of the NLA was registered as such on

19 the 5th of June, as I remember, 2001, because with -- I apologise, it's

20 2002, I misspoke. So it was registered as such on the 5th of June, 2002,

21 and the reason why I no longer worked on this was because with the handing

22 over of weapons, the NLA was demobilised, my work finished.

23 At the time, it was quite normal for this association to be

24 formed; and upon request of its members, with its status, with its

25 regulation, it is duty-bound to regulate the issue of the war veterans,

1 and through state associations and political organisations, to resolve the

2 issue of war invalids and the issue of the families of martyrs.

3 In order to be able to deal with this issue and problem, this

4 association has to have the correct number of people who fell as members

5 of the NLA and the details of other citizens who became victim of these

6 fightings.

7 Q. Thanks, General.

8 I was going to ask you the aim of this organisation, but now I

9 will move on.

10 You just mentioned that this association was registered as such.

11 In which registry, from which country was it registered?

12 A. The association was registered at the Tetovo court, and functions

13 as an association with status --

14 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Statute.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And to my recollection, it was

16 registered by an association by this court on 5th of June.

17 There were attempts at the constitutional court to remove this

18 association from the register; but, as I learned, this did not happen.

19 The constitutional court only reaffirmed the decision of Tetovo Court on

20 the registration of the War Veteran Association of the NLA.

21 Q. Thanks, General.

22 So I was going to ask you about the issue of war veterans. You

23 mentioned that it was duty-bound to regulate the issue of war veterans.

24 Which war veterans, General, were you talking about?

25 A. The veterans who are the members of this association are former

1 members of the NLA. They were members of the NLA until the 26th, when the

2 demobilisation of the NLA occurred.

3 Q. Thanks, General.

4 MS. REGUE: Could we please call 65 ter 1D956, please.

5 Q. General, this is, I'm afraid, is only in English. It is a US

6 press statement issued by the spokesman of the US Department of State and,

7 it was shown to you by my colleagues. It was released on the 28th of

8 April, 2001.

9 It was read to you, the first two lines: "The United States

10 condemns the attack by armed ethnic Albanian extremists today on

11 Macedonian security forces which resulted in the death of eight Macedonian

12 soldiers."

13 General, is the NLA mentioned as terrorist?

14 A. I don't understand English, but I can see that the word

15 "extremist" is used there.

16 Q. Thanks, General.

17 You testified that the events which are mentioned in this document

18 happened in the context of clashes between the NLA and the Macedonian

19 security forces and mention, in particular, MX operation. Later on, you

20 mention MX-1 and MX-2.

21 Could you briefly explain these operations carried out by the

22 Macedonian security forces, General?

23 A. The MX operation is the attack, or rather, the operation

24 undertaken by the army and police forces in the area of Tetovo; that is,

25 on the positions where the NLA was positioned. The MX-1 is an operation

1 undertaken against the 113th Brigade, in the Kumanovo area.

2 Q. General, can I stop you a second. When you are explaining the

3 operations, could you please indicate when these operations were carried

4 out, the date, and please go on. Sorry to interrupt you.

5 I'm not asking you for the exact day, just for an approximate date

6 or month, General.

7 A. I will tell you the exact date.

8 The MX operation was carried out on the 25th of March, 2001. MX-1

9 was on the 28th of March as a continuation of the previous operation, but

10 this time in the Kumanovo area and part of Radusa.

11 Q. What about MX-2, General?

12 A. Could you please repeat your question.

13 Q. I believe that yesterday you mentioned to my colleague the

14 military operation MX-2. Can you please explain us about this operation

15 and when was carried out?

16 A. The MX-2 operation, how I understood it, was a repetition of the

17 MX-1 operation, because the MX-1 failed to eliminate the forces of the

18 113th Brigade of the NLA, and I think it was carried out on the 8th of

19 May, 2001.

20 Q. And, General, if you are aware, which weaponry was used by

21 Macedonian forces? Were they using aircraft, artillery forces?

22 A. The main weaponry was the artillery one of all kinds, including

23 rocket launchers, multiple-barrel rocket launchers, then infantry forces,

24 helicopters, and aircraft.

25 Q. And how did the NLA react to these three operations, General?

1 A. The NLA, knowing that the army forces of the Republic of Macedonia

2 had an upper hand, including the police forces --

3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness please

4 repeat his answer. Sorry.

5 MS. REGUE:

6 Q. General, sorry to interrupt you. There has been some problems

7 with the translation. Could you please repeat your answer, again, which

8 was not recorded in the transcript.

9 A. The NLA, knowing that the forces of the Republic of Macedonia, the

10 army and the police forces, were superior as they could attack from air

11 and from surface with their artillery and multi-barrel rocket launchers.

12 In its tactics, it implemented the rules on preparing positions in

13 a kind of generic engineers - this is how we call it - so that during the

14 use of artillery from air and surface, the NLA members could be safe in

15 their positions and shelters.

16 During the infantry attacks, it used the weapons that had in its

17 disposal. We had a few Strela 2M rockets and a few anti-aircraft

18 machine-guns, but they could not be used against armoured helicopters.

19 Q. General, you just described the weaponry used both by the

20 Macedonian security forces and by the NLA.

21 Do I understand that this weaponry was used with regards to the

22 three operations, or was there some distinction between the weapons used

23 in every single of the three operations that you explained?

24 A. No. The shelling of the NLA positions and the area where the NLA

25 was generally positions was frequent. Almost -- they shelled on a daily

1 basis, because the ARM and the Macedonian police were mainly waging war

2 from distance using helicopters. From time to time, through these

3 operations, they would engage manpower, larger manpower, in order to wipe

4 out the NLA.

5 Q. So, General, were -- was the Macedonian security forces using the

6 same weaponry approximately during the three operations? That was my

7 initial question, General.

8 A. The ARM forces, in all these operations, used artillery sparingly.

9 Q. And what about -- I believe that you mentioned multi-barrel rocket

10 launchers as well as helicopters. Were they used also in the -- in the

11 three operations, General?

12 A. I think that they were used in all three operations. There are

13 details in the book of General Pande Petrovski, who, during MX-2, was

14 informed that there were minefields in the defence area of 112th Brigade,

15 and that's why he ordered for the entire arsenal of the artillery to be

16 used, which probably caused much damage in that area.

17 As a conclusion, he states that no one from his senior officers

18 informed him that they came across mines; in other words, it turned out

19 that this was a pretext for using large artillery forces. It takes 15 to

20 20 minutes to make the artillery preparations, while the army -- to

21 prepare the tanks, while the army did this for hours.

22 Q. General, you have been mentioning several times the book produced

23 by Pande Petrovski. Do you recall the name of this book, the title of

24 this book, if you do?

25 A. Yes, I recall. The title is, "Evidence for the War of 2001."

1 Something along these lines.

2 Q. General, you also mentioned, yesterday, an operation called

3 Vaksince to my learned colleague Mr. Apostolski. In that context, you

4 stated that the Macedonian forces fail.

5 Do you recall giving that evidence, General?

6 A. Yes. I mentioned the Vaksince operation. Do you want me to give

7 you my comment, my evidence on this operation?

8 Q. Yes, General. I would like to know when this operation was

9 carried out and how the NLA reacted, counteracted to this operation, where

10 the security forces were defeated?

11 A. This operation, to my impression, was prepared during the meeting

12 between Pande Petrovski and General Krstic from Serbia, who was in charge

13 of the area around Bujanovac and Purisevo for this area. So they

14 discussed the possibility of what was going to happen with the forces of

15 the Liberation Army of Presevo, Bujonovac, and Medvedje, after the Serb

16 forces entered this five-kilometre area.

17 According to this agreement, the Serbs were not allowed to do so;

18 but with the opinion of a competent person, they were allowed to enter

19 this area. Krstic expressed his opinion that they would enter until the

20 25th of May, and a part of UCPMB would cross into Macedonia. So I

21 believe that it was on the 25th of May when this operation was carried

22 out, the operation called Vaksince.

23 It expanded in the entire front of the 115th Brigade from Lojane

24 to the villages down below and, simultaneously, on the north-western part

25 from the direction of Tanuse towards Alasec with the Tactical Group 1.

1 The aim of the operation was not achieved. The 113th Brigade succeeded in

2 defending its positions and in expanding them by penetrating into Haracin

3 as well.

4 Q. And what did the NLA forces do to stop, to counter this offensive

5 of the Macedonian security forces?

6 A. To defend their positions.

7 Q. Which weaponry was used?

8 A. Kalashnikovs, in other words, rifles of different calibre;

9 anti-tank weapon, mainly Zoljas; hand-held grenade launchers RPGs; then we

10 had 60- or 61-millimetre mortars; 82-millimetre mortars; and a few Strela

11 2M anti-aircraft weapons.

12 Q. How was the level of discipline among the NLA soldiers during the

13 operations that you have mentioned, General?

14 A. The level of discipline of the NLA in carrying out combat tasks

15 was very high. Only in this way was the NLA able to stop the penetration

16 of the ARM and police forces and to prevent its extinction.

17 Q. General, I believe that yesterday, and I think that also today,

18 you have mentioned Tactical Group 1 of the 112th Brigade, and I believe

19 that also Operational Tactical Group 2. What did these tactical groups do

20 during the conflict, General.

21 A. I need to clarify this. The General Staff of the ARM of the

22 Republic of Macedonia, from the beginning of the war, according to its

23 assessment, carried out a strategic reorganisation of the ARM forces and

24 established the operational tactical groups in Kumanovo and Tetovo, as

25 well as the Tactical Group 1 which operated in the north-western area of

1 the 113th Brigade.

2 These groups were under the command of the Kumanovo corps, and

3 Manastir or Bitola corps. The Kumanovo one directly participated in the

4 command with this units. So there were operational tactical groups and

5 only tactical groups which were of lower level.

6 Q. And, General, we are talking about the NLA, right?

7 A. No. We are talking of the army forces. That's why I explained it

8 to you, thinking that you would take tactical operation and tactical

9 forces as forces belonging to the NLA, which in fact had only brigades.

10 Q. Thanks, General, for this clarification.

11 Yesterday, you also mentioned that the NLA did not end up taking

12 Kumanovo. Who instructed the 113th Brigade around Kumanovo not to go any

13 farther, after 5th of July?

14 A. Before that date, we assessed that we had insufficient number of

15 forces to undertake a general operation. Therefore, as the NLA developed

16 and grew, its number grew and every brigade had at least one battalion,

17 enabling the NLA to prepare for undertaking a military operation.

18 The agreement reached on the cease-fire, which took effect on the

19 6th of July, interrupted all these undertakings; but, at that time,

20 preparations were already done. Every brigade had already taken its

21 tasks, but they were waiting for a specific order of the General Staff.

22 Q. If the cease-fire agreement had not been reached, the brigades

23 would have gone along with the plans and advance towards Kumanovo?

24 A. Not towards Kumanova, because that was not part of our plan. We

25 didn't plan to fight within the cities, but we would pass around Kumanova

1 and operate in the communication lines to prevent the coming of the

2 reserve forces of the army in those parts where the NLA was fighting.

3 Q. And who issued the order to the brigades not to go along with this

4 plan, General, once the cease-fire was reached?

5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.

6 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, we will simply indicate that this is

7 the second time in the last couple of or three questions that there is a

8 suggestion of an instruction of an order, and we don't think the evidence

9 has been given by the witness on that point, and I think it is quite an

10 important point.

11 MS. REGUE:

12 Q. General, did you -- was any order issued not to go along, not to

13 advance towards or around Kumanovo after the cease-fire agreement was

14 reached?

15 A. Before the cease-fire agreement was signed, when we gave

16 instructions to brigades to prepare for further actions, we told them to

17 get ready but not to go on attack. They had to wait for a special order

18 by the General Staff, an order which was never given, because, as I said,

19 the cease-fire agreement took effect.

20 Q. Did the NLA comply with the fact that an order was not given;

21 therefore, they had not to go -- they didn't have to go farther?

22 A. They didn't [Realtime transcript read in error "did"] go any

23 farther.

24 Q. Thanks, General.

25 MS. REGUE: Could we please show Exhibit 1D260, and if we could

1 focus on the lower part of the document on the right side.

2 Q. General, this is a document which was shown to you by my

3 colleagues, and -- and it's in English; therefore, I'm going to translate

4 it for you.

5 It indicates that the estimates of NLA arm holdings with regards

6 to land-mines is 5.000, which includes anti-personnel and anti-tank

7 mines.

8 MS. REGUE: Now if we could go, please, to 65 ter 778.19.

9 Just for the record, I believe that the answer of the witness in

10 page 12, line 1 was not recorded properly, and it reads: "They did go any

11 farther." I believe the witness said: "They didn't go any farther."

12 JUDGE PARKER: That was my understanding.

13 MS. REGUE:

14 Q. General, you were also shown this document by my colleagues. This

15 is a document that you testified was given to you by the NATO from the

16 operation Task Force Harvest, once the operation was finished.

17 And if we look at item 6, it indicates that the number of mines

18 and grenades collected by the NATO forces reached the figure of 1045. You

19 indicated that grenades could be also 60-millimetres or 80-millimetres

20 grenades.

21 General, is this the document which was given to you by the NATO

22 forces after the operation was ended?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Thanks.

25 MS. REGUE: Your Honours, I will seek to tender this document into

1 evidence.

2 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

3 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P519, Your Honours.

4 MS. REGUE: Could we please call Exhibit 1D272. It's former 65

5 ter 317.

6 Do we have a Macedonian version of this document? No.

7 Q. General, we will have to work with the English. I'm going to

8 translate to you what it says. I apologise.

9 This is an order, issued by the Chief of Staff of the armed forces

10 Pande Petrovski, on the 5th of July, 2001, and bears the title, "Very

11 urgent: Cease-fire for all weapon, planting mines, and other improvised

12 explosive devices."

13 General, this order indicates on item 1: "On the 6th of July,

14 2001, at 0001 hours, a cease-fire for all weapons, planting mines, and

15 other improvised explosive devices will come on power."

16 General, to whom the Chief of Staff of the Macedonian army was

17 allowed to issue, to address this order?

18 A. I cannot comment otherwise than to his forces. He has already

19 addressed it.

20 Q. Thanks. General, I just read to you that one of the points he was

21 ordering actually is the cease-fire for all weapons, planting mines, and

22 explosive devices.

23 General, can we conclude that the Macedonian security forces had

24 this weaponry among their assets?

25 A. This is what the order says. I don't want to testify here by

1 attacking someone else. I only want to testify to what I know. The Chief

2 of General Staff of the Macedonian army says that he bans the use of

3 mines, which shows that other plans must have been in place for using them

4 before; but this is an analysis which I would not make in my capacity as a

5 witness here.

6 Q. Thanks, General, I appreciate that.

7 In item 5 of this document, General, it indicates: "In case of

8 self-defence to be responded to the fire and informed OSCE and NATO."

9 Then farther down, it indicates: "The retaliation is not

10 self-defence and would represent breaking of the cease-fire."

11 General, here it seems that General Petrovski states that

12 cease-fire can be somehow broken in case of self-defence but not

13 retaliation.

14 Did this general rule also apply to the NLA cease-fire; meaning,

15 could the NLA respond upon being attacked?

16 A. The cease-fire, as you might understand, in this case, is an order

17 he has given to his forces; but before that order, there is an agreement

18 which regulates in more details the state of affairs. This is where he

19 got the material to draw up this order.

20 In this agreement, point 7, 5 says that the cease-fire shouldn't

21 be used in order to improve the once situation both in defence or in

22 attack. That is why the NLA had informed NATO of their position, and had

23 promised to stop the use of weapons at the time that the cease-fire was in

24 force. But in case of being attacked in those lines which were already

25 made known to the monitors, they, of course, had the right to defend

1 themselves, and I believe that the ARM had the same rights, in case they

2 were attacked by the NLA forces.

3 Q. Thanks, General.

4 Yesterday, I showed to you Exhibit P481 which was a resolution

5 from the president of Macedonia, dated the 5th of August, 2001.

6 In that resolution the president order to undertake measures to

7 enter Tetovo to prevent its fall within NLA authority. General, I asked

8 you a rather broad question which was whether you were aware of fighting

9 going on in Tetovo in 2001.

10 Let me be a bit more precise, a bit more specific, General. Can

11 you recall whether there were clashes between Macedonian security forces

12 and NLA around 8, 9, 10 August, 2001, prior to the signing of the Ohrid

13 Agreement in or around Tetovo?

14 A. On the 5th of August, during the time that order you put to me was

15 issued, it had to do with the preparation of an operation which aimed at

16 taking Tetovo and freeing Tetovo-Jazince road, if I might say so. This is

17 how I understood that instruction and the operation that would follow,

18 based on that.

19 They prepared for that, for that operation, of course, and

20 attempts were made. In fact, the troops started to move, the troops of

21 the army, towards Tetovo on the 8th. A clash ensued in Karpalak area,

22 which, at the time, the NLA, the commander and myself, were not clear to

23 which -- which carried out that operation.

24 Then, on the 9th, there was another operation launched against

25 Brigade 115 in Radush, which lasted on the 10th as well, with an

1 intervention in Poroj village by the ARM or police forces, I'm not sure

2 which.

3 Then, after the 10th, on the 12th, the Ljuboten incident happened.

4 In my opinion, there were a number of actions, preparations, attempts made

5 to create higher tension, to prevent the signing of the Ohrid Agreement.

6 Q. Thanks.

7 General, what do you recall about these operation, these clashes

8 in and around Tetovo on the 8th, 9th, and 10th of August?

9 A. The aim --

10 JUDGE PARKER: Would you wait please.

11 Yes, Mr. Mettraux.

12 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour.

13 I think that, again, the counsel has to be careful. The question

14 was very leading the first time around, and the witness has been careful

15 to respond to what he knew about the, what he called, operations, by

16 indicating the events which he knew about. He hasn't given any evidence

17 to the effect of clashes in or around the Tetovo area, and that's, in our

18 submission, the Your Honour, the second time that it is a very leading

19 question.

20 JUDGE PARKER: There's some substance in that Ms. Regue.

21 MS. REGUE: I will rephrase my question, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

23 MS. REGUE:

24 Q. General, I will rephrase my question. Can you recall whether,

25 around the 8th, 9th, and 10th of August, 2001, there were clashes --

1 whether there were clashes in or around Tetovo on those dates, between the

2 NLA and the Macedonian security forces?

3 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski.

4 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] [Microphone not activated]

5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Please.

6 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise for

7 interfering with my colleague's questioning; but as far as I recall, the

8 witness expressly stated yesterday that there were no clashes in Tetovo in

9 August. So I believe that this is an inappropriate question for the

10 witness to answer.

11 [Trial Chamber confers]

12 MS. REGUE: Your Honour, if I may.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Perhaps you could clarify your preliminary ground

14 there.

15 MS. REGUE: Yes, Your Honour. If I may clarify.

16 I thought that my question asked yesterday actually was quite

17 broad as it encompassed the whole month of August, and now I was trying to

18 focus actually to a particular day which I thought could give the witness

19 some clarity about my question.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE PARKER: An answer that there were no clashes in August

22 would include no clashes on any particular day.

23 MS. REGUE: But it could also imply after the Ohrid Agreement,

24 Your Honour, and I was trying to be more specific about that.

25 JUDGE PARKER: You may explore that area but without leading.

1 MS. REGUE: Thanks, Your Honour.

2 Q. So, General, are you aware of any clashes, if there were, in or

3 around Tetovo, before the signing of the Ohrid Agreement between the NLA

4 and the Macedonian security forces, if you know?

5 A. I am not aware of any such clashes in Tetovo. I know that there

6 was this instance of Karpalak on the 8th of August. I also know that

7 fighting took place between Brigade 115 on the 9th and the 10th in Radusa

8 area.

9 Q. Thanks, General.

10 May I help to refresh your memory if I show you some documents?

11 MS. REGUE: If we could please call 65 ter 284, page 8. It's

12 within the range N001-8730, page 8.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski.

14 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the witness did not

15 say that he didn't recall, so I see no need for my colleague to refresh

16 his memory.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Regue.

18 MS. REGUE: Yes, Your Honour. We would like to put to the witness

19 to show him some extracts which have been shown in this courtroom with

20 regards to the events.

21 JUDGE PARKER: With a view to him changing his present evidence,

22 is that what you're doing?

23 MS. REGUE: No, Your Honour. He has given his evidence. It is

24 with a view to comment on the documents that we're going put forward to

25 him.

1 JUDGE PARKER: Are these documents that have been dealt with so

2 far in cross-examination.

3 MS. REGUE: No, Your Honour, not with this particular witness.

4 JUDGE PARKER: Well, how do they arise for re-examination.

5 MS. REGUE: We are trying to explore about when - in

6 cross-examination, Your Honour, as a matter of fact - there arose the

7 issue that cease-fire was broken by both parties. Therefore, along these

8 lines, Your Honour, we were trying to explore that in which context, in

9 which cases the cease-fire agreement was breached, was violated.

10 JUDGE PARKER: That much seems legitimate, yes, and that's what

11 you are now attempt to do.

12 Very well. Carry on.

13 MS. REGUE: Thanks.

14 Q. General, can you please focus on the first paragraph, the first

15 full paragraph, just below the date, Skopje, 9 August 2001.

16 I will read to you what it says, General: "The situation in the

17 area of Tetovo is deteriorating considerably. As before, the town of

18 Tetovo is predominantly under the control of the NLA. Since about five

19 hours, serious battle have again been developing in or around Tetovo.

20 "Heavy weapons such as mortars and artillery (only the Macedonian

21 military forces) have been deployed on both sides. The NLA seems to be

22 concentrated at the Kuzman barracks. The Macedonian forces are operating

23 from, among other places, artillery positions on the other side of route

24 club towards Kaleberg."

25 General, does this document help you to recall that the cease-fire

1 agreement was, indeed, breached with regards to Tetovo on the 9th of

2 August, 2001?

3 A. Yes. There was such a conflict. With the participation of the

4 monitors and the NLA commanders, all these places -- forces that had

5 breached the cease-fire in some places were withdrawn, and the cease-fire

6 was restored.

7 Q. Thanks.

8 General, can you recall when the forces withdrew from Tetovo, if

9 you do?

10 A. I recall that this happened very quickly, after they penetrated,

11 because after the 9th, there is this operation which involved Brigade 115,

12 and it affected also the area covered by Brigade 114. So the commitment

13 of the commander, Ali Ahmeti, was to make sure that the situation was

14 restored back to normal, and the forces which went as far as the Tetovo

15 barracks withdrew. I don't recall, accurately, if that happened on that

16 day or on the next day.

17 Q. Was any order issued by yourself or by Ali Ahmeti to withdraw from

18 Tetovo, if there was such an order?

19 A. The order was given by Ali Ahmeti orally, because at that time he

20 was in person, there, at the brigade. He ordered them orally to restore

21 the situation back to normal, to withdraw the forces, and allow the

22 cease-fire to remain in force, in order to reach the phase of the Ohrid

23 Agreement.

24 Q. Was this order complied with by the brigades, General?

25 A. Yes, they withdrew; otherwise, we wouldn't have come up to the

1 moment when we signed the Ohrid Agreement.

2 Q. Thanks, General.

3 MS. REGUE: We can remove the document from the screen.

4 Q. General, in wartime, an army convoy, an NLA convoy, or a police

5 station, or a NLA headquarters or barracks would be a military target?

6 A. Yes. They are military targets.

7 Q. General, it was put to you that the NLA acted in a hit-and-run

8 fashion, and you denied it. You testified that you, the NLA, had been

9 involved in an active defence, rather than retreats or hit-and-run

10 attacks.

11 What did you mean with "active defence," General, and could you

12 give some example, please.

13 A. It means that we had almost permanent positions which were known,

14 something which make it possible to monitor the situation and follow up

15 the implementation of the cease-fire by the monitors of the competent

16 bodies, including the NATO forces.

17 We defended ourselves; and as brigades grew, it set up their

18 relevant unit, expanded the territory under its control, and advanced. In

19 this way, systematically, it enhanced its authority over the territory it

20 controlled. In this way, we didn't use the hit-and-run style attacks,

21 which might have been used in other instances, because, in this way, we

22 would inflict huge losses, human losses to ourselves which was not our

23 objective.

24 Our objective was to make sure that we had as few casualties as we

25 possibly could, until we reached the political agreement. So we didn't

1 change our positions. Brigade 113 developed from Tanuse continuously

2 until those positions that I gave to NATO; Brigade 112 from Gur i Kuq on

3 towards, until it reached the positions that I also gave to NATO; and this

4 applies to all the other brigades. I don't want to take your time by

5 recounting all of that.

6 So it was engaged in an active defence.

7 Q. General, it was also put to you that the NLA scared civilians off

8 in Aracinovo once the NLA had exercised its authority over the town. You

9 were also asked several times about the so-called "ethnic cleansing"

10 allegedly committed by the NLA.

11 You answer: "It was war, and the civilians were scared of war.

12 What did you mean with that answer, General?

13 A. I wanted to say that any person in a territory where weapons are

14 being fired, where clashes between two sides occur, of course those

15 persons would be scared.

16 Q. And which could be a natural consequence of this situation,

17 General?

18 A. I don't understand your question. Could you please clarify.

19 Q. I will move on, General.

20 MS. REGUE: Could we please show Exhibit 1D259.

21 Q. General, this is a document that, I believe, it was showed to you

22 by my colleague. It refers to June 2001, and it was provided to our

23 colleagues by an embassy here in The Hague. The first -- actually, in the

24 heading, we can read that: "This is an information record not finally

25 evaluated intelligence."

1 MS. REGUE: If we could go to the second page, please, and if we

2 could focus in the first paragraph.

3 Q. General, this paragraph was read to you, and the last three lines

4 were actually omitted.

5 I will read it, for the record, the full paragraph: "According to

6 local inhabitants, sometime during the afternoon of Friday, 8 June,

7 approximately 30 members of the NLA entered the town and began scaring

8 inhabitants out of the town, especially the ethnic Macedonian

9 inhabitants."

10 Then the paragraph goes on: "The police reaction was to establish

11 roadblocks, closing the main vehicular routes into or out of the village

12 and, in effect, surrendering the town to the NLA."

13 General, which are the consequences of this measures taken by the

14 police; meaning, closing the routes in and out of the village?

15 A. First of all, I would kindly ask you to tell me which village or

16 town is in question, because the text is in English and I don't understand

17 it.

18 Q. I believe that they are talking about Aracinovo.

19 Do you want me to repeat my question, General?

20 A. If I understood you correctly, you asked me which was the reason

21 for erecting these roadblocks, if I'm not mistaken; or maybe that --

22 repeat your question.

23 Q. I was asking which would be the consequences of basically cutting

24 off the routes in or out of the village, with regards to the civilian

25 population, by the police, by the police of the Macedonian forces?

1 A. They would be under police control, the control that they had at

2 that time.

3 Q. They? Who do you mean by "they," General.

4 A. Those who erected those roadblocks.

5 Q. General, my question was whether when the police basically build

6 some roadblocks, cuts the way in and out of the village of Aracinovo in

7 this case, what would be a consequence with regard to the civilian

8 population who want to leave the village?

9 A. It would have negative consequences. It would cause fear among

10 the population, but it wouldn't be proper for me to comment on these

11 newspapers. Newspapers describe many events like this at that time.

12 Q. Thanks, General.

13 You also -- it was put to you that intimidation or scaring of

14 civilians was taking place in almost all places where the NLA was active.

15 You answer in one particular question that: "The 113th Brigade

16 received several ultimatums from the Ministry of Interior and Ministry of

17 Defence, so that the civilian population could move out from the village."

18 What did you mean with that answer, General?

19 A. There was not just one ultimatum. They ultimatums had two

20 directions: One, they wanted the NLA members to abandon their positions,

21 to throw their weapons, and surrender to the police; and, two, the

22 population to move out. They were given time. Unless that was not

23 respected, the shelling, the combat would continue.

24 It was my impression that the army was to be released from its

25 duty in order -- if the civilians did not leave; and, at the same time,

1 there was a propaganda launched, according to which the NLA was accused of

2 using the civilians as human shields against the army attacks, and this

3 was not true at all.

4 Q. Why was this not true at all, General?

5 A. Those civilians had their own sons, daughters, husbands, sisters,

6 brothers amongst the ranks of the NLA, and that's why at the time I issued

7 a statement for the public, saying that this was not true. I added that

8 why would we wage a war if we kill our own children, our own brothers and

9 sisters.

10 Through this statement, I appealed to the media to go to the

11 location, to see and talk to the citizens, and to find out the truth for

12 themselves. Then there was a video-clip, some journalists talking to

13 civilians in the basements, and the civilians stated that they will never

14 abandon their houses.

15 I didn't want to add anything to this because that would make the

16 situation more severe, and I don't think it would contribute to -- to the

17 goal.

18 Q. Thanks, General.

19 MS. REGUE: Could we please call Exhibit 1D19, 1D1-9.

20 Q. General, I apologise, because this document is only in English;

21 therefore, I will read to you the relevant parts.

22 This is an OSCE report regarding human rights development and

23 covers the period 1 to 15 August 2001.

24 You have been asked in cross about actions allegedly perpetrated

25 by the NLA like, as I mentioned scaring off population, beatings, looting,

1 damage to religious facilities, or kidnappings. This was particular

2 document was read to you, but only parts of it.

3 I'm going to read to you the missing parts.

4 MS. REGUE: If we focus in the first paragraph, starting with the

5 first paragraph, it will be the fifth line.

6 Q. It reads: "Attitudes in both communities have hardened further,

7 and both security forces and civilians have become more aggressive towards

8 members of the perceived opposing ethnic group."

9 General, is this statement a more accurate reflection of the

10 situation in Macedonia at the time of the conflict?

11 A. There were such situations not as of 1st of August. I have

12 mentioned so many times during my evidence that I'm handicapped here,

13 since I don't speak English.

14 The interethnic relations were deteriorating and the situation was

15 more tense. This would be my short answer to your question.

16 Q. In the third paragraph General, and I am going to try to --

17 JUDGE PARKER: Excuse me.

18 Yes, Mr. Mettraux.

19 MR. METTRAUX: I apologise, Your Honour. The question of my

20 colleague was: "Is this statement a more accurate reflection of the

21 situation in Macedonia at the time of the conflict?"

22 I was just wondering whether it could be clarified, more accurate

23 than what.

24 MS. REGUE: I believe, Your Honour, that the witness testified

25 that the interethnic relations were deteriorated and the situation was

1 more tense.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. You may understand the witness one way. I

3 think it is not altogether clear what he is saying. You may need to

4 clarify it.

5 MS. REGUE:

6 Q. General, could you please clarify: What did you mean with your

7 answer that the interethnic relations were deteriorating and the situation

8 was becoming more tense at that time?

9 A. That means that the trust between the two ethnicities was

10 diminishing. There were contributions to this by the very fact that

11 weapons were distributed by the police for their self-defence, and the

12 situation became more tense. People began to lose their faith that the

13 Ohrid Agreement was ever going to be signed and that the war was ever

14 going to end.

15 The clashes that we spoke about, in Tetov, in Karpalak, the

16 fighting at Radush on the 9th and 10th of August, all these contributed to

17 the deterioration of the situation, that signals were being sent to the

18 population that perhaps the Ohrid Agreement was never going to be reached.

19 Q. Thanks, General.

20 When my colleagues put to you this alleged acts committed by the

21 NLA, you mentioned that also the Albanian population had been victims or

22 targets of this -- of similar actions.

23 If we focus in the same page in paragraph 3, and I'm going to read

24 it to you, General: "In addition to criminal acts by disorganised groups

25 that are best described as mobs or vigilantes, there has been an

1 increasing behaviour outside areas of engagement that is historical

2 associated with paramilitary formations.

3 "The most serious such incident occurred on August 8 in the

4 village of Rashtani near Veles. During the late hours of the night, one

5 of two ethnic Albanian homes in the village was fired upon by automatic

6 weapons. An 11-year-old boy was wounded in the gun-fire and died."

7 The last line of this paragraph, General, reads: "The ethnic

8 Albanian families have reportedly left the village as a result of this

9 incident."

10 General, with regard to this particular event, why is the Albanian

11 population leaving the villages?

12 A. This was in English. I can see it now. It is an assessment by

13 the body that you mentioned. I believe that they left out of fear,

14 insecurity, because they didn't know what was going to happen to them the

15 next day.

16 Q. From the paragraph that I read, General, did you understand that

17 there was any kind of NLA involvement in these actions?

18 A. No. There was no NLA in Veles. You are talking of a village in

19 the municipality of Veles, which is towards the centre of the Republic of

20 Macedonia.

21 Q. Thanks.

22 MS. REGUE: If we could turn to the second page, please.

23 Q. General, it was also put to you that there was a decline of

24 discipline with regards to the NLA. If we focus on the second paragraph

25 of this page, and, again, I'm going to read it to you, General. I

1 apologise that it is not in Albanian.

2 This OSCE document reads: "There are disturbing indications of a

3 decline in the discipline and professionalism of the main forces of both

4 combatants."

5 General, according to this report, was this decline of discipline,

6 of professionalism, involving only the NLA?

7 A. You read it, and as I understood it, it's between the fighting

8 parties. It does not mention only the NLA, if I understood your reading

9 of the document correctly.

10 Q. And, General, you were also asked about kidnappings allegedly

11 carried out by the NLA. If we focus on the fourth paragraph of this

12 report, the paragraph that starts with "The mission."

13 The paragraph, General, reads: "The mission continues to

14 highlight the plight of the missing and detained. Both sides deny having

15 detainees; however, clearly both sides do hold such persons. The total

16 number of missing and detained persons is impossible to establish, but may

17 well be in the hundreds.

18 "It is often impossible to investigate reports of kidnaps and

19 detentions, both because of lack of cooperation from local authorities and

20 because of the seriously [sic] security situation."

21 General, is this report talking about detainees taking only by the

22 NLA?

23 A. Could you please read it again. I'm not clear because I don't

24 know what it exactly says, this report. I really don't remember now

25 whether it mentioned both parties or only the NLA. Could you please read

1 it again to me, that part.

2 Q. Yes, General.

3 "The mission continues to highlight the plight of the missing and

4 detained. Both sides deny having detainees; however, clearly both sides

5 do hold such persons."

6 Do you want me to repeat my question, General?

7 A. No. There is no need for that. "Both sides." The text report

8 refers to both sides.

9 MS. REGUE: Could we please go to 65 ter 1D745, please, and if we

10 could focus on the first paragraph.

11 Q. General, this is the record of a meeting of the European

12 Commission on Kidnapped and Missing Persons, which was shown to you by my

13 colleague.

14 The first paragraph reads: "The commission continues its effort

15 to find out the fate of the 20 missing persons. In connections with both

16 the Ministry of Interior and the former NLA, we are now trying to clarify

17 a number of questions that both parties have been unable to answer so

18 far."

19 General, is the commission having inquiries with regards to

20 unsolved questions involving both the NLA and the Ministry of Interior?

21 A. As I understand it, it involves both sides and all the missing

22 persons whose fates remain unknown.

23 Q. Thanks.

24 MS. REGUE: Could we please go to Exhibit 1D268. It's former Rule

25 65 ter 1D828.

1 Q. General, this is, again, a document only in English. It's an OSCE

2 report. A fortnightly OSCE report from the 24th of August, 2001.

3 MS. REGUE: If we could go please to page 5, the ERN of the page

4 is 1D00-7226, and if we could focus on the last paragraph.

5 Q. General, you were asked several times about alleged destructions

6 of religious sites with regards to the NLA, and you mentioned, you

7 testified that also mosques had been destroyed, burned down by the

8 Macedonian security forces.

9 If we read this first line: "The mission has --

10 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Mettraux.

11 MR. METTRAUX: I apologise for interrupting the questioning by my

12 colleague.

13 I don't think that Mr. Ostreni, at any stage, suggested that a

14 mosque had been burned down by the security forces. I think he has

15 indicated, and the question would be fair to be put, that he said, as I

16 recall, that the Macedonian forces had, indeed, damaged a number of

17 religious properties as well. But I do not the recall, and I would stand

18 corrected if that's the case, if he suggested that one had been burned

19 down counsel by the security forces.

20 MS. REGUE: 7580, the transcript.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Carry on, please, Ms. Regue.

22 MS. REGUE: Thanks.

23 Q. General this document reads: "The mission has followed closely

24 the effect of the fighting on religious and cultural sites. The

25 destruction of the Lesok monetary, and previously that of the mosque in

1 Prilep, appear to be the first major cases of deliberate targeting of

2 sites."

3 General, was the mosque in Prilep one of the sites that you were

4 referring to in your testimony?

5 A. Yes. I believe I mentioned that the mosque was damaged. There

6 were other mosques that suffered damages. I didn't mention all of them.

7 I have information and the competent organs who followed this have

8 information, as well as the Islamic community and the orthodox community

9 have this information.

10 So I didn't deem it necessary to find all the names of damaged

11 mosques for the purpose of my evidence here, but it is true that damages

12 were --

13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Mosques were damaged.

14 MS. REGUE: Your Honour, I have two more questions with regard to

15 this document. I don't know if you wish me to stop here.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Please carry on.

17 MS. REGUE: If you could go, please, to the page 6, the next page,

18 and focus on the second full paragraph.

19 Q. General, this report reads as follows: "The issue of illegally

20 detained persons continues to be highly emotive and politically sensitive.

21 EAAG is alleged to hold anywhere from 30 to 50 persons, although it is

22 believed that the actual figure is in the lower end of the scale. There

23 are also allegations that the government is holding persons without due

24 process."

25 General, do you recall the fact that the government, in August,

1 was holding persons without due process. Were you aware of this?

2 A. I had information for -- from the press and the media that I

3 followed. Of course, I didn't have first-hand information on this matter.

4 I have a friend who has gone through the maltreatment of the

5 police. His name is Zini Tala. He was taken by the police and driven

6 around with a sack on his head. He then was returned home, but I think he

7 still has consequences.

8 Q. Thanks, General.

9 MS. REGUE: If we can move to the last paragraph of the same page.

10 Q. General, I believe that you testified that the NLA shut down,

11 closed houses of prostitution.

12 This paragraph reads: On a more positive note, the combination of

13 armed conflict and apparent actions of the EAAG to close houses of

14 prostitution appears to have resulted in a significant decline in the

15 number of trafficked women in the western portion of the country?"

16 General, is this paragraph a reflection of what you testified in

17 this courtroom?

18 A. Yes, yes.

19 MS. REGUE: Thanks, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE PARKER: We will adjourn now and resume at five minutes

21 past.

22 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.

23 --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Regue.

25 MS. REGUE: Thanks.

1 Could we please call Exhibit P494, page 18.

2 Q. General, it was put to you on several occasions that the NLA did

3 not want, did not support the territorial integrity of Macedonia, and you

4 testified in the negative, that indeed among the NLA demands was always to

5 maintain the integrity and sovereignty of the country.

6 You mentioned several times the proposal of the Macedonian Academy

7 of Sciences and Arts. The document that you will see in the screen,

8 General - and, again, I apologise - is in English. It's an ICJ,

9 International Crisis Group, Balkans report with the title, "Macedonia:

10 Last chance for peace." It was produced the 20th of June, 2001.

11 I'm going to read to you, General, some extracts of this document.

12 MS. REGUE: Just, if we could, please, scroll down a little bit, so

13 we focus in the - yeah, that's perfect; thanks a lot - on the first

14 paragraph.

15 Q. Just below the title, "The Prime Minister's hidden agenda," we can

16 read: "On the 29th May 2001, one of the Macedonia's state owned

17 (politically controlled) newspapers caused a storm by publishing details

18 of a proposal, emerging reportedly from the Macedonian Academy of Sciences

19 and Arts, to solve the crisis by agreeing a territorial and population

20 exchange with neighbouring Albania.

21 "The partition was envisaged that the three largest ethnic

22 Albanian majority cities in western Macedonia could be annexed to Albania.

23 Macedonia's quid pro quo will be a small strip of land in Albania with

24 access to the Adriatic Sea."

25 General, is this the proposal that you mentioned several times in

1 cross-examination and, indeed, in communique, Exhibit P510, one of your

2 communiques?

3 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it is a --

5 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honour. Your Honours, the

6 existence of this document has not been established. This is an

7 unverified fact; therefore, we have doubts about the veracity of this

8 text.

9 MS. REGUE: Your Honour, this is currently an exhibit.

10 JUDGE PARKER: I believe it is an exhibit, Mr. Apostolski. Yes.

11 Do you mean the plan behind it?

12 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] I mean the plan of the Macedonian

13 Academy of Sciences and Arts, which was allegedly prepared and which

14 allegedly existed.

15 MS. REGUE: And which was allegedly --

16 JUDGE PARKER: The witness is speaking about his understanding

17 about that, Mr. Apostolski.

18 So please continue, Ms. Regue.

19 MS. REGUE: Thanks.

20 JUDGE PARKER: It doesn't mean to say what the witness understands

21 is necessarily the truth or reliable. The witness can only give his

22 understanding of the matter.

23 Carry on.

24 MS. REGUE:

25 Q. General, was this proposal, which was published in a newspaper in

1 Macedonia, the one that you were referring in your testimony and also in

2 one of your communiques?

3 A. Yes. Yes, this is what I was referring to. It was published in

4 the newspaper, and I refer to it as it was published.

5 Q. Which was the position of the NLA with regards to this proposal?

6 A. The position of the NLA was and is the territorial integrity and

7 dependence [as interpreted] of Macedonia. They should be maintained.

8 They are inalienable.

9 Q. Thanks, General.

10 I'm going to read to you the third paragraph of this document, the

11 third line, starting, "On the 31st of May."

12 "On the 31st of May, the plan was presented in the other

13 state-controlled Macedonian language newspaper, Nova Makedonija, this time

14 with a more ambitious map implicating Bulgaria in the scheme.

15 "The reactions of the government leaders did nothing to allay

16 suspicions of VMRO-DPMNE complicity in publishing, if not originating the

17 partition of the plan."

18 MS. REGUE: Thanks.

19 Q. General, Which was the position of the government with regards to

20 this proposal, if you know?

21 A. I don't know the position of the government at that time.

22 Q. Thanks.

23 In the same paragraph, it reads -- sorry.

24 MS. REGUE: I will move on to the next page, if we could go.

25 Q. The article reads in the first paragraph: "Fantasies of

1 territorial partition involving the mass deportation of ethnic Albanians

2 have been part of Macedonian nationalist subculture for decades. What was

3 new in this episode was the semi-explicit official in [indiscernible]

4 given to the plan and also the timing.

5 "The timing seemed intended to accomplish three things: To gain

6 leverage for full Macedonian concessions, by moving the starting point to

7 the far right nationalist positions; to raise the stakes with the NLA; and

8 to shore up the prime minister's ratings among the VRMO-DPMNE's rank and

9 file supporters."

10 The third paragraph reads: "The ethnic Albanian leaders

11 immediately rejected the proposal."

12 General, were you aware of the position of the Albanian political

13 parties with regards of this proposal?

14 A. We said that we do not reconcile with any partitioning of the

15 Republic of Macedonia.

16 Q. I'm referring also to the -- the text reads: "Ethnic Albanian

17 leaders." I'm also referring to the Albanian political parties.

18 Would you -- are you aware of the position of the political,

19 Albanian political parties in Macedonia, with regards to this proposal?

20 A. Through the contacts that Mr. Ali Ahmeti had with Albanian

21 political parties, I didn't have any information that they wanted, that

22 they were in favour of this partitioning.

23 Even in the Prizren agreement, one of the important points is a

24 preservation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic

25 of Macedonia. Based on this, I assume that the parties had the same

1 stance that they expressed in the Prizren agreement.

2 Q. Thanks, General.

3 The fourth of this document ...

4 MS. REGUE: If we could please scroll down, so we can see the

5 fourth and the fifth paragraph. That's perfect. Thanks a lot.

6 Q. ... reads: "In a nationally televised interview, on 3 June, the

7 prime minister offered the mandate to the social democrats for the changes

8 to the constitution, because his party, VRMO-DPMNE, has made it clear that

9 either we create the constitution made to measure for the Albanians or

10 we'll have war.

11 "This should be made clear to everyone. The position of the

12 VRMO-DPMNE is that we categorically refuse any dialogue in such an

13 environment."

14 The first three line of the next paragraph reads: "The interview

15 shocked many Macedonians because it seemed to confirm that Georgievski had

16 rejected any idea of trying to reach a peaceful resolution through

17 political reforms."

18 General, would that statement, that position of Georgievski be an

19 accurate reflection of his denial to engage in a dialogue?

20 A. At that time, I didn't know anything about that. I was engaged in

21 the professional aspect of the NLA. I, of course, followed political

22 developments; but if it's written as you are putting to me, then I would

23 agree with you.

24 Q. Thanks, General.

25 MS. REGUE: Could we please call document with the following ERN.

1 It's N006-6508, and we have hard copies of this document for the Chamber,

2 the witness, and the colleagues.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.

4 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour. Could we have the 65 ter

5 number from our colleague.

6 MS. REGUE: Mr. Mettraux is well aware that this is not a 65 ter

7 document. It was provided by the witness during proofing, and it was

8 disclosed to the Defence on the 1st of November. It was given to us on

9 the 31st of October, and provided, disclosed to the Defence on the 1st of

10 November.

11 This is, Your Honour, the Prizren agreement which has been

12 mentioned during all the evidence in chief and in cross-examination.

13 JUDGE PARKER: I'm a little curious. Are you saying this is the

14 agreement, or is it some commentary on the agreement.

15 MS. REGUE: No. This is the agreement, Your Honours, as provided

16 by the witness, the text of the agreement.

17 The Prosecution --

18 [Trial Chamber confers]

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I, Your Honour, speak?

20 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Regue will ask you some questions.

21 MS. REGUE: Thanks.

22 Q. General, it was put to you that prior -- that prior to the Ohrid

23 Agreement, the NLA was never regarded as a valid negotiating partner. You

24 testified that, indeed, you reached an agreement with international

25 representatives in Aracinovo, as well as with the cease-fire, and you,

1 indeed, refer to the Prizren agreement.

2 I would like to go through the document with you, General.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.

4 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour.

5 We'll keep the objection, if any, to the admission of this

6 document. It is sought to be tendered, but the counsel has indicated, I

7 believe, that there was an agreement reached with international

8 representatives. As the document itself made clear, to the extent there

9 was agreement between anyone, this would have been agreement between the

10 representative of two Albanian political parties and Mr. Ahmeti.

11 I think what happened in this occasion is there was a facilitator

12 who was an international, but the evidence has not been led whether he

13 agreed or that he represented anyone in relation to those negotiation.

14 MS. REGUE: Your Honour, I am not sure if I -- maybe I have not

15 been clear. I was just simply -- obviously, this agreement was reached

16 between the Albanian parties leaders and Ali Ahmeti.

17 I was just referring to prior evidence that this witness gave with

18 regards to the NLA being acknowledged as a negotiating partner, with

19 regards to the Aracinovo, with regards to the cease-fire, and this third

20 agreement which, indeed, did not involve international representatives;

21 only Albanian political parties.

22 I'm sorry if it didn't come across clear in my introduction.

23 May I proceed?

24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

25 MS. REGUE: Thanks.

1 Q. General, in the first paragraph of this document, we read

2 that: "The Albania leaders in Macedonia, Ali Ahmeti, political

3 representative of the NLA; Arben Xhaferi, president of the DPA; and Imer

4 Imeri, president of the PDP, in the name of the subjects that they are

5 representing, have agreed with a common action about the issues of a

6 wider, national, and social consensus, which needs to reform the Republic

7 of Macedonia in the way that it becomes a democratic state."

8 General, Were these parties, Ali Ahmeti met and the

9 representatives of these two political party, the ones who participated

10 and, indeed, agreed with the Prizren document?

11 A. Yes, they are.

12 Q. General, if we move to the second paragraph - and, indeed, the

13 whole document lays out the different demands that the three negotiating

14 parties put forward in the document - in the third line, we can

15 read: "The aim to keep the integrity and the multi-ethnic character of

16 Macedonia, while not accepting any ethnic territorial, military solution."

17 Was this aim among the goals of the NLA, General?

18 A. Yes, it was; and as you see, it is expressed here.

19 Q. A bit farther down, it mentions: "As well as pretending that the

20 process of the transformation of the Republic of Macedonia need to be

21 directed towards the Euro-Atlantic integrations and the acknowledgment

22 that the solution will be found within a national political process with

23 the USA and EU facilitation."

24 General, was the NLA supporting the involvement of the

25 international community as mediators, facilitators to end the conflict?

1 A. Yes, it was. This is shown in all our communiques.

2 Q. If we move to the next paragraph, it reads: "Based on these

3 principles, the Albanian leaders in Macedonia are making a decision to

4 take part in the process of the reformist dialogue, while engage for the

5 change of the preamble of the constitution of Macedonia with which the

6 Albanians will achieve the status of state founders."

7 General, was also the NLA demanding the change of the preamble of

8 the constitution?

9 A. Yes, it was.

10 Q. A bit farther down, it indicates, and I quote: "The use of the

11 Albanian language as a second official language in Macedonia; for ethnic

12 proportional reputation in the state institutions; widening the

13 competences in the self-government; a complete secularisation of the

14 constitution, state; establishing the consensual democracies for the

15 issues that are connected to the national rights, which means limitation

16 of the process of outvoting in the areas which are directly involved with

17 the ethnic rights."

18 Were these issues - the use of the Albanian language as a second

19 official language, an ethnic proportional representation in the state

20 institutions, a widening of the competences in the self-government, and

21 also the secularisation of the goals - among demands of the NLA?

22 A. Yes. They were demands by the UNL, and completed by the demands

23 of the political parties. We added that.

24 Q. Finally, General, in the last paragraph, it is indicated: "Also

25 within this debate are the measures for transformation of the life of the

1 NLA members in different forms of civic professions, while also cover

2 those of within the government institutions."

3 There are some references below to a complete rehabilitation of

4 the NLA members, the building of villages and family economies, and taking

5 care of victims of war.

6 General, is this text also a reflect of the NLA demands at that

7 time?

8 A. Yes. At that meeting, when they decided to sign the Prizren

9 agreement, these are part of it. They agreed, the signatories to this

10 agreement, agreed also on these issues.

11 Q. General, I believe that you mentioned the date of this agreement

12 when you testified in-chief, but could you please repeat it, if you know,

13 the date when the parties made and agreed on this document?

14 A. At this moment, it doesn't come to my mind. You would have helped

15 me if you mentioned a date, and I would say simply "yes" or "no."

16 Q. Well, I'm afraid I cannot do, General. But if you don't recall,

17 it's okay.

18 A. I think I have mentioned it earlier as the 26th, I think, but I

19 don't know whether it was May or June.

20 Q. Thanks.

21 MS. REGUE: Could we please display in the screen N006-6506.

22 Q. General, can you explain to the Chamber what is this document?

23 A. This is taken from Fakti newspaper I think, and the photo has been

24 taken after the agreement of Mr. Ali Ahmeti, Imer Imeri, and Arben Xhaferi

25 following the agreement. It contains the date you asked me about, the

1 25th of May.

2 Q. Could you please read, for the record, the title of this document,

3 as we don't have an English translation?

4 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.

5 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour.

6 I believe the Defence has never seen this document, in any case

7 not in an English translation, nor did we have an indication of the fact

8 that the document would be used. We are, therefore, in an awkward

9 situation.

10 MS. REGUE: This document was disclosed to the Defence, again, on

11 the 1st of November. There is no English translation, neither for the

12 Defence nor for us. As I mentioned, it was given by us -- it was given to

13 us by the witness during proofing. We didn't use it in-chief because we

14 thought to give to the Defence a fair amount of time to be prepared, which

15 is now 15 days.

16 So they had the document, Your Honours, during the whole

17 cross-examination and, the issues which are mentioned in this document

18 arise in cross-examination, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Well, let's be clear, Ms. Regue, that if the

20 Prosecution was proposing go rely on it, it should have advanced it as

21 part of its evidence in chief; and if was the case that there had not been

22 adequate notice given at that time, that should have been faced and dealt

23 with then.

24 So it's not relevant that, because of a late discovery or

25 disclosure of the document, that you didn't deal with it in the course of

1 your examination-in-chief.

2 Now, having made that clear, you say the subject matter - I'm not,

3 at the moment at all familiar with the content of the document - you say

4 that the subject matter has been dealt with in the course of

5 cross-examination.

6 MS. REGUE: Yes, Your Honour, can I clarify that. In evidence in

7 chief, indeed, questions regarding this document were asked to the

8 witness; and, in the content of this document, the witness gave his

9 evidence about that. I mean that is in the transcript about the Prizren

10 agreement.

11 At that moment, we didn't seek to tender the document because we

12 thought that it was fair for the Defence to give them more time. That was

13 the only purpose. So in the evidence in chief, indeed, the issue was

14 dealt.

15 JUDGE PARKER: What is your present objective in turning to this

16 document?

17 MS. REGUE: Your Honour, to show that, indeed, the NLA was

18 regarded as a valid, negotiating partner at that time in 2001.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Well, that is the evidence that has been given by

20 this witness; and now this is, what, a newspaper report, is it?

21 MS. REGUE: I was going to ask the witness actually what was the

22 content of this newspaper report.

23 JUDGE PARKER: This is a newspaper report.

24 MS. REGUE: This one, this document in the screen, Your Honours.

25 JUDGE PARKER: And it's simply a report about --

1 MS. REGUE: The agreement, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE PARKER: -- a meeting at Prizren, which it is said an

3 agreement was reached. Is that really going to advance your case?

4 MS. REGUE: No, Your Honour. I was just simply trying to

5 authenticate the date and the fact that this meeting took place. It was

6 only purpose of showing this newspaper, which was going to take

7 theoretically ten seconds.

8 JUDGE PARKER: I do believe that the present evidence is that the

9 matter was the subject of newspaper reports at the time, and you are

10 simply putting to the witness one newspaper report. Is that it?

11 MS. REGUE: Yes, Your Honour. I was going to ask him simply which

12 was the content of this newspaper report, briefly.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Well, I think that may be going too far.

14 MS. REGUE: In order to corroborate, Your Honour, as a matter of

15 fact, the fact that the meeting took place and the agreement was reached,

16 that was the only purpose.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Well, you would be allowed to put to the witness to

18 confirm what I think is his earlier evidence that there were newspaper

19 reports and that appears to be one of them, but I don't think you ought to

20 go into further detail in the report.

21 MS. REGUE: I was not going to do that, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

23 MS. REGUE: I was just intending to --

24 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.

25 MS. REGUE: -- put that forward, Your Honour.

1 Q. General, were you aware, do you recall if the meeting in Prizren

2 and the agreement was published in the media in Macedonia.

3 A. Yes. It was published in the Fakti newspaper; and in the

4 Macedonian newspapers, it was spoken much about it in the newscasts,

5 saying that Imeri and Xhaferi have betrayed the newly formed government,

6 broad coalition government. So there was lot of debate going on, but I

7 don't have accurate information on all the newspaper articles.

8 This was something I knew, and there was the publication of the

9 entire text of the Prizren agreement, in another newspaper, containing all

10 the signatures.

11 Q. Can you recall the date of the agreement, having seen the

12 newspaper now?

13 A. Yes. I see the date here, the 25th of May.

14 Q. Thanks.

15 A. It's written also in my personal documents; but, at the moment, it

16 escaped my memory.

17 Q. Thanks.

18 MS. REGUE: We can remove this document from the screen.

19 And if we could please call ERN N006-6502.

20 Again, advancing Mr. Mettraux's question, this is not a 65 ter

21 document, Your Honour. It is also a document which was given to us during

22 proofing, disclosed to the Defence on the 1st of November, dealt in-chief

23 and also in cross-examination, Your Honour.

24 Q. General, it was put to you that the Ohrid Agreement was a

25 rejection of the NLA existence and actions, and was aimed at undermining

1 the goals of the NLA.

2 You testified that that was not the case, that the Ohrid Agreement

3 reflected the Prizren agreement, communique number 6, and also a

4 memorandum.

5 MS. REGUE: Your Honour, we have hard copy of this communique, if

6 you wish, and also for the witness.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Mettraux.

8 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I would simply indicate for the record

9 that it would have been nice had we been given an indication that these

10 document would be used prior to re-examination. We have, indeed, received

11 the document in question a couple of weeks ago, I believe, but not an

12 indication that this would be used at this stage in any case.

13 MS. REGUE: Well, Your Honour, I believe that in re-examination

14 the documents that we are supposed to use, it also raises from the issues

15 dealt in cross-examination.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Carry on, Ms. Regue.

17 MS. REGUE: Thanks.

18 Q. General, if we look at this communique number 6, if we move to the

19 second paragraph, it reads: "The NLA is for keeping of the territorial

20 integrity of Macedonia. The NLA demands are the demands of the entire

21 Albanian people in Macedonia."

22 Again, General, the territorial integrity is mentioned here.

23 Item 1 reads: "International neutral mediation in the conflict."

24 Item 2: "The census of the population to be made by an

25 international, neutral institution, and the citizenship to be recognised

1 to all of the residents."

2 Item 3: "Change of the constitution."

3 Item 4: "Macedonia to be a state of two nations; Albania,

4 Macedonian, respectively. This will enable that all the injustices that

5 are made to the Albanian people by the ethnic Macedonian to disappear."

6 Then there is a list of discrimination in different aspects of the

7 public life.

8 General, is this communique an accurate description of the NLA

9 demands?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Thanks.

12 MS. REGUE: Could we please show P84, which is the Ohrid

13 Agreement. Thanks.

14 Q. General, this is the Ohrid Framework Agreement.

15 MS. REGUE: May I proceed, Your Honours.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.

17 MS. REGUE:

18 Q. It's dated the 13th of August, 2001.

19 Item 1 of the Ohrid Framework Agreement reads, "Basic principles,"

20 and then item 1.2 indicates: "Macedonian sovereignty and territorial

21 integrity."

22 General, was this, the Macedonian sovereignty and territorial

23 integrity, a demand which was reflected in the Prizren and in the

24 communique number 6?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Item 1.3 mentions: "The multi-ethnic character of Macedonian

2 society must be preserved and reflected in public life."

3 Again, General, is this a demand reflected both in Prizren and in

4 communique number 6?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Item 1.5 mentioned: "The development of local self-government is

7 essential for encouraging the participation of citizens in democratic life

8 and for promoting respect for the identity of communities."

9 Again, General, is mentioned in the Prizren agreement the need for

10 a widening of the local self-government?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. In item 2.1, it is mentioned that: "The parties underline the

13 importance of the commitments of July 5th, 2001. There shall be a

14 complete cessation of hostilities, a complete voluntary disarmament of the

15 ethnic armed Albanian armed groups."

16 General, was this disarmament referring to the operation, the plan

17 Harvest, which was implemented afterwards?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Item 3, General, reads: "Development of decentralised

20 government," and item 3.1 mentions: "A revised law on local

21 self-government."

22 Again, General, this demand for a widening of self-government, was

23 it enclosed within the Prizren agreement?

24 A. Yes, more competencies for the self-government.

25 Q. Point 3.2 reads: "Boundaries of municipalities will be revised

1 within one year of the completion of a new census, which will be conducted

2 under international supervision."

3 General, was the need for a new census with intervention of

4 international parties foreseen in communique number 6?

5 A. Yes, in item 2 of the communique number 6.

6 MS. REGUE: If we could please go to the next page. Scroll up a

7 little bit. Thanks a lot. Also in the English version, if we could

8 scroll up. Actually, turn to the next page. Thanks.

9 Q. Point item number 4 of the Ohrid Framework Agreement mentions the

10 mentions: "A non-discrimination and equitable reputation.

11 Item 4.2 mentions: "Laws relating employment in public

12 administration will include measures to assure equitable representation of

13 communities in all central and local public bodies."

14 General, was the demand for an end of discrimination and equal

15 representation for ethnic minorities foreseen in communique number 6 and

16 in the Prizren agreement?

17 A. Yes, in item 3, changes to the constitution and force Macedonia to

18 become a state of two peoples of equal peoples. And further down, it says

19 that this would be contribute to eliminating the distinctions between the

20 ethnicities, non-discrimination, removal of discrimination in all walks of

21 life in the administration, and so on.

22 So I don't want to mention every single detail, but, in one word,

23 it is mentioned there.

24 Q. Item 5, with the title, "Special parliamentary procedures."

25 Item 5 foresees "constitutional amendments" in item 5.1.

1 Also, item 5.2 indicates: "Laws that directly affect cultural,

2 use of language, education, personal documentation, and use of symbols, as

3 well as laws on local finances, local elections, the city of Skopje, and

4 boundaries of municipalities, must receive a majority of votes, within

5 which there must be a majority of the votes of the representatives

6 claiming to belong to the community, not in the majority in the population

7 of Macedonia."

8 General, was the need for an amendment of the legislation dealing

9 with issues of national minorities foreseen also in the Prizren and

10 communique number 6?

11 A. I don't recall every detail, but this is in force now and in

12 practice in the Republic of Macedonia, this demand.

13 Q. Thanks.

14 And, finally, item 6 mentions: "Education and the use of

15 language."

16 MS. REGUE: If we go to item 6.5, which, in English, it's the very

17 bottom of the document, and I believe in the Macedonian version we have to

18 go to the next page.

19 Q. Item 6.5, General, indicates: "Any other language spoken by at

20 least 20 per cent of the population is also an official language, as set

21 forth herein."

22 General, was the demand of the Albanian language, as well as the

23 language of other minorities become an official language, was this demand

24 included within the Prizren agreement.

25 A. Yes.

1 MS. REGUE: And, finally, if we could go to the next page in

2 English, item 9.

3 Q. General, we see that the Ohrid Agreement indicates that, as

4 annexes of this agreement, there are: "A, constitutional amendments; and,

5 B, legislative modifications."

6 General was the communique number 6, as well as the Prizren

7 agreement, indeed demanding for legislative and constitutional changes?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. General, would the Ohrid Agreement reflect the NLA demands, goals

10 which have seen both in the Prizren agreement and in communique number 6?

11 A. Yes, it does.

12 MS. REGUE: Your Honours, at this point, I will seek to tender the

13 Prizren agreement and communique number 6.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski.

15 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

16 I would like to object that these documents be received in

17 evidence.

18 First of all, I would like to address the Prizren agreement, which

19 was shown by the Prosecution. This, as far as we could see, is not

20 authorised, it is not signed by the above mentioned persons, there is no

21 date as to when the agreement was made and, in effect, the witness now

22 gave evidence on behalf of the signatories of this document. We have no

23 such evidence from the person who is are signatories to this agreement.

24 As for communique number 6, which my colleague is now tendering

25 into evidence, as far as I recall the evidence of this witness -- his

1 evidence was that this was prepared by their political leader, Mr. Ali

2 Ahmeti. The document which I see before me, it states on the bottom that

3 it was prepared by the General Staff. The same document is without a

4 date, and has no proof that it comes from -- from the NLA. There is no

5 archive number to which my colleague also alluded to in her questioning,

6 that the documents contained register numbers, archive numbers.

7 Thank you.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.

9 MR. METTRAUX: We'd simply join our colleague, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

11 Ms. Regue.

12 MS. REGUE: Thank you, Your honour.

13 This documents, Your Honour, as I mentioned, were given to us by

14 the witness during proofing, as well as the prior communiques were given

15 to us as well when the statement was taken. I believe that with regards

16 to the communiques, the -- the structure is exactly the same; and in some

17 cases, the communiques did not have the date, and we had to explore that

18 point with the witness.

19 And, Your Honour, with regards to the Prizren agreement, I believe

20 that my colleague is mentioning that there is no date to that in the

21 document itself. If you wish, Your Honour, I can explore with the witness

22 why is that.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

24 [Trial Chamber confers]

25 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber will receive communique number 6, which

1 has been confirmed as to its authenticity by the witness. As the Chamber

2 understands the evidence of the witness, he is not in a position to

3 personally authenticate the document labelled the Prizren Agreement and it

4 will not receive that.

5 Communique number 6 is received.

6 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P520, Your Honours.

7 MS. REGUE: Thanks, Your Honours, I have no further questions.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Ostreni, you will be pleased to know that that

10 concludes the questions that will be asked of you. The point is reached

11 where you will be free to now return to your normal activities. The

12 Chamber would thank you for your attendance here in The Hague and for the

13 assistance that have you been able to give.

14 The court officer will be able to show you out. Thank you,

15 indeed, sir.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. Good day.

17 [The witness withdrew]

18 [Trial Chamber confers]

19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.

20 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, at this time, the Prosecution would call

21 Mr. Thomas Kuehnel. While I'm on my feet, I have a sad duty today, Your

22 Honour.

23 The Prosecution, as you know, has been very ably assisted by the

24 contribution of Ms. Motoike during the proceedings to date. But for

25 reasons of family, Ms. Motoike will be returning to the United States in

1 the near future, So she may not appear again in this case after this week.

2 Fortunately, we are joined today by Ms. Antoinette Issa, an

3 attorney from Quebec, who will be leading the next witness.

4 JUDGE PARKER: Well, Mr. Saxon, the Chamber would certainly want

5 to join with you in acknowledging the assistance and contribution of

6 Ms. Motoike and wishing her well in her life back in her home country.

7 We notice it's becoming almost a habit, Mr. Saxon, that you're

8 having to inform the Chamber of these things, and we appreciate how much

9 that is putting an additional strain upon you and the remaining members of

10 the team, but we certainly want to send with her the Chamber's wishes for

11 the future.

12 We would welcome also Ms. Issa, who comes now. I don't believe we

13 have had a Canadian counsel in this case, so it's a new element and a new

14 dimension.

15 Mr. Mettraux.

16 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, simply on behalf of the Defence of

17 Mr. Boskoski, we would also wish to joining good luck to Ms. Motoike to

18 her career and life back home.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

20 Mr. Apostolski.

21 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, on behalf of the

22 Defence of Mr. Johan Tarculovski, I wish all the best to my learned friend

23 Ms. Motoike. I was glad that we worked together.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Apostolski.

25 We would anticipate, therefore, that Ms. Motoike has no need to

1 appear again here, if it is not until a few days that she has to go, but

2 she is welcome if she has nothing more useful to do, to come to court.

3 MS. MOTOIKE: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE PARKER: Well, I believe the next witness is ready,

5 Mr. Saxon.

6 Could you get Mr. Kuehnel, please.

7 [The witness entered court]

8 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Kuehnel, would you please read aloud the

9 affirmation on the card that is given to you.

10 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

11 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, please sit down.

13 WITNESS: THOMAS Kuehnel

14 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa will be asking some questions of you,

15 Mr. Kuehnel.

16 Ms. Issa.

17 MS. ISSA: Thank you. Thank you, Your Honour.

18 Examination by Ms. Issa

19 Q. Good morning, Mr. Kuehnel.

20 A. Good morning.

21 MS. ISSA: Perhaps, Your Honour, before I start, we would like to

22 distribute some binders that relate to this witness.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

24 I think, Ms. Issa, you take the prize for producing the heaviest

25 single volume.

1 MS. ISSA: That was not my intention, Your Honour, but thank you.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Do I take it that Defence counsel have their

3 necessary copies.

4 MS. ISSA: Unfortunately, Your Honour, due to the volume of the

5 material, the copies were not provided to the Defence; however, they were

6 given a list of the exhibits that we intend to use. We will also be

7 calling up the exhibits in e-court in order to assist the Defence.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Well, we will see whether that works adequately

9 there practice. Thank you.

10 MS. ISSA: Thank you.

11 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, just for the record, could you please spell your last

12 name. Your name is Thomas Kuehnel, as I understand?

13 A. That's correct. My name is Thomas Kuehnel, K-U-E-H-N-E-L.

14 Q. And you are an investigator working for the Office of the

15 Prosecutor. Is that correct?

16 A. That's correct.

17 Q. When did you begin your work with the Office of the Prosecutor?

18 A. I started to work for the Office of the Prosecutor in October

19 2003.

20 Q. And if you can just very briefly tell us, where did you work prior

21 to commencing your work with the Office of the Prosecutor in 2003?

22 A. I worked with the German police force and -- in Bavaria.

23 Q. For how long?

24 A. Since about, now, including this time, 26 years. I started in

25 September 1982.

1 Q. And can you briefly explain what was your role on this case,

2 before the Chamber?

3 A. At the beginning of my duty for the OTP, I worked as a P-2

4 investigator in the OTP in Team C; and from the beginning of my

5 assignment, I started to work on the case of Ljuboten. I was a team

6 member among three other investigators, and that's basically my role.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 MS. ISSA: I'm just going start off with 65 ter exhibit 280, if we

9 can call that up, please. It's at tab 1 of the binder.

10 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, this is an RFA from the OTP to the government of

11 Macedonia, which is dated July 8, 2005. I draw your attention to

12 paragraph 2 of the RFA --

13 A. Mm-hm.

14 Q. -- which requests the following: "Please also advise whether the

15 Macedonian army units or departments supplied soldiers or weaponry or

16 other equipment to the ground forces (referred to above) that entered the

17 village," and that's the village of Ljuboten, "on 12 August 2001, under

18 the general direction of Johan Tarculovski."

19 A. I see that.

20 Q. Do you see that?

21 A. I see it.

22 MS. ISSA: If we can then please call up 65 ter Exhibit 321 at tab

23 2 of the binders.

24 THE WITNESS: I see it.

25 MS. ISSA:

1 Q. I refer your -- just to draw your attention to paragraph 2 which

2 says: "Units of the army..." This is a response from the Republic of

3 Macedonia, Ministry of Defence, which is dated 5 September 1995, in

4 response to that RFA. It refers and states in paragraph 2 --

5 A. I see that.

6 Q. Actually, I will start with paragraph 1: "Units or individuals of

7 the army of the Republic of Macedonia did not take part in the land

8 operation over the village of Ljuboten, which was under the leadership of

9 Johan Tarculovski on 12 August 2001."

10 Then continuing on paragraph 2, it states: "Units of the army of

11 the Republic of Macedonia have not been providing soldiers, weapons, or

12 other equipment for the land forces that entered the village of Ljuboten

13 on 12 August 2001, under main leadership by Johan Tarculovski."

14 MS. ISSA: I see that Mr. Mettraux is on his feet.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.

16 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I apologise for stopping it at this

17 stage, but the Defence of Mr. Boskoski would simple like to obtain a

18 indication as to whether Mr. Kuehnel was the author of the first letter

19 which was shown to him, or whether he was the recipient of the second

20 letter that is now being shown.

21 An answer to those questions could, Your Honour, be relevant, we

22 submit, as to whether the witness could be asked questions in relation to

23 that particular document.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Are you suggesting that they are the only two bases

25 upon which he might give evidence about them?

1 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, we believe that there may be some

2 limitation about the nature ... [Albanian on English Channel] ... to the

3 witness whether he would have received the material or whether he has

4 reviewed the material, in particular, because our understanding would be

5 that, for instance, the witness would not be permitted to give evidence

6 about material that was, for example, summarized or about the

7 circumstances in which a document was obtained, if he did not himself

8 obtain that material.

9 We simply want to be able to know what can be asked of this

10 witness, in light of the information which we sought.

11 JUDGE PARKER: So far, the Chamber is not in a position to know

12 where you're going on what you're intending to be asking.

13 So in light of the matters being raised by Mr. Mettraux, we would

14 ask you to consider whether you need to secure any more information from

15 the witness before proceeding with your questioning.

16 MS. ISSA: I can do that, Your Honour, but it would be my

17 submission that I -- I would generally be permitted to ask him questions

18 about material that he is not the author of or recipient of, given that

19 hearsay is admissible in this jurisdiction.

20 So in my respectful submission --

21 JUDGE PARKER: The question is, and that was the point of my

22 comment to Mr. Mettraux, he may be familiar with this whatever it is

23 you're going to ask because he was the author of the letter or the

24 recipient of a reply, but he may also be familiar with it on other bases,

25 including being the investigator who had constant familiarity with the

1 trial and the preparation for it and the correspondence that came and

2 went, and there are a number of other possibilities.

3 MS. ISSA: Yes.

4 JUDGE PARKER: It would be of use, I suggest, if we knew on what

5 basis the witness is speaking about whatever it is you're going to ask him

6 about.

7 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Your Honour.

8 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, regarding the information that I just referred to,

9 the RFA as well as the response that was received in -- in response to

10 that RFA, were you aware of this particular information?

11 A. Yes, I have seen it. The RFA was sent by our team, by our trial

12 attorney. I see my name on that the RFA, and for sure I have read the

13 answers which we received as a team. Yes, I did see that.

14 Q. And when you say you "received it as a team," can you explain

15 briefly what specifically you're referring to, just to clarify?

16 A. Well, RFAs are sent out by always signed by the or drafted by the

17 trial attorneys, and you can see, for example, on the last page of this

18 RFA that my name was also mentioned together with the trial attorney's

19 name, so I speak about the Prosecution team.

20 Q. Thank you.

21 MS. ISSA: Turning, then, to the next document at tab 3 of the

22 binders, which is 65 ter 283.

23 Q. This is another Request for Assistance or RFA.

24 A. I see that.

25 Q. I would just like to draw your attention to what is marked as

1 paragraph 1 under 1?

2 A. Correct. Okay.

3 Q. And the request is for the following: "Please advise if any

4 individual of non-Albanian ethnic, whether a member of the Macedonian

5 security forces or not, was investigated, indicted, prosecuted, or

6 proceeded against by any other measure by the state prosecuting court or

7 any other judicial authorities for any crimes arising out of events

8 occurring in Ljuboten village from 10 to 12 August 2001, or out of events

9 connected to the imprisonment and mistreatment of Albanian detainees who

10 were in custody during the period 12 to 15 August 2001."

11 It lists a number of locations. Do you see that?

12 A. I see that.

13 MS. ISSA: And that RFA is dated 8 July 2005, for the record.

14 THE WITNESS: Correct.

15 MS. ISSA: And if we can please turn to page 2 of the RFA.

16 Q. Just to draw your attention to what is marked as paragraph 4,

17 which states or which reads: "Please also advise if Johan Tarculovski or

18 Ljube Boskoski or anyone acting on their behalf referred any individual or

19 group of individuals of non-Albanian ethnicity or any other person,

20 whether a member of the Macedonian security forces or not, to the state

21 prosecuting court or any other judicial authorities to be investigated,

22 indicted, prosecuted, or proceeded against by any other measure for

23 suspicion of involvement in any crimes arising out of events occurring in

24 Ljuboten village from 10 to 12 August 2001, or out the events connected to

25 the imprisonment and mistreatment of Albanian detainees who were in

1 custody from or during 12 to 15 August at the locations that were in 1 to

2 9 above."

3 Were you aware of this particular request, Mr. Kuehnel?

4 A. Yes, I am.

5 Q. Turning then your attention to tab 4.

6 MS. ISSA: In the hard copy in the binder, it's 65 ter 283.1, at

7 page 2, please.

8 Q. I just draw your attention to paragraph 2, the second paragraph on

9 that page, which states: "Regarding the request, the Ministry took the

10 appropriate examinations within its competence and through its

11 organisational units, concerning the event Ljuboten in the period from 10

12 August to 12 August 2001. The results show that no non-Albanian

13 individual is the subject of a criminal investigation, indictment, or any

14 other procedure in connection with the events that took place in the above

15 mentioned period."

16 That is a letter addressed to the OTP from Besim Ramicevic,

17 Mr. Kuehnel?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Do you know who that is?

20 A. Yes. He is our liaison officer within the Ministry of Interior

21 for the Republic of Macedonia.

22 Q. And if we look at page 1 at the top, the cover page, that is dated

23 September 22, 2005. Do you see that, Mr. Kuehnel?

24 A. I see that.

25 MS. ISSA: And just the last document in this series, at tab 5 in

1 the binders, 65 ter 382, which also appears to be a response to the RFA.

2 Q. If we look at the first page, the date on that is 11 -- November

3 2nd, 2005, from the Republic of Macedonia to the Office of the Prosecutor.

4 I draw your attention to page 2, please, of that document. At the

5 very bottom, it's a letter to the Republic of Macedonia from the assistant

6 to the minister, head of the SVR Skopje, Lase Velkovski [phoen]?

7 A. I see that.

8 Q. Do you see that?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And at the very bottom of that paragraph, that single paragraph,

11 it reads: "We would like to inform you that no investigation, indictment,

12 criminal prosecution, or other procedure by the public prosecutions office

13 and the court has been initiated against any person of non-Albanian

14 entity."

15 Do you see that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And were you aware of this information?

18 A. Yes, I am.

19 MS. ISSA: Then if we can just mover to 65 ter 628, please, at tab

20 6 of the binders.

21 Q. That's another RFA, I don't propose to read it. Do you recognise

22 that, that RFA, Mr. Kuehnel?

23 A. Yes, I do.

24 Q. And it's requesting access -- a physical access to the archives

25 for submitted criminal charges. Is that correct?

1 A. That's correct.

2 MS. ISSA: If we can question please turn to tab 7, 65 ter 356.

3 Q. Do you recognise this document in front of you, Mr. Kuehnel?

4 A. Yes, I do.

5 Q. Can you explain what that document is?

6 A. I see here the English version of a printout from the so-called

7 crime register of the Macedonian Ministry of Interior, and this relates to

8 the chapter 34 of this crime registry. Chapter 34 is, at the same time,

9 the same of the chapter 34 of the Macedonian Criminal Code.

10 Q. Okay. If I can stop you there for a moment.

11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Prosecutor.

12 MS. ISSA:

13 Q. Sorry. If I can stop you there for a moment.

14 Can you, first of all, explain where you obtained this document?

15 A. I obtained this document from the Ministry of Interior, where I

16 have been on that day, where I seized it in the presence of the head of

17 the -- I think it was the analytical -- or no, archive sector. I just

18 can't remember the name of the lady.

19 Could you remind me?

20 Q. Well, at the very -- I believe at the -- if I can help assist you

21 in refreshing your memory? It's a Mrs. Arsovska?

22 A. Yeah, that is correct. I was in the presence of Mrs. Arsovska

23 when she did her search on her database, and you can also see under number

24 3 that it refers to the area of Skopje. The search was done in this

25 chapter 34, which is also basically known as war crimes. This sector

1 covers the Criminal Code.

2 Q. So if I could, just to clarify, to stop you there, Mr. Kuehnel.

3 You requested this search from Mrs. Arsovska. Is that correct?

4 A. Yeah, that is correct. I did that.

5 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters and the court reporter kindly

6 ask the witness and Prosecutor to pause between question and answer and

7 enable us to do our work.

8 MS. ISSA: Thank you.

9 Q. And did you, Mr. Kuehnel, request -- make a specific request to

10 Mrs. Arsovska?

11 A. Yes, I did. I asked her to conduct a search for me, to see if

12 there was any war crime record in this -- in this crime register visible.

13 Q. Okay. So you asked her to conduct a search in -- to find out if

14 there were any war crimes initiated in what we're looking at at SVR

15 Skopje?

16 A. That's correct.

17 Q. And for what year did you ask her to conduct the search?

18 A. For the year 2001.

19 Q. And you mentioned earlier chapter 34 of the Criminal Code?

20 A. Mm-hm.

21 Q. Is that the chapter that refers to -- of Macedonia -- the Criminal

22 Code of Macedonia which refers to the section on war crimes?

23 A. That's correct.

24 Q. Did you have an opportunity to review this document, Mr. Kuehnel?

25 A. Yes, I did. I received these documents in my hands, and I refute

1 them.

2 Q. And based on your review of this document, did you find any

3 criminal charges related to war crimes filed against anybody in the SVR --

4 A. No.

5 Q. -- Skopje in 2001?

6 A. My Apologies. No.

7 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, at this time, I would like to tender this

8 document.

9 JUDGE PARKER: This is the documents that are at tab 7. Is that

10 correct?

11 MS. ISSA: Yes, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE PARKER: I'm not clear whether they are entered in the

13 electronic system as one document or as a number of documents.

14 MS. ISSA: I believe they're entered into the electronic system as

15 one document, and I can provide the ERN numbers if that assists.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

17 MS. ISSA: The ERN number is N002-3399 to N002-3418. If it just

18 assists the Chamber, for the purposes of the hard copy that was placed in

19 the binder, only the first ten pages are provided in the hard copy, but

20 the entire document should be in e-court.

21 JUDGE PARKER: The document will be received.

22 MS. ISSA: Thank you.

23 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P521, Your Honours.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

25 MS. ISSA: Now, if I can move on to the next exhibit, that's 65

1 ter 355 at tab 8.

2 Q. Once again, Mr. Kuehnel, if you can look at page 1 of that

3 exhibit.

4 A. I see that.

5 Q. It also appears to be an exhibit from a crime register?

6 A. That is correct.

7 Q. Do you recognise it?

8 A. I do.

9 THE INTERPRETER: With all due respect, the interpreters need to

10 ask again the witness and the counsel to pause for a moment between the

11 question and answer, as our language is much less concise than the

12 English.

13 MS. ISSA: I'm sorry. We will do our best to do that.

14 JUDGE PARKER: It becomes necessary to undergo a personal slow

15 down.

16 MS. ISSA: Yes.

17 JUDGE PARKER: We all have to go through the experience, but the

18 necessity of multi-language interpretation requires us just to pause a

19 lot, think a lot, and speak slowly.

20 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Your Honour, I will.

21 JUDGE PARKER: And that is so both for counsel and for witness.

22 MS. ISSA: We will take that instruction.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Well, I suspect that you will rapidly fall into

24 your former habit, and we may have to mention it once or twice again

25 before it becomes a habit.

1 MS. ISSA: I understand, Your Honour. I will do my best not to

2 allow that to happen.

3 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, just returning to 65 ter 355, which is the results of

4 the computer search for criminal records, can you -- you indicated you

5 recognised it. Did you obtain this document?

6 A. Yes, I obtained this document. That's correct.

7 Q. Did you obtain it at the same time as you obtained the previous

8 document?

9 A. I did. I did obtain it on the same day, but I did obtain it at a

10 different time and from a different person.

11 Q. And where did you obtain it from?

12 A. This document I obtained from the liaison officer, Besim

13 Ramicevic, who made the same type of search like the previous documents.

14 Q. And what -- what is different about this document than the

15 previous document?

16 A. The search is exactly the same. The difference is that Mr. Besim

17 Ramicevic had a different access to the system, and he made a countrywide

18 search for the same purpose.

19 Q. So if I can summarize what you have said, he, Mr. Ramicevic, did a

20 countrywide search, as opposed to the search which was done previously,

21 which was only for the SVR Skopje. Is that correct?

22 A. That is correct.

23 Q. And this also relates to a search of whether or not war crimes

24 were charged in the country, and was it in the same year 2001?

25 A. Either it refers to the same subject, also the search for chapter

1 34; and was the same year, which is under number 2, for the year 2001.

2 That's correct, yes.

3 MS. ISSA: And if I can please ask Madam Registrar to turn to page

4 6 of the English translation, and also in the Macedonian version.

5 Q. Drawing your attention, Mr. Kuehnel, to page 6. Did you learn of

6 any case of any alleged war crime during the year 2001?

7 A. I have. I see here one search result and it's described as racial

8 and other discrimination, and the place of the crime was Kumanovo in the

9 year 2001, 7th of August. This is basically the information I can see

10 here.

11 Q. Did you receive any further information concerning this crime from

12 anyone?

13 A. No, not to this particular crime.

14 Q. All right.

15 Referring then to page 4 of the same document, and drawing your

16 attention to the reference to human trafficking --

17 A. I see this page.

18 Q. -- in this case. Did you learn anything about the type of crimes

19 that were charged?

20 A. Yes, I did so. I was told by the person who was doing the search,

21 Mr. Besim Ramicevic, that these cases here, 1 to 6, which are listed here,

22 refer to an organised crime like human trafficking. The reason why it is

23 under this chapter 34, under war crimes, is that, due to the Criminal Code

24 of Macedonia, human trafficking cases are charged under this article,

25 418. What I was told was that this has nothing to do with a war crime.

1 Q. Thank you.

2 And apart from these cases, based on your review of the documents,

3 did you find any other cases of persons charged with war crimes in the

4 Republic of Macedonia in the year 2001?

5 A. No, I did not.

6 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I'd like to tender this document, please,

7 as the next exhibit.

8 JUDGE PARKER: The document which is tab 8 will be received.

9 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P522, Your Honours.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Now, is that a convenient time, do you think,

11 Ms. Issa, for the break?

12 MS. ISSA: Yes, it is, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE PARKER: We'll then resume at five minutes past 1.00.

14 --- Recess taken at 12.34 p.m.

15 --- On resuming at 1.06 p.m.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa.

17 MS. ISSA:

18 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, I believe that you recently were involved in a search

19 of the archives relating to the permanent commission for disciplinary

20 proceedings for the Ministry of Interior. Is that correct?

21 A. Yes, that's correct.

22 Q. And what was the purpose of your -- of the archive search?

23 A. The purpose was to find out if there was in the disciplinary

24 proceedings against any person possibly involved in the events of Ljuboten

25 in 2001, and also to get access to personnel files of Mr. Boskoski and

1 Mr. Tarculovski.

2 Q. Okay. So your purpose was to determine whether any disciplinary

3 proceedings had been initiated against any member of the MOI involved in

4 the Ljuboten events. Is that right?

5 A. That's correct.

6 Q. And when you attended at the archive, did you meet with anybody

7 there?

8 A. Yes, I did. I met with several persons. The main contact person

9 was introduced to me as Mrs. Naumova.

10 Q. And who was Mrs. Naumova? What was her title?

11 A. Mrs. Naumova was the head of the human-- hang on. What was it? I

12 think it was the legal department or human resource department.

13 Can you remind me a moment, please, in my note. I recorded it in

14 my note.

15 Q. Okay. And the note you are referring to, for the record, is at

16 tab 10 in the binder --

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. -- and it is not listed on the 65 ter list?

19 A. Yes, head of legal department. It's a bit of a long title because

20 this is the so-called sector for common affairs, which contains the sector

21 for legal affairs and sector for personnel affairs.

22 Q. Thank you. Did Mrs. Naumova provide with you any documentation

23 regarding disciplinary proceedings carried out in 2001 and 2002?

24 A. Yes, she did. Based on my request, I asked Mrs. Naumova to

25 provide me with an overview about all disciplinary proceedings in the year

1 2001 and in the year 2002.

2 Q. Okay.

3 MS. ISSA: And turning, then, to tab 11, at 65 ter number 1058.

4 THE WITNESS: I see that.

5 MS. ISSA: I'd just like to call that up on the screen, first.

6 Thank you.

7 Q. Do recognise that document, Mr. Kuehnel?

8 A. Yes, I recognise the document.

9 Q. And can you describe what that document depicts?

10 A. Mm-hm. This is one of the two documents I received, and this

11 particular document depicts a list of disciplinary cases for the year

12 2001. I was told that this list is a list which was not produced on my

13 request, but it was used in the normal proceeding of the sector.

14 Q. Well, we'll get to that in a moment?

15 MS. ISSA: But if I could ask Madam Registrar to scroll down to

16 page 22 of that document, please.

17 Q. If could I ask you, Mr. Kuehnel, to turn to the last page in your

18 binder.

19 A. Mm-hm.

20 Q. It appears that 97 cases, according to this list, were recorded in

21 the Ministry of Interior for the year 2001. Do you see that there.

22 A. I see that.

23 Q. This is a list that you indicated say you obtained from

24 Mrs. Naumova. Is that correct?

25 I think you indicated that earlier Mr. Kuehnel. Can you hear me?

1 A. Yes, I hear you. I'm just trying to find the right moment for the

2 transcript. Yes.

3 Q. Thank you. You're doing a better job at that than I am.

4 MS. ISSA: If could I ask for that 65 ter number, 1058, to be

5 admitted, please.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.

7 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, at this stage, we'll simply indicate,

8 for the record, that obviously we are aware of the decision of the Trial

9 Chamber to allow the Prosecution to add this and other similar documents

10 to its list and obviously bound by it. We would simply to record this at

11 this stage is that the fact that this material, as we had indicated in our

12 response, was not put to any witness who could have provided evidence as

13 to the procedure, ways, and reasons for any such document or who could

14 have explained this fact.

15 We also understand from the Chamber's decision that Your Honours

16 have made reference, in particular, to the Prosecution witness, Mr.

17 Galevski, who the Prosecution said in its motion gave, let's say,

18 increased meaning to the issue of disciplinary matter.

19 We would like to bring to the attention of the Chamber at this

20 stage that Mr. Galevski died over the weekend. The Defence will,

21 therefore, not be able to be in a position to put that material to

22 Mr. Galevski. We would also wish to indicate at this stage that in our

23 submission, Your Honour, this material, to the extent that it was

24 available to the Prosecution at the time, and to the extent that it would

25 have been relevant to their case, should have been put through a witness

1 who would have been capable of giving evidence about the procedure, the

2 laws, and the practices of the ministry in that regard.

3 This is no offence to Mr. Kuehnel, but we wish to indicate that at

4 this stage.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. As I'm sure both yourself and

6 Mr. Apostolski are well aware, should it be your view that, by virtue of

7 this decision, the fairness of the trial and the interests of your client

8 would warrant the re-calling of any Prosecution witness, then that should

9 be specifically raised.

10 Thank you.

11 Yes. Now we have your motion, I think, for admission.

12 MS. ISSA: Yes, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

14 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P523, Your Honours.

15 MS. ISSA:

16 Q. Now, Mr. Kuehnel, I'd like to draw your attention to the next

17 exhibit, at tab 12, which is marked as 65 ter 1059.

18 Where did you obtain this exhibit, Mr. Kuehnel?

19 A. This is exactly the same -- comes from the same source as the one

20 before, and it also shows exactly the same only for the time-period from

21 the 1st of January, 2002 until 31st of December, 2002.

22 Q. So this is a list of the disciplinary proceedings that took place

23 between January 1st, 2002 and December 21st of that year, is that correct,

24 that you obtained from Mrs. Naumova.

25 A. This is correct.

1 MS. ISSA: And if I can ask Madam Registrar to call up the last

2 page of that exhibit.

3 Q. If you look on the last page, Mr. Kuehnel, of that document, there

4 were 53 cases recorded of disciplinary proceedings initiated against

5 individuals that were members of the Ministry of Interior. Do you see

6 that?

7 A. Yes, I see that.

8 MS. ISSA: At this stage, I'd like to ask that that document be

9 tendered into evidence, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

11 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P524, Your Honours.

12 MS. ISSA: Thank you.

13 Q. Now, Mr. Kuehnel, did you learn at some point how these lists of

14 disciplinary proceedings that we just reviewed were compiled?

15 A. Yes, I learned that. I was asking for that procedure, and I was

16 told that these lists were compiled in the normal course of the work and

17 depict a complete overview of all disciplinary cases. So they were

18 produced in the normal course of the work of the Ministry of Interior.

19 Q. Thank you.

20 And did you have an opportunity, Mr. Kuehnel, to do a search or

21 review of the cases recorded in 2001 or 2002?

22 A. Yes. I had this opportunity, and I started to do this review

23 based on these two lists and the information I could read on these lists

24 about all these cases from 2001 and 2002.

25 Q. And in any of the cases, in 2001 or 2002, was any member of the

1 Ministry of Interior investigated, disciplined, or punished for any

2 misconduct relating to the events in Ljuboten in August of 2001?

3 A. No. I haven't found one case.

4 Q. Now, I'm going to ask you, Mr. Kuehnel, in a moment as to what

5 steps you took to review these cases, but I first would like you -- would

6 like to deal with the organisational structure of the disciplinary

7 commission.

8 Did you learn at some stage how the permanent disciplinary

9 commission was established.

10 Before you answer that, I see that Mr. Mettraux is on his feet.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.

12 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour.

13 I think at this stage that my colleague is seeking to elicit

14 evidence of an expert-type, an opinion-type in any case; and in my

15 submission, it should not be asked and cannot be asked of this witness.

16 If this issue had to be dealt with, we believe that it could have and

17 should have been raised with witnesses that have that expertise, in

18 particular, and I've indicated already Mr. Galevski who was not asked

19 those questions or Ms. Rusovska for that matter.

20 We believe that this is not proper evidence to be asked of an

21 investigator.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa.

23 MS. ISSA: Well, Your Honour, as you may or may not here in a

24 moment, Mr. Kuehnel was in a position to learn about the organisational

25 structure from an individual at the -- who works at the archive, who is

1 the head of the legal department, Mrs. Naumova, and who explained to him

2 how the disciplinary commission is organised.

3 He can, in my respectful submission, provide that evidence without

4 having to provide an opinion of sorts on it. As Mr. Mettraux knows, he is

5 not here to provide an opinion. He is simply providing evidence as to

6 what he was informed by Mrs. Naumova.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Please continue, Ms. Issa.

8 MS. ISSA: Thank you.

9 Q. Did you learn at some stage, Mr. Kuehnel, as to how the Permanent

10 Disciplinary Committee was established?

11 A. Sorry, Your Honours.

12 Yes, I learned about that. I was asking Mrs. Naumova to give me

13 an overview about the disciplinary body, and the first what I learned was

14 that the disciplinary body is consisting based on the collective work

15 agreement, as a legal source, and that this disciplinary body is not an

16 institution by itself. It comprises out of several commissions which are

17 founded and appointed, based on the collective work agreement, and formed

18 according to the organisational structure of the Ministry of Interior.

19 Q. Okay.

20 A. Mm-hm. Now --

21 Q. Can you explain the organisational structure of the Ministry of

22 Interior?

23 A. Yes, I can.

24 The organisational structure of the Ministry of Interior is, what

25 I learned, a mixture between a regional structure and an organisational

1 structure, which means basically that one commission is founded for each

2 regional SVR of the Ministry of Interior, and commissions are also founded

3 for different areas within the Ministry of Interior.

4 Now, in general words, this structure is consistent over other the

5 years. Also, the organisational structure of the Ministry of Interior

6 changed in parts, which means, for example, that the number of the SVRs

7 changed in the year 2001. I was informed there were 12 regional SVRs.

8 Currently, there are eight. This means that there are eight commissions

9 for eight SVR; and so it was in 2001, there were 12 commissions for 12

10 SVRs.

11 Additionally, there are commissions for the so-called centralised

12 police units of the Ministry of Interior, the MOI units; and, as a sort of

13 special organisation formed, there was an extra commission for the

14 intelligence service of the Ministry of Interior and the border police

15 units. Each commission consists out of three members, which are always

16 appointed by the decision of the minister for the duration of two years.

17 The commission consists of the president of the commission and two

18 members.

19 I was told that the commission works independently and will be

20 replaced after two years of time when the particular time of this

21 commission expires. That means, not at the same time, the whole

22 commission -- all commissions are replaced, because time by time --

23 Q. Okay.

24 A. I think have -- yeah.

25 Q. I'm sorry --

1 A. No, no. I think I explained the structure as such.

2 Q. Thank you.

3 MS. ISSA: I see Mr. Mettraux.

4 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.

5 MR. METTRAUX: I am grateful. Simply a clarification, if the

6 colleague could seek it from the witness, perhaps the time-period which

7 the witness discussed in particular in the second part of his answer,

8 where he listed a number of commissions and whether this is the evidence

9 of Mr. Kuehnel, that this is, in fact, the structure as of 2001.

10 MS. ISSA: I can attempt to clarify that, Your Honour, yes.

11 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, I believe you mentioned that, in 2001, there were 12

12 commissions; and, subsequently, that was changed to, I believe, you said

13 eight.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Would you -- could you elaborate on your response -- on that

16 answer, please.

17 A. Yes. I referred with number of 12 commissions for the 12 SVRs of

18 the Ministry of Interior. This was the information I received.

19 Q. And was that in the year 2001?

20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. And just to be perfectly clear, you indicated that this has

22 changed since then, the number of commissions?

23 A. Yes. As far as what I received as information, what I could see

24 was that we have -- the MOI has currently eight SVRs.

25 Q. Thanks.

1 MR. METTRAUX: I apologise, Your Honour, it was probably my

2 objection, so that wasn't very clear, but it related to the so-called

3 special commissions that Mr. Kuehnel indicated whether it is his evidence

4 that those existed in the year 2001.

5 MS. ISSA: I'll clarify that.

6 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, did the commissions that related -- or that excluded

7 the border police and the DBK -- or that were attached to the border

8 police and the DBK, that those existed in 2001, were you given any

9 information in relation to that?

10 A. That was my understanding, yes, that they existed in 2001. And by

11 "special," I mean only that they had its own commission of its for own

12 unit, also they belonged inside the MOI structure. This is only a term in

13 reference to the organisation of the MOI, and this was the way how I got

14 it explained.

15 Q. So if I understand, what you're saying is that the border police

16 and the DBK each had their own commissions. Is that correct? Is that

17 what you're saying?

18 A. That's correct. I understood it in this way. It was explained to

19 me in this way.

20 MS. ISSA: Turning, then, to tab 14 which is 65 ter 1060, If I can

21 ask that that be called up, please.

22 Q. Do you recognise that document, Mr. Kuehnel, that's in front of

23 you? The Macedonian version is also on e-court, which should appear

24 before you now.

25 A. Oh, yes. Yes, I see it.

1 Q. And how did you obtain that document?

2 A. In the same way as I received the other documents, I received this

3 from Mrs. Naumova from the MOI. I asked for decisions of establishing a

4 commission.

5 Q. And this is a decision for establishing a commission for the

6 different SVRs. Is that correct?

7 A. Yes. I can see that, that this decision refers to the

8 establishing a commission for the SVR Bitola.

9 Q. And behind that, there are additional decisions establishing

10 commissions for other SVRs, isn't that correct, if you look behind the

11 document?

12 A. I see here only SVR Bitola in my binder. I only see here one

13 page.

14 Q. And you're looking at the English translation?

15 A. It's the English translation, yes.

16 Q. All right.

17 MS. ISSA: Well, perhaps if I can ask for the page 3 to be called

18 up in e-court, please. I'm sorry, could we go to the next page, please.

19 All right. Thank you.

20 Q. Do you see that on your screen, Mr. Kuehnel?

21 A. [No verbal response]

22 Q. That reads: "A decision on establishing a commission for

23 termination of employment in Sol-Kumanovo." Do you see that?

24 A. Yes. I see this English document on the left side of the screen.

25 Q. And that's a decision that is, as it reads, "establishing a

1 commission on the enforcements of proceedings for reaching a decision of

2 termination of employment with a notice of resignation in Sol-Kumanovo in

3 the following composition."

4 Do you see that there?

5 A. Yes, I can see that.

6 MS. ISSA: And if we can then move to the next page, please. If it

7 assists, the next ERN number is N006-5551. It should be at page 5 in

8 e-court.

9 Q. That's a decision on "establishing a commission for termination of

10 employment in Sol Stip." "Establishing a commission on enforcement of

11 proceedings for reaching a decision on termination of employment with a

12 notice of resignation in Sol Stip," is the first heading.

13 Do you see that there?

14 A. Yes, I can see that.

15 THE INTERPRETER: Could we ask the Prosecutor to come closer to

16 the microphone, please.

17 MS. ISSA: And if we can then, please, turn to page 7.

18 Q. That's a decision dated at the top, August 23rd, 2002, and it is

19 on the -- it's "establishing a commission for enforcement of proceedings

20 in the region of Prilep." Do you see that?

21 A. Yes, I see that.

22 MS. ISSA: And if we can please turn to page 9.

23 Q. That's dated July 18, 2002, and it's a decision on "establishing a

24 commission in the ream of Ohrid." Do you see that?

25 A. Yes, I can see that.

1 MS. ISSA: And if we can please just return to the first page.

2 Q. That's a decision, as you see on your screen on the first page,

3 "establishing a commission in Bitola on the 20th of June, 2001." Do you

4 see that there, Mr. Kuehnel?

5 A. Yes, I can see that.

6 MS. ISSA: I'd like to tendered this document, Your Honours.

7 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

8 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P525, Your Honours.

9 MS. ISSA:

10 Q. Now, Mr. Kuehnel, I'd like to deal with the steps that would be

11 taken if a member of the Ministry of Interior was accused of an act of

12 misconduct.

13 Did you learn what type of misconduct would be the subject of

14 disciplinary proceedings within the Ministry of Interior?

15 A. Yes, I did. I was explained that every misbehaviour of a person

16 against the work regulations would result in disciplinary proceedings

17 and/or in criminal charge, if that is the case.

18 But in reference of disciplinary proceeding, if a violation would

19 be committed by a person, a member of the MOI, it would normally result in

20 a disciplinary proceeding. The disciplinary proceeding consists normally

21 out of four steps of procedure, and I was asking that this proceeding was

22 explained to me, since I was not aware of these things.

23 Q. Can you explain what those steps are?

24 A. Yes.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.

1 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour.

2 The first questions that I had is not really an objection, but the

3 question was whether my colleague could ask the witness to indicate where

4 he said, "I was explained that every misbehaviour," and so on, and whether

5 the witness could identify the person who explained that matter to him.

6 The second matter, Your Honour, is truly an objection. At this

7 stage, the Prosecutor is seeking to elicit evidence of another person

8 through this witness. The Prosecutor is, in effect, attempting to replace

9 the evidence of the person who gave that information to Mr. Kuehnel by the

10 evidence of Mr. Kuehnel itself.

11 This, Your Honour, we submit, would constitute a violation of the

12 principle of best evidence, which requires that the person capable of

13 giving that evidence be called if available. The Prosecution has taken

14 the view not to call that person. We would be prejudiced, if required, to

15 cross-examine Mr. Kuehnel on this matter, since our ability to

16 cross-examine would be limited to the fact that Mr. Kuehnel was, in fact,

17 said such things, not whether they were correct or not.

18 We believe that the law of this Tribunal is quite clear about, as

19 far as we understand it, as far as the type of evidence which may be

20 elicited from the witness, and also and in particular the fact that the

21 rules on admission of evidence cannot simply be disregarded, in particular

22 Rule 92 busy and 92 ter which would entitle us to cross-examine the person

23 who is the source of that evidence.

24 I believe at this stage, Your Honour, that we have passed the

25 stage the line where Mr. Kuehnel can legitimately be asked a questions

1 about this matter.

2 Yes, thank you.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa.

4 MS. ISSA: Mr. Mettraux's objection is essentially similar to the

5 one that he made earlier, Your Honour, in that, in my view, he is

6 essentially objecting to the hearsay nature of Mr. Kuehnel's evidence.

7 Once again, I would like do submit that the fact that Mr. Kuehnel is

8 testifying about matters that he heard from other persons or, in this

9 case, one other person, or he learned from one other person, does not go

10 to its admission, but, rather, to the weight of the evidence.

11 So, in my submission, this particular portion of Mr. Kuehnel's

12 testimony is no different than what he was testifying to earlier, when the

13 evidence was elicited and admitted.

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 JUDGE PARKER: In the view of the Chamber, the witness is dealing

16 simply with a general system; and, as such, the line of questioning is

17 proper and appropriate.

18 Please continue, Ms. Issa.

19 I saw your eye look to the time, and it is nearly the hour. Is

20 there a matter you want to conclude now or is this a convenient time?

21 MS. ISSA: I might just follow up on Mr. Mettraux's question, just

22 for the sake of completeness.

23 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, you indicated that this was explained to you. Was it

24 the same person who explained to you these matters, Mrs. Naumova?

25 A. Yes, it was basically Mrs. Naumova. I was mainly, among other

1 persons, I met on this day, speaking of these days, Mrs. Naumova, and she

2 actually explained me all the things I can testify here.

3 Q. Thank you.

4 JUDGE PARKER: We must interrupt the evidence now and adjourn for

5 the day, the case to continue tomorrow at 9.00 in the morning and, once

6 again, we have a courtroom change. I believe it's Courtroom III that we

7 sit in tomorrow.

8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,

9 to be reconvened on Friday, the 16th day of

10 November, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25