1 Friday, 16 November 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning.
7 May I remind you, Mr. Kuehnel, of the affirmation which you made
8 which still applies.
9 Ms. Issa.
10 MS. ISSA: Good morning, Your Honour.
11 WITNESS: THOMAS KUEHNEL [Resumed]
12 [Witness answered through interpreter]
13 Examination by Ms. Issa: [Continued]
14 Q. Good morning, Mr. Kuehnel.
15 A. Good morning.
16 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, yesterday we left off where I was just asking you to
17 explain the steps that would be taken if a member of the Ministry of
18 Interior was accused of an act of misconduct.
19 A. That is true. I received the following information the normal
20 procedure would be in four steps. As soon as a member of the Ministry of
21 Interior commits an infraction, his superior would write a report, and
22 this report, I have copies of such reports, I have seen copies of such
23 reports, the title of such a report would be a request for firing, or
24 disciplinary infraction, and the report would be sent to the disciplinary
25 commission and as soon as --
1 JUDGE PARKER: [Previous translation continues]... Mr. Kuehnel.
2 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I hope you can hear me.
3 I apologise, Your Honour, and I'm grateful to the registry for the
4 assistance. I can now be heard.
5 Your Honour, simply we would like to make a similar objection than
6 yesterday. We believe we are now going into the territory of what is in
7 practice expert evidence about the structure and functioning of the
8 disciplinary commission or disciplinary commissions, as Mr. Kuehnel
9 indicated, and we believe that this evidence, Your Honour, had to be put
10 through a witness capable of giving that evidence.
11 We understand that hearsay evidence is admissible. We also
12 understand that the scope of evidence that is permitted to be drawn from
13 an investigator is limited in nature and also that evidence capable of
14 enlightening the Chamber in relation to that matter was available to the
15 Prosecution and could have been drawn out from existing witnesses.
16 Your Honour, we indicated yesterday that unfortunately
17 Mr. Galevski had passed away and we would like to reiterate once more that
18 the Defence is put in a position where the witness is authorised to give
19 evidence in relation to matter for which he has no expertise for which the
20 basis of his knowledge has not been established and we believe that this
21 evidence, as was indicated, we believe, in the Milosevic decision of
22 September of 2002 should not come through a witness that is an
23 investigator in this case, so we object to that sort of evidence being
24 sought from Mr. Kuehnel.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE PARKER: Without troubling you, Ms. Issa, the submission is
2 essentially that which was put yesterday and has been determined.
3 The Chamber is not impressed the idea that this is evidence
4 requiring expertise of a level and capacity which is beyond that presently
5 available. The Chamber does recognise, as I'm sure Ms. Issa does, that
6 there are limits to the reliability and weight which can be attached to
7 evidence of this nature, based, as it is, upon what has been collected
8 from others. And that is a matter which will, in some circumstances, have
9 the capacity to affect whether the Chamber is able to be persuaded by
10 evidence of this nature.
11 But that aside, the evidentiary procedure being followed is one
12 which in accordance with yesterday's ruling may continue.
13 MS. ISSA: Thank you.
14 Q. If you can just pick up, Mr. Kuehnel, where you left off. I
15 believe prior to the objection, you were indicating that normally what --
16 what occurs at the start of the -- the initiation of a disciplinary
17 proceeding for an act of misconduct is that the superior of a member -- an
18 MOI members writes a report relating the misconduct. If you could just
19 pick up from that, please.
20 A. Yes. As I said, the first step is that the superior of the person
21 in question writes a report and sends it to the disciplinary board with a
22 request for firing, as a violation of discipline.
23 The second step is that the disciplinary board receives the report
24 and makes a decision as to whether a hearing it is to be held. This
25 hearing is recorded as part of the record as a discussion. A typical
1 discussion in written form begins with mentioning the name of the people
2 on the board and the name of the accused, and then the infraction is also
3 mentioned. And the discussion, as far as I could see in the documents
4 that I saw, is a process in which the accused is -- questions are put to
5 the accused in the presence of his lawyer and then witnesses are heard,
6 and the end of the discussion is -- well, the discussion ends with the
7 signature of those present, of the head of the board and the members.
8 And, at the end, the commission makes -- takes a decision as to whether to
9 continue proceedings or whether the accusation can be done away with.
10 The next step would be that the commission --
11 Q. If I can stop you there for a moment before you get to the next
13 Just to clarify, you mentioned the term "discussion." Can you
14 briefly explain what you mean by that?
15 A. A discussion in this written form means a hearing of the accused,
16 during which members of the Ministry of Interior have an opportunity to
17 express their views on the issue and proof is brought, or evidence is
18 brought forth and witnesses are brought forth who give their views. Too.
19 Q. Thank you. And were you advised whether or not the minister has a
20 right to initiate this type of proceeding?
21 A. Yes. I might add here that this procedure in four steps was
22 explained to me, and we had one, I was shown one example of it, and I
23 asked Ms. Naumova who had the right to initiate such proceedings and asked
24 her if the minister had the right to initiate proceedings, and the answer
25 was yes, of course the minister has such a right to initiate proceedings.
1 Q. Thank you. So moving on then --
2 MS. ISSA: I see that Mr. Mettraux is on his feet, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
4 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour. Simply to clarify one
5 matter and to object to one.
6 The first clarification, if my colleague would be good enough to
7 clarify with Mr. Kuehnel that the entire section that he has just
8 explained was in fact told to him by Ms. Naumova. He has specifically
9 mentioned Ms. Naumova in relation to the last aspect and we would grateful
10 for this. Also, Your Honour, we would like to object to the answer given
11 by Mr. Kuehnel in relation to information which he says he received from
12 Ms. Naumova. We believe that on an issue such as this one, the witness
13 herself should have been called if indeed that is the information she
14 provided to the Prosecution.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa, do you wish to pursue any of those
17 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, that I believe the witness has said
18 several times that he received this information from Ms. Naumova and in my
19 submission it's clear on the record. But if Your Honour wishes me to
20 pursue it once again, I shall do so. I don't believe that it is unclear.
21 Mr. Mettraux can certainly cross-examine on it.
22 As to the latter matter, I simply reiterate my earlier submission,
23 in that it falls within the same type of information that Mr. Kuehnel has
24 been testifying about up until this point.
25 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber has understood the evidence of the
1 witness so far to be based upon what was told him by the woman identified
2 and not to be based upon his own independent knowledge, so on that basis,
3 if you are content with that, Ms. Issa, you have no need to pursue the
4 question with the witness further and that will be the basis upon which it
5 is understood and received by the Chamber for the purposes of
6 Mr. Mettraux's concerns.
7 Please continue.
8 MS. ISSA: Yes. Thank you.
9 Q. And, Mr. Kuehnel, can you please now explain the second step in
10 this process as it was explained to you by Ms. Naumova.
11 A. [In English] I think I just explained the first step. Now I would
12 go to the third step.
13 Q. Yes, the third step, I apologise, thank you.
14 A. [Interpretation] The third step, begins once the commission has
15 decided that the disciplinary proceedings would continue, and in this
16 step, a proposal is made for sanctions, and this proposal would then be
17 sent to the minister of the interior. And in the fourth step, a decision
18 is then taken about it.
19 It is perhaps necessary at this juncture to mention that in the
20 documents I saw and as to what I heard, according to what I heard, I
21 learned that the third step, the writing of the proposal, takes place at
22 the same time virtually as the decision. In practical terms the
23 disciplinary proceeding makes its -- takes its decision at the same time
24 as the rest, and everything is sent to the minister at the same time.
25 I was told, and I saw this in the documents, that often the
1 minister's decision different than the proposal sent to him, so this means
2 that the minister can either accept the decision, the proposal, or he can
3 change it.
4 I was also told that the commission only has two possibilities for
5 sanctions: One being to fire the employee; and the other being a
6 financial sanction.
7 Q. Sorry, could you please continue.
8 A. Mm-hm. A reduction of the employee in his level of employment is
9 not foreseen. The fine involves a percentage reduction in his salary for
10 a certain time.
11 In the documents that I saw and from what I learned, I saw that in
12 many cases the decision of the minister as to a fine was different from
13 the fine proposed; either the period of the fine was changed or the
14 percentage of the reduction in salary was changed by the minister.
15 I also saw cases in which the minister acquitted cases.
16 Everything I'm telling you here was explained to me and I was shown
17 examples, a concrete example, from the files while I was there during my
19 Q. Thank you.
20 A. I was able to note the veracity of all this myself.
21 Q. Thank you. I just want to very briefly, Mr. Kuehnel, deal with
22 how the records of the disciplinary committee are archived. Can you
23 briefly explain where these records for a disciplinary commission are
24 normally stored?
25 A. Yes. I was told about this too; this was something I learned when
1 I was there.
2 In general, the files are archived according to persons, according
3 to individuals, and not according to disciplinary infractions. What I
4 mean is that an infraction and the documents for it are in a file
5 containing the name of the person in question -- or filed under the name
6 of the person in question, and this file is archived in the organisational
7 department where the person in question works.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 A. [In English] Should I continue?
10 Q. Yes, if you have more?
11 A. Okay. [Interpretation] As a practical example of this, I can say
12 when a member of the police in Skopje commits an infraction, then it is
13 Skopje which is responsible. One exception of this is that if a member of
14 the Ministry of Interior dies or leaves the ministry, then his file is
15 archived at the central police services.
16 The organisation of the archiving is in the sector for common
17 affairs, which is part of the centralised police service.
18 Q. Yesterday, Mr. Kuehnel, you mentioned that you reviewed all the
19 cases that were listed in 2001 and 2002. Can you explain how you carried
20 out that search?
21 A. Mm-hm. I began -- I can't find the German word that I'm trying to
22 use. I read the cases, looked them through on the basis of the two lists
23 for 2001 and 2002 which contained all the cases,, these lists gave me the
24 names of information on the accused, on their names, information as to
25 which organisation they worked for, the type of infractions they
1 committed, and the sanctions imposed upon them.
2 On the basis of this material, I was able to make a preliminary
3 selection, on the basis of certain filter criteria, which I can explain,
4 with relation to the geographical structure and the events in Ljuboten, I
5 limited myself to investigating the files of the centralised police
6 service, the SVR Skopje with the -- including the units in question, such
7 as the tactical units, PSOLO DKP, and also saw the files of the Ministry
8 of Interior, and as far as I was able, the intelligence service UBK. The
9 time-frame involved was from the time of the events, August 2001 until
10 June 2002.
11 Independent of this time-period, this time-frame, I also
12 investigated certain individual cases before that period and after that
13 period to have -- get an objective view of such disciplinary proceedings.
14 Q. Okay.
15 A. That is, more or less, the search parameter that I applied.
16 I then received the files in question. They were brought to me.
17 They were not all in the same -- they were not all kept in the same
18 archive, and I was able to go through the files in question.
19 Q. When you received the files in question, did you always get a full
20 copy of the files that you requested?
21 A. As to the copying of the acts, of the files, I always made a copy
22 of each file to the extent that this was possible and -- economically
23 possible. For August 2001 until June 2002, I limited myself to the
24 proposals of the commission to the minister and the decisions of the
25 minister. That is to say, to getting copies of these from the -- of this
1 material from the files.
2 I also, in order to understand how such files were constructed in
3 these four steps, I also got copies of several complete files, either for
4 this reason or for other reasons which arose at the time.
5 So in conclusion, I tried primarily to investigate the proposals
6 of the commission, to get copies of the proposals and to get a few files,
7 a few complete files too.
8 Q. Thank you. If we can then please turn to tab 15 in the binder, 65
9 ter number 1072.
10 A. Excuse me, please. I don't have the binder.
11 MS. ISSA: Perhaps if I can ask the assistance of Madam Registrar.
12 THE WITNESS: Thanks.
13 MS. ISSA:
14 Q. Do you see -- if you look on your screen, Mr. Kuehnel --
15 A. [Interpretation] Yes.
16 Q. -- I believe that exhibit is now on the screen, and the Macedonian
17 original is on the left-hand side. Do you recognise that document?
18 A. Yes. Yes, I recognise this document. It's right. It's one of
19 the case studies, case files that I looked at and one of the case files
20 that I photocopied. I had the complete file photocopied, and for the
21 reasons already stated, there was another reason.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. For the reasons of fairness --
24 Q. I'm sorry, I'm going to interrupt you for a moment.
25 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I think we may need to go into private
2 JUDGE PARKER: Private.
3 [Private session]
11 Pages 7930-7933 redacted. Private session.
23 [Open session]
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
25 MS. ISSA:
1 Q. Yes, Mr. Kuehnel, just to draw your attention. This is a file
2 related to a Blagoja Dimitrovski. And if I can ask that we go to page 5,
4 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
5 MS. ISSA:
6 Q. Thank you. This is dated August 21st, 2002. And you see it's a
7 decision in regards to Blagoja Dimitrovski and if I can just draw
8 attention to paragraph 2, under the heading decision where it
9 states: "His employment is terminated in the form of a dismissal, which
10 dismissal I have exchanged with a pay fine in the amount of 10 percent of
11 his monthly wage in the duration of one month."
12 Do you see that?
13 A. Yes, I can see it.
14 THE REGISTRAR: I apologise for interrupting. I would just like
15 to make one correction on the record. The previous document should be
16 admitted as Exhibit P526. Thank you.
17 MS. ISSA: Thank you very much, Madam Registrar.
18 If we can then go to page 6, please. And just scroll to the very
19 bottom. We see in the Macedonian version there's the signature, Ljube
20 Boskoski, and the original seal.
21 Q. Do you see that?
22 A. Yes, I can see it.
23 Q. Is this the type of a change in the punishment or the mode of
24 punishment that you have seen from your review of these files,
25 Mr. Kuehnel?
1 A. Yes, that's one possible example of a possibility to deviate from
2 a decision - Sorry, I correct myself - to deviate from a proposal that was
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MS. ISSA: I would seek to tender this document at this stage,
6 please, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
8 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P527, Your Honours.
9 MS. ISSA: Turning, then, to tab 17, 65 ter 1064. And I just note
10 for the record, Your Honours, that there is only selected portions that
11 have been copied in the hard copy binders.
12 Q. This is in relation to an individual named Milan Mitrevski who was
13 a police officer at the police station Gjorgi Petrov in Karpos. If we can
14 please go to page 2.
15 Do you see that at the top it's -- it say it is a decision to
16 Milan Mitrevski, police officer in police station Gjorgi Petrov in DOR
17 Karpos in SOR Skopje at the Ministry of Interior due to the violation of
18 work discipline.
19 Do you see that?
20 A. Yes, I can see that.
21 Q. And the second paragraph of that decision, if I can draw your
22 attention to that, says that the employment is ceased with a termination,
23 which termination is replaced with a pecuniary fine in the amount of 15
24 per cent for a duration of six months.
25 Do you see that?
1 A. Yes, I can see it.
2 Q. And starting at the very bottom of that page, if I can draw your
3 attention to the paragraph or part of the paragraph that begins with the
4 words: "Around 2200 hours."
5 If I can just ask Madam Registrar to scroll down.
6 It says: "Around 2200 hours Milan deviated from the order for
7 performing service and headed to a restaurant 4 Aces in Volkovo where he
8 stayed until 2300 hours, consuming alcohol, after which he continued
9 according to the order from 0100 hours. At 0100 hours the named employee
10 again deviated from the order and together with the military police
11 conscript VPO (police reservist Zoran Trajkovski) headed to Sasa
12 Stefanovski's place in Volkovo where they consumed alcohol. Whereupon the
13 VPO Zoran took a hammer and a metal rod and around 0245 hours they damaged
14 an object of the company El Greco in Kumanovo at which Zoran committed a
15 criminal act, being attempted hard robbery, whereupon Milan stopped him
16 finishing the act, which he covered up by not reporting it."
17 Do you see that?
18 A. Yes, I can see it.
19 Q. If we can then please turn to page 17 in that document. The ERN
20 should be N006-5638. Thank you.
21 Do you see at the top in the left-hand corner there's a reference
22 to the sector of interior for the town of Skopje, department of interior,
24 A. Yes, can I see it.
25 Q. And this is a document titled criminal charges against Zoran
2 A. I can see that.
3 Q. For a criminal act, attempt of a serious robbery pursuant to
4 Article 236 and in relation to Article 19 of the Criminal Code of the
5 Republic of Macedonia which is in the middle of the page?
6 A. Yes, I can see that.
7 Q. If I could please ask Madam Registrar to turn to page 20 which is
8 at N006-5641, ERN number.
9 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask the witness and
10 counsel to pause between the question and answer for us to finish our work
11 and for the transcript to follow accurately.
12 MS. ISSA: Thank you. Just that paragraph at the -- the sole
13 paragraph in that page which states: "Out of the above-stated and the
14 attached acts apparently the reported Trajkovski, Zoran and Mitrevski,
15 Milan committed a criminal act, serious robbery in an attempt that is set
16 and punishable under Article 236 in relation to Article 19 of the Criminal
17 Code of the Republic of Macedonia and therefore we would like to suggest
18 to you to submit a request to the investigation judge for enforcement of a
19 procedure in the aim to prove the criminal act and criminal liability."
20 And it is signed by Ljube Krstevski, the head of the OVR Cair.
21 Do you see that, Mr. Kuehnel?
22 A. Yes, can I see it.
23 Q. And if I can -- I would like to seek to tender that document at
24 this point, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski.
1 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I object to having
2 this written document received in evidence by the Court. First I object
3 to the relevance of the document, to the veracity of the data in it and
4 the reliability of the data in it. Anyone person can file criminal
5 charges or submit a criminal report. It is then another issue whether the
6 prosecutor will process it and then develop a proposal to run a criminal
7 procedure from it. Then the judge needs to issue a decision for a
8 criminal procedure to be instigated and only after the criminal procedure
9 is completed, the prosecutor decides whether to file an indictment on the
10 basis of that procedure and evidence. And at the end it is the court that
11 will bring a verdict based on this report, and according to the Criminal
12 Code of Macedonia any person can lodge a criminal report and the
13 prosecutor's office has not submitted any evidence as to the outcome of
14 this criminal report. Perhaps an acquittal has been the result of this
15 criminal report.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa.
17 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, as to the issue of relevance, in this
18 particular case the issue is not what the end result is with respect to
19 the individuals named in this -- in this report. The issue that is
20 relevant, in my respectful submission, is the very fact that criminal
21 charges were referred to -- to the investigating judge in the first place,
22 and that speaks to the issue of the third element under Article 7(3),
23 which is a live issue in this case, as to whether or not reasonable and
24 necessary measures were -- were taken.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE PARKER: The document will be received. For clarification,
2 Mr. Apostolski, it is not received as proof of the contents or the
3 allegations that are recorded in it, but as a record of the procedure that
4 was followed on that occasion.
5 THE REGISTRAR: It will be received as Exhibit P528, Your Honours.
6 MS. ISSA: If we can then please go to 65 ter 1065, which is at
7 tab 18 in the binder.
8 Q. I would like to draw your attention to page 3.
9 MS. ISSA: That's the correct page, actually. Thank you.
10 Q. Now, you see, Mr. Kuehnel, this is a decision dated August 29,
11 2001 where it states a decision that Zlatko Pejovski at the workplace
12 police officer in the police station Rasce in the OVR Karpos in the SVR
13 for the city of Skopje at the MOI of the RM is not responsible for the
14 damage caused to the MOI and which consists of the loss of an official
15 automatic rifle which the factory number 736959 and one magazine with 30
17 Do you see that?
18 A. Yes, I can see that.
19 MS. ISSA: And then if we can please go to page 3 in the same
20 document. Thank you. That's the correct page.
21 Q. This is a -- also a decision by the minister of the interior, and
22 it refers to a Peco Kokarovski and if we look at the fourth line in that
23 first paragraph underneath the heading decision, it refers to a violation
24 of the work discipline which was done contrary to the rules and
25 regulations of the ministry in relation to the work intentionally or with
1 extreme negligence caused major damage to the ministry conducting their
2 working --
3 THE INTERPRETER: Thank you for slowing down.
4 MS. ISSA: I apologise. And it continues on with the last
5 paragraph underneath the heading decision that says the employment is
6 ceased with termination, which termination is replaced with a pecuniary
7 fine and that is for Peco Kokarovski in the amount of 15 per cent of a
8 monthly salary for the duration of six months and for Zlatko Pejovski in
9 the amount of 10 percent of a monthly salary for the duration of two
11 Do you see that?
12 A. Yes, I can see it.
13 Q. Have you seen -- Mr. Kuehnel, have you seen this type of scenario
14 before in your review of the disciplinary files where two persons are
15 charged with a violation and one is found not responsible and the other
16 has been found responsible?
17 A. Yes, I have seen such cases from time to time.
18 MS. ISSA: I would seek to tender that document, please, Your
20 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
21 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, we won't object to the admission of
22 the document. We would simply indicate that the file and case in question
23 predates the time-frame when Mr. Boskoski became the minister of the
25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
1 It will be received.
2 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P529, Your Honours.
3 MS. ISSA: If we can please turn to tab 19 of the binder, 65 ter
4 exhibit 1068. And if look at that first page, the cover page refers to a
5 Peco Josevski. And if I can please ask Madam Registrar to move to page 2,
7 I'm sorry, but in -- thank you.
8 Q. I just wanted to draw your attention, Mr. Kuehnel, to the date of
9 this decision, which is September 4, 2001. Do you see that?
10 A. Yes, I can see that.
11 Q. And the decision in the first paragraph indicates that it relates
12 to Peco Josevski, as a workplace police officer due to the violation of
13 work discipline with unjustified absence from work for three consecutive
14 workdays, according to the Article 133, paragraph 1, item 3, of the
15 collective agreement of the MOI. The employment is ceased with
16 termination without a time-limit for a termination starting from the 17th
17 of August, 2001.
18 Do you see that?
19 A. Yes, I can see that.
20 Q. And just to draw your attention to the second paragraph underneath
21 the heading elaboration. And that states: "Acting upon the proposal it
22 has been confirmed that the named employee in the period from March 1st,
23 2001 until May 31, 2001, used unpaid leave from work from June 1st, 2001,
24 until June 30th, 2001, used annual leave from 2000, and from the 1st of
25 July, 2001, until 13 August, 2001, used annual leave from 2001, and he
1 should have reported for duty," and it continues.
2 Do you see that?
3 A. [In English] I see it.
4 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, have you seen other cases where an employee was
5 terminated for unjustified leave in your review of the files?
6 A. [Interpretation] I've seen such cases quite often, in particular
7 for 2001. And I noticed - and I think this is important to note this
8 here - that such cases derive from a decision in the files.
9 Q. Yes, and if we can scroll down to the second page of -- of that
11 And we see the Ministry of Interior seal with the signature of
12 Ljube Boskoski. Do you see that?
13 A. Yes, I can see that.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I would seek to tender that document at
16 this stage.
17 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P530, Your Honours.
19 MS. ISSA: If we can please then go to tab 20 in the binders, 65
20 ter 411.
21 Q. Now, this is a document that is dated 19 November 2001, addressed
22 to the government of the Republic of Macedonia and it's an opinion and
23 proposal that is submitted in reference to the act that is submitted
24 to "your act number 24-95/4 from 12 November 2001."
25 Do you see that?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And if we can please go to page 3.
3 Now see that document is signed by Ljube Boskoski, minister for
4 internal affairs. Do you see that?
5 A. Yes, I can see that.
6 MS. ISSA: And if we can please go to page 2.
7 Actually, I'm sorry, if we can please go back to page 1.
8 Q. In the very first paragraph, right above the word "opinion," it
9 states: "With reference to your act in which you press for a reply for
10 case number 24-95/1 from 8 March 2001, we would like to inform you that
11 concerning the submitted draft resolution on condemning the events and use
12 of force by members of the ministry of internal affairs and to promote and
13 accomplish the guaranteed fundamental freedoms and rights of citizens of
14 the Republic of Macedonia, proposed by the group of members of parliament
15 of the PDP, Party for Democratic Prosperity, in March 2001, the ministry
16 submitted to the government the following ..."
17 And if I could ask that we turn to page 2 now, please.
18 And if I can ask Madam Registrar to focus on the last three
19 paragraphs of the document.
20 In the -- in the paragraph 3 of this document it states the
21 following: "The analyses and statistical data of the Ministry of Internal
22 Affairs indicate that when carrying out their responsible official tasks
23 with a purpose to achieve state and public security, individual members of
24 the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the police, during carrying out
25 extremely hard and complex tasks, when most often their physical integrity
1 and life are at stake, in distinct cases they overstep their official
2 authorisation and as a consequence of this, there are specific violations
3 of freedoms and rights of the suspects, against whom official activities
4 are being undertaken."
5 And then it continues with -- about the middle of the paragraph
6 that begins with when the relevant authorities of the Ministry of Internal
8 It states: "When this concerns the use of means for enforcement
9 and firearms, such cases are being investigated by the department for
10 internal control at the Ministry of Internal Affairs and in case it is
11 concluded that there is indeed such an overstepping, disciplinary and
12 legal measures shall be undertaken against these persons who have
13 overstepped their official authorisation without exemptions."
14 And if I can draw your attention to paragraph -- the last
15 paragraph. It says: "As a result of the activities of the department for
16 internal control of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the period of time
17 from 1998 to March 2001, all together 12 proceedings were initiated for
18 breach of working discipline against 19 members of the Ministry of
19 Internal Affairs, who, when carrying out their work tasks used physical
20 force contrary to the rules and provisions of the Ministry of Internal
21 Affairs, from the total number of employees from -- three of them were
22 dismissed from work, ten of them were fined, and two proceedings initiated
23 against authorised officials this year are still ongoing."
24 Do you see that, Mr. Kuehnel?
25 A. Yes, I can see that.
1 MS. ISSA: And if we can please turn to page 3.
2 Q. If I can draw your attention, Mr. Kuehnel, to the paragraph
3 beginning with the words having in mind. "Having in mind the statistical
4 indicators, the conclusion is that individual cases of overstepping the
5 legal authorisation by authorised officials of the Ministry of Internal
6 Affairs in the form of sanctioned exceptions in the work of the members of
7 the Ministry of Internal Affairs are obviously incomparable and not
8 disturbing in number with regard to the more and more evident, striking
9 increase in the number of attacks upon the life of police officers of the
10 ministry under conditions of carrying out the most complex tasks with
11 armed terrorist attacks on the territory of the republic."
12 And then it continues and it says: "For the aforementioned
13 reasons, we propose to the government of the Republic of Macedonia not to
14 support the parliament of the Republic of Macedonia to adopt the draft
15 resolution by the PDP party group of Members of Parliament because there
16 are no substantial grounds and concrete reasons for this, considering the
17 insignificant small number of cases of overstepping authority by members
18 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the police while carrying out
19 their tasks ... "
20 Do you see that, Mr. Kuehnel?
21 A. Yes, I can see that.
22 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, do you know where this document came from?
23 A. Yes. We received this as an answer to a request for assistance
24 that we sent, from the Republic of Macedonia.
25 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, at this point I would like to seek to
1 tender this document.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
3 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, we have a series of objection in
4 relation to the tendering of this document.
5 The first is that in our submissions, Your Honour, the document is
6 not in itself relevant, has no bearing on the charges. It doesn't refer
7 to the events of Ljuboten in any way. But also as with other documents,
8 Your Honour, and in particular documents which mention or relate to
9 Mr. Boskoski, the accused, we do believe and do submit, Your Honour, that
10 to the extent that these documents are said to have some relevance to the
11 acts, conduct, or otherwise of the accused, these documents should have
12 been tested with witnesses capable of giving evidence about the context,
13 the circumstances and the nature of these documents.
14 Mr. Kuehnel has been read the document and he has confirmed that
15 he could indeed see what was in the text, as anyone else in the
16 courtroom. Unfortunately, Mr. Kuehnel is not in a position to provide
17 information as to the circumstances, the context or otherwise in which
18 this document has been prepared, whether it has led to anything, whether
19 there was any discussion at the government level about this matter, what
20 the end result of this matter was. In other words, Your Honour, we would
21 be unable or incapable of cross-examining Mr. Kuehnel in relation to
22 issues other than the fact that Mr. Kuehnel might have received this
23 document or might have seen it as part of its investigation.
24 We would therefore, in our submission, be prejudiced if this
25 document was tendered in this matter.
1 We therefore submit that the document should not be admitted
2 pursuant to Rule 89 (D) and Rule 95.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE PARKER: Could you just assist us a little more
5 Mr. Mettraux. How do you see prejudice in respect of a document which, on
6 its face, is a document of your client?
7 MR. METTRAUX: Well, Your Honour, we believe that one matter which
8 would be highly relevant to give any meaning to the document would be to
9 ask in what circumstances the documents was prepared, who, if anyone,
10 advised our client in relation to this matter, whether there was any
11 discussion at the government level, whether the parliament followed the --
12 I'm sorry, the government followed the advice, whether there was any
13 further discussion, whether the position of Mr. Boskoski changed at any
14 stage the basis on which Mr. Boskoski took this position, the material
15 perhaps on which he took the view that is indicated in this document. All
16 these factors and others, in our submission, Your Honour, would be
17 relevant to Your Honour's ability to give this document any weight or to
18 regard it any way as a relevant document to the charges. In the absence
19 of context, Your Honour, we believe that this document would be
20 prejudicial to our case.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa.
22 MS. ISSA: Well, Your Honour, first of all, this document is
23 obviously relevant, because it's an indication of Mr. Boskoski's oversight
24 over disciplinary proceedings and it therefore speaks to both his
25 effective control over disciplinary matters as well as his attitude
1 regarding overstepping of the police functions and the issue of use of
2 force. It -- particularly because it relates to allegations of police
3 misconduct and the improper use of force during the time-period that is
4 relevant to this case.
5 Secondly, Your Honour, this is a document that was obviously
6 drafted and signed and prepared by Mr. Boskoski himself. It was a
7 document that has been on the 65 ter list for quite some time. It had
8 been disclosed to the Defence, I believe, from the start of this case.
9 The Defence could have used it if they wished to cross-examine witnesses;
10 they did not but that's their choice. But given those factors, and given
11 the fact -- particularly in light of the fact that it was Mr. Boskoski
12 himself who produced the document, I would submit there is absolutely no
13 prejudice to the Defence in admitting it at this stage.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE PARKER: The document will be received by the Chamber. The
16 relevance to issues in this case is self-evident, and the fact that it is,
17 on its face, a document of accused Mr. Boskoski himself, in the view of
18 the Chamber, not only commends its admission but indicates that there
19 cannot be any material prejudice of the type submitted by Mr. Mettraux.
20 THE REGISTRAR: It will be received as Exhibit P531, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE PARKER: I believe we've reached a convenient time,
22 Ms. Issa, for the first break.
23 We will adjourn now and resume at 11.00.
24 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa.
2 MS. ISSA: Thank you.
3 Before I turn to the next exhibit, Your Honour, I would just ask
4 that exhibit that has been marked P526 to be please marked under seal.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
6 MS. ISSA: Thank you.
7 Q. I'd like to turn your attention to tab 21 of the binder, 65 ter
8 412, Mr. Kuehnel.
9 Do you see that first page, Mr. Kuehnel?
10 A. [In English] Yes, I see that.
11 Q. And it's from the Republic of Macedonia, the government of the
12 Republic of Macedonia, dated 12 November 2001. Do you see that?
13 A. Yes, I see that, that's correct, Ms. Issa.
14 Q. And it's addressed to the Ministry of the Interior regarding our
15 letter number 24-95/1, dated 8 March 2001. Do you see that?
16 A. Yes, I can see it.
17 Q. If we can please turn to page 2. Just to draw your attention,
18 Mr. Kuehnel, to the title on that document. It's titled as a draft
19 resolution, condemning instances of use of force by members of the
20 Ministry of the Interior and promoting the realisation of the guaranteed
21 basic freedoms and rights of the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia and
22 it's dated February 2001. Do you see that?
23 A. Yes, I can see it.
24 Q. And if we could please go to page 4. Just to draw your attention,
25 Mr. Kuehnel. It refers -- the document refers to under the heading of
1 resolution, resolution to condemn the occurrence by the use of force by
2 the members of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and to promote the
3 execution of guaranteed fundamental freedoms and rights of the citizens of
4 the Republic of Macedonia.
5 Do you see that?
6 A. Yes, I can see that.
7 Q. And finally, if we can please go to the last page, and we see the
8 signature line which says Stojan Andov, by hand, president of the assembly
9 of the Republic of Macedonia.
10 Do you see that?
11 A. Yes, I can see that.
12 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, do you know where this document came from?
13 A. Yes. We got it as a reply to our RFAs.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MS. ISSA: Your Honours I'd like to tender this as the next
16 exhibit, please.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
18 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, we don't object to the admission of
19 the document but as previously with regard to one of the disciplinary
20 document, we'd wish to indicate that the resolution or the suggestion
21 resolution, in any case, relate to events that took place prior to the
22 month of March 2001; that is, prior to the time when Mr. Boskoski became
23 the minister of the interior.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. It will be received.
25 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P532, Your Honours.
1 MS. ISSA: Turning, then, to tab 22. The 65 ter number's 1075.
2 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, do you see that document on your screen?
3 A. Yes, I can see that.
4 Q. Do you recognise it?
5 A. Yes, I recognise it. That's the same one as I saw in the -- in
6 Ministry of Interior in Skopje.
7 Q. And where did you obtain it from?
8 A. I got it from the archive of the human resources unit in the
9 sector for communal affairs, and I asked for that file.
10 Q. If I can please draw your attention to page 3 of that document.
11 Just to draw your attention, Mr. Kuehnel, to the document which is
12 dated 27 June 2001 at the top. And underneath the heading decision it
13 reads as follows: "Tarculovski, Mladen Johan with the workplace inspector
14 associate in the directory for security of persons and objects at the
15 Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Macedonia is redeployed to the
16 workplace inspector associate for security of the president of the RM in
17 the department for security of the president of the RM, sector for
18 security at the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Macedonia,
19 starting from 1 July 2001."
20 MS. ISSA: And I see that Mr. Apostolski is on his feet.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Apostolski.
22 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the transcript I
23 see that we have a document of the 27th of July 2001, while on e-court we
24 are seeing a document of 20th of December of 2000. Is this the document
25 in question?
1 MS. ISSA: Actually, we should be looking at the next page, and I
2 thank Mr. Apostolski for drawing that to my attention.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Apostolski.
4 MS. ISSA:
5 Q. And if we look at the next paragraph, Mr. Kuehnel, it states the
6 following: "The workplace to which the named person is redeployed has the
7 status of a workplace with special duties and authorisations according to
8 the law of the interior." And then continues at paragraph 3 and it
9 states: "To accomplish the work and the tasks at the workplace in which
10 he is redeployed, the named person has the right to a salary, for a full
11 working time as an average value of the workplace in the amount of 600
13 Do you see that?
14 A. Yes, I can see that.
15 Q. If I can draw your attention to the very last paragraph in that--
16 on that page, it states the following: "The redeployment is made so that
17 the conduct of the function of the ministry will be more efficient and
18 especially if that means improvement of the organisation of the work in
19 the frame of the organisational unit which is the same or similar in the
20 nature of the sphere of action and with the knowledge and work
21 capability" --
22 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters don't have the text.
23 MS. ISSA: I'm sorry.
24 If I can just pick up then from --
25 JUDGE PARKER: I think you will need to read more slowly.
1 MS. ISSA: Yes, Your Honour, I know I have been warned. Thank
3 "And if, with the knowledge and work compatibility, better
4 results are going to be accomplished by working in a different workplace."
5 And if I can please ask Madam Registrar to turn to the next page,
6 page 4.
7 Q. And just drawing your attention, Mr. Kuehnel, to the screen on the
8 right-hand side, there's the seal, stamp of the Ministry of Interior, and
9 it's signed by minister of the interior, Ljube Boskoski. Do you see that?
10 A. Yes, I can see that.
11 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, at this point I'd like to tender this as
12 the next exhibit.
13 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
14 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P533, Your Honours.
15 MS. ISSA: If we can then please go to tab 23, 65 ter 1050.
16 Sorry, actually, I misspoke. If we can please go to tab 25, which is an
17 exhibit that has already been admitted as P00368.
18 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, do you recognise the photo display that is in front
19 of you on the screen?
20 A. Yes, I recognise it. It's an annex to an interview that I
21 conducted with Mr. Majovic [as interpreted].
22 Q. Okay. And just so that it's clear for the record, the person you
23 referred to was Mario Jurisic?
24 A. [In English] It was an interview with Mario Jurisic, that's
25 correct, Frau Issa.
1 Q. Thank you. And there's a circle around photo number 9. Can you
2 see that?
3 A. [Interpretation] I can see that.
4 Q. Do you know who that is?
5 A. Yes, that is a photo of Mr. Johan Tarculovski.
6 Q. Where does -- do you know where that photo comes from?
7 A. Yes, I know where it comes from. We made an RFA request to the
8 ministry in Macedonia, to the government - I'm correcting myself - and as
9 a reply to the RFA, we received these photographs, among other things.
10 Q. And can you briefly explain how the photo board was compiled.
11 A. This photo board was compiled by the Map and Visual Unit of the
12 Tribunal, because we asked them to do so. And this particular board is
13 one of several boards. It shows the same number of pictures and for the
14 purposes of such a board we asked them to produce these photographs for
16 Q. Okay. And regarding this particular photo board, do you recognise
17 the handwriting on it?
18 MS. ISSA: If I can please ask Madam Registrar to please scroll
19 down to the bottom.
20 A. I can see two different types of handwriting on this photo board.
21 One is on the upper end, that's my own handwriting; and at the bottom it
22 is the handwriting of Mr. Mario Jurisic.
23 Q. And you mentioned that the board was compiled by the Mapping
24 Unit. Did you provide the unit with any particular instructions in
25 compiling this photo board?
1 A. Yes, I did give them instructions. I told the Photo Unit that we
2 were going to need photographs, a photo board, which, among other things,
3 would also contain the photograph of Johan Tarculovski. I also gave
4 instructions which said that the other person showing should have the same
5 biometric data more or less and there should be no major deviations from
6 the person that is to be compared.
7 I also gave them the instructions, there should be several
8 versions of this photo board be produced so that the person that is
9 supposed to be compared, the person shown under number 9, the photograph
10 of Johan Tarculovski, that it should be put in different positions on the
11 various versions of the photo board, the reasons being that we submitted
12 this photo board to several individuals and we wanted to exclude a false
13 identification because of the position of the photograph.
14 Q. Okay. Thank you. Just for the sake of completeness, Mr. Kuehnel,
15 you mentioned a moment ago that you recognised the handwriting of
16 Mr. Jurisic and I believe you said yourself. Is there any other
17 handwriting on that photo board that you recognise?
18 A. Yes, Ms. Issa. I can also see the circle around the photograph of
19 Johan Tarculovski. This circle was made by the witness Jurisic himself
20 when I was present. So it is a Mr. Jurisic handwriting.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MS. ISSA: I think there's -- Mr. Apostolski is on his feet.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski.
24 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since the witness
25 just a bit earlier mentioned that he saw the handwriting of Mario Jurisic
1 and his encircling the person under number 9, for the purpose of
2 completeness of this transcript, can the witness be asked what was the
3 purpose of the circle, the comment as to why the circle was made.
4 MS. ISSA: Certainly, Your Honour.
5 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, when you showed Mr. Jurisic the photo board, what did
6 you say to him?
7 A. The information and questions I made are documented in the
8 transcript of the interview as a standard -- a standard procedure, and the
9 circle which was put around number 9 is a result of the presentation of
10 this photo board and shows the identification of that person. That was
11 the reason.
12 Q. Okay. Did you -- when you showed --
13 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Tarculovski -- that fellow again,
14 Mr. Apostolski.
15 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
16 And there may have been a mistake in interpretation. My comment
17 was on the remarks on the bottom, the remarks made by Mr. Jurisic which
18 pertain to the person circled therein.
19 JUDGE PARKER: The handwritten comments.
20 MS. ISSA: Okay.
21 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, do you know why Mr. Jurisic made the handwritten
22 comments on the bottom?
23 MS. ISSA: I'm sorry, Mr. Apostolski is on his feet again.
24 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] My apologies, Your Honours, for
1 My question is decisively what has Mario Jurisic written as
2 comments on the bottom of the page regarding the circle?
3 JUDGE PARKER: [Previous translation continues] ...
4 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] I can, Your Honour.
5 But for fairness and for the purpose of the transcript, I would
6 like the witness to point this out, since he said that -- the witness said
7 that Mario Jurisic circled number 9, and we would like to see what his
8 comments are on this person circled under the number 9.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa, if you're able to accommodate
10 Mr. Apostolski, please do so; otherwise, it can be dealt with in
12 MS. ISSA: Yes, it can be. And just to save time, Your Honours, I
13 refer the Chamber to pages 3306 to 3307 to Mario Jurisic's testimony where
14 he related what the comments were on the -- as to this -- on the photo
15 board that he wrote.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 MS. ISSA: Moving, then, on to tab 26, Exhibit number P00436.
18 Actually, before I -- before I move on to that exhibit I would
19 just like to clarify one matter, if I could.
20 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, you mentioned yesterday that you did not see any
21 disciplinary records that related to events that occurred in Ljuboten in
22 August of 2001 during the course of your search at the archives. Do you
23 recall that?
24 A. Yes, that is accurate.
25 Q. Did you see any cases recorded in 2001 or 2002 of any member of
1 the Ministry of Interior who has been investigated for any misconduct
2 relating to events that occurred at the Skopje hospital, the police
3 stations, or -- or the court-house regarding any type of mistreatment
4 against certain persons. Has anyone ever been disciplined for that, in
5 that period, as far as you could tell from the records?
6 A. No, I didn't find any documents in relation to this. That is
7 quite true. No, I didn't find any information on this.
8 Q. Did you find any records that related to any sort of mistreatment
9 or cruel treatment that took place at check-points?
10 A. Not as far as I'm aware. I didn't find anything. And I'm
11 referring here to check-points in Ljuboten during the -- in the period of
12 the events in question.
13 Q. And anything specifically in different police stations in and
14 around Skopje? Any mistreatment -- any disciplinary records relating to
15 mistreatment of individuals in different police stations in and around
17 A. I came across cases of mistreatment at police stations, but they
18 did not refer specifically to the events in Ljuboten. They were different
19 cases not related to the people in question nor to the time-period.
20 Q. Okay. Thank you.
21 MS. ISSA: If I can then go to P00436, tab 26 of the binder.
22 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, do you see the document that's on the screen, both in
23 the English and Macedonian versions?
24 A. Yes, I can see both versions.
25 Q. Do you recognise that document?
1 A. Yes, I recognise the document.
2 Q. And this, for the record, is the list of weapons received by
3 employees of Kometa dated 25 and 26th July 2001?
4 A. Yes, that is true. The document on the screen in the original is
5 an appendix to material I collected and this is all part of an answer that
6 we got in response to an RFA sent to the government of Macedonia.
7 Q. Okay. Well, if we can please turn to page 3 of that document.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
9 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, before we do we would simply like to
10 indicate for the record that a suggestion was made in the question of my
11 colleague that this was, and I quote, "the list of weapon received by
12 employees of Kometa dated 25, 26th of July 2001."
13 In our submission, this fact should be established first and the
14 evidence, as we see it, has not been established on that point.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Mettraux.
16 There's substance in that, Ms. Issa.
17 MS. ISSA: Well, I was thinking of the testimony of Mr. Miodrag
18 Stojanovski who testified to these facts, but I don't necessarily have to
19 refer to it in that title in that form.
20 JUDGE PARKER: I think that might be better, as this is a factual
21 matter of some dispute.
22 MS. ISSA: Yes, I understand that, Your Honour, I agree.
23 MR. METTRAUX: Simply in fairness to my colleague, Your Honour,
24 the Prosecutor is quite correct that Mr. Miodrag Stojanovski gave evidence
25 on that point. However, he did not suggest that all of them. He
1 indicated that in his belief, a number of them might have been. And he
2 also indicated, as far as we recall, that he did not verify that fact.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
4 MS. ISSA: I'll just carry on then, Your Honour.
5 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, if I can draw your attention to page 3 at column
6 marked number 15?
7 MS. ISSA: And perhaps we can just try and enlarge that, if we
8 could, on the e-court screen?
9 Q. Now, you see that column marked number 15. It refers to a name,
10 first name Robert, and next to it is illegible. Can you see that?
11 A. Yes, I can see that.
12 Q. And if I can then turn to page 7 in that document.
13 And just to draw your attention next to the number 40, you see a
14 name there that is -- that refers to a Zoran Markovski. Do you see that?
16 A. Yes, I can see that.
17 Q. And if I can draw your attention to the very last name on that
18 page which says Nikolovski. Do you see that?
19 A. Yes, I can see that.
20 Q. And if we can please go to page 8. And the name Nikolovski
21 continues on to the next page at the top of the column, the first name is
22 Kire. Do you see that?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. Then if we can please go to page 9.
25 If I can draw your attention to the column marked number 54.
1 A. Yes, I can see that.
2 Q. And that name is Goce Ralevski. Do you see that?
3 A. Yes, that's correct.
4 Q. And if we can then please go back to page 4. And I'd like to just
5 turn -- draw your attention to column number 21, Zoran Jovanovski.
6 A. Yes, I can see that.
7 Q. And then right below that you see column 22, which is Vlado Janev?
8 A. I can see that.
9 Q. And then column 23 is Aleksander Janevski. Do you see that?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. Now, initially -- let me ask you this. Mr. Kuehnel, do you know a
12 person named Robert Zlatanov?
13 A. Yes. I know such a person.
14 Q. And who is that person?
15 A. Robert Zlatanov is an employee of the security company Kometa, and
16 I know of him because he is referred to in other documents too. And we
17 conducted an interview with Robert Zlatanov. The name here in this list,
18 under the number 15, you can see it in the Macedonian original, it's hard
19 to read here --
20 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... If we can please go back to
21 page 3, please.
22 A. Mm-hm.
23 Q. And you're referring to column 15. We see that in the English.
24 A. [In English] Yes, I see that.
25 Q. And if we can please look at the Macedonian for a moment. Under
1 column 15 --
2 A. [Interpretation] Yes, I can see that.
3 Q. Now, when Mr. Zlatanov was interviewed, was he asked whether or
4 not he received weapons from PSOLO?
5 A. Yes, he was asked. And he admitted it.
6 Q. Okay.
7 MS. ISSA: If I can then just turn to tab 29, 65 ter number 29.
8 Q. Do you recognise this?
9 A. Yes, I know this document.
10 Q. And where did you obtain it?
11 A. We received this document, too, as an answer to our request for
12 assistance, the request for assistance we addressed to the government of
14 Q. And if I can just refer you to the first paragraph in this
16 MS. ISSA: And if I can Madam Registrar to enlarge that, please.
17 If we can enlarge the first two paragraphs. Thank you.
18 Q. And it says the following: "In connection to your letter under
19 the above-mentioned number and date, we inform you that the association
20 for trading and services, Kometa, DOOEL, export/import, Skopje was issued
21 permission to work by the Ministry of Interior with the decision number
22 21-42811/1, dated 18 December 2000, for activities - securing persons and
23 properties in way of offering services. At the same time, we inform you
24 that the founder of this agency is Zoran Jovanovski, born on 22 January
25 1963, in Skopje, manager with no restrictions, registered in the Basic
1 Court Skopje I.
2 "In the procedure of issuing permission to work to this agency, it
3 was necessary to provide five licences for conducting tasks of securing
4 persons and properties. Because of this, the following licences were
5 enclosed: Licence number 70, for the founder Zoran Jovanovski; licence
6 number 64, for Zoran Markovski; licence number 65 for Robert Zlatanov;
7 licence number 66 for Kiro Nikolovski; and licence number 63 for Goce
9 And if we scroll down to the bottom, please. You see that it's
10 signed by the assistant of the minister, Erol Salih. Do you see that?
11 A. Yes, I can see that.
12 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, at this stage I would seek to tender 65
13 ter 29.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
15 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, before being in a position to decide
16 whether we would object or not to the tendering of this document, we would
17 like to get some clarification from the Prosecutor as to the stated
18 purpose or relevance of that document to the charges. If the only matter
19 which the Prosecution seeks to establish is that in November of 2003 the
20 five mentioned individuals had obtained licences as part of the
21 organisation Kometa, we would have no objection. This is, as far as we
22 can tell, the only purpose which has been put forth at this stage.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa.
24 MS. ISSA: Well, Your Honour, the letter is dated November 2003 at
25 the top. But if we look at the body of the letter which I just read out,
1 it actually refers to permission to work by the Ministry of Interior with
2 a decision dated 18 December 2000. And so it is relevant because it
3 demonstrates that -- or it tends to prove that the Ministry of Interior
4 had authorised Kometa persons to work for the Ministry of Interior and
5 these were the -- some of the same persons who were ultimately issued
6 weapons in PSOLO on 25, 26 July 2001.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
8 MR. METTRAUX: Well, Your Honour in that case we will object on a
9 name of basis.
10 First the indication given by my colleague that the permission is
11 a permission to work for the Ministry of Interior is quite inaccurate.
12 It --
13 JUDGE PARKER: By the ministry.
14 MR. METTRAUX: It's by the ministry, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
16 MR. METTRAUX: So the indication is quite different than the one
17 sought to be given by the Prosecution.
18 Furthermore, Your Honour, the permission which was given at the
19 time was given at the time in 2000 when Mr. Boskoski was obviously not yet
20 a minister in the government. Furthermore, the conditions as we
21 understand them under the law of Macedonia is that indeed a security
22 agency such as this one must obtain an authorisation or permission to work
23 as a security agency. There's no indication in that document or otherwise
24 that at the time relevant to the charges the security agency Kometa was
25 working for the ministry. This would be quite wrong to suggest that this
1 document does that, in our submissions, and therefore, Your Honour, we
2 reiterate our submission that this document is irrelevant to the facts as
3 put forth by the Prosecution.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE PARKER: The document will be received. It is clear that
6 the comment by Ms. Issa that the document referred to a permission to work
7 for the ministry was a misreading of the document; it's by the ministry.
8 But on the face of the document, that permission was one granted in
9 December 2000 and not at the date of the letter, which was November 2003,
10 and it related to -- for permission to work as a security agency or for
11 the tasks that are identified in the second paragraph of the letter, and
12 those matters, while not in themselves and on their own constituting final
13 proof of any matter in issue in this case, are matters which go toward
14 proof of some of those matters establishing, thereby sufficient relevance
15 for admission.
16 It will be received.
17 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P534, Your Honours.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 MS. ISSA: Yes, thank you.
20 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, are you familiar with a person -- one of the persons
21 that we just saw on that list named -- or the name that we just saw on
22 that list, named Vlado Janev?
23 A. Yes, I know that name.
24 Q. Was Mr. Vlado Janev interviewed by the Office of the Prosecutor?
25 A. That's correct. He was interviewed. A colleague of mine
1 interviewed him. A suspect interview was carried out.
2 Q. Did you have an opportunity to listen to the tape of that
4 A. [In English] I had an opportunity to listen to the tape a time
5 ago. I recently listened to parts of the tape only and I referred also to
6 the summary of the tape, the written summary of the interview.
7 Q. And if I can then refer you to tab 31 in your binder.
8 And that's not on the 65 ter list, Your Honour.
9 Is that --
10 MS. ISSA: I see that Mr. Apostolski is on his feet, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski.
12 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, about the question
13 which my colleague from the Prosecution asked to be brought on behalf of
14 the defendant, we requested that these notes of the investigator be
15 translated into Macedonian according to Rule 66(A)(ii). We have not
16 received the relevant translation.
17 Furthermore, we object that this witness speak on behalf of
18 another person who was heard by the Prosecution and if the Prosecution
19 felt that it would be useful in this case, this person could have been put
20 on the list and called in to give a statement under oath here where he
21 would be speaking the truth and by which the Defence would have enabled to
22 cross-examine him.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
24 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, simply to join our friend of the
25 Defence of Mr. Tarculovski on this point, we think it would be quite
1 impermissible of the Prosecution to try to elicit evidence from another
2 witness through this witness if the person in question who, as far as we
3 can tell, was available and was not called, this is for the Prosecution to
4 bear the consequences, if any, of those and we believe that this evidence
5 should not be led through the investigator.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa.
7 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, first of all just to address
8 Mr. Apostolski's reference to the translation, the tape-recording was
9 provided to the Defence some time ago, I believe. I have a receipt that's
10 dated 5 October 2004. So they do have that in the original Macedonian
11 language as well as the English translation.
12 And secondly, I have not had -- I had not even asked my question
13 yet. I was not intending to go through the entirety of the -- of the
14 transcript. I'm simply --
15 JUDGE PARKER: I think you're on fair notice, Ms. Issa, that
16 you're running into troubled waters. Please sail ahead, and we'll see
17 when you reach --
18 MS. ISSA: Okay.
19 JUDGE PARKER: -- them with your question.
20 MS. ISSA: I will. Thank you.
21 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, to your knowledge, did Mr. Janev provide another name
22 or nickname that he goes by?
23 A. [Interpretation] Yes. I know of two names, one is Kunta and one
24 is Crni.
25 Q. And did he provide his date of birth?
1 A. [In English] Yes, he did. He provided his date of birth and it
2 was in the year 1965, August, and for the date I think it is 9th, but I
3 have to refer to some of the documents. This was just by my knowledge.
4 Yes, 9th of August, 1965. And this part I also heard on the tape.
5 Q. Did he say who was brother was?
6 A. Yes, he say that, and he said that his brother's name is
7 Aleksander, acknowledged.
8 Q. Aleksander Janevski?
9 A. He's known as Aleksander Janevski, while his brother is called
10 Vlado Janev.
11 Q. Okay. And just to clarify that, we're talking about Vlado Janev,
12 so his brother is Aleksander Janevski. Is that correct?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. Okay. If we can then turn to tab 32, which is 65 ter number
16 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters have difficulties hearing the
17 Prosecutor, so if the microphone could be adjusted, please.
18 MS. ISSA:
19 Q. Just drawing your attention, Mr. Kuehnel, to this document.
20 A. [Interpretation] I can see the document.
21 Q. And it is titled criminal report with -- against an individual
22 named Safet Senovik and if you look at paragraph 2 against an individual
23 named Aleksander Janevski, father Pero, mother Ljiljana, born on June 7th,
24 1969, in Skopje, in the Republic of Macedonia, with the address of
25 Boulevard Ilinden, number 118.
1 Do you see that?
2 A. Yes, I can see it.
3 Q. If we can please move to page 2 of that document. If we can
4 scroll to the top.
5 You see that paragraph 3 refers to another person named Vlado
6 Janev, father Pero, mother Mirjana, born August 9th, 1965, in Veles, in
7 the Republic of Macedonia and it states that he lives in Skopje, Boulevard
8 Ilinden number 108. Do you see that?
9 A. Yes, I can see that.
10 Q. And then if we look at, just below that, that's marked as number
11 4, states that Zoran Jovanovski, father Todor, mother Todorka, born
12 January 22nd, 1963, in Skopje, the Republic of Macedonia, and it has the
13 address as Klenoec number 29-A, Skopje.
14 Do you see that?
15 A. Yes, I can see that.
16 MS. ISSA: And if we can please turn back to the first page. And
17 if we can focus on the second paragraph.
18 The crime in relation to which this criminal report refers to is
19 reasonable grounds for suspicion that he committed the crime of violent
21 Do you see that?
22 A. Yes, I can see that.
23 MS. ISSA: And if we can please go back to page 2.
24 Q. Just drawing your attention, Mr. Kuehnel, to the first four lines
25 under statement of reasons. And it says -- perhaps we can just focus on
1 that. It says: "For the reported Semovik Janevski, Semovik Janevski,
2 Janev and Jovanovski there exists reasonable grounds that working as a
3 group they committed a criminal act, violent behaviour, provided and
4 punishable under Article 209 ... "
5 Do you see that?
6 A. [In English] Yes, I see that.
7 Q. And if I can draw your attention finally to the last four lines of
8 that paragraph --
9 MS. ISSA: Actually, if we can go to the last page. Sorry.
10 It says: "From the aforementioned it can clearly be seen that
11 there exists reasonable grounds for suspicion that the reported Semovik
12 Safet, Janevski Aleksander, Janev Vlado, and Jovanovski Zoran, acting in a
13 group committed one criminal act of violent behaviour provided and
14 punishable under Article 209/2 of the Criminal Code of Macedonia.
15 Do you see that?
16 A. [Interpretation] Yes, I can see that.
17 Q. Where did you obtain this document, Mr. Kuehnel?
18 A. This document is a criminal report from the register of criminal
19 records of the Ministry of the Interior, and based on a RFA that was
20 directed to the government of Macedonia I went to the archives and had a
21 look at the file.
22 I think I can remember that the RFA number was 113, 113.
23 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... And why did you obtain this
24 particular document? What alerted you to these people?
25 A. There were various reasons for that. First of all, the list of
1 the 25th and 26th July, 2001, which should be in -- read in conjunction
2 with the accompanying information that received at that time, on this list
3 there are the names of Aleksander Janevski, Vlado Janev, and also Zoran
4 Jovanovski, also known under the name of Bucuk. So they're all listed on
6 The second reason is that due to interviews conducted with
7 witnesses, there was the reason -- there was a suspicion that these
8 persons participated in the events in Ljuboten.
9 And the third reason, there are indications because of the link in
10 data with telephone calls of Mr. Tarculovski, that these persons, with --
11 that there was a link with Mr. Tarculovski with these individuals when
12 these acts were committed.
13 So all in all, this was the reason.
14 Q. At this stage, Your Honour, I would like to tender this document.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
16 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
17 MR. METTRAUX: I will speak on the top of my voice --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
19 MR. METTRAUX: [Microphone not activated] ... microphone, but I
20 think the interpreters are not able to hear me, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE PARKER: The concern is that I have may have switched you
23 If so, please understand it was unintentional. It is to do with
24 the growing weight of my papers. If can you find a way of solving that
25 problem for me, we will avoid turning you off, Mr. Mettraux.
1 MR. METTRAUX: Well, I will make a brief attempt at least to save
2 you three pages, Your Honour.
3 But simply at this stage the only indication we would wish to
4 receive from our colleague from the Prosecution, that is the only matter
5 of relevance at this stage, is whether this particular criminal report or
6 charges as they should be known ever led to a conviction, Your Honour, and
7 whether the Prosecution has that information and whether Mr. Kuehnel could
8 assist in relation to this matter.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
10 Mr. Apostolski.
11 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I join the objection
12 by my colleague Mettraux. I also object to the relevance of the document,
13 to the extent in which the data here are accurate and reliable. As with
14 my previous objection to the previously shown and tendered criminal
15 report, I wish to indicate that any person can submit a criminal report
16 pursuant to the law on criminal procedure. There is no confirmation
17 whether the Prosecutor's office has processed and accepted this criminal
18 report. We have no confirmation whether the investigating judge has
19 accepted this criminal report, we have no data whether the Prosecutor
20 filed an indictment on the basis of this criminal report and, at the end,
21 we have no information on the outcome of this criminal report, what was
22 the verdict of the court, and at the end I wish to indicate that the
23 criminal report does not comprise the time comprised by the indictment by
24 the ICTY, so I see no relevance for this criminal report because it dates
25 back to 1995.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa.
2 MS. ISSA: Thank you.
3 First of all, Your Honour, I note that this is a document archived
4 within the Ministry of Interior, and the evidence, in my submission, is
5 relevant because it demonstrates that these same men who were issued
6 weapons in PSOLO on the 25th and 26th of July were -- were issued weapons
7 despite the fact that they had a criminal past, despite -- notwithstanding
8 that we don't know whether or not at the end of the day there was a
10 JUDGE PARKER: Isn't that a fairly critical point, Ms. Issa?
22 JUDGE PARKER: How does that help us? Because here all we have is
23 a criminal report, which is the first step that may lead to an
24 investigation, may eventually lead to a conviction, or it may lead to
1 MS. ISSA: That's true, Your Honour. But it also demonstrates
2 that these are individuals who were associating together, which -- which
3 is something that -- that is, in my submission, relevant to this case and
4 they were associating in a --
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE PARKER: The objection to the receipt of this document will
7 be sustained.
8 MS. ISSA: Okay.
9 If we can turn, then, to 65 ter 475, which is at tab 33.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 MS. ISSA: This is a document from the Ministry of Interior which
12 is dated 26th January 2001. And it states at the very top, the Ministry
13 of Interior is referring this document to the public prosecutor's office
14 in Skopje. And it states: "Pursuant to Article 141, paragraph 2, of the
15 Law on Criminal procedure and Article 167 of the rules on the workings of
16 the Ministry of Interior," there's a submission of criminal charges. And
17 the criminal charges are against one Vladimir Popovski, and if we turn to
18 the second page, we see that the criminal charges have also been brought
19 against Zoran Jovanovski, father -- sorry, I'm just going to wait for the
21 Father Todor and mother Todorka, born on 22nd January, 1963, in
22 Skopje. With an address number apartment 29-A Klenoec Street and
23 describes him as director of Kometa agency and the criminal charges are
24 for an act of aiding and abetting under Article 24 of the Criminal Code of
25 the Republic of Macedonia in connection with the criminal act of burglary.
1 And if I can draw your attention to the second paragraph under
2 statement of reasons, it refers to, states the following: "Namely on 15
3 January 2001, at approximately 0930 hours, Popovski Vladimir went to the
4 Kometa agency and asked Jovanovski Zoran to help him enter the Krimer
5 Komerc firm located at number 182-B Orce Nikolov street, property of
6 Velkovski Dimce from Skopje so that he could take the machines as payment
7 for a debt. They agreed that the second accused would provided 10 Kometa
8 employees who were to meet with the first accused at approximately 1700
9 hours in the vicinity of the Chinese embassy and head towards the location
10 and forcefully enter the Krimer firm."
11 Do you see that.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And where was this document obtained, Mr. Kuehnel?
14 A. This document comes from the archives too.
15 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I would seek to tender this document.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Does it have the same problem as the last?
17 MS. ISSA: I would submit that it does not, Your Honour, simply
18 because at this stage it is the Ministry of Interior itself that is
19 referring the public prosecutor -- referring these criminal charges to the
20 public prosecutor, indicating that it is of the belief at this stage that
21 these are criminal charges that are warranted. In other words, there is a
22 belief that this particular individual has a criminal past. And I would
23 simply --
24 JUDGE PARKER: Well, the problem is simple, isn't it. You have
25 got a report of a criminal offence. There's nothing presently before us
1 to indicate how that finished up, whether it concluded in a conviction and
2 punishment, whether it was proceeded with a toll or what.
3 So a report gets us nowhere.
15 JUDGE PARKER: How does this demonstrate a criminal past; that's
16 your wording.
17 MS. ISSA: Well, it demonstrates, Your Honour, at the minimum that
18 there were people that were given weapons because they had some criminal
19 association or, as this witness put it, they didn't look like someone who
20 was a police officer or who deserved to wear a uniform and a weapon.
21 JUDGE PARKER: The document won't be received, Ms. Issa.
22 MS. ISSA: All right.
23 JUDGE PARKER: And we've reached the time for the second break.
24 So we resume at five past.
25 --- Recess taken at 12.34 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 1.09 p.m.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa.
3 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Your Honour. If we can then turn to the
4 next exhibit, which is at tab 34. It's been marked for identification as
6 Actually, if we can please go to the cover page, the first page.
7 And just to indicate for the record, Your Honour, that there are only
8 selected portions of this exhibit that is contained in your binders.
9 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, do you see the -- this exhibit on your screen?
10 A. Yes, I can see it.
11 Q. Do you recognise this document?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. And it's referred to as outgoing -- well, the title says outgoing
14 calls, the telephone number 070279417. Where did you get this document
15 from, Mr. Kuehnel?
16 A. We got this document in response to request for assistance number
17 77, from the government of Macedonia.
18 Q. And when you say from the government of Macedonia, are you
19 referring to a specific arm of the government?
20 A. Yes. It was sent to us from the Ministry of the Interior.
21 Q. And what information did you receive regarding this telephone
22 that's identified on this document, 279417?
23 A. Document is proof of incoming and outgoing calls for the telephone
24 number in question.
25 Q. Did you receive any specific information as to who this number is
1 subscribed to?
2 A. According to the documents that accompanied this, this telephone
3 number had a relation to a person called Gjorgji Todorovski.
4 Q. So the information you received was that this document -- this
5 number was subscribed to a Gjorgji Todorovski. Is that right?
6 A. That is right.
7 Q. And did you follow up on that?
8 A. We got information on several occasions about this number and
9 about the person most recently as a response to an RFA in 1992/1993 [as
10 interpreted], and we learned that Todorovski, in 2003 had left the
11 ministry in 2003, and recently we tried to find out from the ministry
12 where -- tried to find out where Mr. Todorovski is at the moment.
13 Q. And did you receive any information in regards to that?
14 A. No more extensive information; simply confirmation that Todorovski
15 had left the ministry in 2003, and further questions would have to be
16 submitted in writing. That was the last information we received.
17 Q. And did you interview anybody in this case as to who the number--
18 this number belonged to?
19 A. Yes. I took part in an interview; it was a suspect interview,
20 Ljube Krstevski. He was an OVA [as interpreted] commander of Cair and he
21 was interviewed on that occasion, and during the interview, Mr. Krstevski
22 said that the number belonged to Johan Tarculovski, and he had talked to
23 him using this number during the events in Ljuboten.
24 The precise -- the exact text of this interview is on the
1 MS. ISSA: If I can ask for P00231 - it's marked for
2 identification - to be called up. It's at tab 38 in the hard copy
3 binders, please.
4 And if I can ask Madam Registrar to please go to page 4.
5 And for the record, Your Honour, I believe this has been
6 identified or marked for identification as the handwritten note or diary
7 of witness M-084.
8 Q. Now, you see, Mr. Kuehnel, at the very top of that page the name
9 Johan with a dash next to it and the number 070279417. Do you see that?
10 A. Yes, that's right. I can see that.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MS. ISSA: If we please go back to P000369 which is marked for
14 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski.
15 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, for the purpose of
16 this transcript, I wish to inform the Court that regarding this note which
17 is mentioned in this document we see before us about Johan and the
18 telephone number, two experts have looked into this and it has been noted
19 that this was changed with a marker. The telephone number was changed
20 which was previously marked. The number previously marked was changed
21 with a magic marker.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
23 MS. ISSA: And, Your Honour, just to -- just to follow up on what
24 Mr. Apostolski said ...
25 Just in relation to the expert report, the indication that I have
1 as to its findings is that the inscription with that number Johan,
2 070279417 was examined and that on top of the examined page of the diary
3 had been made with -- that inscription was made with a blue felt tip pen
4 and added beneath it with a ball-point pen is the name Johan, 07027948
5 with a 1 and, brackets, 7 and the penultimate digits, 8 and 1, were
6 written on top of the other, so it appears that there was one number that
7 was corrected in that range of numbers.
8 JUDGE PARKER: It is an evidentiary matter that may need to be
9 resolved at later.
10 MS. ISSA: Yes, it may. And I don't intend on tendering it at
11 this stage.
12 Okay. If we can then please just go to page 3 of P00369.
13 Sorry, Your Honour, I was just referring to my notes.
14 If we can look at the column 3 at the page 3. And if we can
15 please have that enlarged.
16 I think we're looking at page 2 at the moment.
17 Q. Now I just want to draw your attention to that third column,
18 Mr. Kuehnel, that refers to a Valentina Radulovic on 10 August. Can
19 indicate -- do you know who that is?
20 A. Yes. I think the name Valentina Radulovic is the name of the
21 first wife of Johan Tarculovski.
22 Q. And just to make it clear, the number on the far left-hand side,
23 is that number 70279417, and this is a log that was indicated on the -- at
24 the first page that relates to the outgoing calls of that number, and to
25 the right of that is another telephone number with the date August 10,
1 2001 in the third column and a few columns -- or a few rows down is the
2 name Valentina Radulovic. So that indicates that that number 70279417 was
3 calling Valentina Radulovic. Is that right?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. And how do you know, Mr. Kuehnel, that Valentina Radulovic was
6 Mr. Tarculovski's first wife?
7 A. That's common knowledge for one thing. Valentina Radulovic is a
8 very well-known person in Macedonia. She is a handball player, and apart
9 from that, the name was also -- was also mentioned in statements as being
10 the wife of Johan Tarculovski.
11 Q. And when you refer to statements, what are you referring to?
12 A. [In English] Witness statements, this OTP.
13 Q. Okay.
14 MS. ISSA: And if we can then turn to page 7 in this document.
15 And if we can please scroll -- or enlarge the third column.
16 Q. You see that, Mr. Kuehnel, in the third column that same number,
17 70279417 is once again calling Valentina Radulovic, and the date is August
18 11th, 2001. Do you see that?
19 A. Yes, I can see that.
20 MS. ISSA: And then if we can please go to page 8.
21 And if we can focus on the last line.
22 Q. And you see that the number 70279417 is, once again, on the 12th
23 of August, 2001, calling Valentina Radulovic. Do you see that?
24 A. Yes, I can see that.
25 MS. ISSA: And, finally, if we go to page 9, the first line.
1 Q. You see that the number 70279417 is, once again, calling Valentina
2 Radulovic, on August 12th, 2001. Do you see that?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. What do the records of these calls to Valentina Radulovic's number
5 indicate to you, Mr. Kuehnel?
6 A. The records that we have show me that there is a telephone link
7 between the two numbers, between the number that we assume is to be -- is
8 being used by Johan Tarculovski and Valentina Radulovic. In other words,
9 that there was a telephone link between the two.
10 Q. Thank you. And before I move into another set of calls, Your
11 Honour, I'd just like to clarify for the record, regarding the reference
12 Mr. Apostolski made as to the diary that was referred to earlier, for
13 witness M-084, I would just like to clarify in looking at the expert
14 report once again in relation to the handwriting, that according to the
15 expert report originally, it was -- the name Johan and the telephone
16 number which is 070279417 was written down with a ball-point pen and the
17 last digit of that number was corrected with a ball-point pen and then
18 someone wrote the same number over the ball-point pen, I just wanted to
19 make that clear, with a different type of pen.
20 And I also just want to indicate, Your Honours, for the record,
21 that the expert report regarding this particular exhibit is the subject of
22 a pending motion for the Chamber to -- to review at this point.
23 I just wanted to clarify that for the record in case I earlier
25 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. But I do not appreciate what its point and
1 relevance is at this stage. It's the sort of thing that if nothing else
2 happens, it may be addressed in final submissions.
3 MS. ISSA: I take your point, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE PARKER: We're getting very concerned about the progress,
5 Ms. Issa.
6 MS. ISSA: I recognise that, Your Honour, and I believe there's a
7 portion that I have which may take me perhaps 45 minutes more and then I
8 should be -- that should complete the examination-in-chief.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. I make the observation now, so that
10 counsel are aware that we are subject to some strict time-limits with
11 German interpretation next week. And we must be entirely sure of
12 concluding this witness by Thursday. That includes Thursday. And if all
13 counsel would have that in mind.
14 MS. ISSA: Thank you.
15 If we can then please go back to page 4, now there are several
16 calls -- if I can ask Madam Registrar to focus on the first part of that
18 Q. There's several calls recorded, starting at the sixth column, by
19 that number 70279417 calling number 070243818, which, in this document, is
20 referred to as the number -- or the person is identified as Ljube
21 Krstevski and the date of the call is August 10th, 2001.
22 Do you see that?
23 A. Yes, I can see that.
24 Q. And it appears there are four calls that were made on that date.
25 Do you recognise that number 070243818, Mr. Kuehnel?
1 A. Yes, I recognise it. It's the mobile telephone number of Ljube
2 Krstevski, the OVR commander of Cair. And it is an official telephone
4 Q. And how is it that you recognise that number? How do you know
5 that this is his number?
6 A. For one thing, Mr. Krstevski recognised it as being as her own
7 number and she said that she was using it [as interpreted], and also this
8 number also comes up in replies to RFAs that we received as replies from
9 the Ministry of the Interior in Macedonia.
10 MS. ISSA: And if we can then please go to page 7 of this
12 Q. Starting from the tenth column from the bottom, if we can please
13 focus on that. There are entries of 279417 calling Ljube Krstevski on
14 that same number of 24 -- listed as 24 -- 70243818, on the 11th of August,
15 2001. Do you see that?
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. Now earlier, Mr. Kuehnel, you mentioned that the Office of the
18 Prosecutor carried out an interview with Vlado Janev as one of the persons
19 who received weapons from Kometa. Do you remember that?
20 A. Yes, that's correct.
21 MS. ISSA: If we can then please go to page 6 of this document,
22 starting at the 12th column from the bottom.
23 Q. Do you see the name Vlado Janev in a series of calls that took
24 place on August 10th, 2001 from the number 70279417 to a telephone number
25 70520576. Do you see that?
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. Do you have any information, Mr. Kuehnel, as to whether this is
3 the same Vlado Janev with the telephone 520576?
4 A. Yes, this is the same person that I saw in various other sources.
5 I also recognise the address, Boulevard Illiden 108 and on the summary of
6 the interview with Mr. Vlado Janev, I can also see that particular
7 telephone number.
8 Q. And you're referring to that interview that was carried out by the
9 Office of the Prosecutor. Is that correct?
10 A. That is precisely the interview I'm talking about.
11 MS. ISSA: For the record, Your Honour, I'm -- I misspoke and I
12 said that Vlado Janev was one of the persons who received weapons from
13 Kometa at page 67, line 5 to 7 in the transcript, and I should have
14 indicated that he was one of the persons that received weapons from PSOLO
15 police station.
16 If we can please go to page 8 in that same document. About the
17 middle of page, the 17th column from the bottom.
18 Q. Do you see that same number, 70279417, that you believed to be
19 used by Johan Tarculovski as calling Vlado Janev on 11 August 2001. Do
20 you see that?
21 A. Yes, I do.
22 MS. ISSA: And if we can then please go to page 10, at the very
24 Q. Do you see a series of calls once again from the same number,
25 279417, that you believe to belong to Johan Tarculovski -- was used by
1 Johan Tarculovski, as calling Vlado Janev on 12 August 2001. Do you see
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MS. ISSA: Your Honours, I note the time, and I have another area
6 I was going move into, so I would suggest that it might be best to stop
7 now, if it's convenient. But before I do that, I would like to make a
8 couple of redactions in private session, subject to Your Honour.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Very well.
10 [Private session]
24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.
25 To be reconvened on Monday, the 19th day of
1 November, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.