1 Monday, 19 November 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning.
7 As you can see, unfortunately Judge Van den Wyngaert will not be
8 able to sit today. We anticipate she will be able to join us tomorrow.
9 If I could remind you of the affirmation which is still
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa.
13 WITNESS: THOMAS KUEHNEL [Resumed]
14 [Witness answered through interpreter]
15 MS. ISSA: Good morning, Your Honour.
16 Examination by Ms. Issa: [Continued]
17 Q. If we could please go back to MFI P00369.
18 And just to remind you, Mr. Kuehnel, we left off on Friday when we
19 were dealing with the telephone records and that is at tab 34 in the hard
20 copy binder.
21 MS. ISSA: If I could please ask Madam Registrar to turn to page
22 11 in that document.
23 Q. Now, Mr. Kuehnel, if you can draw your attention to the 14th
24 column from the top, the number that you believe was used by Johan
25 Tarculovski, called Aleksander Janevski. Do you see that?
1 A. Yes, I can see that.
2 Q. And do you know who this is, Aleksander Janevski?
3 A. Yes, I do. It's the brother of Vlado Janev.
4 Q. And what is the basis of your belief that the person listed on
5 this call, Aleksander Janevski, is the same person who is the brother of
6 Vlado Janev?
7 A. Vlado Janev, in his interview, he accepted this being his
8 brother's name, Aleksander Janevski. The address given next to the name
9 Aleksander Janevski is identical with the address of the brother of Vlado
10 Janev. It's the house next to it. And looking at the criminal records,
11 you can also see the relationship between the two. You can deduct it.
12 Apart from that, the telephone number was also given in
13 conjunction with an RFA request to our office, directed to our office.
14 Q. And that is the same telephone number that is --
15 A. Yes, it is the same telephone that's given here. Apart from that,
16 the statements given by third persons also said that they were brothers.
17 And the two names, Vlado Janev and Aleksander Janevski, also appear in the
18 list of the 25th and 26th of July, 2001, and both persons were also given
19 by third persons relating to the events in Ljuboten.
20 Q. Thank you. And when you refer to the list of 25th/26th July,
21 2001, just for the record you're referring to P00436, the list of --
22 indicating persons who received weapons on that day from PSOLO. Is that
24 A. Yes, that's correct, Ms. Issa.
25 Q. Did you have occasion, Mr. Kuehnel, to attend at that address that
1 is listed as boulevard Ilinden 108 that you associated with Aleksander
3 A. Yes, that's correct, Ms. Issa. I went there with my colleague
4 from OTP, Mr. Jozefciak, and we tried to -- to give -- to submit a summons
5 to both brothers there. When we went there, both brothers were not
6 present, but I talked to a woman who introduced herself as being the wife
7 of Aleksander Janevski. And in a statement that she made, it was a
8 proactive statement, this woman, who was emotionally upset at this moment
9 in time, she said that her husband was in Ljuboten and he was also wounded
10 there, the person who is supposed to live at boulevard Ilinden 108.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MS. ISSA: If I can then please ask Madam Registrar to turn to
13 page 9 in this document.
14 Q. Now, I draw your attention, Mr. Kuehnel, to about the 10th or 11th
15 column from the top on page 9. You see there are a series of calls from
16 the number that you believe was being used by Johan Tarculovski to a Zoran
17 Jovanovski on the 12th of August, 2001. And that number is listed as
18 70225660. Do you see that?
19 A. Yes, I can see that, Ms. Issa.
20 Q. And do you know who that person is?
21 A. Yes, I do know that, Ms. Issa. It's Zoran Jovanovski. The
22 address is Klenoec 29-A and the name and this address is also given in the
23 replies of the Ministry of the Interior to an RFA. In this RFA, Zoran
24 Jovanovski was also being given as the owner of the security firm Kometa,
25 and there are -- is a number of other documents where you can identify
1 this link, also in some criminal files and also in statements given by
2 third persons through the OTP. The same applies to this person, that this
3 name is given on the list of the 26th and -- 25th and 26th July, 2001.
4 Mr. Zoran Jovanovski was also being named as an -- an accused, or
5 as a suspect, rather. I'm correcting myself. He has also accepted that
6 he is the owner of the company named Kometa.
7 Q. If I can stop you there for a moment, Mr. Kuehnel, when you say
8 this person was named as a suspect are you referring to a suspect
9 interview that the Office of the Prosecutor carried out with
10 Mr. Jovanovski?
11 A. Yes, this is correct, Ms. Issa.
12 Q. And have you had occasion from all the information that you've
13 received to compare the telephone number that we see on the telephone log
14 with the information that you received through the RFAs?
15 A. Yes, this is correct. The number is identical. And this was the
16 number given in conjunction with Mr. Zoran Jovanovski.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MS. ISSA: If we can then please turn to page 8.
19 Q. If I can draw your attention, Mr. Kuehnel, to the 10th column from
20 the bottom, we see here the number that you believe was used by Johan
21 Tarculovski calling an individual called Goce Ralevski on the 11th of
22 August, 2001. Do you see that?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. And if we can please turn back to page 11.
25 If I can draw your attention to the 15th column from the top we
1 see here that the number that you believe was being used by Johan
2 Tarculovski calling Goce Ralevski on 12 August, 2001. Do you see that?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 MS. ISSA: And just to save time, Your Honours, Mr. Kuehnel has
5 already testified on page -- transcript page 7962 that this name is
6 referenced on exhibit number P00436, the list from 25/26 July.
7 And finally, in respect of this document, if we can please go to
8 page 9.
9 Q. Just to draw your attention, Mr. Kuehnel, to the name Mario
10 Jurisic who is -- which is at the 10th column from the top. The number
11 you believe was being used by Johan Tarculovski called Mario Jurisic on
12 the 11th of August, 2001. Do you see that?
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 MS. ISSA: And if we could please turn to page 7.
15 Q. Just to draw your attention, Mr. Kuehnel, to the third column from
16 the bottom. We see a name there, Nikolce Grozdanovski and it appears that
17 the number you believe is being used by Johan Tarculovski was calling that
18 number on the 11th of August, 2001. Do you see that?
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. Can you tell us, Mr. Kuehnel, who is Nikolce Grozdanovski?
21 A. Nikolce Grozdanovski is a member of the army. He is a commander
22 of the 100-millimetre battery [as interpreted] of the 3rd Battalion -- of
23 the -- Motor Brigade and because of this Mr. Grozdanovski was also
24 interviewed by us. And he was also present also when the events at
25 Ljuboten happened. He was in his post.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MS. ISSA: If we can then please go to page 57 in that document.
3 Actually, if question first -- Madam Registrar, if we can please first go
4 to page 54.
5 Q. Just to draw your attention, Mr. Kuehnel, if you look on your
6 screen, that's the commencement of the log of the -- relating to the
7 incoming logs -- incoming calls, rather, of that same number you believe
8 to be used by Johan Tarculovski.
9 If we can then please go to page 57.
10 If I can draw your attention to the third and fourth and fifth
11 column from the top. You see the same numbers that we've seen earlier are
12 calling the number you believe to be Johan Tarculovski's number, listed as
13 Zoran Jovanovski and Ljube Krstevski, on the 11th of August, 2001. Do you
14 see that?
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 Q. And if we can look at the 11th column from the bottom, Once again,
17 you see Ljube Krstevski and the individual we just spoke about a moment
18 ago, Grozdanovski, Nikolce, also calling the number you believe to be
19 Johan Tarculovski's number on 12 August, 2001. Do you see that?
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 MS. ISSA: At this stage, Your Honour, I would like to tender this
23 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski.
24 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
25 I object to having this document received in evidence, since it
1 was not ascertained that the telephone number belongs to Johan
2 Tarculovski. On the contrary, from the evidence of this witness, it was
3 established that this phone number was used by the person named Gjorgi
4 Todorovski as it is stated in the document N000-7356, N000-757 -- 7357 and
5 this witness only makes a conjecture that the person Johan Tarculovski has
6 used this phone number.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
8 Ms. Issa.
9 MS. ISSA: Yes, Your Honour. This witness has already testified
10 that he received information from Ljube Krstevski that this number was
11 being used by Johan Tarculovski. We also saw evidence that this number
12 frequently called and was being called by a person identified as
13 Mr. Tarculovski's wife during that same period of time, and we saw
14 evidence that the diary of M-084 refers to the name Johan with that number
15 written down next to it.
16 And therefore, in my submission, taking into account all of those
17 factors, I would submit there is sufficient evidence that this number was
18 being used by Johan Tarculovski and it's -- it is certainly something that
19 goes to the weight of the evidence as to -- as opposed to its admission.
20 I would submit that at this stage it would be admissible on this basis and
21 it would be a question of fact for the Chamber to determine whether or not
22 in fact this was a number that was being used by Johan Tarculovski during
23 that period.
24 JUDGE PARKER: The document will be received as an exhibit. It is
25 not tendered on the basis that it is shown to be the telephone owned by
1 but that there is evidence capable of establishing, if it is accepted by
2 the Chamber, that it was a telephone used by the accused Johan Tarculovski
3 and will be received on that basis.
4 THE REGISTRAR: It will retain the same number but will become
5 Exhibit P369, Your Honours.
6 MS. ISSA: If we can then please turn to tab 42, 65 ter number
7 1007.1. If we can slightly enlarge the first page, please. Thank you.
8 Q. Now, you see on your screen, Mr. Kuehnel, there's a number listed
9 there as an outgoing number, 70243818. Do you recognise that number?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. And who does it belong to?
12 A. This is an official number of the Ministry of Interior and it
13 belongs to Ljube Krstevski in his function as -- in 2001, he was the OVA
14 commander for Cair.
15 Q. And what is the basis of your belief?
16 A. Basically there are two reasons.
17 First of all --
18 Q. If I can actually stop you there for a moment.
19 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, if we can please go into private session
21 JUDGE PARKER: Private.
22 [Private session]
14 [Open session]
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
16 MS. ISSA:
17 Q. If I can draw your attention, Mr. Kuehnel, to that first page,
18 towards the end of the page there appears to be a telephone call made by
19 Radojko Lozanovski to Ljube Krstevski's number on 11 August, 2001. Do you
20 see that?
21 A. Yes, I do, Ms. Issa.
22 Q. And if you look at about the fourth column from the bottom, there
23 appears to be a telephone call made by what you believe to be Ljube
24 Krstevski's number to the same number that you believe to be Johan
25 Tarculovski's number, 279417, do you see, on the 11th of August, 2001. Do
1 you see that?
2 A. Yes, I do, Ms. Issa.
3 Q. Did you compare that -- this log-book with the incoming calls of
4 the previous log-book for that number, 279417, during the same
6 A. Yes, I did, as a kind of blind test to determine whether, with the
7 log-books or this evidence, the criteria were in harmony, that is, the
8 outgoing an incoming numbers showed the same time and date stamps with the
9 relevant numbers, a quality check, to see whether we could find the same
10 information on both lists.
11 Q. And did they match?
12 A. Yes.
13 MS. ISSA: And if we can then please turn to page 2 in this
15 Q. I'd just like to draw your attention to the second column from the
16 top, we that number that you indicated was belonging to Ljube Krstevski
17 calling Zoran Jovanovski and then below that the same number calling Ilija
18 Sovkovski. Do you see that?
19 A. Yes, I do, Madam Issa.
20 Q. And both those calls were made on the 12th of August, 2001. Do
21 you see that?
22 A. Yes.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received, Mr. Apostolski.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
17 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, we didn't realise that it was an
18 attempt to tender the document at this stage. We have no objection to the
19 document. We would simply wish to indicate that for this document and the
20 next one that two of the individuals mentioned on this list M-053 and
21 M-084 have been -- have appeared as witnesses in this case and were not
22 asked questions in relation to this document. It's therefore our
23 understanding that the document is tendered for the purpose indicated by
24 my colleague, namely, the fact that certain phone calls were directed to
25 certain persons but not in relation to the content of any such calls.
1 JUDGE PARKER: My observation was misleading, and I'm sorry I did
2 mislead you. We're receiving at the moment the oral evidence allowing it
3 to continue. It's not yet been tendered. I should have been more careful
4 in my language.
5 Please continue.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, in line 11, 1,
7 examination, and not cross-examination.
8 MS. ISSA: If we can then please --
9 Q. If you can please then look towards the bottom of that page,
10 Mr. Kuehnel. It's about seven or eight columns from the bottom, and we
11 see that number that you've identified as belonging to Ljube Krstevski
12 calling Radojko Lozanovski. Do you see that?
13 A. Yes, I do, Madam Issa.
14 Q. And right below that we see the same number calling the number
15 279417, which is listed MOI of the RM that you have previously identified
16 as the number you believed to be used by Johan Tarculovski on the 12th of
17 August, 2001. Do you see that?
18 A. Yes, I do, Ms. Issa.
19 Q. Now did you compare that number 279417 with the incoming calls for
20 279417 that you believed belonged to Johan Tarculovski?
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 Q. And did they match?
23 A. Yes.
24 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, at this stage I'd like to tender this
25 document into evidence.
1 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber has indicated its position sufficiently
2 to accept this on the basis that has been indicated already by Ms. Issa.
3 It will be received.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P535, Your Honours.
5 MS. ISSA: If we can then please go to tab 43, 65 ter number
7 If I can ask Madam Registrar to please enlarge the first page.
8 Q. Now, at the very top, Mr. Kuehnel, you see this is marked as
9 income calls for that number 70243818, the number you identified as
10 belonging to Ljube Krstevski, and we see that at page 1, the number
11 279417, which is about at the middle of the page, was calling the number
12 you identified as belonging to Ljube Krstevski. And that is at column
13 number 87 or at least there's a -- by way of reference we can look at the
14 duration, time of the telephone call at the very last column to the right,
15 it says 87 and below that 25. Those are the telephone calls that I'm
16 referring to, Mr. Kuehnel.
17 Do you see that?
18 A. Yes, I see both of them.
19 Q. And then if I can draw your attention to a couple of columns below
20 that, the duration time being used as a reference point once again as
21 number 43 and we see, once again, Ljube Krstevski's number calling
22 70279417 on the 10th of August at about 7.12 in the evening. Do you see
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. And finally, if you look at the very bottom of that page, the last
1 two telephone calls, Ljube Krstevski's number is, once again, calling the
2 number 279417 on the 11th of August, 2001. Do you see that?
3 A. Yes, I do, Ms. Issa.
4 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, did you compare the incoming calls from that number,
5 243818 in this log-book with the outgoing calls of that same number that
6 we saw in the log-book marked as P30069, which is the outgoing calls of
7 279417 that you believe was being used by Johan Tarculovski?
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 Q. And did they match?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MS. ISSA: At this stage I'd like to tender this exhibit, this
13 document, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
15 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P536, Your Honours.
16 MS. ISSA:
17 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, did you at some stage attend the intelligence
18 services of the Macedonian Ministry of Interior or what is none as the
19 UBK/DBK in February 2007?
20 A. Yes, that's correct, Ms. Issa, I did.
21 Q. When you were there did you request any information or documents
22 relating to radio communications that related to the events in Ljuboten in
24 A. Yes, I did ask for them.
25 Q. Were you provided with any such documents or information?
1 A. No. I received a negative response. I received nothing.
2 Q. Were you advised whether or not any such intercepts or documents
3 existed or were available at the Ministry of Interior?
4 A. No. I was told that the service had no such recordings.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MS. ISSA: If we can then please go to 65 ter number 246 at tab 47
7 in the binders.
8 Q. Now we see a document on the screen, Mr. Kuehnel, that is titled:
9 Persons responsible at check-points in the area of Ljubanci and Ljuboten
10 villages in August 2001. And it appears to be stamped and signed by the
11 commander of the police station Mirkovci. Do you recognise this document?
12 A. Yes, Ms. Issa, I know this document. I received this as a
13 response to a RFA from the government of Macedonia, through the Ministry
14 of Interior.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MS. ISSA: I'd like to tender this document at this stage, Your
18 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
19 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P537, Your Honours.
20 MS. ISSA: If we can then please go to 65 ter number 477, at tab
21 48 in the binders.
22 Q. We see that this is a document from the Ministry of Interior dated
23 12 August 2001 and at the very top is -- says check-point Ljubanci. And
24 it's titled: An order for performing service. And at the very bottom it
25 is signed by commander Lieutenant Slavko Ivanovski. Do you see that?
1 A. Yes, I do, Ms. Issa.
2 Q. Do you recognise this document?
3 A. Yes. I know this document. This is a document that we also
4 received in response to a RFA.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MS. ISSA: I'd like to tender this document at this stage, Your
8 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
9 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P538, Your Honours.
10 MS. ISSA: If we can then please go to 65 ter number 1031, tab 49.
11 Q. This is a document, once again, from the Ministry of Interior, the
12 Republic of Macedonia, dated August 12, 2001. And, again, it is titled:
13 Order to carry out a task and specifically refers to the concrete task as
14 being between 08 and 20 hours to provide complete security at the facility
15 by undertaking measures of monitoring and observing with the aim of
16 preventing attacks, carrying out or causing diversion terrorist actions
17 over the facility and in relation to OA Ramno.
18 Do you see that?
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. Do you recognise this document?
21 A. Yes. This document is one that I know. It came from OVR Cair,
22 that's correct.
23 MS. ISSA: I'd like to tender this document at this stage, Your
25 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
1 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P539, Your Honours.
2 MS. ISSA: If we can then please go to 65 ter 1030, at tab 50.
3 Q. This document is titled: Report. And it refers to, "During our
4 working hours between 0800 and 2000 hours we acted according to order
5 number 2396," which references the previous document that we just saw,
6 that same number for the order.
7 Do you recognise this document?
8 A. Yes. I know this document. It is only page 2 of the previous
10 MS. ISSA: If I can please ask that this be admitted into evidence
11 at this stage.
12 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
13 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P540, Your Honours.
14 MS. ISSA: And if we can then please go to tab 51, 65 ter 1037.
15 Q. Just to draw your attention, Mr. Kuehnel, this document is also
16 from the Ministry of Interior dated 14 August 2001 and it's in regards to
17 a Hermelin vehicle as noted at the top right-hand corner and it's referred
18 to -- it is in fact an order for performing duty number 2589, signed by
19 the commander, Lieutenant Ivanovski, Slavko, the length of duty, as noted
20 two lines from the bottom, is from 7.00 a.m. on the 14th of August, 2001,
21 to 7.00 p.m. Do you see that?
22 A. Yes, I do that, Madam Issa.
23 Q. Do you recognise this document?
24 A. Yes, I know this document. It is in response to a RFA and I
25 received this personally from the OVR Cair. Originally it comes from the
1 police station in Mirkovci.
2 MS. ISSA: I'd like to tender this document at this stage, Your
4 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P541, Your Honours.
6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters need to note that there is a
7 very high level of background noise in the courtroom and it interferes
8 with our work, so please use keyboards sparingly.
9 MS. ISSA:
10 Q. And finally, Mr. Kuehnel, at any time during your involvement in
11 this case from November 2001 to May 2002, did the Macedonian authorities
12 ever ask the Office of the Prosecutor to provided them with the results of
13 interviews of witnesses?
14 And just to correct myself, I know you were involved from the
15 beginning of October -- or from around October 2003, but at any time
16 during the course of your involvement in this case, did the Macedonian
17 authorities, from the November 2001 to May 2002 ever request the results
18 of interviews of witnesses from the OTP, to your knowledge?
19 A. Yes. As you said, I started in October 2003 to work in this
20 field, and after this period I know nothing about this matter. The only
21 thing that came to my knowledge, and this is something I derived from the
22 court files, was a letter to the OTP in which I believe Prosecutor Dzikov
23 presented the results of the ballistic or requested the results of the
24 ballistic examination, and what came of that, but I was told that both of
25 these documents would be found in the court files.
1 Q. But apart from the request for the ballistic examinations, were
2 you aware, just to clarify, of any other request made by the Macedonian
3 authorities to the OTP, particularly in respect of information or
4 interviews regarding witnesses?
5 A. No. Not as far as I know.
6 MS. ISSA: Thank you. I have no further questions.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Ms. Issa.
8 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
9 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
10 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour. Good morning, Your
12 Cross-examination by Mr. Mettraux:
13 Q. Good morning, Mr. Kuehnel. My name is Guenael Mettraux and
14 together with Ms. Edina Residovic I'm appearing on behalf of Mr. Boskoski?
15 A. [In English] Good morning.
16 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, do you agree that an important aspect of your work as
17 an investigator to ensure the safekeeping of the material and information
18 which you collect as part of your investigation?
19 A. [Interpretation] Of course.
20 Q. And you would agree that the care that must be paid in that regard
21 would apply to all types of information obtained, whether they are
22 statements, records of interviews or documents. Is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And the purpose of so doing is, I suggest to you, to ensure the
25 integrity of the material in question, and also to try to keep as complete
1 and as accurate a record of your investigation. Is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. But I suppose that it so happens, as in any other institution,
4 that material or information that has been collected sometimes get lost in
5 the Office of the Prosecutor. Is that correct?
6 A. Sometimes, obviously it can happen. It shouldn't happen, but
7 wherever humans are at work, mistakes are being made.
8 Q. And where such mistake occur, this would mean in practice that the
9 record -- if a document has been lost or some information has been lost,
10 the record of the information which you receive would be incomplete. Is
11 that correct?
12 A. If a document has been lost, then of course you have also lost
13 information up to some extent, yes.
14 Q. And is it correct that one record or one particular record that
15 was lost by you is the record of an interview which you had conducted with
16 a person by the name of Boban Utkovski. Is that correct?
17 A. Not quite, Mr. Mettraux. I conducted the interview. I wrote down
18 the contents of the interview. I took the record home and put it on the
19 OTP drive. Unfortunately, however, and without any bad will on anyone's
20 part, this document was lost. My name -- it bears my name, I have written
21 this document, but I cannot say that it was me who lost the document.
22 But, of course, it's very annoying.
23 Q. Well, Mr. Kuehnel, we'd like to make it clear to you that I'm not
24 suggesting in any way that there was any bad will in the loss of that
1 But simply for the Judges to understand who we are talking about,
2 is that correct that in August of 2001 Mr. Boban Utkovski was a member of
3 the security arrangements or a body-guard of the president of the Republic
4 of Macedonia. Is it correct?
5 A. Yes, you could say that. But I'm not sure about his -- the way he
6 spent his time. At a different moment of time of that year, he was also
7 the deputy commander of the Lions formation.
8 Q. But you are aware, aren't you, that in August of 2001 Mr. Utkovski
9 was still a member or a body-guard of the president of the republic. Is
10 that correct?
11 A. Yes. As far as I know, he was a member of the Ministry of the
12 Interior and he had the function of a body-guard, yes.
13 Q. And he was a body-guard to the president of the Republic. Is that
15 A. I'm not quite sure about that. It could also be that he had this
16 function for the prime minister.
17 MR. METTRAUX: Can the witness please be shown what is Rule 65 ter
18 1D1138.1, please.
19 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, are you familiar with this document which was
20 obtained pursuant to a request for assistance by your office. Do you know
21 this document?
22 A. I think it was a response to RFA 92 or 93. I already talked about
23 that. That's true, yes.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. METTRAUX: If the registry to please turn to the next page.
1 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, if you could locate the sixth name on that list in
2 the fourth column from the left. Can you see the name of Utkovski Boban?
3 A. Yes Mr. Mettraux, I can see that.
4 Q. And if you can look at the second column from the left which is
5 the column relating to position in 2001, can you see it says: Independent
6 inspector for presidential security in the presidential security unit.
7 Can you see that?
8 A. I've got a problem with the transcript. Yes. Now, it's okay.
9 Yes, of course I can see it.
10 Q. And you can see that it mentions the fact that Mr. Utkovski was a
11 member of the presidential security in the presidential security unit. Is
12 that correct?
13 A. Yes, of course.
14 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you. The document can be removed.
15 Q. Are you aware, Mr. Kuehnel, that for several months this year, the
16 Prosecution -- or well, in response Defence request the Prosecution had
17 indicated that it had no record of an interview with Mr. Utkovski. Are
18 you aware of that fact?
19 A. Yes, that's correct.
20 Q. And is it correct that after several month when the Prosecution
21 indicated that it had no such record, finally a -- an investigator's note
22 was produced. Is that correct?
23 A. Yes, that is also correct.
24 Q. And the investigator's notes was produced by you, I believe, in
25 late September based on the memory which you had of the interview with Mr.
1 Utkovski. Is that correct?
2 A. Yes, that's correct.
3 Q. And in that note you indicated, among other things, that you had
4 in fact met with Mr. Utkovski in November of 2004 in prison in Skopje. Is
5 that correct?
6 A. Yes, that's correct.
7 Q. And in that same note you recorded the fact that Mr. Utkovski had
8 indicated to you that he had not been in Ljuboten during the weekend of 10
9 and 12 of August of 2001. Is that correct?
10 A. Yes, that's also correct.
11 Q. And there is a short statement that you made in this note to
12 yourself or to the person to whom you directed the note and I would like
13 to read it to you. You said this: "The subject could not be clear if or
14 if not Mr. Utkovski was in possession of the phone number or only used the
15 telephone number allegedly being in contact with Tarculovski."
16 Do you recall saying this?
17 A. This is correct.
18 Q. And is it correct that a few day after you had prepared your first
19 investigator note in relation to your meeting with Mr. Utkovski, the
20 Defence asked you, through Mr. Saxon, to flesh out that note and in
21 particular to indicate whether any document had been shown during your
22 meeting with Mr. Utkovski. Do you recall that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And in response you said the following, I will read out to from
25 the note, Mr. Kuehnel, and if you wish to see it, by all means say so.
1 You said this: "It is very likely that I would have discussed
2 some documents with Mr. Utkovski. It is possible that I discussed the
3 fact that Mr. Utkovski's name appeared on a telephone records containing
4 incoming and outgoing telephone calls on Johan Tarculovski's regular
5 telephone during 10 to 12 August, 2001."
6 Do you recall saying this?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And simply for the record, when you referred to certain telephone
9 records and, quote/unquote, Mr. Tarculovski's regular phone, you were
10 referring to the document which was shown to you some time ago by my
11 colleague, Exhibit P2 -- P369. Is that correct?
12 A. Not quite. I would agree that I possibly talked to him about
13 this. I might have, but I can't quite recall whether I submitted this
14 list to him or not, but I don't think so. But I don't want to speculate.
15 And I also would like to state that it is exceptionally difficult in such
16 a case, because just prior to that interview I conducted an interview with
17 Goran Stojkov, and in his position, function, and also in his present
18 situation, at that moment in time, was also in prison in Sutka.
19 Q. If I may stop you here for a moment, let's stay with Mr. Utkovski
20 here and we may come back to Mr. Stojkov a bit later, but I understand
21 from your statement that you indicated in your note that you weren't sure
22 whether or not you in fact showed the list to Mr. Utkovski, but my
23 question was the list or the phone records to which you referred in your
24 note and which you say you were not sure whether you showed him or not
25 were the same phone records that were showed by my colleague to you a
1 moment ago. Is that correct?
2 A. Your Honours, I would like to conclude my reply. I was
3 interrupted. My previous reply specifically was referring to the
4 situation with Mr. Utkovski.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Please continue.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
7 I started to explain why it was so difficult to recall this
8 particular situation.
9 The conversation that I had with Mr. Stojkov was almost identical
10 in -- as far as the subjects were concerned, the things we talked about.
11 Both persons were commanders of the Lions, both were in prison at that
12 time. And I -- the reasons for talking to these two persons were
13 identical, too.
14 Now, for one, for Mr. Stojkov Goran we have got the investigator's
15 notes. As far as Mr. Utkovski is concerned, we don't have them.
16 Now, as to what I have shown to whom in that case, I really cannot
17 recall that. Hence, it is very difficult for me to give a precise answer
18 to your questions, Mr. Mettraux. From what I can recall generally
19 speaking, I certainly had the list on me that you mentioned previously,
20 but I cannot really recall whether I showed it to Mr. Utkovski or not.
21 And this is my reply to your question.
22 MR. METTRAUX:
23 Q. Well, I'm grateful, Mr. Kuehnel. Is it correct that another thing
24 which you put in your investigator's notes which you produced recently is
25 the fact that Mr. Utkovski indicated to you that the Lions had in fact not
1 been in Ljuboten. Is that correct?
2 A. Yes, I'm quite sure about that statement.
3 Q. And I have a few general questions.
4 Do you know a person by the name of Zlatko Keskovski?
5 A. Yes, I know this person, but I've never met that person. And I
6 know that we've got a witness statement of this person.
7 Q. And simply for the assistance of the Chamber, Mr. Kuehnel, is it
8 correct that in 2001 or in any case in August of 2001 Mr. Keskovski was
9 the chief of the security of the president of the Republic,
10 Mr. Trajkovski. Is it correct?
11 A. Yes, that is correct.
12 Q. And is it correct that in his statement to the Office of the
13 Prosecutor Mr. -- which you have just indicated you knew about,
14 Mr. Keskovski indicated that the president would sometime use the phone of
15 his body-guards to get in touch with various people. Is that correct?
16 A. Yes, that is correct.
17 Q. And is it correct also that Mr. Keskovski indicated to you that
18 the president did so, that is, using the phone, in particular the phone of
19 Mr. Keskovski to contact a number of people during the weekend 10-12
20 August 2001. Is it correct?
21 A. I don't know whether this is correct, expressis verbis, literally
22 yes, but all in all, yes, but I think one would need to read up on it.
23 Q. Do you recall for instance that Mr. Keskovski indicated to your
24 office that the president asked him to call General Metodija Stamboliski,
25 then the Chief of Staff of the army, do you recall that, and that
1 Mr. Keskovski did so?
2 A. Yes, I remember. Generally speaking, but I cannot remember
3 exactly what it says in the statement.
4 Q. I will in fairness assist you, Mr. Kuehnel.
5 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown Rule 65 ter
7 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, this will be the OTP statement of Mr. Zlatko
9 MS. ISSA: Excuse me, Your Honour, but before we continue, I hate
10 to interrupt the flow of my friend, but I do want to note for the record
11 that this is a statement that actually was referred to at some point
12 earlier during the trial. He was a witness that was removed from the
13 Prosecution witness list at some stage during the course of this trial,
14 and I don't want to interrupt the flow of my friend's cross-examination,
15 but I just want to highlight the fact that, in my submission, we -- my
16 friend needs to be cautious because I'm concerned that evidence is coming
17 in through the back door that otherwise wouldn't have come in if -- given
18 that this witness was not -- is not being called by the Prosecution.
19 So I don't know if my friend is going to through the entirety of
20 the statement or what the purpose is but I'm just rising at this stage to
21 put that on the record.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE PARKER: It's an interesting submission, Ms. Issa, and one
24 that doesn't perhaps sit readily in the mouth of the Prosecution at the
25 present time. It is almost an echo of submissions that were put against
1 the way the Prosecution was leading certain evidence and which the Chamber
2 has not been minded to act on and the Prosecution was allowed to proceed.
3 And the same course will be followed for the Defence. Thank you.
4 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Mettraux.
6 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 If I can ask the assistance of the registry, and if we could turn
8 to page 9 of the statement which is 1D00-4780, please.
9 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, I'll ask you to focus and with the assistance of the
10 registry on paragraph 38 of the statement of Mr. Keskovski. And I will
11 read out to you the first two sentence of that paragraph.
12 It says this: "The president asked me to call General Metodija
13 Stamboliski and ask him why the army helicopters were not supporting these
14 people. First I spoke to the general and then the president and then
15 again I spoke to the general about the situation in the area."
16 Can you see that?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. And then you can see in the second sentence he recalls a second
19 call to the General. Is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And does that help you refresh your memory about this,
22 Mr. Kuehnel?
23 A. Yes, that's right.
24 Q. And you recall also that Mr. Keskovski indicated to the Office of
25 the Prosecutor that he called Mr. Tarculovski on behalf of the president.
1 Do you recall that?
2 A. Yes, I do. That's correct.
3 Q. And do you recall that during this conversation the president then
4 spoke on the phone of Mr. Keskovski to Major Despodov. Do you recall
6 A. Yes. That must say that in that statement.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 MR. METTRAUX: And if we can turn to the next page, please.
9 Q. If I can ask you, Mr. Kuehnel, to focus on the second paragraph on
10 that page. That's paragraph 42 and a sentence starting with the
11 word: "When I spoke with Johan Tarculovski."
12 Can you see that?
13 A. Yes, I can.
14 Q. And it states the follows: "When I spoke with Johan Tarculovski I
15 used my duty mobile phone. It might be one of the following two numbers:
16 070360000, or 070344044."
17 Can you see that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And he also said the follow to go your colleague. He said
20 this: "I do not know the number of the president mobile phone because we
21 were changing it very frequently, for instance, I took the phone from the
22 driver and I gave it to the president and vice versa. Can you see that?
23 A. I can.
24 Q. Can you confirm perhaps for the record that, if you know, that at
25 the time the driver of the president of the Republic of Macedonia in
1 August of 2001 was a man by the man of Aco Mladenov. Is that correct?
2 A. That's possible. But I can't recall that name.
3 Q. Well, perhaps I should show you what is Rule 65 ter 1D1138.1
5 MR. METTRAUX: And I would ask the registry, please, to turn to
6 page 1D00-9248 of that document.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Would Mr. Mettraux please pause before asking
8 the question because he is overlapping with the interpretation of the
9 witness's words.
10 MR. METTRAUX: Yes, and I apologise.
11 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, are you able to see on the second range of columns
12 the name Aco Mladenov. Can you see that?
13 A. Yes, I can.
14 Q. And can you see that in the second column of that page which
15 concerns the position in 2001, Mr. Mladenov is recorded as being
16 independent inspector for escort security in the presidential security
17 unit. Can you see that?
18 A. Yes.
19 MR. METTRAUX: And if the registry could please now turn to what
20 is now Exhibit P369, please.
21 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, this will be, again, the list of the records of
22 telephone numbers which you believe to be the telephone used by
23 Mr. Tarculovski during the weekend 10 and 12 -- 10 to 12 of August of 2001
24 and beyond, as a matter of fact.
25 MR. METTRAUX: If the registry could please first turn to page
1 ET-N000-7433-055, please. Thank you.
2 Q. And you recognize this is the second part of that document,
3 Mr. Kuehnel, simply to confirm that we are going into the part of the
4 incoming calls, that is, the calls that came to the phone which you
5 believe to be that of Mr. Tarculovski during that weekend.
6 And if the registry could turn to page ET-N000-7433-058, please.
7 Mr. Kuehnel, do you agree that we are on the list of incoming
8 calls for the day the 11th of August of 2001, at least as the first part
9 of that page is concerned. Is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And if I can ask to you locate the telephone number four
12 successive calls with the same number. It's 16, 17, 18 and 19th line.
13 The number is 070344044. Can you locate these numbers?
14 A. Yes, of course, I can see that.
15 Q. And do you agree that this is one of the two numbers which
16 Mr. Keskovski mentioned as his own in his statement. Do you recall that?
17 A. Yes, of course.
18 Q. And these calls were made on the 11th of August between 4.32 and
19 5.46 on that day. Is that correct?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. And do you agree that these phone records are in fact consistent
22 with the evidence or the information which Mr. Keskovski gave to you as
23 far as the suggestion that he called Mr. Tarculovski on behalf of the
24 president. Is that correct?
25 A. In this extent as to which he has stated it, yes.
1 MR. METTRAUX: Would that be a convenient time, Your Honour?
2 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
3 We resume just after 11.00.
4 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
5 --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
7 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 If the registry could stay in the same document but please turn to
9 page ET-N000-733-009.
10 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, we still on the same document but this time we're
11 going to be in the outgoing calls from that number. And I'll ask to you
12 locate a -- two particular calls which were made at 4.31 and 7.08 on the
13 11th of August of 2001, and they are number 13 and 14th on that list.
14 Can you locate those telephone calls?
15 A. From the bottom or the top?
16 Q. From the top, please.
17 The telephone which is being called is 070344044 and they are two
18 calls at 4.31 and 7.08. Can you see that?
19 A. Yes I see it.
20 Q. And that, again, you recall, is the number given by Mr. Keskovski
21 as his telephone number. Is that correct?
22 A. Yes. That's correct.
23 Q. And you would agree that as far as those records are concerned,
24 there appears to have been six calls between this particular telephone and
25 the telephone of Mr. Keskovski. Is that correct?
1 A. If you look at the relationship between the names and the numbers
2 and take that as read, then yes.
3 Q. And when I said six call, that would be between the 11th and the
4 12th of August of 2001. Is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 MR. METTRAUX: If the registry could turn to page
7 ET-N000-7433-011, please.
8 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, we are still on the same document, still outgoing
9 calls, but this time for the 12th of August of 2001. And I'd ask you to
10 look at the list of phone calls which starts on the 13th line and go down
11 to the 18th line. They are eight separate calls to the same number,
12 Mr. Keskovski's number. Can you see that?
13 A. I see seven.
14 Q. That's correct. And you would agree that these seven calls were
15 made to the telephone number given by Mr. Keskovski as his own. Is it
17 A. Yes, based on his statement, yes.
18 Q. And the calls in question were made on the 12th of August, between
19 10.16 and 8.30. Is that correct?
20 A. Yes. But you have to say that you can't really tell whether it is
21 a.m. or p.m.
22 Q. But would you agree that they appear to be listed in chronological
23 order and that they simply used a 12-hour clock rather than a 24-hour
24 clock. Is that correct?
25 A. Yes, of course I noticed that, but that's a conclusion. It's not
1 actual knowledge. At least as far as I'm concerned.
2 Q. Thank you. And if we could turn, once again, to the incoming
3 calls on that particular telephone number, Mr. Kuehnel.
4 MR. METTRAUX: I would ask the registry to go to page
5 ET-N000-7433-059, please.
6 MS. ISSA: I'm sorry to interrupt, but could I please have the
7 e-court page numbers for that so that I could follow along.
8 MR. METTRAUX: I believe this is the e-court number, Your Honour.
9 MS. ISSA: Okay. I'm sorry, I was referring to page numbers
10 before but that's is okay.
11 MR. METTRAUX: If I can assist, this would be page 4 of the
12 incoming calls, Your Honour. The incoming part has been re-numbered. It
13 doesn't follow the numbering of the outgoing calls.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
15 MS. ISSA: Thank you.
16 MR. METTRAUX:
17 Q. I apologise, Mr. Kuehnel. If could you look at this page and the
18 fifth, sixth and seventh lines of that document. Can you see again the
19 number given by Mr. Keskovski as his telephone number, can you see that?
20 A. Yes, I can.
21 Q. And from this document it would appear that the calls, the
22 incoming calls were made at 11.39, 5.38 and 10.08 on the 12th of August of
23 2001. Is that correct?
24 A. Yes, that's correct.
25 Q. And would it be correct, then, to say that on the -- for the
1 period 11 to 12th of August of 2001, the phone of Mr. Keskovski and this
2 particular phone were in contacts approximately or at least nine -- on
3 nine separate occasions. Is that correct?
4 A. Yes, as far as nine connections are concerned, I agree. Whether
5 this had to do with the subscriber Keskovski or not, I don't know.
6 Q. Thank you. And do you recall that in the note that you prepared a
7 few weeks ago you recorded the following, and I will read out to you. If
8 I wish to see the note, Mr. Kuehnel, please ask and I will show it to you.
9 But you said this: "The subject could not be cleared if or if not
10 Mr. Utkovski was in possession of the phone number or only used the
11 telephone number allegedly being in contact with Tarculovski."
12 Do you recall putting that down in your note?
13 A. Yes, that's correct, Mr. Mettraux.
14 Q. And in the subsequent note that you prepared again of a few days
15 later in early October of this year you said, and I quote: "It is
16 possible that you," Mr. Kuehnel, "discussed the fact that Mr. Utkovski's
17 name appeared on telephone records containing incoming and outgoing
18 telephones on Johan Tarculovski's cellular phone during 10, 12 August."
19 Do you recall putting that down in your note?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Can you recall also, Mr. Kuehnel, that during your interview with
22 Mr. Utkovski in November of 2004, Mr. Utkovski had indicated to you that
23 the president of the Republic, Mr. Trajkovski, had been using his phone
24 during the weekend 10 to 12 of August, 2001? Do you recall him telling
25 you that?
1 A. No. Unfortunately, I can't recall this in such detail for the
2 reasons I've stated before.
3 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown Rule 65 ter
4 1D526, please.
5 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, this will be, again, the statement, the OTP
6 statement, of Mr. Keskovski.
7 MR. METTRAUX: And I would ask the registry to go to page 10 of
8 the statement which is page 1D00-4781 in e-court.
9 Thank you. And if the registry could focus on paragraph 43 of
10 this page, please.
11 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, I'd like to read out a passage of the interview or
12 the statement, rather, that was taken of Mr. Keskovski by your colleague
13 at paragraph 43.
14 The follow is being recorded: "Being asked if it is possible that
15 the president was using the phone of Boban Utkovski, I say that it was
16 possible but only in limited occasions, since Utkovski had a permanent
17 mobile phone number. It could have happened if the president needed it
18 and asked Utkovski to use his phone, but I'm sure that the president did
19 not use Utkovski mobile phone for more than one day."
20 Is it correct, Mr. Kuehnel, that this particular line of questions
21 asked of Mr. Keskovski was the result of what Mr. Utkovski had told you a
22 few month earlier, namely, that the president had used his phone during
23 that weekend?
24 A. I don't really think so. As I said before, I can't really
25 remember this passage in the statement. Certainly there were several
1 reasons. I didn't conduct the interview; it is not my own. Of course the
2 subscriber information led certainly to the fact that this was mentioned,
3 but I'm sure you will know that a telephone list in the reply of RFA 92
4 was also listed giving information that there was certainly justified
5 doubts as to Mr. Utkovski used this special number or not. But I'm sure
6 we will have time to talk about that later.
7 Q. Well, I'd like to go back for a moment, Mr. Kuehnel, to the
8 telephone list again.
9 MR. METTRAUX: That's Exhibit P369, please. Exhibit P369.
10 Q. And we'll start perhaps with the incoming calls on that particular
11 telephone number.
12 MR. METTRAUX: And I will ask the registry to go to page
13 ET-N000-7433-057, which would be page 2 in the paper version.
14 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, as indicated, this is -- or you will agree that this
15 is a list of incoming calls which cover, for the first part of the page,
16 the 10th of August of 2001, and at the bottom of the page, starts with the
17 11th of August of 2001. Is that correct?
18 A. Yes, that's correct.
19 Q. And I'd ask you to locate on this list of incoming calls those
20 which are listed in the 8th -- I believe 7, 8, 9 and 10th line of that
22 Can you see those? I'm sorry, 8, 9, 10, and 11.
23 A. Yes. The three that are marked as Utkovski [as interpreted].
24 Q. Yes, Mr. Kuehnel. Perhaps we have a little dispute on the
25 number. I would --
1 A. Four, yes.
2 Q. I'm grateful, Mr. Kuehnel. You will agree that between 10.15 and
3 6.45 on the 10th of August 2001 there were four phone calls coming to that
4 phone from the phone of Mr. Boban Utkovski. Is that correct?
5 A. If you look at the subscriber information for Utkovski and assume
6 that this was his number, then your argument certainly holds water. But
7 there are other possibilities.
8 MR. METTRAUX: Could the registry please turn to the next page.
9 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, do you agree that this is a list that records the
10 incoming telephone calls on that particular number for the period 11
11 August 2001 and then it starts with the 12th of August of 2001. Is that
13 A. Yes, that's correct.
14 Q. And if I can ask to you locate the 12th call on that page and ask
15 you to locate the name of Mr. Boban Utkovski. Can you see that?
16 A. Yes, I do. But I would like to ask you perhaps to give me that in
17 paper form. It is perhaps simpler for me if you could give me this in a
18 binder if it is possible.
19 Q. Well, Mr. Kuehnel, I would be delighted to do so. I have only one
20 copy and I would ask perhaps if my colleague has an extra copy. I believe
21 it is in your binder --
22 A. [Overlapping speakers] ... yes, okay. If I could take this copy.
23 Q. It would be tab 34 in your binder, Mr. Kuehnel.
24 A. Yes. I don't know if I can find it.
25 Q. 34.
1 A. [In English] Yeah.
2 Q. And it would be page 3 of the incoming calls.
3 A. [Interpretation] I have the outgoing calls here. Are you sure
4 that it was 34?
5 MS. ISSA: Perhaps if it assists, it's at tab 34 at the very end
6 of the page, after the green marker, Mr. Kuehnel.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I only have the Macedonian
8 version. Okay. Let's continue. Let's forget that, I'm sorry, let's
10 MR. METTRAUX: I'm grateful, Mr. Kuehnel, and we'll see whether we
11 can --
12 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Kuehnel, if your binder is the same as mine,
13 you have at tab 34, before the green binder, the English form, and it
14 commences with outgoing calls.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I flicked over one page
16 too many. I have it now.
17 MR. METTRAUX: I'm grateful for Your Honour's assistance.
18 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, if I could ask to you turn to page 3 of the incoming
19 calls, please.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And I would ask you to locate the -- what I believe to the 12th
22 recorded call on that page. It's incoming call from the telephone number
23 of Mr. Boban Utkovski at 12.38. Can you see that?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. And do you agree that this is a call that is recorded as having
1 been made at 12.38 on the 11th of August of 2001. Is that correct?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. And if you look further down the page towards the end, there is
4 another number at 12.11, which is recorded as having come from the
5 telephone number of Mr. Boban Utkovski at 12.11 on the 12th of August,
6 2001. Can you see that?
7 A. Yes, I can.
8 Q. Thank you. And if we can now turn to the outgoing calls from that
9 particular telephone.
10 MR. METTRAUX: I'll ask the registry to turn to page
12 Q. And, Mr. Kuehnel, this would be page 4 on the paper version.
13 Do you agree, Mr. Kuehnel, that this particular page relates to
14 outgoing calls made from that particular phone on the 10th of August of
15 2001. Is that correct?
16 A. Yes, I see six of these connection dates.
17 Q. And do you agree that according to this record, six calls were
18 made to Mr. Boban Utkovski or the phone recorded as the phone of Mr. Boban
19 Utkovski on the 10th of August of 2001, between 10.20 and 3.09 on that
20 day. Is that correct?
21 A. Yes. My normal parlance, I would say that the links between these
22 two numbers was certainly established. Whether Boban Utkovski in fact was
23 in possession of this telephone or not, I cannot say and I cannot tell
24 from this. As I said before, these are connection data and not
25 conversation data.
1 Q. Well, I'm grateful for this specification.
2 MR. METTRAUX: And if we can turn to page 8 in the paper version,
3 and ET-N000-7433-009 [sic], please.
4 Q. And do you agree first perhaps that this is the record of outgoing
5 telephone conversation for the 11th of August of 2001 and then it starts
6 with a few records from the 12th of August. Is that correct?
7 A. Yes, that's correct.
8 Q. And if I can ask you in the records for the 11th of August of 2001
9 to locate what I believe to be the sixth such call, can you see that
10 there's the record of an outgoing call from this particular telephone
11 number to the telephone number recorded as that of Mr. Boban Utkovski. Is
12 that correct?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. And that particular call is recorded as having taken place at
15 11.50 on the 11th of August, is that correct?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. And if the registry could please turn to the next page. It's page
18 9 in the paper version.
19 Do you agree, Mr. Kuehnel, that this is the record of this
20 particular telephone for the 12th of August of 2001. Is that correct?
21 A. You said number nine, didn't you? If I understood you correctly.
22 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
23 A. Yes, that's for the 12th of August.
24 Q. And if I can ask you to go up from the bottom of the page, do you
25 agree that on the 12th of August of 2001 at 7.53, there is the record of a
1 call from that particular number to the telephone number of Mr. Boban
2 Utkovski. Is it correct?
3 A. Yes, that's correct.
4 Q. And do you agree that for the period 10 to 12 of August of 2001,
5 this particular telephone number was in contact approximately 14 times,
6 six incoming and eight outgoing, with the telephone number of the
7 body-guard of the president, Mr. Utkovski. Do you agree with that?
8 A. I agree. I haven't really counted, by I'm sure I trust your
9 mathematical skills.
10 Q. I'm grateful for that. Do you recall I've asked you whether you
11 remembered Mr. Aco Mladenov being the driver of the president at the time,
12 a moment ago. Do you recall that?
13 A. Yes, we talked about that.
14 Q. And we've established, I believe, that Mr. Mladenov was a member
15 of the security of the president. Is that correct?
16 A. On the basis of the data in the appendix of the RFA 92, one can
17 conclude so. Yes, one could say that, one could conclude that.
18 Q. Thank you. And do you know a person by the name of Vladimir
20 A. At the moment, not.
21 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown again Rule 65 ter
22 1D1138.1, please? Thank you.
23 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, if you can look again, this is the same document, the
24 one that you have just referred to in relation to Mr. Mladenov. And I'll
25 ask the registry to please turn to page 3 of that document, which would be
2 Can you locate, Mr. Kuehnel, the second name on that list, the
3 name of Mr. Vladimir Dimovski, can you see that name?
4 A. Yes, of course. That's the same name as that written in the same
5 way in the telephone evidence.
6 Q. And do you agree that in the column, the second column that
7 relates to the position of that person in 2001 is recorded as an escort
8 inspector for presidential security in the presidential security unit. Is
9 that correct?
10 A. Yes, so I can see from what is in front of me.
11 MR. METTRAUX: Can we go back please to Exhibit P369.
12 Q. First perhaps I'll ask you a general question, Mr. Kuehnel.
13 When you reviewed these telephone records which we have been
14 discussing now for a while, did you become aware of frequent contacts
15 between this particular telephone, the records of which you had and the
16 telephone numbers of Aco Mladenov and Vladimir Dimovski, who were member
17 of the security of the president at the time?
18 A. Yes, of course. It is obvious. And these names are -- match the
19 appendix to the RFA.
20 MR. METTRAUX: If the registry could please turn to page 5 in the
21 paper version which is ET-N000-7433-006.
22 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, that's page 5 of the paper version, outgoing calls.
23 Do you agree first that this particular page records the outgoing
24 calls from this particular phone for the period of 10 August of 2001. Is
25 that correct?
1 A. This is correct.
2 Q. And towards the upper part of this page, can you identify, I
3 believe, nine outgoing calls from this telephone to the telephone of the
4 body-guard of the president, Mr. Vladimir Dimovski. Can you see those?
5 A. Yes, of course I can see that. It's the same, as I said before.
6 It says that there is a connection between the two numbers.
7 Q. And those connections -- I apologise to the interpreters. And
8 those connections took place on the 10th of August of 2001 between 1.11
9 and the last calls appear to be at 3.13. Is that correct?
10 A. Yes, that's correct.
11 Q. And if I can ask to you go further down in the document. Is it
12 correct that the next person whose name is recorded as having been called
13 by that particular number is Mr. Aco Mladenov, the driver of the
14 president. Is that correct?
15 A. That is correct, too.
16 Q. And is it correct on that on day, the 10 August of 2001,
17 Mr. Mladenov was called by that particular number 14 times, 1-4, is that
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. And simply for the record, those calls took place between 1.08 and
21 11.01. Is that correct?
22 A. That is correct, too.
23 Q. Thank you. And if we can turn now to page ET-N000-7433-009,
24 Mr. Kuehnel, that would be page 8 in the paper version. And I'd ask to
25 you to locate three successive calls, I believe they're the 11th, 12th and
1 13th calls recorded on that page and they are outgoing calls. Can you see
2 those? They are recorded as having been made to the phone number of Aco
3 Mladenov. Can you see them?
4 A. You said three.
5 Q. Yes, please.
6 A. Yes, of course.
7 Q. And those calls are recorded as having been made on the 11th of
8 August of 2001 between 2.57 and 9.54. Is that correct?
9 A. That's what it says here.
10 MR. METTRAUX: And if we could turn to the next page, please, page
11 9 in the paper version.
12 Q. I'd like to ask to you turn to the last-but-one call recorded on
13 that page, which is recorded as having been made to the phone number of
14 Vladimir Dimovski. Can you see that?
15 A. Yes, I can. 9.35.
16 Q. And that would be 9.35 on the 12th of August of 2001. Is that
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And if we can turn to the next page, please.
20 Is it correct that at 8.46, still on the 12th of August of 2001,
21 there is another call recorded as coming from this particular phone and
22 going again to the telephone of Mr. Mladenov on the 12th of August of
23 2001. Is that correct? That's the third line.
24 A. Yes, that's correct.
25 Q. And if we can now turn to the incoming calls, please, on that
1 particular phone. This would be ET-N000-7433-057, which would be page 2
2 on the paper version of incoming calls. This is a page that we've already
3 seen in relation to Mr. Boban Utkovski, but I will ask you to go further
5 First perhaps to ask you that do you agree that this relates to
6 incoming calls for the 10th of August of 2001 and then there's a number of
7 phones for the next day, the 11th. Is that correct?
8 A. [In English] Page 2.
9 Q. It would be page 2 of the incoming calls.
10 A. Okay, that's right. Yeah.
11 Q. And is it correct that at 3.07 on the 10th of August 2001 there's
12 a particular phone call, an incoming call that is recorded from the
13 telephone of Mr. Dimovski Vladimir, a body-guard of the president. Is
14 that correct?
15 A. [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct.
16 Q. And just underneath that particular call there are nine telephone
17 calls recorded, again on the 10th of August of 2001, between this
18 particular phone and the phone of Mr. Mladenov. Is that correct?
19 A. Yes, it's correct.
20 Q. And those phone calls simply for the record were made between
21 11.02 and 11.31 on the 10th of August of 2001. Is that correct?
22 A. Yes, of course.
23 MR. METTRAUX: If we could turn to the next page, please.
24 Q. First, if we can look at the records, Mr. Kuehnel, of phone
25 records for the 11th of August of 2001, I'd like you to locate one
1 particular call that took place at 10.26 and which is said to have come
2 from the phone of Mr. Mladenov Aco. Can you locate this one?
3 A. I can see it.
4 Q. And if you can look further down on the page it's I think the
5 fifth line from the bottom, do you agree that there's another call,
6 incoming call that is recorded from Mr. Mladenov, this time at 11.46 on
7 the 12th of August of 2001. Is that correct? Can you see it?
8 A. Yes, I can.
9 Q. And perhaps, if you can trust my mathematics again, would you
10 agree that those records suggest that between the period 10 to 12th of
11 August of 2001 there were approximately 40, 4-0, phone conversation or
12 phone calls in any case between the phone of Mr. Mladenov and
13 Mr. Dimovski, on the one hand, and the phone that you say was used by
14 Mr. Tarculovski. Do you agree with that?
15 A. Yes. Yes, of course.
16 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
17 A. I do beg your pardon. As far as the connection data is concerned
18 as to how use the telephone [as interpreted], and somebody else maybe as
19 Mr. Tarculovski, I don't know.
20 Q. Yes, I'm grateful for that specification, Mr. Kuehnel. And would
21 you agree that this suggests that as far as those records are concerned,
22 in any case, there would have been approximately, I believe, 64 or 65
23 contact calls between this particular phone and members of the security of
24 the president: Mr. Utkovski, Mr. Mladenov, and Mr. Dimovski. Do you
25 agree with that?
1 A. I agree with you to the extent that, because, how you're saying
2 it, that you're concluding that this telephone was actually used by
3 Mr. Tarculovski. Apart from that, I think we must say that we're talking
4 about connection data and that it could be a further confirmation that
5 Mr. Johan Tarculovski was actually using that phone, because the profile,
6 in terms of usage, is not unusual because Mr. -- that it might be normal
7 that -- that he is in connection with his colleagues, because he is also
8 body-guard and he might have connections with them for whatever reasons.
9 But you must also apply the same guidelines as we would apply them to us,
10 and the level of identification that you're describing here certainly
11 needs to be checked.
12 I would also like to point out the third or fourth paragraph in
13 the accompanying letter to the RFA number 92 where it is stated explicitly
14 that the transmitted data cannot be assigned to the various users with
15 utmost certainty.
16 Q. Well, I'm grateful for that --
17 A. I don't think I have finished my statement. I'm just trying to
18 gather my thoughts.
19 So in the letter 92, there is the personal -- there is the list of
20 the personnel in the security sector stated where all these names are
21 listed, and as a second attachment, there is also so-called telephone list
22 where, for example, under number 34 there is Milan [indiscernible] --
23 Q. Mr. Keuhnel, before you go any further, can I ask you to close
24 down your notes, please.
25 A. I have just made those notes during the conversation just now, and
1 I've been trying to gather my thoughts. I don't know whether it's going
2 to be necessary. I would like to carry on, if I may.
3 JUDGE PARKER: I think we've heard enough, Mr. Kuehnel.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
6 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. Is it correct, Mr. Kuehnel, that for the period -- and again I'm
8 talking of those telephone records for the period 10 to 12 of August of
9 2001, there is no recorded calls from this particular phone which you say
10 was used by Mr. Tarculovski and any of the phones which you believed were
11 used by Mr. Boskoski during that period. Is that correct?
12 A. In order to reply to that question, I must also state that apart
13 from these two telephone lists, of course we were submitted the other
14 telephone lists, that we applied very strict guidelines, even to
15 ourselves, and could not find -- establish an identification level that
16 was 100 percent. As to the possible telephone numbers which were called
17 by -- which were used by Mr. Ljube Boskoski or by his body-guards, the
18 same principle applies again. With RFAs I think, I have to think about
19 it, we were given about six mobile numbers, which owing to the RFA
20 information were used by Ljube Boskoski during that time.
21 Apart from that, we received parts of three land line numbers as
23 So all in all, you could say that owing to the information that we
24 received and also the interviews that we conducted with other body-guards,
25 we could not establish an identification level which would have been 100
1 percent certain.
2 The next possible step, of course, would have been to get a
3 witness evidence, witness statement --
4 Q. But let's just stay with the question, please, Mr. Kuehnel, if I
5 may. Is it correct that you were not able, as you just indicated, to
6 ascertain with any agree of certainty that any of the numbers that were
7 given to you by the authorities as the telephone numbers used by
8 Mr. Boskoski were in contact with the particular telephone which -- the
9 record of which we have in front of us during the period 10 to 12 of
10 August of 2001. Is that correct?
11 A. Yes, if you want to summarize it like that, yes, you could say it.
12 Q. And do you recall that Mr. Keskovski, Zlatko, the head of the
13 security of the president at the time, indicated and explained to you that
14 it was he in fact who called Mr. Boskoski, on behalf of the president, in
15 relation to the events of Ljuboten. Do you recall him saying that?
16 A. Yes.
17 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask the witness and
18 counsel to pause between question and answer.
19 MR. METTRAUX:
20 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, we are being asked to slow down between questions and
22 Mr. Kuehnel, I'd like to ask you something quite different now and
23 it relates to the efforts which you and your colleague made to investigate
24 the status of Mr. Atulla Qaili.
25 And first perhaps as an introduction matter, is it correct that
1 Mr. Qaili is listed as one of the alleged victims of a murder at
2 Ljuboten? Are you aware of that?
3 A. [In English] He is listed as being arrested and he -- consequently
4 he died afterwards, so he is listed as a victim, sure.
5 Q. And is it correct, Mr. Kuehnel, that you have come to the view
6 that -- and again as far as the material that was available to you during
7 your investigation, that there was no information available to you that
8 would suggest that prior to his detention, as you called it, Mr. Qaili had
9 been armed. Is that correct, is it the view you took?
10 A. [Interpretation] Yes, it's correct.
11 Q. And simply so that we understand your evidence fully, you're not
12 saying that Mr. Qaili was not armed but your evidence is that insofar as
13 the evidence that was able to you, you could not determine that this was
14 the case. Is that correct?
15 A. My reply refers to him while being under arrest or during his time
16 in detention, before that, that he had not had a weapon.
17 Q. Yes, I apologise. Perhaps my question was not very clear,
18 Mr. Kuehnel.
19 Is it correct that your evidence as far as concerned whether or
20 not Mr. Qaili had been armed prior to his detention, as you call it, is
21 that you had no information, that he, in fact had been armed. You are not
22 saying that he wasn't, but simply that you have or you had no information
23 which would suggest that he had been armed prior to detention. Is that
25 A. The question is -- the wording of the question is a bit difficult,
1 but in principle, I can agree, yes.
2 Q. And do you agree that there be would -- depending on the
3 circumstances, there could be all sorts of indication that could be
4 relevant to determining whether a person has or hasn't taken part in
5 hostilities. Do you recall with that?
6 A. Maybe you could rephrase the question, please.
7 Q. Yes. As an investigator of the Office of the Prosecutor, you are
8 sometimes requested or expected to determine whether a particular
9 individual took an active part in the hostilities. Is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And to make that determination whether the person was in fact
12 involved in the hostilities or not, you would rely on different factors
13 and different elements. Is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And one of the factors or elements which could be relevant to this
16 determination would be the fact of whether or not the person in question
17 had been, as you called it in your statement, armed or that is whether he
18 carried or used weapons at that time. Is that correct?
19 A. That's correct. And I would like to say that whatever I said in
20 my statement was applied to the moment of the arrest, at that moment when
21 he was arrested.
22 Q. And just going on with this question, you would agree with the
23 general proposition that although the presence of nitrate and nitrite
24 particles on someone's hands may have different explanations or different
25 reasons, one of them is at least consistent with the fact that the person
1 who had such particles on him or herself was carrying or using a gun. Do
2 you agree with that?
3 A. Under the given conditions in Ljuboten and under the given state
4 of knowledge that I have as a police officer and the information that I
5 received from experts and also after reviewing the Macedonian files, I can
6 say that there is a theoretical possibility but which is quite restricted
7 here for the given reasons, but I don't want to go further into this
8 discussion because I do not have the necessary expertise.
9 Q. Well, thank you for that. Do you recall perhaps following the
10 evidence of Dr. Eichner in this courtroom that he also indicated that a
11 possible explanation for the presence of nitrate particles on someone's
12 hand would be the use or handling of a hand-grenade? Do you recall the
13 evidence of Dr. Eichner on that point?
14 A. Yes, basically, yes. Of course.
15 Q. And do you recall the evidence perhaps of Mr. Jakovski as well,
16 among others, to the effect that Mr. Qaili had tested positive to nitrate
17 particles. Do you recall that evidence?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And do you agree that this was at least consistent or with the
20 suggestion that Mr. Qaili could have been using a gun or carrying a gun or
21 using or handling a hand-grenade at the time of what you say was his
22 detention. Is that correct?
23 MS. ISSA: I'm sorry to interrupt, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa.
25 MS. ISSA: I just wonder if perhaps that question -- it's a bit
1 broad and a little vague because it refers to Mr. Qaili's detention and
2 that there's a -- there's a gap in the time-period from the moment that he
3 was initially detained until the very end when he was transferred to the
5 And perhaps Mr. Mettraux can clarify that.
6 MR. METTRAUX:
7 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, do you agree that the fact that Mr. Qaili tested
8 positive to nitrate particles is consistent, first, with the possibility
9 that he had used a weapon or that he had been carrying a weapon shortly
10 prior to being tested. Is that correct?
11 A. That's one among other -- a lot of possibilities as to why such a
12 test could come -- could have a positive result. There are several
13 possibilities, of course.
14 Q. And one of these other possibilities would be the fact that
15 Mr. Qaili had been handling a hand-grenade shortly before being tested.
16 Is that correct?
17 A. I think it's a very theoretical discussion at the moment. It's a
18 theoretical discussion about probability and likelihood. As I have
19 already stated, it's one among several possibilities, contamination, other
20 reasons. Contamination after the arrest, during transport. But, of
21 course, it is possible.
22 Q. So when you say in your statement that had you no information in
23 your possession suggested that Mr. Qaili had been armed at the time, in
24 fact you took the view that this evidence was not conclusive and took the
25 view that there must have been a, quote/unquote, innocent explanation for
1 the presence of nitrate particles on Mr. Qaili's hands. Is that correct?
2 A. No. As I said before, this position referred to the moment of
3 detention. I didn't mean by that or excluding the possibility to the
4 extent that before or after detention the person in question had come into
5 contact with the traces, either by touching it himself or by other
6 contamination by some other means.
7 As I say, this refers to the situation during the time of arrest
8 by the police, and there are many statements from the people who were
9 present when he was detained.
10 Q. Is it correct, however, or are you aware of the fact that the
11 local authorities took a different view of the matter and that in their
12 view, the nitrate particle that were present on Mr. Qaili's hands at the
13 time were consistent with criminal or, as they put it, terrorist
14 activities. Is that correct? Are you aware of that?
15 A. Yes, of course. Mr. Qaili Atulla was listed in one of the
16 security lists as being allegedly in possession of a fire-arm. There was
17 several people involved, and one of them was Mr. Qaili Atulla had who been
18 associated with a particular fire-arm. So this is a possibility, in
19 theory, of being contaminated by gunpowder. And -- but it's a possibility
20 that you can see from the files that contamination with a gunpowder is
21 suggested as being the result of contact with hand-grenade.
22 Q. But is it correct, Mr. Kuehnel, that you had other information in
23 your possession that suggested, at the least, that Mr. Qaili had in fact
24 taken part in the hostilities, including by handling weapons. Is that
1 A. Not as far as I recall.
2 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown Rule 65 ter
3 1D1098, please.
4 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, this is a document that comes from the UBK or DBK, as
5 it is sometimes called, and it's a translation of a document that we
6 received from the Office of the Prosecutor.
7 The document itself is dated the 8th of May of 2002, and if you
8 look at the subject matter it says that it refers to a conversation with
9 the operative source Kmet, which was held on 16 April of 2002 between 1800
10 and 2000 hours. Do you recall seeing that document, Mr. Kuehnel?
11 A. It's possible that this was one of the documents that I saw in the
12 files of the -- from the DBK. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it should have
13 been February of this year, that is, a year later, that I wrote the
15 Q. Thank you. And if I ask you to focus first on the first paragraph
16 of that document under the heading: Content. I will read it out to you.
17 It says this: "During the interview and in relation to the events
18 related to the actions of the members of the so-called, 'NLA' in the
19 village of Ljuboten during the past year, that is, the events including
20 the politicised and dramatised in the public 'Ljuboten case' the operative
21 source Kmet stated that from the village of Ljuboten and within the
22 composition of paramilitary 'NLA' 29 persons were involved as fighters out
23 of which the majority has been active in the Kumanovo-Lipkovo region."
24 Can you see that?
25 A. Yes, I can see it.
1 Q. And if we can turn to the next page, please, I'll ask you,
2 Mr. Kuehnel, to locate the paragraph in the middle of the document which
3 starts with the word: "During the further course of the conversation."
4 Can you see that?
5 A. Yes, I can.
6 Q. And I will read out to you. It says this: "During the further
7 course of the conversation, the source stated interesting information with
8 regards to the intervention of the Macedonian security forces in the
9 village of Ljuboten in the month of August in the past year. Namely, he
10 stated data which shows that this intervention had been subject to armed
11 response by some individuals. Therefore, around 10 persons, among which
12 Atulla Qaili, killed during the fights, Ahmeti Ahmet, Ahmeti Adem, unknown
13 person, son of Muharem Ramadani, son of Aziz Bajrami, and others had been
14 brought in front of the house of Cajani Abdullah. Prior to that, these
15 persons had fired towards the police with carbine and automatic rifles
16 which they later hid in and under the fridge-freezer, but when the members
17 of the MOI of Republic of Macedonia had entered into his house, they had
18 not conducted any search, only detained the persons. And they could not
19 find the hidden weapons."
20 And then if you go down further on the page towards the end,
21 there's a third section called: Operative worker's remark. The person
22 say "I consider the information presented by the operative source Kmet to
23 be objective and accurate."
24 I would simply ask you this: Did you have that information in
25 your possession at the time when you formed the view that there was no
1 information in your possession that Mr. Qaili had been armed prior to
3 A. No. My own investigations did not come up with the same result
4 regarding Cajani Abdullah. As I said before, I think this document comes
5 from the lot that I received from the UBK/DBK and this would explain why I
6 got this information later.
7 Q. Are you aware, Mr. Kuehnel, that at least one witness who was
8 interviewed by your colleagues of the Office of the Prosecutor suggested
9 that he had heard that Atulla Qaili had been handling a hand-grenade prior
10 to his being detained? Are you aware of that information?
11 A. Not at the moment. Perhaps could you remind me?
12 Q. Well, if it is within the scope of your knowledge or recollection,
13 do you recall a particular witness suggesting that he heard a conversation
14 on the radio which suggested that the person who Mr. Qaili Atulla, who
15 later died, had been handling a hand-grenade. Is that within your
16 recollection or memory?
17 A. It may be an investigator's note from Mr. Zoran Cvetanovski
18 something to do with that.
19 Q. Yes. I'm grateful.
20 A. Yes. There were some notes to that effect.
21 Q. Thank you for that, Mr. Kuehnel.
22 I'd like to now turn to a different topic. You have been shown
23 yesterday and have commented upon a number of documents. If you recall,
24 those were documents that related to the records that you obtained
25 concerning the registers of the MOI. Do you recall being shown those
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Yes, I'm grateful, on Friday. Thank you for connecting me.
4 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, simply for the transcript, this is now
5 Exhibit P521 and P522. They were under tab 7 and 8 of the Prosecution
6 binder of documents.
7 Q. Focussing first on the first such document, Mr. Kuehnel, the one
8 that was given to you by Ms. Arsovska, you've indicated that Ms. Arsovska
9 conducted a search which led to the production of that document, is that
11 A. You mean the document with the investigator's notes? Is that what
12 you're talking about.
13 Q. Perhaps I will show you the document, Mr. Kuehnel, that will be
15 MR. METTRAUX: Can we please see Exhibit P521, please.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
17 MR. METTRAUX:
18 Q. Do you recall that document, Mr. Kuehnel?
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. And do you recall suggesting that the result -- or the document in
21 question was obtained as a result of a search conducted by Ms. Arsovska.
22 Is that correct?
23 A. Yes, that's correct.
24 Q. And the second such document which we may see in a moment, you
25 indicated that it was the result of a search conducted by Mr. Besim
1 Ramicevic. Is that correct?
2 A. Yes, that's correct.
3 Q. And just as a general matter, were you present when either or both
4 of those search were conducted?
5 A. I was present with Madam Arsovska, and I received it from
6 Mr. Besim Ramicevic personally. Whether I was standing beside him or not,
7 I cannot recall at the time. But I think I was.
8 Q. And do you know who conducted the search, the result of which were
9 given to you by Mr. Ramicevic?
10 A. Based on my memory, it was Mr. Ramicevic. But it's two or three
11 years ago, but I think it was Mr. Ramicevic.
12 Q. But you've indicated that you were not present when he conducted
13 that search. Is that correct?
14 A. That's not really what I said. I got it from his hands and I seem
15 to remember that I was there. But I received this directly from
16 Mr. Ramicevic. Whether I was actually standing beside him or not, I don't
18 Q. And again, as a general matter, Mr. Kuehnel, do you know what sort
19 of facilities, or search facilities in particular, Mr. Ramicevic and
20 Ms. Arsovska had been using to locate and identify these particular
22 A. They talked about it as the Krim-1 crime register search. There
23 is probably another one too. But this has to do with Krim-1 register.
24 This is the information system of the Macedonian Ministry of the Interior
25 with regard to criminal records.
1 Q. And perhaps my question was not very clear. But do you know what
2 facility they had at their disposal to produce the set of documents which
3 we have now in front of us? Do you know what facilities they used to
4 identify and obtain these documents?
5 A. I'm tempted to say computer, but I don't really understand your
7 Q. Well --
8 A. Desktop. This was something that Ms. Arsovska was using.
9 Q. And so it is your understand that both Ms. Arsovska and
10 Mr. Ramicevic used a computer software facility to identify those
11 documents. Is that correct?
12 A. Of course.
13 Q. And you've indicated, I believe, that there were two places from
14 which you obtained those document; one at the SVR level from Ms. Arsovska
15 and one at the ministry level from Mr. Ramicevic. Is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And your search was limited to identifying possible criminal
18 records. Is that correct?
19 A. My search was limited to this chapter 34, which was explained to
20 me as being war crimes. And in the Criminal Code I read this, chapter 34
21 describes the paragraphs of - one moment please - 413 to 422.
22 Q. Yes, we'll come to the subject matter in a moment, Mr. Kuehnel.
23 But at this stage I was asking you more specifically about the
24 type of material which the search generated. Is it correct that you've
25 indicated the range of subject matter, chapter 34, but in terms of the
1 documents which this search was capable of generating, do you agree that
2 they relate to so-called criminal reports, is that correct?
3 A. As far as I understand, these are criminal records. I don't know
4 whether this has to do with the cases that have been concluded or
5 judgments or simply evidence. I can't tell.
6 Q. So in fact you are not aware to say what sort of documents or the
7 range of documents which are being or which are capable of being generated
8 by such a search. Is that correct?
9 A. Well, based on what I've just said I cannot really tell you
10 whether these are concluded cases or judgments. I can only say that these
11 are records of police criminal investigation, which are in the computer
12 information system and anyone can have access to this. And I can stick to
13 the statement.
14 Q. Well, if I can take one category of such document which would be
15 criminal reports, are you aware of the fact that oftentimes criminal
16 reports are being made at the OVR level? Is that correct?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. And at the OVR level, generally what you would have is a book in
19 which those records would be kept and made, and I mean the records of
20 criminal reports. Is that correct?
21 A. Yes, that's correct.
22 Q. And are you aware of the fact that professionally the police
23 officers or -- would be required to forward on the criminal reports in
24 question up to the SVR. Is that correct?
25 A. I can't think of any official specification or guideline because I
1 didn't have access to this. But as far as I understand, these reports
2 or -- referred to criminal charges in this case, and the hierarchy would
3 be that they had to be reported to the SVR or the MOI. Otherwise, there
4 would be no point in it.
5 Q. Is it correct, however, that you did not conduct a similar search
6 at the OVR level? Is that correct?
7 A. That's actually not correct, because we were on the OVR level, and
8 we looked at the books and the files. We didn't conduct an electronic
9 investigation, but we went to OVR Cair and looked through the entire
10 files, and in -- in the various departments where these records were
11 established, we had access to these, too. This refers to war crimes,
12 which I'm sure would not be dealt with at a lower level at a police
13 station where the files remained -- would remain. For example, where
14 Mr. Ramicevic is stationed.
15 Q. Well, I'm grateful, and my question was not precise enough,
16 Mr. Kuehnel.
17 The question was, and you answered it I believe, that you could
18 not and did not conduct any electronic search of the records at the OVR
19 level. Is that correct?
20 A. Yes, if you put the question that way, that is correct.
21 Q. And you've indicated as well that the -- I'm asking, is it correct
22 that the only records at the OVR level that you reviewed was the OVR
23 Cair. Is that correct?
24 A. Not in the entirety of this term. We were at OVR Cair, and on the
25 level of OVR Cair, we looked at all the records which also came from the
1 police station Cair and Mirkovci.
2 Q. Are you aware, Mr. Kuehnel, that those records which you search
3 and the result of which we still have on our screen do not record all
4 investigative steps as might have been taken by the MOI. Are you aware of
5 that fact?
6 A. That is certainly possible.
7 Q. For example, you certainly have become aware that they do not
8 record a request or recommendation for exhumation or autopsy. Is that
10 A. Well, a request or recommendation for exhumation would certainly
11 not be listed in a criminal record, because this is an operative measure.
12 It's not facts which would be listed in a criminal register.
13 Q. And simply first in terms of time-frame, is it correct that the
14 period covered by this search which you conducted of the record was for
15 the year 2001. Is that correct?
16 A. Yes, that's correct. You can see this under number 2 on each of
17 the printouts here, registered for the year 2001.
18 Q. And it would be correct also in relation to the other documents
19 which you received from Mr. Ramicevic. Is that correct?
20 A. Yes. Without checking the documents, I'm quite sure that, under
21 number 2, the year 2001 would be entered.
22 Q. And, in other words, you did not conduct or request a similar
23 search for the year 2002. Is that correct?
24 A. No. I limited the inquiry to the year 2001.
25 Q. Is it correct also, Mr. Kuehnel, that this particular type of
1 search is limited to "known perpetrators" or known persons that are the
2 subject of a criminal report?
3 A. I think perhaps, but I'm not sure, it's referring to a person, not
4 to a fact.
5 On the other hand, one can also see that under number 6, for
6 example, it's listed whether the perpetrator is known or not.
7 So, from that point of view, I can't really give you a precise
8 answer to your question.
9 Q. I'm grateful. But would you agree that in any case as far as
10 those two search are concerned, the Ramicevic and the Arsovska, there was
11 no particular record of an incident which related to an unidentified or an
12 unknown person, as it's known? Is it correct?
13 A. Yes, that's correct.
14 Q. Is it also correct, and it may be obvious, Mr. Kuehnel, that this
15 particular search or this type of search only relates to information which
16 has been recorded into a particular document or a report and has then been
17 forwarded on. Is it correct?
18 A. I couldn't say yes or no to this question. It is, of course, the
19 case that from an original investigation, entry would have to be made into
20 the database. What you see here --
21 Q. But do you agree -- I apologise.
22 A. I'm sorry, I'd like to finish my answer. But I stopped in the
24 Q. Would you wish to add something, Mr. Kuehnel?
25 A. No, not at the moment because I think my answer would be imprecise
1 and wouldn't lead us anywhere.
2 MR. METTRAUX: I see the time, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE PARKER: We have the second break and resume at 1.00.
4 --- Recess taken at 12.28 p.m.
5 --- On resuming at 1.00 p.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Mettraux.
7 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. I apologise, Mr. Kuehnel.
9 When we left off we were looking at this documents concerning the
10 result of a search which Mr. Ramicevic and Ms. Arsovska conducted for
11 you. Do you agree with the proposition that if a criminal report had been
12 done orally rather than in writing, this particular report would not have
13 appeared on your search. Do you agree with that?
14 A. Yes, I can follow your theory. But I have learned that within the
15 system of the Macedonian police, an oral record was made. But I have
16 never -- I didn't know about this. I don't think it is possible.
17 Q. But do you agree that if also a police officer makes an oral
18 report or provides oral information about the possible commission of a
19 crime to, let's say, the investigative judge, this would, again, not
20 appear on this particular document. Is that correct?
21 A. I don't think you can compare the two. It's not comparing like
22 with like. If, as you're saying, a police officer informs an
23 investigating judge about a particular fact, then I don't think you're
24 comparing things that can be compared. You should rather ask whether the
25 police officer will also draw up a report, which then, again, would end up
1 in a criminal charge and which would then mean that a registration is made
2 in the system.
3 So this is the theoretical discussion.
4 Q. Well, we're going to come in a second to a very practical example,
5 but as a general proposition, you would agree with the suggestions that
6 unless the report in question or the information in question, whether
7 provided to the prosecutor, investigative judge or otherwise, unless this
8 information is put in writing, the search that you conducted would not be
9 capable of generating any hits in relation to that particular document.
10 Is that correct? Or information.
11 A. I could say yes, but as I've already mentioned, I think you're
12 comparing two things that cannot be compared.
13 Q. Well, let me ask then specifically about a particular document, if
14 I may. This would be Exhibit P535, please.
15 Mr. Kuehnel, you will recognise this is a document shown to you
16 earlier by my colleague. This is the phone records of a phone that was
17 used by Mr. Ljube Krstevski at the relevant time.
18 Do you recognise that document?
19 A. Of course.
20 Q. And if we could please turn to the third page of that document,
21 and I should perhaps specify first or ask you, is it correct that this is
22 the list of outgoing calls; that is, calls going from the telephone of
23 Mr. Krstevski. Is that correct?
24 A. Could be, but doesn't have to be. I believe it to be, but I've
25 only got one page.
1 Well, perhaps I apologise to the registry and to you, Mr. Kuehnel.
2 Could we go back to the first page, please. And this is the first
3 page of the record, Mr. Kuehnel. Do you agree if you look at the top
4 left-hand corner, this suggest that this is outgoing and follows the
5 number of Mr. Krstevski. Is that correct?
6 A. Yes, of course. I agree.
7 MR. METTRAUX: Can we please go to page 3 of the document, please.
8 Q. And I'll ask you, Mr. Kuehnel, to go towards the end of the page
9 at the bottom. And if you can look at the fourth line from the bottom.
10 There's a number, a call that is recorded at 5.02 on the 14th of August of
11 2001 to the investigative judge on duty. Can you see that?
12 A. Yes, I can see that. And of course it describes a link between
13 these two telephone numbers, but doesn't tell you what was being said
14 during the conversation.
15 Q. Yes. But do you agree, for instance, that this particular record
16 of a conversation between Mr. Krstevski and the investigative judge on
17 duty on the 14th of August of 2001 did not appear in any of the records
18 which you obtained from the SVR and the MOI for the year 2001. Is that
20 A. I think in police work it's quite normal that conversations take
21 place between police officers and investigative judges. And in no police
22 station in the world you might deduce that a conversation between these
23 two persons which would result into a registration of their conversation.
24 So I do agree with you, in other words, there has been no
1 Q. And if we could turn now to exhibit P536, please.
2 Mr. Kuehnel, this is the other side of the coin, so to say. This
3 is the list of incoming calls on the telephone number of Mr. Krstevski.
4 MR. METTRAUX: And I'd ask the registry to please turn to page 5
5 of that document. And if we can scroll down a bit. Thank you.
6 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, could you see towards the end or a bit below the
7 middle of that listing on the 14th of August of 2001 again, at 4.59 that
8 there was a call from the investigative judge on duty this time to the
9 phone of Mr. Krstevski. Can you see that?
10 A. Yes, of course I can see that.
11 Q. And again, although I think have you stated it in your previous
12 answer, this particular record of what happened on that particular
13 occasion was not recorded in a document which was then elicited or
14 identified by your search at the SVR or the MOI. Is that correct?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. And you have indicated in your evidence in chief and I think
17 briefly when you answered a question of mine that you had limited your
18 search or the search criteria which you used to generate particular
19 document to chapter 34 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Macedonia.
20 Is that correct?
21 A. Yes, if you look at it like that, it's correct. But I didn't look
22 for documents but for records regarding criminal activities pertaining to
23 chapter 34, war crimes. So I was looking for criminal acts and not for
25 Q. Thank you. And is it correct that chapter 34 of the Criminal Code
1 relates to war crimes, on the one hand, and also other international
2 crimes or violations of international law. Is that correct?
3 A. Yes, that's correct.
4 Q. And is it also correct that you did not undertake a similar search
5 for, let's say, ordinary crimes such as murders or rapes. Is that
7 A. That's correct. For this particular area and for this particular
8 database, everything was limited to chapter 34, that's correct.
9 Q. And you knew that at the time no state of war had been declared in
10 the Republic of Macedonia. Is that correct?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. And perhaps you will recall the evidence of Ms. Vilma Ruskovska,
13 who indicated that in the year 2001 crimes that were related to the crisis
14 in the country were prosecuted not as war crimes but as regular domestic
15 crimes. Do you recall her saying that?
16 A. I personally cannot remember it literally, expressis verbis, but I
17 rely on your quotation.
18 Q. But I'll read it for you, Mr. Kuehnel, in fairness. This is the
19 transcript of the 6th of June of 2007. This is page 1528 and also 1582.
20 At 1528 the following question was put to Ms. Ruskovska: "Is that correct
21 at the time in the Republic of Macedonia no state of war had been
23 And the answer is: "It was not declared."
24 And then further on she is being asked: "And judges in the court
25 before you were acting were not even considering applying international
1 humanitarian law to certain events. Would that be correct?"
3 And then at 1582, still on the 6th of June 2007 the question
4 was: "You treated these events under the domestic law as general crimes,
5 severe breaches or less severe breaches under domestic law and did you not
6 think that the conduct of the police or army would be subject of the
7 international humanitarian law?"
8 And she said yes.
9 Is it correct, Mr. Kuehnel, that the only cases that -- or case
10 that were looked at through the lens of humanitarian law was or were the
11 cases that the prosecutor of Macedonia offered to transfer to the Office
12 of the Prosecutor? I'm talking of five different cases. Is that correct?
13 A. To some extent, I can agree with you. Nevertheless, I believed
14 that it was necessary to carry out this search in order to get a balanced
15 investigative approach, and without -- or with this -- this fact that
16 there was no war, there are registrations heading -- under this heading.
17 Q. But is it correct, Mr. Kuehnel, that -- or I'm putting it to you
18 that you were aware that there was in fact a number of investigation that
19 were going on in relation to crimes relating to the crisis. Is that
21 A. I believe, I already mentioned it in my direct, there is one
22 result regarding Kumanovo. There is the second result, which can be --
23 which is split up into various cases in the region of Ohrid, if I remember
24 correctly. But, again, here I stated that I have received information
25 that this was a case of human trafficking of organised crime.
1 So this chapter is actually being used by the Macedonian judiciary
2 system and I think it was only fair also to look at this particular area.
3 Q. But you also knew, didn't you, that there were dozens, perhaps
4 even hundreds, in any case, dozens of other investigation or cases that
5 related to events relevant to the crisis that were being looked at in
6 accordance other parts of the Criminal Code of Macedonia and which were
7 related to the crisis. Is that correct?
8 A. That could well be the case. But the order that I had in this
9 particular case was to find out whether there had been violations against
10 the war crimes regulations and that's what I did.
11 Q. But surely you are aware also that one of the investigation which
12 was going on at the time was the investigation into the events of Ljuboten
13 as well as four other investigation that related to the alleged
14 perpetrators of the NLA. Is that correct?
15 A. Now, you mention these cases that we were sent.
16 Q. Yes. Were you aware -- I apologise, perhaps the question was not
17 very clear.
18 But before those cases were actually sent to you, Mr. Kuehnel, you
19 are aware, aren't you, that those five cases had been under investigation
20 by the local authorities. Is that correct?
21 A. I find it difficult to give a precise answer to that question,
22 because my knowledge is superficial. But I do know that investigations
23 had been carried out. With regard to Ljuboten, I can say that there had
24 been investigations, with regard to the Albanians who had been arrested
25 there, and also investigations being carried out about the exhumations.
1 Q. But you knew -- yeah.
2 A. I also know that apart from the four Albanian cases that also
3 investigations were carried out relating to those cases, but I don't have
4 any specific knowledge about those. I haven't read up on them and I have
5 never been involved in working on these cases, so I wouldn't be able to
6 give any precise information about that.
7 Q. But perhaps as a general question, is it correct that none of
8 those five cases which you knew were being investigated at the local level
9 appeared on the document which resulted from the search conducted by
10 Ms. Arsovska and Mr. Ramecevic. Is that correct?
11 A. That's obvious when you read these printouts.
12 Q. And is it correct also that as far as you know, the state
13 prosecutor of the Republic of Macedonia at the time Mr. Stavre Dzikov, in
14 September of 2001 during the deferral of these five cases including - of
15 2002, I apologise - during the deferral of these five cases to the
16 jurisdiction of the Tribunal made it clear that the investigation into
17 those event had been ongoing at the domestic level. Are you aware of
19 A. I know that Mr. Stavre Dzikov was involved and that there has been
20 a great deal of exchange of information and opinions but it really goes
21 beyond me and I would -- could only report on hearsay and very knowledge
22 which is full of gaps. I got some -- I gained some knowledge from reading
23 the judicial records and from our own correspondence. But as I've
24 already stated, I only joined the OTP in October 2003. I have never been
25 involved in the work on the other cases, and only in retrospect I gained
1 some knowledge about this period in time and about these events. I don't
2 think I can give you any more information on that.
3 Q. Well, the information that you obtained in retrospect, as you put
4 it, did it include an investigator note prepared by your colleague
5 Mr. Tucker, in which he recorded the fact that the deputy primary public
6 prosecutor Mr. Cakic had stated that the investigation into Ljuboten had
7 already been opened, and it's a note of the 28th of November, 2001.
8 A. That's possible that I have seen this document. I know that
9 Mr. Tucker has written a number of memos. It is it quite possible that I
10 might have read it. But I cannot remember the -- exactly how it was
12 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, for the record it is Exhibit 1D197.
13 Q. And is a letter by your colleague and superior, Mr. Lopez-Terres,
14 chief of investigations, dated 22nd of May of 2002 which suggests that
15 those five cases were currently under investigation in Macedonia. Is it
16 within your knowledge?
17 A. I can remember -- I can remember seeing such a document, such a
18 letter and also others by Mr. Lopez-Terres. I think that's also a point
19 that I have already mentioned with regard to the judiciary records and the
20 request for the ballistic investigations.
21 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, this is, simply for the record,
22 Exhibit 1D201.
23 Q. And perhaps as a general question, Mr. Kuehnel, perhaps you have
24 answered it already, but are you aware that the reason or one of the
25 reason invoked by the Office of the Prosecutor in September of 2002 for
1 the deferral of the five cases, including the case of Ljuboten, to the
2 jurisdiction of the Tribunal was the risk of colliding investigations
3 between your investigation and the investigation conducted at the local
4 level. Are you aware of that fact?
5 A. I cannot give you any reply to that, really. It's a possible
6 reason, but I really haven't got a complete overview over that time-period
7 and about all the decisions that were taken and by whom; hence if I
8 confirm or if I disagree, I could only give you a very incomplete account.
9 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, simply for the record, I will refer to
10 Exhibit P391. That's the Prosecutor request for deferral, 5 September
11 2002, as well as Exhibit 1D213, which is the transcript of the deferral
12 hearing, and the actual decision by the Trial Chamber it is Exhibit 1D218.
13 Q. Are you also aware of the fact, Mr. Kuehnel, that a relatively
14 large number of persons benefitted from an amnesty for crimes allegedly
15 committed or actually committed in the year 2001. Are you aware of that?
16 A. Yes, of course. I have knowledge of this decision about amnesties
17 by Boris ... [as interpreted]
18 Q. And are you aware of the fact that the issue of -- perhaps before
19 I proceed, Mr. Kuehnel, I believe you had mentioned the name Boris
20 Trajkovski at page 75, line 16. Is that correct?
21 A. As far as I knowledge, this decision has been signed by the
23 Q. I'm grateful.
24 Are you aware of the fact that the issue of the amnesty had been
25 raised already prior and also during the negotiation of the Ohrid
1 Framework Agreement. Are you aware of that?
2 A. Here again, I can say that I only have rudimentary knowledge of
3 this, but I don't have a reliable comprehensive knowledge.
4 Q. But are you perhaps aware of the fact that on the day of the
5 signing of the Ohrid Framework Agreement the president of the Republic
6 Boris Trajkovski sent a very public letter to the Secretary-General of
7 NATO, Mr. Robertson, in which he made it clear that former members of the
8 NLA would benefit from that amnesty. Are you aware of that?
9 A. Yes, it's possible it may well be. But I can't really recall the
10 document and its contents but it is certainly possible.
11 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, this is Exhibit 1D193.
12 Q. Is it correct, Mr. Kuehnel, also that in the course of the year,
13 towards the end of the year of 2001 the president actually granted a
14 number of pardons to people who had been arrested in relation to crimes
15 allegedly committed in the course and in relation to the crisis. Is that
17 A. Well, I think this is the whole concept of amnesty, isn't it?
18 Q. And may I take it -- may I take your answer as a yes, you are
19 aware that this took place?
20 A. Yes, I think one could say yes.
21 Q. And is it correct that a number of villagers from Ljuboten who had
22 been taken and detained during the operation on the 12th of August
23 benefitted from presidential pardons of that sort? In particular in the
24 month of December of 2001.
25 A. Yes, that's correct.
1 Q. And are you aware of the fact that the Law on Amnesty applied not
2 only to people who had already been charged and convicted of any crime
3 related to the crisis but that it would also exempt from prosecution any
4 person for whom there is reasonable doubt that he or she prepared or
5 committed a criminal act related to the conflict. Are you aware of that?
6 A. Well, not to that extent. I don't think that I have the necessary
7 expertise to draw these conclusions.
8 Q. Well, perhaps I can show you Exhibit P83.
9 Mr. Kuehnel, this is the decree for the proclamation of the Law of
10 Amnesty, and as you indicated it was signed by the president after having
11 been adopted by the parliament and I would like to draw your attention to
12 Article 1 of that law.
13 And if the registry could enlarge it somewhat, please.
14 And I would just like to read to you first the beginning of
15 Article 1. It says this: "The law exempts from prosecutor -- from
16 prosecution, discontinues the criminal proceedings, and fully exempts from
17 execution of the sentence to imprisonment, hereinafter amnesty, citizens
18 of the Republic of Macedonia, person with lawful residence, as well as
19 person that have property or family in the Republic of Macedonia for whom
20 there is reasonable doubt that they have prepared or committed criminal
21 acts related to the conflict in the year 2001, conclusive [sic] of 26th
22 September of 2001."
23 Do you agree, Mr. Kuehnel, on the basis of that Article that the
24 Law on Amnesty applied to three different categories of individuals:
25 Those that had been convicted of an offence, those who were being
1 prosecuted or charged with an offence, and those for whom there was
2 reasonable doubt that they had committed such an offence. Is that
4 A. Well, of course I can read the text. I do understand the sense
5 of the syntax of the paragraph and I do agree. As far as the further
6 implications of this paragraph, this is something I certainly cannot
7 comment on, because I don't have the necessary expertise. I think that is
8 a fair answer.
9 Q. But do you agree that to the extent that the authorities had been
10 interested in prosecuting any case pursuant to chapter 34 of the Criminal
11 Code, those acts would have been covered by the amnesty with the
12 reservation which is on the next page of those cases that were being
13 investigated by the Prosecution of this Tribunal. Is that correct?
14 A. Well, for me, this is a theoretical discussion. I really can't
16 Q. But you would agree, Mr. Kuehnel, that this would explain that the
17 only two incidents recorded in your search or as a result of your search
18 and which related to chapter 34 of the Criminal Code were not in any way
19 related to the crisis or the conflict, as you name it, but that they in
20 fact were organised crime type of activities. Is that correct?
21 A. Well, I don't think you should reverse the origin and deduce
22 anything from the daily application of this law. Basically these are war
23 crimes in chapter 34, which, apparently, also were used in everyday
24 judicial proceedings to deal with offences such as human trafficking and
1 Q. Isn't it correct, Mr. Kuehnel, that in fact chapter 34 is not
2 limited, as you suggest, to war crimes but includes war crimes and other
3 violations of international law. Is that correct?
4 A. Of course. I think both of us have read the Article, but the
5 title is war crimes. And of course I would readily admit that articles
6 are included which may have a wider scope than this term in the heading.
7 It's a question of how the paragraphs are listed.
8 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown what is Exhibit
9 P81, please.
10 Q. Do you recognise the Criminal Code of the Republic of Macedonia,
11 Mr. Kuehnel?
12 A. Yes, of course, Mr. Mettraux.
13 MR. METTRAUX: And if we could turn to page 139 of the document.
14 That would be N000-5405-139, please.
15 Q. Do you agree that the title of that chapter of the Criminal Code
16 of the Republic of Macedonia, that's chapter 34, in fact refers to crimes
17 against humanity and international law. Do you agree with that?
18 A. Yes, of course.
19 Q. And the first provision in that section, article 403 relates to
20 genocide. Do you agree with that?
21 A. Yes, of course.
22 Q. And the next provision talks of war crimes against the civilian
23 population. Is that correct?
24 A. Yes, supposedly. I don't really see it.
25 MR. METTRAUX: If the document could be scrolled down a little bit
1 so that Mr. Kuehnel could see it.
2 Q. Can you see that Article 404 relates to war crimes again the
3 civilian population.?
4 A. Yes, I see part of the title, yes.
5 Q. And if we can turn to the next page, please.
6 You can see the rest of Article 404 and then Article 405 relates
7 to war crimes against wounded and ill. Is that correct?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. And if we can turn to the next page, please.
10 Do you agree that Article 406 relates to war crimes against
11 prisoners of war, 407 to the use of unallowed combat means, 408 to
12 organizing a group and instigation to genocide and war crime, and 409 to
13 unlawfully killing and wounding of an enemy. Do you agree with that?
14 A. Yes, I agree.
15 MR. METTRAUX: If we can turn to the next page, please.
16 Q. Do you agree that Article 410 relates to unlawful confiscation of
17 objects from killed and wounded on the battle ground, 411 to a violation
18 of a parliamentarian, 412 to cruel behaviour with wounded, ill or with
19 prisoner of war. 413 relates to unjustified delay in repatriation of
20 prisoners of war, 414 to the destruction of cultural and historical
22 Do you agree with that?
23 A. Yes, of course, Mr. Mettraux.
24 MR. METTRAUX: And if we can turn to the next page, please.
25 Q. Do you agree that Article 415 relate to instigation to aggressive
1 war, 416 to abuse of international signs, 417 to racial or other
2 discrimination, 418 to founding a slave relationship and transportation of
3 persons in slavery. Do you agree with that?
4 A. Yes, Mr. Mettraux, I do agree, and 418 is the article concerning
5 human trafficking.
6 MR. METTRAUX: And if we can turn to the next page, please?
7 Q. Do you agree that 419 relates to international terrorism, 420 to
8 endangering persons under international protection, 421 taking hostages.
9 Is that correct?
10 A. Yes, that's correct, Mr. Mettraux.
11 Q. And if we can turn to the next page, please.
12 Do you agree that the last article of that section, Article 422
13 relates to the crime of piracy, is that correct?
14 A. Yes, I agree, Mr. Mettraux.
15 Q. Do you agree that in fact this section chapter 34 of the Criminal
16 Code of the Republic of Macedonia is in fact much broader and covers both
17 acts that are regarded as war crimes but also all sorts of other
18 violations of international law or, as the title suggests, crime against
19 humanity. Do you agree with that?
20 A. Yes, I do agree, and I haven't contested that so far.
21 MR. METTRAUX: I see the time, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE PARKER: We will adjourn now to continue tomorrow in the
23 afternoon at 2.15.
24 Could the Chamber say that it would hope that in the course of
25 tomorrow to find a convenient time when we can look at the completion of
1 the present case for the Prosecution as a matter of timetable, and look
2 ahead to timetabling the procedures that will follow that, with a view to
3 allowing everybody to plan with a little more certainty how matters might
5 We suggest tomorrow, even though it could come in the course of
6 Mr. Kuehnel's evidence, because it would seem we're reaching a point where
7 it could be a profitable discussion and will make many matters of
8 uncertainty clear for future planning.
9 We adjourn.
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,
11 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 20th day of
12 November, 2001, at 2.15 p.m.