1 Wednesday, 21 November 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.29 p.m.

5 [Trial Chamber confers].

6 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber was expecting a witness, but we're to

7 have a motion instead.

8 Good afternoon.

9 MR. METTRAUX: Good afternoon, Your Honours.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.

11 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you. Your Honour, we have had an opportunity

12 to discuss the issue of documents with the Prosecution in the course of

13 last night and this morning and I'm grateful my colleague provided with us

14 information which hopefully will simplify Your Honour's decision.

15 There are five documents which we would seek to tender and two

16 which we would ask the Chamber to MFI and I will start with those

17 documents in relation to which there is no observation on the part of the

18 Prosecution.

19 The first such document, Your Honour, is Rule 65 ter 1D1098. Your

20 Honour will recall that this is an Official Note taken by the UBK, the

21 state security services. It's dated 8th of 2002 [sic]. And Mr. Kuehnel

22 indicated that he believed it was one of the document which he personally

23 obtained from those records. The part of the document which was put to

24 Mr. Kuehnel concerned one of the alleged victim Mr. Atulla Qaili.

25 JUDGE PARKER: The date appears incompletely in the transcript.

1 It was the 8th of?

2 MR. METTRAUX: Of May, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. It will be received.

4 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D273, Your Honours.

5 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, the second document is Rule 65 ter

6 1D1138.1. This is a list of members of the security of the president.

7 Those -- it contains the names of members of the presidential security and

8 they have been put to the witness in relation to phone records which have

9 been tendered by the Office of the Prosecutor.

10 We believe that the names that are relevant to Your Honour's

11 consideration have been read to the witness and he has adopted the

12 information which was of relevance to this matter. We believe however

13 that the list itself may be of assistance to you.

14 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

15 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D274, Your Honours.

16 MR. METTRAUX: The next document, Your Honour, is Rule 65 ter

17 1D1141. This is a decision signed by the then minister of the interior of

18 the 8th of November of 1991 [sic] concerning the appointment of persons

19 responsible to initiate disciplinary proceedings.

20 Your Honour will recall this was the first of two decisions

21 concerning this matter and the date of that document is 8th November 1999.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Correct date is 1999, not 1991 as appears at the

23 transcript.

24 MR. METTRAUX: That's correct, Your Honour, 1999.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. It will be received.

1 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D275, Your Honours.

2 MR. METTRAUX: The next document Your Honour was the follow-up or

3 the following decision concerning the name matter dated the 20th of

4 September of 2005 and also signed by the then minister of the interior

5 Mr. Mihajlovski. It's 65 ter --

6 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

7 MR. METTRAUX: -- 1D1142.

8 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D276, Your Honours.

9 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour. The only document which

10 gives rise to an objection at this stage is Rule 65 ter 995. This is a

11 document that actually appeared on the Prosecution Rule 65 ter list. This

12 is the scheme prepared by Dr. Jakovski of the hands of Mr. Qaili, the

13 deceased, which indicates that Mr. Qaili tested positive to nitrate

14 particles and it's essentially a copy of both hands with the markings of

15 the positions of the nitrate particles.

16 Your Honour will recall that the content of the document was put

17 to Mr. Kuehnel in cross-examination. Mr. Kuehnel obtained that very

18 document from Mr. -- from Dr. Jakovski himself. I will also indicate for

19 the record that this very document, Rule 65 ter 995, was used by the

20 Prosecution in its examination-in-chief of Dr. Eichner on the 3rd of

21 September of this year at page 4455 to 4459. The issue of the test and

22 finding made by Dr. Jakovski on the hands of Mr. Qaili were also discussed

23 quite extensionly with Dr. Jakovski himself, in particular, Your Honour,

24 at page 2292, to 2293.

25 For completeness of the record we'd also indicate that the

1 Prosecution has already tendered a particular document which is Exhibit

2 P49 at page 33 which is in effect the report or the short summary report

3 written by Mr. -- Dr. Jakovski in relation to the test carried out on the

4 hands of Mr. Qaili.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.

6 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I believe my colleague Ms. Issa will

7 address these issues.

8 JUDGE PARKER: I beg your pardon.

9 Ms. Issa.

10 MS. ISSA: Yes, Your Honour, good afternoon.

11 The only issue I had, Your Honour, is the mere fact that the

12 document itself was actually not shown to the witness and he was not able

13 to comment on the document itself and it could have been shown, so I'm

14 objecting on that basis, although it -- clearly I can see that these

15 matters were discussed with one other witness, as my colleague points out.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Your concern would be met if the witness, when he

17 returns, were to have the document put to him. Is that what you're

18 saying?

19 MS. ISSA: Yes, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE PARKER: So there can be no doubt we might follow that

21 course.

22 MR. METTRAUX: Absolutely, Your Honour. Simply for --

23 JUDGE PARKER: And for that purpose you have leave to reopen.

24 MR. METTRAUX: I'm very grateful, Your Honour. Simply for the

25 record, the name of Mr. Kuehnel actually appears on the top corner of the

1 documents, but I will certainly do so and I'm grateful.

2 Your Honour, if we could move for a second to private session,

3 please.

4 JUDGE PARKER: Private.

5 [Private session]

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 8162 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 [Open session]

4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Could we have the --

6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

7 JUDGE PARKER: Could we have the witness, please.

8 [The witness entered court]

9 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon, Mr. Kuehnel.

10 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.

11 JUDGE PARKER: The affirmation you made at the beginning of your

12 evidence still applies.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Now there's one brief matter that Mr. Mettraux

15 needs to just finish up with, which we now realise hadn't been dealt with.

16 Mr. Mettraux.

17 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour.

18 WITNESS: THOMAS KUEHNEL [Resumed]

19 [Witness answered through interpreter]

20 Cross-examination by Mr. Mettraux: [Continued]

21 MR. METTRAUX:

22 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Kuehnel.

23 A. [In English] Good afternoon.

24 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, I have only a few more question for you. Do you

25 recall conducting with an interview with Dr. Jakovski earlier this year,

1 in February 2001?

2 A. [Interpretation] Yes, I do remember.

3 Q. And do you recall reviewing and receiving a number of documents

4 from Mr. Jakovski?

5 A. Yes, in general terms, there were documents which were attached,

6 yes.

7 MR. METTRAUX: Could the registry please bring up Rule 65 ter 995,

8 please. Thank you.

9 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, do you recall this document being one of the

10 documents which you received from Dr. Jakovski in the course of your

11 interview?

12 A. Yes, and I also recognise my handwriting on the top left part of

13 the document.

14 Q. And do you recall that this particular document pertained to a

15 so-called paraffin glove test which had been conducted on the body of Mr.

16 Qaili. Do you recall that?

17 A. Yes, I do.

18 Q. And do you agree that this document is dated the 14th of August of

19 2001. Is that correct?

20 A. Yes and no. And we can also see that somebody has written over

21 this so I think you can see 14 and 15 in the right-hand corner there.

22 Q. I'm grateful for that. And is it correct also, Mr. Kuehnel, that

23 this document subsequently was attached to the statement of Dr. Jakovski

24 which you prepared on behalf of the Office of the Prosecutor. Is that

25 correct?

1 A. Yes, that is correct.

2 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, we'd seek to tender this document.

3 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

4 MR. METTRAUX: I'm grateful, Mr. Kuehnel.

5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D279, Your Honours.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Oh, I have to correct myself. I

7 said there had been something written over and it was 14 and 15. It was,

8 I think, 11 -- it's actually very hard to decipher. I think it is 11 and

9 15. I can't quite read it. But 11th, wouldn't make any sense. It's got

10 to be 14 and 15 and it must be wrong in the transcript.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

12 Mr. Apostolski.

13 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. I

14 have questions for the witness.

15 Cross-examination by Mr. Apostolski:

16 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Kuehnel.

17 A. Hello to you.

18 Q. My name is Antonio Apostolski, and together with my colleague

19 Jasmina Zivkovic, we are Defence counsels of Mr. Johan Tarculovski.

20 Mr. Kuehnel, during your investigation on the case, you

21 established that Mr. Johan Tarculovski, in 2001, was married to Valentina

22 Radulevic. Is this correct?

23 A. Yes. This is general knowledge. I did not especially investigate

24 and establish this.

25 Q. Valentina Radulevic is a famous handball player in Macedonia. Is

1 that correct?

2 A. That is correct. She's also known beyond the borders of

3 Macedonia.

4 Q. According to your knowledge, she has also played for foreign

5 teams, in Austria, Denmark. Would you agree would me?

6 A. Yes, I agree with you.

7 Q. And you established that in 2001, Johan Tarculovski and Valentina

8 Radulevic lived together in a flat in the suburb of Irodrom [phoen] in

9 Skopje. Is that correct?

10 A. I cannot say this with certainty, because I do not know whether

11 they lived all this time together.

12 Q. Did you check in which flat they lived in 2001?

13 A. No, I did not.

14 Q. Did you check which telephone number was used?

15 A. This is information I received through the information obtained

16 through -- from connection data.

17 Q. Please, if the witness could be shown 536 Exhibit, page 3. This

18 is a phone list of outgoing calls from the phone number 070279417.

19 This page was shown to you by my learned colleague from the

20 Prosecution. Do you recall this?

21 A. Yes, I do.

22 Q. And in row 3, you see the name Valentina Radulevic?

23 A. Yes, I do.

24 Q. And you said that this was a phone number owned by Valentina

25 Radulevic?

1 A. This is what one concludes when one reads this, yes.

2 Q. With this you established the fact that Johan Tarculovski made a

3 contact with Valentina Radulevic on the 10th of August, 2001, and this is

4 how you based your opinion that Johan Tarculovski used this phone number,

5 070279417, on the 10th of August, 2001?

6 A. I don't think I explained it in these very words. What I did say

7 was one can conclude from this that between the two phone numbers listed

8 here and between the telephone number which we believe Johan Tarculovski

9 has been using at that time has established a connection with the other

10 telephone number which Valentina Radulevic is listed as being the

11 subscriber.

12 Q. Do you see that the connection was with the phone number 02469882,

13 as a phone number that belongs to the subscriber Valentina Radulevic?

14 A. That is written here, yes.

15 Q. Did you check whether it was a mobile phone number or a land-line

16 phone number?

17 A. The way I read this, this would be a land-line. Because at that

18 time, and this is general knowledge, all mobile telephone numbers begin

19 with the digits 070, and at a later period 075 numbers were introduced.

20 The 02 prefix indicates to me that this is an indeed a land-line.

21 Q. But did you -- you did not point out this during your testimony.

22 Would you agree with me on this?

23 A. The difference between the mobile telephone number 070 and 02, I

24 did not explain in detail so far.

25 Q. Could you please see the same line, right side, you see the

1 address Kuzman Jusifovski. Do you see that on the monitor? This is the

2 address of Valentina Radulevic?

3 A. Yes, I do see that.

4 Q. Wuld you agree with me that this is the home land-line phone

5 number of Valentina Radulevic on street Kuzman Jusifovski?

6 A. What I see here is the subscriber information which obviously has

7 been entered into this form by the telephone provider. Whether this is

8 the official place of residence or another address, could be a billing

9 address, I cannot tell you which.

10 Q. By reading this, it is obvious that Kuzman Jusifovski street is an

11 address of Valentina Radulevic. Would you agree with me?

12 A. One could get this impression when one read this is document.

13 Q. You knew that in August 2001, Valentina Radulevic was in Austria

14 where she played handball. Is that correct?

15 A. That is correct.

16 Q. Could you tell me, what would be the logic for Johan Tarculovski

17 to call his wife on the home land-line phone number if he had known that

18 his wife was in Austria? Wouldn't you agree he would call her on the

19 mobile phone number?

20 A. That is possible. Although I do not know on which date

21 Mrs. Valentina Radulevic went to Austria. But it has been known for some

22 time that Ms. Radulevic was in Austria at the time. Whether Mr. Johan

23 Tarculovski might have called a family member, I don't know.

24 Q. That is your assumption.

25 A. This is the answer to your question.

1 Q. Do you know if Valentina Radulevic and Johan Tarculovski had any

2 kids?

3 A. I cannot tell you.

4 Q. Would you agree with me that the phone number, 070279417, was used

5 by the security of late president Boris Trajkovski?

6 A. This telephone number is certainly an official telephone number,

7 which is listed officially as a service number. It is, however, our point

8 of view that Johan Tarculovski, at the very least at the specific period

9 of the incidents concerned, used this telephone number, and other periods

10 of questioning I have also established this fact.

11 Q. Would you agree with my conclusion that the questions that I just

12 asked you about the third row on the phone list, that some colleague

13 called Johan Tarculovski on his home phone number?

14 A. This is speculative and I cannot comment.

15 Q. But, as an assumption, is it possible, not as a speculation?

16 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I'm objecting to that. I believe the

17 witness has already indicated that he doesn't know and the question is

18 speculative, in my submission.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Tarculovski -- Mr. Apostolski.

20 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Very well, Your Honours, I will

21 continue.

22 Q. Could you please see the same page but four rows below.

23 Do you see the name of Johan Tarculovski?

24 A. Yes, I do.

25 Q. According to this listing, from the number, 070279417, there was a

1 connection with a phone number under the name Johan Tarculovski. Is that

2 correct?

3 A. That is correct.

4 Q. Could you now agree with me that the most correct conclusion would

5 be about who used the phone number, 070279417, would be the security of

6 the president, Boris Trajkovski?

7 A. No, I do not at all agree with you.

8 Q. So Johan Tarculovski could have called Johan Tarculovski?

9 A. Johan Tarculovski can certainly have called his own number. He

10 can call his fixed-line phone under which he is registered. And as far as

11 I'm aware, even family members are registered as living under this same

12 address Dizonska 25, so this looks to me like an ordinary user profile,

13 which certainly would not constitute evidence, although a very credible

14 indication for the use of this mobile telephone as would correspond to

15 ordinary user patterns would, if not at home, call the home telephone.

16 This works both ways.

17 Q. Did you check who lived on Dizonska street in 2001.

18 A. I think this information is in RFA 77. And apart from that, we

19 also received further information. I would have to check - I'm not

20 currently entirely sure - but I think also Mr. Tarculovski's father is

21 registered there. But I would have to check up on this again.

22 We have several times established that in the course of the

23 various summonses which we tried to deliver, or have delivered, that

24 Mr. Johan Tarculovski is registered as living under this address.

25 Although he did not actually -- he was not actually there, at least at

1 this time in 2004 or 2005, when we attempted to summon him.

2 Any further information concerning his address is also in RFA 75.

3 Yes.

4 Q. Do you know that Johan Tarculovski's father died in 1999?

5 A. No, I do not.

6 Q. So it couldn't have been that he lived on that address in 2001 if

7 he died in 1999. Is that correct?

8 A. As I said, I'm not entirely sure. But the fact is only registered

9 there is also possible [as interpreted]. But I would have to check up on

10 this.

11 Q. You had an information from the Macedonian government that the

12 phone number, 070279417, was used by Todorovski Gjorgi employed in the

13 security section. Is that correct?

14 A. Yes, we did receive this information. The last time this

15 information had been transmitted was as part of the attachment pertaining

16 to RFA 92.

17 Q. You have received this information as early as in September 2004.

18 Is that correct?

19 A. We did receive this several times. I believe it also is part of

20 RFA 77. Two or three times, yes.

21 Q. But, at any rate, you had it as of September 2004. Is that

22 correct?

23 A. That is possible, but, again, I would have to check this out.

24 Q. And until 2007, you did not make any attempt to establish contact

25 with the person Gjorgi Todorovski. Is that correct?

1 A. So far certainly we have not interviewed him. It is possible that

2 I or my colleagues, in 2004, attempted to localise either this or another

3 person, but I do not have a clear recollection of this, because I myself,

4 until mid-2005, did not have direct contacts with the ministry myself.

5 Such contacts were organised by one of my colleagues.

6 Q. But neither you nor colleagues have requested from the Macedonian

7 authorities, all the way until 2007, to provide you an opportunity to

8 interview this person. Is that correct?

9 A. That is indeed correct. Certainly that could have been done

10 earlier. (redacted)

11 specifically those with Mario Jurisic and others --

12 MS. ISSA: Your Honours, I --

13 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa.

14 MS. ISSA: If we can please go into private session.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Private.

16 [Private session]

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 [Open session]

25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.

1 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Is it correct that neither you nor a single colleague of yours has

3 asked questions with regards to the name Gjorgi Todorovski to any of the

4 witnesses during their interviews?

5 A. That is correct.

6 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Could the witness -- actually,

7 the witness already sees the Exhibit 5369 [as interpreted]. Could we show

8 him page number ten, please.

9 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, if can I just make a correction for the

10 transcript. In the transcript the exhibit has been referred to as 5369 or

11 536, and I believe the exhibit number is actually P00369. Sorry for the

12 interruption.

13 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation]

14 Q. So you see now page 10. Do you see the rows 23 to 27, and the

15 name Nusret Bajrami written there?

16 A. Yes, I do.

17 Q. And the phone number, 070279417, has, on the 12th of August, 2001,

18 had seven phone conversations. Can you agree with me?

19 A. Yes, that's correct.

20 Q. That is throughout the day.

21 Is that correct?

22 A. It looks like this, yes, that's what it says here.

23 Q. Considering the name and the family name of the person Nusret

24 Bajrami, is it correct that that would be a person of Albanian ethnicity?

25 A. You might conclude that.

1 Q. Have you or members of your team of investigators tried to

2 establish contact with the person Nusret Bajrami to check who phoned him

3 on the 12th of August, 2001?

4 A. No, we didn't.

5 Q. And you did not feel it necessary to check the Albanian who

6 appears in the listing, to check who has phoned him on the 12th of August,

7 2001, ten times?

8 A. That would have been a possibility, yes. But they're lots of

9 other contacts contained in this list that we didn't contact either so

10 far.

11 As far as I know, there must be about almost 2.000 contacts. Of

12 course, it's 12th of August, yes, but that was not a priority.

13 Q. Is it correct that all persons you see in front of you on this

14 page were contacted, all of them apart from Nusret Bajrami. Is that

15 correct?

16 A. That is correct. But as far as Mr. Najdovski is concerned, I'm

17 not sure. Vlado Janev, yes; Dejan Jovkov, yes; and Aco Mladenov, yes.

18 Not sure about Aco Mladenov, no, I mixed him up with somebody

19 else.

20 Q. Very well. Thank you for your answer. And when I asked you about

21 the dwelling of Johan Tarculovski in 2001, where he lived with his wife,

22 did you try to establish contact with Valentina Radulevic, the then-wife

23 of Johan Tarculovski, so that she gives you the data about their residence

24 address and whether they lived together with someone else?

25 MS. ISSA: Your Honour.

1 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa.

2 MS. ISSA: Could we please go into private session.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Private.

4 [Private session]

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 [Open session]

8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.

9 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Do you know Kenan Salievski?

11 A. I know him, yes. If you mean Kenan Salievski from Ljuboten, yes.

12 The answer would be yes.

13 Q. Yes. He is the village leader of Ljuboten; in 2001 he was. Or

14 one of the village leaders, to be more precise.

15 A. Yes, that's correct.

16 Q. Did you have access to the statement of Kenan Salievski, dated 6th

17 and 7th of November, 2004?

18 A. Yes, I've read this.

19 Q. And he stated to your colleague, the investigator, that Rafet

20 Bajrami and Shefajet Bajrami, brothers of the victims Xhelal and Sulejman

21 Bajrami, were NLA members. Is that correct?

22 A. If you could put the -- give me the corresponding paragraph,

23 please.

24 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown

25 65 ter 1D85, page 9, paragraph 40.

1 Q. Asked who among the Ljuboten villagers were NLA members, Kenan

2 Salievski states Suad Saliu, Riza Jonuzi and he then enumerates other

3 persons among whom are Shefajet Bajrami as well and Rafet Bajrami.

4 A. That's correct, I can see that, yes.

5 Q. Also you had an interview with Baki Alimi, another village leader

6 of Ljuboten in 2001. Is that correct?

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. And he also told you that the brother of Sulejman Bajrami was an

9 NLA member. Is that correct?

10 A. I cannot recollect it precisely, but I believe so, yes. Please

11 show me.

12 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown

13 65 ter 1D876, paragraph 1, page 5.

14 Could we please zoom in on the name Sulejman Bajrami.

15 Q. And Baki Halimi, one of the village leaders of Ljuboten in 2001,

16 when speaking about Sulejman Bajrami, he says that his brother was an NLA

17 member.

18 Can you agree with me on that now?

19 A. I can read here that under the name Sulejman Bajrami it says not a

20 member of the NLA.

21 Q. What is written then on the bottom, his brother was in the NLA?

22 A. Yes, I understood the question to say that you were referring to

23 Sulejman Bajrami.

24 Q. I apologise. Maybe I misspoke when asking you the question, but

25 my question was referring to his brother.

1 A. No. As regards his brother, yes, that's true.

2 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Could we move into private

3 session briefly.

4 JUDGE PARKER: Private.

5 [Private session]

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 [Open session].

23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.

24 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Did you have information as to Shefajet Bajrami being within the

1 group that planted the mine on the 10th of August, 2001, when Macedonian

2 soldiers were killed?

3 A. I couldn't say that, no. I couldn't tell you. It's a very wide

4 and open question. I cannot really have a complete overview of the entire

5 material.

6 Q. Then I would ask you, did you interview Shefajet Bajrami so that

7 you could get more information about his membership in the NLA and his

8 presence at Ljuboten on the 8th of August, 2001?

9 A. No. We could not localise Shefajet, couldn't find him. If I

10 remember correctly, we would need to go back to the statement with Baki

11 Alimi, and also, as I mentioned, it was in conjunction with the name of

12 the father, Aziz Bajrami.

13 Q. Is it correct that you requested from the Macedonian government to

14 provide witnesses that were not accessible to you through a request for

15 assistance?

16 A. That happened quite frequently, yes.

17 Q. Did you request from the Macedonian government to provide Shefajet

18 Bajrami for you?

19 A. No, we didn't.

20 Q. Thank you. Do you recall that when you were in the Ministry of

21 Interior Affairs, you photocopied Johan Tarculovski's file. Do you

22 remember that?

23 A. That's correct.

24 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in regards with the

25 following question, since we had problems with the e-court, I have one

1 document from the file of Johan Tarculovski. The document is in hard

2 copy, if I could ask that this document is distributed to the Chamber and

3 all parties. This is an unofficial translation. This is document 65 ter

4 01075, page N006-6225.

5 Since the document was only in the Macedonian language, we made an

6 unofficial translation of it.

7 Q. Do you recognise this questionnaire that was photocopied to you?

8 This is from Johan Tarculovski's file.

9 A. I can only see the translation here, though, but it sounds

10 plausible, and I think I can remember. And of course you must be showing

11 me the correct document.

12 Q. The court manager opened the English -- the Macedonian version of

13 this document on your monitor.

14 Can you see the middle of the page where there is a question about

15 knowledge of a foreign language and it's written "English."

16 Is that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And below, it is said he speaks English and he uses German.

19 A. I can see that.

20 Q. Thank you.

21 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I could -- I

22 would like to tender this document.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Is there any indication of the date of its

24 creation, Mr. Apostolski?

25 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Yes. On the next page, it is

1 said that this is a document from 1998. On the photocopy it is not very

2 legible, but in my opinion, it was a document of -- made in December

3 1998. This is on the second page, and this also will be translated and

4 will be distributed to everybody.

5 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

6 JUDGE PARKER: The document is already Exhibit P533, I'm told,

7 Mr. Apostolski, if that helps.

8 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Yes. But, Your Honours, it has

9 not been completely translated, so we did not know if it was accepted as

10 an exhibit as a whole or just the pages that were translated and the pages

11 that my learned colleague from the Prosecution used to examine the

12 witness. This was, as far as I remember, the decision for employment of

13 Johan Tarculovski.

14 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

15 JUDGE PARKER: The entire document was exhibited. It is helpfully

16 suggested we might simply include this draft translation in that exhibit.

17 Would that be convenient, Mr. Apostolski?

18 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. Thank you

19 very much, Your Honours.

20 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, you had access to the police archives and evidence of

21 persons that are perpetrators of crime. Is that correct?

22 A. Yes, that's correct.

23 Q. You had access to the prosecution's archives. Is that correct?

24 A. I wouldn't put it quite like that. We didn't have access to the

25 archives. We asked for the release of the files of the prosecution and

1 the investigation judges, and this request was granted.

2 Q. Is it correct that in -- that in any evidence about crime

3 perpetrators, the name of Johan Tarculovski was registered as a

4 perpetrator of a crime and that there were no criminal reports against him

5 and there were no judgments made by Macedonian courts that were against

6 him?

7 A. I believe that to be correct. But I would need to read up on

8 that. Because this request, of course, was not only pertaining to the

9 files of the -- of a tribunal but also of the records of the police. But

10 I believe you are right. As far as I can remember, no, he doesn't have

11 any criminal record.

12 Q. Thank you.

13 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further

14 questions for this witness.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Apostolski.

16 Clearly this is a convenient moment, then, for the first break.

17 We resume at a quarter past 4.00.

18 --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.

19 --- On resuming at 4.20 p.m.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski.

21 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just for the

22 transcript I wish to inform the Court that with regards to Exhibit 2D41,

23 there will be an official translation. The CLSS will send it to the

24 e-court under 65 ter --

25 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat the number.

1 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] And the court officer will attach

2 it to the original document.

3 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter kindly ask the Defence counsel

4 to repeat the 65 ter number.

5 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] 65 ter 2D419.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Apostolski.

7 MR. APOSTOLSKI: Thank you.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa.

9 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Your Honour.

10 Re-examination by Ms. Issa:

11 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, good afternoon.

12 A. [In English] Good afternoon.

13 Q. Just to clarify one point that arose from today, you were asked if

14 the number 070279417 was used or you received information that number

15 was "used by Gjorgi Todorovski."

16 Can I ask you, was the information that you received from the

17 Macedonian authorities, was that telephone number, was it used by Gjorgi

18 Todorovski or was the information relating to who the number was

19 subscribed to?

20 A. [Interpretation] That is true, Ms. Issa. I can give you the

21 required information. The information pertained to subscriber. I was not

22 informed that he used the phone number.

23 And, Your Honour, Ms. Issa, if I like I would like to briefly

24 correct something to what was just said before the break if you allow.

25 Thank you. During the break I very quickly read up on something

1 regarding to a question asked by Mr. Apostolski, which concerned a

2 criminal record and pertaining to RFA 77 of 13 September 2004. The OTP

3 was informed that Mr. Johan Tarculovski did have a file in SVR Skopje in

4 which a violation of Article 12 was -- alleged there was a physical

5 attack. The date of the offence being committed was 25 April 1992.

6 Whether this constitutes a prior conviction in the criminal sense or not,

7 I do not know. I simply wanted to add this for completeness sake. I did

8 not have time to check exactly on one of the other questions you asked me

9 because a colleague did this.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski.

11 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have to address

12 the Court once again and indicate that my question was related to criminal

13 record, not misdemeanour record, so I wish to have this clear. My

14 question was pertaining to criminal record while the witness is now

15 testifying to -- with regards to a misdemeanour record and there is a

16 difference between the two.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

18 MS. ISSA:

19 Q. Now, Mr. Kuehnel, at transcript page 814 -- 8014 you were asked

20 about the president having used Mr. Keskovski's phone during the weekend

21 of 10 to 12 August 2001. Do you remember that?

22 A. Yes, Ms. Issa, I do remember.

23 Q. If I can go to the statement of Mr. Keskovski at 1D526, please,

24 and so save time I can just indicate that referring you to paragraph 32 of

25 the statement. It says that: "Johan Tarculovski called me," and this is

1 Mr. Keskovski's speaking on that day, which is the 10th of August,

2 2001, "sometime in the afternoon and asked for at least two days off,

3 since he had a relative who died in the incident and he would like to join

4 funeral. According to the law, he was entitled to have at least two days

5 off. I gave him at least two days off. I do not know what relation Johan

6 Tarculovski was with the death of the soldiers. I even do not know the

7 names of the victims of Ljubotenski Bacila."

8 And then the next paragraph says: "I informed the president,

9 according to a standard procedure, that some of the killed soldiers were

10 relatives of Johan Tarculovski and that he had asked for at least two days

11 off."

12 Then in paragraph 34 of that statement: "In the afternoon on the

13 10th of August, the president approved the request and asked me to call

14 Johan Tarculovski. As I called Johan Tarculovski, the president wanted to

15 speak to him so that I gave him my mobile phone. I was present during the

16 conversation and I heard the president asking Johan Tarculovski to call

17 the next day and inform the president about the situation in the village.

18 The president was concerned that if there was unrest at the village, it

19 could postpone the signing of the Ohrid Agreement which was scheduled for

20 Monday, 13th of August 2001."

21 Now, Mr. Kuehnel, does it say anything in there that the president

22 is to call Mr. Tarculovski about the operation?

23 A. No, absolutely not.

24 Q. And if I could then just take you to paragraph 39 of the statement

25 on the next page.

1 "After the above-mentioned conversation, Johan Tarculovski called

2 on my mobile phone and he said that in Ljuboten there is an action being

3 prepared."

4 "And then it continues and he says: "I asked him who was preparing

5 the action and he replied that it was the police and the army units."

6 And then it continues and it says: "I asked him what the problem

7 was and he said the problem was a certain army major - I do not know his

8 name - who did not want to undertake any activities because he did not

9 receive any orders from his superior officers."

10 And then, if if we go to paragraph 40 he says that: "I told

11 Tarculovski to put the major on the phone. I did not ask the major his

12 name; only his rank and superior officer."

13 And then it says: "The person told me that he was in rank of

14 major and his superior was General Sokol Mitrevski. I still held on the

15 phone and I explained to the president what the situation was. The

16 president asked me to give him the phone because he wanted to speak to the

17 major."

18 Do you see that?

19 A. Yes, I do.

20 Q. "Before handing the phone to the president, I asked the major if

21 he would obey an order coming directly from the supreme commander, which

22 means the president."

23 Do you see that?

24 A. Yes, I do see that, Ms. Issa.

25 Q. Now, yesterday at transcript page 8075 you were asked whether --

1 did you see -- whether you saw other information where the president

2 sought to reach Mr. Tarculovski on the phone and you referred to evidence

3 in Mr. Keskovski's statement, Despodov, Kostadinov and Kopacev reports.

4 Do you remember that?

5 A. Yes, I do remember that.

6 Q. And if we can go to paragraph 41 of the statement, refers to: "The

7 president asked what his rank and superior's name, and that's continuing

8 on from the previous paragraph. I did not hear the replies from the major

9 to the president, but I heard as the president told the major to make sure

10 the operation goes according to the plans and he would call his superior

11 Sokol Mitrovski."

12 Is this the conversation that you were referring to, where you --

13 yesterday -- where the president spoke to Major Despodov and said that

14 Despodov will be contacted by General Mitrevski, Mr. Kuehnel?

15 A. Yes. It is as you say. It is correct.

16 Q. In the cross-examination at transcript page 8017, you were also

17 shown part of paragraph 42 in this statement and you were shown the part

18 in the middle of the paragraph where it says: "When I spoke with Johan

19 Tarculovski I used my mobile phone." And then there were two numbers that

20 are you given and then it says: "I do not know the number of the president

21 -- the mobile phone because we were changing it frequently. For

22 instance, I took the phone from a driver and I gave it to the president

23 and vice versa."

24 Do you see that?

25 A. Yes, I do.

1 Q. Can you look at the top of that paragraph at paragraph 42?

2 A. Hm-mmm.

3 Q. And it says: "During course of the conversation between me and

4 Johan Tarculovski he never mentioned that he is involved in the operation,

5 anyway, and the first time," and then it continues. And that refers to

6 that one conversation, doesn't it?

7 A. Obviously, yes.

8 Q. And apart from the conversation where the president had expressed

9 concern for a possible unrest might postpone the Ohrid Agreement, there's

10 nothing in this statement which says that the president spoke directly to

11 Johan Tarculovski regarding the operation, is there?

12 A. That is correct. I did not see anything like that.

13 MS. ISSA: If we could then please go to P00464.

14 Now this is from the war -- the book titled: The War in Macedonia

15 in 2001.

16 If we can please turn to ERN page number N006-3017. If we can

17 actually -- if we can go to the 8th page after that, please.

18 If I can just have the Court's indulgence for a moment.

19 [Prosecution counsel confer]

20 MS. ISSA: Actually, I think -- thank you, Madam Registrar, I do

21 see the correct page on the screen now. Apologies for the delay.

22 Q. Now, you see, Mr. Kuehnel, underneath the heading, Orders, the use

23 of the police during martial law to support the army, about the third

24 paragraph underneath that that begins with: "Since martial law was not

25 declared. The second sentence says -- begins with: "One can only imagine

1 what the situation is like when two ministers from the same government

2 (the Ministry of Interior, and Ministry of Defence) have two armed

3 components at their disposal,, one of which is commanded by the prime

4 minister through the minister of the interior, while the other is under

5 the command of the president of the Republic through the Defence

6 minister."

7 Do you see that?

8 A. Yes, I see that.

9 Q. And then if you look at the second paragraph below that, which

10 begins with, As a result, it says: "As a result, it could be said that

11 the two armed structures, the police and the army, were each fighting on

12 their own front. This type of deployment of the police as the prime

13 minister's armed force caused a rift in the management and command of the

14 joint security forces of the Republic of Macedonia."

15 Do you see that?

16 A. Yes, I do, Ms. Issa.

17 Q. Now, in Mr. Keskovski's statement which we looked at, that

18 paragraph 9, the head of the prime minister's security was Vlatko

19 Stefanovski, are you aware of that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. If we can then please turn to P00369 at page 4. And at the moment

22 we are looking at the outgoing calls for the number believed to be Johan

23 Tarculovski's number 70279417. And if I can draw your attention to about

24 the 8th line down, do you see that, it says that Johan Tarculovski's

25 number called on the 10th of August, 2001, Vlatko Stefanovski. Do you see

1 that?

2 A. Yes, I do see that.

3 Q. And if we can then please go to page 56 where the incoming

4 calls -- the log-book for the incoming calls begins. Yes, that's the

5 correct page.

6 Now, if you see, Mr. Kuehnel, at about the sixth column down,

7 there are two calls to the number 279417, and that -- and on the 10th of

8 August, 2001, from the security of the prime minister. Do you see that?

9 A. Yes, I do.

10 Q. If we can then please turn to the next page. And, again, if you

11 look at the -- about the -- sorry. About the sixth column down, once

12 again, on the 11th of August 2001, the security of the prime minister

13 called Johan Tarculovski's number. Do you see that?

14 A. Yes, I do.

15 MS. ISSA: Can we please turn to the following page.

16 Q. If you look at about the 13th column down from the top, once

17 again, the security of the prime minister called Johan Tarculovski on 13

18 August 2001. Do you see that?

19 A. Yes, I do.

20 MS. ISSA: Now, if I can please ask Madam Registrar to go back to

21 page 56.

22 Q. If you look at about the middle of the page, there's a name of

23 Goran Stojkov who called Johan Tarculovski's number on the 10th of August

24 2001 twice, at 12.37 and at 10.54, respectively. Do you see that?

25 A. Yes, I see that. Ms. Issa.

1 Q. Who is Goran Stojkov?

2 A. Goran Stojkov, as far as I'm aware, is a police general or he was

3 in 2001. At that time one can say that he had a dual function. In the

4 security service he worked for the prime minister and according to his own

5 statements he also was involved in setting up the unit later, better known

6 as the Lions formation, and even later than that he became the leader of

7 that particular unit.

8 Q. Thank you. Now --

9 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski.

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

11 interfering with my learned friend's examination, but she states, as if it

12 were a fact several times. On page 35, lines 2 and 3 she states that

13 Goran Stojkov has called Johan Tarculovski, has called Johan Tarculovski's

14 number twice.

15 From the evidence of this witness, he stated that there has been a

16 connection between two telephone numbers. He never indicated that it was

17 a fact, a certain fact that it was Johan Tarculovski's phone number or

18 Goran Stojkov's phone number.

19 So I would like to ask my colleague to be more careful in framing

20 the question.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Apostolski.

22 I don't think I need to underline what's been said.

23 MS. ISSA: No, Your Honour, I take the point.

24 JUDGE PARKER: I have been actually noting in my notes the

25 telephone number each time you said Johan Tarculovski's phone.

1 MS. ISSA: I should have said what is believed to be Johan

2 Tarculovski's phone.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Not even that. It's merely.

4 MS. ISSA: What you believe to be, yes. No. You're quite

5 correct, Your Honour.

6 Q. If we can then please call up what is marked for identification as

7 P00379, and while that's being called up, Mr. Kuehnel, you recall that you

8 were asked at some point, at transcript page 8037 whether you were aware

9 of any recorded calls from Mr. Boskoski to Mr. Tarculovski during the

10 period of 10 to 12 August, 2001. Do you recall that?

11 A. Yes, that is true. I remember that.

12 Q. Are you aware of whether there were any calls between Mr. Boskoski

13 and (redacted)?

14 A. Well, as I already explained, I cannot tell you with the utmost

15 certainty because these are all connection data. What I do know is that

16 (redacted), when he was questioned, stated he been in telephone contact

17 with Mr. Boskoski.

18 Q. If we can then please go to the Macedonian -- in the Macedonian

19 version, page 8 and in the English version N000-8927.

20 And if I can ask Madam Registrar to please turn to the following

21 page.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.

23 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour. I believe that my

24 colleague is about to enter into an area of questioning which we have not

25 touched upon for obvious reasons, and I believe she's about to ask

1 questions about the suggestion made by one particular witness about the

2 allegation which he made about phone contacts between himself and

3 Mr. Boskoski. I believe that this witness, Mr. Kuehnel, has given the

4 evidence which he was capable of giving on that particular issue and which

5 he knew from having interviewed the person in question. We believe,

6 however, that the witness in question is still to appear. The

7 allegations --

8 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I'm sorry.

9 MR. METTRAUX: -- will be tested with him, Your Honour, and

10 furthermore, we believe that this document in particular is the subject of

11 a pending motion before Your Honour on its admissibility.

12 We therefore believe that the witness hereby present is not an

13 appropriate witness to whom this document should be put.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa.

15 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, if we may please go into private session.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Private.

17 [Private session]

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 8195-8197 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 [Open session]

13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.

14 MS. ISSA:

15 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, I will simply refer to a very brief portion of this

16 interview. After the reference to "on the 10th on the road," which refers

17 to August 10th, if you look at about the middle of the page, I don't know

18 if you see that on your screen. Perhaps we can scroll down very -- just

19 towards the bottom of the screen.

20 It says: "The next day the soldiers were buried at the time I was

21 called personally on the phone by -- Minister Ljube Boskoski phoned and

22 told me that a person by name Johan will come to me, who is in his

23 personal security and that if he requests any services, I have orders from

24 him to carry them out."

25 Do you see that?

1 A. Yes, I can.

2 Q. Were you aware of this information, Mr. Kuehnel?

3 A. Yes, I already read about this. That's correct.

4 MS. ISSA: If we can then please briefly go back to P00369.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.

6 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, before we proceed and perhaps to

7 clarify the matter, since the Prosecution was permitted to pursue this

8 line of questioning, if my colleague could ask the witness whether the

9 allegation that was made by the witness, the person who was talked to,

10 whether this allegation was in any way supported by the telephone records

11 which the witness, Mr. Kuehnel, reviewed in his capacity as an

12 investigator, that may assist.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa.

14 MS. ISSA: Well, I -- I can ask the witness questions to see if he

15 can answer the question, Your Honour. I don't know at this point. But I

16 can certainly do that.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

18 MS. ISSA:

19 Q. Did you -- Mr. Kuehnel, did you actually check the telephone

20 records to determine whether or not you could see this telephone call

21 that -- that we referred to moments ago?

22 A. I did do that. But I really would need to read up on it carefully

23 again. But what I can say is that I did not find any record with the name

24 of Ljube Boskoski in this telephone register. The problem is that we

25 received about six to eight telephone numbers with the comment that they

1 were being used by Mr. Ljube Boskoski, but it was also quite possible that

2 the telephone numbers were being used by others. But I'm quite careful in

3 saying this, because the evidence pertaining to the person is missing,

4 that somebody made a statement to the effect that he heard the voice of

5 Mr. Boskoski with this particular number for this moment in time.

6 But I really would need to read up on that. We've checked it, but

7 I cannot give you any definitive answer at this moment in time.

8 Q. Thank you.

9 MS. ISSA: If we can then please go to page 12 of P00369, the

10 outgoing calls.

11 Q. Now you see at the very top of that page, Mr. Kuehnel, right below

12 the telephone calls to Mr. Ljube Krstevski we see a call from that number,

13 279417, to the UBK. Do you see that?

14 A. Yes, that's correct. I can see that.

15 Q. And that's on the 13th of August, 2001.

16 A. That's correct.

17 Q. I'd just like to move to another area.

18 Now, you were asked some questions a couple of days ago regarding

19 the possibility that a criminal report may have been conveyed orally to an

20 investigating judge, and that's at transcript pages 8054 to 8056. Do you

21 recall that?

22 A. Yes, I can recall.

23 Q. And you were, I believe, shown a reference --

24 MS. ISSA: I see Mr. Mettraux is on his feet.

25 MR. METTRAUX: I apologise to my colleague, Your Honour. It's

1 simply for the clarity of the record. I think we said criminal report to

2 the Prosecutor and information to the investigative judge.

3 MS. ISSA: Thank you.

4 Q. You were also shown a reference to a phone call from P00535, which

5 is, you may recall, the outgoing calls log-book for Ljube Krstevski's

6 telephone number, indicating that Mr. Krstevski called an investigative

7 judge and it was suggested to you that a criminal report could have been

8 made orally. Do you remember that?

9 A. I can remember that, that's correct.

10 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, as an experienced investigator, would you except that

11 a criminal report to the public prosecutor or information to the

12 investigative judge of such serious crimes as those alleged to have been

13 carried out by the police or members of the Ministry of Interior in

14 Ljuboten would have been made in writing?

15 A. Yes, absolutely, yes. I don't think that a telephone call would

16 be sufficient, and I think I have already stated that. I just can't

17 imagine that. I cannot imagine that for the situation of the police in

18 Macedonia for that, they certainly would be too professional to handle

19 this just via a simple telephone call.

20 Q. And if the public prosecutor had received such reports, whether

21 they were in writing or orally, would you expect to find such

22 documentation within the court files?

23 A. At least I would make a note in the files about this -- I would

24 assume that there would be a note in the files about this conversation and

25 then I would assume that further measures would be taken.

1 Q. And were there any such documentation that you found either within

2 the Ministry of Interior or the court files in connection to police

3 criminal conduct in Ljuboten in 2001?

4 A. No, I didn't find it in any case, and I looked at both

5 documentations of the investigative judge files and prosecutor's files and

6 I didn't find anything. The only thing which in place and time would

7 coincide would be the information on the 14th of August as regards the

8 so-called crime scene inspection.

9 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.

10 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I apologise, but we feel we have to

11 intervene in relation to this line of questioning.

12 We would simply like to indicate that there is a document in

13 evidence already which is an Official Note prepared by the then

14 investigative judge Mr. Ognen Stavrev that specifically records this fact

15 and this document has been now admitted in evidence. We believe that to

16 the extent that the Prosecutor is trying to suggest, if indeed that is

17 what is being done, we believe the line of questioning, in our submission,

18 Your Honour, could be somewhat improper since the document in question in

19 fact records that very event happening in the case of Ljuboten.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa.

21 MS. ISSA: Well, Your Honour, I'd have to refer to the document

22 that Mr. Mettraux is referring to. But I don't believe it records

23 criminal conduct or allegations of criminal conduct by the police in

24 Ljuboten in 2001.

25 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, with respect, what the document

1 suggests is the fact that the investigative judge Mr. Stavrev was in fact

2 informed orally by the duty centre of the MOI about the events of Ljuboten

3 by -- in other words, by the police or the Ministry of Interior.

4 JUDGE PARKER: Do you feel the need to look to the document or are

5 you content to carry on, Ms. Issa?

6 MS. ISSA: I'm content to carry on.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Please carry on.

8 MS. ISSA: Thank you.

9 Q. Now, Mr. Kuehnel, did you find any information relating to the

10 criminal conduct of the police in Ljuboten in 2001 which indicated that

11 the -- the matter was being investigated?

12 A. No, not in a single case I found anything about that.

13 Q. You were also asked some questions in relation to the law on

14 amnesty, and in your examination-in-chief at pages 7893 to 7894 you said

15 that you were aware of a response from the Ministry of Interior to a

16 request for assistance from the Office of the Prosecutor, indicating that

17 no non-Albanian individual was subject to a criminal investigation,

18 indictment or any other procedure in connection to the events in Ljuboten

19 during the time-period of 10 to 12 August 2001. Do you recall that?

20 A. Yes, I remember that.

21 MS. ISSA: If we can then please turn to P000048.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have got a question, Ms. Issa.

23 I don't know whether it is possible or necessary. You asked me

24 about this telephone number of UBK a few sentences before. I don't know

25 whether you require any further explanation about that or not.

1 MS. ISSA:

2 Q. I think I've --

3 A. [In English] You've covered it?

4 Q. Yes, it's covered. Yes, thank you.

5 A. [No interpretation].

6 Q. Now, we see here as one example of a decision to exempt an

7 arrested member of the so-called NLA from criminal prosecution. Do you

8 see that?

9 A. Yes, I can see that.

10 Q. And it is signed by the then president Boris Trajkovski. Do you

11 see that?

12 A. Yes, I can.

13 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, would you expect to have found similar written

14 documentation granting amnesty to police perpetrators had they been

15 charged with crimes or investigated for crimes in connection with the

16 Ljuboten events and subsequently granted amnesty?

17 A. Yes, I would expect that. And I think I've already stated that

18 during my previous interview, that for specific case and for a specific

19 accused I would expect such a document as far as amnesty is concerned.

20 Q. Okay.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski.

22 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] I was the first one on my feet,

23 Your Honours. I believe that --

24 JUDGE PARKER: You've been awarded the prize, yes.

25 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] I believe the witness is misled

1 with this, so at least once I was the first one on my feet and I was

2 faster than my colleague Mettraux.

3 I think that the witness has been misled. This is a decision on

4 pardoning and I do not think this is a decision based on the Law on

5 Amnesty. Pardon and amnesty are two different legal notions and the Law

6 on Amnesty was passed in 2001 [as interpreted], so on the basis of Law on

7 Amnesty, you could not show this document.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

9 Now Mr. Mettraux.

10 MR. METTRAUX: My colleague was not only faster; he was also

11 better than me, Your Honour. The same point was to be made by the defence

12 of Mr. Boskoski. I believe, however, that the transcript should read that

13 the Law of amnesty was passed in 2002, not in 2001.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Ms. Issa, we seem to have some suggested

15 confusion between an amnesty and a pardon.

16 MS. ISSA: Well, Your Honour, perhaps if I can ask a few more

17 questions it can be clarified.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Please go ahead.

19 MS. ISSA: I don't have to rely on that document necessarily.

20 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, irrespective of the document that we just saw if

21 someone were to be granted amnesty from such serious allegatons or crimes

22 that were committed as alleged in this case in Ljuboten in 2001, would you

23 expect to have found some written documentation relating to the granting

24 of such amnesty?

25 A. Yes, I would indeed expect that. At least a document which would

1 explain the allegation and then would also give the reasons as to why this

2 pardon or this amnesty should have been granted.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa, there are legal distinctions between an

4 amnesty, usually an amnesty against prosecution, and a pardon for any

5 offences that may have been committed. I think your questioning may

6 continue to blur that distinction and the evidence of the witness --

7 MS. ISSA: I will leave that at this stage, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski.

9 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] This is why I was on my feet,

10 Your Honours. The pardon is an individual act while the amnesty is

11 prescribed by the law and it is directed generally to anyone involved,

12 while the pardon is an individual act by which the president grants pardon

13 to a given individual.

14 JUDGE PARKER: I don't think we'll pause to go right through the

15 full scope of both, but I think it's enough to say that there is some

16 confusion in the questioning at the present time.

17 MS. ISSA: Would Your Honour like me to carry on?

18 JUDGE PARKER: I beg your pardon, yes, please.

19 MS. ISSA: Thank you.

20 Q. Just moving on to another topic. Mr. Kuehnel, you were asked at

21 some stage at transcript page 8046 whether you were aware that a

22 particular individual heard a conversation on the radio which suggested

23 that Mr. Qaili had been handling a hand-grenade and you said that it may

24 have been contained in some investigator note from Zoran Cvetanovski. Do

25 you recall that?

1 A. Yes, I do. Yeah, that's correct.

2 Q. And that investigator note actually indicates that a -- that he--

3 Mr. Qaili was alleged to have been found in possession of the

4 hand-grenade. Isn't that right?

5 A. Yes.

6 MS. ISSA: If we can then please go to P0023.

7 Q. Now that's an Official Note submitted by Sasa Simonovic on 12

8 August 2001. And it lists the ammunition and weapons that were seized

9 from the villagers or the Ljuboten detainees on that date.

10 Do you see any reference to a grenade listed as part of the cache

11 of weapons. And for the record it includes the number -- the detainees

12 include Atulla Qaili. Do you see that?

13 A. Yes, I can see that, and I can see any indication about a

14 confiscated grenade.

15 MS. ISSA: If we can then please go to P0054.

16 Actually, the ERN number that I have is ERN N000-7278.

17 Q. Now, if you can please look at that document, Mr. Kuehnel. It's

18 dated 13 August 2001. It's submitted by Blagoja Toskovski, an official --

19 and the subject heading is official conversation carried out with the

20 persons taken over from the village of Ljuboten and it lists the following

21 persons, one of them being Atulla Qaili. Do you see that?

22 A. Yes. I know this document, yes, I can see it.

23 Q. And if I can draw your attention to the last paragraph in that

24 document.

25 MS. ISSA: If we can please scroll down to the end of the page,

1 please.

2 Q. And it says, "Regarding the weapon and ammunition found on them

3 during their arrest, the same men stated that they have not used it. At

4 the place the persons were found and arrested, the following weapons and

5 ammunition were found." And it lists an automatic rifle of Chinese

6 production. Actually lists two automatic rifles of Chinese production.

7 Do you see any reference to a hand-grenade or a grenade in that

8 document, Mr. Kuehnel?

9 A. No, I can't see that. This document has got a second page, and

10 even on the following page there's -- you can't see any indications to

11 that. It's -- it doesn't say anywhere in any of the documents that a

12 grenade has been confisicated.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 THE REGISTRAR: For the record, Your Honours, this was Exhibit

15 P24.

16 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

17 Q. Now, at transcript pages 8062 to 8063, you were asked about the

18 investigation that the Office of the Prosecutor commenced regarding the

19 matter that is before the Chamber. And you were specifically asked about

20 colliding investigations. Do you recall that?

21 A. Yes, I can remember that.

22 MS. ISSA: If we can then please go to P0073.

23 Q. Now, this is a decision by then minister Ljube Boskoski

24 establishing the commission on -- dated 13 August 2001. And it refers to

25 the task to review circumstances and analyse activities undertaken by the

1 security forces of the Ministry of Interior to repel armed attacks of the

2 terrorist groups on 12 August 2001 in Ljuboten. Do you see that?

3 A. Yes, I do.

4 Q. If we can then please go to P00054.4.

5 Do you see the date of that document is 14 August 2001, and it's

6 from the deputy public prosecutor. If we go down to the second page, we

7 can see that.

8 And it's titled as a request for enforcement of investigation with

9 the proposal to impose detention and it lists the names of the individuals

10 that are -- that were alleged to have committed crimes or to -- in

11 relation to the proposal to impose detention.

12 Do you see that?

13 A. Yes, I do.

14 Q. Would you agree, Mr. Kuehnel, that based on these two documents,

15 there was an investigation commenced by the Ministry of Interior and a

16 simultaneous and parallel investigation commenced by the basic public

17 prosecutor. Would you agree with that?

18 A. Yes, Ms. Issa, I agree.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.

20 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I apologise to intervene again, but we

21 submit again that this line of questioning is in fact improper. When we

22 asked the particular question which counsel suggests entitles the

23 Prosecutor to ask question in re-examination, my question was as follows:

24 "Mr. Kuehnel, perhaps you have answered it already, but are you

25 aware that the reason or one of the reason invoked by the Office of the

1 Prosecutor in September of 2002 for the deferral of five cases, including

2 the case of Ljuboten, to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, was the risk of

3 colliding investigations between your investigation and the investigation

4 conducted at the local level? Are you aware of that fact?"

5 And the answer of Mr. Kuehnel was: "I cannot give you any reply to

6 that, really. It is a possible reason but I really haven't got a complete

7 overview over that time-period and about all the decisions that were taken

8 and by whom. Hence, if I confirm or disagree, I could only give you a

9 very incomplete account."

10 Your Honour, as a result of that - and this was page 8062 and

11 8063 - the Defence moved on to a different subject. We only gave the

12 indication about a particular document. However, we had a series of

13 documents, letters from the Prosecution, letters to the Prosecution,

14 decisions, Prosecution requests, Trial Chamber decisions in relation to

15 this matter. The Prosecutor, in various letters sent in particular in the

16 year 2002 acknowledged and the Chief Prosecutor of this Tribunal also

17 acknowledged the fact of an ongoing investigation in the matter of

18 Ljuboten. They are plenty of documents which suggest that fact.

19 We submit, Your Honour, and with no criticism of our colleague, I

20 insist that the line of questioning is improper to the extent that it

21 would suggest that there was no investigation ongoing at the time, whereas

22 the Office of the Prosecutor itself has acknowledged that fact on many

23 repeated occasion, in particular in the year of 2002.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa.

25 MS. ISSA: Well, Your Honour, I was merely asking that question

1 picking up from the cross-examination regarding the suggestion that was

2 put to Mr. Kuehnel about the, quote/unquote, colliding investigations. I

3 wasn't planning on taking it any further than the -- than what I have

4 already done. But in my respectful submission, it was proper

5 re-examination in light of the suggestions that were put by Mr. Mettraux

6 despite the fact that he did not carry on with further questioning.

7 JUDGE PARKER: The point of your re-examination being to -- to

8 identify the investigation that was instituted at the request of the

9 deputy public prosecutor on the 14th of August? Is that correct?

10 MS. ISSA: Well, the point, Your Honour, was to demonstrate that

11 it's quite possible for two parallel investigations to -- to take place

12 without interfering with -- with one another, which is what I took the

13 suggestion to be from Mr. Mettraux's suggestion or questioning.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Well, I think counsel are a very long way apart in

15 what each perceives to be the issue and how they are approaching it. You

16 say you intended to go no further than you have. We will leave it there

17 and carry on with whatever else.

18 Now, is it a convenient time now or is there something you wish to

19 finish at this moment?

20 MS. ISSA: It would be a convenient time at this point, Your

21 Honour.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. We will adjourn now and we'll resume at

23 five past 6.00.

24 --- Recess taken at 5.33 p.m.

25 --- On resuming at 6.07 p.m.

1 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa.

2 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Your Honour.

3 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, I believe yesterday you were asked questions

4 regarding the existence of a commission for the centralised police service

5 in 2001. Do you recall that?

6 A. Yes, I do.

7 MS. ISSA: If we can then please go to Prosecution Exhibit P526

8 and if it could please not be broadcast. I just note for the record it's

9 under seal.

10 If we can please turn to page 4.

11 Q. Now, you see at the very top of the document, right below the

12 minutes, it says the MVR dismissal commission formed with the minister's

13 decision number, and then it lists a number of names of the composition of

14 the commission. Now, you have had an opportunity to review this file,

15 Mr. Kuehnel, is that right?

16 A. Yes, that's correct.

17 Q. Would you say that that's an example of a commission within the

18 centralised police service based on your review of the material and your

19 understanding?

20 A. Yes, this is a good example. It's an analog way which we handled

21 the centralised police units. In the year 2001, the -- that's how we

22 dealt with it. If the name -- even if the name was not in existence then,

23 but that is the centralised police unit of the Ministry of the Interior,

24 as is known.

25 Q. Thank you. If we can then -- you were also actually shown a

1 passage in the same exhibit.

2 I think Mr. Mettraux is on his feet, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.

4 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I apologise, but simply for the

5 record, our understanding is that this is the permanent disciplinary

6 commission, not the, quote/unquote, special commission that Mr. Kuehnel

7 indicated is a different commission. This is our understanding.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Proceed with your questioning, please, Ms. Issa.

9 MS. ISSA: Yes, Your Honour.

10 Q. You were also shown yesterday a passage in the same exhibit that

11 essentially shows - and if I can refer you back to page 2 of that

12 exhibit - that shows the minister, then minister Ljube Boskoski exercising

13 his power to transfer his power to Risto Galevski. Do you recall that?

14 A. Yes, Ms. Issa.

15 Q. And if I can take you to page 8.

16 MS. ISSA: If I can ask Madam Registrar to go to page 8, please.

17 And -- actually, we're at page 7 right now and just by way of introduction

18 to page 8, that refers to the hearing whereby (redacted) is

19 testifying or providing evidence. Do you see that?

20 A. Yes, I see it.

21 Q. Yes, and that's at page 6. If we can then please go to page 8.

22 If we can just go two pages down, please.

23 And if I can ask Madam Registrar to focus on the bottom of that

24 page.

25 Now, if I can just draw your attention, Mr. Kuehnel, to the last

1 couple of passages in the very bottom of that page, where it says: "A

2 short time afterwards the minister also rang me and asked how far we had

3 got. I replied that the unit and I were on the way back to Skopje. The

4 minister started threatening me, saying that we were deserters, that we

5 would have -- and that he would have us all thrown in the lockup and

6 demanding that we immediately make a list of all the members who did not

7 want to take part in the operation.

8 Mr. Kuehnel, would you say that the minister in that instance

9 exercised his power to intervene despite having transferred power to Risto

10 Galevski?

11 A. Yes, although, Ms. Issa, there is a very good example for a

12 leadership personage to take direct -- have direct influence exerted.

13 Q. If you can please just clarify your last sentence, what you mean

14 by that. When you said although. Is there something that you wish to

15 add?

16 A. No. That could have been a translation. What I actually meant

17 was although in a sense of indeed I agree with it.

18 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, if we can then please go to page 3 of that

19 same exhibit.

20 MS. ISSA: Madam Registrar, it's actually the second page after

21 the -- within the decision, within the part of the document titled

22 Decision. Yes, thank you.

23 Q. Now I believe yesterday you were shown this part of the decision,

24 signed by Mr. Boskoski, and it was drawn to your attention that an officer

25 may appeal against this decision. We see that at the third paragraph from

1 the bottom.

2 A. Yes, I do.

3 Q. Do you also see the line immediately after that that says: "An

4 appeal against this decision does not defer the implementation of the

5 decision?" Do you see that?

6 A. I see that, Ms. Issa.

7 Q. Now, if we can please go to Exhibit 1D1141.

8 MR. METTRAUX: I apologise. I believe it is Rule 65 ter, Your

9 Honour, 1D1141.

10 MS. ISSA: Yes, thank you.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Mettraux.

12 MR. METTRAUX: And, Your Honour, it is also Exhibit 1D275, now.

13 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Mr. Mettraux.

14 Q. Now at the very top that refers to Article 143, item 5 of the

15 collective agreement of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Do you see

16 that, among other things?

17 A. I see that.

18 Q. And if you recall, that referred, that Article referred to the

19 proposal for initiation of the disciplinary procedure that can be

20 submitted by persons authorised by the minister. Do you recall that?

21 A. Yes, Ms. Issa.

22 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, would you say that that's an example of the

23 minister's fundamental authority to -- over the entire disciplinary

24 process and his power to decentralise disciplinary procedures?

25 A. Yes, I agree with that. I see that he has a general overview and

1 obviously also authority over the whole process, including the authority

2 to delegate. He has to be in this function in order to exercise these

3 competences, I agree.

4 Q. Could we please go to P000382. That's a collective agreement that

5 we looked at yesterday.

6 If you can please go to page N002-6377, Madam Registrar. I think

7 it's the next page.

8 Q. Just drawing your attention to Article 149 of the collective

9 agreement it says that "If the minister does not agree with the proposal,

10 he can return the case for additional review," and then at the end it

11 continues, "or the minister might bring a different decision or a decision

12 according to Article 139, paragraph 1, of this agreement."

13 Without going over back over the disciplinary files that we looked

14 at during the course of the examination-in-chief, do you recall seeing

15 examples, Mr. Kuehnel, where the minister changed the proposal made by the

16 commission, either by changing the mode of punishment or reducing the

17 pecuniary punishment proposed by a commission?

18 A. Yes, while I studied these files, I noticed several times that

19 obviously, the practical interpretation of this article has in several

20 cases meant the commission's proposal was deviated from and that the

21 minister apparently exercised his right to influence the duration of

22 whatever punishment had been decided or to reduce the punishment. That

23 struck me. And every time at the end of every proceeding, the minister's

24 signature had been put at the last document.

25 THE INTERPRETER: Could the interpreter please request that

1 Ms. Issa perhaps switches off her microphone when the witness is speaking,

2 so otherwise, we hear the rustling of the notes. I'm sorry. Thank you.

3 MS. ISSA: I will take care to do that.

4 If we can then please go to what was 65 ter 1D1142, and I'm sorry,

5 Madam Registrar, I didn't note down the exhibit number that was given out

6 today.

7 MR. METTRAUX: We believe it to be Exhibit 1D276, Your Honour.

8 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Mr. Mettraux.

9 Q. I just want to draw your attention, Mr. Kuehnel, to the very top

10 before it says decision, where it refers to Article 55, item 1 of the Law

11 on Organisation and Work of the Bodies of the State Authority. Do you see

12 that?

13 A. Yes, I can see that, Ms. Issa.

14 Q. It also refers to Article 143 of the collective agreement. Is

15 that right?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. If we can then please go to P00092.

18 If we can first go to Article 55, please. I believe it's on page

19 15 in the English version.

20 Q. I just want to draw your attention, Mr. Kuehnel, to item 1 of

21 Article 55, which says that the minister submits rule, orders, guidelines,

22 plans, et cetera, when he is authorised to do so by law. Do you see that?

23 A. Yes, Ms. Issa, I see that.

24 Q. And if I can then draw your attention to Article 57, right below

25 that, if I can ask Madam Registrar to scroll down. It also says: "The

1 minister submits decisions on administrative proceedings and departmental

2 questions as well as on other cases anticipated by law or other

3 regulations."

4 Do you see that?

5 A. Yes, I do.

6 Q. Now, you were asked some questions I believe it was yesterday, you

7 were asked whether Ms. Naumova that you spoke to when you were obtaining

8 the documents from the permanent disciplinary commission said that the

9 disciplinary proceedings would be initiated against identified individuals

10 or known perpetrators. Do you remember that?

11 A. Yes, I remember.

12 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, would it be easier to initiate a disciplinary

13 proceeding against a known perpetrator if steps had been taken to identify

14 the perpetrator?

15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.

16 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, we simply wanted to give a chance

17 perhaps to the witness if he wish to hear his answer, but we really

18 believe that this is in the realm of absolute hypotheticals. And the

19 other matter which we would to bring to the attention, as indicated by

20 Mr. Kuehnel in response to my question, I believe, is he was in fact told

21 by Ms. Naumova what we understand to be the correct position in the law in

22 Macedonia is that the procedure can only be triggered against known

23 individuals. The question, in our respectful submissions, is not only

24 contrary to what Ms. Naumova told Mr. Kuehnel but also contrary to what

25 the law says. But if Your Honour wish to hear the answer of Mr. Kuehnel,

1 obviously we'll say no more.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa.

3 MS. ISSA: Well, Your Honour, I believe that I've indicated that

4 the question -- that Ms. Naumova had said that disciplinary procedures

5 would be initiated against identified individuals. That's at about --

6 that's at page 61 --

7 JUDGE PARKER: Yeah. There's no question about that.

8 MS. ISSA: Yeah. And then this is simply a follow-up question to

9 clarify and to follow up on that question that I believe Mr. Mettraux has

10 put to the witness in cross-examination.

11 JUDGE PARKER: The issue is a proposal for dismissal, is it not?

12 That's what the procedure is?

13 MS. ISSA: Well, the issue is whether or not one can initiate a

14 disciplinary proceedings against a perpetrator that has been identified or

15 known. And so the question is, how can that be done unless steps would --

16 could be taken or were taken to identify those individuals.

17 JUDGE PARKER: I'm missing something here. You are trying to put

18 the proposition that there has to be somebody identified in the proposal.

19 Is that correct?

20 MS. ISSA: I'm trying to put the proposition that there must be

21 somebody identified in order to initiate proceedings against an individual

22 person.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. Now, isn't that what Mr. Kuehnel has said is

24 his understanding?

25 MS. ISSA: That's correct. And as a follow-up to that, I simply

1 asked whether it would have been easier to initiate proceedings against an

2 identified person or a known person if steps had been taken to identify

3 that person in the first place. Perhaps it might be a question of

4 semantics, Your Honour, but I need not go any further if Your Honour

5 doesn't wish me to do.

6 JUDGE PARKER: I don't think we're going to be helped.

7 MS. ISSA: Thank you.

8 Q. You were also asked, Mr. Kuehnel, about a conversation with

9 Ms. Naumova regarding whether disciplinary proceedings apply to

10 reservists, and what my question is to you, is there anything precluding

11 the minister of the interior or his subordinates from referring criminal

12 conduct to the appropriate authorities, such as the prosecutor or

13 investigative judge that relate to reservists?

14 A. I do not see anything which would exclude any such proceedings.

15 On the contrary, the way I would interpret this, in general, on the basis

16 of the disciplinary proceedings knowledge I have derived from the police,

17 that would actually constitute an important element of what call a

18 self-purification process within the police authorities. Namely, if there

19 are any incidents which prove to be relevant and might lead to criminal

20 charges, then these will not be prevented. That can also be done in

21 parallel to disciplinary proceedings instigated.

22 Q. And to save time, Mr. Kuehnel, in your examination-in-chief do you

23 recall seeing a file of one Milan Mitrevski that you found within the

24 permanent disciplinary commission whereby a charges -- criminal charges

25 were in fact referred to the appropriate authorities against a reservist?

1 A. Yes, that's correct.

2 Q. And for the record, that's Exhibit P528.

3 You were also asked questions about 65 ter 1D937, which was an

4 investigator note regarding a -- an individual called Bogeski.

5 A. I don't think the spelling of the name is quite correct. I would

6 need to read up on that.

7 Q. Well, the name that I believe that you were asked about was

8 Stojance Bogeski.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Do you recall that?

11 A. Yes, I do. That's correct.

12 Q. And you were asked about whether he -- Stojance Bogeski stated

13 that he was serving his duty at a combined military and police

14 check-point. Do you recall that?

15 A. That's correct, yes.

16 Q. And do you recall, Mr. Kuehnel, that according to the

17 investigator's comments who met with Mr. Bogeski that he found him to be

18 an individual who was looking for employment and that he was attempting to

19 help the ICTY in view of obtaining financial gain?

20 A. Yes, Ms. Issa.

21 Q. Has there been any evidence in the course of your investigation,

22 Mr. Kuehnel, that shows there were mixed check-points during the relevant

23 period of time of military and police?

24 A. No. As I have already declared, it's just the opinion of one

25 person and didn't correspond to what I could see, and also relating to the

1 specific check-point, this is -- which is mentioned in this investigator's

2 note.

3 Q. You were also asked whether some of the persons that were

4 interviewed in relation to whether or not they received weapons on the

5 25th or 26th of July from PSOLO that were actually -- who were named on

6 the list on Exhibit P00436 had indicated to you or members of the

7 investigating team that they had not received weapons from PSOLO. Do you

8 recall that?

9 A. That's correct.

10 Q. Just would like to clarify, Mr. Kuehnel, did any of the persons

11 that were interviewed on that list indicate or admit that they in fact had

12 received weapons from PSOLO?

13 A. Yes, of course. The majority of the persons that we questioned

14 and interrogated have admitted to that. And as I have already stated, we

15 interviewed about 15 to 19 persons. I can't recollect precisely. At any

16 rate, the majority openly admitted to that, especially when we submitted

17 the lists with -- bearing their signatures, and this was a procedure which

18 was credible, because we also questioned the administrator of this unit

19 and he stated so, and we then submitted the list with the signatures of

20 these persons. And in these particular cases where it was stated they had

21 arms, equipment and uniforms and they -- they admitted to that.

22 Q. And just to clarify, when you say, "We also questioned the

23 administrator of this unit and he stated so," who are you referring to?

24 A. Mr. Stojanovski.

25 Q. Thank you. You also indicated -- or you were asked questions

1 regarding your attendance at the Dal Met Fu Hotel and at pages 8126 to

2 8127, you were asked questions or you referred to noticing that one book,

3 as you say, appeared to be newer than the other one, and this is in

4 reference to the hotel foreign guest book registry. Can you please

5 explain which book appeared to be newer to you, Mr. Kuehnel?

6 A. I was under the impression that the first book, the book dated

7 2001, looked considerably more recent. As regards the wear and tear of

8 the book, the way it looked, that was my impression so it looked newer to

9 me compared to the second book, which was used after that.

10 Q. And that book was -- the second book that you refer to is from the

11 period of March 2002 to March 2004. Is that correct?

12 A. Yes, that's correct, Ms. Issa.

13 Q. And I understand you took some photographs regarding the condition

14 of the books when you attended at this hotel, Mr. Kuehnel?

15 A. Yes, I did so, and I tried to take a photograph of the outward

16 appearance of the books, then the inside pages at the beginning and at the

17 end, as I was not allowed to take photos of the actual content of the

18 books. And the photos that I did take, the partial photos, I tried to

19 make photographs, to take photographs of the seals and the binding of the

20 book, so everything that was joined to the seal in the book.

21 Q. If we can please go to 65 ter 1077.

22 And if I can ask Madam Registrar to go to ERN number N003-8004.

23 Thank you.

24 Is this one of the photographs that you took, Mr. Kuehnel?

25 A. Yes, that's correct.

1 Q. If we can then please go to -- sorry, I should ask which -- do you

2 recognise which book that photograph depicts?

3 A. Maybe we could zoom in a little bit more, please.

4 Yes, that is book number 1, The first book, dated 2001.

5 Q. Thank you.

6 MS. ISSA: If we can then please go to N003-8032.

7 Q. And which book does that depict?

8 A. That's obviously book number 2, which was -- which followed the

9 first in sequence.

10 Q. And if we can then please go to N003-8065.

11 Can you indicate briefly what that depicts?

12 A. First of all, you can see both books put on top of each other, and

13 lying on the length side. You can see the paper and the different

14 colouring of the paper and also different condition of the pages, which

15 are slightly waved and obviously the spaces compared -- between the top

16 book and the lower book.

17 You can also see that -- what you can see on the right-hand side

18 from my perspective, you can see the folded corners and also the traces

19 that show wear and tear. The lower book dates back to the year 2001, and

20 the upper book is book number 2, which followed after.

21 Q. And, finally, if we can go to N003-8219, please.

22 And if you can just very briefly, Mr. Kuehnel, indicate what that

23 photograph depicts?

24 A. This picture again shows both books. In the lower half you can

25 see the book dated back to 2001 and then the book after that, on top, and

1 it shows you the condition of both books on the first page, when you open

2 up the books.

3 On the right-hand side, at the top and at the bottom, you can see

4 two holes, and they then continue right through the book right to the back

5 page, and then you can you see a string going through these two holes.

6 And there is also a seal.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 MS. ISSA: I would just like to tender this at this stage, Your

9 Honour, please.

10 JUDGE PARKER: You mean the one, two, three, four photographs?

11 MS. ISSA: Yes. I think they're listed under 65 ter exhibit 1077

12 and I was seeking to tender them as one exhibit, if that's possible.

13 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

14 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.

15 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour. We have no objection to

16 the pictures being tendered, but perhaps a matter which could be of

17 assistance to the Chamber when assessing this matter would to be ask

18 Mr. Kuehnel if he knows the period of time during which both books were in

19 use at the hotel in question, since this may or may not be relevant to the

20 Chamber's assessment of the conditions of the books. We believe it may.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. I'm -- it is drawn to my attention,

22 Ms. Issa that the e-court document is in fact 13 photographs. You want

23 just these four; is that it?

24 MS. ISSA: That's correct.

25 JUDGE PARKER: That may take a little longer.

1 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I have no difficulty having all of the

2 photographs contained in that e-court document admitted. I simply didn't

3 want to waste the Court's time by showing them all to the witness.

4 JUDGE PARKER: That's fine. It's just that it will produce a

5 technical problem, I think.

6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

7 JUDGE PARKER: The four photographs will be received as one

8 exhibit.

9 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit P542, Your Honours.

10 JUDGE PARKER: A matter was raised by Mr. Mettraux. Do you want

11 to pursue that in way?

12 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I believe Mr. Mettraux has already asked

13 the witness questions of this nature during the course of his

14 cross-examination, if I recollect correctly, and I don't intend on

15 pursuing it, subject to Your Honours, of course.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Mr. Apostolski.

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

18 interruption.

19 Since I did not deal with this book, I would like the witness to

20 tell me whether both were registered by the Ministry of Interior affairs

21 and I would like to highlight that one of the photographs I think where

22 the older book is -- or let me correct, one book was put on the top of the

23 other, and it is normal that the book on the top is actually putting some

24 pressure on the book that is below, and this does not give truthful image

25 of the photograph.

1 I want to ask whether the witness has photographed the books the

2 other way around, the book that was under the first one to be put on the

3 top.

4 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber makes no specific direction in respect

5 of those matters, Ms. Issa. It would be a matter for you, whether you

6 wish to pursue any of them.

7 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Your Honour. If we may please go into

8 private session.

9 JUDGE PARKER: Private.

10 [Private session]

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 8828 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 [Open session]

15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.

16 MS. ISSA:

17 Q. Mr. Kuehnel, you were asked questions regarding Mr. Hutsch

18 yesterday and whether you were able to interview Jonce Popovski, one of

19 the names given to you by Mr. Hutsch, and another name, and this is at

20 transcript page 8130 and you said he could not be located by the ministry

21 when you attempted to find these two individuals. Is that correct?

22 A. Yes, as far as I can remember, yes, that's true.

23 Q. Didn't Mr. Hutsch also mention a Goran Stojkov in connection to

24 the Ljuboten events on 12 August 2001 in his statement as well?

25 A. Of course.

1 Q. And was he located by the ministry and ultimately interviewed by

2 the Office of the Prosecutor or spoken to?

3 A. Of course. That was very easy. He was in prison at that time.

4 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kuehnel.

5 MS. ISSA: Your Honours, I have no further questions.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Kuehnel, you will be please to know that that

9 concludes the questions for you in this trial. The Chamber would thank

10 you for your assistance and you're of course now free to go about your

11 normal activities.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE PARKER: We need now to adjourn now, given the hour, so

14 perhaps we could ask you just to remain seated a moment while we do.

15 We must adjourn at the moment with it indefinite and unknown when

16 exactly we can come together to hear the remaining witness or some other

17 steps taken. We simply are delayed at the moment because the witness is

18 not presently available in The Hague.

19 The Chamber's legal officer will be in touch with the parties,

20 advising when the Chamber would propose to reassemble to continue the

21 hearing, and we are actively seeking advise as to when the witness might

22 be available to give his evidence.

23 Now, that is likely to extend during next week, as far as can be

24 presently assessed. It is both frustrating for the timely completion of

25 the trial and frustrating in that we cannot make definite decisions or

1 plans at the present time.

2 If as the week -- next week, that is, progresses and there is no

3 certainty, could I indicate that the Chamber would certainly be prepared

4 to receive motions from any party about the future course, whatever they

5 may wish, but in the absence of that, a time will come when, because of

6 the time and because of what we have learnt, the Chamber will call the

7 parties together. But I cannot at this moment, I regret to say, tell you

8 exactly when that will be -- there will be a more than a day's notice if

9 anybody needs to travel out of The Hague.

10 On that unsatisfactory basis, I'm afraid we must now adjourn.

11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m.,

12 to be reconvened sine die.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25