1 Wednesday, 13 February 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning.
7 And good morning to you, sir. The affirmation you made still
9 Mr. Saxon.
10 WITNESS: PETRE STOJANOVSKI [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Cross-examination by Mr. Saxon: [Continued]
14 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, during your direct examination at page 9155 of
15 the transcript, in response to some questions which my colleague
16 Ms. Residovic you told the Chamber that it would most probably be a lie to
17 suggest that on Saturday, the 11th of August, 2001,
18 Mr. Ljupco Bliznakovski had attended a meeting at the defence command for
19 the city of Skopje and then had ordered the chief of OVR Cair to reinforce
20 the check-points in OVR Cair.
21 Do you recall that testimony?
22 A. Yes, I remember that Mr. Ljupco Bliznakovski was in Radusa on that
24 Q. And you also explained that you and Mr. Bliznakovski usually knew
25 what the other one was working on, right?
1 A. Yes, usually.
2 Q. Tell me, are you familiar with all of the details of
3 Mr. Bliznakovski's activities from the 10th to the 12th of August, 2001?
4 A. I cannot speak about all details, but I do know of some.
5 Q. Of some. All right. And so, for example, you don't know
6 whether-- let me rephrase my question.
7 Do you know who Mr. Bliznakovski spoke with on the telephone on
8 the morning of Saturday, 11th August 2001?
9 A. I don't know who he spoke with. I know that he left for Radusa.
10 Q. So it's also possible, isn't it, that Mr. Bliznakovski performed
11 some activities on that morning, Saturday, the 11th, without telling about
12 it, isn't it?
13 A. It is possible.
14 Q. Tell me, how long does it take to drive from Skopje to Radusa?
15 About half an hour?
16 A. If there are no military conditions, yes, about. Under such
17 circumstances, then perhaps more.
18 Q. Okay. And if there are, as you put it, military conditions, how
19 long approximately would that drive have been?
20 A. Radusa is about 25 kilometres away. In that period of time, the
21 first ten kilometres were more or less secure, I believe; and the rest,
22 according to my experience, the movement would have been very slow.
23 Q. So would it be fair to say that during those times of military
24 conditions, it could have taken an hour to drive from Skopje to Radusa?
25 A. If you don't look after your security, yes; but if you do, then at
1 least four hours, I believe.
2 Q. Four hours to drive 25 kilometres. Is that what you're saying?
3 A. Yes. When you're driving on a terrain that could be mined or
4 grounds which is susceptible to ambush.
5 Q. Even when you're trying to reach your colleagues who are
6 reportedly encircled by Albanian terrorists. You will take four hours to
7 travel those 25 kilometres to assist them?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. You testified that Mr. Bliznakovski, together with a special unit,
10 went to Radusa to help the colleagues who were surrounded by terrorists at
11 that time, and you testified that Mr. Bliznakovski tried to extract them.
12 Do you recall that testimony?
13 A. Yes, I remember that testimony and that they were not just
14 surrounded but that there was heavy fighting going on.
15 Q. And you explained that the situation in Radusa, this heavy
16 fighting, was happening in the course of the whole day and was only by
17 night-fall that the situation became calmer, and that is when
18 Mr. Bliznakovski came back to the premises of the SVR.
19 Do you recall that?
20 A. Yes, late in the night.
21 Q. And at page 9161 of the transcript you said that at -- I'm going
22 to rephrase my question.
23 It's possible, isn't it, that Mr. Bliznakovski, prior to going
24 from Skopje to Radusa on the 11th of August, also had a meeting in the
25 office of army General Sokol Mitrevski, isn't it?
1 A. I'm not aware of this fact.
2 Q. I didn't ask you whether you were aware of it. I asked you
3 whether it was possible. Could you answer my question?
4 A. I think it is not possible.
5 Q. And why isn't it possible? Why wasn't it possible?
6 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, my colleague is on her feet.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
8 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my learned friend's
9 questions, I believe are being posed for the third time and they all deal
10 with possibilities. I don't know what sort of an answer the witness can
11 give, given that he provided clear answers to the previous questions.
12 As to ask anything from the domain of possibility, I don't believe
13 it is a proper question.
14 JUDGE PARKER: I think in the context of the question something
15 quite well directed, not repetitive and reasonable.
16 Carry on, Mr. Saxon.
17 MR. SAXON:
18 Q. Let me repeat my question, Mr. Stojanovski.
19 It's possible, isn't it, that Mr. Bliznakovski, prior to going
20 from Skopje to Radusa on the 11th of August, also had a meeting in the
21 office of army general Sokol Mitrevski, isn't it?
22 A. As are many other things which are possible.
23 Q. Okay. You also testified that it's -- it's -- you testified that
24 it's not true that Ljupco Bliznakovski would have ordered the head of OVR
25 Cair to increase the number of persons at police check-points for two
2 Number one you said that Mr. Bliznakovski could not issue orders
3 to the head of the OVR; and, number two, you said that check-points were
4 under the competence of the OVRs.
5 Do you recall that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you also said: "So I don't see a reason why someone would say
9 Why someone would make such an assertion. Now, you recall there
10 was this mine explosion on the 10th of August, 2001, in the territory of
11 OVR Cair at a place called Ljubotenski Bacila, right?
12 A. Yes, I remember.
13 Q. Eight Macedonian soldiers were killed and others were wounded. Is
14 that right?
15 A. Unfortunately, yes.
16 Q. And members of the Ministry of Interior had strong suspicions at
17 that time that the perpetrators of this act were members of the NLA.
18 Isn't that right?
19 A. It is correct that there were information that the perpetrators of
20 this act moved towards Ljuboten.
21 Q. That's not my question, Mr. Stojanovski. I want you to answer the
22 question that I asked you.
23 The question is: Members of the Ministry of Interior had strong
24 suspicions at that time that the persons who planted the mine that killed
25 eight Macedonian soldiers were members of the NLA, right?
1 A. Yes, we had such information available.
2 Q. And so at that time the security situation in OVR Cair was very
3 complex, wasn't it?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Wouldn't that be a pretty good reason to suggest or to order that
6 the numbers of police officers at check-points be increased?
7 A. This is the obligation of the head of the OVR Cair.
8 Q. That's interesting, but you did not answer my question again.
9 I'll repeat my question. Wouldn't that be a pretty good reason to
10 suggest or to order that the numbers of police officers at check-points be
12 A. The head of OVR Cair could have thought in this manner, or he
13 could have been thinking that the number of police officers engaged at the
14 check-points was sufficient.
15 Q. Wouldn't that be a pretty good reason for someone like
16 Mr. Bliznakovski, someone working in the headquarters of SVR Skopje to
17 suggest or to order that the number of police officers at check-points be
19 A. There could be different opinions, but I will say once again, this
20 would be the work of the head of the OVR Cair.
21 Q. I'd like to go on to another topic, please.
22 At page 9159 of the transcript, in response to a question from
23 Ms. Residovic, you were asked about a telephone call that the head of OVR
24 Cair, Mr. Krstevski, made to you on the 12th of August, 2001; that was
25 Sunday. And you explained that Mr. Krstevski had called you because the
1 duty centre had told Mr. Krstevski that Minister Boskoski was going to
2 come to OVR Cair. And Mr. Krstevski asked you about how this official
3 report is given. And you told the Trial Chamber:
4 "This was rather funny, because, as civilian structures, we don't
5 deal with this issue. Reporting is not part of the tasks which we have or
6 the way we act. I suggested to him that, according to my view, it is
7 quite sufficient that he present a brief information about the situation
8 in the area."
9 Do you recall that testimony?
10 A. Yes, I remember.
11 Q. Help us understand, please. Why do you say that reporting is not
12 part of the tasks of members of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, or the
13 way that members of the Ministry of Internal Affairs act?
14 A. The term "to report," is not a mere report.
15 Q. I'm sorry, can you explain your answer a little bit more, please.
16 What do you mean by "the term 'to report,' is not a mere report"?
17 A. This report is a military term and it's usually used in military
18 units. The manner is which a report is given. According to my
19 recollection, when I was in the army about 30 years ago, it presumes a
20 procedure, and it could not be compared with briefing which, as you said,
21 is one of the obligations of the MOI employees.
22 Q. So I'm trying to understand now your testimony. Your testimony is
23 that it's not the obligation or the tasks of MOI employees to report about
24 information, but it is the obligation of MOI employees to brief their
25 superiors about information. Is that your testimony? Is that -- do I
1 have that clear?
2 A. The term "report," denotes a specific manner of coming on report
3 and briefing; while report in a civilian structure does not denote these
4 special military procedures or rules.
5 Q. Are you aware, Mr. Stojanovski, of an obligatory instruction of
6 the Ministry of Internal Affairs that says all authorised officials are
7 obliged to submit operative information to their superiors?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And all authorised officials are supposed to follow this
10 instruction, right?
11 A. Of course.
12 Q. And when authorised officials submit operative information to
13 their superiors, that's one way in which they report to their superiors,
14 isn't it?
15 A. This is one way. But I don't see how you are linking this with
16 coming to report. I don't know whether the interpretation is adequate.
17 Q. Well, I'm simply trying to understand your testimony,
18 Mr. Stojanovski.
19 MR. SAXON: Perhaps we can show the witness what is Exhibit P178,
20 00178, and this would be at tab 10 of the Prosecution's binder.
21 Q. Maybe before we look at this -- at this document, Mr. Stojanovski,
22 just so I'm sure that I understand your testimony, are you suggesting that
23 when a high-ranking member of the Ministry of Internal Affairs comes to,
24 for example, the territory of the an OVR, it is not the practice of the
25 head of the OVR or other members of the OVR to report to that official
1 about events going on?
2 A. He informs them about the current situation and the forces
3 engaged, but he does not go on report. I don't know how else I can
4 explain this term "report." This is not the same.
5 Q. And you are referring to a specific military procedure. Is that
7 JUDGE PARKER: Just a minute, please, Ms. Residovic.
8 Yes, Mr. Saxon.
9 MR. SAXON:
10 Q. My question was: When you say "he does not go on report," you're
11 referring to a specific military procedure. Isn't that correct?
12 A. The term "reporting," denotes a military procedure.
13 Q. All right.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
15 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I wanted to point
16 out an interpretation matter. It seems that the terms in English and
17 Macedonian are not fully equal. In Macedonian can you see that it says
18 operational information, whereas in English we have operational report, or
19 operative report. It is possible that this creates a degree of confusion
20 with the Prosecutor. I'm not trying to interfere with his questions or
21 the witness's answers. I just wanted to point out this may not be the
22 best example because the word "informatica" has been translated as
24 MR. SAXON: I'm grateful to Ms. Residovic for clarifying that
25 because obviously I don't have her linguistic skills. However, and I will
1 accept, I will readily accept her correction to the English translation.
2 But if you allow me, I would just like to continue to ask a question or
3 two about this document.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Please do so, Mr. Saxon.
5 MR. SAXON:
6 Q. If you take a look at this document, Mr. Stojanovski, It's dated
7 5th of August, 2001, and it says: operative information.
8 Do you see that?
9 A. Yes, I see it.
10 Q. And the subject is: More inhabitants are moving out. It is
11 submitted by apparently a member of the Ministry of Internal Affairs named
12 Bobi Hristovski. And Mr. Hristovski explains in the first paragraph how,
13 on the 5th of August, 2001, he sees a large number of persons leaving
14 Ljuboten village and going towards Skopje and -- do you see that? A large
15 number of women and children?
16 A. Yes. The person you mentioned submitted it, an employee at the
17 police station Cair and OVR Cair and this is information containing
18 information which you just spoke about.
19 Q. And if you look at paragraph 2, Officer Hristovski says, "I shall
20 continue to gather useful information and inform the service promptly."
21 Do you see that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. So it's true, isn't it, that it is part of the task, the tasks of
24 members of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to gather useful information
25 on the territory or place where they are working and inform their
1 superiors about it, right?
2 A. I never said this was an issue, outstanding issue.
3 Q. I'm asking you the question, and I'd like to you answer my
4 question, just yes or no. Can you answer my question yes or no?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay.
7 If you could turn, please, to what is tab 13 in your binder.
8 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, this would be Exhibit P00159, please.
9 Q. This is an Official Note number 1185. It's dated the 11th of
10 August, 2001. And what this Official Note says that an authorised officer
11 named Goran Tenovski, who was at the Ljubanci check-point informed his
12 colleagues i in particular an officer named Venco Stanoevski that on the
13 morning of the 11th of August, the army of the Republic of Macedonia
14 opened fire with infantry weapons in the direction of Ljuboten village.
15 Do you see that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. You mentioned that after the events in Ljuboten occurred, a number
18 of people came to speak to you trying to clarify what had happened in
19 Ljuboten. You mentioned -- I believe you mentioned Sofija Galeva, I
20 believe you mentioned Ms. Katica Jovanovska. You may have mentioned some
21 others. Tell me, please, did you tell Mrs. Galeva or Ms. Jovanovska or
22 anyone else looking into the Ljuboten case to speak with this officer
23 Goran Tenovski about what he had observed that weekend?
24 A. I had no authorisation to involve myself in the work of the
25 commission. I was charged with supplying the commission with all the
1 material that they would request from SVR Cair and to put it at their
3 Q. You've told us about your 25 years as a police officer, many of
4 those 25 years working in operative matters in the crime police, we've
5 heard testimony in this case that people came to you for assistance in
6 finding more information about what had happened in Ljuboten on the 12th
7 of August.
8 Now, are you really going to tell the Chamber today that you had
9 no authorisation to involve yourself in the work of the commission and so
10 for that reason you would not have given this simple advice, such as,
11 Speak to this authorised official or speak to that authorised official?
12 A. If you recall what I said previously on the 13th, I believe, it
13 was, in the afternoon, I was informed by Mr. Efremov that a commission was
14 set up by Mr. Boskoski for looking into the events related to the village
15 of Ljuboten. The task which I was charged with was to serve the
16 commission as a liaison person and to assist it to carry out their
17 requests towards SVR Skopje.
18 In these discussions, of course sometimes I pointed them to OVR
19 Cair so as they could carry out their tasks. That is to say, if I was not
20 able to give them the required information or material from the head
21 office of SVR Skopje.
22 Q. All right. So I'll ask my question again.
23 Did you tell these persons who came to you from the commission or
24 commissions, since you were the liaison person, did you suggest that they
25 speak to, for example, the Officer Goran Tenovski, who is mentioned in
1 this Official Note, or his colleague Venco Stanoevski about what's with
2 going on around the village of Ljuboten on the 10th to 12th August, did
3 you suggest that?
4 A. I haven't suggested that they talk to Goran Tenovski, but I
5 believe that I referred them to the OVR Cair.
6 Q. And by referring these persons to the OVR Cair, for example, did
7 you suggest that they speak with police officers who had been manning
8 check-points at OVR Cair on the 12th of August, 2001?
9 A. I did not suggest it. They had their own task and they probably
10 knew best how to perform that task.
11 Q. And in this case, just so that the record is clear, when you're
12 using the pronoun "they," you're referring to the members of these
13 commissions who came to speak to you, right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. And just by the way, this Official Note here that we're
16 looking at, this would be another example of how members of the Ministry
17 of Interior were informing their superiors about events going on in the
18 area where they worked, right?
19 A. Yes. The usual formats are operative information and Official
21 Q. Okay.
22 MR. SAXON: If we could provide the witness with the second binder
23 that was provided by Ms. Residovic during her direct examination. And if
24 we could turn to what is Exhibit P105, P00105 and that exhibit is at tab
25 88 of that second binder.
1 Q. Do you have -- this -- and, again, I hope my colleague will
2 collect the translation if there's any problems with it. This document is
3 entitled in English, operative information. I -- it is dated the 13th of
4 August, 2001. It's operative information number 1207, submitted by a
5 colleague named Dragan Surlov.
6 And, Mr. Stojanovski, the subject is telephone message, verbal
7 order transmitted. Do you see that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. It says here: "On the 13th of August 2001 at 2230 hours, duty
10 officers Zlate from," I believe, it is the duty operation centre at SVR
11 Skopje "called the Mirkovci police station and stated that there was an
12 order from the police general not to retaliate to provocations and not to
13 misuse the radio connection (only for active misuse) and for all police to
14 be notified of the order. I informed the check-points and patrols as well
15 as receiver Borce Gjorgjievski."
16 Do you see that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Excuse me, I'm just looking for the right place in my questions.
19 It would be fair to say, then, doesn't it, that the
20 term "Operative Information" would also -- would extend, for example, to
21 the description of orders given, the reception of orders and the
22 dissemination of orders. Would that be fair?
23 A. No. Much more appropriate term, in accordance with our work, is
24 the term "Official Note."
25 Q. Okay. In this case --
1 MR. SAXON: I think Ms. Residovic has a comment to make, Your
3 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
4 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, no comment. The
5 witness offered the approximate translation of the Macedonian original
6 literally translated it is Official Note. However, in English, we say
7 something rather different, operative information.
8 MR. SAXON: All right. Thank you for that clarification. I was
9 not aware of that.
10 Q. But, in any event, Mr. Stojanovski, this is the kind of
11 information that is often reported, or informed, transmitted by members of
12 the Ministry of Internal Affairs, right?
13 A. In principle, operative information is produced when the officer,
14 police officer or the operations officer, has received some information.
15 An Official Note is produced in cases when certain actions were undertaken
16 and a report is produced when certain actions have been undertaken upon a
17 request of the superior officer.
18 Q. All right. But as I -- as I asked, no matter what we call this
19 document, we can call it an Official Note, the point is, this information
20 needed to be communicated to the OVR Cair, Mirkovci police station, and it
21 was communicated, right?
22 A. That information was communicated, but I see that in the upper
23 right-hand corner there is the date 24 of August, 2001.
24 Q. Yes. And that someone signed off on that when he received it.
25 A. Yes. So it means that probably that was the date when this
1 document was received by the OVR Cair.
2 Q. Could it also mean that that was the date when this document was
3 filed away in the analytical section of OVR Cair?
4 A. No. The date is 27th of August, 2001. Obviously there is a
5 difference of three days, so after someone received it and only three days
6 later the document was filed away.
7 Q. So if this document was written on the 13th of August in 2001, but
8 apparently not received until a couple of weeks or ten day, more than
9 that, later in August -- I think I will simply move on.
10 MR. SAXON: And, Your Honours, just for your convenience for more
11 examples of -- to use the witness's term, "information" being submitted to
12 part of the Ministry of Interior, you can see tabs 15 to 21 in the
13 Prosecution's binder. These are exhibits P98, P23, under seal, P00108,
14 P00109, P00145, P00259, P00124, and there are also a number of similar
15 examples in the second binder provided by the Defence during direct
16 examination such as exhibit P00160, P0012, P00150, Exhibit 1D145, exhibit
17 114 under seal, exhibit P00111, and a number of others that are located in
18 that binder.
19 Q. Moving on to another topic, Mr. Stojanovski, during your direct
20 examination, you agreed with a proposition put to you by Ms. Residovic.
21 This is at page 9185 of the transcript. That only the investigative judge
22 is able to request data from the forensic medicine institute.
23 Do you remember that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So if a witness testified in this courtroom that he or she spoke
1 to the director of the forensic medicine institute and received
2 information about the persons who died at Ljuboten, that would be a lie?
3 A. They could discuss it. However, the official document, if I may
4 say so, is in the ownership of the investigating judge.
5 Q. All right. So now if I understand your testimony, you're saying
6 that an official document from the forensic institute would be provided to
7 the investigative judge. However, it is certainly possible for members of
8 the Forensic Institute to give verbal information to members of the
9 Ministry of Internal Affairs, right?
10 A. Yes. Although they shouldn't give information about their
12 Q. And when you say "they," who is they?
13 A. To the employees in the Forensic Institute.
14 Q. And if members of the Ministry of Interior are working on an
15 important case and they go speak to employees of the Forensic Institute,
16 why shouldn't the employees of the Forensic Institute provide verbal
17 information about their findings?
18 A. In my experience, this should not be proper.
19 Q. Can you cite to any law that prohibits such conversation?
20 A. I couldn't.
21 MR. SAXON: And, Your Honours, just for your convenience, the
22 testimony that I referred to a bit earlier is at page 8732 and pages 8800
23 to 8801 of the transcript.
24 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, at page 9189 of the transcript, Ms. Residovic
25 asked you: "After the burial of bodies has occurred, what is required to
1 answer the basic questions as to how and as a result of what the person
3 And you responded: "The only way to ascertain those things that
4 you mentioned was through exhumation and post-mortem."
5 Do you recall that testimony?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Wouldn't speaking to witnesses also permit you to ascertain how a
8 person died?
9 A. In this specific case, there were no witnesses.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, we had no witnesses.
11 MR. SAXON:
12 Q. And tell us what specific actions you took, Mr. Stojanovski, to
13 look for witnesses?
14 A. The case was in the competence of the OVR Cair, and I believe that
15 I mentioned before that I established contact with representatives of the
16 international organisations. In trying to receive certain information
17 regarding the events.
18 Q. So just so -- if I understand what you're -- the implication of
19 what you just said, are you -- you're suggesting that representatives of
20 the -- of international organisations prevented you from taking actions to
21 find witnesses to the events in Ljuboten?
22 A. We were not permitted to enter the village of Ljuboten.
23 Q. And what other -- what, if any, efforts did you make to speak to
24 persons, members of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, who had participated
25 in the events in Ljuboten on the 12th of August, 2001?
1 A. If you are asking me about me personally, I did not make any
2 efforts to clarify the case. The OVR Cair was working on clarifying the
4 Q. Related to that, at page 9190 of the transcript, Ms. Residovic
5 showed you Exhibit 1D47, which was -- which is at tab 146 of the Defence
6 binders. And that was a request from the investigative judge to the
7 Ministry of Internal Affairs for more information related to possible
8 exhumations in Ljuboten village.
9 Do you remember that document?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And then on the next page of the transcript, Ms. Residovic showed
12 you Exhibit 1D190, which is at tab 146 of the Defence binder, which was
13 the response of OVR Cair to the investigative judge. And you observed
14 that OVR Cair did not fully succeed in providing all of the information
15 requested by the judge. And you explained to the Chamber that the OVR
16 failed to obtain all of the information "primarily because the population
17 of Ljuboten village did not want to cooperate with the police at all."
18 Do you remember that testimony?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. SAXON: If we can show the witness what is Exhibit 1D189.
21 This is at tab 99 in what is actually the second Prosecution binder. And,
22 Your Honour, I have good news and bad news. The bad new, I suppose, is
23 that I have another binder of documents to provide you; but the good news
24 is that I'm only going to refer to them. So please do not despair. So we
25 made the binders, and so we decided to distribute them.
1 Ms. Usher, the binder would be actually over here, I think.
2 Q. If you could turn to what is tab 99 in this binder, you should
3 find Exhibit 1D189.
4 And I am praying that the title of this document has been
5 correctly translated into English. I see my colleagues are nodding their
6 heads, so I can relax a little bit.
7 Mr. Stojanovski, you'll see that this is an Official Note, number
8 736. It's dated the 15th of November, 2001, submitted by a man named
9 Dejan Blazevski. Do you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. At OVR Cair. And the subject is interview with individual Selim
12 from the village of Ljuboten.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And Mr. Blazevski tells us that: "On the 15th of November, 2001,
15 an interview was conducted in OVR Cair with the individual Selim from
16 Ljuboten in connection with the events of 12 August 2001 in the village,
17 during which eight individuals died as a result of fighting between the
18 security forces of the Republic of Macedonia and the terrorist groups
19 stationed in the village."
20 Are you following with me?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And then it says: "Selim informed us that the following
23 individuals died on 12 August 2001."
24 And then we see a list of eight names, Rami Jusufi, his parents
25 names, Bajrami Sulejman, Bajrami Xhelal, Bajrami Jashari. Brothers and
1 cousins, Bajrami Kadri, Dalip Murati; Qaili Atulla, who died in a hospital
2 on 14 August 2001; and a six-year-old boy, and the name Isni Ali is given.
3 The identity of the persons who died at Ljuboten village on 12 August
4 2001, that's pretty important information, isn't it.
5 A. Yes, this is an important information that was produced three
6 months after the events at Ljuboten village, so a person came to OVR Cair
7 and wanted to talk to some of -- to one of the colleagues. But also there
8 is something illogical in this information so it should give rise to
9 suspicion, since in the last paragraph it is written that the burial was
10 performed on the same day, so that would mean on the 12th of August, which
11 is not correct.
12 Q. All right.
13 A. So the agenda of that person might be suspicious.
14 Q. Okay. And having said that, though, this is evidence of some
15 cooperation on very important matters from residents of Ljuboten, isn't
16 it, three months after the event. Isn't it?
17 A. The quality of cooperation is doubtful.
18 Q. And what do you base that opinion on?
19 A. Since that citizen claims that the burial had been performed on
20 the same date. According to our information the burial was carried out a
21 bit later.
22 Q. Do you have any information that the person, the eight persons
23 named in this document and identified is incorrect? Persons identified as
24 people who died at Ljuboten on the 12th of August.
25 A. I can't remember offhand. I need to look at the documents, at the
1 official documents from the identification.
2 Q. I will move on. I'd like you to please turn your mind to the
3 events of 12 August, that Sunday, 2001.
4 At page 9164 of the transcript, you said that on 12 August 2001 --
5 actually, I'm going to stop for a moment. I'd like to go back to that
6 document that is still in front of you, if I can.
7 If I were to tell you that there had been a lot of testimony in
8 this courtroom about persons who died in the village of Ljuboten on the
9 12th of August, and that the persons name in this document have been
10 identified by witnesses in this case, would that lay any suspicions that
11 you have about that information in this document?
12 A. I did not dispute the names. I disputed the last paragraph in the
14 Q. All right. Okay. So just so the record is clear, the person who
15 provided this information gave some very important, accurate information
16 to members of Ministry of Interior in November 2001, right?
17 A. Useful information.
18 Q. Okay. If you can turn your mind to Sunday, the 12th of August,
19 2001, please, at page 9164 of the transcript you said that on 12 August
20 2001 you did not go to OVR Cair because: "There was no need for my
21 presence there."
22 Do you recall that?
23 A. I know that I was not in OVR Cair on the 12th of August.
24 Q. And that's because there was no need for your presence there,
1 A. There was no reason.
2 Q. Why do you say there was no reason for you to go to OVR Cair on
3 the 12th of August?
4 A. Connected to my work tasks and competencies there was no reason
5 for me to be at OVR Cair on the 12th of August.
6 Q. You told the Chamber at page 9161 of the transcript that OVR Cair
7 was not, due to its limited capacities, able to control the situation
8 around Ljuboten that day. That's what you had told the Chamber in
9 response to a question from Ms. Residovic.
10 Tell us, please, were you in your office in Skopje that day?
11 A. Either in my office or in the operative headquarters.
12 Q. Tell us, please, what was going on that day in downtown Skopje
13 that was more urgent than the events in OVR Cair?
14 A. My work tasks did not require of me to be present in OVR Cair.
15 Q. Was there any shooting going on in the city of Skopje that day?
16 A. On the 12th, in the centre of the city?
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. I don't recall such event.
19 Q. Any crowds of civilians in the centre of the city of Skopje that
20 day, threatening to attack other civilians?
21 A. This happened constantly.
22 Q. I'm asking about the 12th of August.
23 A. Every day there were civilians, citizens, who protested in front
24 of the assembly of the Republic of Macedonia.
25 Q. And every day, were there ethnic Macedonian civilians, threatening
1 to attack ethnic Albanian citizens in Skopje?
2 A. Not every day.
3 Q. According to your knowledge, did the Macedonian security forces
4 attack a group of ethnic Albanian terrorists in the village of Ljuboten on
5 12th of August?
6 A. Yes. I think I previously said that on 12th August police and
7 army points were attacked at which point the army returned fire.
8 Q. And if I can just go back to my previous question, you said that
9 not every day there were ethnic Macedonian civilians threatening to attack
10 ethnic Albanian citizens in Skopje. How about on that Sunday, the 12th of
11 August? Do you recall whether there was a crowd of ethnic Macedonian
12 civilians in downtown -- in the centre of Skopje threatening to attack
13 ethnic Albanian civilians that day?
14 A. In the centre of Skopje? I don't remember anything of this kind.
15 This was happening in OVR Cair.
16 Q. All right. And you explained that -- you said that on the 12th of
17 August police and army points were attacked at which point the army
18 returned fire.
19 To your knowledge, then, was the purpose of the operation at
20 Ljuboten to confront and neutralize terrorists? Was that the purpose of
21 the Ljuboten operation?
22 A. I don't know the purpose. I know the information which I received
23 from OVR Cair.
24 Q. Well, what did the information that you received from OVR Cair
25 tell you about why members of the security forces of the Republic of
1 Macedonia entered Ljuboten on the 12th of August?
2 A. It was not conveyed to me why this -- the army entered Ljuboten on
3 the 12th of August. It was pointed out to me, it was conveyed to me, that
4 the police and army points were attacked, that the security forces
5 returned fire, and that the army undertook an operation of a kind.
6 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, we have had several witnesses come into this
7 courtroom, take the oath that have you taken, sit in that witness chair
8 and told the Trial Chamber that the members of the army of Macedonia did
9 not enter the village of Ljuboten that day, and we have some documentary
10 evidence to that effect as well. Are you suggesting that each of these
11 witnesses came into this courtroom and lied?
12 A. I'm not suggesting anything. I am just telling you what I was
13 conveyed by OVR Cair.
14 Q. Do you think that the members of the security forces who enter the
15 Ljuboten on the 12th of August were heroes, patriots?
16 A. I don't know how to -- and what to answer to this question.
17 Q. I'd like your opinion. I'd like your belief.
18 A. I believe that there were people who were carrying out their duty,
19 but as for whether there were events there which could be qualified as
20 heroic or patriotic, this I don't know.
21 Q. All right. So you believe that the members of the security forces
22 who entered Ljuboten village on the 12th of August were carrying out their
23 duty, right?
24 A. Yes. This is much closer to my view.
25 Q. And their duty, in your belief, was to protect the territory and
1 the people of the Republic of Macedonia, right?
2 A. Probably to establish the sovereignty.
3 Q. Okay. Because the sovereignty of Macedonia was under great
4 threat at that time, wasn't it?
5 A. Yes. The terrorists were attempting by way of force to put down
6 the constitutional order of the Republic of Macedonia.
7 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, the persons who died and were -- or were injured
8 at Ljuboten, how would you describe them? Were they terrorists?
9 A. It is possible. But this may -- need not be.
10 Q. Okay. If they were terrorists, these persons were terrorists, do
11 you feel that effectively they got what they deserved?
12 A. I don't believe that one can put it that way. It would be very
13 rough to put it in this way.
14 Q. How would you put it?
15 A. Probably they were aware that taking up arms and attacking of the
16 police and the army would entail certain risks. When someone is going
17 into a fight, one has to be aware of the fact that one might die.
18 When we're talking about who deserves what, this is usually a
19 matter of the courts.
20 Q. And since the members of the security forces who went into
21 Ljuboten village were risking their lives to do their duties, to protect
22 the sovereignty of Macedonia, the --
23 MR. SAXON: Ms. Residovic is on her feet.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Carry on, Mr. Saxon.
25 MR. SAXON:
1 Q. The idea of investigating the actions of the security forces at
2 Ljuboten was actually pretty offensive to you, wasn't it?
3 A. Why would this be offensive? I don't see.
4 Q. Because your colleagues in the security forces -- the suggestion
5 was that -- or the suggestion would be that rather than doing their duty,
6 risking their lives on that day, the suggestion would be that your
7 colleagues in the security forces had actually done something very wrong.
8 Didn't you find that suggestion difficult and offensive?
9 A. I cannot understand you. Could you rephrase the question.
10 Q. Well, to you as a career member of the Ministry of Internal
11 Affairs, did you hear about allegations from groups like Human Rights
12 Watch that members of the security forces had committed abuses in Ljuboten
14 A. Yes, there were such allegations.
15 Q. And didn't you find those allegations to be pretty offensive and
16 an insult to the honour -- members of the police and members of the army?
17 A. They were an attack on the honour and dignity of the Ministry of
19 Q. And --
20 A. Because, I am convinced, that my colleagues carried out their work
21 tasks and obligations in a professional manner. And because these
22 accusations were checked, we checked these allegations, and I believe they
23 were unfounded. From that point of view, I can see them as offensive.
24 Q. And, Mr. Stojanovski, many members of the Ministry of Internal
25 Affairs felt the same way, didn't they, that these allegations were quite
2 A. Someone was expressing lack of trust in the police. We were put
3 in a position to prove the opposite, to be proving the opposite, which
4 ultimately is fine. We have to be transparent in the work we do.
5 Q. But then the answer to my question would be yes, right?
6 A. I don't know whether things can be seen as black and white.
7 Q. I'm not asking you to paint anything as black and white.
8 Simply my question was this: Many members of the Ministry of
9 Internal Affairs also felt that these allegations against the conduct of
10 security forces in the village of Ljuboten were offensive, right?
11 A. I don't know how many members of the ministry thought. I can tell
12 you what I was thinking.
13 Q. And since the honour -- since the honour and the reputation of the
14 police of Macedonia was at stake, the purpose of the investigation into
15 the events at Ljuboten was to clear the honour and reputation of the
16 police, wasn't it?
17 A. Wrong. If you would like me to explain the purpose was to
18 establish the truth.
19 Q. And is that why you so energetically provided assistance to
20 members of the commission who were investigating the events in Ljuboten?
21 And I use the word energetically in a very ironic sense.
22 A. I take note of your irony. I don't know by what right I have
23 earned this. Thank you.
24 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I'm about to move on to another topic.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Well, before you do, Ms. Residovic had some matters
1 she wished to raise, but it was at a fairly significant [Realtime
2 transcript read in error "criminal"] point of cross-examination so I
3 signalled to her to wait.
4 Ms. Residovic.
5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, you direct the
6 proceedings, and I believe your decision was ultimately correct. However
7 the entire series of questions posed by my learned friend was unclear to
8 me regarding their relevancy. I wanted to ask why so many questions were
9 being put to the witness which go to various opinions. However, if you
10 were able to follow the thread of the questions being put, I have no
12 JUDGE PARKER: I didn't have the difficulty that you are
13 mentioning at all, Ms. Residovic and it seemed to me that we were at a
14 significant point in the cross-examination and it was important to allow
15 it to reach its natural conclusion.
16 Could I just mention that in line 29: 1, I had intended to say
17 critical point rather than criminal point as the transcript would have me
18 record it.
19 Thank you.
20 Now, Mr. Saxon you were signalling that you're about to move on.
21 MR. SAXON: That's correct, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE PARKER: We will then have the break and resume at 11.00.
23 --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.
24 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Saxon.
1 MR. SAXON:
2 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, at page 9072 of the transcript - this was very
3 early on in your direct examination - you were asked about an interview
4 that you had with members of the Office of the Prosecutor, some years ago,
5 and you were asked about the statement that -- a statement that was
6 drafted at that time but ultimately not signed by you.
7 And you explained to the Judges: "I thought there were
8 misunderstandings with regards to the format in which the statement was to
9 be taken. I believe that what I am saying needs to be entered while the
10 investigators thought that they were to rephrase it, to state there what
11 they understood from what I was saying."
12 And you also explained that, further on: "There were
13 misunderstandings related to certain facts, and I can't really remember
14 that, after which they threatened me in the sense that they could indict
15 me for certain issues and their conduct went outside of the boundaries of
16 propriety. And this is why I decided to leave the room where the
17 interview was conducted."
18 Do you recall that testimony?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. SAXON: If we could show the witness what is tab 1 of the
21 first Prosecution binder, please. And this is it Prosecution 65 ter 1150.
22 And perhaps if we could show the witness, first -- the first page in
23 English, please.
24 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, we see here what is usually referred to as the
25 cover page of a witness statement. And you see your name on this draft
1 statement, don't you?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And are the details correct, as far as you can tell?
4 A. Yes, as far as I can tell.
5 Q. So we see there was one person interviewing you,
6 Mr. Matti Raatikainen and an interpreter. We see that, right?
7 A. There were two of them.
8 Q. All right. When you say "there were two of them," what do you
9 mean by that?
10 A. Two investigators and a translator.
11 Q. All right. And now perhaps if you could turn to -- we have a
12 Macedonian translation of this document. If you could turn to that,
13 please. And if you could direct your attention, please, to paragraph 5 of
14 the Macedonian version, so I think it would be on -- it would be on the
15 next page that you're looking at now.
16 And paragraph 5 tells this: "During the time I was the deputy of
17 the criminal police of Skopje," that is the first half of 2000 to the
18 summer of 2002, "my direct supervisor was the assistant minister for SVR
19 Skopje, who, in the summer of 2001 was Mr. Zoran Efremov. Efremov
20 reported to the head of public security, Mr. Goran Mitevski; and his
21 superior was Mr. Ljube Boskoski, the minister of the interior. I was
22 responsible for everything that had to do with preventing and
23 investigating crime, like general crime, economic crime and drug-related
24 crime in SVR Skopje."
25 And then it says this: "If I had to issue orders that had to do
1 with the area of operation and responsibility of Cair police station, I
2 would do it through the head of OVR who, in 2001, was Mr. Ljube Krstevski.
3 Depending on the case, the orders were issued either in writing or
4 verbally, and the head of the OVR reported back in a similar manner, that
5 is, if he had received a written order he normally also responded in
7 Have you followed me?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Isn't this what you told the investigators back in August of 2004?
10 A. I believe this is the statement which I did not sign.
11 Q. My question is something different. I'm asking you if what I just
12 read to you in paragraph 5 was what you told the investigators in August
13 of 2004.
14 A. No.
15 Q. And what is different or incorrect in this paragraph?
16 A. If you followed my evidence and testimony, you would know what is
17 different and what is identical.
18 Q. I'm sorry, sir, but I need a more specific response, please.
19 A. First of all, I was not a deputy; I was an assistant. There was
20 no reporting. I was not responsible for everything pertaining to crime,
21 orders, the manner.
22 Q. What about the orders? What about the orders or the manner of
23 orders is incorrect?
24 A. I said that the superior of OVR Cair was the head of SVR Skopje.
25 If there had been an order, only Mr. Efremov was authorised to have issued
1 such an order.
2 Q. What if Mr. --
3 A. The manner issued in written form or verbally does not correspond,
4 because, as I explained, the verbal ones were supplemented with written
6 Q. And if Mr. Efremov was not present in SVR Skopje, who would then
7 issue a necessary order to a head of an OVR?
8 A. Mr. Efremov was present in SVR Skopje, only I believe he was
9 absent at the end 2000, 2001 when he had a car accident and was hurt.
10 Q. But you told us, I believe, during your cross-examination that
11 there were times when simply Mr. Efremov was not physically at the SVR
12 Skopje office, and in those times, matters were directed either to you or
13 to Mr. Bliznakovski, right?
14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
16 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I believe this is misstating the
17 evidence. The witness never said it was when Efremov was physically away
18 from his office. The Prosecutor should refer back to the page of the
19 transcript to see what the witness exactly had said.
20 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, yesterday I showed the witness a document
21 that had a handwritten note on it saying, To Pero Stojan; and I asked the
22 witness why -- in fact it was a document from April 2001 it was a plan or
23 an addition to a plan from OVR Cair regarding the placement of
24 check-points and I asked the witness why was this document directed to
25 you? And the witness answered that there were certain times where, if
1 Mr. Efremov, his boss, was not available in SVR Skopje, matters would be
2 directed either to the witness or to Mr. Bliznakovski.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Basically accurate in what you say, Mr. Saxon, that
4 was not the initial effect of the evidence of the witness so there is
5 something to be said for both Ms. Residovic's position and your own; but
6 I'm sure this witness is capable of making clear where and if you should
7 misrepresent his understanding of his position.
8 So please carry on.
9 MR. SAXON:
10 Q. So if Mr. Efremov was not physically present in SVR Skopje at a
11 given moment and an order needed to be issued to an OVR, who would issue
12 such an order?
13 A. First, in terms of the explanation for the document was different
14 than what you claim; and, second, if Mr. Efremov was not physically
15 present, he had a cell phone and he was always available.
16 Q. Can you turn, please, to paragraph 6.
17 Is there anything in paragraph 6 that is incorrect?
18 A. Above all, this paragraph is based or has as a starting point the
19 presumption that SVR did not undertake any activities regarding the events
20 in Ljuboten. If you followed my testimony, you would have known that SVR
21 Skopje, in regards to this event, carried out the function of
23 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, my question was simply is the contents of
24 paragraph 6 correct. You can answer yes or no.
25 A. No.
1 Q. Okay. Well, all right. And how about paragraph 7?
2 Actually, let's go back to paragraph 6, if you will. Didn't you
3 testify that SVR Skopje did not undertake any activity, vis-a-vis the
4 events in Ljuboten, that SVR Skopje was not involved?
5 A. No.
6 Q. All right. Well, how was SVR Skopje then involved in the Ljuboten
8 A. As I previously explained, on the 12th, on the day of the
9 activities, assistance was requested by OVR Cair for public law and order,
10 regarding what was happening at the check-points, and at the exits of the
11 village of Ljuboten. Help was requested also for coordinating activities
12 when preparing the criminal report.
13 Q. If you take a look at paragraph 8, please, Mr. Stojanovski, it
14 says: "I cannot remember whether I would have asked Mr. Krstevski or
15 somebody else to attend a particular meeting in Ljubanci on the 10th of
16 August, 2001. I probably have asked him to attend such a meeting, but I
17 cannot remember any details. Neither do I remember whether he would have
18 reported to me about what happened at the meeting."
19 Isn't this what you told the investigators in August of 2004?
20 A. I gave my oath or declaration as a witness here, and what I said
21 here is the truth. What is indicated here is an interpretation made by
22 your investigators who believe me to be a member or participant in a joint
23 criminal enterprise.
24 Q. If you take a look at paragraph 10, please. It say:
25 "When I am being asked whether I was contacted by Ljube Krstevski
1 on Friday, 10 August 2001 or on Saturday, 11 August 2001, regarding a
2 group of people demanding weapons from the Cair police station, I answer
3 that this is the first time I hear about such a thing. I don't believe
4 that Ljube Krstevski called me about this issue during that weekend, and I
5 do believe that since this is a rather serious matter I would remember
7 Isn't that what you told the investigators in August 2004?
8 A. I believe that you showed that I had contacts with
9 Mr. Ljube Krstevski.
10 Q. I'm sorry, I'm sure if you've answered my question.
11 Is the contents -- do the contents of paragraph 10 reflect what
12 you told the investigators in August 2004.
13 Again, can you --
14 A. You could say so.
15 Q. All right. And take a look at paragraph 11, please, which says:
16 "When being asked whom Krstevski normally would report about this
17 kind of an issue, I reply that normally he would report it to Efremov,
18 myself, or the assistant minister."
19 That's correct, isn't it?
20 A. I would not agree with this.
21 Q. So what is written here -- so you did not tell the investigator
22 what is written here in paragraph 11. Is that right?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. Could you turn to paragraph 14, please.
25 MR. SAXON: It will be on the next page in the English version.
1 Q. Paragraph 14 begins:
2 "Being asked whether I remember what was reported to me by my
3 subordinates on the 12th of August, 2001, I reply that I cannot really
4 remember whether somebody reported to me anything that day. As I have
5 said earlier, SVR Skopje was not involved in the events in Ljuboten. When
6 being asked if I knew anything about what was going on in Ljuboten, I
7 remember that Ljube Krstevski informed me on the day, before the combat
8 activities about the presence of the army of Macedonia in the area."
9 Isn't that what you told the investigators in August 2001 [sic]?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Are you suggesting that the investigators made this information up
12 and wrote it down?
13 A. If I judge it by their assertion that I was a participant in a
14 criminal enterprise, probably they did.
15 Q. So it's your position that this information in paragraph 14 did
16 not come from you, it was simply made up by the investigators and written
17 down the way it was written. Is that right?
18 A. Processed. So probably I said something, they probably processed
19 it in their own way.
20 Q. And your suggestion is that the investigators processed it in
21 their own way in order to try to bring criminal charges against you?
22 A. I couldn't judge their ideas at that time and their intentions.
23 However, it is a fact that they believed me to be a participant in a joint
24 criminal enterprise and probably they have serious facts in support to
25 this. I am convinced of that.
1 Q. Well, you see, Mr. Stojanovski, there is nothing in the sentences
2 in paragraph 14 that would -- that I've read to you at least that would
3 indicate that you were a participant in any crime or joint criminal
4 enterprise. So I'm trying to understand why you think that these
5 investigators somehow, in bad faith, made up these sentences and put them
6 in this draft statement.
7 A. I am not aware of the entire construction they made.
8 Q. Can you turn, please, to the last page of the draft statement. Go
9 toward paragraph 22, please.
10 Paragraph 22 says: "What I have said above is everything I can
11 say about what I know about what happened in Ljuboten and about what I
12 know about the role of my superiors and the policemen under my command."
13 And then there was a paragraph 23 that was written, but it has
14 some slash marks through it in a black pen. But you can still see what
15 the drafters wrote there. It says: "After this statement has been
16 translated to me into English, I state that even though I speak and
17 understand the English language, I will sign the statement only if it is
18 in Macedonian. If there will be a Macedonian translation available, I
19 will be happy to sign it."
20 Have you followed me, Mr. Stojanovski?
21 A. Yes, Mr. Saxon.
22 Q. And that's what you told the investigators at the time, isn't it,
23 that you wanted -- if you were going to sign a statement, it had to be a
24 statement written in the Macedonian language, right?
25 A. As I said already, the interview ended in a bit of a different
1 atmosphere and environment. With regards to the language, that was part
2 of a previous conversation, not at the end.
3 Q. But it is what you told the investigators, that you would not sign
4 a statement unless the statement was written in the Macedonian language,
6 A. I asked to have a statement in the Macedonian language as well.
7 And with regards to negotiations as to whether to sign, I don't remember.
8 Q. And you refused to sign this statement because it was drafted in
9 English rather than in the Macedonian language, right?
10 A. You are playing with my words. I explained before why I did not
11 sign this statement.
12 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, I'm not playing with anything. And I'd like an
13 answer to my question. You can just answer yes or no, if you'd like.
14 A. No.
15 Q. Okay. And it's true, isn't it, that back in 2004 when you spoke
16 with OTP investigators, and even during your testimony here in this
17 courtroom that have you been trying to distance yourself from the
18 preparations for the attack on the village of Ljuboten that occurred on
19 Sunday, 12th of August. Isn't that true?
20 A. Would you like to explain this? I tried to distance myself?
21 Q. That you are trying to hide your own involvement in the
22 preparations for the attack on the village of Ljuboten that occurred on
23 Sunday, 12th of August, 2001. Isn't that right?
24 A. Not at all.
25 Q. It's true, isn't it, that you witnessed the beating of ethnic
1 Albanian civilians by police officers at OVR Cair on the afternoon of 12
2 August 2001, isn't it?
3 A. It is not like that at all.
4 Q. It's true, isn't it, Mr. Stojanovski, that you helped to ensure
5 that the group of men that were led into the village of Ljuboten by
6 Johan Tarculovski were armed and given uniforms and transportation at OVR
7 Cair. Isn't that true?
8 A. It is again not true, Mr. Saxon.
9 Q. It's true, Mr. Stojanovski, that you directed your subordinates,
10 such as Ljube Krstevski, to assist Johan Tarculovski and the group of men
11 who he would eventually lead into Ljuboten. Isn't that true?
12 A. It is completely untrue. I don't know Mr. Johan Tarculovski.
13 Q. And it's also true, isn't it, that during the weekend of 10 to 12
14 August you kept your superiors informed about the planning and
15 preparations for the attack on Ljuboten. Isn't that true?
16 A. It is absolutely not true.
17 Q. And subsequent to the events in and around Ljuboten in August
18 2001, you took no genuine measures to investigate any of the crimes that
19 occurred there. Isn't that true?
20 A. It is again incorrect, Mr. Saxon.
21 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I have no further questions at this time.
22 Q. Thank you, Mr. Stojanovski.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Saxon.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, before I move on to
2 my cross-examination [as interpreted], my re-direct, I just wanted to
3 react on behalf of the Defence.
4 It is something that had to do with my learned friend's questions
5 just before the break. I don't believe those questions were appropriate.
6 You told us at the outset of these proceedings that witnesses should not
7 be --
8 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic, you raised a concern before the
9 break. It was dealt with. We don't want the matter going over again.
10 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, maybe there is a
11 misunderstanding. I wanted to react to the last series of questions, but
12 thank you for your warning. In any case, I won't address the issue
13 anymore and I will respect your decision.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
15 Re-examination by Ms. Residovic:
16 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, during my learned friend's
17 cross-examination, you will remember that you were asked a question as to
18 whether you can confirm what activities were undertaken by your colleague
19 Ljupco Bliznakovski, on the 11th of August. Do you remember that
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Some of the questions regards that topic had to do with whether it
23 would be normal under the given circumstances that an order would be
24 issued to strengthen the check-points in the area of Cair municipality, in
25 particular around Ljuboten village. Do you remember that?
1 A. Yes, I was asked that.
2 Q. During examination-in-chief, you were shown a number of orders
3 issued at the police stations in Cair and Mirkovci stipulating the number
4 of persons that were manning the check-points on the 12th of August, 2001.
5 Did you in any of the orders notice the -- any mention of the
6 notion of re-enforcing the check-points?
7 A. From the orders that I saw, I did not notice anything of the sort.
8 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, do you recall having had a conversation with my
9 learned friend the Prosecutor concerning your statement. It was just
10 mentioned that you told the head of the Cair OVR that he was to inform the
11 minister, once the minister is in the area, and you explained that oral
12 reporting or debriefing is not a standard procedure with the police. Do
13 you remember having discussed that with my learned friend?
14 A. Yes, I remember having discussed that.
15 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] In line 12, it says oral reporting
16 whereas I said that the minister was supposed to be informed.
17 Q. The Prosecutor showed you numerous Official Notes as well as
18 operative information and other types of informing used by the police. Do
19 you remember having been shown that?
20 A. Yes. He was showing me operative information and Official Notes.
21 Q. You agreed that it was one of the ways of passing on information
22 in the police.
23 A. Yes, that is one of the ways.
24 Q. You also explained that it had nothing to do with debriefings or
25 oral reports that you discussed previously?
1 A. I tried to.
2 Q. In relation to what you said, that reporting orally is not a way
3 of passing on information in the police --
4 [Defence counsel confer]
5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there seems to be
6 some confusion concerning interpretation. I see that every time I say
7 "Raport" it is being translated as reporting orally or passing on
8 information orally. Maybe there is no better way to put it in another
9 language, but I will try to clarify what the witness wanted to say in a
10 different way.
11 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, "Raport" in its military sense, and that is what
12 you discussed, has something to do with the contents of information, or
13 with a strictly prescribed procedure followed by the military in order to
14 inform superiors?
15 A. Having in mind that in 1980 I served my military service, and as
16 far as I can remember, it was a procedure, so ...
17 Q. All information on Official Notes shown to you by the Prosecutor,
18 do these have anything to do with this strict way of reporting in the
19 military, which we referred to as "raport"?
20 A. These are two completely different concepts.
21 Q. Do you recall having been asked by the Prosecutor about the
22 possibility at the institute for forensic medicine to gather information
23 of sorts? Do you recall that?
24 A. Yes, we spoke to them.
25 Q. I would kindly ask you to -- the third set of documents, Defence
1 documents, tab 168. It is P49004, under seal.
2 Can you see the document?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Dragan Nikolovski, the investigative judge, was sent to the
5 institute for forensic medicine, and he requested the notes of autopsy.
6 When you look at the document, in your experience is it the only way for
7 the institute to forward its findings --
8 MR. SAXON: Objection, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE PARKER: What is the point of your objection, Mr. Saxon?
10 MR. SAXON: That we are receiving now a very question. Look at
11 the document, in your experience, is it the only way for the institute to
12 forward its findings. That is clearly a question that suggests the
14 JUDGE PARKER: Perhaps you could rephrase it, Ms. Residovic.
15 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, have a look at the document. What does it mean
17 to you?
18 A. Well, this is a document produced by the investigating department
19 of the Basic Court Skopje II, a request sent to the forensic medicine and
20 criminology institute in Skopje, through which the institute is requested
21 to submit the autopsy protocol from the post-mortem of Atulla Qaili.
22 Q. Can such a request be made by the police to the institute?
23 A. I believe that during the previous discussions we stated that this
24 is the exclusive competence of the investigating judge.
25 Q. Please have a look at the other binder you have, tab 128. It is
1 Exhibit P54030, under seal.
2 Do you have the document before you?
3 A. Yes, I see the document.
4 Q. Can you tell us what it is?
5 A. The investigating judge, Velce Pancevski, requested information
6 from the forensic medicine institute, Skopje.
7 Q. What person, Bara ...
8 A. He requested documents on the person Atulla Qaili.
9 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, what does this exhibit point to?
10 A. I believe that this corroborate what had I stated before, that the
11 investigating judge is the one who has the official communication and
12 requests things from the forensic medicine institute.
13 Q. In your third binder, have a look at tab 177. It is a 65 ter
14 document, 1D227.
15 Before that, Mr. Stojanovski, tell me this: Do you know who
16 Jovan Serafimovski is?
17 A. I believe that he was a deputy public prosecutor.
18 Q. Thank you. This is a statement given by Jovan Serafimovski,
19 deputy of the basic public prosecutor in Skopje gave to the investigators
20 of this Tribunal.
21 I wanted to refer to certain paragraphs of the statement.
22 In paragraph 10, which is to be found on page 4, we can see:
23 [In English] "... Qaili it will referred to under number 7 I was
24 not there on 14 August 2001 that the accused Qaili Atulla was already
25 dead. I learned about the death of Atulla Qaili by receiving a written
1 information from the investigative Judge Velce Pancevski. It was my
2 obligation to find out of the cause of death of Atulla Qaili. We learned
3 that he was injured during a clash with the Macedonian security forces in
4 Ljuboten. I was informed from the media that police and army were in
5 Ljuboten. I don't know which unit of the police and army were involved.
6 I didn't know the unit or name of the police or army officers who were
7 directly involved in the death of Atulla Qaili. I did not try to find out
8 who was involved in the death of Atulla Qaili, because I was told that a
9 lot of security forces were involved in this events. In the Official Note
10 to the police, it was mentioned that the security forces were active in
11 Ljuboten. That was all the information about the events that we
13 [Interpretation] Let us look at paragraph 13, which mentions the
14 same person [in English] "... Atulla Qaili, I knew the two other persons
15 who were arrested in Ljuboten were hospitalised together with Atulla
16 Qaili. I only remember that these two accused were in the city hospital.
17 I knew this because I read about this in the notes of the questioning
18 which are part of the files. I can't recall the name of these two
19 persons, although normally the investigative judge has an obligation to
20 ascertain the cause of the injuries, as I explained early, I learned that
21 these persons were injured during the clashes with the Macedonian security
22 forces. It was a war situation and at that time I did not even think
23 about trying to learn the cause of these injuries."
24 [Interpretation] In paragraph 14, the Prosecutor Serafimovski
25 states --
1 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please read slowly and make
2 pauses when switching between different languages, thank you.
3 MS. RESIDOVIC: [In English] If this document was produced by the
4 investigative judge, then I have never been informed from him about this.
5 In reference to the death of Atulla Qaili, I only learned about the
6 injuries from the death certificate. I think the autopsy was initialised
7 by the investigative judge, Velce Pancevski. Normally, it would be my
8 obligation as a deputy public prosecutor to ask for an autopsy. If I had
9 known that the person was dead, when I was filed the question for an
10 investigation, I would have requested the autopsy. But in the case of
11 Atulla Qaili, it was the investigative judge."
12 [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovski, you heard what the
13 Prosecutor Serafimovski said. To what extent does this statement by the
14 Prosecutor Serafimovski when he says that he -- his obligation or, rather
15 the obligation of the investigative judge, to what extent is it correct,
16 in keeping with the laws that were in place in Macedonia and according to
17 your experience.
18 A. I believe that we discussed something similar previously, as well
19 with regards to the autopsy and exhumation, and I believe that we said
20 then, or, actually, I said that as far as I know, to undertake such
21 actions the investigating judge has the competence.
22 Q. Concerning the part of the statement by Mr. Serafimovski, in which
23 he says that when he learned about his obligation to undertake measures,
24 does that differ from your testimony or does it corroborate your actual
25 testimony before this Tribunal?
1 A. I believe that it corroborates it.
2 Q. I will ask you to have a look at the Prosecutor's binder, tab 105.
3 It is document -- I can't see exactly what the exhibit number would be,
4 but it is an Official Note, number 1090.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat the ERN numbers
6 in Macedonian and English slowly. Thank you.
7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] As far as I can see it is P37,
8 under seal, on the list.
9 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, do you recall being shown this document by the
10 Prosecutor as well?
11 I apologise, maybe it wasn't.
12 You were shown --
13 A. I believe it was not shown.
14 Q. You were shown P105. I don't know where it is in the binder, but
15 could we please have that placed on the screen.
16 You remember being shown this document. We discussed it at length
17 whereby we said that the title, Official Note, was translated as operative
18 information. Do you remember that?
19 A. Yes.
20 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask the counsel to pause
21 before starting a new question.
22 Would the counsel please repeat the question.
23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm being told that this is tab 79
24 in the Prosecutor's binder.
25 Q. My question was whether you recall being shown this document.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. You were shown some additional documents and you were asked
3 whether you told the commission or other MVR members that they should talk
4 to some other people that were shown this document as well. Do you
5 remember that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You said that they knew what their job was and that they are more
8 familiar with it than you are. Am I interpreting that correctly?
9 A. Yes, it is correct interpretation.
10 Q. Regarding that, I have the following questions for you,
11 Mr. Stojanovski.
12 Those members of commissions or of the MVR, could they take over
13 the responsibility of the competent organs within the MVR or the SVR which
14 were tasked or duty-bound to investigate any such event, including the one
15 in Ljuboten?
16 A. This could not happen.
17 Q. Did you, upon their request, provide all of the documents had you
18 at your disposal and did you hide some of the documents?
19 A. I handed over all documents to the committee, and I organised that
20 these documents be available to the analytics department of the SVR Skopje
21 as well.
22 Q. As the liaison person with the Cair OVR, since you were tasked
23 with that by Mr. Efremov, your superior, did you also make sure that the
24 Cair OVR should made available all information they had at their disposal?
25 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
1 MR. SAXON: This is a leading question on a very critical point.
2 Perhaps it could be rephrased.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, I think that's fair enough.
4 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, you said that the head of the VR [as interpreted]
6 in Skopje, on the 13th, told you to serve as liaison between the
7 commission and the organs of the Ministry of Interior and the OVR Cair.
8 Did you accept that duty and did you execute those tasks?
9 A. I executed it.
10 Q. In relation to that and the requests sent to you by the Ministry
11 of Interior, were any measures undertaken by which those people would be
12 enabled to reach the Cair OVR?
13 A. I spoke to several heads, chiefs, and I informed them of their
14 duty to cooperate with the commission.
15 Q. Did any of the heads and persons you talked to say that they
16 refused to provide documents or that they refused to discuss the event?
17 A. It happened once only.
18 MR. SAXON: Your Honour.
19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Can you tell us when?
21 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
22 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I do not see how this question falls
23 within the remit of cross-examination, and so that's why I'm objecting to
25 JUDGE PARKER: I think the implementations of your
1 cross-examination may be wider than you are imagining. I wouldn't stop
2 Ms. Residovic at this point.
3 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. My question was, on what occasion did it happen that someone or
5 that one person refused to provide documents?
6 A. The head of the OVR Cair did not want to cooperate with
7 Mrs. Galeva.
8 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, in your previous answers, you said that based on
9 the documents you received, you were unable to conclude that some
10 policemen overstepped or abused their authority. Do you remember that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did you go through the documents carefully?
13 A. Yes. I reviewed them and, as I explained to the Prosecutor, I
14 don't how willing he was to understand what I was saying, it was important
15 for the ministry to ascertain the truth.
16 Q. Concerning your basic task, which was to establish the truth,
17 based on any of the documents, were you able to confirm the suspicions
18 raised and prevailing among the public concerning the behaviour of the
20 A. I couldn't confirm such statements or -- how should I say? That
21 were presented in the media at that time.
22 Q. You were shown a document by the Prosecutor. Is it 1D183, which
23 is tab 45 in the second Defence binder, and you were asked some questions
24 about it.
25 Do you recall this document?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. You gave answers to both me and my learned friend Mr. Saxon,
3 whereby you said that you believed the document was sent to you.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. As far as I recall, you said that it is possible that it found its
6 way to you because on that day you may have been at the headquarters at
7 the SVR. Do you remember that?
8 A. Yes.
9 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask the counsel and
10 witness to avoid overlapping.
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, there is a handwritten note for deputy
13 Pero Stojan, which you said probably meant it was for you. Just below it,
14 the date says the 15th of April, 2002. In addition to the fact that you
15 may have been given this document at the time it was drafted, can you tell
16 us why such a document would be sent to you on the 15th of April, 2002?
17 A. The only explanation that I could remember now would be that it
18 was probably upon a request by the commission.
19 Q. Do I understand correctly, that you were trying to get by certain
20 information throughout that period?
21 A. That was a continuous process.
22 Q. Let us have a look at tab 99. I believe it is a Prosecution
23 exhibit. It is -- no, it is 1D189.
24 Do you recall being shown this document by the Prosecutor? You
25 also provided certain answers in relation to the document. It is in the
1 second Prosecution binder.
2 You agreed with the Prosecutor that the information on the
3 allegedly killed in the village of Ljuboten is important.
4 A. Yes, I stated that it was useful.
5 Q. But you also said that it is incomplete, since it also contained
6 certain information which, at the time, you already knew was incorrect.
7 For instance, when it is stated that the people were buried the same day
8 they were killed.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. You also provided answers concerning the way information is
11 checked in order to establish whether a crime had been committed. Can you
12 tell me whether this information was sufficient to corroborate the
13 suspicion that there was a crime committed?
14 A. In my opinion, no.
15 Q. I wanted to ask you this: On the day you attempted to carry on an
16 on-site investigation, did you also receive information regarding the
17 persons buried?
18 A. Yes. I believe this was on the 14th when we were informed that
19 the persons were buried. It was an information received through the
20 conversations which the head of OVR Cair, Krstevski; head of SVR, Efremov
21 of SVR Skopje, Efremov and MP Etemi had.
22 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, do you remember being shown some information
23 concerning a person from Skopje. That person provided information
24 concerning Cair.
25 A. I believe that there was such an information, but if I could see
1 it, it would be better for me. The person was -- I think this was person
2 was not from Ljuboten.
3 Q. Thank you. So as not to waste any time in trying to find that
4 information, I would kindly ask you to look at tab 148, which is in the
5 second Defence binder. It is P104. P104. N005- --
6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters did not get the ERN number. It
7 is in Macedonian.
8 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. You said a minute ago that the information you just saw was
10 insufficient for you to be able to address the issue of a suspicion of
11 crime being committed. You were told by the Prosecutor that that note was
12 compiled by Dejan Blazevski?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Who drafted this note, the one before you?
15 A. Mr. Dejan Blazevski.
16 Q. We have already seen this note. Does it contain sufficient
17 relevant data, which may be used to ascertain whether those people were
18 killed or died in the village of Ljuboten?
19 A. Only on the basis of this information, no, there was no such
21 Q. Have a look at the previous note. It is tab 147. Exhibit 1D190.
22 During examination-in-chief, that note was shown to you as well. It is
23 page 1D47351 in the Macedonian; and in the English it is 1D4753.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Do you see in this report of the Cair OVR that they are actually
1 providing a response to the Basic Court and its investigative judge. Do
2 you see that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Can you also see from the document that it quotes the court
5 decision, or, rather, a request that was sent by the court in order to
6 perform their tasks?
7 A. Yes, the court had submit a request.
8 Q. Please have a look at another document, which is tab 146. It is
9 1D47, page 1D1949 in the Macedonian and 1590 in the English.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. This is a document compiled by the investigative judge used by the
12 OVR Cair in their response.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. In the second paragraph the court requests:
15 "In order to undertake these investigation actions, it is
16 necessary on your part to gather some additional reports and data, with
17 the aim of determining the identity of these persons, the location of the
18 graves where the corpses were buried, the time of burial, obtaining
19 statements from the persons who performed the burial, statements of family
20 members of the buried as well as other data and reports and written
22 Is this what the court requested?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. You worked for a number of years with the crime squad. According
25 to what you know, it is one of the necessary prerequisites for a court to
1 initialise an autopsy?
2 A. Yes. It is usual beforehand to have the necessary information.
3 Q. The note shown to you by the Prosecutor, in which we have first
4 and last names of persons with the incorrect date of burial, that note in
5 itself, did it suffice to answer any of the questions or parts of the
6 request made by the court?
7 A. I think we could not rely on this information.
8 Q. In the third Defence binder, you -- could you please have a look
9 at tab 156. It is exhibit P490034, under seal.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. We can see that it was created on the 5th of February, 2002.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And we have some text in English. Based on that, we can conclude
14 that these are the actual burial locations.
15 Could the police obtain this information in any way during 2001
16 and 2002?
17 A. No, it could not.
18 Q. Have a look at tab 158. It is Exhibit P5555, under seal.
19 Again, we have a drawing displaying the graves of the victims of
20 the 12th of August with their names, and the title is in English. The
21 police, with all the efforts you invested in order to investigate, were
22 you able to obtain this information?
23 A. No. I think I explained previously that we did not have
24 cooperation with the local population. Such cooperation was refused.
25 Q. Have a look at tab 159. It is Exhibit P5528, under seal.
1 In his request, Judge Nikolovski requested that interviews be
2 carried out with the members of the families of those allegedly killed.
3 A. Yes. I think this was in connection with the identification.
4 Q. And this document, which was compiled on the 21st of March, 2002,
5 Osman Ramadani gave a statement to the investigative judge. Can you see
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And the judge had requested that he be given statements by those
9 people initially.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Have a look at the next page of the document.
12 A. Yes, I see it.
13 Q. In the last paragraph it says: "At the hearing the deputy of the
14 basic public prosecutor's office Cakic was present. Investigative Judge
15 Bekir Shahini in addition to Dragan Nikolovski, the representative from
16 the municipality community, Ljuboten Kenan Salievski, as well as
17 representatives of The Hague Tribunal Andrzej Szydlik, and Ali Nakija from
18 The Hague Tribunal."
19 Mr. Stojanovski, you testified about this earlier, was it possible
20 to address the issue or to answer the question of what had actually
21 happened without having any statements of family members who could tell
22 you something about those killed?
23 A. No.
24 Q. From what I have just said, it is clear that no police
25 representatives were there.
1 A. Yes, this is so.
2 Q. Is the police ever present during an interview conducted by a
3 judge in -- in a court building?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Is it clear from what I read to you that the interview of this
6 person, and this was a family member of one of the deceased, is it clear
7 that we -- that who was present were actually some village representatives
8 and people from The Hague Tribunal?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Since you are fully familiar with the situation at the time, was
11 it possible to get by some real true information based on which what could
12 make educated guesses or conclusions as to what happened, based on the
13 statements given and the fate of the people killed?
14 A. It was not possible.
15 Q. Could the police make it possible for the court to have those
16 people appear before the court and give statements, since the court
17 requested so?
18 A. Could not.
19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, to shorten this part
20 of my examination, I just wanted to say that it is identical to P5557
21 under seal which is in tab 60; and then exhibit P5521, under seal, tab
22 161; P5525, under seal, tab 162.
23 Q. Have a look at tab 120 in the second Defence binder. It is 1D9.
24 Tab 120. This document is also under seal. The page is 1D0040. We have
25 it in English only.
1 Mr. Stojanovski, we have here investigator's notes, the purpose of
2 which was to note the meeting with the representatives of the families of
3 the deceased from Ljuboten, the Republic of Macedonia, in order to discuss
4 the operational plan for the exhumation at the cemetery at the village of
5 Ljuboten. The meeting was held on the 8th of March, Friday, at 10.30.
6 You can see those present. On behalf of the village, there were three
7 people. Then you can see who the representatives of the families under
8 items 1 through 8. Then we have the representatives of the international
9 community, Mathias Elck of the OSCE, and Valentine Guileri of the OSCE as
10 well as Demeri-Shaipi, of the same organisation interpreter. On behalf of
11 the international Tribunal, we have Howard Tucker investigator and
12 Andzrey Sydlic operations officer in the office in Skopje.
13 Is it all visible from the first page?
14 A. Yes. These are investigator's notes with a degree of
16 Q. Have a look at page 2. I will read out the last paragraph [In
17 English] ... "There was initial resistance by the spokesperson of the
18 crisis committee, Mr. Saliu Kenan about the involvement of the Republic of
19 Macedonia agency. Feelings were obviously running high and there was talk
20 of non-cooperation by the villages. However, after further discussion,
21 they all greed their support for the investigation."
22 [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovski, these investigator's notes
23 stating the fact that the villagers expressed a lack of trust in all
24 Macedonian agencies and state bodies and refused to cooperate, was it
25 drafted in March 2002 and does it confirm what you know of the events at
1 the time confirming that the police was actually unable to get by
3 A. Not only the police. All institutions of the Republic of
5 Q. Have a look at the next page. It is 1D1142. The fourth line from
6 the bottom -- not line, excuse me, paragraph. It says [in
7 English] ..."Anyway, the bodies remaining in storage at the institute
8 until the process is completed was not acceptable to the families of the
9 deceased. They still carry a huge mistrust of anything Macedonian."
10 [Interpretation] Does this assertion, on the part of The Hague
11 Tribunal investigator, confirm your knowledge as to the police being
12 unable to combine information?
13 A. Yes, this is a correct assertion.
14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I note the time.
15 However, I have quite a few questions left. I don't know whether we can
16 continue with the witness or ...
17 I covered the questions raised today. However, we also have
18 yesterday's cross-examination, and I will have some questions about that
19 as well.
20 JUDGE PARKER: We must adjourn now, because of the time. We will
21 resume tomorrow at 9.00, in the anticipation that you will finish in the
22 course of the first session tomorrow. We will be able to resume our
23 normal programme with the next witness, and we'll sit through until 1.45
25 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 JUDGE PARKER: We will adjourn now.
2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.34 p.m.,
3 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 14th day of February,
4 2008, at 9.00 a.m.