1 Tuesday, 19 February 2008

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon.

7 The affirmation you made at the beginning of your evidence still

8 applies.

9 Ms. Issa.

10 WITNESS: VESNA DOREVSKA [Resumed]

11 [Witness answered through interpreter]

12 Cross-examination by Ms. Issa: [Continued]

13 MS. ISSA: Yes, good afternoon, Your Honours.

14 Q. Ms. Dorevska, I'd just like to move on to another topic.

15 In your examination-in-chief, you mentioned that you knew

16 Zoran Krstevski. Is that right?

17 A. Yes, I knew him.

18 Q. You said that you remembered when he first started in the ministry

19 and that you remember he started in September 2001. Is that right?

20 A. Yes, that is right, somewhere towards the end of September 2001.

21 Q. And Zoran Krstevski was Minister Boskoski's advisor. Is that

22 right?

23 A. Yes, he was senior advisor within the cabinet of the minister.

24 Q. And he -- as senior advisor, Zoran Krstevski gave advice to the

25 minister about important matters of the ministry. Is that right?

1 A. I really couldn't know what Mr. Krstevski advised the minister in

2 regard with.

3 Q. Well, wouldn't you expect that a senior advisor would give advice

4 to the minister about important matters relating to perhaps current events

5 in the ministry?

6 A. In the cabinet of the minister there are many jobs with the title

7 advisor and they're divided into various areas. So the minister decides

8 who is the advisor advising him on a specific matter. I don't really know

9 what was the area that Mr. Krstevski was in charge of with regards to

10 advising the minister.

11 Q. Okay. But, nevertheless, the reason he needed advisors was to

12 assist him in his regular work as minister. Right?

13 A. Yes, I agree with you.

14 Q. And may assist him in perhaps dealing with the press and current

15 matters that the minister has to deal with on a daily basis?

16 A. I don't know what kind of press you're speaking about, but surely

17 he did help him in the everyday performance of the task with regards to

18 the matters that the minister would request assistance in.

19 Q. Okay. Ms. Dorevska, are you aware of the battle of Radusa which

20 took place in August 2001?

21 A. I am aware of what happened.

22 Q. And it was a battle between Macedonian forces and the Kosovo

23 Protection members allegedly between -- in mid-August 2001. Is that

24 right?

25 A. I couldn't answer this question in the sense that you're asking me

1 because my knowledge of that situation is that of any ordinary citizen of

2 the state. The information that I received regarding that event primarily

3 came from the media.

4 Q. Okay. But you are aware that there was a battle in Radusa which

5 engaged or involved the Macedonian security forces against allegedly

6 hundreds of Kosovo protection members that crossed the border, right?

7 A. I don't know. I know that some action took place in the village

8 of Radusa, but who was battling against whom that is something beyond the

9 domain of my work.

10 Q. But you do know that the Macedonian security forces were involved

11 in that action, right?

12 A. Yes. I know they were involved.

13 Q. I'd like to turn to 65 ter 1160.

14 MS. ISSA: And if I can have that, please, pulled up in the

15 e-court. And also we do have some hard copy documents that we might

16 distribute to Your Honours and to the witness at this stage.

17 Q. Now, Ms. Dorevska, you see this is an article that is written by a

18 journalist regarding the conflict of 2001. And you see that there's a

19 picture on the very first page of that article, do you see that there?

20 A. Yes, of course I see it.

21 Q. And that is -- that's Zoran Krstevski. Is that right?

22 A. Yes, that is Zoran Krstevski.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.

24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since we have the

25 document on the screen, could our learned colleague help us and say when

1 was this article written.

2 JUDGE PARKER: It may be possible.

3 Yes, Ms. Issa.

4 [Prosecution counsel confer]

5 MS. ISSA: Just in response to my friend's question, it appears to

6 be written on the 28th of January, 2005, if I'm reading that correctly.

7 Q. Now, this article, Ms. Dorevska, deals with the battle at Radusa.

8 And if I can just ask you to take a look at the second paragraph that

9 begins with the phrase or the sentence: "Radusa also took place in 2001."

10 Do you see that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And you see how the next sentence after that says that: "The

13 Macedonian security forces defending the territorial integrity and

14 sovereignty of the state from the aggressors responded fiercely to the

15 Albanian terrorists that infiltrated from the direction of Kosovo."

16 Do you see that?

17 A. Yes, of course.

18 Q. And it continues to describe the battle between the Macedonian

19 forces and the Albanians from -- from Kosovo and at the very end of that

20 paragraph, it says: "We had the exclusive opportunity to hear how the

21 operation in Radusa was conducted from a man who was in the team that led

22 it, Zoran Krstevski."

23 Do you see that?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And then straight after that, it quotes Zoran Krstevski and he

1 begins by saying: "The offensive started in the early hours of the

2 morning, initially with a limited attack on the police station in Radusa."

3 Do you see that?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Then at about the middle of that paragraph he refers to the

6 Ministry of Interior Tiger unit, and he says: "The Ministry of the

7 Interior was immediately mobilised and the Tigers special tasks unit was

8 sent to the area of Radusa without delay."

9 Do you see that?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And at the very end or the bottom of that paragraph, the end of

12 that long quote, it says: "Zoran Krstevski, the former senior advisor in

13 the cabinet of former minister Ljube Boskoski."

14 Do you see that?

15 A. Unfortunately, I can't see that part on the screen.

16 Q. It should be at the very bottom --

17 A. Yes, it is fine now.

18 Q. And then there should be a heading that says headed -- in this

19 article, titled: Luck for life. Do you see that?

20 A. Yes, I see it.

21 Q. And the second paragraph underneath that heading says: "As the

22 minister's advisor at that moment, I was required to be in the cabinet of

23 the then prime minister Ljubco Georgievski so that I could monitor the

24 development of events from there."

25 Do you see that?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Then at the -- then it continues to quote him as to what occurred.

3 And if you look at the third page underneath the heading: Showdowns.

4 MS. ISSA: If I can perhaps ask that be shown on the screen,

5 please.

6 Q. And it continues to quote Zoran Krstevski where he says: "There

7 is no way that the encircled 30 or so police officers exposed to heavy

8 attack could have caused so many casualties among the aggressor."

9 And then he continues.

10 Now, Ms. Dorevska, were you aware that Zoran Krstevski was working

11 for the ministry at that time in August 2001?

12 A. No, Mr. Zoran Krstevski started working for the ministry towards

13 the end of September 2001, when he signed the contract with the Ministry

14 of the Interior. I know that he came from the Macedonian Radio and

15 television. I was already working then in the personnel department which

16 means that I remember very well the time when Mr. Krstevski signed the

17 employment contract.

18 Q. Well, nevertheless, he may have signed the contract in September

19 2001, but doesn't this article clearly demonstrate that he was in fact

20 working as the advisor to Minister Boskoski in 2001, in August of 2001?

21 A. This article, as you said, was written four years later by a

22 person who was working in the media, in the Macedonian Television. I

23 don't know why I should conclude that this is a reliable source of

24 information.

25 Q. Well, he was interviewed by a journalist regarding the battle in

1 Radusa and he is quoted in the interview, isn't he?

2 A. This is what is written here. But do you think that everything

3 that is written in the media and everything that the individuals say must

4 be accurate and reliable?

5 Q. Don't you think, Ms. Dorevska, that if he was interviewed

6 specifically in respect of the battle in Radusa and he provides all the

7 details that he provides in this article that that indicates some

8 reliability to the article?

9 A. I couldn't agree with your assessment. I can speak of the facts

10 only, and the facts are stating something completely different, that

11 during that time, Mr. Krstevski was not employed with the ministry and who

12 could not hold the position discussed here. In the capacity of the

13 employee in the minister, maybe he was an observer of the event as a

14 journalist.

15 Q. Well, he doesn't say that he was an observer of the event, does

16 it? It says that he was in the cabinet of former minister

17 Ljube Boskoski.

18 A. I couldn't consider this a reliable evidence. If you believe that

19 his statement is accurate and truthful and if you believe that this is

20 evidence that should be taken into consideration, that's fine with you.

21 But what I said I will repeat. This person, individual, has not been

22 employed with the ministry during that time. He could not and he was not

23 allowed to take any activities or make anything related to that job post.

24 Q. Was he assisting the ministry informally, even if he wasn't

25 formally employed?

1 A. There shouldn't be any such situation.

2 Q. Isn't it possible, Ms. Dorevska, that he was assisting the

3 ministry informally, that Zoran Krstevski was assisting the ministry

4 informally throughout this difficult and complex time that perhaps the

5 formal procedures of employment were not followed?

6 A. I don't think so.

7 Q. You testified yesterday that Minister Boskoski, for example, had

8 sent telegrams because it was necessary to act most efficiently because of

9 the complex situation in 2001. Do you recall that?

10 A. Yes, of course.

11 Q. So at that complex time there may have been persons working with

12 the ministry who were not officially employed with the minister perhaps

13 like Zoran Krstevski, despite not having a formal contract. Isn't that

14 possible?

15 A. It would not be possible and that would be illegal and such

16 situation of course could not and must not take place.

17 Q. So it would be illegal for an individual to work for the ministry

18 without a formal contract. Is that what you're saying?

19 A. That's right. From the moment one enters employment contract that

20 is the moment from which there are obligations and duties of that person

21 with regards to the ministry.

22 Q. Would it be illegal for a person to assist the ministry without

23 being an official employee?

24 A. Of course it would be illegal. There are other formats of

25 assistance. Maybe a contract, a task contract that would give the right

1 to an individual to assist the ministry in that capacity. But in this

2 case, there is no legal document indicating that the person had some

3 duties to perform for the ministry.

4 Q. Do you actually know for a -- personally, Ms. Dorevska, whether

5 Zoran Krstevski was in fact assisting the ministry at that time?

6 A. No, I don't know.

7 Q. What if minister -- what if Zoran Krstevski felt a moral

8 obligation perhaps to assist the ministry given the events that were

9 occurring at that time? Isn't it possible that he could assist the

10 ministry and act as Minister Boskoski's advisor without a formal contract?

11 A. Do you think that just anyone who feels the moral obligation can

12 come and assist the minister in carrying out his duties without entering a

13 formal contract?

14 Q. Well, I'm asking you. Isn't that possible?

15 A. I think that I already answered this, that it is impossible and

16 illegal.

17 Q. We've -- isn't it possible that given the complex situation in

18 2001 that there was some room for flexibility?

19 A. Not in this part.

20 Q. Why was it legal, then, Ms. Dorevska, to have volunteers working

21 for the ministry?

22 A. I don't know whether there were volunteers working for the

23 ministry. There have been members of the reserve forces who worked for

24 the ministry.

25 Q. Are volunteers reservists?

1 A. No. I said reservists, not volunteers.

2 Q. Is it then possible for volunteers to become reservists?

3 A. At any rate, through a legal procedure, if they are recorded with

4 the branch office of the Ministry of Defence and if through a procedure

5 that applies to them, which is established in the Law on Defence and the

6 Law on Internal Affairs become part of the reserve forces of the Ministry

7 of the Interior, become reserve police officers.

8 Q. Do you account for the possibility, Ms. Dorevska, that the rules

9 and regulations and the law may not address every possible situation that

10 the police may encounter or that the minister may encounter, particularly

11 in that complex time?

12 A. No. There is always a way for the laws to be enforced, so to have

13 the police conduct within the legal framework because the police conduct

14 is always under public scrutiny, and every action outside of the

15 competencies can be very delicate and could entail a very negative

16 assessment.

17 Q. I'm going to move on to another topic.

18 Ms. Dorevska, yesterday we were looking at the Law on Internal

19 Affairs, and you mentioned that the Law on Internal Affairs that was

20 amended in 2003 formally gave the director independent powers.

21 Do you remember that?

22 A. Yes. I did mention that in 2003 amendments were made to the

23 Law on Internal Affairs, but they only confirmed the independence that the

24 director had already have through the Law on Organisation and Work of the

25 Bodies of Civil Service and the provisions of the rule book for

1 organisation of the ministry.

2 Q. Well, you've already mentioned, however, that the rule book for

3 the organisation of the ministry does not expressly refer to the

4 independence of the director, does it?

5 A. Yes. But it establishes the bureau for public security as a body

6 within the ministry.

7 Q. Okay. If I can ask you to --

8 MS. ISSA: Or if I can perhaps ask that 65 ter 1158 be brought up

9 in e-court. It's at tab 83 of the second Prosecution binder.

10 Q. Now, you see that on your screen, Ms. Dorevska?

11 A. Yes, I see it.

12 Q. And that -- is that the law on amendment to the Law on Internal

13 Affairs that was amended in 2003?

14 A. Yes, that is right.

15 Q. And it specifically refers to, just to go through the document,

16 under Article 1, new paragraph 2 is added which follows paragraph 1. And

17 it says: "Organs within the structure of the ministry are the

18 administration or the head of counter-intelligence and the bureau for the

19 public security."

20 Do you see that?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And then underneath Article 7-a, we see the language that you had

23 referred to earlier which specifically deals with the director for the

24 bureau for public security.

25 Do you see that?

1 A. Yes, of course.

2 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I neglected to tender this yesterday and

3 I'd like to tender it at this stage.

4 JUDGE PARKER: What is this?

5 MS. ISSA: 65 ter 1158, the law on amendment in addition to the

6 Law on Internal Affairs 2003.

7 JUDGE PARKER: It's just the 2003 amendment?

8 MS. ISSA: Yes.

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

10 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P571, Your Honours.

11 MS. ISSA: And while I'm at it, I'd like to also tender 65 ter

12 1159 -- 1155 at tab 29 which is the criminal charge brought by

13 Goran Mitevski.

14 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

15 MS. ISSA: Thank you.

16 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P572, Your Honours.

17 MS. ISSA: I'd also like to tender 65 ter 1076, Ljube Boskoski's

18 personnel file.

19 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

20 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P573, Your Honours.

21 MS. ISSA: And, finally, I'd like to tender 65 ter 1160, the

22 article that we just looked at relating to Zoran Krstevski.

23 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

24 Ms. Residovic.

25 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will not be

1 objecting to the decision to the rulings, since you have already passed it

2 down.

3 Thank you.

4 THE REGISTRAR: The document will be received as Exhibit P574,

5 Your Honours.

6 MS. ISSA: Thank you. And, just for the record, I mentioned a

7 document at tab 44 of the Prosecution binder. This is at transcript page

8 9544, and it should be Exhibit 1D211.

9 If I may then continue, Your Honour.

10 Q. Just moving on to another topic, Ms. Dorevska. You mentioned in

11 your examination-in-chief that a code of conduct was circulated in 2001 to

12 police.

13 Do you remember that?

14 A. These were brochures, these were not a code of ethics.

15 Q. Why was it necessary to send -- to circulate brochures to members

16 of the police?

17 A. I don't know why, because I did not take part in their

18 preparation, publishing or distribution. I presume in order to assist the

19 police officers in carrying out their daily activities and obligations.

20 Q. Okay. You also said in your examination-in-chief that there were

21 efforts being made to improve the ethnic structure in the ministry in

22 2001. Do you recall that?

23 A. Yes. I said that as of 2000, efforts were made to improve the

24 ethnic structure but that at a given time this was halted. In September

25 2001, we continued to carry out these activities and we published an

1 announcement for taking in 100 new police officers.

2 Q. Okay. But these efforts continued in 2001. Isn't that right?

3 A. Yes. They continued, and also in the years that followed.

4 Q. And why did you need to recruit ethnic Albanians to improve the

5 structure within the ministry, Ms. Dorevska?

6 A. I could not say why because this is a normal thing for everyone

7 and all communities to be represented in the ministry and in the state as

8 a whole. This is part of the preamble of the constitution of the Republic

9 of Macedonia.

10 Q. Weren't there enough Albanians within the ministry at the time?

11 A. There were very few, about four to five per cent.

12 Q. Okay. You also mentioned at transcript page 9455 last week that

13 there was no press information centre within the ministry in 2001. Do you

14 recall that?

15 A. Yes. There was no such organisational unit.

16 Q. Well, if there was no press centre at the time, who was writing

17 all the public announcements to recruit members into the ministry?

18 A. This is the work of the sector which I head.

19 Q. So it was your sector that was drafting all the public

20 announcements?

21 A. Public announcements for employment, yes.

22 Q. Well, what if the minister had a press conference or needed

23 information regarding a current event at that time, in 2001? How would he

24 get that most up-to-date information in order to respond to the media?

25 A. I don't know. Up to a period of time there was a person who was

1 the spokesperson of the ministry who later left. After that I don't

2 recall at all, and I don't think there was an official person who carried

3 out this work. As to how this was done, I really could not tell you.

4 Q. Was there an unofficial person who acted as spokesperson, perhaps,

5 within the ministry?

6 A. Up until May, or, rather, June 2001, yes.

7 Q. Was there a spokesperson who acted on behalf of Minister Boskoski?

8 A. I don't recall.

9 Q. I'd like to move to another topic.

10 Who -- before I do that, you mentioned, Ms. Dorevska, that it was

11 your sector that drafted the public announcements to recruit members into

12 the ministry. Who drafted the other kinds of public announcements?

13 A. I really do not know. Perhaps people from the minister's office,

14 from the minister's cabinet who were in charge of that.

15 Q. And by that, you mean the minister's advisors.

16 A. Yes. Most probably some of the advisors of the minister. If you

17 believe that there was someone charged to that end, or for this task.

18 Q. Just moving then on to another topic. At transcript page 9497,

19 Ms. Dorevska, you said that any superior officer could initiate a

20 disciplinary procedure against an employee from within his subordination.

21 And you said that the proposal could be filed by the director of the

22 bureau for public security and for the state security and the officers who

23 are authorised by the minister.

24 Do you recall that?

25 A. Yes, this is correct.

1 Q. So let me see if I understand what you're saying. If a police

2 officer in Mirkovci police station, for example, commits an act of

3 misconduct or even a criminal act, can the deputy commander for Mirkovci

4 file a proposal for disciplinary proceedings against him?

5 A. He cannot file a proposal for initiating a disciplinary proceeding

6 because the contract for transfer authorisation lists the person who can

7 do this. But this which you raised as an issue the deputy commander can

8 initiate this to the person who is authorised to file the proposal and

9 this is the head of the section who will then convey this to the sector of

10 internal affairs, because he is the person authorised with a decision to

11 file such proposals.

12 Q. Let me just see if I understand what you're saying.

13 The deputy commander of the police station can inform the head of

14 the section, or the head commander, and, in turn, the head of the police

15 station, of Mirkovci for example, would inform the head of the SVR, the

16 sector, and it is the head of the sector that files a proposal. Is that

17 what you're saying?

18 A. Yes, this is correct. When there's an initiative of the kind that

19 we're speaking about now and there is evidence and statements in written

20 form, they are compiled and are submitted up the chain of command to the

21 person authorised to file that proposal.

22 Q. Wouldn't the immediate superior also be authorised to file a

23 proposal, Ms. Dorevska?

24 A. All direct superiors are not authorised. Only those persons who

25 are listed in the decision passed by the minister.

1 Q. So the minister can decide who he wishes to authorise and who he

2 wishes not to authorise to file -- to initiate disciplinary proceedings.

3 Is that right?

4 A. I will quote the provision from the collective agreement which

5 clearly states a proposal for initiating or carrying out disciplinary

6 proceeding can be submitted by the director. It's listed as

7 under-secretary there because of the older date of the collective

8 agreement or other persons authorised by the minister, which means that

9 the minister is obliged to reach such a decision and to decide who he will

10 pass on this authority to.

11 Q. Okay. Well, what if the head of the sector fails to initiate a

12 proceeding against the police officer in Mirkovci police station, can then

13 the head of the uniformed police or the head of the crime police initiate

14 that proceeding?

15 A. Do you mean if he does not initiate this, whether that other

16 person would undertake this obligation? This should not be the case.

17 Q. Can the head of the uniformed police or the crime police initiate

18 proceedings against the head of the sector for failing to initiate the

19 disciplinary proceeding?

20 A. He can, because he is authorised by the decision -- by a decision

21 to file such a proposal.

22 Q. So if the head of the uniformed police or the crime police is

23 authorised by decision to file a proposal, why can't he initiate a

24 proceeding against the police officer in Mirkovci police station?

25 A. If you look at the decision for transfer of authorisation, you can

1 see that it lists the persons who are authorised and persons against whom

2 proposals can be submitted in a disciplinary proceeding.

3 Q. Doesn't that proposal list the persons who are authorised to

4 initiate disciplinary proceedings in general?

5 A. Yes. However, it lists also against whom these proposals may be

6 submitted. Specifically, it lists that the director of the bureau for

7 public security can file a proposal for disciplinary proceeding against

8 employees in the ministry which means that the director of public security

9 is obliged to file a proposal for my work post, which is under the direct

10 supervision of the minister.

11 Q. Can the director of the public security initiate proceedings

12 against the head of the uniformed police, for example?

13 A. Yes, of course. This is possible, to initiate and to file a

14 proposal.

15 Q. Can the head -- can the director of the bureau of public security

16 initiate a proceeding against the head of a sector?

17 A. This is possible. They can initiate a proceeding and they can

18 file a proposal against a head of sector. In principle, initiatives come

19 from the ground, from the direct superiors and those who will assess that

20 a certain person has overstepped his or her authorisations or by the

21 sector of internal control which in fact is in charge of looking over such

22 conduct or misconduct by employees. In any rate, there is a difference

23 between an initiative and a proposal for a disciplinary proceeding.

24 Q. What I understand you to be saying is that the director of the

25 public bureau for security can initiate a proceeding. Is that right?

1 A. If there -- there is knowledge received from the head of an

2 organisational unit, then he can initiate such a proceeding.

3 Q. And can the head of the -- director of the bureau of public

4 security initiate a proceeding against the head of the OVR?

5 A. He can initiate and point to the authorised person for filing such

6 a proceeding, and this is the head of sector that there are informations

7 to that end received, for example, from the sector of internal control and

8 that a proceeding should be taken against such a person.

9 Q. So he can instruct the head of sector to initiate a proceeding

10 against the head of the OVR. Is that right?

11 A. No. I believe that you're not making the distinction between an

12 initiative and a proposal.

13 Q. Well, my question is: Can the director of bureau of public

14 security bring a proposal against the head of the OVR?

15 A. In principle, no, because the head of the sector of internal

16 affairs is already authorised by a decision of the minister to submit

17 proposals. The director can give the initiative on the basis of certain

18 knowledge which he has received so that the head of sector can officially

19 submit this proposal because he is the authorised person to do so.

20 Q. But what if the head of the sector who is one of the authorised

21 persons to bring the proposal fails to bring that proposal? Can't the

22 director of bureau of public security then bring a proposal against the

23 head of the OVR?

24 A. First, the head of sector will be punished for this and he will

25 establish the reasons why he had not done what he should have done and if

1 this is not done then the director can also submit a proposal if we have a

2 serious situation at hand, which must be acted upon, and for which there's

3 a danger of statute of limitations and deadlines.

4 Q. Okay. And who would the head of sector be punished? By whom

5 would the head of sector be punished if he does -- if he fails to initiate

6 or submit a proposal?

7 A. Can be sanctioned by the bureau for public security.

8 Q. So the director can initiate then or bring the proposal against

9 the head of the sector for failing in that regard. Is that right?

10 A. Correct. However, there is also another sanction provided for by

11 Article 75 or 76 of the collective agreement, which means the sanction can

12 be 15 per cent of his salary, the reasoning being that he failed to

13 undertake necessary measures which is different than the disciplinary

14 proceedings.

15 Q. I'm just asking you about the disciplinary proceedings for the

16 time being.

17 Now, you mentioned earlier that -- that the initiative comes from

18 the ground. You said that the initiative to -- or the report, if I

19 understand what you're saying, regarding the disciplinary or the act of

20 misconduct that goes to the director comes from the ground. Now, what if

21 that initiative does not come from the ground? What if it comes from

22 somewhere else? Then at that stage can the director initiate or bring the

23 proposal against a police officer in a police station?

24 A. The director can obtain such information. But, once again, he

25 will inform the head and the authorised person for submitting such a

1 proposal.

2 Q. Can the assistant to the sector bring a proposal against a police

3 officer in, say, for example, Mirkovci or Karpos police station?

4 A. Unless he is expressly authorised by the minister with a decision

5 to do so, then he cannot. He can only submit an initiative.

6 Q. So isn't it possible, then, Ms. Dorevska, that the -- that the

7 minister can authorise virtually anybody to -- to bring a proposal for

8 disciplinary proceedings? Isn't that true?

9 A. I quoted the provision of the collective agreement. Or persons

10 authorised by the minister. And I believe that lawyers will interpret

11 this as it is written.

12 Q. Okay. So is your answer to my question yes, that he can

13 authorise virtually anybody in the ministry to initiate a proceeding?

14 A. The minister decides who he will authorise. He may authorise only

15 the directors, or the employees who are in management positions but are

16 subordinate to the directors. These are authorised officials from higher

17 organisational units of in charge of the units which they are in charge

18 of, because of the overall structure of the ministry.

19 Q. Okay. But I take it your answer, then, is that the minister can

20 authorise any worker or employee within the ministry to initiate a

21 disciplinary proceeding. Is that right?

22 A. Not to initiate. To file a proposal, to bring a proposal for a

23 disciplinary proceeding.

24 Q. And when one files a proposal or brings a proposal for a

25 disciplinary proceeding, isn't that the start of the disciplinary

1 proceeding? Isn't that what begins the process? Isn't that at point go

2 to the commission for the procedures to commence?

3 A. Yes. At the moment when the proposal is drafted in written form

4 with all elements listed in the collective agreement, the person

5 authorised to sign and file this proposal submits this to the commission

6 also set up by a decision of the minister.

7 Q. Now, you said, Ms. Dorevska, that the minister cannot initiate

8 proceedings. That was your testimony, right?

9 A. I said that the minister cannot submit a proposal for a

10 disciplinary proceeding because is he not expressly authorised to do so.

11 Q. Where does it say in the collective agreement or in any other law

12 that the minister cannot submit a proposal for disciplinary proceeding?

13 A. Provision in the collective agreement is very clear. If the

14 minister has the authorisation to file a proposal, then the provision will

15 be different and will say a proposal for the disciplinary proceeding can

16 be submitted by a minister, director, or other so authorised persons. In

17 this case, there's no such provision. Therefore, no authorisation for the

18 minister. There's also the Law on Civil Servants, regulating the civil

19 service in general and in the ministry there are also persons with the

20 status of civil servants. In this law you will also find a provision

21 which states that the direct superior submits a proposal for disciplinary

22 proceeding. No minister in the country is not authorised to file

23 proposals for disciplinary proceedings.

24 Q. Is the minister authorised to initiate a disciplinary proceeding,

25 can he advise the director for the bureau of public security to initiate a

1 disciplinary proceeding, for example?

2 A. If he has information that misconduct has been committed,

3 something not in accordance someone's obligation then the minister can of

4 course point out to the director or ask the director whether this is so

5 and whether measures need to be taken.

6 Q. Well, suppose the minister had information that there were police

7 members or police officers within the ministry that committed an act of

8 misconduct or criminal activity, could the minister have directed the

9 director for the bureau of public security to file a proposal for

10 disciplinary proceeding?

11 A. No. He cannot direct him. He can speak with them, they can speak

12 about this particular topic so the director can undertake the obligations

13 which are his, to investigate the case, to see whether conditions for such

14 a proceeding and to take the necessary measures to that end.

15 Q. Well, what if the director disagrees with the minister and refuses

16 or fails to file a proposal for -- to initiate a disciplinary proceeding?

17 Can the minister not instruct him at that point to do so?

18 A. No. Because, most probably, in such a case the director has

19 assessed that there are no conditions for carrying out a disciplinary

20 proceeding.

21 Q. Okay. But what if the minister disagrees with the director and

22 thinks the director is wrong in his assessment that -- that there were no

23 conditions to carry out a disciplinary measure? Can the minister at that

24 point instruct the director to initiate a disciplinary proceeding?

25 A. No. Because the minister cannot have knowledge to that extent,

1 whether their conditions for the disciplinary proceedings are in place or

2 not. In a way, this is a court proceeding, a short court proceedings with

3 its own rules. Not any person on the basis of wishes or knowledge can

4 independently or self-willingly initiate such a proceeding.

5 Q. Well, suppose the minister happened to witness an act of

6 misconduct or criminal activity and he therefore does have the knowledge,

7 can he then at that stage instruct the director, or anybody else, to

8 initiate a disciplinary proceeding?

9 A. I really cannot think about all of these situations which you are

10 mentioning. Maybe you're speaking about a police officer working on a

11 cross-road and when the minister is passing and then when the minister

12 passed, he saw that he was not properly uniformed. I don't know the

13 situation you had in mind.

14 Q. Well, let's suppose the minister was passing and he was at a

15 police station and he saw that a police officer was -- was beating up a

16 civilian.

17 A. I believe that something of this kind cannot happen.

18 Q. Let's assume that it has happened, Ms. Dorevska. Let's just

19 assume for a moment that the minister saw that police officer was beating

20 up a civilian. Can he not at that point instruct the director to initiate

21 a disciplinary proceeding?

22 A. No. If he went to the police station, as you say, let us presume

23 he saw police officers beating civilian, he would turn to the chief to

24 undertake certain measures towards the police officer who is beating the

25 civilian and to see what is at hand.

1 Q. So he would instruct the chief to initiate a disciplinary

2 proceeding against the police officer who beat the civilian. Is that what

3 you're saying?

4 A. You say that he could be a witness to this. I'm telling that you

5 this situation cannot happen, but since these are all presumptions, all

6 superiors control the work of his subordinates, which means that the

7 superior is the person who initiates the proceeding.

8 Perhaps the minister could initiate a proceeding for me, and to

9 tell the person who is authorised to file proposals that I have had an act

10 of misconduct on the best of his knowledge, but against those persons who

11 are in work posts under the direct authorisation of the minister, a

12 disciplinary proceeding against them is submitted by the director of

13 public security.

14 Q. Suppose the minister saw on the TV on the news, on the TV news,

15 that there were acts of misconduct by police officers such as the beating

16 of civilians. Isn't it possible for then the minister to instruct the

17 director to initiate proceedings against those police officers?

18 A. No. In that case it would not be possible but there are other

19 measures that he could take that are within the area of his competence.

20 He could address the head of internal control and ask them to examine the

21 case. He could establish a committee that would then work on clarifying

22 the case to arrive at final information that could then lead to

23 disciplinary procedure.

24 Q. And suppose the minister set up a commission to investigate, say,

25 alleged criminal activity, by police members or acts of misconduct, can he

1 then instruct members of the commission, depending on their findings, to

2 initiate disciplinary proceedings or even submit a criminal report?

3 A. If he establishes a committee that needs to do it, then the

4 committee needs to submit its opinion on the basis of the activities and

5 actually analysis of the situation and the conclusions drawn on the basis

6 of the entire procedure, and usually that opinion is submitted to the

7 minister. The minister being the person who authorised the committee.

8 If the committee establishes that there has been abuse of office,

9 then, or misconduct, then this case will be forwarded to the person who is

10 responsible for initiating a disciplinary procedure. While if it has been

11 established that no misconduct was found, then no further measures will be

12 taken.

13 Q. Can the minister instruct members of the committee to recommend

14 the instigation of proceedings, should they find that there were acts of

15 misconduct that had taken place?

16 A. No. The committee will be independent in the performance of its

17 duties and once the minister has established it, he has given his full

18 consent to the committee undertaking any activity necessary. And if the

19 committee makes the assessment that there has been misconduct, then

20 further measures will be taken and the procedure will be instigated as

21 prescribed by the collective agreement.

22 Q. And can the minister initiate further measures, should there be --

23 should the committee, for example, find that there were acts of

24 misconduct, of criminal activity perpetrated by members of the ministry,

25 or police officers?

1 A. He could not suggest undertaking any further measures if it has

2 been found that misconduct or criminal offence has taken place because

3 these are two different procedures. Then, the measures will be undertaken

4 by the persons who are authorised to undertake such measures.

5 Q. Why can't the minister suggest the undertaking of further measures

6 in those circumstances, Ms. Dorevska?

7 A. What would be the further measures? The proposal for the

8 disciplinary measures is the start of the procedure. Any evidence and

9 everything else is established through the procedure. The minister does

10 not have any suggestions to make or guidelines to give with regards to a

11 procedure that hadn't started yet.

12 Q. Can the minister, for example, instruct or advise members of the

13 committee to submit criminal charges, should they find that criminal

14 activity had taken place by police members?

15 A. If the committee makes the assessment that it would be founded to

16 establish a criminal -- to instigate a criminal procedure, then it will be

17 taken to the sector for internal affairs or to the unit where the person

18 works and advise the instigation of criminal procedure.

19 Q. Are you suggesting, Ms. Dorevska, that the minister has no

20 authority to follow up on the findings of a commission or a committee that

21 he created?

22 A. No.

23 Q. So you're saying, just to be clear for the record, that no, he has

24 no authority to follow up on the findings of a commission or a committee

25 that he created. Is that what you're saying?

1 A. The committee will forward it to the services in charge of the

2 further course of the procedure, if there is a ground to instigate any

3 procedure.

4 Q. And what if the committee fails to do that? The minister can do

5 nothing?

6 A. Do you think that the minister will phone the competent services

7 and forward their report? There are procedures that are followed in the

8 ministry.

9 Q. Ms. Dorevska, if you still have your first binder, I'd like you to

10 please turn to tab 15.

11 MS. ISSA: And if we can please call up 1D113 on e-court.

12 Q. Have you found tab 15, Ms. Dorevska?

13 A. Tab 15, rules amending the rules on organisation and operation of

14 the ministry.

15 Q. No, that's the wrong tab.

16 Perhaps what I can do is ask you -- I think you have the wrong

17 binder. If I can ask you to look on your screen.

18 A. Yes, on the screen, I see it, the decision to establish a

19 committee.

20 Q. Okay. So you see there that this is a resolution or decision by

21 Minister Boskoski for the formation of a commission to investigate the

22 validity of the reports by ethnic Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia

23 that members of the Ministry of Interior violated their authority.

24 Do you see that? I'd just like you to please look at the first

25 page.

1 A. Yes, of course I see it.

2 Q. And the commission is formed and there's number of names there.

3 And we see that on the first page, under paragraph II it says that: "The

4 commission outlined in part 1 of this resolution is assigned the task of

5 determining the validity of the allegations contained in the reports, both

6 individual and group, which were submitted to the Ministry by ethnic

7 Albanian citizens of the Republic of Macedonia claiming that certain

8 members of the ministry violated their authority during the completion of

9 their work."

10 Do you see that? Do you see -- I'm asking to you look at the

11 first page, please. Do you see that?

12 A. Yes, that is in the second page in my binder. I see it.

13 Q. Okay. Thank you. And then it says: "The commission is to

14 immediately act on the tasks established in part II of this resolution and

15 to investigate all reports received thus far and that will be submitted to

16 the Ministry of Interior in the future."

17 Do you see that?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And then if you look at paragraph V of the -- of this document, it

20 says that the commission outlined in part one of this resolution will

21 dispatch an answer to the submitter of the report and will inform the

22 minister of interior and other competent organs of its findings and

23 recommendations for every individual report."

24 Then it goes on and it says, if you look at the last paragraph:

25 "If the commission finds that certain members of the Ministry of Interior

1 violated their authority, it will recommend the instigation of procedures

2 to determine the degree of responsibility due to violation of work

3 discipline by the competent organs of the ministry or the submission of

4 criminal charges to the public prosecutor ..."

5 Do you see that?

6 A. Yes, I see it.

7 Q. So here we have a decision by the minister, Ms. Dorevska, where he

8 is instructing, he is telling the commission that if they find that

9 members of the ministry violated their authority, or violated the work

10 discipline, that it will recommend the instigation of proceedings,

11 disciplinary procedures or the submission of criminal charges. Right?

12 A. Yes. That is the content of the decision. The minister has the

13 right to issue such decisions. This is a customary practice in the

14 ministry, and he is authorised for this, pursuant to the rule book, and of

15 course these decisions are prepared by the sector where I work, and its

16 contents should present detailed description of the competencies of the

17 committee. This is just stating that the committee should assess whether

18 there is abuse of powers and propose that the procedures instigated to

19 establish the responsibility, if the conditions for this are met. This is

20 not guideline given by the minister. The minister, when signing the

21 decision, has authorised the committee to undertake those activities.

22 Q. Well, hasn't the minister gone a step further and actually

23 instructed members of the committee that they will recommend the

24 instigation of procedures in the event that a violation of duty has been

25 found. Isn't that what it says?

1 A. This document just provides authorisation to the committee to

2 investigate certain situation and certain case and if it makes its

3 assessment that there has been misconduct, to continue the procedure

4 within the legally prescribed elements.

5 Q. Doesn't the committee have to also follow the instruction to

6 instigate proceedings or submit a criminal charge in the event that they

7 find that there was a violation of duty by members of the ministry? Isn't

8 that what it says?

9 A. If this committee, when working, makes the assessment that there

10 are grounds for that, it will inform the director of public or of state

11 security depending on the activities at hand, and the officers in charge

12 of that will undertake the activities, will make a proposal or will, if

13 appropriate, file a criminal report with the public prosecutor.

14 Q. That's not what I asked you, Ms. Dorevska. I asked you that this

15 decision expressly states by the minister to the committee that it will

16 instigate proceedings or submit criminal charges, should a violation of

17 duty be found. Doesn't it? It's a simple question that requires a yes or

18 no answer.

19 A. It is not like that. I believe that what you are reading does not

20 correspond to the situation indicated in this paragraph.

21 Q. Are you suggesting, then, that the paragraph doesn't say that if

22 the commission finds that certain members of the ministry violated their

23 authority, it will recommend the instigation of proceedings or submit

24 criminal charges?

25 A. Yes. What you stated now, the committee will complete its work

1 and will recommend, make a recommendation to those who are authorised to

2 continue the procedure further. I believe that the wording is very clear

3 indeed.

4 Q. It also says that -- it also says that or the submission of

5 criminal charges to the public prosecutor.

6 And this is based on the instructions of the minister, isn't it?

7 A. Not the instructions of the minister. There is a difference

8 between a criminal offence and violation of the working discipline. The

9 both possibilities are indicated here. The persons could have perpetrated

10 a criminal offence for which they would have been held responsible in a

11 criminal procedure, actually criminal procedure would have been

12 instigated, whereas if there was no criminal offence but only violation of

13 the working discipline, then a procedure will be instigated to establish

14 their responsibility because of the violation of the working discipline.

15 Q. Ms. Dorevska, you haven't answered my question. My question was:

16 This instigation -- or the requirement for the committee, this sentence

17 where it says that the committee will recommend the instigation of

18 procedures or submit criminal charges is based on the instruction of the

19 minister. Right?

20 A. On the basis of the competencies of the committee, authorisations

21 given by the minister.

22 Q. But isn't the minister instructing the committee to recommend the

23 instigation of proceedings or submit criminal charges? Isn't that what he

24 is doing?

25 A. It does not give an instruction. This is just the contents of

1 the decision. If, a decision like this is made, in itself it must contain

2 certain elements, it must contain guidelines as to what this committee

3 needs to do. These are simply the tasks for the committee. It is not

4 possible that the decision contains only the names of the individuals

5 without giving the tasks that these individuals are to perform.

6 Q. So is the minister tasking the committee, then, to instigate

7 disciplinary proceedings or submit criminal charges in the event that a

8 violation is found?

9 A. I believe that I repeated several times, that this committee has

10 just the obligation to establish whether there was abuse of powers,

11 misconduct. It is not instigating the procedure. The procedure will be

12 instigated by those who are authorised for that.

13 Q. Ms. Dorevska, are you suggesting that every committee that -- that

14 is charged with gathering evidence or investigating a criminal activity

15 refers to -- has this reference in -- in that decision, that it must

16 recommend the instigation of proceedings, disciplinary proceedings or

17 submit criminal charges?

18 A. If this is given as a task for the committee, in the decision

19 itself, then surely the committee is authorised to recommend that the next

20 committees or bodies undertake the activities for which they are

21 authorised. This is not a disciplinary committee. This is a committee

22 established by a minister's decision to investigate whether there has been

23 any misconduct or abuse of powers.

24 Q. You still haven't answered my question, though, Ms. Dorevska. My

25 question is: The minister, in this case, had specifically given this task

1 to this committee to instigate disciplinary proceedings or submit criminal

2 charges in the event that a violation of duty was found. Right?

3 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa, I've -- I must confess that I have

4 difficulty reading Article 5 in the way that you do. It seems to me that

5 the word "recommend" qualifies the two alternative positions that follow,

6 both the procedures for -- the instigation of procedures in the work

7 discipline situation, or the submission of criminal charges.

8 MS. ISSA: Well, my focus, Your Honour was on the word -- the term

9 or the word "will."

10 JUDGE PARKER: "Will recommend" is what I focus on.

11 MS. ISSA: Which I'm suggesting is an instruction.

12 JUDGE PARKER: It's an instruction to recommend.

13 MS. ISSA: Yes.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Both in respect of procedures in the work

15 discipline context and the submission of criminal charges. You seem to be

16 putting to the witness that it was a recommendation in the first of those

17 two cases but a direction to actually submit criminal charges in the

18 second, if I understood you correctly.

19 MS. ISSA: I see Your Honour's point. Thank you.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Your thread of cross-examination, though, would

21 still be there: What happens if the committee does not make a

22 recommendation, is the minister in a position to do anything.

23 MS. ISSA: Thank you.

24 [Trial Chamber confers]

25 MS. ISSA:

1 Q. Ms. Dorevska, perhaps just picking up on His Honour's question, if

2 in the event that the committee finds a violation of duty but does not

3 recommend the instigation of proceedings or the submission of criminal

4 charges, is the minister in a position at that point to take action or

5 instruct the director, for example, for the bureau of public security to

6 take action against those members that violated their duty?

7 A. No such situation could occur. The committee was given a specific

8 task. It needs to submit a report to the minister as it is written in

9 paragraph IV. If it is written in this report that the individuals have

10 abused their powers as the committee has established, then the committee

11 has the duty to forward the report for further processing.

12 I don't know whether or why you believe that the committee can

13 find that there have been abuses and this ends the procedure. It has

14 never happened in the practice.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I take note of the time.

17 JUDGE PARKER: We'll adjourn now and resume at a quarter past

18 4.00.

19 --- Recess taken at 3.44 p.m.

20 --- On resuming at 4.17 p.m.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa.

22 MS. ISSA: Thank you.

23 Q. Ms. Dorevska, you have told us that the minister does not make the

24 ultimate decision on the issue of punishment after the commission has made

25 its proposal to the minister, and that is because there is a right of

1 appeal, right?

2 A. The minister reaches the decision after the proposal has been

3 submitted by the disciplinary commission, or committee.

4 Q. And he reaches that decision -- he can actually change the

5 decision or the proposal that was submitted by the commission. Is that

6 right?

7 A. Yes, this is right. There is such provision in the collective

8 agreement, which gives such right to the minister.

9 Q. And should someone decide not to appeal, then the minister's

10 decision effectively becomes the last one made, or the final decision,

11 right?

12 A. Yes, this is right.

13 Q. And in some cases, the appeals commission may simply agree with

14 the minister's decision, right?

15 A. Yes, this is so.

16 Q. And the appeals commission makes its decision on the basis of the

17 record from the disciplinary hearing, together with the minister's

18 decision. Is that right?

19 A. Yes. The second instance commission at the government collects

20 all materials which are related to the case and on the basis of this,

21 reaches its decision.

22 Q. And apart from the -- from the process of appeal, the minister is

23 the final decision-maker as prescribed in Article 149 of the collective

24 agreement, right, within the ministry?

25 A. Yes. The minister is authorised to reach the decision by which a

1 measure of sanction is stated after the end of the disciplinary

2 proceeding.

3 Q. And if an employee commits a crime, or criminal charges are

4 referred to public prosecutor against him, he can still undergo

5 disciplinary proceedings at the same time. Is that right?

6 A. Yes, this is right.

7 Q. Just moving on to another topic.

8 Ms. Dorevska, you were talking about reservists. And to clarify

9 one point, you said that if a reservist did not follow the orders of the

10 active officer which he is subordinated to, then the head or commander of

11 the police station will inform the competent organisational unit.

12 Do you remember that?

13 A. Yes, I remember having said this.

14 Q. Now just to clarify, what do you mean when you say that the

15 commander of the police station will inform the competent organisational

16 unit?

17 A. We're now talking about reservists. In such a case, he will

18 inform the regional unit of the Ministry of Defence where this person is

19 registered and is on the list of reservists.

20 Q. And he will inform the regional unit of the Ministry of Defence

21 that the person should be disengaged or should be removed from the list of

22 reservists for committing a violation or refusing an order?

23 A. The reasons are enumerated by the head. I would like to clarify,

24 however, that this is not my scope of work and I can only speak about what

25 is listed in the law. In my long-term experience in the ministry have led

1 me to some of these procedures which are implemented by people who are in

2 the unit for defence preparations who are in charge of reservists.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Can I add, Ms. Issa, that as I understood the

4 evidence, the effect of the reporting procedure indicated by Ms. Dorevska

5 is that the reservists' name may be taken off the roll of reservists in

6 the ministry of interior, not that he would cease to be [Realtime

7 transcript read in error "not that be would be"] a reservist subject to

8 the control of the Ministry of Defence.

9 MS. ISSA: Yes, Your Honour, I was actually just getting to that

10 point where I was going to clarify that. Thank you.

11 Q. And just to clarify that point, Ms. Dorevska, once a reservist

12 fails to follow an order or commits a violation, then, as His Honour has

13 mentioned, the reservist's name is then removed from the roll of the

14 reservists from the Ministry of Interior and then becomes disengaged. Is

15 that right?

16 A. If this is a case of a smaller infringement, failure to respect

17 work of obligations he is charged with, then this is the procedure which

18 is implemented and this person is struck from the roll of the ministry

19 with information to the Ministry of Defence to that end. However, if we

20 have a criminal act, then the authorised persons can then undertake a

21 misdemeanour or criminal procedure against this person.

22 Q. Thank you. I put to it to you, Ms. Dorevska, that the rules and

23 the law of internal affairs and the other rules and laws that you've

24 described, particularly the Law on Internal Affairs, demonstrate that in

25 2001, that the ministry of interior was a centralised structure with a

1 strict hierarchy with the minister at the top of that hierarchy. Do you

2 agree with that?

3 A. Not in full. There is a hierarchy. There is one now, however,

4 the organisational units have certain independence in their activities and

5 the -- and the bodies within have the independence as provided by the law.

6 Q. I put it to you that in 2001, Minister Boskoski had oversight and

7 control over members of the ministry, including the police as demonstrated

8 by the various orders and decisions he made. Do you agree with that?

9 A. Of course he had oversight over the work of the ministry and of

10 course he must also have control, but I don't know the context in which

11 you are saying this. The minister is the person who represents the

12 ministry and is obliged to look into the state of affairs of the ministry

13 of which is he in charge.

14 Q. I put it to you, Ms. Dorevska, that Minister Boskoski did not

15 follow the black letter law and was in control over police units and

16 police operations within the ministry in 2001. Do you agree with that?

17 A. No. This is not my understanding.

18 Q. I put it to you, Ms. Dorevska, that during that complex time in

19 2001, that as Minister Boskoski said in his book, he liked to keep his

20 hands into everything and that he saw himself as a great liberator of

21 Macedonia. Do you agree with that?

22 A. No. Of course, he had all necessary information he needed to

23 manage and to lead the ministry in a proper and conscientious manner.

24 Q. Thank you.

25 MS. ISSA: I have no further questions, Your Honours.

1 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Ms. Issa.

2 Ms. Residovic.

3 Re-examination by Ms. Residovic:

4 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.

5 Q. [Interpretation] Good evening, Madam Dorevska.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Before you commence, Ms. Residovic, could I just

7 mention that page 38, line 16, what I said should be recorded "not that he

8 would cease to be a reservist subject to the control of the Ministry of

9 Defence." "Cease to" has been omitted in the transcript.

10 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Good evening, Ms. Dorevska.

12 A. Good evening to you.

13 Q. I will start by putting questions that follow up on the questions

14 my learned friend put last and I will go back to some of the answers you

15 gave to these questions today.

16 Do you recall, Madam Dorevska, of -- or rather, that my learned

17 friend from the OTP asked you whether it was true that the minister could

18 authorise individuals to file applications for disciplinary proceedings

19 and that on several occasions you quoted the relevant provision of the

20 collective agreement whereby the ministry is given that authorisation. Do

21 you recall that?

22 A. Yes, I recall.

23 Q. Do you also recall that my colleague put it to you that the

24 minister could authorise any individual with the right to instigate

25 disciplinary proceedings?

1 A. Yes, I recall.

2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown 1D275,

3 please.

4 Q. Madam Dorevska, I'm sorry that we don't have the hard copies of

5 the decision, but we can see that it was adopted on the 8th of November,

6 1999. Do you know what this document is all about?

7 A. Yes. This is a decision what the minister has as an obligation

8 from the collective agreement to authorise person who can start a

9 proceeding for disciplinary procedure and to remove -- removal from a work

10 post as a result of this proceeding.

11 Q. Madam Dorevska, do you recognise in this decision the relevant

12 organs that the minister authorised to issue such a proposal for the

13 institution of disciplinary proceedings?

14 A. Yes. These are the persons -- or, rather, the work posts of these

15 persons that are authorised to submit such a proposal.

16 Q. Can we please turn to page 2 of the document.

17 Madam Dorevska, can you tell which minister it was who issued the

18 stated decision back in 1999?

19 A. Yes. This is Mr. Pavle Trajanov.

20 Q. Can the witness be shown Exhibit 1D276 now, please.

21 This decision was issued on the 20th of September, 2005.

22 Madam Dorevska, do you recognise the document before you?

23 A. Yes. This is a document prepared in the sector which I head.

24 Q. Can we please turn to the following page of the document.

25 Madam Dorevska, please look at item III -- no, II, starting: "The

1 entering into form of this decision."

2 A. Yes, I see it. This means that with this decision the validity of

3 the decision we spoke about earlier ceases to be valid.

4 Q. In the period between 1990, when Minister Pavle Trajanov issued

5 the decision designating the posts authorised to issue a proposal for the

6 institution of disciplinary proceedings and 2005, when this decision was

7 issued, can you tell me which persons holding which posts or positions

8 were in fact authorised to issue such proposals?

9 A. Those listed in the decision adopted in 1999 by

10 Mr. Pavle Trajanov.

11 Q. Ms. Dorevska, yesterday you were asked this question and I'll

12 repeat it today. Is it possible, and is it a frequent practice, whereby a

13 staffing table or a systematic decision is -- remains in force although

14 the ministers change?

15 A. Of course this happens in practice unless there is a charge of

16 organisational or other reasons.

17 Q. In 2001 and 2002, if I may be so bold as to draw the following

18 conclusion on the basis of what you said, the authorised bodies or rather

19 the persons holding relevant posts allowing them to ask for the

20 institution of the disciplinary proceedings were in fact the persons that

21 were listed back in that decision dating from 1999. Is that right?

22 A. Yes. This is right.

23 Q. In connection with the disciplinary procedure, Madam Dorevska, do

24 you recall my learned friend asking you about who was supposed to initiate

25 and who was supposed to launch disciplinary proceedings and what would

1 happen if the individual charged with instituting the proceedings fails to

2 do so? Do you recall discussing this matter with the Prosecutor?

3 A. Yes, I recall.

4 Q. Do you recall being asked the question, whether the chief of the

5 OVR Cair or any other OVR, or whether if he himself failed to initiate

6 disciplinary proceedings whether the proceedings could be initiated by the

7 head of the bureau for public security instead? Do you recall that?

8 A. Yes, I recall.

9 Q. Tell me, please, what is the deadline within which a disciplinary

10 procedure has to be instituted?

11 A. It can be instigated within a period of three months. This is a

12 subjective deadline, from the day when one learns, or an objective

13 deadline of six months from the day that act was committed.

14 Q. If a disciplinary offence occurred in August of 2001, what would

15 be the latest possible deadline by which a disciplinary proceeding ought

16 to be instituted?

17 A. Up until six months from the day that that act was committed.

18 Q. If beyond that deadline any individual who is authorised with

19 instituting a disciplinary proceeding, be it head of the sector or the

20 head of the bureau for public security, that particular individual learned

21 that the person who was supposed to institute disciplinary proceedings

22 failed to do so, would the authorised individual, head of the sector or

23 the head of the bureau, be able to institute such proceedings beyond the

24 deadline, after it has expired?

25 A. No, once this deadline is overstepped then is there is a statute

1 of limitation and this cannot -- and a disciplinary proceeding cannot be

2 initiated.

3 Q. If in the summer of 2002 the head of the bureau for public

4 security learned from the relevant employees about a head of one of the

5 departments of the interior refusing to take part in clearing up certain

6 events, was that particular individual, the head of that body, able to do

7 anything to take any measures to launch disciplinary proceedings at that

8 point?

9 A. He could not undertake anything with respect to disciplinary

10 proceeding at this time.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Ms. Issa.

12 MS. ISSA: Thank you. Your Honour, I don't really see how this

13 line of questioning arises from the cross-examination. It seems to me

14 that these are matters that Ms. Residovic could have raised in her

15 examination-in-chief. I certainly didn't ask any questions in relation

16 to the deadlines of when proceedings can be commenced.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

18 I think you've finished with this topic any way, haven't you,

19 Ms. Residovic?

20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I did in fact. But the

21 question didn't have to do with the statute of limitations at all. It was

22 merely the case of when a director would be able to institute disciplinary

23 proceedings.

24 Q. Tell me - this was something that was already discussed - if a

25 minister were to set up a commission tasked with shedding light on certain

1 events, which measures could be taken once the commission has completed

2 its work? We've had a number of questions on that matter. Do you

3 recall?

4 A. Yes, I recall.

5 Q. Ms. Dorevska, tell me, if the commission in question, or the

6 relevant body, having examined the events, still fails to establish the

7 facts that would be relevant for a conclusion that a person has committed

8 an official misconduct or a crime or a criminal offence, would it be

9 possible to take any other measures within the disciplinary procedure?

10 A. Of course not. If the commission had finished its work and

11 submitted a report stating there is no overstepping of authorisation,

12 there is no possibility to undertake or initiate a proceeding.

13 Q. Madam Dorevska, if one were to presume that, nevertheless, a

14 member of the police force did overstep his authority, there being reason

15 to suspect that someone overstepped their authority, but without in fact

16 being able to identify the perpetrator involved, would it be possible for

17 the competent body which should propose disciplinary proceedings to in fact

18 get involved in such a procedure without knowing the perpetrator involved?

19 A. No. Unlike the criminal proceeding, the disciplinary proceeding

20 cannot be led against an unknown person.

21 Q. My learned friend asked you the following: Whether the reserve

22 force can be subject to disciplinary proceedings and my learned friend

23 referred you to your statement where you stated that it was impossible.

24 She asked you what were the steps taken by the commander of the

25 police station and you answered that. Do you recall that?

1 MS. ISSA: Your Honour. Before the witness responds if I may make

2 an objection, please.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Ms. Issa.

4 MS. ISSA: I think it's slight misrepresentation. It is incorrect

5 to say that I asked the witness about the -- whether reserve forces can be

6 subject to disciplinary proceedings. That wasn't what I asked the

7 witness. I simply asked the witness to clarify one matter that she

8 testified about in her examination-in-chief and that is what she had said

9 about the head -- whether -- how the information gets to the head

10 commander. And then after the head commander becomes aware of an

11 overstepping of a -- of the bounds what -- what happens at that stage.

12 But I don't think that I asked -- I asked the question in that way.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

14 Carry on, please, Ms. Residovic.

15 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Tell me, please, although this is not within your direct

17 competences, but you stated that your experience from within the police

18 gives you the opportunity to provide some answers. Tell me whether this

19 procedure was applicable in 2001 and 2002 as well?

20 A. Yes, this was in force.

21 Q. My learned friend asked you several questions pertaining to the

22 position of the advisor to the minister, Mr. Zoran Krstevski.

23 Do you recall that?

24 A. Yes, I recall.

25 Q. I kindly ask that the witness is shown again 65 ter 1160. It has

1 now some exhibit number, but I'm not sure which one is it.

2 Do you see the text in front of you?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Do you recall that my learned colleague read from the first

5 column, some of the text which says: "During the almost four years the

6 public was continuously hearing a version that it needed to hear, because

7 at that time it suited somebody for it to be that way."

8 Do you recall that this paragraph was read out to you by my

9 learned friend?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. For the transcript, this is now Exhibit P574.

12 Answering that question, I will quote liberally. You stated that

13 you could not see how you would consider reliable an article written in

14 some newspaper four years later. Do you remember that you gave an answer

15 to this extent?

16 A. Yes. This is my answer, the extent of my answer.

17 Q. This text that was shown to you by my learned friend stating that

18 in the most recent four years, the public has continuously heard the

19 version that was supposed to be heard. In your opinion, does it

20 corroborate your testimony before this Court, that it would be difficult

21 to believe what is stated or what is rumoured in the public in this --

22 A. Yes. I hold by what I have said. I really cannot believe texts

23 published in newspapers as reliable sources for a situation.

24 Q. Tell me, Ms. Dorevska, considering that your narrow field of

25 speciality is employment and labour, you are for years already head of

1 that department, would it be possible for a person to simultaneously have

2 full employment status in several organisations or bodies?

3 A. No, this is not possible. Only in one body, one organ.

4 Q. I would kindly ask now that the Exhibit 1D285 is shown.

5 When asked by my learned friend you stated that you remembered

6 very well when Mr. Zoran Krstevski became an employee with the Ministry

7 of the Interior because during that time, you worked there.

8 Tell me, do you recognise this document?

9 A. Yes. This is the contract of employment by -- concluded between

10 Mr. Zoran Krstevski and the Ministry of the Interior.

11 Q. In paragraph 2 of this contract, it is stated that the collective

12 agreement applies from the 27th of September, 2001. Does this text of the

13 agreement agree, does it corroborate what you stated that his employment

14 started towards September 2001?

15 A. Yes, this is confirms this and this is the date as of which

16 Mr. Krstevski, like all other employees, are registered in the employment

17 bureau as an employed individual.

18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask that the

19 witness is shown 65 ter 1D1278.

20 THE INTERPRETER: And the interpreters kindly ask the counsel to

21 move the microphone.

22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. You recall, Ms. Dorevska, that you answered one of the questions

24 in stating that you were aware that Mr. Zoran Krstevski was previously an

25 employee of the Macedonian Television.

1 A. Yes. I knew that he worked in the Macedonian Television, because

2 we had the opportunity to watch him on our TV screens.

3 Q. You have a document in front of you that the Defence received from

4 the Prosecutor's office from the 25th of September, 2001, and this is an

5 application or request from Zoran Krstevski, advisor to the director

6 general of the Macedonian Radio and Television requesting for termination

7 of working relations with the Macedonian Radio and Television because of

8 the transfer to a new job.

9 Do you see this?

10 A. Yes, I see it.

11 Q. Ms. Dorevska, does this document corroborate, as well, your

12 testimony before this Court that until this date Zoran Krstevski was the

13 employee of the Macedonian Radio and Television?

14 A. Yes. We can see the date, the 24th of September, 2001. This is

15 the day prior to his work in the ministry, which means that his previous

16 employment had to end, that he had to terminate this or register this at

17 the agency for employment, and then to start his employment at the

18 ministry.

19 Q. Now I would like to go back to some of the issues that my learned

20 friend asked you yesterday.

21 Do you remember that towards the end of yesterday's evidence you

22 discussed with my learned friend the issue of the minister, the issue of

23 Mr. Boskoski, having not received the decision requesting that he return

24 some award, some pistol.

25 Do you recall that?

1 A. Yes, I recall.

2 Q. And do you recall that you then stated that every citizen can

3 refuse to receive the decision, but that the legal system has resolved the

4 issue of proper service in a situation when somebody refuses to

5 voluntarily receive a decision.

6 Is that so? Do you recall that?

7 A. Yes, this is correct. I remember.

8 Q. Tell me, Ms. Dorevska, with regards to certain rights and

9 obligations entailed in a decision, when do they start to apply?

10 A. They can start to apply when the decision is properly served or

11 another document in question is served.

12 Q. What does it mean, rights and obligations? What right is then

13 earned by the person to which this document or a decision is served?

14 A. When a person receives a decision in any of the ways that we spoke about

15 now, this person has now the right to raise an objection before the relevant

16 commission in the government or to file a complaint with the relevant court.

17 Q. And until it is decided upon the appeal, or complaint of the

18 person to whom the decision was served, do the obligations from that

19 decision have any standing, especially are they in legal force, with

20 regards to the person who is the recipient of the decision?

21 A. Of course not. The appeal delays the execution of the decision.

22 Q. You stated that the person could appeal or instigate a civil law

23 procedure, if they believed that decision unlawfully violates their

24 rights. Is that what you stated just now? Have I understood you well?

25 A. Yes, this is correct. A procedure can be raised between the

1 competent courts for him or her to realise his rights.

2 Q. How do you know -- I apologise. First of all, you stated

3 answering the questions of my learned friend yesterday, that the award was

4 bestowed in accordance with the regulations or rules of the Ministry of

5 the Interior. Do you recall that?

6 A. Yes, I recall.

7 Q. Is that question, whether the award was bestowed lawfully or not,

8 was it ever raised before a competent court?

9 A. Of course in the sector where I work, because we work in areas of

10 representation before the courts, there are many such cases, similar cases

11 before the courts, but the courts have not yet made their decisions

12 whether these decisions are lawful or not.

13 Q. Thank you. We would move to another question, Ms. Dorevska.

14 Answering yesterday questions asked by my learned friend the

15 Prosecutor, you mentioned the Article 55 of the Law on Organisation and

16 Operation of the Bodies of Civil Service several times, and you enumerated

17 the competencies that any minister has, also orders, but you stressed that

18 this applies if the minister is authorised by the law.

19 Do you remember that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Ms. Dorevska, could the minister vest in himself competences that

22 do not belong to him under the law?

23 A. This is not possible.

24 Q. When this provision of the law states, if authorised by law, could

25 you tell us which is the law referred to here?

1 A. These are the laws that we mentioned. The Law on Organisation and

2 Work of the State Administration Bodies, the Law on Government, the Law on

3 Internal Affairs and also in some other laws mentioned at the onset of my

4 testimony which pertain to matters of internal affairs.

5 Q. Answering some previous questions, if I understood well, you

6 further elucidated your position with regards to this and you stated that

7 the legal basis for the decision of the minister could be the law, a

8 government's decision or a decision of the president. Do you remember

9 that?

10 A. Yes, correct.

11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to

12 indicate page 9540 and 9541, pages of the transcript, particularly -- 9450

13 and 9451.

14 Q. Why do you believe, Ms. Dorevska, that the decision or a

15 conclusion of the government would be mandatory, would put the minister

16 under obligation?

17 A. Because the government is a collective body and because the

18 minister is responsible for his work before the government. The

19 government passes decisions which are obligatory and mandatory for the

20 ministries.

21 Q. Ms. Dorevska, in your second binder, could you find this exhibit,

22 P -- this is in tab 40. This is Prosecutor's Exhibit P551. This would

23 be in the Prosecutor's binder. It is after tab 40. And I would kindly

24 ask you to look at the Article 36 of the law. That is in page N000-2531;

25 that is the Macedonian page. Unfortunately, I don't have the English

1 version in my binder here. That is Article 36.

2 And I would kindly ask you to read now Article 36, item 3, which

3 says: "By its decision the government decides on certain issues and the

4 measures related to enforcement of the law, establishes professional and

5 other services or bodies for its purposes and joined services, bodies to

6 serve the needs of the ministries and other bodies of the civil service."

7 Does this provision of the Law on Government authorises the

8 government to decide about the methods of enforcement of all laws,

9 including the laws pertaining to the Ministry of Internal Affairs?

10 A. Of course.

11 Q. I would kindly ask you now to look at item 7. It says: "With the

12 conclusion, the government takes up position on issues which it has reviewed

13 at a session, determines opinion on draft laws and other regulations, and on

14 materials that were submitted to the assembly by other persons authorised

15 to make proposals, decides on specific issues of internal organisation

16 and relations within the government, determines the tasks of the

17 ministries and bodies of the state administration, and the tasks of its

18 services, and takes up positions on issues under its competence."

19 Tell me, Ms. Dorevska, whether this is, again, a legal basis upon

20 which the minister, including the minister of the interior, finds a legal

21 basis for its act in the decision of the government?

22 A. Yes. After all of its sessions, the government reaches decisions

23 which are distributed to all relevant ministries, which contain guidelines

24 which ministries are obliged to carry out.

25 Q. You also mentioned in the pages of the transcript that were

1 mentioned before, that the decisions of the president are obligatory for

2 the minister. Why would the president's decision would be obligatory and

3 why would they present a legal basis for the minister?

4 A. I think it is because of the fact that the president has certain

5 authorisations according to the Law on Defence to issue certain orders,

6 indications about the activities and actions of the police forces.

7 Q. Ms. Dorevska, I would kindly ask you to look now -- or I

8 apologise. Before that, I would like to ask you whether this is also a

9 basis that says that if authorised by the law, would then be a legal basis

10 prescribed by the law, that the minister is able to bring a decision and

11 order or another act foreseen in Article 55 of the Law on Civil Service?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Tell me, Ms. Dorevska, could the Law on Internal Affairs also give

14 a direct authorisation to the minister? And if yes, would then the

15 minister have the duty to enforce or apply that authorisation that is

16 foreseen by the law?

17 A. Yes. The Law on Internal Affairs has provisions which state that

18 the minister is obliged to undertake certain measures which, in turn, he

19 is obliged to carry through.

20 Q. I would kindly ask you now to look after tab 7 in the first binder

21 and see Prosecutor's Exhibit P86, and Article 30 of this law.

22 Article 30 reads: "In order to prevent committing criminal

23 offences, finding and apprehending perpetrators of criminal offences as

24 well as finding and securing evidence and traces of criminal offences, the

25 authorised officials can close the entrances into a certain area or

1 building and prevent somebody from leaving that area or building without

2 permission. These measures will continue until the completion of the

3 official activities."

4 The paragraph 2 reads: "The minister or a person authorised by

5 him can order undertaking the measures referred to in paragraph 1 of this

6 Article."

7 Tell me, Ms. Dorevska, with regards to Article 55 that you

8 mentioned several times, that the minister can order, can issue order if

9 authorised for this by the law, would this would be one of the examples

10 that you were referring to or is this one example that corroborates your

11 evidence before this Court?

12 A. Yes, this is one example which we spoke about in correlation with

13 Article 55 with the Law on Organisation and Work of State Administration

14 Bodies.

15 Q. I would kindly ask you now to look after tab 20 in this binder.

16 Order issued on 6th of August, 2001. That is Exhibit P275. And as we can

17 see, in the preamble that you discussed earlier as being the legal basis

18 for passing of acts, the following is written: "Based on Article 55,

19 paragraph 1 of the Law on Organisation and Work of State Administration

20 Bodies, Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia 58 of the year 2000.

21 Item 2 of the decision of the government of the Republic of Macedonia to

22 establish a unit for special purposes. Confidential number 98/1, dated 12

23 June 2001. And part 1, item 1 and 2 of the decision of the president of

24 the Republic of Macedonia to establish a temporary unit for combat against

25 terrorism of classification A, D. T., Number 07-54 of 15 June 2001, the

1 minister of the internal affairs brought the following order, to appoint

2 the units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs that will become part of the

3 temporary joint unit for combat against terrorism."

4 Tell me, once again, when you were clarifying the matters to my

5 learned friend, that the minister can issue an order if authorised for

6 that by the law, was this decision and invoking the legal basis for it a

7 corroboration for your answers given before this Tribunal?

8 A. This is so. This is another confirmation that the orders which

9 the minister passes must be in accordance with Article 55 and the

10 decisions of the government and the president of the Republic.

11 Q. Ms. Dorevska, do you remember that during your yesterday's

12 testimony you were shown a document that speaks about the preparations for

13 the exhumation in Neprosteno. Do you recall that?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. I would kindly ask you now to look at this document. This is

16 after tab 44 in the second binder, and this is Exhibit 1D211.

17 I would kindly ask you now to look at page 4, N000-0641,

18 N000-0644, which begins: "President Trajkovski ..." We didn't have the

19 English text here so I don't know the page number and I apologise to the

20 registry for this. So on page 4 in Macedonian version, the paragraph

21 starts: "President Trajkovski was agitated and spoke about the previous

22 meeting with Mr. Jennes."

23 Paragraph further below in the English version.

24 Ms. Dorevska, you conclude that the minister was present in this

25 meeting and this can be seen from this document. Do you recall that?

1 A. Yes, I recall.

2 Q. Tell me, Ms. Dorevska, pursuant to the systemic Law on

3 Organisation and Work of the State Administration, who represents the

4 ministry?

5 A. The minister of the interior.

6 Q. Would the same apply to the Ministry of the Interior?

7 A. Of course.

8 Q. And if outside of a body of internal affairs if there are several

9 persons attending a meeting with other ministries and with the foreigners,

10 who would be the person representing the ministry at that moment?

11 A. The minister of the interior, of course.

12 Q. And whom would then the participants in the meetings, though even

13 if president were one of those participants, whom would they address and

14 why?

15 A. To the minister of the interior, of course, because he is the one

16 representing the ministry.

17 Q. You were then read the text that follows in the second paragraph

18 after the one that I started reading out. And that is the paragraph which

19 reads: "He told Mr. Boskoski, Mr. Minister, sir, we will immediately give

20 all authorisation to the police. And he added, I am the president of this

21 country," and that's it.

22 Tell me, please, who gives the order here, is it the minister or

23 the president?

24 A. Of course the president of the state.

25 Q. Is the minister's [as interpreted] order a legal basis upon which

1 a minister can act?

2 A. Of course. The minister has the duty to act upon what the

3 president has requested of him.

4 Q. Can the witness be shown Exhibit 1D212.

5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there's an error in

6 the transcript. I'm not sure if I misspoke or if it's the interpretation.

7 Line 11, it says: Is the minister's order a legal basis upon which a

8 minister can act. What at least I wanted to say was whether the

9 president's order is a legal basis upon which a minister can act.

10 JUDGE PARKER: I must say I thought you had said president.

11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12 Q. Ms. Dorevska, this is an investigator's note of the meeting which

13 followed the meeting at which you spoke -- about which you spoke to my

14 learned friend.

15 Can we show page N000-0650.

16 A. At the very top of this document, this is a document in the

17 English version. There is no Macedonian translation.

18 Q. Yes, there is no Macedonian version. That's why I'll read out to

19 you the paragraph that I wish to draw your attention to and you will

20 receive the interpretation in Macedonian.

21 Paragraph 1 of the document states: "[In English] Mr. Boskoski

22 said that he agreed with what was said, in principle, but he stated that

23 he still had in mind the instructions of the president. It was not

24 possible for him to decide."

25 [Interpretation] Ms. Dorevska, does this note made by the OTP

1 investigator Mr. Tucker confirm your testimony whereby Minister Boskoski

2 had to act in accordance with the president's order?

3 A. Yes, it confirms that.

4 Q. Madam Dorevska, do you recall being asked whether the minister's order

5 to withdraw the police forces from the village of Aracinovo would constitute

6 his operative powers - and I'm paraphrasing - and you answered that most

7 probably this was a strategic decision or a government decision.

8 Do you recall discussing this with the Prosecutor?

9 A. Of course I remember.

10 Q. Petre Stojanovski testified before this Chamber and at page 9118

11 of the transcript, he stated as follows: "[In English] For clarification,

12 immediately in the days before actually the Ministry of Interior took

13 action to seize control over the village of Aracinovo and had clashes with

14 the terrorists who were located there at that time. When the clashes

15 started, an order was issued. I believe that it was an order issued by

16 the president, the late president of the state, and probably pressured by

17 the international public. The action was stopped and we were forced to

18 provide a corridor for to allow the terrorists to be taken out of the

19 village, having their complete armament with them."

20 [Interpretation] Madam Dorevska, in view of this witness's

21 testimony before this Tribunal, if the president ordered that the police

22 force be stopped and that they withdraw, was this within the competence of

23 the president, i.e., to order the engagement or the disengagement of the

24 police forces?

25 A. Naturally. This is what I said before, with regards to the

1 provisions of the Law on Defence.

2 Q. The ministry and the relevant bodies within the ministry would

3 have to act in accordance with the president's order, who, under the

4 constitution and the law, is authorised to act this way?

5 A. Of course.

6 Q. Would that be the minister's decision or the president's

7 decision?

8 A. That would be the president's decision.

9 Q. The Prosecutor showed you the provisions of Article 6, paragraph 2

10 of the Law on the Interior. Let us look at this again. You will find it

11 at tab -- or, rather, behind tab 7. That's P86, Exhibit P86.

12 Have you found it?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Article 6, which you discussed with the Prosecutor -- or, rather,

15 you answered her questions and suggestions.

16 It says: "The officers of the ministry have the duty to follow

17 the orders of the minister and officially authorised by him with regards

18 to performing the functions of the ministry unless the performance of

19 these orders would consider the crime."

20 Do you remember having discussed this and having stated that this

21 is an obligation for the employee of the ministry, but does not pertain to

22 the minister. Is that correct?

23 A. Yes, precisely.

24 Q. Tell me, you also talked about when it was that the minister could

25 issue an order. Since we discussed previously your repeatedly stated

1 position whereby the minister can issue orders which -- for which he has

2 basis in the law, when you look at this decision did the minister of the

3 interior know when under the law an authorised body gives him the

4 authority to issue orders?

5 A. Are you referring to this provision of Article 6?

6 Q. Article 6 deals with the obligations of the employees, as you

7 said. However, in connection with this particular Article, you spoke with

8 the Prosecutor about whether the minister is able to issue orders. Do you

9 recall that?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. You reiterated that this was the case only that he could issue

12 orders only where authorised by the law to do so?

13 A. Yes, that's correct.

14 Q. A moment ago we looked at several orders and decisions authorising

15 the minister -- for which, rather, the minister was authorised to issue

16 them either by the Law on the Interior or by other legislation. When you

17 testified about this, is it your understanding of this provision that the

18 minister can issue orders where he is authorised to do so under the law

19 and does this not confirm that Article 6, paragraph 1, refers only to

20 employees and not the minister himself?

21 MS. ISSA: Your Honour.

22 A. Yes, that is correct.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa.

24 MS. ISSA: I think these questions that are quite leading in

25 nature and perhaps on issues of this nature. I would ask that my learned

1 friend not lead so much.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

3 I'm sure Ms. Residovic will take notice of that.

4 MS. RESIDOVIC: Thank you.

5 Q. [Interpretation] Do you remember having been shown the document by

6 Goran Zdravkovski. You'll find this behind tab 9 in the first binder,

7 i.e., Exhibit 1D44.

8 Do you also remember discussing this document with the Prosecutor?

9 A. Yes, I recall this, of course.

10 Q. At the time, answering the questions put to you, you said that

11 this was an original authorisation given to the then minister whereby he

12 could order the engagement of the unit Tiger, and that in view of his

13 original authority, he could delegate this authority to other persons.

14 Do you recall answering questions to that effect?

15 A. Yes, precisely.

16 Q. Do you also recall stating at that time that in view of his

17 original authority, it was not important or it didn't make any difference

18 whether he delegated this authority orally or in writing or whether he

19 delegated them to one person or several persons?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Tell me, Ms. Dorevska, when the Tigar Unit passed from the

22 responsibility, inherent responsibility of the minister to the structure

23 of the police department, did the minister after that retain the powers

24 he had at the time when this document was written?

25 A. Of course not! That would no longer be a case of his inherent

1 responsibility.

2 Q. You were shown a telegram sent to Kocani finances sector, and

3 you'll find it behind tab 37 of the second binder, which is Exhibit P468.

4 Whilst explaining your understanding of the telegram at one point

5 you said that you were able to notice one other thing which was that the

6 telegram was addressed to the finances sector, which was directly attached

7 to the minister. In other words, it was within the public security

8 branch.

9 Do you recall saying that?

10 A. Yes, I recall that.

11 Q. You also stated that in such a situation, the head of the bureau

12 for public security would not be able to give instructions to a body which

13 did not fall within his remit under the law, but, rather, within the remit

14 of the minister.

15 Do you recall that?

16 A. Yes, I recall that.

17 Q. Let us look at the document behind tab 5, which is 1D107. Let's

18 look at the page which has a diagram. We're referring to the document

19 behind tab 5 -- or, rather, tab B.

20 This might be 1D65, but nevertheless, they form part of a single

21 document, 1D107.

22 Since we'll be discussing the diagram only, let's look at 1D2342.

23 The page I'm interested in is 1D242. It's the page before that one.

24 That's one.

25 Ms. Dorevska, please indicate where the finance sector is, the one

1 you referred to a moment ago, as being directly attached to the minister.

2 A. Of course. This is among the organisational units that are on the

3 right-hand side and that are functionally linked to the minister of

4 interior, so it is somewhere in the fifth box which says sector for

5 finance and other joint matters.

6 Q. Madam Dorevska, please tell me where the department for

7 international cooperation is, under whose jurisdiction does it fall?

8 A. Again, under the competence of the minister of the interior.

9 Q. Do you remember being shown a document from the meeting between

10 Minister Boskoski and NATO representatives.

11 That's the document behind table 25, which is 1D184, Exhibit

12 1D184.

13 My learned friend asked you some questions about check-points and

14 about how allegedly the minister assigned different individuals to

15 different check-points, and do you recall discussing this?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. First of all, tell me this: When representatives of the ministry

18 hold meetings with members of the international community, international

19 organisations, who represents the ministry?

20 A. Of course minister of the interior, as his legal authorisations

21 provide.

22 Q. The relations with NATO and with ambassadors of other countries

23 would fall under which part of the affairs of the ministry?

24 A. The document itself indicates it is written who has prepared it,

25 it is in the area of international cooperation.

1 Q. In the -- according to the diagram we saw, this would fall under

2 the competence of the minister. Is that right?

3 A. Yes, precisely.

4 Q. Please turn to page 2 which is 1D --

5 THE INTERPRETER: Can the counsel please repeat the number of the

6 page. It was too fast for the interpreter.

7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This is the Macedonian version,

8 yes.

9 Q. Here, the minister discussing the international cooperation with

10 NATO, speaks of the disinformation that has been circulated around

11 concerning the police force. Is that right?

12 A. Yes, I suppose so.

13 Q. If the minister were to suggest that an international organisation

14 become involved in certain activities of the ministry, would that fall

15 within his competence as the minister vis-a-vis the police and the police

16 forces or does this form part of his international duties and powers?

17 A. Of course, this is part of his international obligations and

18 powers.

19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't know when we

20 are having a break. Normally when we are working in the afternoon, I

21 should be guided by you. Should I go on for another five minutes or shall

22 we have the break now?

23 JUDGE PARKER: No. I went on ten minutes late, thinking it would

24 interrupt your line of questioning.

25 But we'll break now and resume at ten past 6.00.

1 --- Recess taken at 5.39 p.m.

2 --- On resuming at 6.10 p.m.

3 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Madam Dorevska, do you recall my learned friend asking you on

5 several occasions whether the heads of bodies within the ministry were

6 independent in implementing the law.

7 Do you recall that?

8 A. Yes, I recall it.

9 Q. Today you were again shown the amendment to the Law on the

10 Interior from 2003, and you stated today that they had been independent or

11 autonomous in their work previously because this had been regulated in the

12 legislation governing state administration and they had to act

13 accordingly. Is that right?

14 A. Yes, this is right.

15 Q. The Prosecutor put to you repeatedly that in the implementation of

16 the law, the last say would be -- would -- had by the minister in terms of

17 the competencies of the head of the bureau for public security. Do you

18 recall that?

19 A. Yes, I recall this conversation.

20 Q. We had occasion to see several orders and decisions issued by the

21 minister, and in the preamble, as the legal authority, it was always

22 Article 55 that was quoted of the Law on the Interior in implementing that

23 legislation?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Since that same law provided for the two bodies within the

1 ministry, namely the bureau of public security and the directorate for

2 security and counter-intelligence, does the fact that Article 55 was

3 applicable confirm your evidence that the law had to be applied directly?

4 MS. ISSA: Your Honour.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa.

6 MS. ISSA: I'm objecting to the leading nature of these question,

7 Your Honour. I think they are obviously on important matters and it's

8 gone on for a while now.

9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I will move on, Your Honour. It

10 does not matter, since the witness testified to that on several occasions.

11 Can the witness be shown 65 ter 1D382. 65 ter 1D382.

12 Q. Ms. Dorevska, as you can see, this is the statement given by

13 Fatmir Etemi to the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY.

14 Does the name Fatmir Etemi ring any bells?

15 A. I recognise it as a name, but it doesn't mean much to me.

16 Q. In paragraph 3, where it states current occupation, it says that

17 is he a member of the parliament. Does this indicate what his position

18 was, that he was in fact a member of the parliament?

19 A. Yes. Here it is stated that he was a member of the parliament.

20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we turn to page N000-0031.

21 That's 1D3581, if that's easier.

22 Q. Please focus on the following. I will read out part of the

23 paragraph which starts with: "Two or three days ..."

24 Do you see that?

25 A. Only in its English version.

1 Q. Yes. And for that reason I will read this out to you, the first

2 and the last sentences: "[In English] Two or three days after the attack,

3 I had a meeting with the minister of interior, Ljube Boskoski, the deputy

4 minister of the interior, Refet Elmazi and Goran Mitevski, the head of the

5 public security."

6 [Interpretation] The last sentence says: "[In English] Boskoski

7 told Mitevski to release all the detainees except three of them, but

8 Mitevski said that he could not do it since 25 of them were shown positive

9 at the paraffin test."

10 [Interpretation] Ms. Dorevska, is this reaction on the part of

11 Mr. Mitevski, in the presence of the minister and deputy minister,

12 indicative of his independent acting in implementing the law and in

13 exercising the authorities within his remit?

14 JUDGE PARKER: Could I say, Ms. Residovic, your question assumes

15 that these facts are established. They are merely recorded here in a

16 statement which is not an exhibit.

17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Pardon?

18 Yes, Your Honour. I do understand that this is not evidence. I'm

19 merely asking whether this statement confirms what the witness stated,

20 whether this serves to corroborate or merely shows that it's consistent

21 with her testimony.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Well, I think what you'll have to do is put the

23 question on the conditional basis that if this last sentence were correct,

24 would it show ...

25 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

1 Q. Madam Dorevska, with the assistance of the Presiding Judge, I will

2 put the question to you in the proper form.

3 If the statement given by this witness to the ICTY investigator

4 that Mr. Mitevski did not accept this suggestion by the minister for the

5 release of certain individuals because the facts that he had at his

6 disposal were irrelevant to him, if this statement were true would it

7 confirm that the head of the public security bureau was performing his

8 duties independently?

9 A. Of course. I think this is in accordance with my testimony in the

10 course of yesterday that when police matters are concerned that the

11 director of the public security is independent in their execution.

12 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa.

13 MS. ISSA: I just wanted to clarify, Your Honour, the way in which

14 my learned friend phrased her question that Mitevski did not accept the

15 direction or the release by Minister Boskoski isn't precisely the way that

16 it is stated in the statement. And, of course, it was put in a very

17 leading form and the witness has already answered the question.

18 JUDGE PARKER: All correct.

19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Madam Dorevska, do you recall my learned friend showing to you the

21 decision to set up the staff for the operative action of Ramno, issued by

22 Minister Dosta Dimovska. Do you recall that?

23 A. Yes, I recall.

24 Q. Please turn to tab 86 of the second binder and look at

25 Exhibit 1D112. 86.

1 Before we discuss this decision, tell me this: You also discussed

2 with my learned friend the fact that the minister can vary or adopt a

3 decision issued by the previous minister.

4 Do you recall that?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. You accepted this statement as true. Is that right?

7 A. Yes, this is right.

8 Q. What are the possible reasons for a minister to issue an order

9 varying an earlier decision?

10 A. There can be many such reasons. The staff could change, there

11 could be reassignment of people who are part of this decision to other

12 workplaces, organisational changes. Many other changes as a result of

13 which he can do this.

14 Q. Tell me, Madam Dorevska, when a commission is being set up, or a

15 staff, how does this come about? Is there a uniform procedure for the

16 setting up of such bodies? Can you please tell us what your experience in

17 that regard is, since in your sector you often-times drafted such

18 decisions?

19 A. The minister determines the staff involved and this is most often

20 according to the work posts of certain employees in the ministry.

21 Q. Tell me, Madam Dorevska, on some occasions is it important for the

22 composition of a commission to determine which body or organ is

23 represented on that particular commission?

24 A. Sorry, I don't understand your question.

25 Q. Tell me, in some situations where a commission or some other body,

1 a staff is being set up, is it important for such a body to comprise

2 representatives of important bodies of the ministry, or, in other words,

3 is it important to have the sector for legal affairs, the state security

4 sector represented there and so on?

5 A. I understand the question now. Of course it is important

6 depending on the area which this decision deals with. Depending on this

7 will be -- will determine the persons who are part of this decision.

8 Q. If it so happens that at the head of this body, or, rather, that

9 the person heading this body is replaced by someone else, and therefore

10 certain body of the ministry is not represented anymore, what happens

11 next?

12 A. In that case, that part of the decision is changed, and that

13 person, which had until then, occupied that workplace is occupied -- is

14 replaced with the person who now takes that workplace.

15 Q. Let's look at 1D112. Under item 1, we have Zvonko Kasirski, head

16 of the bureau of -- for public security. Is that right?

17 A. Yes, this is right.

18 Q. Under item 2, we have the acting head of the office for security

19 and counter-intelligence. Is that right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Next we have the under-secretary of -- for the police who is a

22 police general. Is that right?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Next we have the deputy under-secretary of the police and so on

25 and so forth.

1 A. Yes, this is so. All relevant structures in the bureau for public

2 security, including the director of the bureau for public security.

3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, director of security

4 and counter-intelligence.

5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. If the person heading some of these important departments of the

7 ministry would be replaced, what would happen with the decision?

8 A. If decision still needs to remain in place, then of course this

9 will be changed. The person who will have a new contract will include the

10 person who will have a new contract for that work post.

11 THE INTERPRETER: Can the counsel and the witness please break

12 between question and answer because the interpreters have difficulties to

13 follow. And could Madam Residovic repeat the relevant numbers.

14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Behind tab 22, Exhibit P381 --

15 JUDGE PARKER: Before you go on, Ms. Residovic, the interpreters

16 missed some of the last answer and are asking if it can repeated. They

17 would like, in particular, the witness to repeat the numbers.

18 THE INTERPRETER: Rather, Madam Residovic. The witness's answer

19 was fully interpreted.

20 JUDGE PARKER: I beg your pardon. I was looking in the wrong

21 direction. It's what you were saying, Ms. Residovic.

22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it was merely

23 numbers of the different exhibits. Behind tab 22, Exhibit P381.

24 Q. Madam Dorevska, under item 1, which is the body that is

25 represented here in this modified decision?

1 A. Again, this is the director of the bureau for public security.

2 Q. What is the post under number 2?

3 A. Director of the bureau for security and counter-intelligence.

4 Q. Which body is under number 3?

5 A. This is the head of the department of the police.

6 Q. Under number 4?

7 A. Assistant head of the department for police.

8 Q. And so on and so forth.

9 Madam Dorevska, are these organs completely identical to those contained

10 in the decision dated 7 March 2001 issued by Minister Dosta Dimovska?

11 A. Yes, this is correct. These are the same bodies in question.

12 Q. Can you tell us what led to the issuing of the second decision?

13 A. A change in the person who were on those work posts, the persons

14 who headed the bureau for public security and the bureau for security and

15 counter-intelligence have changed, as well as the persons represented in

16 some of the other bodies listed.

17 Q. Did something happen in May of 2001, that would lead to such a

18 considerable change in the persons holding significant positions of the

19 ministry?

20 A. In the course of May 2001, a broad coalition government was

21 established, and certain work posts fell under a different political

22 option.

23 Q. To what extent does that constitute a reason, based on which a

24 minister should modify or vary a decision that was adopted earlier?

25 A. Of course the minister must change the decision because those

1 persons on those posts were different.

2 Q. As for this decision, this staff or a commission, as you put it,

3 the important matter is that all these bodies are represented in it, is it

4 not?

5 A. Of course it is important, because we're talking about the setting

6 up of an operative headquarters and operative activities.

7 Q. Tell me, Madam Dorevska, do you recall my learned friend

8 suggesting to you on Friday that Goran Mitevski had been appointed head of

9 public security two days after Minister Boskoski had been elected

10 minister?

11 Do you recall that?

12 A. Yes, I recall.

13 Q. Madam Dorevska, do you know Goran Mitevski?

14 A. Of course I do know him.

15 Q. How long had Goran Mitevski been working in the police before he

16 was appointed to that duty?

17 A. Mr. Mitevski has been employed in the ministry a few years before

18 my arrival, which means 14, 15 years of continual employment to the moment

19 of his appointment.

20 Q. Do you know what's his profession?

21 A. Mr. Mitevski has graduated from the faculty of security studies.

22 Q. That means that also he is a police officer by his educational

23 background. Is that so?

24 A. Yes, is he a professional and a police officer.

25 Q. Before the appointment to the office of the director of bureau for

1 public security, as far as you know, considering that you occupied those

2 posts, did Goran Mitevski perform any other senior duties, occupy a senior

3 managerial position?

4 A. Of course he was working in the bureau for security and

5 counter-intelligence as head of sector. Then he was the acting head,

6 director of the bureau for security and counter-intelligence.

7 Q. If some post of appointed official is vacated for some reason

8 because of a death or transfer to another office, resignation, et cetera,

9 how could this post be populated until a new office holder is appointed?

10 A. In the way as it was done with Mr. Goran Mitevski. The minister

11 of interior can, with a temporary act, place a person to carry out a

12 function until the permanent appointment of that person on that post.

13 Q. Could you recall who was the minister during the time when

14 Goran Mitevski was appointed acting head of another body within the

15 ministry, that was the bureau for security and counter-intelligence.

16 A. Yes. This was the period of the December 2000, when the minister

17 was Ms. Dosta Dimovska.

18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with my apologies

19 for having no translation because we received this document two days ago

20 and we were not able to translate it, I would kindly ask that the witness

21 is shown 65 ter 1D1280. I would read the Macedonian text and ask that it

22 is interpreted so that the Chamber and the others could follow the

23 document because I wish to ask questions of the witness with regards to

24 that document.

25 Q. Ms. Dorevska, you have in front of you the document. You see in--

1 in the upper corner that we received this document by fax on the 17th of

2 February. If we -- no, we need to show the upper part of the document,

3 yes. Here, you see it that the document was received by the Defence on

4 the 17th of February. And now it reads: "Republic of Macedonia, Ministry

5 of Interior, number 232-40929/1, 5 December 2000, Skopje."

6 And it reads: "On the basis of Article 57, paragraph 1 of the Law

7 on Organisation and Operation of the Bodies of State Administration,

8 Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia, number 58 of year 2000, and

9 Article 31, paragraph 1, of the collective agreement of the Ministry of

10 the Interior, Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia, number 8 of

11 year 1998, I enact the decision, Goran Mitevski, head of the bureau for

12 counter-intelligence, in the directorate for security and

13 counter-intelligence, within the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the

14 Republic of Macedonia, is temporarily tasked in addition to the jobs and

15 tasks at the post of head of the bureau for counter-intelligence within

16 the DBK, with the performance of the activities and tasks within the remit

17 of the post of the director of the directorate for security and

18 counter-intelligence within the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the

19 Republic of Macedonia as of 5th of December, 2000."

20 "This term of office will be valid until a director of the

21 directorate for security and counter-intelligence within the Ministry of

22 Internal Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia is appointed by the

23 government of the Republic of Macedonia. Rationale, because of the

24 dismissal of the director of the directorate for security and

25 counter-intelligence within the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the

1 Republic of Macedonia, and for the best interest of more efficient

2 performance of the functions of the ministry and particularly because of

3 the importance of the duties entailed in the aforementioned post, the

4 decision was made as written above. The employee has the right to appeal

5 this decision, to the second instance committee in the area of employment

6 and labour within the government of the Republic of Macedonia, within 15

7 days from the date of receipt of the decision, through the minister of

8 internal affairs. A copy of this decision is served to the appointed

9 person, the directorate of finance and other common affairs and the bureau

10 for legal and personnel affairs. Signed Minister Dosta Dimovska."

11 Are you aware of this decision?

12 A. Yes. This is a decision prepared in this sector at that time,

13 bureau for legal affairs and personnel.

14 Q. Tell me, Ms. Dorevska, considering that -- or, rather, tell me

15 first whether the director for state security or the acting director of

16 the bureau for public security is a high professional office in the

17 ministry?

18 A. Of course.

19 Q. Is this office any less important or is it rather in the same rank

20 as the office of the director of the bureau for public security?

21 A. They're on the same level. Two bodies within the framework of the

22 ministry.

23 Q. Tell me, Ms. Dorevska, why was Goran Mitevski appointed to the

24 bureau for public security and not to the state security? Do you know the

25 reason for that?

1 A. As far as I can recall, as I said previously, this was the period

2 of May 2001, when the broad coalition government was set up and the work

3 post of director of the direction for security and counter-intelligence

4 fell under a different political option, and then Mr. Zoran Verusevski was

5 appointed as its director. I believe this was the reason why

6 Mr. Goran Mitevski was appointed, therefore, the director of public

7 security.

8 Q. And the suggestion put by my learned friend, that Goran Mitevski

9 came to this office since he was nominated by the Minister Boskoski and

10 that he was, in a way, linked, if I may say so, to the Minister Boskoski,

11 is there any basis for this assertion in your -- in as far as you know,

12 Mr. Goran Mitevski and the duties that he performed at the ministry?

13 A. Of course this is not important in this context. As I said, this

14 is a person who is a professional, who has a long work and employment

15 experience behind him.

16 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have concluded my

17 cross-examination of this witness. Thank you very much.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Ms. Residovic.

19 You will be pleased to know, Ms. Dorevska, that that completes the

20 questions for you. We would like to thank you for your attendance here

21 and your patient assistance and you may, of course, now return to your

22 normal activities.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. And I wish you further

24 success in your work.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much. The court officer will show

1 you out.

2 [The witness withdrew]

3 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would suggest --

4 or, rather, I would seek to tender as Defence exhibit from this re-direct

5 examination, 65 ter 1278, that is the application of Zoran Krstevski to

6 the Macedonian Radio and Television for the termination of his employment

7 there.

8 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

9 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D307, Your Honours.

10 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Also, Your Honours, I seek to

11 tender document 65 ter 1D1280, and we would additionally submit a

12 translation as soon as it is finished. That is the decision of

13 Minister Dosta Dimovska appointing Goran Mitevski as acting director of

14 the UBK. We would seek to tender this document as well in evidence.

15 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

16 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D308, Your Honours.

17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I note the time, and

18 considering the time we have available, I ask that I do not start the

19 examination of the expert witness because I have just few minutes to spend

20 with her. But I would like to ask you if, with your permission, to spend

21 this time adding to our 65 ter list additional evidence so that we do not

22 take up Court's time with this tomorrow. That is the C.V. of

23 Professor Slagjana Taseva, Ph.D. That is 65 ter 1D1277. Then 65 ter

24 1D1279; that is a report produced by Slagjana Taseva, Ph.D. And 65 ter

25 1D1276; that is an excerpt from the glossary that CLSS submitted to the

1 Defence and which we will probably use during the examination of Professor

2 Taseva.

3 JUDGE PARKER: If there is no objection, yes, those -- that will

4 be allowed, Ms. Residovic.

5 Anything else?

6 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours. Except for my

7 request that we start the examination of the witness tomorrow.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, we will adjourn now, Ms. Residovic, to resume

10 tomorrow at 2.15.

11 MR. SAXON: Your Honour.

12 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.

13 MR. SAXON: May I just raise a very brief procedural matter.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.

15 MR. SAXON: I have been instructed by our court officer and by my

16 case manager to put on the record that there will be three additional

17 translations linked to Exhibit P00402 on e-court, and the document

18 identification numbers are N000-9692, N000-9696 and N000-9700.

19 Thank you, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much.

21 We now adjourn.

22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.49 p.m.,

23 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 20th day of

24 February, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.

25