1 Thursday, 21 February 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon.
7 And good afternoon, Professor. The affirmation you made at the
8 commencement of your evidence still applies.
9 Ms. Residovic.
10 WITNESS: SLAGJANA TASEVA [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.
13 Examination by Ms. Residovic: [Continued]
14 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Professor Taseva.
15 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, before I proceed
16 with my questions, let me inform you that in accordance with your
17 suggestions, I believe that I will complete my examination before the
18 first break. In order for me not to interrupt my examination, I would
19 like the witness and Their Honours to be given the remainder of the
20 documents that the Defence has prepared and which are related only to the
21 documents matching the footnotes of the expert witness and can be of
22 service for easier bearings in the expert report of Professor Taseva.
23 I should like Madam Professor to have her first binder before her
24 where her report is to be found at the beginning of the binder. Thank
1 Q. Professor Taseva, at page 18 of the report, paragraphs 64 and 65,
2 you stated your opinion as to the concept of operative control and
3 operational control. Is that right?
4 A. Yes, this is right.
5 Q. For the concept operational control, you state that this was the
6 first time you heard of that notion. Is that the position you presented
7 in the mentioned paragraphs?
8 A. What I listed in the report is in fact that I have never heard of
9 this concept of control, that it can be applied in the work of the
10 Ministry of Interior.
11 Q. If someone were to state the opposite before this Tribunal, would
12 that individual be in fact familiar with the structure and the modus
13 operandi of the Ministry of the Interior?
14 A. This concept of this type of control is mostly linked with the
15 work of the army. This is why I believe that if someone were to claim
16 that this type of control or this concept of control exists in the
17 Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Macedonia, then that someone would
18 not have sufficient knowledge about the positioning of the ministry.
19 Q. Madam Taseva, does the term of operative control exist at all in
20 the Ministry of Interior?
21 A. Yes. In the police, there is the notion of operative control.
22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown 65 ter
23 1D1232, which is page 1D9888. In the English version, 1D9893.
24 Q. Professor Taseva, do you know what this document is about?
25 A. This is an obligatory instruction from the Ministry of Interior
1 which is in force there as of 1976.
2 Q. Tell me, does this document stipulate the notion of operative
3 control in the police sense of the word?
4 A. Yes. The aim of this document is exactly this, to establish the
5 notion and the manner in which this type of operative work in the Ministry
6 of Interior is applied. It contains and it defines the concept of
7 operative control.
8 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we turn to the following page,
9 1D9889, and 1D9894.
10 Q. At paragraph 31 of the document, precisely what you stated is
11 being established, the notion of operative control in the police sense.
12 And item 31 says: "Operative control is a sum of operative-preventative
13 measures that are being taken based on general information or knowledge
14 and with the aim of preventing the perpetration of criminal acts the
15 surveillance of certain persons with a propensity to commit criminal acts
16 and observation of specific facilities and points where criminal offences
17 are committed."
18 Is this definition consistent with your knowledge of operative
19 control in the police sense of the word?
20 A. Yes. This definition is consistent with my knowledge of the
21 operative control in the police sense of the word, or in the sense of
22 police work, and in this context it is applied in the Ministry of
24 Q. In item 32 it is stated that operative control is established with
25 regard to an individual, facility or a point. Is that also the basis of
1 your conclusion from paragraph 65 and footnote 52 -- or, rather, that you
2 stated as a source in that footnote?
3 A. Yes. This is the basis for my conclusion and the listing in the
5 Q. Professor Taseva, if I were to say that oftentimes a single term
6 can have several different meanings and that it is of essential importance
7 to clarify the basic meaning of a word, would you, as an academician agree
8 with me, or, rather, let me put the question to you: Is it important to
9 know the actual meaning and significance or sense of the word?
10 A. If we wish to be precise in what we do, both as scholars but also
11 as professionals, then we have to have to deal with clearly defined
12 notions and terms about occurrences which we wish to observe. This is why
13 I believe that definitions are very important when we want to research or
14 delineate certain notions.
15 Q. I should like to show the witness 65 ter 1D12761, page 1D0215 --
16 apologies. 65 ter 1D1276. And the page is 1D0215.
17 This is an excerpt from a dictionary that the translation service
18 of this Tribunal sent to the Defence with regard to the possible meaning
19 of the word "control." This is a dictionary that the translation service
20 makes use of in translating significant documents and all the text that
21 transpire or appear before this Tribunal.
22 Madam Professor, in the entry for the word "kontrola," or control,
23 which is in the top part of the page, there's the word "control." Do you
24 see that?
25 A. Yes, I see it.
1 Q. Next, various meanings of the word are listed. In other words,
2 the possible translations of the Macedonian word "kontrola."
3 Please cast an eye on this page, and I want you to focus only on
4 the word "kontrola." And tell me, which of the translations match the
5 meaning of "kontrola" in the context in which it is used in the police of
6 the Republic of Macedonia? And, of course, that's the term we used that
7 earlier on when we looked at the document entitled obligatory instruction,
8 which deals with control.
9 A. Looking at the screen and in the context of the definition of
10 operative control in the obligatory instruction, I believe that operative
11 control used in the work of the police in the Republic of Macedonia is
12 best defined by point 2, proverka, check, inspection, supervision of
13 check-points. What is listed under the point 2. To carry out inspection,
14 what is listed again in item 2.
15 Q. Thank you very much. Now, Professor Taseva, I would like to move
16 to a different topic.
17 At pages 20 to 26 and in paragraphs 76 through 99 in chapters 7
18 and 8, you stated your opinions and conclusions with regard to the role of
19 the Ministry of Interior and the minister in the procedure which proceeds
20 the criminal proceedings and in the investigating procedure. In these
21 paragraphs, if I may summarize in one sentence, you spoke of the role of
22 the Ministry of Interior in the pre-crime procedure, in the investigation
23 and criminal reporting. Is that right?
24 A. Yes, this is right.
25 Q. Do you recall us examining and discussing in -- yesterday Article
1 170 of the criminal procedure act, P78 [as interpreted], which lists the
2 obligation of the judiciary bodies to file a criminal report with regard
3 to offences. Do you recall that?
4 A. Yes, I recall that we spoke about this.
5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] In -- that's in line 26, instead
6 of P78, it should state P88.
7 Could the witness be shown P88, but this time, Article 142.
8 0019057 is the page; and in the English version, ERN 0019209, or page 33
9 out of 128.
10 Q. Do you have the Article before you on the screen?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. If we look at the way this legal provision is formulated we will
13 see that it says: If there is ground for suspicion that the crime is
14 committed which is to be prosecuted ex officio, and next the actions to be
15 taken by the Ministry of Interior are listed. Is that right?
16 A. Yes, this is right.
17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness now be shown
18 Exhibit P96. That's the rule governing the performance of duties in the
19 Ministry of Interior, in particular Article 103 of the rules, which is to
20 be found at page ERN 0424638. Unfortunately, I don't have the English
22 Q. You have both the Macedonian and English versions on the screen
24 The initial information about the perpetrated criminal offence is
25 discussed here and in Article 103 it is stated again: When there exists
1 grounds for suspecting that a crime, has been committed which is
2 prosecuted ex officio, the authorised officials shall take necessary
3 measures and so on and so forth.
4 Do you see that?
5 A. Yes, I see it.
6 Q. In connection with what we were able to see yesterday and what
7 we've just read, I want to ask you the following: Does such a definition
8 of the competences and responsibilities of the Ministry of the Interior
9 have anything to do with the criminal offences prosecuted ex officio and
10 for reasonable suspicion of a crime having been committed?
11 A. Yes. All provisions which we read yesterday and today pertain to
12 criminal acts which are prosecuted ex officio and for the reasonable
13 grounds, reasonable suspicions of a crime having been committed.
14 Q. Madam Professor, can you tell me which are the criminal offences
15 prosecuted ex officio, speaking in general?
16 A. Generally, criminal acts which are prosecuted ex officio are part
17 or are under the category of serious crimes, which provide for jail
18 sentences over one year, and for which there are classified forms of
19 criminal acts in the criminal law.
20 Q. Professor Taseva, are there some other criminal offences which are
21 not prosecuted ex officio?
22 A. Yes. In the criminal code of the Republic of Macedonia, there are
23 such criminal acts which the -- the prosecution of which can be undertaken
24 by way of a private suit or at the proposal of the injured party who
25 submits a proposal that the competent bodies prosecute this person, which
1 means that there two additional means by which this procedure can be
3 Q. Can you give us an example of one such criminal offence?
4 A. Most frequently, and statistically speaking, where the private
5 suit is undertaken is slight bodily harm, where the law defines clearly
6 which serious bodily crime is defined. But in the case of slight bodily
7 harm, then prosecution is undertaken by a legal suit initiated by the
8 injured party.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
11 MR. SAXON: Very sorry to interrupt, Your Honour. I'm aware of
12 the section on ex officio crimes begins at paragraph 79 and goes through
13 paragraphs 85, Your Honour, but I must say that this information that the
14 witness has just given that certain -- certain criminal acts they should
15 or may be taken over by way of private suit by the injured party, it's my
16 understanding is nowhere within the text of this expert report and it is
17 certainly a significantly new issue that's now being raised here that I
18 haven't seen raised before.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Carry on, Ms. Residovic.
20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 Q. Tell me, Professor Taseva, now that you've explained the first
22 requirement, when we were reading the provisions you quoted in the
23 footnotes as the basis for your conclusions and opinions, is the second
24 requirement such that the police should act upon reasonable grounds for
25 suspicion that a given act does in fact constitute a criminal offence?
1 A. I'm following the translation, so I don't know whether this
2 corresponds to what we are discussing, but I believe that you were
3 asking --
4 Q. I'm asking whether it is necessary for the second requirement to
5 be met, the one we -- which we read in Articles 140, 142 and 143, whereby
6 there are reasonable grounds for suspicion. Is that a precondition for
7 the Ministry of the Interior to act upon its duties and competencies?
8 A. Yes. If the competencies of the Ministry of the Interior could be
9 defined, if we are saying that there is reasonable ground for suspicion
10 that a criminal offence has been committed, one that is prosecuted ex
12 Q. Can Professor now look at Article 104 of the same rules.
13 I will read out to you what is written here before I put my
14 question to you.
15 Article 104: "In order to confirm the existence of grounds for
16 suspicion that a crime has been committed, it is necessary that specific
17 relevant facts and data be known on the basis of which it can reasonably
18 be assumed that a crime has been committed.
19 "The assumptions pointing to the fact that an event is a result of
20 a crime must be based on specific facts that show that this event has
21 taken place and that it contains elements of criminal activity."
22 Tell me, Professor Taseva, is this definition of the reasonable
23 grounds for suspicion consistent with the opinion you advanced in your
24 report, and is it consistent with your experience and knowledge?
25 A. Yes. The definition that you read out now fully corresponds to
1 what my report has advanced, but it is also the basis for the practice in
2 the operation of the Ministry of the Interior.
3 So, in the practice, my experience from my work in the Ministry of
4 Interior shows and confirms that it is preceded pursuant to this provision
5 that we are reading and this rule book.
6 Q. Professor Taseva, at which point is the Ministry of the Interior
7 obligated to report a given act to the prosecutor?
8 A. The Ministry of the Interior needs to inform the public prosecutor
9 in charge once it receives certain information on a given event, but after
10 it undertakes preliminary measures to ascertain, firstly, whether this
11 event has really taken place, what kind of event that was, whether that
12 event constitutes a crime. So whether it does contain elements of an
13 accident, incident, or is it -- does it contain elements of criminal
15 After the Ministry of Interior finds certain elements or
16 indications that a crime has been committed that corresponds to the
17 provisions of the law, corresponds to the incriminations prosecuted by
18 law, then it will inform the public prosecutor, regardless of whether it
19 is a crime perpetrated by a known perpetrator or by an unknown
21 Also, the Ministry of the Interior will inform the public
22 prosecutor in all cases when there are crimes to suspect when there are so
23 indications or evidence that a death has occurred. It might be a natural
24 death, if a person is found dead, regardless of whether or of what was the
25 cause of death, the ministry has a duty to inform the public prosecutor
1 immediately and the investigating judge.
2 Q. From that point, Professor Taseva, when the ministry notifies the
3 investigating judge or prosecutor thereof, what -- in what way does the
4 ministry proceed from there? Independently or upon someone's order?
5 A. Pursuant to the Law on Criminal Procedure of the Republic of
6 Macedonia, after the public prosecutor receives the information, it could
7 be a special information note or a criminal report, from that moment
8 onwards the competent justice system bodies are in charge of the
9 procedure. That would mean the public prosecutor and the investigating
10 judge, but in our system the public prosecutor is the dominus litis in the
11 criminal procedure. He is in charge of the entire procedure from then
13 Q. Madam Professor, since we're still discussing the preliminary
14 procedure in which the prosecutor is the one controlling the normal course
15 of proceedings, if in that particular procedure the information that
16 reaches the ministry you mentioned the occurrence of a death or let us
17 take another example, that the police were informed that in the elementary
18 school in Kocani drugs were being sold or that there has been illicit
19 trafficking in weapons, if, upon receiving such information, the police
20 has been unable to obtain any relevant evidence confirming the
21 authenticity of the event or information, does the police still have the
22 standing obligation to notify the public prosecutor thereof?
23 A. In the cases when the Ministry of the Interior has information
24 available or when it receives information that something is taking place,
25 such as in the examples that you indicated, in that case it will undertake
1 measures and activities from within the range of their competencies to
2 receive more substantiated information, to gather evidence or indications
3 that would lead to reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been
4 committed. Just for the sake of illustration or to follow up on what we
5 discussed previously, usually in the cases, like in the examples that
6 gave, the ministry will institute operational control in order to gather
7 full spectrum of information in a given event.
8 Q. Please answer this question: If the ministry does not obtain any
9 information, does it still have the obligation to inform the public
10 prosecutor? If, therefore, the efforts invested into the verifying of the
11 information prove fruitless, is the ministry still duty-bound to inform
12 the public prosecutor thereof?
13 A. The ministry can sometimes spend a long period of time in
14 gathering information or in attempt to -- attempts to gather information,
15 but still be fruitless and in such cases it is does not have the
16 obligation to inform the public prosecutor. Until the moment that it has
17 specific information that would be reasonable ground to suspect a crime
18 has been committed, it has no obligation to inform public prosecutor of
19 such developments.
20 Q. In the event the public prosecutor, who may have also obtained the
21 sort of information I mentioned, seeks the Ministry of Interior to make
22 inquiries into that particular information, in that event, does the
23 Ministry of Interior have the obligation to inform the prosecutor of the
24 information that it has in its possession?
25 A. Yes. Since the request -- or, actually the public prosecutor
1 could also arrive at certain information and then ask for further
2 information from the Ministry of the Interior and request that certain
3 actions be taken as well. In such cases, the ministry has the duty to
4 inform the public prosecutor about everything that it has or the
5 information it lacks on a specific case. So even in such cases when it
6 has no information that would corroborate that suspicion that a crime has
7 been committed, the ministry has the duty to submit the information to the
8 public prosecutor.
9 Q. If, Professor Taseva, the prosecutor or the judge have all the
10 relevant information pointing to the fact that these reports were
11 truthful, either through the information they received from the police or
12 through an on-site investigation or through the judge or the prosecutor
13 going to visit and interview the person concerned or injured in the
14 hospital, would the police have the obligation to send once more the
15 criminal report to the same bodies, based on the information that they
16 have thus gathered?
17 A. In such cases the Ministry of Interior has no obligation to file a
18 criminal report with the competent justice system bodies. It could only
19 proceed by submitting information that it itself is able to arrive at. A
20 citizen could come to the police, come to the ministry, to give out
21 information related to an event, and in such case the ministry can
22 communicate that information to the justice system bodies.
23 Q. If, in such ensuing situation the prosecutor and judge asked the
24 ministry to act on their own initiative in that regard, would the ministry
25 be duty-bound to do so?
1 A. Yes. In a situation when the justice system bodies have the case,
2 are in charge of the case, whenever they would request that the Ministry
3 of the Interior undertake some action, it has the duty to do so, and with
4 regards to the activities undertaken and the results thereof, inform the
5 public prosecutor or the investigating judge.
6 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in connection with
7 this witness's answer, I refer you to 1D67, 1D68, 1D69, 1D70, P54.052,
8 P54.027, P54.028, P54.029, and P54.030.
9 Q. In connection with this, Professor Taseva, and let me ask you this
10 one question. In your CV, you stated that you authored the book, Dark
11 Number of Criminality. In the book you state that you carried out some
12 investigation in that regard.
13 A. Yes. That book was written in 1995 and for it I researched
14 several types of criminality and the dark figures related to certain types
15 of crime.
16 Q. Tell me, your findings in that book testify to what precisely?
17 What is the figure of undetected crime?
18 A. The results of those researches point that in regards to all times
19 of crime.
20 MR. SAXON: Your Honour.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Saxon.
22 MR. SAXON: What is the relevance of this line of questioning to
23 the issues in this case?
24 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
25 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in the course of
1 this trial, on several occasions it was discussed that efforts were being
2 invested into detecting crime and it has been stated that measures were
3 not taken to punish the crime committed and that's why I wanted to ask the
4 expert witness about this since this was the topic that she dealt with in
5 the book that she listed in her CV.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter adds that Madam Residovic said that
8 it was one of the counts of the indictment.
9 MR. SAXON: First of all, Your Honour, apparently this was a book
10 written by the witness in 1995, so I'm not sure how her research in 1995
11 would be applicable to the relevant time-period in 2001 and 2002. And
12 it's simply seems to the Prosecution that the issues in this case,
13 vis-a-vis the indictment point to, for example, the third element of
14 criminal responsibility, the material ability to investigate the crime and
15 punish the perpetrators. But the Prosecution still does not see about a
16 general book from 1995 related to research on crime statistics is going to
17 help advance the matter.
18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] May I? Your Honour, may I address
20 JUDGE PARKER: One last time, Ms. Residovic.
21 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 Your Honours, the professor speaks in that book about the role of
23 the accused in the -- of the injured person in the detection of the crimes
24 committed and that's the topic I should like to examine the witness about.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE PARKER: We uphold the objection of Mr. Saxon,
2 Ms. Residovic.
3 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 Can the witness be shown Exhibit 1D189.
5 Q. Madam Professor, you have before you an Official Note written by
6 the department of the Ministry of Interior in Cair, which contains a piece
7 of information which states the following: "On the 15th of November 2001,
8 according to the OVR Cair, an interview was made with Selim Ljuboten about
9 the events that took place on the 12th of August, 2001, in the village of
10 Ljuboten during which in the fights between the security forces of the
11 Republic of Macedonia and the terrorist gangs stationed in the village,
12 eight individuals died."
13 Do you see this?
14 A. Yes. Yes, I see it.
15 Q. The information that in some clashes eight individuals were
16 killed, in correlation with your testimony of a moment ago, would that be
17 sufficient to establish the suspicion that the death has been a result of
18 a crime?
19 A. What I see here deals with an event that took place on the stated
20 date, but from what is written in this specific Official Note, one could
21 still not say whether a crime has been committed.
22 Q. In your opinion, what else would be needed to ascertain the
23 grounds for suspicion that the death of those individuals is a result of a
24 crime perpetrated?
25 A. Really, it has to be ascertained, first, what was the nature of
1 that event, what actually took place, because here also it is written
2 "event." The word itself, "event" is not sufficient to learn about the
3 nature of the event and to further establish whether there are some
4 elements that would indicate that there has been some criminal conduct or
5 that a crime has been committed.
6 In this case, several measures need be to undertaken to ascertain
7 what was the nature of the event, who participated in the event, what took
8 place and how, or why did it happen, so all those questions need to be
9 answered for us to see what was the nature of that event. As it is, we
10 can't know whether it was a crime.
11 Q. Tell me, if it is not possible to immediately inspect the crime
12 scene and see the dead bodies, what would be necessary to establish the
13 cause of death?
14 A. If there are dead bodies, the best measure would be to carry out
15 autopsy immediately after the event. But if it has not been done, if the
16 persons have been buried on the same date, as it is written here, then it
17 would be necessary to request exhumation to then ascertain the cause of
18 death and the way in which the death occurred.
19 Q. Without those elements that you described now, would the police be
20 able to verify whether the event has really taken place and what was the
21 nature of that event, whether it contains elements of criminal offence?
22 A. Obviously this is an event that goes beyond the scope of work of
23 the Ministry of the Interior and beyond the scope of work of the police,
24 because it is indicated here that this has been an event where the
25 individuals -- where the results in such case the -- immediately the
1 justice system bodies are informed, the public prosecutor and the
2 investigating judge, and they could -- and they actually have the
3 obligation under the law to undertake all necessary measures.
4 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
5 the Exhibit P104.
6 Q. We have here yet another Official Note, Professor Taseva, and it
7 deals with an interview with Kenan Salievski. We can see here that on the
8 15th of November, 2001, in the OVR Cair, Kenan Salievski was interviewed
9 first regarding the events and information related to those, and that
10 person said that he had information and that would convey those
11 information. And the final paragraph says: "This is why it was agreed
12 that the person would come on the 16th of November, on the next day, and
13 bring complete lists. On the 16th of November, 2001, Kenan Salievski
14 called us at the department for internal affairs, Cair, and told us that
15 after having consulted the village board from the village Ljuboten, he
16 cannot give us any information about the event or about the deceased
18 Madam Professor, considering what you stated before, if the
19 injured parties or individuals who have any information regarding the
20 event are unwilling to communicate those information to the Ministry of
21 the Interior or to the police, would that fact and to what extent would
22 that fact make the clarification of an event more difficult and would it
23 make more difficult to ascertain whether it constitutes a crime or not?
24 A. Most often the police or the Ministry of Interior, information
25 about criminal acts receives from injured persons in such cases, we have
1 the initial grounds to act or the police has the initial grounds to act
2 because the injured parties are interested in further proceeding in order
3 to uncover the perpetrator of this criminal act. If this Official Note
4 which we see here is the usual way of acting on the part of the MOI, and
5 in accordance with the obligatory instruction to collect as much
6 information as possible about the event at hand, to interview persons who
7 know something about this event or have data regarding this event, but
8 here it is obvious that the person with whom contact was established,
9 after consultation with other persons, decided that he should not provide
10 any kind of information about the event or about the deceased persons. In
11 such cases, indeed, it is more difficult to work and establish all
12 elements regarding this event and in order to establish whether we have a
13 criminal act at hand.
14 Q. Thank you very much. Professor Taseva, I would move now to the
15 final topic that I wish to discuss with you.
16 On page 30, in paragraphs 125 to 128, you spoke about the Law on
17 Amnesty. Is that so?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And if I understood what is written here correctly, and I believe
20 you made it very clear, the law does not make any difference especially it
21 does not introduce any discrimination with regards to the ethnicity of the
22 persons subject to amnesty. Basically, the amnesty applies to all
23 individuals who committed crimes related to the conflict and the only
24 exception are the crimes that are within the competence of this Tribunal.
25 Would that be the brief summary of what you stated in your report?
1 A. Yes, this is so.
2 Q. In relation to this, tell me, Professor Taseva, during that time
3 was a state of war declared during that time, in the Republic of
5 A. No. At that time in the Republic of Macedonia a state of war was
6 not proclaimed.
7 Q. Tell me, pursuant to the legislation of the Republic of Macedonia,
8 the state of war or state of a military conflict, would that constitute
9 the basis or necessary prerequisite for the application of martial law?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. I will now show you part of the statement of a witness who
12 testified before this court, Vilma Ruskovska, page 1528. And on the
13 question whether state of war was declared in Macedonia, in line 12, she
14 said: "It was not declared."
15 JUDGE PARKER: Could I interrupt you, Ms. Residovic.
16 Yes, Mr. Saxon.
17 MR. SAXON: I'm sorry, but again I must object. There is nothing
18 within the remit of this report, or, I believe, within the questions asked
19 of the witness related to the constitutionality and constitutional
20 procedures of -- related to declaring states of war.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the amnesty was
23 introduced because of the crimes related to the conflict. My next
24 questions will be related to this but probably I need to ask some
25 introductory questions, although it was not specifically stated in the
2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
3 MR. SAXON: Well --
4 JUDGE PARKER: Can I say, Mr. Saxon, you will have discerned that
5 we are following the course generally of allowing questions that may have
6 relevance to the issues in the case, even though they may not be subject
7 to specific reference in the report of the witness. And we're doing so on
8 the basis, which I was to indicate to you at the end of the evidence, that
9 if you find you are not prepared to cross-examine on one of those issues,
10 then some time may be necessary to allow to you make that preparation.
11 What has happened so far would not suggest any particular length
12 of time was needed, but that opportunity will be there and it may be that
13 some issue will arise that will involve the need for a longer time in
15 MR. SAXON: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Please carry on, Ms. Residovic.
17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
18 Q. Let me just stress, because I did say so, and I thank the Chamber
19 for the opportunity to ask those questions. With regards to the state of
20 war and whether it has been declared, the professor did say something in
21 paragraph 16; but I do agree that she did not speak of that exclusively.
22 So, Professor Taseva, I will continue reading what I started
23 reading. That is the statement of Vilma Ruskovska that she gave on the
24 6th of June before this Tribunal. And since she confirmed that the state
25 of war was not declared, she was asked the following question: "[In
1 English] Because these were isolated terrorist attacks and because no
2 state of war had been declared in the country, the criminal proceeding you
3 participate in were carried out according to the domestic law."
4 [Interpretation] And she then said: "[In English] Yes."
5 [Interpretation] And then the question again: "[In English] At
6 that time you, as a deputy prosecutor, your colleague and judge in the
7 court before which you were acting were not even considering applying
8 international humanitarian law to certain evidence. Would that be
10 [Interpretation] And the answer was yes.
11 Professor Taseva, was that witness statement given before this
12 Tribunal consistent to your knowledge of the way in which the then state
13 bodies and justice system bodies treated the situation of the country and
14 the application of the domestic law?
15 A. Yes. They're quite consistent.
16 Q. Professor Taseva, for an act to be qualified as a war crime
17 against civilian population, pursuant to the law of the Republic of
18 Macedonia, would it be necessary for that -- that the state of war or the
19 state of a military conflict is declared?
20 A. Yes.
21 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I will kindly ask now that the
22 witness be shown Exhibit P81, Article 404. That is war crime against
23 civilian population.
24 Q. Do you see this Article? The Macedonian page is N000-26 --
25 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask the counsel to read
1 the number slowly.
2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. And I will draw your attention, Professor Taseva, to the first
4 line in this Article which says: "A person, who, by violating the rules
5 of international law, during a war, armed conflict or occupation," and
6 then various acts are enumerated that could constitute war crime against
7 civilian population. Does it correspond to your knowledge of the
8 situations when these provisions are applied?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Towards the middle of this Article, you can see various types or
11 ways in which crimes could be committed. And in line 7 from the top in
12 the Macedonian text are mentioned murders, torture, inhumane treatment.
13 Then, towards the bottom there is theft of property, wilful destruction of
14 various properties.
15 Tell me, Professor Taseva, would these offences exist also as
16 independent crimes in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Macedonia?
17 A. Yes. These criminal acts do exist in other provisions of the
18 Criminal Code of the Republic of Macedonia.
19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just for the
20 transcript, I will mention that in P81, murder is article 123, grievous
21 bodily harm is Article 131, ordinary bodily injury is Article 130, that is
22 prosecuted against a private complaint. Then, theft and aggravated theft
23 are 135 and -- 235 and 236. Bodily injury qualified by death is Article
24 131, paragraph 3, torture is Article 142, crime against general population
25 is Article 288. No, we will not show anything because we have sufficient
1 time to close this part.
2 Q. With regards to what we discussed now, if some individuals were
3 perpetrators of these crimes that I have enumerated now, murder,
4 aggravated robbery, torture, et cetera, would those crimes be amnestied,
5 pursuant to the Law on Amnesty?
6 A. Yes, in accordance with the Law on Amnesty these persons would be
8 Q. What would be the only thing that would not be subject to amnesty?
9 A. The crimes against civilian population that would be done in
10 normal circumstances.
11 Q. Pursuant to the law of the Republic of Macedonia, who makes the
12 legal assessment what would an event mean? Who would make the legal
13 assessment whether something is to be called a crime, crime of theft, or
14 burglary, for instance, or would it be a murder or a war crime? What is
15 the body that gives the legal interpretation, assessment? What is the
16 criminal offence at hand?
17 A. The final instance which gives the legal interpretation about the
18 act at hand are the courts and the Republic of Macedonia.
19 Q. Are the courts bound by the legal characterisation that the
20 prosecutor has provided?
21 A. The public prosecutor can provide a legal qualification when it
22 submits the charges to the courts but the courts are not tied to that
23 statement of the Prosecutor when they make their own assessment.
24 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask the counsel and the
25 witness to pause between question and answer.
1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Professor Taseva, with regards to amnesty, you spoke about that in
3 paragraphs 125 and 128, you stated here that this was an important aspect
4 of the Ohrid Framework Agreement and the aim was to restore peace, to
5 avoid retaliations and to achieve social reintegration. Is that your
6 opinion as stated in the aforementioned paragraphs?
7 A. Yes. This is my opinion presented in those paragraphs.
8 Q. Professor Taseva, several exhibits were led before this court
9 which indicate that a criminal procedure does not preclude simultaneous
10 disciplinary procedure and I will not ask you in relation to this.
11 But having in mind the objectives that the amnesty was to achieve,
12 tell me, please, if I give you a hypothetical case, for instance, an
13 Albanian police officer joined the NLA, took a gun and fought against his
14 country. The Law on Amnesty has amnestied that crime and he returned to
15 his post in his police station.
16 However, if we're looking at the collective agreement and you
17 quoted from this several times, he violated the working discipline. He
18 was absent from work and so a disciplinary procedure should run against
19 him and he should be dismissed from his post.
20 Tell me, please, in such hypothetical situation, would the goals
21 of the amnesty that you spoke in your report about be achieved?
22 A. A case such as this would defeat the purpose of the Law on Amnesty
23 and would not further the objectives of this law.
24 Q. And such cases could apply to Macedonians, Albanians, Turks and
25 any one else who would be amnestied for a crime but then sanctioned in a
1 disciplinary procedure. Is this consistent with your position?
2 A. Yes. The Law on Amnesty does not make a difference on any basis,
3 not even an ethnic one. And it -- measures like this should not be
4 implemented further or the distinctions be made.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters kindly ask again the witness and
6 counsel to avoid overlap.
7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have concluded my
8 examination of this witness.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Well done, Ms. Residovic. Thank you very much.
10 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 JUDGE PARKER: I think it would be convenient, would it,
12 Mr. Saxon, to have the first break at this point.
13 MR. SAXON: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE PARKER: We will do that and resume, then, at 4.00.
15 --- Recess taken at 3.27 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 4.02 p.m.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to
19 tender two documents into evidence, namely, 65 ter 1D1232, of which the
20 professor spoke in paragraph 65, footnote 52, which is the obligatory
21 instruction. And the other one is 65 ter 1D1276, which is an excerpt from
22 a dictionary that the Defence received from the CLSS and in relation to
23 which the professor explained the meaning of control in the police
25 I informed the Prosecutor about this over the break and now I
1 understood that they don't have an objection to raise.
2 MR. SAXON: That's correct, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Saxon. Each of those documents will
4 be received.
5 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 1D1232 will become Exhibit 1D311; 65 ter
6 1D1276 will become Exhibit 1D312, Your Honours.
7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Mr. Saxon.
9 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I don't know if the Chamber wants to
10 inquire whether my colleague Mr. Apostolski has any questions.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Not an indication but it should be on the record.
12 Mr. Apostolski.
13 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.
14 I believe that the Court has made good assessment in that I will
15 not be having any questions for this witness. Therefore, I give my time
16 over to my learned colleague, Mr. Saxon.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Apostolski, for the second or could
18 be the third time of asking, Mr. Saxon.
19 Cross-examination by Mr. Saxon:
20 Q. Good afternoon, Professor Taseva. My name is Dan Saxon and I
21 represent the Prosecutor in these proceedings. Originally, I'm from the
22 city of Boston in the United States. And there are a few topics that I
23 like to discuss with you, if I may.
24 First of all, I have a few questions that relate to your -- your
25 background and experience as they're outlined in your CV, which I note is
1 now Exhibit 1D109.
2 From 1981 to 2000, you worked in the Ministry of the Interior of
3 Macedonia as an analyst. Is that right?
4 A. [In English] Yes, it is correct.
5 Q. And now that I know that we're going to be speaking in the same
6 language, I need to give you the same caution that my colleague gave you,
7 that you and I need to pause briefly between our questions and answers so
8 that we do not create difficulties for the interpreters, all right.
9 During that period 1981 to 2000 when you were employed by the
10 Ministry of Internal Affairs, did you ever arrest anyone?
11 A. No, I did not.
12 Q. During that period, did you ever personally carry out an
13 investigation into a crime?
14 A. [Interpretation] No. I personally did not head an investigation
15 of a crime -- of a criminal act.
16 Q. Well, even if you didn't head an investigation, did you
17 participate in one?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And did you ever take part in any combat-related activities?
20 A. No. I have never taken part in any combat-related activities,
21 except in exercises of this type.
22 Q. All right. And if I can just step back for moment, when you
23 participated in the investigation of a crime, what exactly was your role?
24 What things did you do? Can you give some examples?
25 A. Yes. In the cases of more serious crimes, such as murder, it was
1 usual that an analyst go to the site where an on-site investigation is
2 carried out.
3 Q. And so is that the kind of -- if I can use the term, would that be
4 called operative work or an operative activity?
5 A. Operative works were taken by other colleagues who were charged
6 with such tasks. My task and the task of other colleagues, analysts, when
7 taking part in activities and procedures such as these, was to pay
8 attention to everything that was being done so that when everything was
9 being completed and if it was necessary to file a case towards the
10 necessary -- the competent judicial bodies to make sure that everything
11 was included and nothing was omitted.
12 Q. All right. Would it be fair to say, then, that although you were
13 not precisely performing operative works, it was part of your job to
14 observe operative works?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. During the years when you were working for the Ministry of
17 Internal Affairs, did you ever -- were you ever a participant in the
18 collegium of the minister?
19 A. No. I have never been a member of the minister's collegium.
20 Q. In 2001 and 2002, did you perform any activities with members of
21 the Ministry of Internal Affairs?
22 A. No. At that time I was not employed at the Ministry of the
24 Q. In the course of your anti-corruption activities -- let me step
1 It's very clear from your CV that you have also played a leading
2 role in the fight against corruption in Macedonia since 2000/2001. Is
3 that a fair statement?
4 A. Yes, one could say that.
5 Q. In the course of your anti-corruption work, did you ever provide
6 any assistance to government ministries or an entity or agency of the
7 government of Macedonia?
8 A. Could you please clarify the question? What kind of assistance or
9 cooperation are you referring to?
10 Q. Well, for example, did you ever provide any advice to a particular
11 ministry or government body as to how they might more effectively combat
12 corruption within their ministry.
13 A. I took part in the preparation of the state programme for
14 prevention of corruption, which contains a number of measures and
15 activities which pertain to a large number of state institutions, but also
16 to other factors in the fight against corruption. Therefore, in the
17 course of my work, I have had communication and contacts with all
18 ministries, part of the state administration, with the judicial bodies,
19 with the media, and with all others that have a role in the fight against
21 Q. And during -- and in that -- just so that the record is clear, at
22 that time you were -- you were the director, for example, of a
23 non-governmental organisation?
24 A. In 2001, I was the executive director of the branch of
25 Transparency International in Macedonia.
1 Q. When did you begin to have these communications and contacts with
2 different ministries and state administration and with judicial bodies?
3 A. In the period, from November 2002 to February 2007, I was a member
4 of the state commission for prevention of corruption. In this capacity, I
5 had contacts with all state bodies. However, I would also like to add
6 that the goal of the non-governmental sector is also to assist the
7 government in defining its measures and activities in a given domain.
8 Thus, is to be understood the work of participation of the civil sector in
9 the state administration.
10 Q. Absolutely, I understand that. Can you give a couple of examples
11 of the kinds of contacts and communications you had then with some state
12 bodies about issues of corruption, if you gave any advice, gave any
13 assistance, whatever?
14 A. I said that I could not point out anything in particular because
15 such contacts were plentiful.
16 Q. All right. And in the course of those contacts, at times, for
17 example, you provided some advice, didn't you?
18 A. It is possible and it is probable. I have taken part in many
19 activities as a member of working bodies, working groups where I gave my
20 opinions, where I have given advice most probably, based on my viewpoints
21 and assessments, so this is not to be excluded.
22 Q. And when you were giving your advice in some situations, you were
23 not an employee of the government institution who you were giving advice
24 to, were you?
25 A. I believe it would be better if you could be a little bit more
1 specific. I cannot respond to such abstract questions.
2 Q. Well, I don't think that was an abstract question at all. I think
3 it was a very simple question. When you gave advice to members of
4 government institutions during your anti-corruption activities, you were
5 not an employee of the institution who you were advising, were you? It's
6 not an abstract question. It only requires a yes or no answer.
7 A. It means that I was not employed, yes.
8 Q. Since 2004, you have been the director of the police academy in
9 Macedonia. Is that right?
10 A. Yes, this is right.
11 Q. And am I correct that the police academy is an entity that is part
12 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs?
13 A. No, you're not correct. The police academy is a part of the
14 university and it is not part of the Ministry of Interior.
15 Q. All right. And over the past years, several years, since you have
16 been director of the police academy, the police academy has received
17 financial assistance and technical assistance from different international
18 institutions, hasn't it?
19 A. Yes. And we're very proud of this fact. Because this was the
20 only way for the institution which had previously been closed for ten
21 years to be revived and to be able to be an institution that maintains all
22 standards necessary for this type of work and this type of training.
23 Q. And, for example, for several years there was a group part of the
24 European Union called the EU Proxima mission which sent police advisors to
25 Macedonia. Is that right?
1 A. Yes, for a number of years in Macedonia, the mission of Proxima
2 was active.
3 Q. And did members of EU Proxima, for example, provide some
4 assistance in the police academy?
5 A. It is possible. I'm not specifically sure that from the time that
6 I was there they had activities in the police academy.
7 Q. Are you aware that in recent years members of the EU Proxima
8 police mission had been providing technical assistance to the Ministry of
9 Internal Affairs. Are you aware of that?
10 A. Yes, they worked together with the Ministry of the Interior.
11 Q. And in fact they worked very closely with members of the Ministry
12 of Internal Affairs, right?
13 A. This is so.
14 Q. Of course, these members of this European Union mission that are
15 assigned to provide assistance to the Ministry of Internal Affairs,
16 they're not employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, are they?
17 A. No. They were employed -- or, rather, engaged by the European
19 Q. Moving to a different topic, professor. Yesterday - it's at page
20 53 of the LiveNote transcript. I'm sorry, I don't have the final
21 transcript reference. In response to a question from my colleague
22 Ms. Residovic, you said that when attempting to surpress criminal
23 behaviour committed by organised groups or when attempting to solve
24 complex crimes, there may be close coordination between several bodies of
25 the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
1 Do you recall that?
2 A. Yes, I recall.
3 Q. Okay. And, Professor, you also explained that these matters may
4 be addressed by using "a direct link with the structures at the Ministry
5 of Interior by chain of command towards the centre in the Ministry of
7 And I just -- if you could, please, help us understand. Can you
8 explain what you mean by the phrase "the chain of command towards the
9 centre in the Ministry of Internal Affairs."
10 A. I don't recall having said "chain of command," because there's no
11 such thing in the ministry. This is a chain of coordination. If you
12 allow me to elaborate on the structure of the Ministry of Interior,
13 perhaps this would become more clear.
14 Q. Well, we've heard a lot of evidence about the structure of the
15 Ministry of Internal Affairs. But just so that your testimony is clear,
16 are you saying that the concept of a chain of command, that concept does
17 not exist or in 2001 did not exist within the Ministry of Internal
18 Affairs? Is that what you're saying?
19 A. This is so. This concept does not exist now, did not exist when I
20 was working there, nor in 2001.
21 Q. All right.
22 MR. SAXON: Can we show the witness what is 65 ter Exhibit 956.8.
23 [Prosecution counsel confer]
24 MR. SAXON: And, Your Honours, we have prepared some binders this
25 afternoon for your reading pleasure. And if we could perhaps distribute
1 what is the fourth binder that we have to the Chamber, my colleagues, and
2 one for the witness. And this particular document will be found at tab
3 286 in this fourth binder.
4 Q. Maybe before I ask you a question about this document,
5 Professor Taseva, this concept of chain of command, although I understand
6 you say it does not exist within the Ministry of Internal Affairs, but you
7 have heard -- you've heard the term before, haven't you?
8 A. Yes. I have heard the term, but it is not used in the work of the
9 Ministry of Interior.
10 Q. Okay. And would you agree with me that on a very simple level,
11 conceptually, when people talk about a chain of command, they refer to
12 subordinates reporting up a chain, and then superiors issuing orders going
13 down the chain.
14 A. No, I would not agree with your assertion.
15 Q. Why not?
16 A. Because the chain of command means issuing direct orders and
17 receiving feedback information on these direct orders for undertaking
18 specific measures.
19 Q. Isn't that what I just said basically, Professor Taseva? Someone
20 reports information up to their superior and then their superior, acting
21 on that information, issues a direct order down the chain. Isn't that
22 what I just said?
23 A. You are explaining the concept of command, which is not the
24 concept of coordination and cooperation.
25 Q. I'm not asking you about the concept of coordination and
1 cooperation. I'm trying to explore with you what you said a few minutes
2 ago, that the concept of chain of command does not exist in the Ministry
3 of Interior, all right? Are we clear on that?
4 A. This is exactly so.
5 Q. All right. Now, would you agree with me that in simplistic terms,
6 and forget about the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the purposes of my
7 question, all right, in simplistic terms when someone refers to a chain of
8 command, they refer to a subordinate sending information up the chain and
9 a superior acting on that information, and sending orders down a chain.
10 Is that fair?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Why not?
13 A. Because, if you ask me personally, the term "chain of command"
14 immediately associates a military uniform.
15 Q. All right. Fine. I'll use your understanding, okay?
16 Let's speak in a -- if you want, let's think about the army right
17 now, the army of the Republic of Macedonia, all right? Now when you think
18 about the term "chain of command," could involve people, yes, wearing
19 uniforms, all right, we think about subordinates reporting information up
20 the chain to their superiors; and we think about superiors acting on that
21 information and issuing orders down the chain, to their subordinates.
22 Is that fair?
23 A. Issuing orders in a military sense of the word is something which
24 does not go together with the word "information."
25 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask the witness and
1 counsel to pause between question and answer, otherwise the witness's
2 answers do not get into Macedonian broadcast channel.
3 MR. SAXON:
4 Q. Professor, you and I have been politely asked to pause between our
5 questions and answers, all right. It probably won't be the first time
6 that we'll be politely asked.
7 Can you please explain your last answer. Why doesn't issuing
8 orders go together with the word "information"? Why don't those two
9 concepts go together?
10 A. Because issuing orders for undertaking specific measures,
11 according to my understanding, and I'm not a military expert, goes hand in
12 hand with writing reports about the activities related to those specific
14 Q. Well, if someone at higher up in a chain of command receives a
15 report - again I'll use your term - someone higher up in a chain of
16 command is sent a report by subordinates lower down in the chain of
17 command. And then the person at the high end of the chain of command
18 acts upon that report and issues an order down the chain of command.
19 That's usually what we think happens when we think about a chain of
20 command, right?
21 A. A while back we were speaking about the terms and the necessity to
22 explain how they're used. Perhaps the same should be done in this case.
23 Q. Well, I think what I'd like you to do, please, is take a look
24 either on your screen or at the document in tab 286.
25 This document is an information dated the 10th of June, 2001, to
1 the analytics and investigations sector of the Ministry of Internal
2 Affairs on reports received by the headquarters of operation Ramno,
3 operative action Ramno, in connection with the current situation in the
4 Republic of Macedonia, between 0700 hours and 1500 hours on 10 June, 2001.
5 Do you see that?
6 A. Yes, I see it. However, if you allow me, I will point out to the
7 problems in translation. In the Macedonian language, the word
8 "istrazuvanje" in this case should be translated as "research," and not
9 "investigation." Because this is the sector for analytics and research.
10 Q. Thank you for that clarification.
11 Can you see, in the middle of the page, we see a paragraph
12 beginning: "On 10 June " -- actually, it would be the fourth paragraph
13 from the top, beginning with SVR Kumanovo.
14 Do you see that?
15 A. Yes, I see it.
16 Q. It says: "SVR Kumanovo informed by telephone that on 10 June 2001
17 at approximately 1240 hours, three army of the Republic of Macedonia
18 soldiers ... were wounded."
19 Do you see that?
20 A. Yes, yes, I see it.
21 Q. And then it says: "Another three soldiers were wounded at 1345
22 hours in the region of Gosince."
23 Do you see that?
24 A. Yes, I see it.
25 Q. All right. And can we turn to the last page, please. In both
1 languages, hopefully. Thank you.
2 And then we see that this research, I'll use your term, has been
3 dispatched to the minister of the interior, the deputy minister, the state
4 secretary, the director of security and counter-intelligence division, the
5 director of the public safety bureau, chief of the police department,
6 chief of the criminal police department, and the headquarters of operative
7 action Ramno.
8 Do you see that?
9 A. Yes, yes, I see it.
10 MR. SAXON: Can we please show the witness what is Exhibit P468.
11 And, Your Honour, at this time because this document is contained
12 in the second binder, we will --
13 I retract what I just said, Your Honour. I'm just going to depend
14 on e-court for now.
15 Q. You see, Professor, this is a telegram from the cabinet of the
16 minister of the Ministry of Interior. Do you see that?
17 A. Yes, I see it.
18 Q. And it's dated the 11th of June, the day after the document I
19 showed you just a minute ago, and it's directed to the sector of finances
20 in Kocani and the sector for analytics and investigation. And it's signed
21 by then minister Ljube Boskoski.
22 You see that?
23 A. Yes, I see it. It is addressed to the SVR, Kocani, to the Sector for
24 Finance and Other Joint Administrative Services of the MOI. That would mean
25 to the minister and to the sector for analytics and research within the MOI.
1 Q. All right. And it says that in order to undertake security
2 measures in the territory of Macedonia in replacement of police forces, it
3 is needed that on the 12th of June, 2001, 50 policemen and
4 Mitko Sapolovski, their senior officer in charge, be transferred to the
5 military barracks in Kumanovo.
6 Do you see that?
7 A. Yes, I see it.
8 Q. And then it gives a description of how the policemen should be
9 equipped, what they should take with them, et cetera. Do you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Well, can you agree with me that this instruction is -- or this
12 telegram has been issued in response to the news from Kumanovo that was
13 sent to the minister on the day before?
14 A. I really have no basis to agree with you. It would take -- I
15 couldn't agree with your assertion.
16 Q. Well, if the minister of the interior receives information on the
17 10th of June that a number of persons have been injured in fighting on
18 that day around Kumanovo, and then on the 11th of June issues this
19 telegram to get 50 policemen, 50 more policemen in combat gear sent up to
20 Kumanovo, doesn't common sense tell you that there might be a connection
21 between the two documents?
22 A. I really have insufficient elements to establish the link between
23 the two documents, and from what is written in the first sentence of this
24 document, I see that it relates to the entire territory of Macedonia, not
25 one specific sector for internal affairs.
1 Q. Well, if you could read it a little bit more carefully, Professor,
2 in that first paragraph you will see that the minister is instructing that
3 50 policemen and their senior officer be transferred to the military
4 barracks in Kumanovo, not to anywhere in the Republic of Macedonia.
5 Do you see that?
6 A. What I see is that the purpose or the preamble, if you will,
7 reads: In order to undertake security measures in the territory of the
8 Republic of Macedonia. And the notion that they were sent to the Kumanovo
9 barracks does not mean that the security measures that need to be
10 undertaken would be undertaken in Kumanovo. That could be just the place
11 where from they will need to proceed further.
12 Q. Well, if persons -- if military -- if policemen are being sent to
13 the area of Kumanovo, do you think that's because they are needed
14 somewhere in the southern part of Macedonia?
15 A. From my experience, from when I was working with the Ministry of
16 Interior and even before the year 2000, there have been cases that such
17 type of telegrams are sent, even specifically to the SVR Kocani, where I
18 was working until 1996.
19 Q. Well, see, the problem is this telegram is being sent on the 11th
20 of June, 2001, following information received the day before about
21 casualties. Can we agree, Professor Taseva, that in June of 2001 the
22 security situation in Macedonia was very complex. Can we agree on that
24 A. I agree that the security situation in Macedonia at that time was
25 complex, but I really couldn't give any assessment of any relation or link
1 between any documents when I have insufficient elements to make such
3 Q. Even though you are a professional -- excuse me, you are a
4 professor of law and you have spent, I think it might be 19 years as an
5 analyst in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, analysing information, you're
6 unable to make the connection between these two documents. Is that your
8 A. Precisely the fact that, for many years I have been an analyst and
9 I am now a professor who works with elements of events of crimes and
10 definitions thereof, do not give me the right to be involved in any
11 assessment of anything related to this specific case.
12 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I would seek to tender what is
13 65 ter 965.8, the previous document.
14 JUDGE PARKER: It is the information of the 10th of June.
15 MR. SAXON: Yes, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
17 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P575, Your Honours.
18 MR. SAXON: Can we show the witness what is 65 ter 956.7.
19 And if we could distribute what is the Prosecution's third binder
20 with respect to this witness, then Your Honours will see a hard copy of
21 this document at tab 230.
22 Q. And if you could take a look at this document, it will be at tab
23 30 [sic] in the binder. It's tab 230. And, Professor, do we have another
24 translation problem in the English translation, the same problem that we
25 had before?
1 A. Yes. The sector is called sector for analytics and research.
2 Q. Ah, okay. And this is a document dated the 12th of June, 2001.
3 It's an information on reports received by the headquarters of operative
4 action Ramno, in connection with the current situation in the Republic of
5 Macedonia between 1500 hours on 11 June and 0700 hours on 12 June 2001.
6 Do you see that?
7 A. Yes, I see it.
8 Q. And the second paragraph refers to fighting around the
9 Gjorce Petrov police station. Do you see that?
10 A. Yes, yes.
11 Q. And is there another -- can we scroll down, please, so I can see
12 perhaps the bottom of the English version because I may be missing
13 something. Yes.
14 And it appears this is only one page. Can the court officer
15 confirm that for me, please. This is just a one-page document? No.
17 And if we could scroll down to the bottom of the second page,
18 please, you'll see, Professor, there's a paragraph starting with: "On 11
19 June 2001 ..."
20 Do you see that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. It says: "On 11 June 2001 at 2100 hours, the headquarters of SVR
23 Tetovo rang the headquarters of operative action Ramno and reported that a
24 police patrol was attacked at 2035 hours near the village of Odri by
25 terrorists with automatic weapons while returning to Tetovo from the
1 village of Vratnica."
2 And then it says: "Six reservist and active police officers were
3 injured as a result of the attack. Four of them were transferred to the
4 medical centre in Tetovo with minor injuries while the other two have not
5 been brought as yet and there are no reports regarding their injuries."
6 Have you been following me, please?
7 A. Yes, I'm follow.
8 Q. And we see, then, below that, that this information was dispatched
9 to the minister of the interior, his deputy and a number of other
10 high-ranking members of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
11 MR. SAXON: I apologise, Your Honours, I am missing one document
12 which I will find hopefully very quickly.
13 [Prosecution counsel confer]
14 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski.
15 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise for
16 interrupting my colleague Dan Saxon, but on page 43, line 4 of the
17 transcript it was recorded that in the document it was registered that
18 there have been fights in the police station Gjorce Petrov but it cannot
19 be read from the document and I think that my colleague is misleading the
20 witness with regards to this issue.
21 JUDGE PARKER: My transcript says around the police station rather
22 than in it. But even that, I think, is not an accurate statement of what
23 is in the paragraph. I think we have all read the paragraph and can see
24 what it is saying.
25 Thank you, Mr. Apostolski.
1 [Prosecution counsel confer]
2 MR. SAXON: Can we -- I apologise, Your Honour.
3 Can we pull on the screen Exhibit P468.
4 No, I apologise, this is the wrong document.
5 Can we bring on the screen, please, 65 ter number 966.12.
6 No. Okay, I will move on, Your Honours, and I will come back to
7 this point in a few minutes.
8 Q. I'd like to move to another topic, if we can, Professor Taseva.
9 And just so that I understand your evidence, you discuss in your
10 expert report around paragraph 17 the question of joint operations. Do
11 you recall that?
12 A. Yes, precisely.
13 Q. And in 2001, you never participated in any joint police or army
14 actions, did you, or operations?
15 A. No. I have not participated in any operation.
16 Q. Okay. And at paragraph 17 of your report, you say the following:
17 "In joint operations of the army and police forces, a joint commander
18 could legally be appointed, whereby members of the police forces would be
19 subordinated to the army."
20 And as authority for that proposition, you cite to a number of
21 pages of transcript of this trial. Is that right?
22 A. Yes, that's right.
23 Q. This proposition in the first sentence of paragraph 17, it's not
24 expressly stated in any law, is it?
25 A. I beg your pardon? I did not understand the question.
1 Q. What you say in the first sentence of paragraph 17, that joint
2 operations of the army and police -- that in joint operations of the army
3 and police forces, a joint commander could legally be appointed, whereby
4 members of the police forces would be subordinated to the army, that
5 principle is not expressly stated in any law, is it?
6 A. Specifically this is stated in the Law on Defence.
7 Q. Then why don't you cite to the Law on Defence as authority for
8 this proposition?
9 A. Since that was written below, further below, after paragraph 18.
10 Q. So are you saying that Article 15 of the Law on Defence -- in
11 Article 15 of the Law on Defence we will find authority for what you say
12 in the first sentence of paragraph 17?
13 A. No. I'm saying that the Law on Defence has been cited to below
14 and the Law on Defence is also included in the list of references
16 Q. Where in the Law on Defence - can you tell us please - does it say
17 that in joint operations of the army and police forces, a joint commander
18 could legally be appointed, whereby members of the police forces would be
19 subordinated to the army?
20 A. I don't have the law in front of me, so I can't give you the
21 answer right away.
22 Q. All right. I will move on.
23 You say in the second sentence of paragraph 17: "Nothing" -- and,
24 again, we're talking about joint operations.
25 "Nothing in the constitution or any other law would prevent the
1 president himself to command or direct a joint operation."
2 Do you remember that?
3 A. Yes, I see it.
4 Q. And as authority for that proposition in footnote 20, you refer to
5 the testimony of General Jovanovski saying: It is not customary practice
6 for the president to be in command of joint operations but the president
7 has the right to decide whether he personally would take command or issue
8 an order to somebody else to command.
9 When you wrote that last sentence in paragraph 17, you were
10 relying, weren't you, on a principle of legal interpretation that
11 basically says if the law does not expressly prohibit the president from
12 doing something, then he can do it. Isn't that right?
13 A. No, that is not correct.
14 Q. Well, then, can you explain why you wrote that last sentence then.
15 A. Since the constitution of the Republic of Macedonia expressly
16 states that the president of the state is the supreme commander of the
17 armed forces of the Republic of Macedonia.
18 Q. Right. However, the constitution of Macedonia doesn't expressly
19 state that the president can command or direct a joint operation, does it?
20 A. My understanding is completely the opposite: That can he command
21 and direct operations.
22 Q. Well, I guess I'm more interested in your -- your -- sort of
23 your -- the way you're thinking, the way you were thinking when you wrote
24 this sentence. Because you said, Well, nothing in the constitution or in
25 any other law would prevent the president from doing something. And
1 couldn't we also apply that reasoning to other activities carried out by
2 other Macedonian government officials; for example, if there's nothing in
3 the law that -- or the constitution that would prevent an official from
4 doing activity X, then he or she can do it. Right?
5 A. No, I do not agree, and this is not the way I understand things.
6 In this case, we have a situation where the constitution expressly states
7 that the president is the supreme commander. And both the report and my
8 statements before this Tribunal yesterday and today state or speak about
9 the positions of other office holders within the government of the
10 Republic of Macedonia and the way in which everything works pursuant to
11 the legislation and the by-laws.
12 Q. Well, I understand that, but maybe you didn't understand my
13 question, because what I said to you was I was really interested in the
14 way you were thinking when you wrote that sentence in paragraph 17.
15 Why was it important for you to note that there's nothing in the
16 constitution or laws that would prevent the president from doing
17 something; in this case, command or direct a joint operation?
18 A. Because I was asked to make an analysis of the legal system which
19 covers this topic, having in mind the practice which was presented here
20 earlier by people who testified before this Court.
21 Q. I understand that, but, again, you haven't answered my question.
22 I'll ask it one more time. Why was it important to you when you
23 were drafting this sentence to note that there's nothing in the
24 constitution or other laws that would prevent the president from doing
1 A. I felt that this is a manner which can express the position of the
2 president, the constitutional and the legal position of the president, in
3 the conditions that were the topic of my analysis.
4 Q. All right. Well, then, the same principle should apply to other
5 members of the Macedonian government, shouldn't it? You could apply this
6 manner, this manner of expressing the legal position of the president,
7 also to government ministers, couldn't you? You could say, Well, there's
8 nothing in the constitution or any other law that would prevent
9 Minister Boskoski from carrying out activity X, then he or she can do it.
11 A. No, I do not agree. Because this report contains an analysis of
12 the legal positioning of the minister in the government of the Republic of
13 Macedonia and the competencies of a minister which are precisely regulated
14 by a number of laws and by-laws.
15 Q. Absolutely. And when you sat down as an expert to write your
16 analysis, you had to make some intellectual decisions, didn't you, as to
17 how you would interpret the constitution and the laws of Macedonia, right?
18 A. I presume that the writing of any report is an intellectual
20 Q. And one can make a decision when writing an expert report to
21 interpret laws narrowly and restrictively, or one can make a decision as
22 to whether to interpret laws more broadly, right?
23 A. The decisions about how we write about something we wish to
24 explain, I presume are reached on the basis on the expectations of the
25 details we're required to present on that given topic.
1 Q. And when you wrote in paragraph 17 that: "Nothing in the
2 constitution or any other law would prevent the president himself to
3 command or direct a joint operation," you were implementing a broad
4 interpretation of the laws, weren't you? You were saying if it is not
5 expressly prohibited, then it can happen. Right?
6 A. These are your words.
7 Q. And I'm asking you to answer my question.
8 A. I believe that I did not implement a broad interpretation here
9 but, rather, a strict and specific interpretation of a legal provision.
10 Q. All right.
11 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, constitutional
13 MR. SAXON:
14 Q. I'd like to move on to a different topic, if I may.
15 I'd like to talk to you now about the tasks and obligations of the
16 Ministry of Internal Affairs. And in paragraph 28 of your report, you lay
17 out the general obligations of the ministry, and you note the 19 different
18 tasks or obligations that fall within the remit of the Ministry of
19 Interior. Is that right?
20 A. Yes, this is right.
21 MR. SAXON: Can we show the witness, please, what is
22 Exhibit P00045. This is at tab 34 of the first Prosecution binder, which
23 we can distribute now.
24 If we're missing a binder, I can provide my copy.
25 Q. And, Professor Taseva, I don't know if you've ever seen this
1 document before. It's called the White Book: Terrorists of the so-called
3 Have you seen this before?
4 A. No.
5 MR. SAXON: And, again, it's at tab 34 of your binder.
6 Q. And if we could go to what is page 9, please. That is the start
7 of the introduction.
8 MR. SAXON: And we see the first page of the introduction and if
9 we could go another page forward, please. I need to see it in the English
10 version. And one more page forward, please. And at the bottom of -- if
11 you go one page back in the Macedonian version, please.
12 And you'll see, Ms. Taseva, that at the end of the introduction,
13 we're told that: "The White Book on the terrorism of the so-called NLA
14 aims to promote the truth regarding the activities of the so-called human
15 rights and democracy fire-fighters of the so-called NLA in the Republic of
16 Macedonia. It aims to tell the true motives and objectives as well as to
17 condemn the atrocities and acts of violence and terror as not appropriate
18 for democracy for civilised societies and for universal human values."
19 Do you see that?
20 A. Yes, I see that.
21 Q. Help us understand, please, where do the laws and regulations of
22 the Ministry of Internal Affairs say that the ministry can or should use
23 government resources to publish "White Books" like this?
24 A. I don't know who published this.
25 Q. The Ministry of Internal Affairs.
1 A. The Ministry of Interior can, within the framework of its
2 activities, to publish analysis, information, publications.
3 Q. And where do we find that in the laws and regulations?
4 A. Most probably - I cannot be more specific on this occasion - in
5 the by-laws, which pertain to the unit for analytics and research, of
6 which I spoke earlier. I'm speaking at the top of my head at the moment.
7 This should be studied more in depth to see where it is.
8 Q. Can we move forward, please, to page 11. And here we see facts
9 about Macedonia; geography, et cetera.
10 Can we move forward to page 15.
11 Professor Taseva, when you said that it is with the by-laws of the
12 Ministry of Internal Affairs provide for the possibility of publishing
13 reports, that would be reports related to the activities of the Ministry
14 of Internal Affairs, right?
15 A. These are reports which pertain generally to the security
16 situation in the Republic of Macedonia, not just the activities of the
17 Ministry of Interior.
18 Q. All right. Here we have a -- we're actually in a chapter now
19 called chronology of historical events. And if we could go back one page,
20 please. No, actually, if we could move to the top of this page. I can't
21 see the top of the page. That's the top? Can we move back one page,
22 please. And one page back in the Macedonian version. Thank you.
23 You'll see there, Professor Taseva, there's a paragraph related to
24 360/59 B.C.; do you see that?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And I'm not going to read the whole paragraph but it just begins:
2 "Philip the II, the greatest man that Europe has ever given, united
3 Macedonia and enforced Macedonian dominance upon the neighbouring
5 Do you see that?
6 A. Yes, I see it.
7 Q. Where do the laws and regulations of the Ministry of Internal
8 Affairs say that the ministry should publish opinions about who was the
9 greatest man in Europe?
10 A. Where it is written that certain services of the ministry or the
11 ministry will provide information, there is no limitation in terms of the
12 time-frame for which this analysis will be given.
13 Q. Do you think this particular time-frame in this analysis will help
14 people understand the security situation in Macedonia in 2001 or 2002?
15 A. I do not know. We would have to look at the whole context and not
16 take things out of context. Perhaps yes; perhaps no.
17 Q. If that's your evidence I'll move on to another page.
18 MR. SAXON: Can we go to the top -- can we go to page 17, please.
19 Q. And at the top of this page in the English version where we see
20 Roman numeral VII, I think we need to move a bit more in the Macedonian
21 version. Now it's at the bottom of the page in Macedonian.
22 Under Roman numeral VII it says that: "The process of
23 ethnogenesis of the modern Macedonian people, by mixing of the natives and
24 the Slavs, the classical Macedonians started."
25 Do you see that?
1 A. Yes, I see it.
2 Q. Do processes of ethnogenesis fall within the remit of the Ministry
3 of Internal Affairs?
4 A. Again, I will say that I don't understand the overall context.
5 I'm looking at this White Book for the first time. And I cannot comment
6 things seen out of context.
7 Q. Well, you are testifying here today as an expert on the Ministry
8 of Internal Affairs of Macedonia. You submitted a detailed report. Can
9 you please just tell us whether, can be just yes or no, does the process
10 of ethnogenesis form part of the remit of the Ministry of Internal
11 Affairs? Or if you don't know, you can say you don't know.
12 A. If this is somehow related to ending the situation from the point
13 of view of preparing strategic analysis, perhaps it can have some
14 relevance but I really cannot say without knowing the content of the whole
15 document and the context in which it has been prepared.
16 MR. SAXON: Can we turn to page 31, please.
17 Q. Here we have a chapter entitled: Facts about national minorities
18 in the Republic of Macedonia. And we have all kinds of census results,
19 percentages, graphs.
20 Do you see that?
21 A. Yes, I see it.
22 Q. Where in the laws and the regulations of the ministry does it say
23 that the Ministry of Internal Affairs should publish information about
24 demography? Does it say that anywhere?
25 A. Information about demography are sometimes very important when
1 making decisions related to the policy of crime and strategic
3 Q. Very well. But there's nothing in the laws or regulations of the
4 Ministry of Internal Affairs that expressly says that the ministry should
5 take care about demography, is there?
6 A. For all serious security institution, and especially for the
7 Ministry of Interior the question of demographics is extremely important
8 when trying to establish security on the territory of the whole state.
9 Therefore, I believe that this information are indeed important, and as an
10 analyst I can say that not only demographic data but also other data are
11 essential in order to make an adequate security assessment.
12 Q. And where in the Law on Internal Affairs does it say that?
13 A. This is a competency of the sector for analytics and research.
14 This is why I corrected you in the translation that this is not
15 investigation, rather, research.
16 Q. And where will we find this competency in regulations or by-laws?
17 A. In the by-laws of the Ministry of Interior, in the segment
18 pertaining to the sector for analytics and research.
19 Q. It's true, isn't it, Professor Taseva, that sometimes the Ministry
20 of Internal Affairs, particularly in that complicated time-period of 2001,
21 undertook activities that are not expressly provided for in the laws and
22 regulations. Isn't that true?
23 A. This type of information definitely falls within the remit of the
24 ministry, of the work of the Ministry of Interior.
25 Q. Professor Taseva, information about who was the greatest man in
2 A. The whole context of the content is important. Not just one
3 single sentence.
4 Q. Let me just ask you one more time. Sometime in 2001, the Ministry
5 of Internal Affairs undertook activities that were not expressly provided
6 for in the Law on Internal Affairs, or other laws. Isn't that right?
7 A. This is the competency of the Ministry of Interior and the
8 services for analytics and research and I don't think that they fall out
9 of the scope of what the law provides.
10 Q. Professor, that's not what I asked you. I want you to answer the
11 question that I asked you. Do you want me to repeat it again?
12 A. My understanding is that these matters are incorporated in the
13 laws and by-laws of the Republic of Macedonia and the Ministry of
15 Q. Well, my understanding is that you're not answering my question.
16 MR. SAXON: But, Your Honours, I see the time. Shall we take the
18 JUDGE PARKER: We'll resume just after 6.00, Mr. Saxon.
19 --- Recess taken at 5.31 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 6.02 p.m.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Saxon.
22 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honours.
23 If we could briefly could go back to 65 ter Exhibit 956.8, please.
24 This is the report on operative action Ramno from the 10th of June, 2001.
25 If that could be brought up on the screen. And if we could go to the
1 second page, please.
2 Q. You recall I showed you this report earlier this afternoon,
3 Professor Taseva.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And if we can -- this is dated the 10th of June, 2001.
6 MR. SAXON: If we could go to the second page in the English
7 version, please.
8 And this is 65 ter 956.7? Can we try 65 ter 956.8, please. I
9 think -- yes, this is the report that we saw earlier from the 12th of
10 June, from operative action Ramno. And it's reporting about events on the
11 11th of June.
12 And if we could turn to the last page, please.
13 Q. And we see, again, Professor Taseva, that at the end of this
14 report we see that the police patrol near Tetovo was attacked on the 11th
15 of June. Do you see that?
16 A. Yes, this is what is written here.
17 Q. And we see that six reserve and active police officers were
18 injured as a result of the attack. And then this -- this information was
19 dispatched to a number of persons at high levels of the ministry,
20 including the minister. Do you see that?
21 A. Yes. Yes, I see it.
22 Q. Do you think this would be an example of reporting information up
23 a chain of command?
24 A. No. This is an information produced by the sector of analytics
25 and research within the Ministry of the Interior, and it is the type of
1 information that is produced regularly by the analytics department, and it
2 serves to inform the senior structures in the ministry on the security
3 situation in the state.
4 Q. And you don't see this as an example of reporting up a --
5 subordinates reporting up a chain of command to their superiors. You
6 don't -- you don't see that?
7 A. No. Since here, in this case, the information comes from the
8 sector for analytics within the ministry, and that sector gathers
9 information from all the other sectors in the Republic of Macedonia and
10 from the OVRs. So this is a summary information and not some report.
11 Q. And this summary of information was sent up, for example, to the
12 minister, right, and to the directors of the UBK, DBK and the director of
13 public safety bureau, right? Can you just say yes or no?
14 A. Yes, but I need --
15 Q. Why do you suppose that was? Why do you suppose they sent this
17 A. Since even if you go to the Ministry of the Interior today, will
18 you see that such information, notes are sent to all the aforementioned
19 structures within the ministry on a daily basis because this is the
20 customary procedure to inform about the current security situation within
21 the Republic of Macedonia.
22 So it doesn't have to be the year 2001 or 2008, this is done on a
23 daily basis.
24 Q. Okay. Let me just use your framework just so that we understand.
25 So on a daily basis, information gathered by the ministry, by the
1 analytical sector, is sent to the highest officials of the Ministry of
2 Internal Affairs, right?
3 A. Yes. Since those are security-related situations or crime-related
4 situations within the territory of the Republic of Macedonia and this is
5 part of the regular daily information sharing.
6 Q. And help us understand, please, why does the minister and his
7 closest colleagues, why do they need to receive this information on a
8 daily basis? Why is that important?
9 A. This type of information that they would receive and that they do
10 receive on a daily basis are important as a basis for decision making,
11 decisions related to the operation of the Ministry of the Interior.
12 Q. All right.
13 MR. SAXON: Can we please show the witness what is Exhibit P00469.
14 Your Honours, it at tab 129, which is in binder 2 from the Prosecution.
15 Q. So we showed you just a moment ago this information related to six
16 police officers who were injured near Tetovo. And here we have a telegram
17 sent on the next day, on the 13th of June, 2001, to the sector of internal
18 affairs, Bitola, sector of finances and other common matters and the
19 sector for analytics and investigation. It's signed by the minister,
20 Ljube Boskoski. Do you see that?
21 A. Yes, I see it.
22 Q. And this telegram instructs that 20 policemen and their senior
23 officers be transferred to the premises of the territorial fighting unit
24 in Tetovo by the very next day.
25 Do you see that?
1 A. I apologise, but I need to indicate once again that there is a
2 problem about the translation. It is written here territorial fire
3 brigade in the Macedonian text.
4 Q. Thank you for that clarification. But can --
5 A. And there is a big difference between fighting and fire-fighting.
6 Q. Well --
7 A. I apologise, I haven't read it properly. I apologise.
8 Q. Let's see if we can agree just on this point, though, Professor.
9 That first paragraph says: Sent 20 more policemen and their senior
10 officers up to Tetovo, doesn't it?
11 A. This is what is written, yes.
12 Q. Do you think that when the minister sent this telegram on the 13th
13 of June he did it in response to the information that he received on the
14 12th of June, about the six injured police officers at Tetovo?
15 A. I suppose that this is the duty of the senior officers in the
16 Ministry of the Interior and of the minister to make the assessment when
17 they need to reinforce certain services if the security situation is at
19 Q. I take your response, then, as a yes?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So if you read these two documents together, wouldn't that be an
22 example of reporting up a chain of command and then issuing an order in
23 response down the chain of command?
24 A. No, I couldn't agree here with you.
25 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, at this time I would seek to tender
1 65 ter 956.8, the report -- the information from the 12th of June, 2001.
2 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
3 THE REGISTRAR: I assume the counsel meant 65 ter 956.7.
4 MR. SAXON: If that was the prior document that was shown.
5 THE REGISTRAR: It will be received as Exhibit P576.
6 MR. SAXON: Actually, I'm grateful for the assistance of the court
7 officer, but the last -- the prior document my case manager informs me was
9 THE REGISTRAR: According to the record, 956.8 is already admitted
10 as Exhibit P575.
11 MR. SAXON: Just so that the record becomes clear, can we please
12 call up 956.8.
13 And this is simply a one-page document.
14 JUDGE PARKER: That is the document of the 10th of June.
15 MR. SAXON: Right.
16 JUDGE PARKER: And you're referring, I believe, to the document of
17 the 12th of June.
18 MR. SAXON: Yes, Your Honour. Then I believe the court officer is
19 correct; it would be 956.7. But if we could just see that, just to make
21 If we can go to the last page, please.
22 JUDGE PARKER: That's the first page of the document.
23 MR. SAXON: Correct, Your Honour.
24 Yes. So I would submit then 956.7. I apologise for my error.
25 May I continue?
1 JUDGE PARKER: Exhibit P576?
2 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, correct, Your Honour.
3 MR. SAXON:
4 Q. I'd like to turn to a different topic, Professor Taseva. And I'd
5 like to go back to your report for a moment, which is Exhibit 1D309, I
6 believe, and I'd like to focus for a moment on paragraph 45, under the
7 subtitle reservists and volunteers.
8 And the first two sentences of paragraph 45 say this: "In
9 addition to the employees of the ministry, the composition of the police
10 forces may also include reservists. Formally, all reservists of the armed
11 forces, those active in the army and those active in the Ministry of
12 Interior, are engaged by and through the Ministry of Defence."
13 And just so that I understand you, in the beginning of that second
14 sentence, do you use the term "formally" to indicate that you're speaking
15 in the de jure sense?
16 A. [In English] Yes.
17 Q. Okay. Well, during 2001, in practice, didn't the engagement of
18 reservists work a bit less formally?
19 A. [Interpretation] I don't think so.
20 Q. Well, see, at that time, during the crisis time in 2001, the
21 Ministry of Internal Affairs had a hard time mobilising sufficient numbers
22 of reserve police officers. Isn't that right?
23 A. As far as I know, yes. But this does not mean that when
24 mobilising the procedures do not need to be respected.
25 Q. All right. But didn't the pressures of those times, Professor,
1 result in individuals deployed as reserve police officers even before all
2 the formal conditions of the laws and regulations for reservists had been
4 A. In such cases as well, the procedure was respected.
5 Q. And are you speaking about all cases, Professor?
6 A. I can't speak of all cases, since I'm not aware of specific cases.
7 I'm aware of the overall situation and the position pursuant to the law
8 and regulations on how to act in cases when members of the reserve forces
9 are deployed, and I can only add that these provisions are strictly
10 respected within all activities of this nature in the Republic of
12 Q. Well, let's talk about the overall situation in 2001,
13 Professor Taseva. The overall situation was pretty tense and very
14 difficult for the Ministry of Internal Affairs, wasn't it?
15 A. Yes. It was tense and difficult for the Ministry of the Interior,
16 but for all people in the Republic of Macedonia as well.
17 Q. And in such difficult circumstances, wouldn't you allow for the
18 possibility that some reservists might have been deployed without the
19 complete fulfilment of all of the conditions laid out in the laws and
21 A. I don't think this could have happened.
22 Q. Why not?
23 A. Since my experience and my knowledge of this matter speaks that
24 the rules are respected here as expressly stated and very strictly.
25 Q. Well, in a very stressful time or in an emergency situation,
1 Professor, have you ever bent a rule a little bit?
2 A. I beg your pardon? I did not understand your question.
3 Q. In a very stressful situation, when you're very tired, in an
4 emergency, have you ever done something that isn't 100 percent in
5 compliance with all the rules?
6 A. I can't answer such a question.
7 Q. I'm asking you to answer, Professor. It's my job to ask questions
8 and it's your job to answer.
9 A. I apologise, but I don't find the question sufficiently clear so
10 that I am able to answer it.
11 Q. Well, I'll ask it again. In very stressful situations, in
12 situations where you're very tired, you have too much to do, have you ever
13 not completely complied with all of the rules and regulations that relate
14 to the work that you've done?
15 A. There is a definition for this type of conduct in the criminal
16 law. It is also grounds -- grounds for exception. I can't know what the
17 question pertains to. If you're asking me about me personally?
18 Q. Yes, I'm asking about you personally.
19 A. I apologise. I really can't answer such abstract question.
20 Q. Well, just for the record, doesn't appear to be me to be terribly
21 abstract, but I will move on.
22 At paragraph 49 of your report you mention that reservists can be
23 demobilised. And, of course, that would -- that would occur pursuant to
24 the law, right?
25 A. Of course, laws and by-laws.
1 Q. Right. And then you say this: "Also, it has been the case during
2 the crisis that reservists would return their weapons and equipment and,
3 effectively, be taken out of the reserve. Either way, this would put an
4 end to their relationship with the ministry."
5 You don't cite any authority there. Where is -- where is that
6 practice described in the law?
7 A. This is something that is explained in the by-laws pertaining to
8 the deployment of the reserve forces.
9 Q. And why didn't you then cite to the by-laws in your report as
10 authority for this proposition?
11 A. Because in this specific case, the by-law is not cited to. I'm
12 speaking on the basis of my personal experience.
13 Q. And can you tell us which by-laws refer to this case during the
14 crisis when reservists returned their weapons and equipment and were then
15 taken out of the reserve?
16 A. This is by-law dealing with such situations in general, not just
17 the situation during crisis.
18 Q. What does that by-law say?
19 A. I can't speak off the top of my head.
20 Q. Well, see, the problem is, you just told us that -- that there's a
21 by-law that supports what you say here in this paragraph, so it would be
22 very helpful to know where we can find that by-law or what number by-law
23 it is. Can you help us at all with that?
24 A. Not at this moment.
25 Q. All right. Isn't it true, Professor, that in 2001 during the
1 crisis, given the need that you described during your direct examination
2 for efficiency and effectiveness at that difficult time, more informal
3 methods of mobilising and demobilising reservists might have occurred?
4 A. I would exclude all possibility for informal procedures in these
6 Q. Why is that?
7 A. Because, in my personal experience, working in the Ministry of
8 Interior, I know how the -- these procedures are positioned and how they
10 Q. You were not working in the Ministry of Internal Affairs during
11 2001, though, were you?
12 A. This is correct. I wasn't working there at that time.
13 Q. So during that most difficult time, most complicated time, why do
14 you say you would exclude all possibility for informal procedures in these
16 A. Because these type of activities are very strictly regulated and
17 based on rules which are very strictly respected.
18 Q. These rules that you haven't cited to in paragraph 49?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. I'd like to turn to a different topic, if I may.
21 If we can turn, please, to paragraph 54 of your report,
22 Professor Taseva. And this is in the chapter where you discuss the
23 concept of authorised officials. And in paragraph 54, the first sentence
24 says: "It must be made clear that the role and responsibility of
25 'authorised officials' is further specified in the law and regulations
1 applicable to each category of 'authorised officials,' i.e. the position
2 which he or she holds in the structure."
3 Do you see that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And then in footnote 45 you cite to Articles 1 and 2 of what is
6 Exhibit P0094.
7 MR. SAXON: And if we can show that to the witness. This is the
8 guidance for procedure to issue official weapons and special communication
9 equipment to authorised official personnel of the Ministry of Interior.
10 You would find this, Your Honour, in the first Prosecution binder
11 at tab 52, I hope.
12 Q. And you see this document, Professor?
13 A. Yes, I see the title of it.
14 MR. SAXON: And, Your Honours, if that document is not at the tab
15 that I told you about -- it is? Thank you.
16 And if we could turn to the next page, please.
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. SAXON:
19 Q. And we see that this guidance was issued on the 7th of April,
20 1998, for the procedure to issue official weapons and special
21 communication equipment. And, first of all, if we can focus on Article 2,
22 please, towards the bottom of the page.
23 Part 2 is issuing official weapons and then we see Article 2. And
24 it says: "The authorised officials of the police (service), criminal
25 police, directorate for security and counter-intelligence within the
1 ministry and other employees of the ministry who conduct duties and tasks
2 with special responsibilities and authorisations, are personally being
3 issued with official weapons based on a decision brought by the minister
4 of the interior, or after the minister authorises an employee who is
5 managing within the division of finance and other joint matters."
6 Let's stop there for a moment. Can we agree that the first
7 paragraph in Article 2, Professor, it's actually written quite broadly,
8 isn't it, and it indicates that a very large range or category, or
9 different categories, of authorised officials are authorised to receive
10 fire-arms from the ministry, right?
11 A. I would not agree. I believe that this provision is very precise
12 because it lists precisely the authorised officials in the police, in the
13 criminal police, in the directorate for security and counter-intelligence,
14 and other employees of the ministry who have authorisation.
15 Q. Well, in 2001, there were about 9.000 employees of the Ministry of
16 Internal Affairs, right?
17 A. Probably your figures are correct. I cannot know for sure.
18 Q. Although I understand that not all employees are authorised
19 officials and I accept that.
20 But the persons, the categories of authorised officials mentioned
21 in that first paragraph, that would include, perhaps, thousands of people,
22 wouldn't it, if not at least hundreds of people, wouldn't it?
23 A. Of course, all employees in the ministry who are authorised
25 Q. All right. Now this particular guidance, the beginning of Article
1 2, it says that: "Authorised officials will be issued an official weapon
2 based on a decision brought by the minister ..."
3 This particular power of the minister to determine who will get an
4 official weapon, that's not expressed in the Law on Internal Affairs, is
6 A. In the Ministry of Interior, in this by-law, establishes that
7 authorised officials in the Ministry of Interior are authorised to carry
8 weapons. Therefore, all those who fall under the category of authorised
9 officials are authorised to carry fire-arms.
10 Q. Thank you for that. I understand that, but it wasn't the question
11 that I asked you.
12 My question was: Nothing in the Law on Internal Affairs expressly
13 says that the minister will make decisions on who will be issued with an
14 official fire-arm. Correct?
15 A. The law states the definition of authorised officials. The
16 by-law, further, regulates who and what are the authorisations and with
17 this one in particular, guidance about the procedure for issuing official
18 weapons, this matter, then, is regulated with the by-laws.
19 Q. Professor Taseva, with all due respect, I think you're evading my
20 question. I'm going to ask it once more.
21 There's nothing in the Law on Internal Affairs that expressly says
22 that the minister will make decisions on who will be issued with an
23 official fire-arm, right?
24 A. The law explicitly does not say this. This is regulated with the
1 Q. So not all of the powers and authorisations of the minister of
2 internal affairs are expressly stated in the Law on Internal Affairs,
4 A. In the legal system of the Republic of Macedonia, the laws do not
5 contain all matters; rather, their implementation is made operational or
6 facilitated through the by-laws. Thus, each concrete law has a large
7 number of associated by-laws.
8 MR. SAXON: Can we turn to Article 6, please, which would be
9 probably the next page.
10 Q. If you -- and could we scroll up to the top of this page, please.
11 We see that there's a subsection 2, and titled cellular phones and
12 pagers. And then we see Article 6. It says this: "The authorised
13 officials of the ministry have the right to use official cellular phones
14 and pagers based on a decision brought by the minister or under-secretary
15 of the minister and the head of the directorate for security and
16 counter-intelligence authorised by the minister."
17 Do you see that?
18 A. Yes, I see it.
19 Q. Where does the Law on Internal Affairs, Professor, say that the
20 minister has the right to authorise issuance of cellular phones?
21 A. The law does not say this explicitly. However, evidently with the
22 development of technology and the needs of the Ministry of Interior, have
23 brought about the need and upgrading in this manual which we're now
24 looking at.
25 Q. Professor, if the powers of the minister extend to mundane things
1 like issuing cellular phones to employees, to authorised officials,
2 wouldn't it be logical that the minister would also have the power to
3 issue orders on more important matters?
4 A. This is not a matter of orders. This is enabling the use of
5 certain equipment. If we go back 12 years in time when this manual was
6 adopted, this equipment was indeed very rare and very expensive. At that
7 time there was probably a need in the ministry to regulate this issue in
8 this manner.
9 Q. Well, Professor, I'll rephrase my question a little bit.
10 If the powers of the minister extend to mundane issues like
11 issuing cellular phones to employees -- to authorised officials, wouldn't
12 it be logical that the minister would also have the power to decide about
13 more important matters.
14 A. Everything which the Law on Internal Affairs and other laws say
15 it's the competency within the ministry and of the minister in particular
16 falls within the realm of issues on which the minister can decide upon.
17 Q. All right. You said a moment ago that matters are not expressly
18 addressed in the Law on Internal Affairs would be covered by the by-laws
19 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, right?
20 A. Where it is not listed in the law that -- where it is stated that
21 by-laws have to be adopted, then these by-laws have to be indeed passed so
22 that the law can be applied.
23 Q. All right.
24 MR. SAXON: Can we turn to the last page of this document, please,
25 so we can see the end.
1 Q. You'll see, Professor, this guidance or by-law, if you prefer to
2 call it a by-law, it was signed by the then minister of the interior
3 Tomislav Cokrevski. Help us understand your evidence, please. We have a
4 matter that's not expressly addressed in the Law on Internal Affairs but
5 the minister of the interior can issue by-laws that give him the authority
6 to deal with that matter. Is that right?
7 A. The Law on Internal Affairs states that by-laws will be passed as
8 so the manual for conducting the work in areas pertaining to internal
9 matters that list all authorisations which employees in the Ministry of
10 Interior have and use.
11 One of the authorisations is to use fire-arms. In order for
12 fire-arms to be used, there must be a procedure within which such weapons
13 will be issued to the employees in the ministry, and all of this falls
14 within the frame of the laws, the by-laws, and other acts which regulate
15 this topic, which is legal matter related to the work of the Ministry of
17 Q. Well, thank you for that, but I don't think you answered my
19 My question was something different. Isn't it true that, if
20 something is not expressly addressed in the laws or the Law on Internal
21 Affairs, the minister himself, and that may be related to powers of the
22 minister or decisions as to what the minister should decide upon, for
23 example, who should receive an official fire-arm. It may be that
24 ministers themselves will issue by-laws or guidances that provide the
25 powers or authorities that they want. Isn't that right?
1 A. No, this is not right.
2 Q. Well, except that here we have a minister of the interior who's
3 issued a by-law. It's not covered in any laws. So I'm just wondering how
4 this happens, where this authority comes from.
5 A. I have attempted earlier to explain where this authority comes
6 from. The law contains the term "authorised official," and enumerates the
7 categories of authorised officials.
8 Q. The law doesn't say anything about who can receive a fire-arm,
9 does it?
10 A. This is correct. This is elaborated in the manual for carrying
11 out the work of internal matters. There, all authorisations are
12 explained, authorisations which an authorised official can have.
13 Q. And, again, that manual for carrying out the work of internal
14 matters, that would be approved by the minister, wouldn't it?
15 A. This is adopted by the minister of the interior.
16 Q. All right.
17 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I'm about to start a different topic.
18 I'm willing to commence it, if you prefer or ...
19 JUDGE PARKER: I suspect that we may proceed more quickly in the
20 long run if we break now, rather than press on for the few remaining
22 That, though, brings me to the question, Mr. Saxon, of your
23 expected time in cross-examination. Are you able to give an indication?
24 MR. SAXON: I was afraid that that question was coming.
25 Your Honour, I believe I need at least two more sessions. I might
1 need more; it's difficult to say right now.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Is it that you expect to finish your
3 cross-examination tomorrow or is that merely your hope? This isn't a
4 cross-examination, Mr. Saxon.
5 MR. SAXON: I understand. It is my hope, Your Honour, to finish
6 tomorrow, and I will do everything that I can to finish tomorrow. I might
7 finish before the end of the day tomorrow. I have to review a lot this
8 evening and early tomorrow morning.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE PARKER: In light of Mr. Saxon's indication, Ms. Residovic,
12 you will know whether you need any time in re-examination or not. The
13 Chamber would indicate that if it is the case that the professor has not
14 concluded her evidence tomorrow, that her evidence may be interrupted to
15 allow her to attend to another matter on, we believe, Monday and Tuesday.
16 We give that indication now so that she can make plans and so that you can
17 make plans to have other witnesses available.
18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if my learned
19 colleague finishes tomorrow within two sessions, so if the third session
20 remains, I will certainly be able to finish the re-direct within that
21 third session.
22 I would prefer if the witness finishes tomorrow. Then, perhaps,
23 Your Honour, proposal would be to have one session in the afternoon, if
24 that is possible. If not, then in my -- in the previous discussions and
25 also in our address to the Chamber, we provided for the possibility that
1 you mentioned also, that the witness could return and we continue on
2 Thursday and we other witnesses for Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Ms. Residovic. I'm sure that all of us,
4 especially the -- the professor, would hope that matters may conclude
5 tomorrow, but you will appreciate, as we do, that Mr. Saxon would be very
6 hard pressed, I know he is accepting the burden of trying to achieve it
7 but he would be very hard pressed to conclude his cross-examination in two
8 sessions tomorrow. So we just live in hope that that can be accomplished.
9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 JUDGE PARKER: We will adjourn now. We resume tomorrow morning at
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.57 p.m.,
13 to be reconvened on Friday, the 22nd day of
14 February, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.