1 Thursday, 28 February 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 8.59 a.m.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon, you have a matter to raise.
6 MR. SAXON: Yes, Your Honour.
7 Very briefly. Yesterday, or last evening I should say,
8 Ms. Residovic notified the Prosecution that Witness Popovski, who will be
9 the witness after the next witness, had arrived in The Hague bringing
10 several documents, which the Defence saw for the first time yesterday
11 afternoon, and these documents may be used during the direct examination
12 of the witness, we understand, or they may not be.
13 Nevertheless, they were provided to the Prosecution last evening,
14 However, of course, only in the Macedonian language in Cyrillic script.
15 So, obviously, the Prosecution has not been able to review this new
16 information with any great care.
17 Having said that, Your Honour, we would like to propose that we go
18 forward with our cross-examination today. We will do our very best to
19 complete both cross-examinations. If it appears that there is some matter
20 arising from one or more of these documents that would require some
21 additional study or questioning, we might request that the witness
22 Popovski be held over until Monday. But, like I said, we hope that will
23 not happen.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Very well.
25 We call the first of the two witnesses.
1 Did you need to say something, Ms. Residovic?
2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just to confirm that
3 everything which my learned colleague, Mr. Saxon, has said is correct.
4 Yesterday, we received the materials. We handed it over to the
5 Prosecution. We believe there are no substantial changes, but the witness
6 established one mistake vis-a-vis his statement and this is why he brought
7 in the material which confirms his final findings.
8 The Defence believes that if the Prosecution deems it necessary,
9 it needs more time for the cross-examination, that we will not object.
10 And if the Trial Chamber holds its session on Friday, then this can be
11 done on Friday; and then if not, then by Monday we can finish with the two
12 witnesses. And as we promised, we would have finished by then with the
13 presentation of all the statements of all our witnesses.
14 [The witness entered court]
15 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning, sir.
16 Would you please read aloud the affirmation on the card that is
17 given to you.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
19 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
20 WITNESS: KRISTO ZDRAVKOVSKI
21 [Witness answered through interpreter]
22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much. Please sit down.
23 Is there any matter beyond the tendering of the statement you need
24 to raise with the witness, Ms. Residovic.
25 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Please proceed.
2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I would ask that the set of
3 documents be distributed at this time, in view of the fact that these
4 questions will be related to the statement given in this 92 bis statement.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE PARKER: Can it be clear, Ms. Residovic, that the Chamber
7 does not expect that you will examine this witness in chief because of the
8 statement of evidence. If there is some change from the statement, that
9 can be dealt with shortly; otherwise, do not proceed with an examination
10 of the witness.
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is quite clear
12 to me, and I will ask questions of the witness only about the documents
13 related to the statements which Defence wants, as the Chamber suggested,
14 and wishes to tender into evidence in regards to the statement which the
15 witness has made.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
17 Examination by Ms. Residovic:
18 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Zdravkovski. Can you please
19 tell us your full name and date and place of birth?
20 JUDGE PARKER: You no need to -- that is all proved by the
21 witness, you see. The statement will be the evidence.
22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
23 If I followed, well, the 92 bis rule well, I would then ask -- I
24 would ask that 65 ter document 1D124 [as interpreted] be shown to the
25 witness. It is after tab 1; 65 ter 1D1248, after tab 1.
1 Q. Mr. Zdravkovski, have you ever been requested to give a statement
2 by the Defence of Mr. Boskoski?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Tell me, in the ensuing period, was your statement verified by the
5 officials of the Tribunal?
6 A. Yes, in January of this year.
7 Q. Would you please look at page 1D9953; English 1D9955.
8 Mr. Zdravkovski, is this the statement which you gave to the
9 Defence, later verified by the court officials?
10 A. Yes. This is the statement.
11 Q. Please look at the other page of your statement, which in the
12 Macedonian is 1D9954. Is this your signature, Mr. Zdravkovski?
13 A. Yes. This is my signature.
14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we seek to tender
15 this exhibit into evidence.
16 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] It is -- it has already been noted
18 as 1D -- D125 MFI; and as we suggest, since this was a statement used
19 during cross-examination, that this 65 ter statement be placed under
20 number D125, so as to avoid confusion during the overview of the
22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. The statement marked for identification
23 will now become an exhibit with the same number, and the formally
24 witnessed and signed copy will be used to replace the copy used for the
25 original marked for identification exhibit.
1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit 1D125, Your Honours.
3 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Mr. Zdravkovski, after having given the statement, did the Defence
5 ask of you to submit certain documents?
6 A. Yes. I received a call from someone from the Ministry of
7 Interior - I think it was the state secretary - who asked of me to submit
8 copies of the criminal report because this was requested by the Defence.
9 Q. I would now ask you to look at document after tab 3 in your
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This is Exhibit 1D188, MFI.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm looking at it.
13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Page number in the English
14 version, 1D5348; and in the Macedonian, 1D5344.
15 Q. Do you know, Mr. Zdravkovski, what this document is?
16 A. This document is communication from the MOI to the Defence that
17 contains the number of criminal reports, the numbers under which they're
18 registered and submitted to the public prosecutor's office in Bitola, and
19 a list of persons, their names, first names and last names, persons
20 against which such criminal reports were filed regarding the events in
21 Bitola in 2001.
22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in view of the fact
23 that the witness recognised the content of this document, I seek to tender
24 this document into evidence.
25 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
1 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D188, Your Honours.
2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. I would now ask you, Mr. Zdravkovski, to look at document after
4 tab 5.
5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This is 65 ter 1D1211.1.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see it.
7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Do you know who Branko Ristevski is?
9 A. He is the head the SVR Bitola at the moment, and he came to
10 position after -- after me. He followed me in this position.
11 Q. Now, please look at the look after tab 6.
12 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This is 65 ter 1D1211.2.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see it.
14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] The page is 1D9693.
15 Q. Do you see this document after tab 6?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Please look at the first page of this document.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Here, it states: "Republic of Macedonia, Ministry of Interior,
20 Bitola, sector of the interior, department for criminal police, section
21 for general criminality?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. There is the number and the date of 14 June 2001, Bitola.
24 Mr. Zdravkovski, do you know what this document is?
25 A. This is a copy of the criminal report of the 14th of June, 2001
1 filed by SVR Bitola to the public prosecutor's office in Bitola against 44
2 people in total, perpetrators of criminal deeds committed on the 30th of
3 April, 2001-1st of May, 2001.
4 Q. Thank you. Mr. Zdravkovski, even though we did warn you of the
5 fact that you would have to wait for interpretation, this implies waiting
6 for the interpretation for my questions. You really should speak freely
7 and not make such pauses because your answers will be automatically
9 Therefore, if I understood you well, this is a criminal report
10 which the sector which you headed filed against 44 persons regarding the
11 event at the beginning of May; that is to say, on the 30th of April and
12 the 1st of May, 2001. Is this correct?
13 A. Yes. And I think there is also an event on the 1st -- on the
14 night of 1st and 2nd of May.
15 Q. Now, please look at the document at tab 7.
16 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This is 65 ter 1D1211.3.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see it.
18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Can you tell us what this document is?
20 A. This is a criminal report filed on the 19th of December, 2001 by
21 SVR Bitola to the public prosecutor's office in Bitola against
22 perpetrators of criminal acts relating to the events of 6th of June to the
23 7th of June, 2001. I believe there is also an event which moves or which
24 is dated of the 7th to the 8th. All in all, 58 persons.
25 Q. Mr. Zdravkovski, at the moment when these criminal reports were
1 filed, what was your position at the sector of the interior in Bitola?
2 A. I was the head of SVR Bitola.
3 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since the witness
4 recognised this document, I seek to tender documents 1D1211.1, 1211.2, and
5 65 ter 1D1211.3.
6 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
7 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 1211.1 will become Exhibit 1D318; 65 ter
8 1D1211.2 will become Exhibit 1D319; and 65 ter 1D1211.3 will become
9 Exhibit 1D320, Your Honours.
10 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Mr. Zdravkovski, please look at document after tab 8.
12 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This is 65 ter 1D1239.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see it.
14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. After having given the statement to the Defence which we've seen,
16 were you asked to give any kind of information as to what happened to the
17 criminal report?
18 A. Yes. I was asked by a representative from the MOI Skopje, I
19 believe it was also the state secretary or one of his associates,
20 regarding the further course of the criminal report in the judicial
22 Q. Did you give this answer? Did you find out what happened to your
23 criminal reports?
24 A. In order to check this, I established contacts with the basic
25 public prosecutor in Bitola; and from him, I received the statement
1 from -- rescinding from Prosecution.
2 Q. You just mentioned that we are looking -- this is the statement
3 you received. This is 65 ter 1D1239 from the March 15th. Is this the
4 statement you were mentioning?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Please look at the document after tab 9.
7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This is 65 ter 1D1240.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see it.
9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This is page 1D1922 in e-court.
10 Q. Can you tell us, do you recognise this document and what is this
12 A. I recognise this document. This is the other statement on
13 exemption on Prosecution regarding the second criminal report. The
14 previous statement was regarding the first criminal report we looked, and
15 this is a statement on exemption from the other criminal report.
16 Q. Do you know why the public prosecutor did not the proceed with the
17 prosecution with these persons?
18 A. Am I allowed to make one comment, please?
19 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I can see here, the second
21 statement, the statement I'm looking at right now, pertains for the first
22 criminal report. This is something I can see according to the dates,
23 while the previous one pertains to the second criminal report which was
24 filed later. My comment relates only to the order of these documents;
25 otherwise, both these documents are authentic.
1 This pertains to the exemption from prosecution by the prosecutor
2 in Bitola and was sent to the Basic Court in Bitola to the investigating
3 judge, since the procedure at that moment was in the investigation phase.
4 Q. Can you tell me why the prosecutor did not prosecute this case?
5 A. According to what is said in the statement, and also according
6 what the prosecutor told us in our conversation, the reason for the waiver
7 from this prosecutor is the enforcement of the Law on Amnesty.
8 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I seek to tender 65 ter 1D139 and
9 1D140 as evidence.
10 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
11 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 1D1239 will become Exhibit 1D321, and
12 65 ter 1D1240 will become Exhibit 1D322, Your Honours.
13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. Zdravkovski, do you know what the investigating judge did
15 after the prosecutor waived prosecution?
16 A. With regards to the same thing, I received this response from the
17 prosecutor and a copy of the court document. The investigating court in
18 Bitola, with regards to the first statement of the prosecutor, with
19 regards to the first criminal report, and with regards to the second
20 document act on waiving prosecution, with regards to the second criminal
21 report, against a total of, I believe, 102 individuals, has passed
23 So there were two separate decisions on terminating the
24 investigation, on terminating the investigation procedure, that is,
25 because of the reason that we mentioned already: The entry into force of
1 the Law on Amnesty. And as I can see here, this took place on the 18th of
2 March, 2002.
3 Q. Would you please look at the document after 10.
4 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] That is 65 ter 1D1241.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see it.
6 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] 1D22 -- 9924 in Macedonian
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Let's just wait until it shows on
10 the screen.
11 Q. Is this the decision that you testified about before this Chamber?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Would you look now at the document in tab 11.
14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] That is 65 ter 1D1242.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I see it.
16 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Let's wait until it is displayed.
17 That is 1D9926. That is the Macedonian page.
18 Q. Do you recognise this document?
19 A. I do. This is the second decision of the Basic Court in Bitola of
20 the investigating judge terminating the investigation procedure in
21 relation to the second criminal report that deals with the events of June
22 2001, also because of the same reason, because of the entry into force of
23 the Law on Amnesty. And as far as can I see, it was passed on the same
24 date, this decision, on the 18th of March, 2002.
25 Q. Tell me, please, Mr. Zdravkovski, having in mind the Law on
1 Amnesty, in which stage are the decisions made and who makes the decision
2 on terminating the procedures or on the course and outcome of procedure
4 A. The decision on terminating the procedure pursuant to the Law on
5 Amnesty could be passed in various stages of the procedure, depending on
6 the stage that the procedure has reached. If it is a criminal report that
7 has already been filed by the SVR and the case is in the hands of the
8 public prosecutor, the prosecutor can terminate the procedure in that
9 stage and invoke the Law on Amnesty.
10 If the procedure is before the investigating judge, then the judge
11 can terminate the investigation by passing a decision again invoking the
12 Law on Amnesty, as it has been done in this case, also if, of course, upon
13 a motion by the public prosecutor. But if the public prosecutor does not
14 waive the prosecution, does not make such statement, then the criminal
15 procedure has started before the court, then the court can bring the
16 verdict, rejecting this.
17 Q. Thank you. Would you now look at the document in tab 12.
18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] That is 65 ter 1D1305.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see it.
20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] That is 1D0303. That is the
21 Macedonian page, while 1D0352 is the page in English.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see it.
23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Tell me, considering that we're speaking here about the decision
25 of the appellate court in Skopje, is it possible to terminate the
1 procedure also in the appeals procedure stage?
2 A. Yes. I said this could be done in all stages of the procedure,
3 depending on the stage that the procedure has reached. As far as can I
4 see, this is case before the appellate court in Skopje. That is the
5 second instances in Republic of Macedonia. In this stage, the procedure
6 was terminated by a decision. So it can be done in any stage of the
7 procedure, also in the second instance procedure because the Law on
8 Amnesty applies to any stage of the procedure might have reached.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I finally seek to
11 tender, as Defence exhibits, the 65 ter document 1D1241, then 65 ter
12 1D1242; and then 65 ter 1D1305 is added to the 65 ter list of Defence
13 exhibits and that it is received into evidence.
14 And I have just one more question of this witness.
15 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, assigned numbers are Exhibit 1D323,
17 Exhibit 1D324, and Exhibit 1D325, respectfully.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
19 Ms. Residovic.
20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 Q. Mr. Zdravkovski, with regards to the events that you described in
22 your statement to the Defence, and because of which you filed the criminal
23 reports that this Chamber has received into evidence, tell me whether the
24 police of the sector of internal affairs that you headed has at any moment
25 during those events participated on the side of the protesters, has it
1 overstepped its powers, and has it in any way influenced the crowd to
2 perpetrate criminal offences?
3 A. No. This is ridiculous.
4 Q. If someone would assert something of that nature before this
5 Chamber, before this Court, what would you say to this?
6 A. This is completely untrue.
7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, for the transcript,
8 I indicate the transcript pages 2967, 2921, 2971, 2921 [as interpreted],
9 2922, then 2941, 2942, 2943, then 3199, then 3234, 3235, and, finally,
10 3248. And with regards to another witness, 58100 [as interpreted], 5825,
11 and 5916.
12 I have completed my examination, Your Honours. Thank you.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski, any questions?
14 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. I
15 have no questions of this witness.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
17 Mr. Dobbyn.
18 Cross-examination by Mr. Dobbyn:
19 MR. DOBBYN: Thank you, Your Honours.
20 Q. Good morning, Mr. Zdravkovski. My name is Gerard Dobbyn. I'm
21 representing the Office of the Prosecutor in this case. And following on
22 from my colleague, Ms. Residovic, I'm going to ask be asking you a few
23 questions about your statement and the events that took place in Bitola.
24 Now, Mr. Zdravkovski, as you explained, the riots in Bitola took
25 place on two separate occasions. Isn't that correct?
1 A. Yes, Mr. Prosecutor.
2 Q. And the first occasion was in May, and the second time was in June
3 of 2001. Isn't that right?
4 A. If you wish me to state the exact dates, the first one started in
5 the evening of the 30th of April, 2001, after 2000 hours, and they lasted
6 for several hours, until the early morning of 1st of May, 2001.
7 Q. Thank you. And --
8 A. After that, after that, if you allow me --
9 Q. Well, actually, if you could just confirm that the second riots
10 took place in June 2001, and that would be sufficient.
11 A. The second riots took place on the 6th, in the evening, 2001, and
12 until the early morning of the 7th of June. And, on the 8th of June, the
13 situation was again calm.
14 Q. And as a result of these riots, there was significant damage and
15 destruction in Bitola, wasn't there?
16 A. As a result of the riot, there was damage to property, to some 122
17 facilities, business, and housing facilities. That was the damage,
18 property damage; however, I am happy, I was and I still am happy, that
19 there were no casualties, human casualties.
20 Q. And would you agree, Mr. Zdravkovski, that in Bitola at that time
21 the public law and order was disturbed?
22 A. Yes. The publicity law and order was disturbed to a greater
23 extent. This is how it is defined in the regulations that the Ministry of
24 Interior follows, and this is it why we had analysed this situation
25 seriously in the context of the conflict in the Republic of Macedonia in
1 2001. And the first task that my associates set for ourselves was to
2 prevent the conflict from transferring to the area that I was the head of,
3 because the operational information spoke that there was such realistic
5 And to prevent this from happening, my assessment was that we
6 couldn't allow for a single casualty, even, because the experiences from
7 the Balkan region, especially those in Bosnia-Herzegovina, say that even
8 one human casualty would be sufficient to instigate an interethnic
9 conflict with consequences that can't even be forecasted. And this is why
10 we, acting in pursuant to the Law on Interior according to which we are in
11 charge of protecting the lives of citizens, their personal safety and
12 their property, in this order, we assumed the human lives as the priority
14 Q. Thank you, Mr. Zdravkovksi. Thank you. I appreciate your answer.
15 However, if at all possible, I would like you to keep your answers as
16 brief as you could. Obviously, if you do need to explain certain matters,
17 you are free to. But where a simple "yes" or "no" suffices, then that is
18 what I would ask for?
19 Now, after the first riots in May, isn't it true that a curfew was
20 imposed on the town of Bitola?
21 A. After the events of 1st of May, 2001, I, and the head of the
22 service for state security in Bitola, have made a joint motion to
23 introduce a curfew or restriction of movement of citizens. On the same
24 date, 2nd of May, that was accepted by the then-minister of the interior.
25 I believe that Dosta Dimovska was the minister then.
1 We did this. Prosecutor, sir, I'm sorry, but I need to elaborate,
2 so that I'm clear.
3 We did this because in the context of my previous answer, our
4 assessment was that this would be the best measure to achieve the end that
5 we set, to prevent from -- to prevent a new conflict area in Macedonia
6 from happening. And I believe you will agree as well that this is the
7 priority objective, and this Chamber, I believe, will agree.
8 Q. Now, despite the curfew, isn't it the case that the police were
9 not able to prevent substantial damage and destruction to buildings in the
10 second set of riots in June?
11 A. The curfew, I said, was introduced on the second of May, 2001, and
12 its impact was successful. On the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th of May, there were
13 no unrest, riots. The curfew was mainly respected by the citizens.
14 On the 20th of May, 2001, because the situation was stabilized,
15 the curfew was abolished. So at the moment that the second riots took
16 place, 6th of June, 2001, in Bitola there has been no curfew, but it was
17 re-established again on the 6th, immediately when the events took place at
18 2000 hours.
19 Because learning -- having learned from the previous experience
20 that the curfew was an efficient measure on the evening of the 6th of
21 June, I immediately filed a motion to introduce a curfew, and I believe
22 that Mr. Boskoski was the minister then. He immediately accepted this;
23 and at 2300 hours, on that same date, he issued the order to introduce the
24 curfew, which was in force until the 6th of July, 2001, when the situation
25 became fully calm.
1 Q. Thank you. Now, I just want it ask you, were you aware that there
2 were allegations that, during the riots, members of the police force did
3 nothing to stop the rioters destroying the ethnic Albanian property? I'm
4 just asking whether you were aware of these allegations.
5 A. That is absolutely untrue. Since we said -- I said in my
6 statement that there was property damage, there were no attacks on
8 Q. I'm not asking about the truth of these allegations at this time.
9 I'm asking whether you were aware that these allegations were made.
10 A. No. Nothing of the sort took place. There were no Albanians
11 attacked. There were no human casualties, and no one was injured. No
12 Albanian were injured. Maybe somebody who is objecting the work of the
13 police minded this, found this hard to accept. I'm happy that there have
14 been no casualties or victims. I am happy then and now.
15 Q. Mr. Zdravkovski, I'd ask you to listen to the question and answer
16 the question, and my question was: Were you aware that allegations had
17 been made that police took part in these riots.
18 A. I believe that I stated clearly. I had no such information, and
19 something of the sort was not possible.
20 Q. Thank you. So would it be fair to say that also you were not
21 aware of allegations that, as well as not stopping rioters from destroying
22 property, police actively took part in these riots themselves?
23 A. That is an absolute untruth. The police officers, with regard to
24 the protests, participated on the side of the police, with the
25 professional and police dignity, and within the competencies that they
1 have pursuant to the law.
2 Q. Now, Mr. Zdravkovski, can I ask you to turn to tab 5.
3 MR. DOBBYN: Sorry. We have binders to distribute at this time.
4 Sorry, I should do that first.
5 Q. Now, Mr. Zdravkovski, can you turn to tab 5, please.
6 And what you have in front of you, this is 65 ter number 1191, is
7 an article by Colleen Barry of the Associated Press, and it is dated
8 2 July 2001. It's headed, Paramilitary Threat Emerges in Macedonian
10 Do you see that, Mr. Zdravkovski?
11 A. Yes, yes. I see it.
12 Q. Now, if you could please turn to the second page, it's about two
13 thirds of the way down in the Macedonian version, halfway in the English.
14 There's a paragraph starting, "Following a pattern ...
15 Have you located that paragraph? Do you see that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And you will see that this states: "Following a pattern, some
18 fear will spread to Skopje and other cities. Western and government
19 sources say police officers were among gangs that destroyed Albanian
20 businesses and targeted the homes of prominent Albanians in Bitola in May
21 after four policemen from the southern city died in the conflict."
22 Do you see that, Mr. Zdravkovski?
23 A. I see it. I see it.
24 Q. So, do you go that, according to this article, the information
25 that some police officers took part in the rioting was actually provided
1 by Macedonian government sources? Would you agree that this is what the
2 article states?
3 That just calls for a "yes" or "no" answer, Mr. Zdravkovski. It's
4 in front of you on the page.
5 A. Which question do you want me to answer by "yes" or "no"?
6 Q. I want you to answer the question I just asked, which is: Do you
7 see that, according to this article, the information that police officers
8 took part in the rioting was provided by Macedonian government sources?
9 Isn't that what it says in the article here?
10 A. First, I have an objection, and I can't answer this question "yes"
11 or "no" because I heard your entire question. And Prosecutor, sir, and,
12 Your Honours, I believe that I need it elaborate on this, if you allow me,
13 because parts of your questions were factually inaccurate.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE PARKER: I think we will proceed most quickly if you listen
16 to the question that is asked of you and answer that question, not seek to
17 answer something else or justify what you think is right about the
18 question. So could you listen to Mr. Dobbyn's precise question and answer
19 that, please.
20 MR. DOBBYN:
21 Q. And my question, Mr. Zdravkovski, is: Do you see that, according
22 to this article, the information that police took part in the riots in
23 Bitola came from Macedonian government sources?
24 A. I see it. That's an article.
25 Q. And, so, your testimony is that, even though according to this
1 article government sources in Skopje had this information, you, as of the
2 head of the police in Bitola, did not. Is that right?
3 A. What I see here is a journalist's article, and this is a free
4 journalist interpretation. I don't consider this a relevant fact. This
5 is just an opinion of someone that something allegedly came from
6 governmental sources, but, factually, this is inaccurate, as it is also
7 inaccurate that there were police officers killed in May.
8 That is something that was important, and the police officers were
9 killed on the 28th of May. If someone who wrote this article, this one
10 that we have here, has made a mistake with regard to the date of killing
11 of the police officers, this is an evidence of how responsible he was in
12 compiling his journalist report, because he wrote this two months after
13 the events, and I'm now speaking seven years after the events.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MR. DOBBYN: At this point, Your Honours, I would seek to tender
16 this article, which is 65 ter 1191.
17 JUDGE PARKER: What is the evidentiary value of this?
18 MR. DOBBYN: The evidentiary value, Your Honour, goes to the
19 knowledge that was in the community about the allegations, not necessarily
20 to the truth of the allegations, themselves, but just that there was
21 information in the media that these allegations were being made, and the
22 impact this would have on whether an investigation should be taken into
23 these allegation.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Are you suggesting that was in Macedonian media?
25 MR. DOBBYN: I'm not suggesting that this particular one was, but
1 it goes to the sources that the information supposedly came from.
2 JUDGE PARKER: We don't receive this article, Mr. Dobbyn.
3 MR. DOBBYN: Thank you, Your Honours. I would, then, just ask
4 that it be marked for identification.
5 JUDGE PARKER: It will be marked.
6 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P583, marked for identification, Your
8 MR. DOBBYN:
9 Q. Mr. Zdravkovski, can you now please turn to tab 7.
10 MR. DOBBYN: This is Exhibit P329. It's a Human Rights Watch
11 Report dated 6 June 2001.
12 It is entitled: Macedonia rioters burn Albanian homes in Bitola.
13 Police fail to stop violence. Some actively participate.
14 So do you see, Mr. Zdravkovski, that Human Rights Watch also
15 appear to have received information that police officers from Bitola took
16 part in the rioting? Do you see that?
17 A. I see it; however, it is inaccurate.
18 Q. Well, can I now ask you to turn to the second page,
19 Mr. Zdravkovski.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And, actually -- sorry. This will be on the -- no, it is the
22 second page.
23 There's an article, a paragraph, approximately half way down,
24 starting, "Human Rights Watch called ..."
25 Do you see that?
1 A. Yes, yes.
2 Q. And it states: "Human Rights Watch called on the Macedonian
3 Ministry of Interior to carry out an immediate investigation into the
4 conduct of the Bitola police during the riots and urged the international
5 community to assist and participate in the investigation."
6 Do you see that?
7 A. I see it.
8 Q. Now, Mr. Zdravkovski, isn't it also true that these allegations of
9 police involvement in the riots were also reported on by Macedonian media?
10 A. There was speculations, I call them speculations, in there various
11 media, especially during such periods of conflict. You have several
12 speculations within one day. This is the job of the media to present
13 sensation so they have wider circulation or audience. These are just
14 speculations. The Bitola police, I claim with full responsibility, is one
15 of the most responsible and most professional sectors in the state and
17 Q. So can I take it that earlier on, when you told me that you had no
18 knowledge of any allegations about police misconduct during the riots, you
19 were actually aware that such allegations existed in the Macedonian media?
20 A. I said the allegations that we see now, coming from both the
21 foreign and the domestic media, these are just journalists' articles. I
22 don't consider them facts. When the first events took place in Bitola,
23 for instance, at 2000 hours, the police general, then Mr. Galevski,
24 arrived and he was personally present at every check-point where the
25 events took place.
1 Q. Mr. Zdravkovski, I believe you have gone past the scope of the
2 question, which was again simple was: You were aware that these
3 allegations were being made in the media, correct?
4 A. The media can write anything. I don't consider that facts. When
5 mentioning the general, I meant to say that we had already had, even
6 before it was requested by Human Rights Watch, we had a super control by
7 the police general. He came to the spot and his assessment was that we
8 had the optimum procedures, and the result is the evidence of this as
10 Q. Was General Galevski present at every check-point?
11 A. General Galevski, during the first event, those on the -- in the
12 night between 30th April to 1st of May 2001, he then came at 2000 hours;
13 and until the end of events, he was present in Bitola. He visited all
14 check-points, together with the then-head of the police department in the
15 SVR Bitola, and they made suggestions with regards to interventions. And
16 with his vast experience, I believe that he helped us avoid casualties and
17 preventing the threat of creating the second conflict focus in the state,
18 because Bitola is specific -- a historically and culturally specific city
19 of importance for the Republic of Macedonia.
20 Q. Now, when you say he made suggestions, were these suggestions
22 A. Yes, yes. He was a general in the police, and I think he was of
23 key assistance for having avoided more serious consequences. And if you
24 allow me, I would also mention some conversations between him and myself
25 at those moments. They have just come to my mind.
1 Q. Thank you. I don't think that goes to the question that I asked
2 you, so I don't need to hear it at this point.
3 But can I ask you to turn your mind back to the report from Human
4 Rights Watch that I showed you just a moment ago; and in that report,
5 Human Rights Watch urged the Ministry of Interior to investigate the
6 conduct of the Bitola police.
7 Now, did you ever receive any instructions from your superiors in
8 the ministry in Skopje to investigate these allegations?
9 A. The word "investigation," to me, has a criminal and a legal
10 connotations. We don't carry these investigations within the ministry.
11 This is done by the investigating judge according to the rules and
12 regulations in Macedonia. This is why I don't understand what you mean by
14 Q. Okay. Did you receive any instructions from your superiors in
15 Skopje to make inquiries into the truth of these allegations.
16 A. I mentioned that, for the first event and for the second event
17 also, maybe once or twice I was in contact with the ministers of interior
18 at the time and with the director of internal affairs. And you can see
19 through the documents that, after the first event and after the second
20 events, the measure curfew was immediately undertaken.
21 Q. Mr. Zdravkovksi, please. I am sorry to interrupt, but it is very
22 important that you listen to the question and you answer the question that
23 I'm asking you.
24 The question I've asked you is whether you received instructions
25 from the Ministry of Interior to make inquiries about the allegations that
1 police had participated in the riots.
2 That's the question, and I would like you to answer that question
3 and that question alone.
4 A. I do not recall of such activities because it was evident, very
5 evident, that this has not happened, and that these were just speculations
6 on the part of journalists. You can see that I really do not want to
7 comment any of this. These are clear and mere speculations because the
8 general was on the ground and would have suggested it if he had found
9 anything of this kind happening. There was just proper action on the part
10 of the police.
11 Q. Thank you. I'll move on to a slightly different topic.
12 In your statement, you've described various operative measures and
13 activities that SVR Bitola undertook in relation to the riots, and one of
14 the measures you described, for example, was imposing curfews.
15 Do you recall that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now, at this point, I'd ask you to turn to tab 9 in your binder.
18 MR. DOBBYN: This is 65 ter number 1D940. It's an obligatory
19 instruction from the Republic secretariat of internal affairs from 1976,
20 and a portion of this has been admitted earlier as Exhibit 1D311.
21 Q. I would ask you to turn to item 44.
22 MR. DOBBYN: This is on page 28 in the Macedonian. In e-court,
23 it's ERN 1D00-8140. And in the English, it's page 12, which is 1D00-8167.
24 Q. Do you have item 44 in front of you, Mr. Zdravkovski?
25 A. Yes, yes.
1 Q. And above item 44, do you see the heading: Operative action?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And that states: "The public security service organises operative
4 action for the purpose of conducting specific tasks which require
5 extended, coordinated, synchronised, and time-limited engagement of the
6 service particularly with regards to ..." And then lists certain actions.
7 And if you carry on down, you'll see it lists "public law and
9 Do you see that, Mr. Zdravkovski?
10 A. Yes, yes. I see it and I know this.
11 Q. And, so, would you agree that the actions that were taken in
12 Bitola, including the imposition of a curfew, would appear to fit within
13 this definition of "operative action"?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Well, Mr. Zdravkovski, doesn't this say here that operative
16 actions, one of the purposes for them, is to maintain the public law and
17 order? Is that right? Do you see that?
18 A. I see this here. However, according to our police work, the
19 notion "operative action" means something altogether and is not correlated
20 with the activities in each specific disturbance of the public law and
22 Q. Mr. Zdravkovski, I'm asking you to look at this particular
23 document from 1976 and this particular definition of "operative action,"
24 and would you agree that the actions that were undertaken in Bitola would
25 fit in with this particular definition of "operative action"?
1 A. Operation action -- operative activities, yes; but operative
2 action, no. This is altogether different. This is carried out based on
3 previous information about an event, protection of political persons
4 events, and so forth. In this case, we had unexpected events --
5 Q. Sorry, Mr. Zdravkovski --
6 A. -- which caused emotional reactions.
7 Q. I must interrupt again, because you're not answering my question.
8 In front of you, you have a definition of "operative action." I'm
9 not asking you about the definition that you used in 2001. I'm asking you
10 about this definition in front of you.
11 Don't the actions that you did take in 2001 fit in with this
12 particular definition of "operative action"?
13 A. Perhaps, because of differences in legal systems, we're unable to
14 understand each other. Operative action is a formal type of action
15 previously established regarding certain activities which the police has
16 to undertake. In this case, we had an unexpected disturbance of the
17 public law and order which caused emotional reactions of the young
18 population of Bitola, which in turn came as a result of other activities
19 or events that happened.
20 Q. Well, can I just ask you, then: Was the decision to impose a
21 curfew, was that done to ensure the public safety and public law and
23 A. Yes, in order to restore security in the city and to ensure the
24 lives and personal safety of the people, and then property, their
25 property, to calm the situation down.
1 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honour, at this time, I would seek to tender
2 65 ter 1D940.
3 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P584, Your Honours.
5 MR. DOBBYN:
6 Q. And you've also testified, haven't you, or at least it's contained
7 within your statement, that the decisions to issue the curfew, the orders,
8 were, in fact, issued first of all by the previous minister of the
9 interior, Dosta Dimovska, and later on by the -- the later minister, Ljube
10 Boskoski? Isn't that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So would you agree that these orders which had been made to
13 protect the public law and order were being issued directly by the
15 A. Yes. This is their authorisation given by law. Upon the proposal
16 of the head of the SVR, This decision is issued by the minister.
17 Q. And during your testimony earlier on, a number of documents were
18 admitted relating to charges against people arising from the riots. And
19 we saw that there were initially 44 people were charged in relation to the
20 earlier riots and 58 in relation to the later riots.
21 Would it be fair to say, Mr. Zdravkovski, that among those 102
22 persons, there were no charges laid against any police officers from
24 A. There would have been if there were grounded suspicions that an
25 authorised official has committed a criminal act. In order to submit a
1 criminal report, be it a civilian or an authorised official, there needs
2 to be grounded suspicions that that person has committed a criminal act.
3 In this case, this did not happen. As I said, these were just
5 Q. Did you make any inquiries at all into these speculations?
6 A. Yes. The work of the police of the heads in the police is to
7 check everything they hear about. Everything has been checked.
8 Everything is clean. I'm very pleased with all authorised officials and
9 how they acted, which as well as others from other SVRs who came to assist
10 us, and I congratulate them now also for not allowing Bitola to become the
11 second conflict focus and to preserve its cosmopolitan spirit.
12 Q. So should I take it from this that when you earlier said that you
13 had no knowledge of any allegations against police officers being engaged
14 in the riots in Bitola, what you actually meant to say was, yes, you did
15 have knowledge of this, and, yes, you did make inquiries, but, no, you
16 didn't find anything had taken place.
17 Is that what you're now saying?
18 A. I said that, at that time, the newspapers and the media
19 disseminated such speculations. I did not say I had nod heard them.
20 Also the public prosecutor in Bitola has charged a deputy who
21 follows all speculations in all media on a daily basis, and he always asks
22 all of us to check them, and he himself can initiate criminal reports
23 against official -- authorised officials if there is any truth in such
25 This means that, had there been such cases, the public prosecutors
1 would have acted. Nothing of this kind happened; therefore, there was no
3 Q. So because this was in the media, are you saying you left it to
4 the public prosecutor to decide whether any action should be taken?
5 A. According to my authorisations, competencies, but also in view of
6 my nature as manager in the police, I had daily contacts with the
7 prosecutor. So, therefore, my answer is the same as that of the
8 prosecutor. We worked together on a daily basis, and our joint conclusion
9 was that all of these are but empty speculations, which is to be expected
10 under the circumstances such as we had.
11 Q. What specific inquiries to did you make to establish that these
12 were simply speculations?
13 A. I will now tell you something which, until now, I refrained from
14 saying, because I esteem your time and the time of the Trial Chamber, but
15 I have to say this now.
16 The head of the SVR in Bitola who undertakes measures, in
17 cooperation with subordinates, has to take into account, to remain within
18 the frames of the law, and, at the same time, to respect human rights,
19 including the right to demonstrations, spontaneous, without announcements.
20 Third, but not least, in importance, perhaps the most important thing is
21 that care has to be given to the possible consequences of these events.
22 The character of the consequences told me --
23 Q. I am sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Zdravkovski, but from what I'm
24 seeing so for, this doesn't appear to be answering my question at all.
25 My question was simply: Specifically, what inquiries did you make
1 into the allegations of misconduct by the police. I want you to answer
2 that. I want you to tell me specifically what you did to verify these
4 A. At all check-points, I had a senior official, and I immediately
5 received information about the situation there. I believed these senior
7 Q. Thank you. Now, the second set of charges against the 58
8 individuals for the riots in June were presented to the public prosecutor
9 on 19th of December, 2001. Isn't that correct?
10 A. Yes. There is what is written in the criminal report.
11 Q. And would it be fair to say that in the months leading up to
12 December, after the signing of the Ohrid Agreement, at that time it was
13 well known that a Law on Amnesty in was going to be coming into effect?
14 A. I would not know. I'm not a politician.
15 Q. So are you saying that you had absolutely no knowledge about a
16 discussion on a Law on Amnesty?
17 A. I don't recall anything of this kind. I believe the priority then
18 was to calm down the situation, and this was, in fact, the purpose of the
19 Ohrid Framework Agreement.
20 Q. And, specifically, relating to the Law on Amnesty, isn't it the
21 case, Mr. Zdravkovski, that the amnesty law applies to criminal
22 proceedings, not disciplinary proceedings?
23 A. Yes. You said whether this was correct. Is it not true or is it
24 true? My answer is, yes, this is true. It pertains to criminal
25 proceedings, not disciplinary proceedings. The Law on Amnesty pertains
1 only to criminal responsibility and accountability, not disciplinary
2 accountability. This is something done within the ministry.
3 I made a problem -- a proposal -- I make the proposal for
4 disciplinary accountability. The minister makes the decision. This is
5 something altogether different.
6 Q. And I understand that you testified earlier on that decisions on
7 whether cases -- sorry, whether the amnesty law will be applied to
8 particular cases is in the hands either of the public prosecutor or the
9 judge. Is that right?
10 A. I said that the amnesty law can be applied by the prosecutor, the
11 first instance court, the Court of Appeals, depending -- the phase --
12 depending on the phase of the procedure. I think I was clear in
13 explaining this.
14 Q. Yes, thank you, you were. And would you agree that the amnesty
15 law does not state that the police can make decisions on whether the
16 amnesty will apply to particular cases?
17 A. For the -- I was not competent for the enforcement of the amnesty
18 law. I have not analysed this. This is the work of the judicial system.
19 My work is to submit and to file a criminal report.
20 Q. And after you submitted and filed a criminal report, it was then
21 for the public prosecutor and/or the judge to decide whether the amnesty
22 law applied. Correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, if you could please turn to tab 24 in your binder.
25 MR. DOBBYN: This is 65 ter number 1D168. This is a document from
1 the government of the Macedonia entitled: Reasons for passing of the law,
2 referring to the Law on Amnesty.
3 Q. Do you have that document in front of you, Mr. Zdravkovski?
4 A. Not yet.
5 Now I see it.
6 Q. Okay. And if you look at the second paragraph, it states: "The
7 motives of passing of this law are also included in the statement of the
8 president of the Republic of Macedonia," and it carries on "regarding the
9 need for reintegration in the democratic society of the persons that have
10 prepared and participated in the actions relating to the conflict in the
11 Republic of Macedonia by 26/9/2001 and their integration in the normal
12 course of life."
13 Do you see that?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Would you agree, from what it says there, the purpose of this law
16 was to reintegrate people back into Macedonian society and specifically
17 NLA members?
18 A. Yes. Whereby, here it is not stated members of the NLA.
19 Q. But that's your understanding of the reason behind the law.
20 A. This is not how I understand it. Perhaps, this is how you
21 understand it. Here it reads, "persons." This means all citizens of the
22 Republic of Macedonia.
23 Q. Well, do you see where it refers to the statement of the president
24 of the Republic of Macedonia given to senior members of the European
25 Union, NATO, and OSCE? Do you see that?
1 A. In the upper part?
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. Yes, I see it.
4 Q. Well, then, if you could please turn to tab 24 of your binder.
5 MR. DOBBYN: This is Exhibit 1D193.
6 Q. And, Mr. Zdravkovski, unfortunately, we do not have a Macedonian
7 version of this letter. It's very short. I will read it to you in
8 English, and it will be translated as I read.
9 This is a letter from the president of the Republic of Macedonia
10 to Lord Robertson, the Secretary-General of NATO, and dated 13 August
12 It states: "I hereby confirm that the NLA will be able to benefit
13 from the opportunities offered by the government for reintegrating into
14 society in accordance with my plan and programme for overcoming the
16 Did you follow that, Mr. Zdravkovski?
17 A. Yes, yes.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MR. DOBBYN:
20 And, just for the record, I'm not sure if I put it on, it's
21 Exhibit 1D193.
22 Q. Now going back, again, to tab 25 to the reasons for passing of the
23 law. Do you see, then, that the reference to the reasons given in the
24 letter to NATO refers to reintegrating members of the NLA into society?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now, if you could turn to page 3 of the document, you will see a
2 heading at the top of the page: Explanatory notes.
3 Do you have that in front of you?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And the second paragraph, under Roman numeral II: "The president
6 of the state issued a declaration and the government supported it, where
7 he underlined the determination of the president and the government to
8 grant amnesty to the NLA members."
9 Do you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So, again, this emphasises, doesn't it, that the amnesty was
12 intended to benefit the members of the NLA?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And if you look at Roman numeral III, headed, Objectives that are
15 to be achieved with the law, it states under that: "The amnesty law
16 covers persons that have participated in the conflict and which have
17 voluntarily given up weapons by 26/9/2001, as well as persons against
18 which this are ongoing and pre-criminal and criminal proceedings."
19 Do you see that?
20 A. Yes, yes.
21 Q. And where it refers to persons who voluntarily gave up weapons on
22 26/9/2001, who gave up their weapons on that date?
23 A. I don't think this is a question for me. I cannot speak about
24 things which are outside the territorial jurisdiction of SVR Bitola. Even
25 if I were to attempt to give you an answer, I would speculate; and as you
1 have already been able to hear, I don't take much to speculation.
2 Q. Well, would you agree that, to your knowledge, there were no
3 police or other security force members handing in weapons on that date?
4 A. I said I don't feel competent to say anything about this. A
5 witness is supposed to speak of facts, and I declare that I would speak
6 the truth and nothing but the truth. And I'm a witness not for the
7 Prosecution or the Defence; I'm a witness for the truth.
8 Therefore, I would please ask you not to ask me questions which I
9 don't feel competent to respond to. I don't see myself as a journalist,
10 but really as a witness. I would really not want to speculate. First of
11 all, it's been seven years --
12 Q. Thank you. Thank you. If I can just ask you, then, you were the
13 head of SVR Bitola at that time. Were any of the police officers in
14 Bitola handing in weapons to the government on 26 September 2001?
15 A. I don't understand. Why would the police hand over their weapons?
16 They are authorised officials. They have weapons to this day. They're --
17 prior to the conflict, during the conflict, and after the conflict, they
18 had weapons.
19 Q. Thank you. I think you have answered my question there. If I
20 could just follow that up: What was the purpose of operation Essential
22 A. Again, this is a question outside the scope of my competency. But
23 if you allow me, I could recall something about this.
24 The information from the media stated that this was to collect
25 illegal arms and weapons and ammunition from the area engulfed by the
1 conflict. I believe this was so.
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. This was an action on the part of the international community to
4 collect illegal weapons, weapons held without permits --
5 Q. Well --
6 A. -- and I believe this action yielded in some minimal results.
7 Q. Thank you. Now, I have just a few propositions that I would like
8 to put to you. I would simply like you to indicate whether you agree or
9 not with these propositions, and I would try to keep this as brief as
11 MR. DOBBYN: And before I get to that, Your Honour, I would seek
12 to tender 65 ter 1D168.
13 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
14 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P585, Your Honours.
15 MR. DOBBYN:
16 Q. Mr. Zdravkovski, do you agree that during the riots in Bitola, the
17 response of the police was inadequate, some police refused to intervene,
18 and some police even took part in the riots.
19 Would you agree with that?
20 A. Absolutely no.
21 Q. Would you agree that these allegations against the police were
22 widely reported and widely known in Macedonia at the time?
23 A. I said already, there were such speculations.
24 Q. Would you agree that of the people charged in relation to the
25 riots in Bitola, none were police officers?
1 A. Yes. There was no one charged because the police were carrying
2 out their police work.
3 Q. And would you agree that no police officers were internally
4 disciplined for participating in the riots?
5 A. They could not be subject to disciplinary proceedings because none
6 took part in anything of this kind.
7 Q. And would you agree that there was no real investigation or
8 inquiry into these allegations against police officers?
9 A. Mr. Prosecutor, Your Honours, I don't think whether you can
10 understand me. The -- what the police did was to such an extent optimal
11 and proper, if they had to do it all over again, they would do it again or
12 we would do it again in the same way. We prevented a conflict from
13 breaking out. I am proud to have had such police officers.
14 Bitola is a cosmopolitan city, then and now. After the conflict,
15 we had a social activity to restore interethnic trust. I was one of the
16 participants in this, and it was a success. Now --
17 Q. Mr. Zdravkovksi, sorry to interrupt--
18 A. -- we live again together.
19 Q. Sorry to interrupt, but I will take that as a "no."
20 My final question for you, Mr. Zdravkovski, is: Isn't it true
21 that these allegations were not investigated because at that time within
22 the Ministry of Interior, there was no will amongst the leadership to
23 investigate or discipline employees of the MOI for offences committed
24 against ethnic Albanians in the course of the conflict in 2001.
25 Do you agree with that, yes or no?
1 A. Mr. Prosecutor, Your Honours, really, if you continue to ask me
2 questions of this kind, I am libel to think that someone would want
3 conflict and lives to fall again in my country. We prevented this from
4 happening, and I am proud to have done this. The cosmopolitan spirit of
5 Bitola continues to live on.
6 JUDGE PARKER: The Prosecutor, following our required procedures,
7 is putting to certain propositions. It's self-evident from the general
8 tenor of your evidence that you will not agree about almost all of them.
9 In fact, perhaps, there is only one that you would have any agreement
11 But all he needs from you is confirmation whether you agree or
12 don't agree with the proposition. You are not, unnaturally, but not
13 within the needs of our procedures, trying to answer the truth of the
14 substance of the proposition all over again. You don't need to do that;
15 simply say whether you agree are disagree.
16 And I would anticipate, I think without any fear of contradiction,
17 that you do not agree with this last proposition.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My apologies, Your Honours. My deep
19 apologies, but I'm not a professional witness.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Could you confirm that you don't agree with that
21 last proposition; that is, that there was no investigation and no --
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely no.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
24 Thank you, Mr. Dobbyn.
25 MR. DOBBYN: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. Thank you for your time, Mr. Zdravkovski, and that is the end of
2 my questioning.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
4 We will have the first break now and resume earlier than normal,
5 at 11.00.
6 [The witness withdrew]
7 --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.
8 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
10 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
11 Re-examination by Ms. Residovic:
12 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Zdravkovski, my learned friend, the
13 Prosecutor, showed you a document, and you stated that you haven't seen
14 that newspapers Fakti. Is that right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. A provision was quoted saying that some governmental sources
17 alleged the police was involved in the events.
18 Tell me, please, have you ever heard any government source saying
19 anything of that sort?
20 A. Not directly.
21 Q. Tell me, please, you were asked about the operative action, you
22 explained that it is introduced in the police with regards to some
23 expected events, and you then said that you undertook some operative
24 actions [as interpreted]. Do you remember?
25 A. Yes, precisely.
1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Operative activities.
2 Q. Tell me, please, in addition to this activity that was undertaken
3 by means of introducing the curfew, could you tell us about any other
4 operative activities that the police of the SVR Bitola undertook at that
6 A. We continuously undertook other activities in cooperation also
7 with the state security service. Involved were also members of the crime
8 police, plain clothes police, who, within their competencies, worked on
9 prevention and undertook activities for the entire duration of the curfew,
10 24 hours a day. The leadership, headed by me, has established contacts
11 with the families of many individuals which we believed would be of key
12 importance, so that through them we could achieve the impact and that
13 would be for the demonstrations to stop the immediate next day.
14 And if you count the hours, you will notice that we just had
15 several hours on the first day; and on the second day, the situation was
16 calm. This was as a result of those activities.
17 Q. Thank you. Very well. Tell me, please, in this operative
18 activities, because of the first and second round of events, did you
19 contact the injured persons, the injured parties?
20 A. I contacted the injured, the aggrieved persons, of course those
21 that I could establish contact with, throughout the events, immediately
22 when the events commenced, during the actual events taking place, and
23 after the events. And this is how we achieved this impact that there was
24 not a single casualty.
25 Q. During these contacts with the aggrieved persons, was any of the
1 aggrieved persons or any other citizen complaining of the police conduct
2 or reported any police officer as being in misconduct?
3 A. Nothing of the sort happened.
4 Q. Answering the questions of my learned friend, you said that you
5 trusted your subordinated officers.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Tell me, with regards to these rumours in the public, that the
8 police officers were in misconduct or participated in the riots, have you
9 ever discussed those with your subordinated officers, that would be the
10 heads of departments, OVRs, or commanders of the police stations?
11 A. Yes. I had continuous discussions with my subordinated officers,
12 and our conclusion was that these were just empty speculations.
13 Q. Did your superior -- subordinated officers see with their own eyes
14 any police officer in misconduct, overstepping the powers?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Were your subordinated officers reported by anyone, any police
17 officer as having done something unlawful?
18 A. No.
19 Q. You said that the area was visited by General Risto Galevski
20 during the first event. Do you remember having said this?
21 A. Yes. I remember Risto Galevski arrived around 2000 hours
22 immediately when the event started.
23 Q. Tell me, with regards to the events, who from the SVR Bitola made
24 the decisions?
25 A. I, together with my associates, since the head of the SVR is
1 always and exclusively responsible for undertaking of the operative
2 activities. This is what the law provides.
3 Q. Were you strong enough or did you have enough strength to be on
4 top of such massive unrest and riots?
5 A. If you are referring to the number of police forces in the SVR
6 Bitola, we did not have enough officers because after four were killed on
7 the 28th of April, the entire unit of police Bitola, which was on the
8 grounds together with those who were killed, was given a leave for one
9 month, and this unit did not participate. This is I why we needed
11 In contact with Mr. Galevski, we were provided such reinforcements
12 throughout the time, and we were assisted by several SVRs. I can mention
13 some of those, as far as I remember: Prilep, Ohrid, Gevgelija, Strumica,
14 Velis. Maybe I made some mistakes, but I have forgotten something, I
16 Q. Very well. Thank you. You stated that, as soon as the riots
17 started, you made the proposal, and the that minister, Dosta Dimovska, and
18 in June it was the Minister Ljube Boskoski, gave the order to introduce
19 the curfew pursuant to their legal competencies.
20 Was that your answer given to my learned friend?
21 A. Yes. That was done on my proposal, since under the law, it is I,
22 as head of the SVR, who is making the proposal, and the minister has the
23 legal authority to order curfew. This is one of the rare --
24 Q. Very well. Thank you. Please, if have you the Prosecutor's
25 binder, could you turn to tab number 25.
1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] That is P86, Law on Internal
2 Affairs, and that is the Article 30.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see it.
4 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Tell me, is this the legal provision according to which the
6 minister can order closing access to a certain facility or area or
7 prohibition to leave the facility or the area without authorisation?
8 A. Yes. But the grounds for this order, I believe, can be seen in
9 the order itself, if you have it, because it indicates also other legal
10 basis for the order. But this is one of the articles on the basis in
11 which it says, in paragraph 2 of Article 30, that the measures of
12 Article -- of paragraph 1 of this Article can be ordered by a minister or
13 an officially authorised by him. What does this mean? That this law
14 gives authority to the minister to undertake this because the minister can
15 undertake such activities only when authorised by the law.
16 Q. Thank you. Asked by my learned colleague, you stated that the
17 Essential Harvest Operation that the international community was in charge
18 of and that you have heard about from the media meant collecting weapons
19 in illegal possession.
20 Do you remember that?
21 A. Yes. This is what I said.
22 Q. Was it any difference made whether it was weapons in illegal
23 possessions or Macedonian, Albanians, Turks, Roma, or others; or was it
24 that the total amount of illegal weapons were to be collected?
25 A. I can answer this with competence. The request pertained to all
1 citizens of the Republic of Macedonia; and in SVR Bitola, we also had
2 collection points where Macedonians, Turks, Vlachs, Roma, and all other
3 citizens of the Republic of Macedonia brought weapons, those that were
4 residing on the territory of SVR Bitola.
5 Q. My learned colleague asked you several questions related to the
6 application of the Law on Amnesty. Do you remember that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And tell me, please, what is applicable in the Republic of
9 Macedonia, the law or the elaborations the rational accompanying this law
10 which are submitted to the parliament before the law is passed?
11 A. The law. There is no dilemma. The law is the applicable
13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I will kindly ask that the witness
14 is shown again P585. That is N005-1592. It used to be 1D1933, the page
15 that is the item 3 on it.
16 Q. My learned friend showed you part of the introductory remarks
17 related to the passing of the law, and I will show this paragraph 3 which
18 means -- aims to be achieved through the legislation.
19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Not here. The page is 1D1933.
20 Q. Do you see it? Chapter 3?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. The title says: The aims that need to be achieved through the
24 Would you kindly look at paragraph 2 which reads: "Namely,
25 Article 1 sets forth the basis that the amnesty applies to the citizens of
1 the Republic of Macedonia, persons with legal residence, or persons who
2 have property or family in the Republic of Macedonia, who, during the
3 conflict of 2001, ending with 26th of September, 2001, have perpetrated
4 criminal offences sanctioned under the Criminal Code and other laws of the
5 Republic of Macedonia."
6 When these objectives are described, Mr. Zdravkovski, do you see
7 any distinction made between the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia
8 based on any ground?
9 A. I see no difference, and I see that I stated this already in my
10 answer to the Prosecutor. In the second line of the second paragraph, it
11 is stated the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, and I believe this is
12 clear for everyone. And I stated that in the practice in Bitola, were
13 handed over weapons by many citizens of the Republic of Macedonia of all
14 nationalities, those who wanted to hand the weapons over.
15 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I kindly ask that the witness is
16 now shown Exhibit 1D325, page 1D0340; the English, 1D0352.
17 Q. You remember that earlier this morning, we discussed that the
18 procedure could be terminated in any stage of the procedure, and you
19 recognised this as being the termination of the procedure on the grounds
20 of the amnesty law during the appeals procedure. Do you remember that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. I will kindly ask you to turn to page 2 of this decision of the
23 appellate court in Skopje.
24 I apologise. You don't have our binder here. You had it this
25 morning. But maybe can you follow it from the display, so that we don't
1 waste time.
2 A. Yes. I am able, yes.
3 Q. The final paragraph of the Macedonian text has this second
4 sentence: "Namely, pursuant to the indicated legal basis, freed of
5 prosecution are and the criminal proceedings are terminated and completely
6 exempt from serving the sentence are citizens of the Republic of
7 Macedonia, persons with legal residence, as well as persons who have
8 property or family in the Republic of Macedonia, regarding which there has
9 been a reasonable doubt that they have been preparing or participating in
10 criminal offences related to the conflict in 2001, ending with the 26th of
11 September, 2001."
12 Mr. Zdravkovski, is this position of the appellate court in Skopje
13 in correspond to your position, that the law applies to all citizens?
14 A. Absolutely, yes.
15 Q. I will kindly ask you now to look at the third page of this
17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] That is 1D0342, and the English
18 is 1D0354.
19 And if we could look now at the second sentence in the rationale
20 given by the appeals chamber, it reads: "Mainly, as can be seen from the
21 documents of the case file, the content of the indictment and the evidence
22 attached to it, it stems that the criminal -- criminal law event happened
23 on 2nd September, 2001, when the accused, in the capacity of a conscript
24 in the reserve composition of the Republic of Macedonia security forces,
25 in the ranks of a police patrol on the Tetovo-Skopje highway, at the
1 control security check-point opposite the petrol station Seven Brothers,
2 never village Semeniste, Skopje was assigned when conducting official
3 activity-check and inspection of the vehicles and persons whereby he was
4 issued with weapon.
5 "The aforementioned circumstances related to the time-frame of the
6 event, time, and circumstances, as well as the capacity of the accused and
7 the type of official tasks that he performed point to the fact that the
8 criminal event is related to the conflict in the Republic of Macedonia in
10 Q. Mr. Zdravkovski, does this stance of the appellate court in Skopje
11 correspond to your evidence before this Court, that the Law on Amnesty
12 applied to all citizens of the Republic of Macedonia?
13 A. Absolutely. It corroborates it, yes.
14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further
16 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Ms. Residovic.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Zdravkovski, you will be pleased to know that
19 that concludes your questioning. We would thank you for your attendance
20 in The Hague. The court officer will now show you from the court and you
21 may return to your normal activities.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 [The witness withdrew]
25 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon, or whoever is appropriate, for the next
1 witness, we would have at this moment at the most only 20 minutes
2 remaining. Is there any prospect of finishing the witness in that time,
3 assuming five minutes only is spent by Ms. Residovic.
4 MR. SAXON: No, Your Honour, that is just not realistic.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. To speed up proceedings, I think we might
6 have the witness called and the statement tendered, so that we're ready
7 for cross-examination on Monday morning.
8 MR. SAXON: Just so you know, Your Honours, Ms. Valabhji will be
9 dealing with this witness.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
11 [The witness entered court]
12 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning, sir. Would you please take the card
13 that is given to you and read aloud the affirmation.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
15 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
16 WITNESS: GJOKO POPOVSKI
17 [Witness answered through interpreter]
18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Please sit down.
19 Ms. Residovic.
20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
21 Examination by Ms. Residovic:
22 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Popovski. My name is Edina
23 Ms. Residovic, and together with my colleague, Guenael Mettraux, I am the
24 Defence counsel for Mr. Ljube Boskoski. You already know this, but I'm
25 saying this for the purpose of the transcript.
1 Please state your full name.
2 A. My name is Popovski, Gjoko.
3 Q. Mr. Popovski, what is your profession?
4 A. I am a graduate from the Faculty of Law.
5 Q. What is your work position today?
6 A. Today, I'm, at the work post, assistant minister in the sector for
7 material, financial, technical, and logistic affairs.
8 Q. Since when have you been employed at the MOI?
9 A. I have been employed at the MOI since the 15th of March, 2007,
10 first as advisor in the property section at the sector for material,
11 financial, technical, and logistic affairs.
12 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, before I proceed with
13 my questions, I would ask that the witness, the Court, and my colleagues
14 be given some of the documents which I would like to tender together with
15 the statement.
16 Q. Mr. Popovski, did you -- at any point of time, were you asked to
17 look at the facts or to check the facts given by the Defence of
18 Mr. Boskoski?
19 A. Yes. Sometime in July, there was a request made by Mr. Dragan
20 Godzo, authorised by the Defence of Mr. Boskoski, to check a list of 40
21 members of the reserve forces who, if any, were and whether they were
22 engaged as reservists and whether any of them drew their salary or was
23 employed at the ministry.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic, could I, once again, please,
25 indicate that this should not be taken as an opportunity to go over the
1 evidence again of the witness which is contained in the statement. All of
2 that matter that you've dealt with to date is already in the statement.
3 If there are particular documents to which you want the witness to refer,
4 you may go straight to them and deal with them.
5 We're very concerned, with the last witness, you took 55 minutes
6 of the hour we are allocated to that witness. This is a Rule 92 bis
7 witness, the statement is admitted on your motion, the witness is here for
9 So we want you to be just to the point of any particular matter
10 that needs clarifying or any particular document that needs admitting, and
11 then the rest of the time is for the Prosecution.
12 Thank you.
13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
14 At the onset of today, I mentioned that there were some changes,
15 and this is the reason -- the only reason why I had to ask the witness the
16 previous question; otherwise, I am fully aware of your instructions.
17 Q. Mr. Popovski, could you please look at the document after tab 3.
18 A. I see it.
19 Q. Is this the document which you received and which you testified
20 about in your statement?
21 A. Yes. This is the document.
22 Q. Please look at the document behind tab 4.
23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] The first document was 65 ter
24 1D1308, and this is document 1D13 -- 65 ter 1D1309.
25 Q. Please look at the second page of this document.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Is this the document which you issued?
3 A. Yes. This is the document which I issued.
4 Q. Mr. Popovski, when you were informed that you would be coming to
5 this Tribunal to be cross-examined, did you undertake any kind of
6 additional measures to, once again, establish the accuracy of the data
7 which you provided in this document and in your statement?
8 A. Yes, this is correct. When I was informed that I would be coming
9 to the Tribunal, I undertook additional measures to verify the list, to
10 check the list. The previous checks were of the payroll of the ministry;
11 and since none of these persons were on the payroll, this meant that none
12 of them was in regular employment with the ministry.
13 After the checks from -- received from the SVR, because in this
14 specific case SVR Skopje is responsible for this area, it was evident that
15 eight of these persons at a given period of time were given some kind of
16 compensations; that is to say, they were engaged. When I was called in to
17 come here, I made some additional checks, and I was able to see that an
18 omission was made in the list -- in the previously submitted list.
19 Q. What kind of omission was this? Can you tell this Court?
20 A. Yes. This is an omission of six persons of which two specifically
21 represent a classic omission: Sladinovksi Zoran and Sekerovksi Borce; and
22 the second admission was that they were wrongly listed and written in the
23 list of the SVR, contrary to that listed in the document which I was given
24 by the SVR; for example: Mackinovski, Mackinovski, Cankulovski,
25 Cankulovski, Milevski, Milosevski [as interpreted]. These were mistakes
1 in the letters.
2 Q. What does that mean, Mr. Popovski, relating to what you said in
3 this document responding to the request of the Defence and your statement,
4 saying that eight persons received compensation, while two you're unable
5 to check? How many persons, after your additional check, received
6 compensation in this given period of time?
7 A. After the additional verification, we noted that 14 persons
8 received compensation; that is to say, 13 of them were engaged from the
9 16th of August, and one of them only in the course of August.
10 Q. Regarding this omission you noted, did you gather documents which
11 clearly speak of this omission, of this mistake, and did you inform the
12 Defence about this?
13 A. Yes, this is correct. I got the lists which established the
14 compensations for these persons with the orders prepared by SVR Skopje for
15 payment and the banks where the money should be transferred; and when I
16 came to The Hague, I brought them with me, these additional documents.
17 Q. Are these the documents, which yesterday in the course of the
18 preparations for this testimony, you handed over to the Defence?
19 A. Yes, these are these documents.
20 Q. In additional to the verification of these individual listed 40
21 individuals, did you made checks of other persons; and, if so, why?
22 A. Yes, this is correct. Additionally, a request came to the
23 ministry for check of eight additional persons, and then the logical
24 ensuing step was to undertake this verification because the sector of
25 finance is the instance which transfers the money;.
1 And since Mr. Spase Filipov is not of good health and has not
2 travelled for a long time due to health reasons, I made these additional
3 verifications for the additional eight persons, and this is the same as
4 regards the other 40 persons. The check was exactly the same.
5 Q. Would you please now look at document after tab 5, which is
6 Exhibit 1D263, MFI.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Have you seen this document?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. If you have, did you act upon it?
11 A. Yes. This is the document with Mr. Spase Filipov.
12 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask the witness to speak
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, this is the document.
15 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. On two occasions, Mr. Popovski, you said that you checked the
17 payroll and then the compensation. Where are lists and records of
18 salaries kept?
19 A. The records and lists for the payroll are kept in the sector for
20 finance; that is to say, in the sector where I work. After the
21 verification of the ID numbers, since none of these persons were on the
22 payroll, this, in turn, is proof that that person is not employed at the
24 Q. Where did you check the compensations and who receives
25 compensation, salary or otherwise?
1 A. Lists with compensations, I checked in SVR Skopje because the
2 persons from the list are on the SVR Skopje lists. They have a list of
3 reservists; however, the list which is reliable is that for the
4 compensation, in view of the fact that any engagement, regardless of the
5 time-period, has to become compensated. If a person is not on this list,
6 this means that the person was not engaged at all by the SVR, in this
7 given case, SVR Skopje.
8 Q. Did you, Mr. Popovski, for the first 40 persons, check the records
9 personally, as well the records for these additionally requested eight
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. In view of the fact that regarding the 40 persons you already
13 clarified and mentioned that there had been certain mistakes, please tell
14 me, when checking these additional eight persons, did you establish if any
15 of these persons in the relevant time-period received any kind of
16 compensations as engaged reserve --
17 A. From the second list, no person has received compensation.
18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in view of the
19 additional answers of the witness, I would seek to tender, together with
20 the explanation, to tender first Exhibit 65 ter 1D1253, certified by the
21 official of the Tribunal.
22 JUDGE PARKER: That is the statement?
23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
24 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
25 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D326, Your Honours.
1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Please look at the document at tab 2.
3 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This is 65 ter 1D1254.
4 Q. Is this the list of persons -- the first list of persons which you
5 checked for which you prepared a document about your understanding and for
6 which, later, you established certain mistakes which you described in
7 detail before this Court? Is this the list?
8 A. Yes, this is the list.
9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I would seek to tender.
10 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
11 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D327, Your Honours.
12 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Please look at the document which you looked at previously, after
14 tab 4.
15 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This is it 65 ter 1D1309.
16 Q. It signed by you and submitted to the Defence on the 16th of
17 August, 2007. Is in the document which you submitted to the Defence?
18 A. Yes, this is this document.
19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I would seek to tender this.
20 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
21 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D328, Your Honours.
22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Now, please, look again at the document at tab 5.
24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This is it 1D263, MFI.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Is this the request which you personally checked, Mr. Popovski,
3 after Spase Filipov, due to reasons you mentioned, was not able to travel?
4 A. Yes, this is the document.
5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this document
6 into evidence.
7 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
8 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D263, Your Honours.
9 MS. RESIDOVIC: I would ask that the witness be shown the document
10 at tab 6. This is 1D264, MFI.
11 Q. Mr. Popovski, can you confirm that the persons listed which you
12 saw on the previous list did not receive salaries after having checked all
13 the lists for this relevant period of time, and that these persons, as you
14 testified, did not receive any kind of compensation for the reserve
16 A. Da [No interpretation]
17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I would seek to tender this
18 document into evidence as a Defence exhibit.
19 I apologise.
20 Q. Your answer, witness, was not recorded in the transcript. Please
21 could you please answer, once again, whether these eight persons which you
22 personally checked --
23 JUDGE PARKER: That evidence has been given Ms. Residovic, earlier
24 when the witness looked at it. No need to repeat it now.
25 The document will be received.
1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, his answer was not
2 recorded in line 20, but we presume that he confirmed this as you already
4 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be Exhibit 1D264.
6 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions, Your
7 Honour. Thank you very much.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Ms. Residovic.
9 We must now adjourn, as we are over time.
10 Sir, I'm afraid we must ask you to return on Monday at 2.15 for
11 the continuation of your evidence. It's not possible to conclude it today
12 in the time that we have available.
13 We now adjourn, to resume at 2.15 Monday.
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 11.47 a.m.,
15 to be reconvened on Monday, the 3rd day of March,
16 2008, at 2.15 p.m.