Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 4053

 1                           Thursday, 7 May 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.

 5                           [The witness takes the stand]

 6             JUDGE PARKER:  Good afternoon.  If I could remind you,

 7     Mr. Abrahams, the affirmation you made to tell the truth still applies.

 8             Ms. Kravetz -- oh, I beg your pardon.  How could I overlook the

 9     fact that Mr. Djurdjic is nearly finished.  Carry on, please,

10     Mr. Djurdjic.

11             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  I will

12     comply with your wishes, but I don't know whether I will be able to do it

13     within the dead-lines that you set.

14                           WITNESS:  FREDERICK CRONIG ABRAHAMS [Resumed]

15                           Cross-examination by Mr. Djurdjic: [Continued]

16        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Abrahams, good afternoon.  Let me continue

17     from where we stopped yesterday.  In your March 1999 statement, you speak

18     about an incident in the village of Vranic in September 1998.  I hope

19     that I corrected all the errors.  That should be page 36 in the English

20     version in e-court of P738, that's the exhibit number.  Mr. Abrahams --

21     excellent, well done.

22             At the end of the first paragraph, could you please read the

23     beginning of the sentence:

24             "The commander of the police in Vranic was named Miskovic ..."

25             Have you been able to find it?

Page 4054

 1        A.   Yes, I see it.

 2        Q.   Please look at it.

 3        A.   Yes, I read it.

 4        Q.   Mr. Abrahams, after you received information from the persons

 5     that you interviewed, did you check or were you able to find, to locate,

 6     Mr. Miskovic or Mr. Sipka?

 7        A.   I don't recall the research procedure at that point, but we did

 8     not speak with Mr. Miskovic.

 9        Q.   And did you check whether there was any kind of a police unit in

10     the village of Vranic?

11        A.   Sorry, how did you -- I didn't understand the question.  Did we

12     check whether there was police in the village of Vranic or a police

13     station in Vranic?

14        Q.   Mr. Abrahams, in this part of your statement you say that

15     Miskovic was the commander of the station in Vranic.

16        A.   If I understand my statement it says that the villagers claimed

17     that -- no, I'm sorry, you're right.

18             "The villagers claimed that Sipka was involved in Orahovac.  The

19     commander of the police in Vranic was named Miskovic" -- yes, that

20     information comes from the villagers.

21        Q.   My question was whether you checked information, whether you

22     checked if there's any kind of police organisation, formal organisation,

23     in Vranic?

24        A.   I don't recall at this point, no.

25        Q.   Mr. Abrahams, did you go to Suva Reka - and you knew that there

Page 4055

 1     was a police station there and an OUP - to check about Milan Sipka, he is

 2     mentioned here as a police officer from Suva Reka, just to verify whether

 3     this was indeed correct?

 4        A.   I have to refer to my notes to tell you exactly where and when I

 5     went places in Kosovo, but I can tell you that we repeatedly tried to

 6     obtained information from the various police stations around Kosovo and

 7     were consistently rejected.  We were told that no information would be

 8     provided.  I cannot tell you for sure without checking my notes whether I

 9     approached the Suva Reka station on these dates in question.

10        Q.   Mr. Abrahams, do you know why you're in The Hague before this

11     Tribunal now?

12        A.   Yes, I do.

13        Q.   I had a call from a friend, and he told me that you said 20 times

14     that you had to consult your notes.  I didn't count myself but that's

15     what this friend of mine said.  You are testifying here for the third

16     time and yet again you tell us that you have to consult your notes to

17     check.  So you're not prepared to testify, and when are you going to do

18     it if you have to complete your testimony ?  How come also that you are

19     able -- that you have total recall of what the villagers were telling you

20     and you cannot recall what the other side told you and anything that has

21     to do with the side?

22             It says in your statement that Miskovic was the owner of the Bos

23     Hotel.  Did you go there and verify this information, who owned this

24     hotel, and did you go there to talk to the owner?  Because it was quite

25     close to where you were, Suva Reka, and in fact it's the suburbs, in the

Page 4056

 1     outskirts of Suva Reka.

 2        A.   All of our notes, by me and my colleagues involved in this work,

 3     have been submitted to the Prosecutor's office and, to the best of my

 4     knowledge, provided to you as Defence.  So you are free to consult them.

 5     I am more than willing to consult them, but my memory after ten years,

 6     having covered in the interim five more wars, is, in fact, hazy when it

 7     comes to specific incidents.

 8        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Abrahams.  I did not receive any notes of yours

 9     from the Prosecution, and I am convinced that the Prosecution would have

10     given it to me if they had been in their possession.  But if the

11     Prosecution indeed has them, did you not have an opportunity to go

12     through them in preparation for your testimony?  And can we then perhaps

13     postpone your testimony enabling you to consult your notes and then -- so

14     that you can then answer my questions?

15        A.   My notes comprise more than ten different notebooks, and that's

16     just mine alone, not the notes of all my colleagues, so I have not had

17     the opportunity to review them in the depth required to answer some of

18     your questions.

19        Q.   Mr. Abrahams, now we're no longer dealing with what the

20     Human Rights Watch produced.  We're now talking about the statement that

21     you gave to the Prosecution as early as in 1999, so we are not talking

22     about whether you yourself interviewed the witness or not; we are now

23     talking about the statement that you yourself gave in 1999.  So this has

24     nothing to do with your research or anything -- or it does, but only

25     because this is a statement that you gave in 1999 to an investigator of

Page 4057

 1     the Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal.

 2        A.   I don't understand the question.

 3        Q.   Well, I'm asking you about what you said to the investigator, and

 4     you told us at the beginning of your testimony that this is to the best

 5     of your recollection - and you took the solemn oath that you would speak

 6     the truth - and that's what I'm asking you about.  So I'm not now -- not

 7     talking about some work product that you could then say, I did not take

 8     part in producing it; I'm talking about your own words, what you yourself

 9     said in your statement.  Perhaps it's the case that this is not your

10     personal knowledge, what you're saying in the statement.  So please do

11     tell me if that is the case, and we'll move on.

12        A.   Everything in the statement is a reflection of my personal

13     knowledge and experience and -- including the case you reference here for

14     Vranic.

15        Q.   Please, personal knowledge is a very broad concept.  Did you

16     personally interview the villagers of Vranic and what I just read out to

17     you or what you just read, is this the product of your interviews or not?

18             MS. KRAVETZ:  Your Honour --

19             JUDGE PARKER:  Ms. Kravetz.

20             MS. KRAVETZ:  -- I believe this question has been put already to

21     the witness in several ways, and he has provided the information he's

22     able to provide on this topic.  The question has been answered.

23             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djurdjic, you are putting to the witness

24     passages in one of the statements that he has made.  You are then seeking

25     to ask what he did further about a matter.  For example, you've referred

Page 4058

 1     to a passage that there is a police officer named Sipka from Suva Reka

 2     mentioned and that there was a person by the name of Miskovic said to be

 3     in charge of the police in Vranic.  You're then asking the witness did he

 4     personally check or did he personally go to a police station to confirm

 5     information, et cetera.  That is not something that's in his statement.

 6     That is asking him whether he did something about a subject matter that

 7     is mentioned in his statement.  To that, the witness has said, I am not

 8     able to remember clearly whether I did or I did not or whether one of my

 9     colleagues may have done so.  I would have to check the notes to give you

10     an answer to that.

11             Now, the witness has no way of anticipating what you are going to

12     ask about, and he is trying to remember events that are now many years

13     old, and therefore it would seem to me at least not unreasonable that the

14     witness is not able to remember consequential matters such as those that

15     you have asked about in the questions that I have heard you ask this

16     afternoon.

17             If it is that one of these issues is of such importance, it will

18     be necessary to make some arrangements for the witness to view his notes.

19     We know, he has told us earlier and he reminded us, that there are many

20     volumes, over ten notebooks of his own notes and there are his

21     colleagues' notes which are in addition.  Now, the process of going

22     through those will inevitably take some time.  For him to be able then to

23     refresh his memory whether a particular action was taken, such as going

24     to a police station to inquire about a particular subject or not.

25             I've spent a little time setting out what I perceive to be the

Page 4059

 1     situation.  You seem, from what some of the things you have said, to be

 2     seeing it a little differently.  But if you stand back and think, you may

 3     realise that just to be asked now about particular actions so many years

 4     ago, it's not surprising that the witness doesn't have a clear personal

 5     recollection of each event.  Some things, no doubt, he will remember;

 6     others things, it is likely, he will not.

 7             Now, you must decide, I'm afraid, whether one of these or some of

 8     these or all of these subjects are so important that they warrant you

 9     asking for the evidence of the witness to be deferred while he checks on

10     a particular issue.  I could say that of the matters you've raised so

11     far, it's not apparent to me that any of them are so important as to

12     warrant that time and effort.  It must be for you -- you know your case.

13     It must be for you to decide whether it is a matter of great significance

14     or not.

15             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  It is not

16     my intention to cause any delays to the examination of this witness to

17     enable him to go through his notes, but I want to lead the Chamber to

18     draw certain conclusions through my cross-examination of this witness.  I

19     didn't want to cause any delays.  I am clear with your instructions, and

20     I will continue my examinations, and I will be satisfied with the answers

21     that I receive in the hopes that the Trial Chamber will give them proper

22     weight.

23        Q.   Mr. Abrahams, let us conclude this topic.  In this trial, we

24     already clarified who Miskovic was through some witnesses from Suva Reka

25     and what he was, what kind of a job he had; but the reason why I ask you

Page 4060

 1     this is because of the statement you gave.

 2             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we now move to page 38 of

 3     the English version.

 4        Q.   Mr. Abrahams, I'm interested in this paragraph that begins with

 5     the words:

 6             "On the 2nd of November Peter Bouckaert and I spoke with a man in

 7     Belgrade JJ ..."

 8             My question now is:  Am I right if I say that the Defence cannot

 9     do anything to verify this source?

10        A.   This man requested anonymity from us; that's correct.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Now I would like to move on to the statement that you

12     gave in 2002, in January.  Looking at this statement, I didn't see who

13     actually interviewed you.  Could you please tell us how did you conduct

14     this interview on the 24th of January, 2002?

15        A.   May I ask for the first page to be brought up.

16        Q.   Just a moment.  I'll give you the page reference.  That's

17     number 9.

18        A.   I'm not entirely certain.  Again, I could obtain this

19     information, but I believe this statement was taken by two members of the

20     OTP.  One is Milbert Shin and the other was Dan Saxon, but I would have

21     to check before being certain of that fact.

22        Q.   Thank you.  And where was this statement taken?

23        A.   If I recall correctly, there was a dual process.  It was

24     partially done in The Hague and partially in New York.  And if I'm not

25     mistaken, parts of the statement dealing with Kosovo's history were

Page 4061

 1     written directly by me in New York.

 2        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Abrahams.  Now I would like to ask you first of

 3     all not to get angry with me, but did you serve in the military?  Did you

 4     do any national service?  Although I know that there is no national

 5     service in the USA.

 6        A.   No, I have not served in any military.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Am I right if I say that you don't have any formal

 8     military training?

 9        A.   Training as a soldier or formally in the military, no, I do not.

10        Q.   And kind of military education in the academia?

11        A.   I've studied history, armed -- history of armed conflict and

12     military history as a part of my university studies.

13        Q.   Yes, but did you attend any kind of a military school?  Do you

14     have a degree, a post-graduate degree, in military science; or did you

15     attend any other course in this subject outside of your regular studies?

16        A.   No.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Did you complete any kind of police schools or police

18     training?

19        A.   No.

20        Q.   Did you receive any formal education in constitutional law?

21        A.   I've taken courses in constitutional law and international law,

22     but I don't have a degree in any of those subjects.

23        Q.   Thank you.  And in the sphere of criminal law, did you attend any

24     courses, have any training?

25        A.   Courses only in relation to international humanitarian law and

Page 4062

 1     laws of war, war crimes, but not on domestic criminal law.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Abrahams, could you please tell me, what is the

 3     lowest post in the Human Rights Watch organisation, the first one above

 4     the interns?

 5        A.   That would be what we call an associate, which is a largely

 6     administrative position.

 7        Q.   I apologise.  I wasn't specific enough.  I'm only talking about

 8     the research segment of the Human Rights Watch and what follows after

 9     that, drafting of reports, publication of reports, so not the

10     administration, not financial services, nothing of that sort.  To cut a

11     long story short, I can see that in 1995 or 1996 you became a researcher.

12     After you completed your traineeship in the Human Rights Watch, what was

13     your job title?

14        A.   Researcher.

15        Q.   And how long did you remain in that post?

16        A.   From 1995 to 1999 I was researcher, and then I became senior

17     researcher.

18        Q.   Thank you.  And are you a senior researcher now, or do you have

19     some other job title?

20        A.   My official title is senior emergencies researcher.

21        Q.   Thank you.  And let me ask you just one more question:  Can you

22     tell us -- can you explain to us what does it mean to edit a report?

23        A.   The editing process is a review and vetting procedure, whereby

24     first the divisional director - in this case the Europe and Central Asia

25     director - and then the programme director review the material for

Page 4063

 1     accuracy, consistency, and force of argument.  And in this process it is

 2     common and normal for the editors or the reviewers to return the document

 3     with questions, questions such as:  How do you know this?  Can we find

 4     more proof for this?  Are there arguments against this?  Did you speak to

 5     this person or that person?  And finally, the last reviewer is from the

 6     legal office, which is looking at it from the perspective of the law in

 7     two ways.  First is are our arguments appropriately framed with regards

 8     to human rights and international humanitarian law; and secondly, will

 9     there be legal issues for the organisation regarding libel and other

10     matters related to publication of the report.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Where were you born, Mr. Abrahams?

12        A.   New York City.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Do you feel attached to the cultural heritage of the

14     United States of America?

15        A.   To some aspects of it, yes; to other aspects, less.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Tell me, where were you in 1974?

17        A.   Well, at that time I would have been 7 years old, so in school in

18     New York City.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Have you ever read the SFRY constitution?

20        A.   From cover to cover, no; but sections of it, yes.

21        Q.   Can you tell us what sort of criteria were you guided by in

22     deciding which portions to read and which not to read?

23        A.   I am not an expert on the constitution of the SFRY.  My interest

24     in the matter was to understand the context of the Kosovo conflict, and

25     in particular the status of Kosovo within Yugoslavia.  I have a basic

Page 4064

 1     understanding, but in no sense do I portray myself as an expert on that

 2     matter.

 3        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Abrahams.  I do not want to touch upon the fact

 4     whether this really then refers to all the other constitutions in

 5     addition to the SFRY constitution to that of Serbia and others that are

 6     relevant for our trial.

 7        A.   I didn't perceive a question in that statement.

 8        Q.   Were I to put a question to you now in respect of each and every

 9     one of these constitutions, would the answer be the same?  That is what I

10     meant.  I wanted to avoid putting superfluous questions to you.

11        A.   I am not an expert in constitutional law or specific

12     constitutions, SFRY's or otherwise.

13        Q.   Thank you.  In your statement you refer to the autonomous

14     province.  Do you know when it was that Kosovo and Metohija were

15     conferred the status of an autonomous province?

16        A.   I believe it was in 1974 as well as Vojvodina.

17        Q.   Did it enjoy status of an autonomous province before that point?

18        A.   I'm not sure.  I don't believe so, no, but I'm not sure.

19        Q.   Have you read the FNRY constitution dating back to 1963?

20        A.   No.

21        Q.   Thank you.  Have you read the constitutional amendments dating

22     back to 1967, 1968, and 1971?

23        A.   No.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell me, What was the constitution which

25     abolished the autonomy of Kosovo and Metohija?

Page 4065

 1        A.   No.  My understanding is there were changes to the constitution,

 2     but I don't have more detail than that.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Let me ask you this:  Do you know the difference

 4     between a republic and an autonomous province?

 5        A.   Well, in general a republic would be on a higher level than an

 6     autonomous province with regards to self-setting standards and a degree

 7     of independence; but with regards to Yugoslavia, the autonomy granted to

 8     Kosovo and Yugoslavia was of a fairly high degree.  I know they had

 9     representation in the Federal Presidency, they had parliaments, separate

10     legislatures.  They were able to set their own policy with regards to

11     education and so forth.

12        Q.   Thank you.  Am I right if I say that the United States of America

13     constitute a federation?

14        A.   It's not usually referred to as such, but it is a degree of a

15     federation, yes.

16        Q.   Thank you.  The SFRY was also a federation, was it not?

17        A.   Indeed.

18        Q.   In the US we have 50-odd states, right, which form part of a

19     federation?

20        A.   That's correct.

21        Q.   Thank you.  How many republics did the SFRY have which formed the

22     federation?

23        A.   In what period?  We're speaking after 1974?

24        Q.   I'm referring -- well, let's say after 1974 because that's what

25     you are aware of.  How many republics formed the Federation then -- or

Page 4066

 1     let me not plague you with this if you can't remember the exact number,

 2     let's move on.  Were the republics in fact states which formed the

 3     Federation of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia?

 4        A.   First there were six republics plus the two autonomous provinces,

 5     Vojvodina and Kosovo.  And these provinces -- excuse me, these republics

 6     did enjoy many of the same rights as the states have in the

 7     United States, perhaps not to such a great degree, but they did have

 8     their own governments and independent institutions to a degree -- also

 9     taking into consideration the dominant role of the communist party at

10     that time.

11        Q.   Right.  We don't have time to debate the position of the

12     Human Rights Watch and the communist democracies.  But let me ask you

13     this:  You keep referring to Kosovo, Metohija, Vojvodina, they were part

14     of which republics?  What were they part of in Yugoslavia?

15        A.   I believe both were autonomous provinces within the

16     Republic of Serbia.

17        Q.   Thank you.  In your research did you come across a time when for

18     the first time the issue was raised of Kosovo needing to become a

19     republic?

20        A.   Sorry, just re-reading the question.  The issue of Kosovo's

21     status has been of -- has been discussed since my first entry into Kosovo

22     in 1995, and it remains a hot topic to this day.

23        Q.   Tell me if you don't remember or you don't know, when was -- when

24     was it that for the first time in your research you came across a demand

25     having been put forward for Kosovo to become a republic?

Page 4067

 1        A.   In 1995 there were Kosovo Albanians who wanted Kosovo to become a

 2     republic at that time within Yugoslavia still.  Only later did that

 3     evolve into independence from Yugoslavia as a whole or now Serbia.  But

 4     those were individuals.  At that time, not aware of formal calls from

 5     political groups.  That came later -- that came later -- no, I'm sorry --

 6     I stand corrected.  I stand corrected.  There were calls from 19 -- yes,

 7     I apologise.  From 1990, from 1990 there were calls for Kosovo's

 8     independence.  I apologise.  If not before, perhaps even 1989/1988.  Yes,

 9     that's correct.

10        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell me, What was the enactment which

11     abolished the status of an autonomous province for Kosovo and Metohija

12     and Vojvodina -- or I apologise, you've answered that a while back.  I

13     withdraw the question.

14             Let me ask you this:  Did the constitution of the

15     Republic of Serbia maintain the equal status of autonomous provinces of

16     Vojvodina on the one hand and Kosovo and Metohija within the

17     Republic of Serbia?

18        A.   I apologise, I'm re-reading because I'm not understanding

19     precisely.  At what period are you speaking of?  Which Constitution of

20     Serbia, because there were changes to the constitution.  If you're asking

21     whether Kosovo and Vojvodina had equal status, then my understanding is

22     yes they did have equal status.

23        Q.   I'm referring to the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia.  I'm

24     sure that you as an expert will see the difference that I'm trying to

25     make when I refer to the SFRY constitution and the Constitution of the

Page 4068

 1     Republic of Serbia -- or rather, the FRY constitution and the

 2     Constitution of the Republic of Serbia.

 3        A.   I'm an expert in human rights and international humanitarian law,

 4     but I am not an expert in constitutions.  Nevertheless, I do know the

 5     difference between the FRY constitution and the Serbian constitution.  I

 6     just don't understand your question.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Abrahams, you say in your statement that on two

 8     occasions or perhaps on more occasions you were employed in the

 9     Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal as an investigator.  You spoke

10     to Mr. Rugova, you had an interview with him in November of 2002; am I

11     right -- 2001.

12             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter isn't sure.

13             THE WITNESS:  I did interview Mr. Rugova for this Tribunal, that

14     is correct.  I'd have to check the statement for the precise date, but I

15     believe it was September, October, or November 2001.

16             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Thank you.  Before that, as an investigator again, you spoke to

18     Witness Haxhiu Baton and you wrote a statement from him in August 2001?

19        A.   That's correct.

20        Q.   Thank you.  On the 24th of January, 2002, you yourself gave a

21     statement as a witness; and the statement we've been discussing is

22     precisely the one, the one that was formed and bears the date of the

23     24th of February, 2002; am I right?

24        A.   That's correct.

25        Q.   And this statement contains a section where you speak of the

Page 4069

 1     historical background of Kosovo; is that right?

 2        A.   That's right.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Let me ask you this:  In all your reports or texts

 4     whenever you speak of the Republic of Serbia or the

 5     Socialist Republic of Serbia and when you want to refer to its autonomous

 6     province of Kosovo, you always refer to it only as Kosovo, whereas its

 7     proper title was the autonomous province of Kosovo and Metohija.  Do you

 8     know what Metohija means?

 9        A.   I don't know the direct English translation, but I know that it

10     is formally referred to as Kosovo and Metohija in the Serbian language.

11     But our terminology is consistent with the region, whereby we never

12     called Serbia the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, because we

13     never call Yugoslavia the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia but

14     simply Yugoslavia; or not the Republic of Serbia, but Serbia -- for

15     matters of expediency, we shortened the name.  And at least

16     "Under Orders" has a short section in the beginning describing our

17     terminology.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Which source did you use in drawing the conclusion

19     that in 1989 there was police oppression over someone?

20             MS. KRAVETZ:  Your Honour, could we please have a reference to

21     the passage in this statement that my colleague is referring to, please.

22             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djurdjic.

23             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I'm referring to the historical

24     background.  I'll find it now.  I didn't think it was in dispute.  Very

25     well.  Let's move on.

Page 4070

 1        Q.   Where did you get this from, that on the 23rd of March the

 2     Kosovo Assembly, while the Serb police forces were surrounding the area,

 3     carried the proposed amendments to the constitution?

 4        A.   These are background matters for our reports.  They are context

 5     and history.  They are not the results of our on-the-ground field

 6     investigations which involve interviews with witnesses and examinations

 7     of crime scenes.  This information is collected from media sources,

 8     historical accounts, academic reports, and so on that talk about the

 9     history of Kosovo and the country.

10        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Abrahams.  Would your answer be the same in

11     relation to the situation in the field of education as it existed in

12     1991 and 1992?

13        A.   To an extent; however, my information about education in Kosovo

14     was buttressed by my personal research in 1996 and the previous visit in

15     1995 because the conditions for Albanian language education in those

16     years were the same as in 1991 and 1992.  So I had historical records

17     plus my own observations.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Rugova and Mr. Haxhiu, did they hold views that

19     were opposite to yours?  I'm asking you this because you interviewed them

20     as a researcher -- or as an investigator.

21             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction.

22             THE WITNESS:  I'm not sure how to answer that question.  There

23     were many topics that we didn't discuss.  They were presenting their

24     views and experiences relevant to the case, at that time mostly the

25     Milosevic trial.  And we didn't discuss views or opinions but rather

Page 4071

 1     facts and experiences.

 2             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Is the following piece of information accurate that 16.000 Serb

 4     refugees that fled from Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1996 were settled in

 5     Kosovo and Metohija?

 6             MS. KRAVETZ:  Your Honour, I'm sorry to interrupt again, but I

 7     see my learned colleague is reading from a document.  I would appreciate

 8     if we could have a reference to which document he is referring to and if

 9     it's a witness statement the indication of the page.  I would also

10     appreciate it if my learned colleague, when citing the statement, could

11     use the language that's in the statement so that it could be put to the

12     witness in the same terms that's in the statement.  Thank you.

13             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Yes.  In fact, my notes contain

14     parts of the witness's 2002 statement, Madam Kravetz, and it is the

15     statement that contains these pieces of information that -- and this is

16     something that I thought was not in dispute, that -- the statement in

17     fact does state that in 1996 16.000 Serbs from Bosnia and Croatia settled

18     in Kosovo.  I merely wanted to learn what his source was, and that's at

19     page 15 of his statement.

20             THE WITNESS:  I would have to check my records.  I apologise for

21     that.  I do not recall at this moment the source for that information,

22     but I am certain that there was a process of a state policy of trying to

23     re-settle Serbs from Bosnia-Herzegovina as well as from Albania.  There

24     was a Serbian community in Albania, small one, that they tried to

25     re-settle in Kosovo during that time.  On the Albanian side I know

Page 4072

 1     because I've spoken with some of them.

 2             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Abrahams, I'd like to know your sources about the

 4     forming of the KLA.

 5        A.   My knowledge about the KLA formation comes from various sources,

 6     multiple sources.  Throughout my time as a researcher in Kosovo, I also

 7     encountered and interacted with the Kosovo Liberation Army, as we do with

 8     the government and armed forces around the world, armed groups around the

 9     world.  We communicate and try and obtain information from them and

10     engage in advocacy to improve their behaviour with regards to

11     international humanitarian law.

12             In addition to that, I have been and still am working on a book

13     about the history of Albania, recent history of Albania, not Kosovo but

14     Albania.  And in the context of that book, I have also interviewed

15     individuals who were involved in the KLA.

16        Q.   On the issue of the history of the Republic of Albania, you spoke

17     to the members of the KLA to get information on that matter?

18        A.   The book has a chapter about Kosovo because it's a modern

19     history, and in that context I interviewed some founders and members of

20     the KLA.

21        Q.   The KLA or FARK?

22        A.   KLA, although FARK is mentioned also in the book.

23        Q.   Thank you.  Now let me move on to this brochure that you

24     produced, "Under Orders."  Please tell me, it was published in

25     October 2001; am I correct?

Page 4073

 1        A.   The report "Under Orders" was published in October 2001, yes.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Am I right when I say that you are listed as the

 3     project coordinator?

 4        A.   Correct.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  We talked about the researchers and data gathering.

 6     Now I would like to move on to the part -- the chapter where it says that

 7     the historical and political background of this report is based on the

 8     previous writings of many associates of the Human Rights Watch who

 9     started --

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Could the counsel please

11     slow down when reading.

12             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Mr. Abrahams, your name is not here.

14             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  The last portion of the

15     question was not interpreted.  The witness did not hear it.

16             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Let me read again - and I

17     apologise for reading too fast - the chapter:  "The Historical and

18     Political Background" of this report is based on the research and

19     publications of many current and former employees of the

20     Human Rights Watch who started working in Kosovo in 1990.  Ken Anderson,

21     Jeri Laber, Ivana Nizich, Vlatka Mihailovic, Julie Mertes, Gordana Igric,

22     and Peter Bouckaert.  Your name is not listed here, Mr. Abrahams, among

23     the authors of the historical and political background; am I right?

24        A.   You are right.

25             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Sir, could we please have P741 up

Page 4074

 1     on our screens, but I will read.

 2        Q.   This is a brochure of yours.  Its title is:  "Human Rights

 3     Violations in Kosovo" or "Humanitarian Law Violations in Kosovo."

 4             And you are listed as the author of the report and some parts

 5     were authored by Elizabeth Andersen.  Additional research was carried out

 6     by Peter Bouckaert, Sahr Muhamed Ally, Suzanne Nossel, and Redmond; is

 7     that correct?

 8        A.   I would have to see the page in question, but I take your word

 9     for it, that is correct.

10        Q.   Thank you.  I take your word, Mr. Abrahams.  Now this part where

11     it says that it was written by Fred Abrahams, researcher, does it mean

12     that you also carried out the research on which this is based?

13        A.   Yes, that's correct.

14        Q.   Thank you.

15             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.  I just need to find

16     the document that I need.

17        Q.   Mr. Abrahams - that's Exhibit 755 - this is your work.  The title

18     is:  "Village destroyed, war crimes in Kosovo."

19             Am I right when I say that on page 1, paragraph 2 -- yes, front

20     page just in -- before the abstract you say:

21             "To protect against possible revenge, the Human Rights Watch used

22     initials and pseudonyms for witnesses whose statements appear in this

23     report."

24        A.   I don't see that reference on the screen.

25        Q.   It's just above "summary."

Page 4075

 1             "In order to protect individuals from possible reprisals ..."

 2        A.   Yes, I see that section.

 3        Q.   Is it correct what it says here?

 4        A.   When this report was published, we had reason to fear for the

 5     security of the interviewees.  I do have the full names of all of the

 6     individuals, and I now believe that this fear no longer exists and would

 7     be willing to provide the names after a consultation with my notes, so

 8     long -- so long as none of those individuals had requested anonymity.

 9     And even if they did request anonymity, I am willing to approach them and

10     ask now whether they are willing to lift that condition.

11        Q.   Thank you.  And just one more thing, just one more question -- I

12     can't find the document, but -- it's:  "Kosovo:  Rape as a weapon of

13     'ethnic cleansing.'"

14             Am I right when I say that you authored this report and that two

15     of your associates carried out the research and that it is stated in this

16     document.  It's document 386, it's a 65 ter document.  But I would like

17     to have the Serbian version too.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  This document, Your Honours, was assigned

19     P00757 MFI.

20             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] It's at the end of the document --

21     or could you please go to page 2 first.  Just let me see if it's at the

22     beginning or perhaps it's at the end, page 65.  Yes -- no, could we then

23     please have page 65.

24             I'm sorry, sir.  That's page 41.  My associate has just told me.

25     No, it's not -- well, it doesn't matter.

Page 4076

 1        Q.   Mr. Abrahams, well this was my last question and this document

 2     has already been admitted into evidence and it is listed there.  So,

 3     Mr. Abrahams, I don't have any further questions for you.

 4             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you very much

 5     for your patience.  This completes my examination of this witness.

 6             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you, Mr. Djurdjic.

 7             Ms. Kravetz.

 8             MS. KRAVETZ:  Thank you, Your Honour, I have a couple of

 9     questions, and I hope we complete before the next break.

10                           Re-examination by Ms. Kravetz:

11        Q.   Mr. Abrahams, yesterday during the course of cross-examination by

12     my learned colleague you were asked a question relating to events in

13     Kosovo in 1999, and this is at transcript page 4050.  Specifically you

14     were asked whether -- why the state of Serbia and the state of Yugoslavia

15     as affluent as it was would shell villages without there being any

16     fighting and that this should happen over and over again, and you

17     responded that you could not comment as to the affluence of the Serbian

18     or Yugoslav state but that you did document a pattern of indiscriminate

19     fire into villages.  Could you please explain what you meant when you

20     said yesterday that you had documented a pattern of indiscriminate fire

21     into villages in 1998.

22        A.   In 1998 and early 1999 conducted the five research missions and

23     through interviews with villagers, mostly we were in the villages, the

24     conflict was not at that time in the main cities, villagers told us about

25     a very common practice which was the -- that their homes, their area,

Page 4077

 1     would be surrounded by the army and the area would be shelled and the

 2     villagers would then flee into the nearby woods or out of the inhabited

 3     area, after which the ground forces of the police would -- would enter.

 4             So we heard this story consistently.  The details were different,

 5     but it seemed to us to emerge as a pattern, as a standard operating

 6     procedure that we saw again and again.  And I can't tell you exactly how

 7     many villages, but definitely enough to suggest a pattern which is not to

 8     say that there was no KLA presence in those villages.  In many of them,

 9     there very well may have been.  In some of them there definitely were.

10     That's not to say the KLA did not exist and wasn't fighting.  In some of

11     those areas they definitely were.

12        Q.   Thank you for clarifying that.  I want to move now to a different

13     topic.  Yesterday you were asked about a series of letters of inquiry

14     that were sent by Human Rights Watch in -- on 20th July, 1998.

15             MS. KRAVETZ:  If we could have Exhibit 747 up on the screen.

16        Q.   Now, this is one of the letters that you have seen earlier in

17     your testimony, and it is addressed to the secretary of information,

18     Mr. Aleksandar Vucic.  If we could please see page 2 of this letter.  It

19     is the cover page.  Now if we could scroll down below the signature,

20     please.

21             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes, Mr. Djurdjic.

22             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I only showed the

23     exhibits that were shown by Ms. Kravetz to the witness.  I did not show

24     this to the witness.

25             MS. KRAVETZ:  Your Honours, my learned colleague asked extensive

Page 4078

 1     questions on these letters of inquiry that were sent on 20th July, 1998.

 2     It is true that he showed the letter sent to Mr. Stojiljkovic and also to

 3     the Yugoslav Army.  This is one of those letters, and I believe the line

 4     of questioning that my learned colleague conducted yesterday allows me to

 5     show this document.

 6             JUDGE PARKER:  That would be our view as well, Ms. Kravetz.

 7             MS. KRAVETZ:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 8             Now, if we could zoom in below the signature of

 9     Ms. Holly Cartner.

10        Q.   We see there are several entities that are all CC'd.  If you

11     could read the list that appears below the signature.

12        A.   Yugoslav secretary of information, Yugoslav minister of the

13     interior, Serbian minister of the interior.

14        Q.   Now, based on what you're able to see on this letter, would all

15     these persons have received a copy of the letter that had been addressed

16     to the Serbian secretary of information, Mr. Vucic?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Could you explain why Human Rights Watch would send a letter to

19     the secretary of information and also CC all these different persons in

20     this type of letter of inquiry.

21        A.   For non-governmental organisations such as Human Rights Watch,

22     the secretary of information or Ministry of Information is the common

23     interlocutor.  So requests or communications are sent to this office,

24     with the expectation and understanding that they are distributed to the

25     responsible officials within the government, but in this case,

Page 4079

 1     apparently, we also sent letters or copies of the letter directly to the

 2     ministries concerned.

 3        Q.   Now, you were asked several questions yesterday about the mailing

 4     list used by Human Rights Watch to distribute its reports, press

 5     communiques, and other types of advocacy papers.  To the best of your

 6     recollection in 1998 and 1999, did this mailing list include the

 7     Serbian Ministry of the Interior, the MUP, Serbian MUP?

 8        A.   Yes, it did.

 9        Q.   Thank you.

10             MS. KRAVETZ:  Those or my questions, Your Honour.  I have no

11     further questions for this witness.

12             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you, Ms. Kravetz.

13                           [Trial Chamber confers]

14             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Abrahams, you'll be pleased to know that that

15     concludes the questions.  The Chamber is grateful that you have once

16     again been able to spend time in The Hague and to assist us in this

17     trial.  We have your various statements as well as your actual testimony

18     which we will consider in due course.  We thank you and of course you may

19     now return to your normal activities.

20             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Your Honours.

21                           [The witness withdrew]

22             JUDGE PARKER:  Ms. Kravetz.

23             MS. KRAVETZ:  Your Honour, before we move on to the next witness,

24     there are a number of exhibits -- I believe there were three that were

25     marked for identification at the beginning of this witness's testimony.

Page 4080

 1     I just wanted to inquire with the Court whether we would be required to

 2     make any further submissions, either orally or in writing, with regard to

 3     those exhibits before Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE PARKER:  I don't think we at the moment see reason for

 5     further submissions.  We will be considering those submissions and coming

 6     down with a decision quite shortly.  Thank you.

 7             MS. KRAVETZ:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE PARKER:  Now, the question arises whether as a matter of

 9     practical convenience we should spend nine minutes with a new witness or

10     adjourn now for the first break and commence with the new witness on our

11     resumption.

12             MS. KRAVETZ:  It is our preference if we could adjourn now and

13     commence with the witness after the break.  I would like to indicate and

14     I presume Your Honours have seen that Mr. Hannis is in court here today.

15     He's exceptionally here.  He will be standing in for Mr. Stamp and will

16     be leading the next witness in chief.  Thank you.

17             JUDGE PARKER:  Well, we welcome back, actually, Mr. Hannis.

18             We will therefore adjourn now for half an hour and resume at five

19     minutes past 4.00.

20                           --- Recess taken at 3.38 p.m.

21                           --- On resuming at 4.07 p.m.

22             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Hannis.

23             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Our next witness will be

24     Zarko Brakovic.

25             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

Page 4081

 1             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, he's what I refer to as a combination

 2     witness.  We have a 92 ter statement we intend to use, but I also intend

 3     to lead him live on some matters as well.

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5             JUDGE PARKER:  Good afternoon.  Would you please read aloud the

 6     affirmation that is shown to you now.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.  I solemnly declare

 8     that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 9                           WITNESS:  ZARKO BRAKOVIC

10                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

11             JUDGE PARKER:  Please sit down.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

13             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Hannis has some questions for you.

14             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Your Honours.

15                           Examination by Mr. Hannis:

16        Q.   Good afternoon, sir.  My name is Tom Hannis.  I'm a senior trial

17     attorney, a Prosecutor here at The Hague.  We haven't met before;

18     correct?

19        A.   Correct.

20        Q.   I know you dealt some with Mr. Stamp before in preparing for your

21     testimony; but he's not available today, and I'm filling in for him.  I'd

22     like to begin by talking about a statement that you gave to the OTP in

23     May of 2004.

24             MR. HANNIS:  And, Your Honours, with your permission what I'd

25     like to do is I have a binder with B/C/S copies, hard copies, of his

Page 4082

 1     statement as well as some of the exhibits I intend to ask him about.  I

 2     know we'll be using e-court as well, but sometimes I find it quicker to

 3     go through some documents if he has a hard copy available.  And if

 4     there's no objection from Mr. Djurdjic I would ask if the usher could

 5     hand this to the witness now.

 6             JUDGE PARKER:  That can be done, yes.

 7             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you very much.

 8        Q.   And, sir, I don't know how you would like to be addressed.

 9     Should I call you "mister," or should I call you "general"?  I understand

10     you're still active duty in the MUP.

11        A.   I don't mind either way.  It's up to you really.

12        Q.   All right, thank you.  Well I'll call you general.  Do you recall

13     having given that statement in May of 2004?

14        A.   Yes, I do.

15        Q.   And that is 65 ter 05190 for the record.

16             Did you have a chance to read it and review it before coming to

17     court?

18        A.   Yes, I did.

19        Q.   And I understand from my colleague Mr. Stamp that when you did

20     review it, I think earlier this week on Sunday, that you had some changes

21     or corrections that you wished to make; is that right?

22        A.   Well, they are, in fact, only some technical details and

23     mistranslations.

24        Q.   Well, perhaps we can go through those before I ask you to confirm

25     your statement, and I guess the easiest way for me to do this is I will

Page 4083

 1     look at the notes that Mr. Stamp made and ask if you can correct that.  I

 2     know the first corrections you wanted to make had to do with your career

 3     details, which are on page 2 of the English.  And you wanted to make some

 4     corrections concerning the dates.  Do you recall what those were now?

 5        A.   Between 1993 and 1994 I was the commander of the police station

 6     in Podujevo.  From 1994 through to March of 1995 I was the -- I commanded

 7     the PJP unit in Pristina, but under six months I think it was.  From 1995

 8     to 2000, head of the police division of the Pristina SUP.  Alongside

 9     that, from 1997 to 2001 - unless I'm mistaken - I was the commander of

10     the 24th PJP Detachment, which later became the

11     124th Intervention Brigade.

12             In 2001 deputy chief of the gendarmerie or deputy head, it

13     doesn't make a difference, really.  Under promotions and commendations,

14     from 1988 to 1995 I was an independent inspector.  I would also like to

15     add that I completed the home affairs secondary school, the police

16     secondary school, and that I was credited with highest marks, and I was

17     the best cadet of my class.  And in 1994 I was awarded a pistol from the

18     Ministry of the -- by the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

19             In 1996 I received a pecuniary prize from the minister.  From

20     February 1999 I became a lieutenant-colonel.  I was specially promoted a

21     lieutenant-colonel.

22        Q.   When you say you were specially promoted, what did that mean?

23     Ahead of time?

24        A.   Yes.  It was an early promotion, though not much ahead of what

25     would have been the regular promotion.  Let me also add that in 2001 I

Page 4084

 1     received a pecuniary reward from the minister of the interior, and in

 2     2003, also from the then-minister of the interior, I received a ducat

 3     which is also a sort of an award that is normally given by the minister.

 4     And unless I'm mistaken, these are all the corrections I have to make.

 5        Q.   Okay.  I had some notes that there were some additional ones that

 6     I'll ask you about.  In paragraph 9 of your statement you indicated to

 7     Mr. Stamp that there was a change you wanted to make about when the

 8     24th Detachment was increased in size and transformed to the 124th.  Do

 9     you recall what that was?

10        A.   Yes, the statement says that the 24th Detachment of the PJP

11     increased in size in 1998 to deal with the developing security crisis in

12     Kosovo, and with this increase it became known as the

13     124th Intervention Brigade.  The only comment I made was that I do not

14     think that this was the reason behind this change.  It -- either what we

15     were discussing was misconstrued or what I wanted to say was

16     misinterpreted.  In page -- in paragraph 11 we also found a linguistic

17     error.  It says OPG.  In Serbian that means the operational sweep group,

18     whereas I was told that in the English translation, the way it is

19     written, it says something else; and I think that what I meant or had in

20     mind was much better.  I think in English it was some sort of a clean-up

21     that was involved.

22        Q.   I think what you had indicated was that in the B/C/S the Serbian

23     word for sweep is not included, but I will tell you that in the English

24     version the OPG is translated as operational sweep groups.  So it seems

25     like the English is correct and there was just a Serbian word missing.

Page 4085

 1     Is that correct?

 2        A.   Well, not.  You see, there's a difference.  A clean-up operation

 3     implies quite something else than the sweep operation implies.  A sweep

 4     operation is an operation aimed at searching an area.  A clean-up means

 5     something else.

 6        Q.   There's nothing in the English about clean-up.  It only has

 7     sweep.  Is that what you want?

 8             MR. HANNIS:  I see Mr. Djurdjic on his feet, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes, Mr. Djurdjic.

10             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] If I may be of assistance, I

11     was -- I received in the interpretation that Mr. Stamp [sic] had said

12     operational search groups or investigating groups.  I think that they

13     might have caused the problem.  The other term "ciscenje" or clean-up was

14     also used.  I know what the OPG means in Serbian.  I don't know what the

15     English translation should be, but definitely not -- it should not

16     involve investigation or anything of the sort, as was said that

17     Mr. Stamp [sic] had referred to it.

18             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Hannis, I don't know whether the matter's any

19     clearer to you.

20             MR. HANNIS:  No.  I think I understand.  The English word is

21     "sweep" and I think that's consistent with what the witness and

22     Mr. Djurdjic believe it should be, and I -- that's my position.  And I

23     would also indicate that Mr. Stamp is not here, and Mr. Stamp hasn't said

24     anything yet today.

25             JUDGE PARKER:  For the moment we'll take it in English as sweep.

Page 4086

 1             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 2        Q.   General, is there anything else in the statement that you wanted

 3     to change or bring attention to the Judges today?

 4        A.   In principle, no, I don't think that there's anything else.

 5        Q.   Okay --

 6        A.   I suppose that we will be discussing these matters in the course

 7     of my testimony, and then we might come across certain issues that can be

 8     left as they are at present but will be explained in our discussions;

 9     right?

10        Q.   Yes.  One point I wanted to make now, though, are you satisfied

11     and can you confirm to the Court that with those changes that we just

12     went through that your written statement is accurate and that you would

13     answer the questions that were put to you then in the same way today if

14     you were asked the same questions?

15        A.   Well, in principle, yes.  Again, as I said, with certain

16     explanations because some of the statements herein are quite short and

17     perhaps require additional explanation.

18        Q.   All right.  Thank you.

19             MR. HANNIS:  With that, Your Honour, I would like to tender 5190

20     at this time.

21             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

22             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be assigned P00759, Your Honours.

24             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

25             And I understand it's the procedure, Your Honour, in this court

Page 4087

 1     at this time for me to read a brief summary of what the statement is

 2     about, if I may do so.  Thank you.

 3             In 1999 the witness was the commander of the 24th PJP Detachment,

 4     later the 124th Intervention Brigade, and the head of the police

 5     department of the Pristina SUP.  The witness gives an overview of the MUP

 6     structure in Kosovo.  He describes the organisational structure of PJP

 7     units, describing their uniforms, equipment, modalities of intervention,

 8     and operations, with a particular focus on the 24th Detachment, then

 9     124th Intervention Brigade.

10             He also describes how anti-terrorist operations were conducted in

11     1999, whereby the PJP units involved were under the operational command

12     of the VJ for the specific operation.  He specifies that in general all

13     anti-terrorist operations were planned by the VJ which would issue the

14     combat orders and plan of the operation.  He describes the coordination

15     between the VJ and the MUP, PJP, for combat operations.

16             The witness occasionally participated to meetings of the MUP

17     staff in Kosovo and will testify to visits to Kosovo by

18     General Obrad Stevanovic and General Vlastimir Djordjevic in 1999.  He

19     will also testify to the VJ headquarter in the Grand Hotel in Pristina

20     during the war.

21        Q.   Now, General, if I may, can you tell us -- we have your written

22     statement, the Judges have that information, so I'm going to go to some

23     particular points.  What position did you hold in 1998?

24        A.   If you'll allow me to just make two points before answering your

25     question because this may be important for my subsequent testimony.  It

Page 4088

 1     is common knowledge that the events that I am supposed to testify about

 2     today happened more than ten years ago.  The documentation that I had and

 3     which could have proved useful to me for my preparation for today

 4     perished in the bombing of the Secretariat of the Interior in Pristina

 5     where I used to work.  I think the bombing happened on the

 6     29th of March, 1999.  In the meantime, I was engaged in a similar

 7     assignment, though not equal in scale or scope.  I wish to tell you that

 8     I will do my best to recall all the relevant events and incidents that

 9     will be of interest for the Chamber.

10             Can you please repeat your question now.

11        Q.   Yes.  Can you tell us what position you held within the MUP

12     beginning from 1998.

13        A.   In 1999, I was the chief of the police department of the

14     Pristina Secretariat of the Interior.  As I said, concurrently I held the

15     position of a commander of what was at the time the

16     124th Intervention Brigade.

17        Q.   And in 1998?

18        A.   The same as above.  If we're talking about the early 1998, I was

19     the commander of the 24th Detachment unless I'm mistaken.

20        Q.   Okay.  And can you explain for us what was the

21     24th PJP Detachment?

22        A.   The 24th PJP Detachment was one of the units, one of the special

23     police units of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia.

24     It was one of several PJP units.

25        Q.   And the 24th was located in Pristina, Kosovo?

Page 4089

 1        A.   No.  It was not stationed in Pristina, rather, it was composed of

 2     members of the police from the Secretariat of the Interior from the area

 3     of Kosovo.  It was not a standing unit.  It was an ad hoc unit composed

 4     of members of the regular police forces which would when necessary come

 5     together and form the ad hoc 24th Detachment.

 6        Q.   And in 1998 approximately how many members were there in the

 7     24th PJP Detachment?

 8        A.   I wouldn't be able to tell you exactly, roughly 850.  Again, I

 9     have to emphasize that I can't be quite precise in the figure.

10        Q.   I understand.  I will take it that for numbers and dates that

11     sometimes you may just be giving us your best approximation because we're

12     talking about ten years ago.  Of those 800 or 850, approximately, PJP

13     members, do you have an idea of what percentage of them came from your

14     Pristina SUP?  Was it 10 per cent?  20 per cent?  Can you give us any

15     help with that?

16        A.   Well, from the Pristina Secretariat of the Interior, there were

17     two companies of the total of eight companies.  So seven Secretariat of

18     the Interior in Kosovo and Metohija, they existed there, and six provided

19     one company and the Pristina secretariat provided two companies because

20     it was the largest one.  And now I can't really give you the percentage

21     in regarding the regular standing personnel strength.

22        Q.   Okay.  I understand you were the commander of the 24th Detachment

23     in 1998; is that right?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Can you tell the Judges when you were made the commander and by

Page 4090

 1     whom, how did that happen?

 2        A.   Well, if I am not mistaken, if my memory serves me right, I was

 3     appointed the commander of this detachment in 1997.  I was preceded by my

 4     late colleague Jovica Milancic.  And when he died a few months later, the

 5     then-chief of the Pristina SUP - I think it was Djordja Keric -

 6     recommended that I should be appointed detachment commander because the

 7     Pristina Secretariat of the Interior was the secretariat from whose ranks

 8     commanders were appointed to the post of -- as detachment commanders.

 9     And this is why I was put on the personnel list because in order to be a

10     member or an officer in the PJP, you didn't have to have a written

11     decision to that effect because there was a decision to the defect that

12     once you were put on the establishment list you became a member.  I think

13     it was in 1997.

14        Q.   And prior to becoming named the commander, had you been just a

15     regular member of the PJP; and if so, for how long?

16        A.   Could you please repeat your question.  I didn't really

17     understand it.

18        Q.   Before you got named the commander in 1997, had you been just a

19     regular PJP member not holding a command position; and if so, for how

20     long?

21        A.   Well, I was a member of the PJP from the very time when it was

22     established in 1993 I think, but between 1995 and 1997 I was not a

23     member, but in the period before that I was, from 1993 in other words.

24        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  One thing I'm not clear on is as commander of

25     the PJP, the 24th Detachment, I understand that was an ad hoc body, you

Page 4091

 1     also had your regular job in the Pristina SUP as head of the police

 2     department; correct?

 3        A.   Absolutely.

 4        Q.   Okay.  And in your job in the Pristina SUP as head of the police

 5     department, who was your boss, your immediate superior, is that the chief

 6     of the SUP?

 7        A.   In the secretariat where I was the chief of the department, my

 8     superior was the chief of the secretariat.  And the secretariat in

 9     Pristina - let's take that as an example - had about 13 departments.  So

10     I was one of the 13 department chiefs from various segments.  And let me

11     add here, while I was the detachment commander, I could not have at the

12     same time served as the department chief.  It's logical.  So it was

13     physically impossible for me to perform both those duties.

14        Q.   So how did that work?  When you became detachment commander you

15     didn't do any work anymore as head of the police department during that

16     time?

17        A.   Well, I've already said that the 24th Detachment was an ad hoc

18     unit.  It was not a standing unit, and it performed tasks from that

19     sphere.  So when I did jobs that had to do with the 24th Detachment, I

20     did not at the same time act as the department chief.

21        Q.   Okay.  I think I understand now.  So -- but when the 24th was not

22     actively engaged in anything, then you were doing your regular job;

23     right?

24        A.   That's right.

25        Q.   Okay.  In 1998, the 24th PJP detachment became the

Page 4092

 1     124th Intervention Brigade.  Do you recall approximately when that

 2     occurred?  I think we'll look at a document in a little bit.

 3        A.   Yes.  I think it was in June 1998.

 4        Q.   Okay.  And in 1998 and 1999 can you tell us who was the head of

 5     the SUP in Pristina.  I know it changed.  There was at least one or two

 6     changes during that time, but can you tell us beginning in 1998 who was

 7     the chief of the Pristina SUP and then who it was by the end of 1999.

 8        A.   The chief of the Pristina SUP was Colonel Bosko Petric.  If my

 9     memory serves me right, I think that in April it was

10     Colonel Bogoljub Janicevic who was appointed the chief.  Before that he

11     served as the chief of the Urosevac SUP.

12        Q.   Do you know why Colonel Petric was replaced?

13        A.   Well, it was not the nature of my job to know that at the time,

14     but I did not see this as his removal from office because he was sent

15     from the Uzice secretariat there, he was seconded there.  And once the --

16     his secondment expired, he simply went back to his original job.  I think

17     there is even a limitation under the law for the time that one can stay

18     away from one's original unit.

19             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djurdjic.

20             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, thank you very

21     much.  The witness responded, but I do not like the way that Mr. Hannis

22     is phrasing his questions because the witness never did say that Colonel

23     Petric was removed from office.  And the way that question was asked was:

24     "Do you know why Colonel Petric was removed from office in April," and I

25     think these are very important issues and this is not just a question of

Page 4093

 1     linguistic nuance.  Thank you.

 2             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, if I may, my question was:

 3             "Do you know Colonel Petric was replaced?"

 4             The witness's statement paragraph 1 says:

 5             "... Colonel Bosko Petric until the end of April 1999 when he was

 6     replaced ..."

 7             I'm using the exact words in the witness's statement.

 8             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you, Mr. Hannis.  Carry on.

 9             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

10        Q.   Now, when you were acting as commander of the PJP detachment and

11     later the intervention brigade, in that role, when it was active and

12     engaged, who was your superior?  Who did you report to for purposes of

13     activities of the PJP unit?

14        A.   What period are you talking about, and what tasks do you have in

15     mind?

16        Q.   Well, 1998 and 1999 is the time-period, and I'm talking about any

17     time when the PJP was formed to carry out a task so that you would be

18     working as detachment commander instead of working at your regular job as

19     head of the police department.

20        A.   Well, in 1998 and 1999 we were mostly deployed in

21     Kosovo and Metohija.  My superior command, so to speak, at that time as

22     regards those activities was the MUP staff which was established in

23     Pristina, so for those activities, because according to a decision, the

24     relevant decision, they were responsible for that, and they were in

25     charge.

Page 4094

 1        Q.   Was there a particular individual in the MUP staff that you were

 2     responsible to or that you reported to concerning activities of your

 3     PJP unit?

 4        A.   Well, if you're talking about anti-terrorist actions that we

 5     conducted in that period, I said that we carried out those missions for

 6     the most part in accordance with the pre-existing plans that we received,

 7     and we acted in accordance with those plans.  So as far as I know, the

 8     format, the contents, and all the other aspects of those plans, I think

 9     that it was all done and produced by the military command.

10             And as regards the reporting following those actions, the reports

11     were submitted by the command of the unit that I was in the field with

12     and I was subordinate - I think that's the correct term.  And now, as for

13     notification, I informed the MUP staff whenever somebody called to

14     inquire about the goings-on, what was happening, and so on.

15        Q.   And who would that MUP staff member be?  Was it always the same

16     person or different people?

17        A.   Well, it was not always the same person.  It would be some

18     officer from the staff.

19        Q.   Do you remember any of the names of those persons from the MUP

20     staff that you dealt with?

21        A.   Well, I think it was Dusko Adamovic, Miroslav Mijatovic -- well,

22     I can't now recall, but probably other people too.

23        Q.   And you've described the PJP unit that you commanded as being an

24     ad hoc body that was not a standing unit that came together and got

25     active as needed.  Can you explain to the Judges the process, how that

Page 4095

 1     worked.  Who decided when your detachment or brigade was going to be

 2     needed?  Do you know who made that decision and -- well, answer that

 3     first, please.

 4        A.   Well, I don't know who planned those activities.  I assume --

 5     well, since the documents were produced in terms of their format and

 6     contents in the way that it was done in the military; so I assume that

 7     the information about the MUP units, the independent MUP units, was

 8     submitted by somebody from the staff.  Now, as for my unit, I couldn't

 9     really give you an answer.  It was probably somebody -- well, in

10     accordance with the procedure that I've already outlined.

11        Q.   Well, how would you become informed that your unit was going to

12     be required to do a task?  Wasn't there somebody in MUP who told you

13     about that?

14        A.   Well, usually we would receive our task and the documents that we

15     needed to carry out the task.

16        Q.   From whom?

17        A.   Well, it was either some of the officers from the staff or we

18     would receive this in the field at those briefings that we had together

19     with the army personnel in the course of the preparations for the task.

20     But from the beginning of the war, the whole procedure became more

21     complex.

22        Q.   In what way did it become more complex with the beginning of the

23     war?

24        A.   Well, it became more complex because the building where the staff

25     headquarters was located, the secretariat headquarters, was hit by bombs

Page 4096

 1     and the staff was moving all the time.  So when we were summoned to

 2     attend a meeting, we never knew where the meeting would be held.  We went

 3     then to the secretariat headquarters, took the documents, and then we

 4     went to talk to the military people, and we would do all the preparations

 5     that were necessary, including reconnaissance and so on.

 6        Q.   I assume that in 1999 after March 24th when the bombing started,

 7     that your PJP or your intervention brigade was engaged full time, every

 8     day, throughout the end of the war; is that correct?

 9        A.   No.

10        Q.   So what percentage of the time was your PJP unit active during

11     the months of the war?

12        A.   Well, if I may be allowed to say this, I said that

13     124th Intervention Brigade consisted of eight companies, and it was never

14     deployed in its full composition, at full strength, the eight companies.

15     Mostly there would be only four or five companies from the

16     Pristina secretariat, Urosevac, and Gnjilane secretariats, and maybe a

17     company here and there that was unengaged at the time or that was based

18     in the territory where the mission was to be carried out.

19             Other companies were used by other PJP detachments, so one or two

20     companies.  So at that time, I did not know whether they were actually

21     engaged in any kind of mission because they were not under any obligation

22     to report to me.  They performed their tasks in accordance with the plans

23     that they had received.  So I was only in charge of coordinating the

24     companies that were under the plan envisaged as participating in a

25     mission and for the specific mission that I was appointed the head of the

Page 4097

 1     unit for.  So I could not give you a percentage.  But I assume that there

 2     were quite a few occasions when the unit was engaged and deployed.

 3        Q.   Okay.  If you can help me out, I'm a little unclear then about

 4     your role as commander of the 124th Intervention Brigade.  I think you

 5     told us before there were -- is it correct there were eight companies in

 6     the 124th Brigade in 1999?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And as commander were you the commander of all eight companies?

 9        A.   I was the commander of all those eight companies, but when only

10     some of the companies were engaged to perform a task, then I commanded

11     only those companies that were performing that task.  I was not a

12     commander of the companies that were not engaged under me but were

13     engaged in tasks to be performed by other PJP detachments or the

14     military.

15             PJP is a specific kind of unit because it is an ad hoc unit.

16     There is an establishment structure, but that doesn't mean that at any

17     given time all its members have to be deployed or engaged.  But it

18     depends on the actual needs based on the task, the specific task.  So if

19     I was designated as the person in charge of a certain task or mission,

20     then I commanded the companies that were designated as being deployed to

21     perform it.  I don't know if I was clear.

22             So this was not like a standing unit in the military with the

23     permanent command and the permanent composition and everything that goes

24     with it.  It was an ad hoc unit which did have its accomplishment and it

25     was used for each specific task in the strength that was necessary to

Page 4098

 1     actually perform that task.  The same went for all the PJP detachments,

 2     not just the unit that was under my command.

 3        Q.   Okay.  Let me follow-up to be sure I'm understanding.  You had

 4     eight companies in your brigade and say, because of the situation in

 5     Kosovo in April 1999, two of your companies were requested to help the VJ

 6     in Pec and two of your companies were requested to help in Suva Reka, how

 7     did that work?  Are you still the commander of those companies, or is

 8     their command delegated to someone else?  Can you explain that if you

 9     understand my question.

10        A.   Well, the command was transferred to whoever they were carrying

11     out the task with.

12        Q.   And I understand that when there were joint operations performed

13     by the VJ and the MUP, that - according to your statement - the MUP unit

14     was subordinated for the purpose of that combat task or action; correct?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   But do you know who decided when two companies of your brigade

17     were going to be sent somewhere else for a task?  Did you have any say in

18     that or was that done by somebody higher in the MUP or by the VJ?  How

19     did that happen?  Who got to choose?

20        A.   Well, I did not decide.  Now, I couldn't really tell you who got

21     to choose, but I assume that it was done by somebody in the staff.

22        Q.   Well, how did you become aware that two of your companies were

23     going to be going to Pec next week to help the VJ?  Did you receive a

24     document or did somebody from the MUP staff call you?  Did somebody from

25     the company say, Hey, Boss, we're going to Pec?  How do you find out?

Page 4099

 1        A.   I didn't really understand your question.  Could you please

 2     repeat it.

 3        Q.   Yes.  If you're the brigade commander, the overall commander of

 4     these eight companies, if it came about that two companies were going to

 5     be required to go help with a specific task or action and assist the VJ,

 6     for example, in Pec, how did you find out about that?  Did somebody first

 7     ask you, Can you loan us two units?  Or did your boss say, You need to

 8     send two of your companies there?  Or did you find out once your two

 9     companies had arrived in Pec and say, Hey Boss, the VJ needs us over

10     here?  How did that work?  There must have been a system in place.

11        A.   Normally one company was engaged only.  Only in very rare cases

12     were two companies engaged because they were distributed or present along

13     the various secretariats.  So if there was need for one company to be

14     deployed to, let's say, Pec, then that one company would be dispatched

15     from the secretariat in Pec, rather than having another unit come in from

16     a different area.

17        Q.   So are you telling me that your eight companies in Pristina never

18     operated outside the area of Pristina municipality?

19        A.   I'm under the impression that you misunderstood me.  There

20     weren't eight companies in Pristina.  There were two companies in

21     Pristina only.  My feeling was that you phrased your question

22     differently.  I said at the outset that each secretariat had one company.

23     There's the Kosovska Mitrovica; then Pec; third, Djakovica; fourth,

24     Prizren; fifth, Urosevac; sixth, Gnjilane; and there were two companies

25     present in the secretariat in Pristina.  Had there been a need to engage

Page 4100

 1     one company for the purposes of the area of Pec, then the company

 2     stationed with the Pec secretariat would have been the one to be

 3     deployed.  I don't know if I was clear enough this time, if you

 4     understand me.

 5        Q.   I think I do now, and you're right, I misunderstood or I had

 6     forgotten what you told me when I first asked my question.  But in light

 7     of what you've said just now, of those eight companies, the two in

 8     Pristina, the others in the various municipalities you described, weren't

 9     there times during the war, for example, where the needs were such that a

10     particular PJP company was called upon to operate outside its home

11     municipality, if you will?

12        A.   Well, there probably were.  However, I wouldn't be able to give

13     you a specific example.  I suppose that there probably were such cases.

14        Q.   But as you sit here right now, you can't remember that ever

15     happening?

16        A.   Well, I can't recall a specific instance, but I presume that that

17     was the case.

18        Q.   Okay.  Maybe we'll come back to that when we look at some of the

19     documents.  And I would like to look at one document right now.  This is

20     65 ter number 01252.

21             And, General, for you in the binder it's the tab marked

22     number 25, if you could have a look at that.  And my English translation

23     indicates this is a decision on the composition of the staff, leaders and

24     members of the staff of the MUP for Kosovo and Metohija.  The date is not

25     clear on my copy.  I think it's May 11th, 1998, and it appears to bear

Page 4101

 1     the signature and stamp of General Djordjevic.

 2             Have you seen this document before today?

 3        A.   No.

 4        Q.   Okay.  Do you see item number 4 lists you -- I guess your grade

 5     level at the time was major.  It says:

 6             "Major Zarko Brakovic, chief of the police department of the SUP

 7     Pristina, as the assistant staff leader for police affairs."

 8             Were you ever told that you had been named a member of the MUP

 9     staff for Kosovo?

10        A.   Nobody ever told me that.  My view is that the composition of the

11     staff was somewhat different based on what I know from my work in

12     reality.  Nobody informed me of me holding this position, nor did I ever

13     feel I was discharging it.

14        Q.   Okay.  Well, we'll come to more about that in a minute.  In your

15     witness statement, which is now Exhibit P759, in paragraph 5 you said:

16             "By virtue of my position as commander of the 24th Detachment of

17     the PJP and the 124th Intervention Brigade, I was a member of the MUP

18     staff for Kosovo until June 1998 ..."

19             Is that correct?

20        A.   That is correct.  If the Trial Chamber is interested, I can offer

21     an explanation of the principle underlying this practice.

22        Q.   Well, I -- go ahead, please.

23        A.   When my predecessor, the late Milacic, was the commander of the

24     24th Detachment before my time, he was appointed assistant leader of the

25     MUP staff alongside the other position.  My guess is that when I replaced

Page 4102

 1     him I automatically became a member of the staff, and that was between

 2     1997 and 1998, unless I'm mistaken.  So what I said there was that I

 3     was -- I held that position on paper, but I did not effectively

 4     participate in the work of the staff, save for having attended several

 5     meetings.  I had no other role to play there.  That was in 1997 and 1998.

 6        Q.   In your statement you say you held that position on the staff

 7     until June 1998.  What happened in June 1998 that changed that?

 8        A.   I don't know about that.  I was never the one to be appointed to

 9     any position.  It was in somebody else's hands, and I can't give you an

10     answer.

11        Q.   Well, how did you know that you weren't on the staff anymore?

12     Did somebody tell you, Mr. Brakovic, don't come to the staff meetings

13     anymore?  How did you find out?

14        A.   I found out because some other individuals appeared in the staff

15     and carried out the duties that were defined for them.  I can't remember

16     whether it was somebody from the staff who told me as much.  I don't

17     remember, but I suppose that that's how I learnt, somebody told me.

18        Q.   Do you remember who it was that told you?

19        A.   I told you in my answer there I can't remember.  There's a

20     possibility that it might have happened either way, that's why I can't

21     answer your question.

22        Q.   Okay.  Related to that let me show you another document and we'll

23     come back to this.

24             MR. HANNIS:  I think, Your Honours, I want to tender this but

25     perhaps I need to talk about the next one first.

Page 4103

 1             Can we have a look at exhibit in evidence P57.

 2        Q.   And this is the next tab for you, General, it's tab 26.  And this

 3     is dated the 16th of June, 1998, entitled:  "Decision to establish a

 4     ministerial staff for the suppression of terrorism."

 5             Have you seen that document before today?

 6        A.   Yes, I have, during the preparation for my testimony in the

 7     Ministry of the Interior in Belgrade.  And I was preparing for my

 8     testimony today.

 9        Q.   Was that the first time you'd ever seen it?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Do you recall who in the ministry showed that to you?

12        A.   Do you mean in reference to what I said about my preparation for

13     the testimony?

14        Q.   Yes.

15        A.   Well, nobody showed it to me.  I asked to be given access to

16     certain documents that might assist me in providing a relevant testimony

17     today.  Among others, this decision was in the documents I reviewed.

18        Q.   Well, how did you phrase your request?  What documents did you

19     ask for?

20        A.   I didn't ask for any specific documents.  I asked to be given

21     access to the archives, and I was.  Subsequently, I sought certain

22     documents that were relevant for me, and they were made available to me

23     in photocopies -- or rather, on a CD, and I have them.  But I don't think

24     I have this particular decision.  It wasn't relevant.  So I don't have

25     it.  I only saw it.

Page 4104

 1        Q.   Ah, okay.  Well -- so you saw this one but you didn't see the

 2     previous one we looked at where it has your name as being appointed to

 3     the staff; is that right?  Nobody showed you that one?

 4        A.   No.

 5        Q.   Okay.  From what you know about the MUP staff in June 1998 and

 6     in -- through the rest of the year into 1999, are the people listed here

 7     in P57, the document at tab 26 in your binder, the people who were

 8     members of the MUP staff based on what you saw and heard and knew?

 9        A.   I think so.  A number of them were and a number weren't.

10        Q.   Well, can you tell us which ones were to the best of your memory

11     and knowledge?  General Lukic?

12        A.   Yes, he was.

13        Q.   David Gajic?

14        A.   As for David Gajic, I saw that he be -- that he was an official

15     member of the staff, I saw that for the first time in this particular

16     document.  I had seen him at meetings, but I didn't know in what capacity

17     he was present.

18        Q.   And I understand he was -- he was on the state security side of

19     the MUP, right, not the public security side?

20        A.   Yes, I believe so.

21        Q.   Did you know Zivko Trajkovic?

22        A.   Yes, I did.

23        Q.   And he was the head of the SAJ units at that time; is that right?

24        A.   Yes, you're right.

25        Q.   Okay.  If you could look at the last page, item number 6, above

Page 4105

 1     the minister's name and signature, if you could read that paragraph

 2     and -- you don't have to read it out loud.  Just read it to yourself.

 3     Let me know when you've finished.

 4        A.   I read it.

 5        Q.   Okay.  And in essence the minister seems to be saying this

 6     decision, MP 57, appointing a staff for the suppression of terrorism, is

 7     a decision that supersedes, overrules, takes the place of certain other

 8     decisions that aren't going to be valid anymore.  One of those, the last

 9     one listed, is strictly confidential number 1206/98-2 of 11 June 1998,

10     and I would suggest to you that that number refers to 01252 at tab 25 in

11     your binder, where you're named as being a member of a staff in -- a MUP

12     staff in Pristina.  I don't know what you can see on your B/C/S copy

13     regarding the number and date.  I know it's rather blurry, but would you

14     agree with me that that's what it seems to refer to?

15        A.   I can't find either the number or the date here.  I can only see

16     the titles.  It is possible that this was the case, but ...

17        Q.   I think on -- on the one from General Djordjevic in the lower

18     left near his signature do you see what appears to be a number and date

19     although part of it may be too light to read, can you see a partial

20     number or date there?

21        A.   I can see that it says 206 here and then 110, which is probably a

22     date.

23        Q.   Okay.  And that would explain perhaps why you never were told you

24     were made a member of the staff because this decision on the

25     11th of June, 1998, was overridden on the 16th of June, 1998, by the

Page 4106

 1     minister's order; does that make sense?

 2        A.   Presumably so.

 3        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.

 4             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, now I would tender 1252.

 5             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djurdjic.

 6             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I am absolutely in

 7     agreement with the fact that this document is relevant for the trial and

 8     that it has to be admitted into evidence; however, I place an objection

 9     with regard to the criteria.  The witness is not familiar with the

10     document.  He said that he had just seen it -- he has just seen it for

11     the first time, and the document is supposed to be tendered through the

12     witness.  I don't think that this should be the way it should be done,

13     but if this is indeed the case and if the document is going to be

14     introduced through the witness in this way, then I only ask that this

15     same practice be employed throughout the trial.  Thank you.

16                           [Trial Chamber confers]

17             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, perhaps it would assist if I ask a

18     couple more questions.  I don't want to be hoist by my own petard and

19     then be faced by having too low a standard for the admission of evidence

20     later on when I may be in the position of trying to object to something

21     that Mr. Djurdjic wants to put in.

22             JUDGE PARKER:  Your submission briefly.

23             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, I wanted to ask the witness a couple

24     more questions concerning the document I'm asking in terms of form and

25     regularity and similar to others that he may have seen of a like nature.

Page 4107

 1     And I don't know if Your Honours have the copy of the B/C/S original to

 2     look for yourself to see what parts of the number and date on that that

 3     you may determine whether it could be the same document that's referred

 4     to in P --

 5             JUDGE PARKER:  We have what is on the screen.

 6             MR. HANNIS:  Okay.

 7             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djurdjic.

 8             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the date is

 9     absolutely correct.  I want to say this to my learned friend, Mr. Hannis.

10     And we do have a document in e-court which is a much better copy of this

11     one.  The date is correct.  The date on which this document supersedes

12     the earlier documents, referring to the staff.  That's something that's

13     true.  The date is definitely accurate.

14             MR. HANNIS:  And what I wanted Your Honours to look at is not the

15     one that's on the screen.  The one on the screen makes reference in the

16     English to number 1206/98-2 of 11 June 1998, but I need you to look at

17     1252 at the B/C/S to see if that number appears to be that same number

18     and that date of 11 June.  And it's in the lower left directly across

19     from the stamp and signature.

20             And I would argue to Your Honours that given the contents of the

21     document, what's described in Minister Stojiljkovic's order about what

22     he's superseding, it makes sense.  He's creating a MUP staff for

23     suppression of terrorism, and he's directing that that order supersede an

24     earlier one.  This earlier one is General Djordjevic's order creating a

25     MUP staff, not particularly for the suppression of terrorism but a MUP

Page 4108

 1     staff.  Given the timing, the contents of the two documents, I think

 2     logic dictates even though you cannot -- at least I cannot read every

 3     single digit in the number and date, I think there's enough for you to be

 4     satisfied that it can be admitted and considered with other evidence

 5     throughout the course of the trial to give it whatever final weight you

 6     deem appropriate.

 7             JUDGE PARKER:  [Microphone not activated]

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please, for the Judge.

 9             JUDGE PARKER:  We now have on the screen the electronic copy of

10     the document that you have shown to the witness I believe.  Is that

11     correct?

12             MR. HANNIS:  That is it, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE PARKER:  Is it the case that there is another form in

14     e-court of this same order which is more legible?  Which is what I

15     understand Mr. Djurdjic to be saying.

16             MR. HANNIS:  Well, that's the best I've ever seen.  If there's a

17     better one, I would be happy to see it.

18             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] There certainly is one in my

19     possession.  I don't know if there's one in e-court.  I do have one which

20     is a much better copy.  We do not dispute the date.  It is the

21     11th of June, 1998, and the reference number is the one that was stated

22     here, and it was signed by Mr. Djordjevic.  And let me just state that I

23     do not contest the date.  What I was referring to is that I wanted both

24     sides to have to follow the same criteria for admission of evidence.

25     That's what I wanted to raise.

Page 4109

 1             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. --

 2             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I will try to locate a better

 3     version of this decision.  I don't know if I can do it in the next three

 4     days or five days, depending on how busy I will be, but I will definitely

 5     locate the copy that I have.

 6             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djurdjic, the Chamber does try to be

 7     consistent with the admission of evidence.  The receipt of official

 8     documents is often something that can be undertaken on the basis of the

 9     document's apparent regularity, its dating, its apparent signature,

10     its -- the stamp that is often on it, and so forth, or the source from

11     which the document was obtained.  And those matters are weighed.

12     Sometimes they will be sufficient, sometimes they will not be.

13             As I understand Mr. Djurdjic, Mr. Hannis, he does not object to

14     the admission of this document, accepting the correctness of the date,

15     although on the copy of the screen -- that is on the screen it is

16     incomplete or indistinct.  But he accepts that it is the correct

17     document.  Therefore, by consent we could receive this without any

18     further ado.

19             MR. HANNIS:  I would request that you do that, Your Honour, and I

20     appreciate Mr. Djurdjic's assistance.

21             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter number 01252, Your Honours, would be

23     assigned P00760.

24             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

25             And, Your Honours, I understand this is the time you take your

Page 4110

 1     first break?

 2             JUDGE PARKER:  The second break I hope.

 3             MR. HANNIS:  I'm sorry.  First for me.  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes.

 5             We will resume then at 6.00.

 6                           --- Recess taken at 5.30 p.m.

 7                           --- On resuming at 6.02 p.m.

 8             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes, Mr. Hannis.

 9             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

10        Q.   General, I would like next to show you an exhibit, it's tab

11     number 13 in your binder.

12             MR. HANNIS:  For the record, this is Exhibit P257 in evidence.

13        Q.   General, you'll see that's a decision on the formation of the

14     124th Intervention Brigade of the PJP, signed by Minister Stojiljkovic on

15     the 18th of June, 1998.  Have you seen that document before today?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Okay.  When was the first time you saw it?

18        A.   Well, most logically it was in a time-period that followed the

19     issuing of this decision -- well, I couldn't really tell you when it was,

20     what date, but that is how it should be.

21        Q.   And I see in item 1 that the 124th was to be formed by

22     integrating the 24th PJP Detachment and the Mechanised Police Brigade in

23     Pristina.  Can you tell me what was the Mechanised Police Brigade in 1998

24     in Pristina?  How big a unit was that and what kind of equipment did it

25     have?

Page 4111

 1        A.   Well, as indicated here, this unit was set up from the mechanised

 2     brigade and the 24th Detachment of the Pristina police.  The mechanised

 3     brigade of the police was set up in the 1980s, if my memory serves me

 4     right - this is when I began my service in the police - in the joint

 5     detachment of the Federal Secretariat of the Interior, if I'm not

 6     mistaken.  With time its strength was reduced.  So in 1994 when, or

 7     rather, 1995 - I am sorry, it slipped my mind temporarily - when I was

 8     appointed the chief of the department of the interior in the secretariat

 9     in 1995 the mechanised brigade for all intents and purposes did not exist

10     as an organised unit.

11             So before that and after it was established, it had a lower-rank

12     unit in each of the secretariats.  I don't know what that unit was

13     called.  So after 1995 - I can say that with certainty - it did not exist

14     as an organised unit but the equipment that was left behind that used to

15     belong to the mechanised brigade was given to the secretariats for their

16     use.  And this is what happened with the element of that unit in

17     Pristina.  Technically or formally this segment that was in Pristina was

18     covered by us from the secretariat, and there was a person who was the

19     commander of the brigade; he worked with me in the department of the

20     interior that I was the chief of.  But that was not an active-duty unit

21     so to speak.  But the secretariats were given the equipment for their

22     use, they were supposed to maintain it, and use it as they saw fit.  The

23     secretariat had a certain number of armoured vehicles.  There were some

24     armoured personnel carriers, tracked vehicles, and there were also some

25     wheeled armoured vehicles to be quite precise.

Page 4112

 1             When the unit was set up - now I'm talking about the

 2     124th Intervention Brigade - the mechanised unit, which was part of that

 3     mechanised brigade which, as I said, was in the secretariat so it didn't

 4     exist for all intents and purposes - the equipment was taken from the

 5     secretariats to meet the needs of the PJP units that also belonged to

 6     those secretariats.  As I said, there was several armoured personnel

 7     carriers, but because those armed personnel carriers were out of order

 8     that they could not be used, they didn't -- they were not taken over,

 9     they just remained there.  And the wheeled armoured vehicles, the BOVs,

10     armoured fighting vehicles, were taken over.  And in the establishment

11     list of the 124th Brigade they were included there on the list, they

12     became part of it.

13             I don't know whether I made myself clear because I was quite

14     extensive, but the mechanised brigade did not exist as an organised unit.

15     There was just the equipment that belonged to the mechanised brigade in

16     the secretariat.  So when this decision was issued, the equipment was

17     taken over and given to the PJP companies and the secretariats for their

18     use.  So that would be it in a nutshell.

19        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.

20        A.   And -- I'm sorry.  So it did not have a permanent composition.

21     So these were not people who were members of that unit and they performed

22     only tasks that were given to that unit.  That was not the case.

23        Q.   My next question has a link to your statement.  In paragraph 9 of

24     your original statement you talked about the PJP increasing in size in

25     1998 to deal with the developing security crisis in Kosovo.  And with

Page 4113

 1     this increase became known as the 124th.  But at the beginning today you

 2     said you wanted to change that paragraph and you wanted it to reflect

 3     that you didn't know why the PJP increased in size and became -- and the

 4     24th became the 124th.

 5             Would you look at paragraph 2.  It says:

 6             "The tasks and duties of the intervention brigade are focused on

 7     security, the suppression of terrorism, and other special complex

 8     security tasks within the jurisdiction of the MUP and protection of the

 9     security of the republic and its citizens."

10             Now, remember, this document is dated the 18th of June.  We saw

11     that two days before, on the 16th of June, Minister Stojiljkovic had

12     created a MUP staff in Kosovo for the suppression of terrorism.  Reading

13     those two things together, doesn't that refresh your memory that this was

14     being done because the security problem in Kosovo was indeed getting

15     worse in June 1998.  That's why the PJP got bigger, right, to deal with

16     this increasing problem?

17        A.   I really did not draw this conclusion.  That was not my

18     impression.  But now when you maybe establish a link between the dates,

19     perhaps yes; but at the time, I did not.

20        Q.   Okay.  Have a look at the next paragraph.

21             "Putting the intervention brigade on stand-by, assembly, and

22     engagement for the task in paragraph 1 shall be done on the orders of the

23     minister and on his authorisation of the chief of the public security

24     department."

25             That sounds like the people who decided about when the

Page 4114

 1     intervention brigade was going to be put on stand-by or gathered together

 2     or engaged for tasks was a decision by the minister, or if he delegated

 3     it to the chief of public security, General Djordjevic.  Does that

 4     refresh your memory about who made the decisions about when the PJP

 5     intervention brigade was going to be used?

 6        A.   Well, let me remind the Trial Chamber that what we talked about,

 7     the readiness and the gathering of the brigade personnel, the same thing

 8     went for all the PJP detachments.  In the decision to form PJPs, there is

 9     the same provision but it pertains to all the other PJP units.  And in

10     this sense I really don't see a difference.  This decision pertains only

11     to the 124th Brigade.  I assume that this is why it's listed here, but

12     otherwise the same rule was valid for all the other PJP units.

13        Q.   So it sounds like if there was an order from the minister or

14     General Djordjevic to you as a PJP brigade commander to stand-by or to

15     assemble or to engage, you would have had to follow that order; correct?

16        A.   If you're talking about 1998 and 1999, that is true, but in that

17     period, the unit was used through the staff.  It was the staff that

18     decided how to use the unit.  It was not done directly by the persons

19     that were mentioned.  It was only the MUP staff that could order the use

20     of the unit for tasks that were defined in the decision to establish the

21     staff.  So what do I want to say?  This is what it says here, but in

22     practice it was different.  It was only the staff that could decide how

23     to use the unit.

24        Q.   And to whom was the staff responsible, if you know?

25        A.   Well, in accordance with the decision that we have just seen, it

Page 4115

 1     was responsible to the minister, if I understood it correctly.

 2        Q.   And in your preparation for testimony, do you recall Mr. Stamp

 3     showing you a number of documents signed by General Djordjevic deploying

 4     PJP detachments or units to Kosovo in 1998 and 1999?  Do you recall

 5     seeing those?

 6        A.   Yes, I do.  It was a dispatch.  That's what we call it.

 7        Q.   There were several of those; right?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Before we leave this document, could you look at paragraph 7.  My

10     English translation reads:

11             "When the intervention brigade is standing by, assembled or

12     engaged for special security task as in item 2 or training in item 3 of

13     this decision, the commander and the commanders of the companies,

14     platoons, and detachments shall have the duties and powers of leaders of

15     corresponding organisational units of the ministry, that is, of the

16     police units in these organisational units."

17             Can you explain that for me.  I have a hard time understanding

18     this phrase about organisational units of the ministry.  What does this

19     mean about your power as a commander of this brigade?  Can you explain

20     that to us?

21        A.   Well, this paragraph - and I'm no lawyer - this is the way I see

22     it.  Since the unit is not a permanent unit, it is not composed of people

23     who do no other job but that, it is composed of police officers who

24     are -- who have a decision assigning them to regular duties.  Now,

25     members of the unit remain in the posts that they were assigned to in

Page 4116

 1     accordance with the decisions, their regular posts, and they have the

 2     duties and rights of the leaders of appropriate units of the ministry.

 3     This is a reference to those decisions, which means that if a platoon in

 4     a company from the secretariat in Kosovska Mitrovica, now the commander

 5     of that platoon is the commander or an officer from a police station in

 6     Kosovska Mitrovica.  The personnel in that platoon are officers from that

 7     police station.  So this platoon commander is their commanding officer in

 8     their regular duties and in those extraordinary duties that they have to

 9     perform.  So this is the reference to that.

10             So when they are deployed in the PJP doing PJP tasks, all the

11     responsibility in terms of their performance, discipline, and so on,

12     those commanding officers are duty-bound to -- they have the authority to

13     deal with their subordinates in the manner that I have already explained.

14     I don't know if I have made myself clear.

15             So the platoon commander was duty-bound to take care of his

16     members, personnel, in any way in terms of performing their tasks and

17     disciplinary measures and so on.  Why?  Because disciplinary

18     responsibility was not imposed at the level of the unit, but at the level

19     of their decisions assigning them to their regular posts.

20             So to give you an example -- so if somebody failed to obey an

21     order issued by the platoon commander, the platoon commander could

22     institute disciplinary proceedings against this person, but disciplinary

23     proceedings could only be instituted in the original police station, not

24     in the PJP, if you understand what I'm saying, because disciplinary

25     responsibility was something that was taken care of in the original unit.

Page 4117

 1     So I think that all of this, what you said about authority and the

 2     take-over of command, that the same applied to that.  I apologise in

 3     advance if I didn't make myself clear, but if I haven't made myself clear

 4     perhaps you can ask some follow-up questions and then I will be able to

 5     rephrase my answer.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  I need to -- I thought I was following you and then

 7     you got on the specific topic of discipline and you lost me at a turn.

 8     If a PJP policeman, say Officer Markovic, in the PJP company that's part

 9     of your brigade is from Pristina, he's from the Pristina SUP in a PJP

10     company, he's out doing a PJP task, and he refuses to obey an order or

11     commits some other disciplinary offence, who would have an authority to

12     discipline him?  Is it only his platoon commander or could it go all the

13     way up to you as brigade commander?  Or does it go to the chief of the

14     SUP?  Who has the ultimate authority to decide on discipline in that

15     situation?

16        A.   Well, in this specific case, the commander of the platoon where

17     police officer Markovic is serving who works together with him in the

18     police station, would file a disciplinary report to the commander of that

19     police station; and there is a disciplinary court within the secretariat,

20     it's an independent institution, so to speak, which would then deal with

21     the disciplinary report and decide how to punish this police officer

22     Markovic.

23        Q.   So then you as brigade commander department have any disciplinary

24     authority over the PJP members engaged in PJP activities?  It goes to the

25     SUP chief no matter what; is that right?

Page 4118

 1        A.   More or less.  I did not have the power to take specific

 2     measures.  I could tell the platoon commander to notify the commander of

 3     the police station to file a disciplinary report, and then the normal

 4     procedure would follow.  But I couldn't punish that person because the

 5     system of responsibility in the ministry was set up in that manner.

 6        Q.   Okay.  Let me flip it around to the other end.  You as a brigade

 7     commander become aware of a disciplinary breach by your immediate

 8     subordinate.  Your immediate subordinates were those company commanders

 9     or did you have detachments under you?

10        A.   The company commanders.

11        Q.   If a company commander had committed a breach, refused to obey an

12     order of yours, was the only thing you could do was report him to the

13     chief of the SUP?  You couldn't take any disciplinary action yourself?

14        A.   Precisely.

15        Q.   Okay.

16        A.   To the chief of the SUP or chief of the department of the

17     interior.

18        Q.   That last answer got translated as "chief of the department of

19     the interior."  I'm not sure what that is.  Chief of the Ministry of the

20     Interior or chief of the department of public security?  I'm not sure

21     what you're referring to there.

22        A.   I was referring to the chief of the department of the police or

23     of the interior in the Secretariat of the Interior where the company

24     commander came from, the OUP.

25        Q.   Ah, okay.  Thank you.

Page 4119

 1        A.   So in the chain of command, that person was lower than the chief

 2     of the secretariat.

 3        Q.   Okay.  Now related to this I'd like to show you another exhibit.

 4     This is P132 in evidence.  It's tab 12 in your binder.  I think it's the

 5     one right in front of what you're looking at now.  And you'll see this is

 6     the next day, the 19th of June, 1998.  It's from General Djordjevic to

 7     the various chiefs of the SUP.  And it also says to the commander,

 8     command of the 24th Detachment of the PJP.  That's you; right?  I'm

 9     sorry, are you finding tab 12?

10        A.   I haven't found it yet.  I'm sorry.  Yes, I found it.

11        Q.   Okay.  And you see the people it's addressed to, one of them is

12     to the commander, command of the 24th Detachment; that's you, right?

13        A.   Absolutely.

14        Q.   And do you recall seeing -- receiving this document in 1998?

15        A.   Well, a long time has passed and there's no reason for me not to

16     believe that I saw it, so I probably saw it.

17        Q.   Okay.  Well, it looks like you were supposed to see it.  Do you

18     agree with me about that?

19        A.   Yes, yes, absolutely.

20        Q.   Okay.  And it's about the decision to form the 124th.  The first

21     sentence says:

22             "In accordance with the proposal made by the commander of the

23     special police units, we hereby attach the decision by the minister to

24     form the 124th ..."

25             Do you know who the commander of the special police units was

Page 4120

 1     that's referred to here in the document?  Who was that person in

 2     June 1998?

 3        A.   The commander of the special police units was, ever since their

 4     inception, General Obrad Stevanovic to the best of my knowledge.  He held

 5     the position until such time as he took up a different position.  I think

 6     that was the position of the assistant minister.  I am not certain,

 7     though, of the position he assumed.  I only know that he changed

 8     positions.  Whether he had any say in this or participated in this, I

 9     can't tell you because the post that I held at the time would not allow

10     me to have that sort of information.

11        Q.   Okay.  Do you know who took Obrad Stevanovic's place as commander

12     of the special police when he moved on to another position?  Do you know

13     who that person was?

14        A.   I don't.

15        Q.   Do you know approximately when that happened, that

16     Obrad Stevanovic moved from his position as commander of special police

17     units?  Approximately.

18        A.   Roughly 1996 or 1997.

19        Q.   Well, then I'm confused because you said for this document issued

20     19 June 1998 that Obrad Stevanovic was the commander of special police

21     units.  So was he still in that position in 1998?

22        A.   I don't think so.

23        Q.   Okay.  And you don't know who was?

24        A.   I don't.

25        Q.   And during 1998 and 1999 when you were commander of the

Page 4121

 1     124th Intervention Brigade of the PJP, you didn't know who the commander

 2     of the special police units was in the MUP?

 3        A.   Well, General Obrad Stevanovic was present in all the duties

 4     involving uniformed police, both regular and extraordinary duties.  Now,

 5     did -- whether he appeared there as the commander of the PJP or as

 6     assistant minister or as something else, I really can't tell.  He was

 7     present where duties involving the uniformed police were involved.  Did I

 8     perceive him as the commander at the time?  It's quite possible, yes.

 9     However, what formally the case was based on the documents, apparently he

10     was not the commander formally at the time.

11        Q.   What document are you referring to that makes you think that?

12        A.   This is my opinion because, as I said, in 1996 or 1997 he was

13     appointed assistant minister.  This was general knowledge.  The only

14     thing is I don't know exactly when this happened.

15        Q.   And do you think that when he became an assistant minister he no

16     longer commanded the special police?  Is it possible that he had both

17     jobs?

18             MR. HANNIS:  I see Mr. Djurdjic on his feet.

19             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes, Mr. Djurdjic.

20             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was quite patient.

21     The witness provided his explanation, and we are going back to the same

22     question for the second or third time and this has led us to an opinion

23     now.  He said, I believe that he became assistant minister at such and

24     such a date.  I don't want to repeat what the witness said.  And now

25     we've come -- we've gone back to the realm of opinions.  Thank you.

Page 4122

 1             JUDGE PARKER:  Carry on, please, Mr. Hannis.

 2             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

 3        Q.   Mr. -- General Brakovic, do you know of any reason why

 4     Obrad Stevanovic taking up the position as an assistant minister would

 5     prevent him from continuing to be the commander of the special police

 6     units?

 7        A.   I believe that the question relates to something that went beyond

 8     the post I held and the possibility I had of obtaining information.

 9     Could he have?  Well, a PJP commander had to have been appointed to that

10     post and perform his duties on the basis of that appointment.

11        Q.   Well, before you told us that you had been the commander of the

12     24th Detachment and when it grew in size and became the

13     124th Intervention Brigade you said you remained the commander and that

14     there wasn't - I understood it - anything done differently to appoint you

15     commander of this new unit.  You just stayed in place.  Is that right?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Look at this document that you have in front of you.  Paragraph 2

18     talks about:

19             "In accordance with item 5 of the decision based on individual

20     establishment and criteria for PJP recruitment, the selection of

21     employees and members of the reserve component shall be carried out" and

22     it says "with the prior approval or on the recommendation of the

23     appropriate PJP establishment officers as follows ..."

24             And then it says:

25             "Commander and deputy commander of the intervention brigade with

Page 4123

 1     the approval of the PJP commander ..."

 2             So who was the PJP commander who approved you as being commander

 3     of the intervention brigade?  Somebody must have done that, and you don't

 4     know who it was?

 5        A.   The text you've just read out "with the prior approval or on the

 6     recommendation of the appropriate PJP establishment officers as follows:

 7             Commander and deputy commander of the intervention brigade with

 8     the approval of the PJP commander."

 9             According to this, it was not down to me to seek approval but the

10     chief of the -- it was up to the chief of the secretariat.  I told you

11     who it was who nominated me.  That's the way things worked.  Just as the

12     appointment of the commander and deputy commander of a company is done

13     with the approval of the commander of the intervention brigade, likewise

14     it wasn't up to me to select the commander and deputy commander of the

15     company it was up to the chief of the secretariat.  I was only asked an

16     opinion as to whether I agreed that Rade Jankovic should be appointed to

17     such and such a post.  I could either say that I agreed or disagreed.

18             In this instant case, I'm not sure, but I assume that it was the

19     chief of the secretariat who nominated me.  He must have consulted

20     someone as is stated in this text.  I can't tell you who it was because I

21     wasn't there, and he must have sought approval for my appointment.

22             Let me tell you what my understanding of this process was.  The

23     chief of the secretariat held a meeting with me when I was nominated to

24     be the commander of the 24th PJP Detachment.  When the 24th Detachment

25     became the 124th Intervention Brigade, there were no subsequent

Page 4124

 1     discussions.  It simply played out by inertia.

 2        Q.   Okay.  The 124th Intervention Brigade consisting of eight PJP

 3     companies in June 1998 and in 1999, approximately how many men did that

 4     have at its largest contingency during that time?  Did you have a

 5     thousand men?

 6        A.   I can't give you the precise figure.  Approximately up to a

 7     thousand at the most.  The most precise figure would be around 950.

 8     Since I'm not certain, let's allow for the possibility that it was a bit

 9     over 950 but not more than a thousand.

10        Q.   Okay.  In 1998 and 1999 in Kosovo we've seen that there were PJP

11     detachments, both some that were from Kosovo and some PJP detachments

12     that were sent in from outside Kosovo, from Serbia proper.  What was the

13     size of these detachments approximately?  Smaller than a brigade?

14        A.   In Kosovo and Metohija, if my memory serves me well, there were

15     four detachments present there and there was the

16     122nd Intervention Brigade.  The detachments had some 150 to 200 men --

17     fewer men than my detachment, and I think that the 122nd Brigade had the

18     same strength as the 124th.

19        Q.   The brigades were clearly the largest group of PJP.  So you and

20     the 122nd -- you and the commander of the 122nd were the commanders of

21     the largest contingencies of PJPs in Kosovo in 1998 and 1999; right?

22        A.   If we compared the strengths of the respective units and the

23     differences, yes.

24        Q.   Okay.  I've heard this term used regarding work in the MUP and it

25     talks about lines of work, and I'm trying to understand this in relation

Page 4125

 1     to the hierarchy and the chain of command in the MUP.  In your police

 2     station in Pristina, you as head of the police department were

 3     subordinate to the chief of the police or the chief of the SUP in

 4     Pristina.  Right so far?

 5        A.   If I understood you correctly, I was the chief of the police

 6     department and my superior was the chief of the secretariat or of the SUP

 7     for short.

 8        Q.   Okay.

 9        A.   SUP stands for the Secretariat of the Interior.

10        Q.   But I've heard other witnesses from the MUP talk about, for

11     example, within the secretariat you said I think there were, like, 13

12     department heads.  So there was a head of crime police, there was

13     probably a head of administration.  You had these other departments

14     within the SUP; right?

15        A.   Absolutely.

16        Q.   And all 13 of you were subordinate to the chief of the SUP?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   But I understood that the department heads also had a line of

19     work where you reported or dealt with your -- your kind of work with

20     somebody at headquarters in the MUP; is that correct?  So there would be

21     somebody in the MUP who was responsible for the work of the crime police,

22     and the department head in Pristina for the crime police would report to

23     that person as well as to the chief of the SUP.  Am I correct about that?

24             MR. HANNIS:  I see Mr. Djurdjic on his feet.

25             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes, Mr. Djurdjic.

Page 4126

 1             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I think the question is beyond the

 2     scope of the examination, and I don't think that Mr. Hannis should lead

 3     the witness by presenting his own views or conclusions.  I think that the

 4     direct examination has now turned into viva voce.

 5             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djurdjic, the witness is a very senior

 6     officer.  Mr. Hannis would have no prospect of imposing his wishes and

 7     thoughts on the witness.  There is at times some difficulty in directing

 8     the witness's attention to particular issues.  I think the form of

 9     questioning being used is one that in the circumstances is appropriate

10     and is not likely to lead to any improper or false or misleading

11     evidence.

12             Carry on, please, Mr. Hannis.

13             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

14        Q.   General, I don't know if you remember my question or understood

15     it, or should I try and ask it again?

16        A.   No, I remember it very well.  All the communication in the

17     specific case you mentioned between the chief of the crime police

18     department and the police administration went through the chief of the

19     secretariat, and I'm referring to the official communication.  Based on

20     my experience, I can tell you that I don't know that I ever spoke

21     directly to the chief of the police department who was my superior along

22     the line that you suggested in your question.

23        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  You mentioned in your statement - talking

24     about the uniforms and the insignia that the PJP wore -- I wanted to ask

25     you about ribbons that the PJP wore when they were in the field on

Page 4127

 1     certain kinds of combat activities.  You mentioned in paragraph 8 that

 2     they would wear ribbons.  I would like to show you 65 ter number 1191.  I

 3     think that's tab 7 in your binder.  If you could have a look at that,

 4     please.

 5             Have you seen that or something like that before?  It's

 6     instructions to the police for wearing identification bands in May 1999

 7     from the secretariat in Pristina?

 8        A.   You are right.  I may have seen that.  However, as far as I can

 9     see, it was not the Pristina secretariat who sent this or asked for this,

10     it was in the Pristina secretariat that this happened, but I'm familiar

11     with it, yes.

12        Q.   And did the PJP wear armbands, as suggested here in this

13     schedule?

14        A.   Absolutely, just as the document reads.

15        Q.   Okay.  And if you could look at the next -- I'm sorry.

16             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, I'd like to tender that one, if I may,

17     1191.

18             JUDGE PARKER:  Before that happens, perhaps the witness could

19     help me with the notation at the very bottom which appears to be a

20     remark:  The army "do not have identification bands."  Is that saying

21     that these identification bands were only used by the police?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can read what the document says

23     there at the bottom.  However, based on my knowledge dating from that

24     period, I believe that the army definitely had the same identification

25     bands as the police.  This was the way in which members of the police and

Page 4128

 1     members of the army could recognise one another out in the field in order

 2     not to cause friendly fire.  What lies behind this remark at the bottom

 3     is something I cannot remember at this point.  My memory of the events of

 4     the time tells me that they did have them.

 5             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

 6             The document will be received.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  And that will be assigned P00761, Your Honours.

 8             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

 9        Q.   And, General, if you could look at the next tabbed item,

10     number 8, which is 04076 is the 65 ter number.  You'll see that's dated

11     the 13th of April from General Lukic, as head of the MUP staff, regarding

12     armbands for the policemen.  And it has a chart showing which colours

13     should be worn on which arms on which date.  Have you seen that document

14     before, do you recall?

15        A.   I don't recall this document, though I suppose I did see it.

16        Q.   And --

17        A.   I suppose.  I'm not sure.

18        Q.   Okay.  And you'll see I think -- it's my third page of that

19     document, there's a list and it lists various SUPs and various PJP

20     detachments and the number of -- the number of individual policemen.  And

21     I guess it's a list for how many armbands need to be distributed to those

22     various units.  I see the 124th is not included on this list.  Would

23     your -- would members of your brigade have been included within the

24     individual SUPs?  Is that why the 124th doesn't appear here separately or

25     do you know?

Page 4129

 1        A.   The only logical reason would be precisely the one that you've

 2     stated.

 3        Q.   Okay.  And the next page may help us understand that.  It's dated

 4     the 26th of May, 1999, from General Lukic and the addressees include not

 5     only the secretariats but also the intervention brigade, the 122nd and

 6     124th.  And this is with instructions for what ribbons to wear in I think

 7     June/July of 1999.  Do you recall seeing this document or one like it in

 8     1999?

 9        A.   As with the previous one, I don't recall seeing it, which doesn't

10     rule out the possibility that I did.  It's just that I don't remember.

11        Q.   I understand.  It was a long time ago.  But you have no reason to

12     think that this is not an authentic document.  It looks regular in form

13     and you know these kind of orders or instructions were being issued at

14     that time; is that fair?

15        A.   I don't doubt the authenticity of the document at all.  I'm

16     merely saying that I can't be sure whether I saw this document while I

17     was reviewing other documents.  I do remember seeing similar documents.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Understand I wasn't challenging you.  I was just

19     trying to make sure that this looked to be regular in form.

20             MR. HANNIS:  And with that, Your Honour, I would tender 4076.

21             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

22             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  And that will be assigned P00762, Your Honours.

24             MR. HANNIS:

25        Q.   And, General, one of the reasons that the PJP was wearing these

Page 4130

 1     ribbons out in the field was not only to avoid friendly fire but was it

 2     also because sometimes the KLA were wearing police or VJ uniforms?

 3        A.   I think so.

 4        Q.   All right.  Thank you.

 5             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, I'm about to go to a new topic.  I

 6     wonder if this might be an appropriate point to have recess for the

 7     evening.

 8             JUDGE PARKER:  Very well.  Can you give any indication,

 9     Mr. Hannis, of how long you will be?

10             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, I think I will take another hour and a

11     half, if I may have that long.

12             JUDGE PARKER:  My worry then is whether the evidence of the

13     witness will finish tomorrow, Mr. Hannis.

14             MR. HANNIS:  I understand.  I know that's a problem for him.  I

15     will do my best to cut down what I'm going to ask him, try to go faster

16     tomorrow.

17             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

18             We must adjourn overnight now.  We resume tomorrow at 9.00 in the

19     morning.  The court officer will give you further instructions.

20             We adjourn now for the evening.

21                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.59 p.m.,

22                           to be reconvened on Friday, the 8th day of

23                           May, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.