1 Tuesday, 21 July 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.23 p.m.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djordjevic, are you rising for a reason or
6 merely to be ready for the witness?
7 MR. DJORDJEVIC: Both.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. Let's deal with the both.
9 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Well, the first procedural issue
10 that I have relates to the e-mail that I received late last night from my
11 colleague Chester Stamp that has to do with inappropriate and unlawful
12 access to certain witnesses, as colleague Chester Stamp put it in the
13 mail, and to me, that sounded very serious, so I replied immediately to
14 Mr. Stamp and requested that he explain what exactly he was referring to,
15 so that I could do whatever it takes and whatever is necessary on my side
16 to take measures to remove any unlawfulness in accessing witnesses.
17 I also received a reply from my Colleague Stamp that I saw this
18 morning which eased my mind, but on the other hand, I think this issue
19 has to be resolved and cannot be delayed, and therefore --
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel, please.
21 MR. DJORDJEVIC: It's okay, but something is with connection.
22 [Interpretation] So I believe that this issue should -- deserves
23 to be brought to the attention of this Trial Chamber before the summer
24 recess. And in connection with that, I wonder if we can expect some more
25 detailed information regarding the claims that Mr. Stamp put in his
1 e-mail. But I just have to note, to mention, that the witness -- that
2 the Defence team is very aware of what their rights are and how they can
3 access and talk to the witnesses called by the Prosecution. What I can
4 say is that the Defence never, no member of our team spoke with any
5 witness in any way that would be unlawful and that would be in
6 contradiction of the rules.
7 We know that if we want to interview a witness who has already
8 provided a statement to the Prosecution, we may do so only with the
9 approval and presence of our colleagues. So we are completely clear on
10 that. And if the Trial Chamber has something -- can shed some more light
11 on this or issue some further instruction, I will very gladly hear them.
12 JUDGE PARKER: I have only very recently been given some
13 information about the problem that is perceived, and there is an e-mail,
14 I think, from Mr. Stamp, a statement of the normal and appropriate
15 procedure which appears to be consistent with that which you are putting.
16 And if that is all that has occurred, it does not appear that there
17 should be any problem.
18 It did appear, though, from an e-mail of Mr. Stamp, that there
19 may have been approaches, if not by a member of the Defence team, it
20 seems to be suggested that approaches by a person acting in the interests
21 of the Defence, a person who had a senior position of authority in the
22 police force.
23 At the moment, the Chamber has no way of knowing what the facts
24 might be other than the e-mails which have passed between the parties.
25 Can I suggest that if there is more which needs to be considered, that
1 that be specifically raised on the part of the Prosecution, and that
2 issue can then be considered after we've heard from you, Mr. Djordjevic.
3 At the moment, we will proceed on the basis that both sides
4 understand the normal proper orthodox procedure to be followed, each are
5 aware of it, and each will be doing all they can to ensure that that is
6 observed. Now, if there is more, we will hear. If no more is raised, we
7 will understand the matter has been dealt with by this exchange just now.
8 Thank you.
9 [The witness entered court]
10 MR. DJORDJEVIC: Thank you for that, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon, Dr. Baccard.
12 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Please be seated. I would remind you the
14 affirmation you made to tell the truth still applies. Mr. Djordjevic is
15 finishing his cross-examination.
16 WITNESS: ERIC BACCARD [Resumed]
17 [Witness answered through interpreter]
18 Cross-examination by Mr. Djordjevic: [Continued]
19 Q. Good afternoon, Doctor. This will not take very long. We just
20 need to clarify some matters that the Defence wanted to clear up. We
21 talked yesterday about the Cirez site, let me remind you, and in that
22 respect, the last thing we discussed was the blood haemolysis, or rather,
23 the dissolution of blood in water, and the period which was mentioned,
24 the period of time of 2 and a half months.
25 My learned colleague Visnjic, when you testified in the
1 Milutinovic case, when he asked a similar question that had to do with
2 both the blood and other bodily fluids, and rather, putrefaction fluids -
3 and this was on page 10.178 - you replied that that depended where the
4 blood was found preserved, whether it was on the inside of the body or on
5 the surface or some other place.
6 Now, here the blood that was found with the two bodies for which
7 it was supposed that they had been sexually assaulted, it is stated that
8 the traces of blood were found on the vulva. Now, Doctor, would you
9 agree with me this in that case that would mean that this blood was on an
10 external surface, that it wasn't in any body cavity.
11 A. Your Honour, I would like to ask you for permission to consult my
12 report once again because I believe that the reference to traces of blood
13 is mentioned in relation to a cutaneous excreation and therefore the
14 interpretation must be done in relationship to this superficial wound,
15 but if I may, I'd like to consult my report.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Doctor, please confirm your recollection by
17 looking at your report.
18 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could the
19 Court Officer please pull up document 65 ter 00206, the French and
20 English versions without the B/C/S version. Yes, this is the document.
21 Could we now display page -- or rather, the page that refers to Cirez
22 site. I believe that's on page 6 in the English version, and I am afraid
23 I don't have the French reference. But in English that's page 6.
24 Probably it's on the same page in the French version as well. Thank you.
25 Q. Now, Doctor, can you please peruse this as well in the meantime,
1 and the matter that we were discussing was also in your addendum of
2 May 23rd, 2002, as you stated. This is just to remind you what I'm
3 referring to. You requested that you be allowed to look at this to
4 refresh your memory, and then I expect you to answer my question.
5 A. Well, again, I did not personally see these corpses. It was on
6 the basis of information that was given to me, that is, the reports that
7 had been prepared by the forensic specialist and the photographs that had
8 been given to me that I made this -- that I drafted this report. There
9 were two victim, one called SIPC 1, and SIPC 2. And in both cases, there
10 was -- they presented red blood at the vulva opening, and in addition
11 there were signs of violent trauma in the genital area, close to the
12 genital area. And these were abrasions, superficial wounds of the skin,
13 with blood at that area.
14 In the case of SIP1C 1 and in the case of SIP1C 2, the same
15 findings had been made by the forensic specialist, that is, the presence
16 of blood at the vulva opening, and also traces of violent trauma of -- on
17 the right thigh and the left leg. The mention of blood was not my own.
18 This was something noticed by the forensic specialist.
19 Q. Thank you, Doctor, for your reply. We already have that
20 information, but what I would want to know, my first question, if you
21 notice traces of red blood, was this external blood, because it says that
22 it was found in the vulva, or was it found in a body cavity?
23 A. Well, I can simply reread what was stated by the forensic
25 "Red blood at the vulva opening."
1 Q. Well, that is exactly the gist of my question. If blood was
2 exposed to water for two and a half months, would it have decayed,
3 dissolved, would there be chemodialysis, in other words, was it really
4 possible to see traces of red blood on a body on an external part of a
5 body which had spent 2 and a half months under water?
6 A. [Previous translation continues]... to that question in as much
7 as I am not familiar with the conditions of the preservation of those
8 corpse, I was not present on site, I did not attend the exhumations, I do
9 not have any information in those reports which would enable me to say
10 whether or not the bodies had been immersed in water totally or
11 partially, or what the actual conditions were.
12 Would it be possible for us to have the rest of the text on the
13 screen because there's a portion that is not on the screen right now.
14 Q. I am afraid there is no further mention of the Cirez site beyond
15 these page, but we can try. Unfortunately, I was correct, there is no
16 other document that I could find, including the photos of the victims,
17 the eight women found in the wells.
18 And the last thing that I will try to explore with you, and this
19 has to do with your experience in your long career, have you ever
20 performed autopsies?
21 A. You mean in this case, in this particular case or throughout my
23 Q. [Previous translation continues]... during your career because it
24 is clear to me that you were not present there.
25 A. Yes, of course, on many times, on numerous occasions.
1 Q. Well, because I assume that you have a lot of experience and we
2 do not, my question relating to the blood issue is regardless of what the
3 assumptions are. So one of the assumptions is that the body was found in
4 a well under water. It was not exhumed. It was taken out of a well
5 where it was immersed. Is it possible then to determine two and a half
6 months later after the body had spent two and a half months under water,
7 is it possible to determine with certainty that there were traces of
8 blood on external parts of the body, or are you unable to give an answer?
9 A. I believe that the experts who examine the bodies had sufficient
10 information in order to justify the findings that are included in their
11 reports signed by them. Again, if those bodies were indeed removed from
12 a well, I do not have any information to know whether or not the bodies
13 were totally immersed, partially immersed, what was the level of water,
14 and what was their situation compared to others. I don't have the
15 information which would enable me to answer in a precise fashion a fairly
16 general question.
17 Q. I have to remind you of the cross-examination that was conducted
18 by Mr. Visnjic in the Milutinovic case, page 10.178 of the transcript,
19 where in answer to my colleague's question, which was:
20 "On what basis did your colleagues, the French team, conclude
21 that these persons had drowned?"
22 And you replied to my colleague, and I will try to para-phrase
23 your answer, that in the documents that you had reviewed, there is no
24 description of the method in which this was established and how it was
25 determined, so that you cannot answer with certainty what it was that
1 guided your colleagues when they concluded that the cause of death was
2 drowning. In other words, that there was no written evidence to that
4 This claim that you stated, as I presented it now, is this
5 something that you still stand by when we are speaking of the Cirez site?
6 A. Yes, indeed. And I support what was stated in the reports of the
7 forensic experts, because I have no reason to doubt their competence nor
8 their findings. I based those comments on the documents that I was
9 given, the reports, and I myself did not have access to the victims'
11 Q. My question to do with Cirez is as follows: Can you agree with
12 me that there is no written trace, any written documents in the documents
13 that you reviewed when assessing this site, what the method was used to
14 observe the body -- the traces of blood on the bodies of the two victims,
15 that this was just a claim and nothing else? In other words, that there
16 was no explanation as to how this was determined and what the method
17 applied was?
18 A. No. I can confirm there, what you've just said that is that
19 there were no information whereby we could determine whether or not the
20 blood mentioned by the experts was verified in one way or another.
21 Q. In other words, your answer is not no, it is yes; it has not been
22 actually checked, there is no evidence that this was in fact traces of
23 blood, if I'm correct?
24 A. Exactly. My answer was: In the reports, I did not find any
25 information which would enable me to state that the verification was
1 carried out, but that does not mean that it wasn't done. I simply said
2 that there was no mention of it in the report.
3 Q. That is the reply that I expected. Thank you, Doctor.
4 Now I would like you to explain something. You mentioned
5 injuries, that these individuals for -- which were allegedly sexually
6 abused, that there were certain bruises in the vicinity or around the
7 sexual organs. The entries that you mentioned, I assume, were taken from
8 the document that you had at your disposal. You did not have
9 photographs, am I correct? Or were there photographs attached to the
11 A. No, I did have photographs.
12 Q. Very well. Now, tell me, the bruises that were observed in the
13 immediate vicinity of the sexual organs, were they of such nature that it
14 can be established without any doubt in both cases of the two victims,
15 that they were caused exclusively and only by a sexual assault on these
16 victims, or is it possible that these bruises were inflicted in some
17 other way?
18 A. In my report, I noted the existence of these lesions, and I am
19 not able to draw any conclusions. I can simply say that the hypothesis
20 that was referred to, that is, sexual attacks, is compatible, is
21 consistent with that hypothesis. There could be other explanations as
23 Q. My question relating to Cirez, the question that I just put, was
24 precisely because of your conclusion that you set forth in your addendum,
25 and now it is completely clear to me after what you've said to me and the
1 Trial Chamber. You state there, and that's on page 2, the third
3 "After having reviewed these reports, my opinion is the
4 following: The cause of death is asserted by the French forensic
5 pathologist as an ante mortem drowning. In their report it is not
6 mentioned if complementary analysis had been performed, and the absence
7 of those allow only diagnosis assumptions."
8 In fact, this is the main point after a report of this type
9 without the documents which describe the analysis that had been
10 performed, which according to me would be required for any forensic
11 examination. And in this case, they were missing, or, in other words,
12 you have no evidence or at least you did not see any proof that these
13 bodies had been explored in such a way that all -- that would point to
14 the fact that these autopsies were performed and all analysis as required
15 were actually followed.
16 Is this what I can conclude from your conclusion in the addendum?
17 A. I must say, I didn't quite understand your question. What is
18 your question? Of course I can give you once again the conclusion I
19 wrote. There are no other comments I want to make over and beyond what I
20 have said.
21 Q. [In French] I will explain.
22 [In B/C/S] You said in your report that if there are no further
23 analysis, or actually I have not seen them, the only thing that is
24 possible is diagnosis assumption. So that is the gist of my question.
25 Do you stand by what you said there?
1 A. I said indeed that there had been no supplementary examinations
2 or at least that there had been no mention of extra examinations in the
3 reports conducted by the experts trying to establish the causes of death.
4 As for the possibility of sex abuse, which had been mentioned in the
5 expert report, I clearly indicated that the combination of a number of
6 criteria meant that it was possible. I said there was a compatibility of
7 the elements and of that conclusion. I was in no position and I would in
8 no way dare to establish a conclusion on the basis of pictures and
9 photos. I only said it was compatible.
10 Q. That is quite clear, Doctor. What I would like to know is not
11 just the possibility that the case -- that this was a case of sexual
12 abuse, but also whether these persons had drowned or the cause of death
13 was not drowning but perhaps something else. And this is the question
14 that I put in the context of another very important fact, which is the
15 following: That this examination was not accompanied by analysis and
16 proof on the basis of which we could conclude with certainty that the
17 cause of death of these women was drowning?
18 A. I understand your line of reasoning. I understand your question.
19 Unfortunately, the elements I have at my disposal are autopsy reports and
20 still photographs. I cannot bring extra information over and beyond what
21 I have written in my own observations.
22 Q. Thank you, Doctor, this is quite clear.
23 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please pull up
24 document -- the first page of document 65 ter 00249.
25 Q. I believe we do not have a French translation. But let me say
1 this: This is the first page of a forensic report that was prepared by
2 the Ministry of Defence of the armed forces of the Institute of Pathology
3 in Washington, DC, in the USA. And from the title you can see that this
4 was a "Forensic Examination and Analysis of Human Remains Recovered
5 During a Joint FBI-AFIP Task Force to Assist the International War
6 Tribunal in the Indictment of Kosovo President Milosevic."
7 That's exactly what it says there.
8 I know that you are a forensic expert, but in view of the fact
9 that you had access to all these documents, I believe that there were at
10 least ten expert teams working on this particular case who dealt with
11 human remains and examined human remains at various sites in Kosovo of
12 which you also report in your report.
13 So what I would like to ask you is this: Were there other teams
14 except other than this one where there was a request to get this type of
15 support or assistance in performing the examinations as in the case of
16 President Milosevic? And I assume that this case relates to the former
17 president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic. Do
18 you have -- according to your information, do you know that any other
19 team had this type of explicit request as stated here in this report?
20 A. I'm not sure I understand your question. I'm not -- are you
21 talking about the teams that are mentioned in my report, because in that
22 case, you will find the list in my report. But I believe this issue has
23 already been looked at.
24 Q. Well, let me put it this way: Were these team ad hoc teams or
25 were they actually hired by the ICTY, do you have any knowledge as to
2 A. None whatsoever.
3 Q. Speaking of this American team, what you observed and what you
4 also noted in your report, and I believe in your report this was on --
5 this was item 2.5, paragraph 2.5.
6 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] If this can be of assistance to
7 the Trial Chamber and to you.
8 Q. And I believe this deals with the Milos Gilic Street in Djakovica
9 site. Have you found that in your report, Doctor? When you find it or
10 rather, when I find it -- all right, here I have it.
11 A. Yes, I found it.
12 Q. And then when you look at the next page, we have paragraph 2532
13 "Status of Bodies." It says there that the human remains constituted of
14 body parts and more or less badly burned skeletal elements. For some of
15 them there were signs of postmortem animal activity. What I would like
16 to ask you is this: Did you have access and did you have any information
17 based on the report compiled by your colleagues from Washington on how
18 burnt these skeletal elements were, what was the degree of their burnt
20 A. I have no recollection, no specific recollection, of the state in
21 which these remains had been badly burnt. I can see in my report it says
22 "more or less," basically meaning that there were varied degrees of
23 calcination. I think we should refer back to the pictures that must have
24 illustrated the autopsy reports to get a clearer understanding.
25 Q. I will have to remind you of your conclusion, and please, take a
1 moment to read it. It says 255 -- conclusion from 25 to 27 May -- badly
2 burnt and skeletonised body parts took place in Djakovica. That's what
3 you say. You say "badly burnt." Have you found that portion?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Considering what it says here, "badly burnt and skeletonised body
6 parts," can you explain to us, who are not experts, in the simplest
7 possible words what it really means, this formulation, badly burnt and
8 skeletonised, in some lay terms which we can all understand. Does it
9 mean more or less from what it says here?
10 A. I think the decay and the degradation must have been significant.
11 Indeed there was a fragmentation and some degree of burn of these human
12 remains. In any instance, the impact must have been such that the
13 pathologists were not in a position to establish the cause of death or to
14 establish injuries. So I am assuming that the preservation, the state in
15 which it had been preserved, was very bad.
16 Q. Since you've mentioned that, I have another question. Does it
17 mean that the skeletal remains of the bodies of the victims who got hurt
18 are so damaged that not even the examination of these skeletal remains
19 were able to confirm the cause of death, so has the damage been so grave?
20 A. That is indeed the sense I got when I read the report.
21 Q. I've got a next question. I suppose that your rich expertise is
22 related with accidents. If I'm not mistaken, you mentioned some of your
23 expertise you've exercised in the Mont Blanc tunnel. And I think that
24 most people got asphyxiated, but some of them got burnt because, from
25 your rich practice, there probably were some experiences where people got
1 completely burnt. Have you got some experience that would tell you at
2 what kind of temperature these bodies would have to be exposed for the
3 remains to be so damaged so that even from the skeleton you cannot
4 determine the cause of death and similar issues?
5 A. I feel that whenever an expert is in no position to establish the
6 cause of death or to identify injuries, whatever they may be, any
7 hypothesis might be acceptable and used to establish the cause of death.
8 But I have no specific information enabling me to focus on one reason or
10 Q. Thank you. I have another question which is actually the last
11 question for you today and for those of you listening to your answers.
12 And this question relates to the role of experts who is usually part of
13 the team of forensic experts during exhumations. Their role is there to,
14 as you said, to identify the sex, age, and some other characteristics.
15 And these are, you probably have figured it by now, anthropologists.
16 Dear Doctor, on such kind of team, when we talk about expertise
17 and professionalism, can an anthropologist be only a part of the team, or
18 can an anthropologist also lead such a forensic team, or is it something
19 that is intolerable when it comes to basic forensic reasons and
20 assumptions? Do you think that a forensic team could only be guided by a
21 doctor, somebody from a medical profession as a pathologist?
22 A. I think I have mentioned this already in my answers yesterday. I
23 explained what the respective roles of the pathologist and the expert
24 forensic pathologist -- anthropologist --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's mistake.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- is when the forensic
2 anthropologist is examining human remains of which -- on which there were
3 no longer any soft tissues. In that instance, the anthropologist can
4 contribute to the establishment of the cause of death.
5 Now, in a team made up of a number of experts coming from
6 different fields, it is for the pathologist to come to a conclusion and
7 synthesise all the elements he gets and it is for the pathologist to sign
8 off the autopsy report and the conclusions. At least that is accepted
9 international practice. This being said, the anthropologist does make a
10 significant contribution and a valuable contribution when we are dealing
11 only with skeletal remains.
12 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Doctor. That was my
13 final question.
14 [In English] Thank you, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Djordjevic.
16 Ms. Kravetz, do you have re-examination?
17 MS. KRAVETZ: Just very briefly, Your Honours.
18 Re-examination by Ms. Kravetz:
19 Q. Dr. Baccard, yesterday you were asked a series of questions by my
20 learned colleague regarding the distance from which a shot was fired that
21 caused the death of an individual. And in response of one of these
22 questions - and this is at page 7710 - you said that when a shot was
23 fired at close range there would be an imprint on the bone and not on the
24 skin. I wanted to know, when you are examining skeletal remains, how are
25 you able to determine that the imprints that you found -- find or are
1 able to observe on these remains were in fact caused by gun-shot and not
2 by another type of object or another type of impact on the bone?
3 Thank you.
4 A. Madam, I did not say that when there was a shot fired at short
5 range that there was an imprint on the skull. I said that it was at a
6 touching range when the gun is on the bone, that is in only those
7 circumstances, that when the gun is touching the skin that when there is
8 a gun-shot, the skin lifts off the bone and the gun powder goes and
9 leaves an imprint, a tattoo as we call it, on the bone.
10 As for your specific question, it is a fairly general question,
11 and I'm not sure I know how I could answer your question. As we now
12 know, I did not examine the bodies myself, I worked on the basis of
13 reports and photos --
14 Q. Doctor, if I can just interrupt you. It was meant to be a
15 general question. And I'm just asking in general terms, when examining
16 skeletal remains, how you are able to distinguish what you've referred to
17 as a tattoo on the bone was caused by a gun-shot and not by another type
18 of object or some other type of trauma on the bone. Is there something
19 particular about these -- what you've referred to as imprints on the bone
20 that would lead you to the conclusion when examining a skeletal remains
21 that these were caused by gun-shot and not by blunt force trauma or by
22 another type of object?
23 That is my question. So it's a general question, not
24 specifically related to the sites that are discussed in your report.
25 A. Fine. There are a number of criteria which can be used in order
1 to describe these imprints, these tattoo marks. There's the morphology
2 itself; there is the distribution of these tattoos these marks, which can
3 either be concentric, asymmetrical, equally distributed compared to the
4 centre point; and there are other examinations that can be carried out on
5 the tissue, in this case the bone tissue, under microscope, for example,
6 but there's also physio chemical test that can be carried out. There are
7 numerous methods that are available that can make it possible to make a
8 differentiated diagnosis on the basis of the traces that have been found.
9 Q. Thank you for that, sir.
10 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honours, I have no further questions for this
12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
13 [Questioned by the Court]
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Doctor, I have a quite similar question. If
15 there are bodies found with wounds of gun-shots, is it possible that
16 there are other causes of death, for instance, heart attack before the
17 shot was made? Can you exclude these possibilities that a certain cause
18 of death had occurred, in these cases generally speaking?
19 A. Yes, certainly, Your Honour. First of all -- first of all, the
20 bullet wound itself, how serious is it, as I explained yesterday. If the
21 projectile has hit an important organ in the body, such as the heart, the
22 major vessels, the brain, even if the individual by hypotheses had had a
23 heart attack just a few seconds before, that would only play a secondary
24 part in the death. You have to have an overview, an overall approach in
25 forensic medicine, and start by applying principles of common sense and
1 then a descending range of seriousness, if you will.
2 During the autopsy, an autopsy is carried out not only in the
3 area that has been hit by the projectile, but a full examination which
4 makes it possible to determine whether or not there still remains soft
5 tissue in some of the organs, whether arteries have been blocked,
6 vessels, the heart, for example, if the heart can still function at
7 macroscopic level. All of these aspects make it possible to eliminate
8 the role of another mechanism, be it secondary or accessory, in the cause
9 of death. All of these things are examined by the forensic doctor during
10 the autopsy.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
12 JUDGE BAIRD: Doctor, I shall like to refer you to the use of the
13 term "ante mortem" and "peri mortem." Now, are they synonyms, can they
14 be used interchangeably, or are they in two separate and distinct
15 categories, so you have ante mortem, peri mortem, and postmortem?
16 A. That's a very good question, Your Honour. I already responded
17 partially yesterday when I spoke about this matter. In my opinion, it is
18 justified to use the word peri mortem in preference to the term
19 ante mortem because the expression "ante mortem" could include events
20 that might have occurred the very day of death, but in the morning, for
21 example, and could lead to confusion with events that took place in the
22 moments surrounding the death.
23 Therefore, today it is generally accepted that the preferable
24 term is "peri mortem" and not "postmortem" because that could include
25 injuries after death such as animal scavengers that have begun
1 deteriorating the body or damaged caused by exhumation using a crane or a
2 digger machine or whatever, a shovel, which can be differentiated very
3 clearly in particular. As regards fractures, that can be differentiated
4 with fractures that occurred at the same time as death.
5 JUDGE BAIRD: So the bottom line is there are three distinct
7 A. I think it would be justified to distinguish three different
8 categories indeed.
9 JUDGE BAIRD: Thank you very much indeed, Doctor. Thank you.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Doctor, I'm happy to tell that you that concludes
11 the questioning. The Chamber has very much appreciated your assistance
12 and your attendance again here at The Hague. We would like to thank you
13 for that. We have your report and its annexes to consider. That will
14 take us quite sometime when we come to it. You may, of course, now
15 return to your normal activities, and the Court Officer will assist you.
16 Thank you indeed.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
18 [The witness withdrew]
19 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Kravetz, the next witness, I take it, is
21 MS. KRAVETZ: Yes, Your Honour. The next witness is Mr. Keri c.
22 And Mr. Stamp will be leading him.
23 JUDGE PARKER: I'm looking at the time. I think it may be a
24 practical course to have the break now and then resume with the fresh
25 witness at 10 minutes to 4.00.
1 MS. KRAVETZ: That would be fine, Your Honour. I see Mr. Stamp
2 is here. If you want to start with the next witness is also fine.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE PARKER: It seems that we can continue now. So we will
5 have the next witness.
6 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, before the next
7 witness enters, I would like to ask you to give us a permit or the
8 consent so that my colleague can start with the cross-examination at the
9 beginning and we have filed a written brief on that.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. The Chamber is certainly prepared to
11 allow Mr. Popovic to cross-examine this witness. We would add further,
12 in view of what you have put before us before today in respect of the
13 qualifications and experience of both Ms. O'Leary and Mr. Popovic, you
14 need not again move to have either of them deal with the witness. The
15 Chamber will give its standing approval.
16 MR. DJORDJEVIC: Very well, Your Honours.
17 [The witness entered court]
18 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Would you please read aloud the affirmation that
21 is shown to you now.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
23 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Please sit down.
25 Mr. Stamp has some questions for you.
1 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Your Honours. And good
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
4 WITNESS: DJORDJE KERIC
5 [Witness answered through interpreter]
6 Examination by Mr. Stamp:
7 Q. Mr. Keric, could you please start by stating your name and date
8 and place of birth.
9 A. My name is Djordje Keric. I was born on the 16th of May, 1953,
10 in Liplje, Bosnia-Herzegovina.
11 Q. And I understand, Mr. Keric, that you are a retired police
12 officer in the MUP of Serbia. Can you briefly describe your career, just
13 tell us where you started and the posts that you held, and the dates when
14 you held those posts until the time of your retirement?
15 A. I attended secondary school of Internal Affairs which I completed
16 in Sremska Kamenica by Novi Sad 1972. After that, I was assigned to work
17 in the Secretariat of the Interior in Uzice. And in Uzice, I mainly
18 worked, with some interruptions, until 1993. And I worked there on
19 different duties and activities, starting from a police officer, and I
20 was also a commander of the police station, head of some sectors
21 in the Secretariat, and so on.
22 I was also head of the Secretariat of the Interior in Pristina,
23 and I was attending head of Secretariat in Uzice, and after that I was a
24 special advisor between 1999 in the Federal Ministry of Internal Affairs
25 in Belgrade, that was as of the 1st of May, 1999. And I was also
1 assistant head of the traffic police administration in the MUP of Serbia
2 in Belgrade. And I assumed that position on January the 1st, 2000, and I
3 was retired holding that position on the 1st of July, 2002.
4 So in brief, this would be my career from the beginning until the
5 retirement. Apart from the education I've mentioned, I also attended a
6 school of security in Belgrade. First grade and the second grade in
7 Skopje. It's a high university institution.
8 Q. What was the period of your tenure as SUP chief for Pristina in
10 A. The chief of SUP
11 1st of August, 1994, up until 23rd of June, 1997.
12 Q. And when were you appointed the head of the SUP Uzice after that?
13 A. I was appointed acting chief of Uzice after I came from the
14 Pristina. It was on the 23rd of June, 1997. And I stayed there before I
15 was appointed to work in the Federal Ministry of Internal Affairs and
16 that was on the 1st of May, 1999.
17 Q. Thank you. As chief SUP
18 or the department of the interior that were subordinate to Uzice
19 Secretariat of Interior?
20 A. In the Uzice SUP
21 department, uniform police; crime police department; traffic police
22 department; general and legal affairs department; fire protection
23 department, and that's it. These are the main departments we had.
24 Q. Thank you. I think I didn't express the question precisely
25 enough. What were the territorial departments of interior that were
1 subordinate to your SUP
2 A. I understood your question. Territorial organisation was
3 organised by municipalities and these were OUPs and police stations. If
4 it's a smaller municipality, there we had a police station. General duty
5 police station or traffic police station.
6 Q. And can you name them, the OUPs that were subordinate to your
8 A. Department of interior were in the territory of Uzice and, if I
9 remember well, we had one in Pozega, one in Bajina Basta, in Priboj,
10 Prijepolje, Novo Varos, and Ivanica. And in terms of police stations, we
11 had them in the municipalities of Ciatina [phoen] and Kosjec [phoen].
12 Q. Thank you. I'd like to move on to April 1999. And firstly, can
13 you recall in April 1999 an event in which some bodies were located in --
14 floating in Lake Perucac came to your attention? In which bodies, human
15 bodies, were found floating in Lake Perucac?
16 A. As far as I can recall, and of course with the passage of time
17 I've forgotten some, but about 15 days or two weeks before I was
18 transferred to other duties in a different ministry - as I already
19 mentioned, to Belgrade and the Federal Ministry of the Interior - one
20 day, and I can't recall the exact date, I received a call from the chief
21 of OUP Bajina Basta Mr. Slavko Petrovic. He informed me that floating
22 objects were seen on the surface of the lake and that these objects
23 appeared to be human bodies.
24 When I received this information, I ordered that he go to the
25 site to verify the report they received and then to inform me whether
1 these were actually human bodies or some other objects.
2 Q. Before you go on --
3 A. Perucac.
4 Q. Sorry, I was about to ask you that. What was the name of the
6 A. Lake Perucac. And this lake is some 10 kilometres from the
7 Bajina Basta OUP. Petrovic went to the spot. And after about an hour,
8 he informed me that five to six human bodies were floating, indeed, on
9 the surface of Lake Perucac, as far as he could tell, from the bank.
10 Q. And where were you when he contacted you the first time and the
11 second time to report that the bodies were in fact floating on the lake?
12 A. I was in my office all this time. My office was in Uzice at this
13 time. I believe that because of the air-strikes, we were relocated. And
14 I was in that office when he called me both times, the first time and the
15 second time.
16 Q. And when he told you that human bodies were in fact floating on
17 the lake, did you tell him anything or give him any further instructions?
18 A. After I received this information that these were human bodies, I
19 called my superior in the chain of command, my superior at the
20 Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia, I informed him of this
21 extraordinary event, Mr. Vlastimir Djordjevic, who was the acting head of
22 public security at this time in Belgrade.
23 I told him what I had been told by the chief Slavko Petrovic and
24 I sought further instructions, whether we should inform the investigating
25 judge and a prosecutor and I asked for his instructions as to what we
1 were to do next.
2 At this point in time Djordjevic, as far as I can recall, ordered
3 that the chief of the crime police go to the site in order to conduct an
4 on-site investigation together with a group of inspectors, that he should
5 take the necessary measures, and that I should keep him informed
6 subsequently of -- and receive instructions as to what to do afterwards.
7 Q. You said that you told him what you had been told by Petrovic and
8 you sought instructions, whether you should inform the investigating
9 judge and prosecutor. Did Mr. Djordjevic say anything in respect to
11 A. In respect of this, he just said that I shouldn't inform anyone
12 at this point in time until facts can be checked and the information
13 received from the chief of the crime police Zoran Mitricevic that we
14 should probably secure the site and that later I should contact him
15 and -- once Zoran Mitricevic has been on site and conducted the
17 Q. Who was Mitricevic? He was chief of the crime police of which
18 department or which office?
19 A. Zoran Mitricevic was the chief of the crime police department in
20 the Uzice Secretariat. And as such, he was in charge both territorially
21 of all the crime police departments in this area, including Bajina Basta.
22 Q. Having received these instructions from Mr. Djordjevic, did you
23 do anything?
24 A. Mitricevic and a group of inspectors were sent to check the
25 report, and he was supposed to give us feedback, which he did. And after
1 a while, after he had gone on site to the Perucac dam, he informed me,
2 and I can't recall exactly what time of day this was, but he said that
3 the number of bodies was growing and that also there was a case, or
4 rather, a container that was also -- that also surfaced on the body [as
5 interpreted]. He also informed me that the bodies that had appeared on
6 the surface were in an advanced state of decay, that there were no
7 indicators that could lead one to the conclusion where these bodies had
8 come from, who had brought them to the lake, and what the reason for
9 their transport of these bodies to the lake was. And he requested
10 further information and instructions as to what he was to do next.
11 Following this, I called --
12 Q. Before you get to that call, just could you tell us exactly what
13 he said to you. I don't think the transcript has down fully what you
14 said Mr. Mitricevic reported to you. What did he tell you about the
15 number of the bodies and what did he tell you was also at the lake?
16 A. As to the number of the bodies, he said that the number compared
17 to the first information that was received that there were five to six
18 bodies, that the number was increased that there some ten -- several tens
19 of bodies, several scores of bodies, and that they were mostly dressed in
20 civilian clothes, that they were in a state of decay, and that a number
21 of bodies were also noted -- that they observed in the container that
22 was -- that also surfaced on the lake surface.
23 Q. Did he describe what type of container it was?
24 A. He did not provide a detailed description. He just said that it
25 was a type of container, a semi-trailer that would be attached to a
1 truck. There were no markings on this, as far as I can recall he did not
2 mention that there were registration plates on it or anything else that
3 could lead to the conclusion as to where the truck had come from.
4 Q. By what means did he contact you incidentally? How did he
5 contact you from the scene at Lake Perucac?
6 A. He phoned me because there is a police department in Perucac.
7 Whether he called from there or from a civilian line, I really wouldn't
8 know. But he informed me of these events over the phone.
9 Q. And you said after you received this information from him, you
10 called someone. Who did you call? And tell us exactly what was said as
11 you recall it.
12 A. As on several previous occasions when I was informed that the
13 number of bodies was increasing, I informed Mr. Djordjevic of this again.
14 I told him that the number of bodies was growing and that there was also
15 a number of bodies in this semi-trailer on the lake, and I sought further
16 instructions from him. And Mr. Djordjevic told me that we would speak a
17 little later. And after about an hour I called him again, as instructed.
18 I think it could have been an hour when I called him again. And he told
19 me then that it was necessary to take measures to remove the bodies from
20 the lake, to engage a number of officers and civilians for this purpose,
21 and that these bodies should be buried in a mass grave near Lake Perucac
23 I conveyed the instructions to the crime police department,
24 Zoran Mitricevic, and they remained on site at the dam some two days
25 during which they were recovering the bodies from the lake and burying
1 them in the vicinity of the dam.
2 Throughout this period, those two days, I never went to the
3 Perucac dam for two reasons. For one, I was preparing for my transfer to
4 other duties and I could not get involved in it; and secondly, this was
5 the time of intense air-strikes because there are numerous military
6 installations in our area, so we had other tasks which took priority in
7 securing and saving citizens and their property in these conditions.
8 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Mr. Keric.
9 Your Honours, I wonder if this is a convenient time.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Very well, Mr. Stamp.
11 We must have a break now while tapes are rewound. The
12 Court Officer will show you from the court and assist you during the
13 break. We resume again at 4.15. Quarter past 4.00.
14 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
15 [The witness stands down]
16 --- Recess taken at 3.44 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 4.16 p.m.
18 [The witness takes the stand]
19 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Stamp.
20 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honours.
21 Q. Mr. Keric, you said that over the next two days after you first
22 heard about this, the discovery of the bodies, the men remained on the
23 spot under Zoran Mitricevic to retrieve the bodies and to bury them in
24 the mass grave. During that two-day period, did you speak with
25 Mr. Djordjevic?
1 A. In those two days, I spoke with Mr. Djordjevic on several
2 occasions requesting further instructions regarding the situation with
3 the recovery of the bodies and their burial.
4 Q. And this was in the -- by the same means, by telephone, I take
6 A. I communicated with Mr. Djordjevic via a direct phone line in
7 Belgrade. In other words, yes, we communicated by phone on each of these
9 Q. Very well. If I could take you back to the first time when you
10 phoned him to report to him what the OUP chief Petrovic had told you.
11 Can you recall as closely as possible, or tell us as closely as you can
12 recall, what Mr. Djordjevic said when he heard about these bodies, and if
13 he said what was to be -- or tell us exactly what he said as far as you
15 A. As far as I can recall, although a lot of time has passed since,
16 the report that some bodies appeared came as a surprise to him, judging
17 by his tone of voice. And I think he said something to the effect that
18 this wasn't good, that it wasn't right. But he did seem surprised when
19 he heard that bodies appeared on Lake Perucac near the Perucac dam.
20 Q. When you spoke to him that time and you proposed informing the
21 prosecutor and the investigating judge, and he told you not to do so
22 until checks remained, do you recall if he ever gave you any instructions
23 after that in respect to the judge or the prosecutor?
24 A. As far as I can remember, I asked him twice about informing
25 others further on. The first time when the bodies surfaced, when
1 Petrovic informed me, and the second time I asked him whether I should
2 inform the investigating judge when the crime police chief
3 Zoran Mitricevic told me that the number of bodies was increasing and
4 that there was a number of bodies in the semi-trailer.
5 On the second occasion, this was some -- an hour later or so, and
6 I was told then not to advise either the investigating judge or the
7 prosecutor, but rather, to take measures to recover these bodies and bury
8 them near the dam.
9 Q. Why did you propose that you should contact the investigating
10 judge and the prosecutor? I know it sounds like a silly question in the
11 context of things, but could you tell us within the framework of Serbian
12 law and regulations, why did you make that proposition when you heard
13 about these bodies?
14 A. Well, I proposed it because the standard procedure was in each
15 case, especially where suspicious bodies and deaths occurred, where there
16 are indications that a criminal act is involved, and even in traffic
17 accidents which have serious consequences, the standard procedure is to
18 inform the investigating judge who would then go to the scene and order
19 that an investigation be conducted and other measures be taken to shed
20 light on what had happened, what the causes are, and who the perpetrators
21 might be.
22 Q. And on the second occasion when you spoke to Mitricevic, did he
23 tell you any further details about the bodies? You said that he told you
24 that there were several tens of bodies, did he tell you any further
25 details about the ages or the sex or the ethnicity of these human bodies
1 that were located?
2 A. Mitricevic informed me that all the bodies were in an advanced
3 state of decomposition, and he also advised that there were female and
4 male bodies, and that there were no other indicators that could help to
5 establish where the bodies had come from and where they had been brought
6 from. He could not tell me either, I repeat this, what the purpose was
7 and why it was ordered that this should be done the way it was ordered.
8 Q. And if I may go back to the issue with the investigating judge,
9 there's something I forgot to ask you about that. Did you speak to the
10 investigating judge about this matter in any case?
11 A. In a private conversation about a day or two later, after the
12 completion of this thing, and I can't tell you exactly what day this was,
13 I informed the investigating judge, Mr. Momcilo Krivokapic what had
14 happened, about the appearance of these bodies, and that we did not
15 inform either him or the Prosecutor on orders from the ministry. He had
16 nothing to say to this.
17 Q. Did you form an impression as to whether or not he was aware that
18 this had occurred before you told him?
19 A. No, but there were already public remarks and all kinds of
20 guesses as to whether these bodies were actually the bodies of air-strike
21 victims, because this river flows from Bosnia and through Bajina Basta.
22 And for a while we were wondering whether these bodies may have been
23 exhumed from some grave in Bosnia and Herzegovina. At this time no one
24 could suspect that these were bodies from Kosovo and Metohija.
25 Q. Do you know if, while you were in Uzice, an investigation was
1 done by the Prosecutor or the investigating judge?
2 A. I don't know that. I heard that after I left, which means after
3 May 1st, 1995, when I was transferred to the Federal Ministry of
4 the Interior, I heard that at some point in time somewhat later there was
5 an investigation conducted, that bodies exhumed, and other measures taken
6 in order to establish the facts. However, I was not in that area after
7 this. And after I left, I did not discuss this with anyone, neither the
8 bodies -- I didn't discuss or talk about the bodies, or the exhumation,
9 or any investigation.
10 Q. Just for the record, you said after you left on May 1st, is it
11 1999 you meant? That is when you were transferred into --
12 A. 1999, yes. 1999.
13 Q. And after you left Uzice to take up your new post, can you
14 indicate approximately when next you heard about the events or these
15 events that you just described?
16 A. The first time after I assumed a new position, I heard something
17 about that case from the media. To be more specific, I learned something
18 from Novosti, the most sold daily in Serbia, where there was an article
19 under the name "Water Grave." And in that article for the first time
20 there was some mention of the refrigerator truck holding bodies of
21 Albanian nationals from Kosovo and Metohija.
22 And I think that the article was published in the month of
23 July 2001. I have a copy somewhere.
24 Q. Thank you. And you said that there was an investigation. Did
25 you -- were you asked to give a statement in the course of that
2 A. No, no special statement was required. I read from the media
3 that some exhumation was done, and in 2003 I was invited by Mr. Dilparic,
4 an investigating judge of the special war crime court, and then I gave a
5 statement on everything I knew about the corpses floating on the Perucac
6 lake. Before that, before 2003, I was also invited by the Working Group
7 of the MUP, Ministry of Interior in Belgrade, in Kineza Milosa Street 101
8 where I gave the first statement on the same issue. In this
9 Working Group, Draga Karleusa was there, he was part of the public
10 security department at the time. Also there was an inspector called
11 Inspector Tadic and another inspector whose name I cannot recall now.
12 MR. STAMP: Thank you. Could we bring up P394.
13 Q. This is an Official Note of the Working Group. This is an
14 Official Note of the Working Group dated 11th of July, 2001. And it
15 describes the results of their inquiries and interviews up to then.
16 MR. STAMP: Do we have it before us?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can see that.
18 MR. STAMP:
19 Q. I understand that you've had a look at it recently and there are
20 a couple of comments that you wanted to make about some of the items we
21 see there.
22 MR. STAMP: Could we turn to page 2 of the B/C/S, and if we stay
23 on page 1 of the English. And scroll down to the bottom of page 1 of the
24 English, please.
25 Q. I think you wanted to comment on the last paragraph -- or the
1 first paragraph of page 2 in the B/C/S, which would be the penultimate
2 paragraph on page 1 of the English.
3 A. Somewhere on the top of the paragraph in Serbian it says that
4 there was some previous agreement with myself and an Inspector Dogandzic,
5 and it says that allegedly he suggested hiring divers to sank them. I
6 don't know what this "sanking" means -- "sinking" means, and I didn't
7 have any conversation on that topic with Mr. Dogandzic at the point in
8 time because direct communication that I had was with the bosses, and
9 that was Zoran Mitricevic, chief of crime police; and Slavko Petrovic,
10 who at the time was acting head of the interior department of our OUP in
11 Bajina Basta. Everything else that I discussed, I discussed with them,
12 not with anybody else.
13 MR. STAMP: Very well. If we could move on to page 2 of the
14 English. And I think that's page 3 of the B/C/S copy.
15 Q. If you could read the first paragraph on that page and let us
16 have your comment on that, if that is what you remember.
17 MR. STAMP: This first paragraph, Your Honours, is the third --
18 is in the English --
19 Are we on page 2 of the English? If you could go down further.
20 Yes, it's the paragraph beginning with the words:
21 "According to Slavko Petrovic ..."
22 Q. Yes, if you could comment on that part?
23 A. It says here that during the operation, according to
24 Slavko Petrovic, there was pressure from the MUP of Serbia which was done
25 over the phone by the then chief of the Uzice SUP. But there were no
1 orders in order to speed up the work. And the way it is stated here
2 seems to me that somebody directly called Slavko Petrovic from the
3 ministry or somebody else, because there was no need for us to speed it
4 up because we did have the arrangements with the head of the security
5 department. And it was done according to his instructions.
6 Q. You said you had sent Mr. Mitricevic, the crime police chief for
7 the SUP
8 specialist lines of command?
9 A. In cases of that type, whenever there's some extraordinary
10 circumstances and some extraordinary consequences, the practice usually
11 was that Mr. Mitricevic, as chief of crime police in the SUP, had to
12 inform his direct superior. And at that time, that was the head of the
13 crime police of the Ministry of the Interior. And at that point that was
14 General Dragan Ilic.
15 I don't know exactly what happened, but I know on the basis of
16 other cases, and earlier cases, that almost on every occasion
17 Mr. Mitricevic was obliged to inform the general in the
18 Ministry of Interior on the measures to be taken in the pre-criminal
20 Q. Thank you very much. Mr. Keric, I wish to move on to something
21 else now, to show you some documents that -- from your position, your
22 former position, you would be familiar with.
23 MR. STAMP: Could we bring up 65 ter 5305. Perhaps if you could
24 scroll to the end then and go back to the beginning. Could we look at
25 the second page, at the signature block.
1 Q. Can you tell us about this document in general terms. What is
2 the purpose of this document and from whom did it originate?
3 A. This is a usual document. It's a fax which was sent from the
4 level of the Ministry of Interior, the republic one, to the
5 Secretariat of the Interior, or Secretariats rather. In every case, when
6 a certain number of people were assigned or deployed to apply special
7 security measures or undertake special security tasks.
8 In any case, this document describes forces to be deployed in
9 Kosovo and Metohija for special security measures when there were
10 assignments made by Secretariats, by SUPs, which Secretariats should do
11 what, how many people should be sent, and which equipment should be sent
12 in order carry out security measures in Kosovo and Metohija.
13 In this particular case, the Secretariat in which I worked is not
14 mentioned. Other Secretariats are mentioned in the territory of Serbia.
15 Q. Can you identify who signed it?
16 A. The document was signed by the public security department head,
17 chief of the public security department Mr. Vlastimir Djordjevic, in the
18 case of this particular document.
19 Q. And do you know his signature?
20 A. Well, it's difficult to say, although we used to receive such
21 documents whenever there was some deployment of forces in the area of
22 Kosovo. And we received such documents every forty days where there was
23 some re-assignment and rotation of personnel. In most cases, such
24 orders, such documents, were signed by the commander of Special Forces of
25 the police, PJPs, and that's Obrad Stevanovic. Because it was under his
1 competence to train -- to train the staff and everybody working in PJPs.
2 And he had special authorities in that respect with regard to his direct
3 superior and that was the chief of the public security department. In
4 this case, in this particular case, I could see that Mr. Djordjevic
5 signed it.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 MR. STAMP: Could this document 5305 be received in evidence,
8 Your Honours.
9 JUDGE PARKER: It will be.
10 Mr. Popovic.
11 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I think there was a mistake in what
12 is the response -- was put in, with an error. So let us correct that.
13 It says that the boss of the public security department. And I think
14 that the reply of the witness was a different one to whom he was directly
15 responsible, that was the question. And can we just clear that out
16 because I think that's important because I don't want any confusions to
17 be made.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The question was, To whom was
19 Obrad Stevanovic accountable. I think he was directly accountable to the
20 minister of the interior, at that time the minister of interior in the
21 Republic of Serbia.
22 MR. STAMP: If we could move on to another document.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Are you wanting it received now?
24 MR. STAMP: Oh, yes, please, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE PARKER: It will be.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01181.
2 MR. STAMP: Could we move on to 65 ter number 5306. And when it
3 comes up, could we look quickly at the first page and the next page.
4 Q. This is a similar order to the last one we discussed from the
5 chief of the public security department deploying PJP personnel to
7 A. Well, I think this is the same. It's a usual common document
8 which was usually sent after every rotation of people who left or people
9 who came back from the assignment.
10 MR. STAMP: Could this be received as well, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01182.
13 MR. STAMP: Could we look at 5307. This one is now dated
14 8th of January, 1999. Could we look at the first and then the next page.
15 Q. Could you tell us what that is, just briefly, if it's the same as
17 A. As in the previous two documents, this is an order to send out a
18 certain number of people as it is set in the document, to carry out some
19 tasks in the area of Kosovo and Metohija. In this document, as in the
20 previous one, it describes Secretariats Belgrade, Nis, Vranje, where I
21 didn't work. My Secretariat is not in there.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. STAMP: Could this one be received as well, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01183.
1 MR. STAMP: 5308, could we bring up that one, please. And move
2 to the next page.
3 Q. Can you just tell us what that is, please, Mr. Keric?
4 A. This is also an order to send a certain number of people, mainly
5 police officers, in the area of Kosovo and Metohija. And the numbers
6 shown here include Uzice SUP
7 was for the police officer to prepare the people, to inform the people,
8 who by day line of work were part of the special units, to gather them,
9 and to notify them about the time and place, when and where they will be
10 deployed. Everything else, the logistic support, the equipment and arms,
11 were provided by the command of the PJPs from the ministry in Belgrade by
12 was run by the General Obrad Stevanovic.
13 And there is a bus which was sent from the
14 Ministry of the Interior to take over people from the Uzice Secretariat.
15 Q. Do you recall specifically receiving this one?
16 A. Well, I cannot recall specifically. I see that it happened on
17 the 21st of January, 1999. But when we received these document, they are
18 signed off, and they are given to competent police officers from the
19 particular department who then followed up on that with the technical
20 preparations and specific tasks in line with the orders provided.
21 Q. Just to avoid confusion in the future, this is the
22 14th of January, I see on the screen here. That's what you meant, is it
24 A. I apologise. I read that the first rotation ends on the
25 21st of January, but you are right. Sorry for that.
1 MR. STAMP: Thank you. Could this one be received, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
3 Mr. Popovic.
4 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I just have a remark
5 about the copy. On the copy I have there is no signature on the
6 document. Can we take a look at the document in the e-court, whether
7 there is a signature there, because if there is no signature and the
8 witness does not recall specifically -- well, even in the e-court there
9 is no signature.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is no signature by hand, I
11 don't know why, but the contents are the same as in other previous
12 documents. I don't know what happened here, maybe it was a mistake,
13 maybe it wasn't signed, but I don't know specifically.
14 MR. STAMP: Your Honours, could that be received and be given an
15 exhibit number.
16 JUDGE PARKER: It will be.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01184.
18 MR. STAMP: Thank you. Could we move to 5310. If we could move
19 to the next page as well.
20 Q. Could you just briefly, Mr. Keric, tell us the purport and
21 provenance of that document?
22 A. This document does not relate to Uzice Secretariat. And the
23 contents and the substance is the same as before, the end of the rotation
24 and the deployment in the area of Kosovo and Metohija of some forces.
25 Q. And it's from the assistant minister in charge of the public
1 security department; is that what you see there?
2 A. In this case, the document was signed by the chief of the public
3 security department, Mr. Vlastimir Djordjevic. Now, let me try and
4 clarify: I know that at some point in time all types of such documents
5 were signed by the commander of the PJPs since those tasks were under the
6 direct competence and authorities. Sometime later, when the security
7 situation changed or became more complex and there were some
8 announcements that an air-strike by the NATO was going to happen, as the
9 time was passing by, then documents were signed by Vlastimir Djordjevic
10 as chief of the public security department.
11 I don't know why it happened like that. I don't know what the
12 segregation of activities or tasks was at the time at the top of the
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MR. STAMP: Could this document, Your Honours, be given an
16 exhibit number.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01185.
19 MR. STAMP: Could we now go to 5311.
20 Q. This is the 15th of February, 1999.
21 MR. STAMP: And now on to page 2.
22 Q. You see there that it's also addressed to the detachments in
23 Uzice. This one is also not signed, the copy we have here, but could you
24 tell us what this document is?
25 A. It is a document of the same substance. The same order is issued
1 as in the previous documents. There is no difference. And I don't
2 really know why it wasn't signed. Also, I didn't manage to see, I didn't
3 see the first part, to see whether it also referred to Uzice SUP or
4 whether these detachments belonged to Uzice. Because the command of the
5 35th Detachment covered the areas of several Secretariats, Valjevo,
6 Kraljevo, Cacak, Uzice, Novi Pazar, and Sabac.
7 Q. Let's go to the first page.
8 A. I see Cacak, Novi Pazar, Valjevo, Sabac, and Uzice as well. So
9 the substance is the same as the earlier dispatch. The vehicles are
10 provided for the members of the detachment.
11 Q. Yes, I think it says in the body that your SUP would provide the
12 ministry -- or the bus; correct?
13 A. Yes, yes. Exactly. And there are also men from the
14 Uzice Secretariat who are assigned to this task. Also the bus that was
15 provided by the auto repair shop of the Ministry of Interior for the
16 transport of these people from Uzice to Kosovo and Metohija, whatever
17 they were assigned.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MR. STAMP: Could that document be given an exhibit.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
21 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
22 JUDGE PARKER: This is not on the 65 ter list, Mr. Stamp. It's
23 the subject of a motion to be included in the list. It will be marked
24 for identification.
25 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honours. I am sorry. I thought that this
1 one had been disposed of but thanks for that.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01186 marked
3 for identification.
4 MR. STAMP: Could we move on to 5276. And having regard to what
5 happened with the last document, I must inform Your Honours that I'm not
6 sure if this one was disposed of by the Court. That is information I
7 previously had.
8 Q. This is a very short order cancelling a previous deployment. Can
9 you see that, Mr. Keric? And tell us where this order came from?
10 A. Yes. The order came from the ministry, Ministry of the Interior
11 of the Republic of Serbia, from the public security department. I don't
12 know what it relates to specifically, but some measures are mentioned
13 that had been ordered earlier, in an earlier dispatch, and they are
14 hereby declared no longer valid. But I don't know what these other
15 dispatches, 349, this other dispatch, what it relates to.
16 Q. Thank you. That will be the next document we come to.
17 MR. STAMP: But could we give 65 ter 5276 an exhibit number,
18 Your Honours.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, it will be received.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01187.
21 MR. STAMP: And that's dated the 23rd of February. There's
22 another document of the 23rd of February, that's 5312. If we could have
23 a look at that one quickly.
24 Q. I think this is an order. Or you could tell us briefly what it
25 is and from where it came?
1 A. The document is a document of the Ministry of the Interior from
2 the public security department, and it deals with the sending and
3 deployment of some members of the Special Police Units to
4 Kosovo and Metohija. It says here that, in this particular case, members
5 of the 35th PJP Detachment were sent to Kosovska Mitrovica which was
6 under the Uzice Secretariat. The same case being as in all the previous
8 Q. And it's from the assistant minister in charge of the public
9 security department?
10 A. The signature is that of the chief of the public security
11 department, Mr. Vlastimir Djordjevic.
12 MR. STAMP: This is dispatch number 349, dated the
13 23rd of February, 1999. I just ask to note that. Your Honours, could
14 this one also be received in evidence and be given an exhibit number?
15 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01188.
17 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honours.
18 Q. Something I should have asked you before in respect to the
19 previous document.
20 MR. STAMP: If we have a quick look at it. That is
21 65 ter number P5276. Which is P1187.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There's something illogical here.
23 The dispatch number 349 actually removes certain measures that had been
24 ordered previously, whether those were enhanced security measures or some
25 others, I don't know, but they are pronounced no longer valid. And then
1 at the same time it also orders the rotation of certain units and members
2 of units, which, to me, is not quite logical.
3 MR. STAMP:
4 Q. I see. But you see here that this dispatch revokes the previous
5 one that we looked at?
6 A. Although I'm doing my best, I can't really figure out what this
7 is about. This should mean that certain measures were revoked. But in
8 the earlier dispatch, there was no -- there were no orders issued. It
9 was just the same type of standard dispatch as the ones that we had seen
11 MR. STAMP: Very well. Could we move on now to 5288. This is
12 now in March 1999.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This has to do with the deployment
14 of units from other Secretariats, Belgrade and other places, to the area
15 of Kosovo and Metohija to Decani, Pec. And I don't see that there are
16 any members of the Uzice Secretariat in this particular case, in this
17 particular shift. I can't see the next page and the signature.
18 MR. STAMP: Can we move to the next page and the signature.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We can see the signature of the
20 assistant minister and the chief of public security department.
21 MR. STAMP:
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. STAMP: Your Honours, I'm advised that this one is not yet on
24 the exhibit list. But what I'm being told now, Your Honours, and I think
25 subject to correction, I would say it's not yet on the exhibit list, is
1 that the order had been that the Prosecution should provide a translation
2 because at the time of the application or the time of the decision there
3 were no translations of this document. And, indeed, the last one that we
4 discovered was not yet on the exhibit list. But I could check that in
5 the break and advise the Court.
6 JUDGE PARKER: I think that is correct, and the translations have
7 now been provided. And the Chamber is about to give a decision whether
8 these may be added to the 65 ter list or not.
9 MR. STAMP: Indeed, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE PARKER: It will be marked for identification.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01189 marked
12 for identification.
13 MR. STAMP: Thank you. Could we move now to 5313.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This relates to the personnel who
15 had already been on the mission and who are returning from assignment
16 that they should be allowed some free days upon this assignment
18 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
19 JUDGE PARKER: A problem is providing a B/C/S image of this
20 document. We have only English apparently in e-court, the reverse of
21 earlier problems.
22 MR. STAMP: Could I, with the assistance of the Usher, hand to
23 the witness a B/C/S copy. And we could also sort out the e-court issue
24 in the break.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This dispatch number 436 of
1 March 2, 1999 --
2 MR. STAMP: Your Honours, excuse me.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Deals with the deployment --
4 MR. STAMP: I'm just reminded, Your Honours, that this
5 document -- we removed it from e-court this morning because it's a
6 duplicate of another document that we'll be seeing. I'm so sorry.
7 Please accept my apologies, Your Honours.
8 If I could move on to 5314. And this is the 9th of March, 1999,
9 shortly before the hostilities.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The dispatch relating to the
11 deployment of Special Police Units to Kosovo and Metohija from other
12 Secretariats, from Nis, Pirot, Krusevac, Prokuplje, Leskovac and Vranje.
13 And it is from the public security department, we see this on the first
14 page. And the Uzice Secretariat is not mentioned.
15 Q. Can you see who signed it, who in particular it's from?
16 A. I can't see the second page. It was signed by the chief of the
17 public security sector, Mr. Vlastimir Djordjevic.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MR. STAMP: Your Honours, could 5314 be received.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01190.
22 MR. STAMP:
23 Q. And in this batch, Mr. Keric, the last one I'd like to look at is
24 4095, which is P346 already in evidence.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This relates to a rotation of
1 units. And we see the number of men who were sent from various
2 Secretariats, including Uzice, as we can see here, from the
3 35th Detachment.
4 MR. STAMP: If we could go to the last page.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There's something -- there's a
6 problem here. I can't see what this is about. I don't see a signature.
7 There is some signature, but I don't see the signature of the
8 undersigned. This is a standard dispatch, but I can't see the signature
9 of the sender. There's only a facsimile.
10 MR. STAMP:
11 Q. Yes. In the version you have in Serbian, is this a telefaxed
12 copy or the telegraphed copy?
13 A. The copy in the Serbian language is a fax or a telefax copy of
14 the dispatch. There is no signature, handwritten signature. There is a
15 signature just typed.
16 Q. Yes, you indicated that it is a standard dispatch. And I think
17 you recall that in most of them - in all of them that we have looked at
18 from the first one shown to you today from 11th of December, 1998, to
19 this one, immediately before the hostilities - they came from the
20 assistant minister in charge of the public security department. In the
21 last paragraph we also see here, and this is also very standards in the
23 "Ministry PJP command is to be informed by dispatch at the time
24 of departure, march route, number of employees and vehicles and employees
25 who have not gone on this assignment, including the reasons for their
2 So do you recall that after the units were deployed, the SUP
3 chiefs had the responsibility to inform the PJP command of these matters
4 described in this last paragraph?
5 A. In each of these cases, the chiefs of Secretariats were
6 duty-bound to inform the command of the Special Police Unit of the number
7 of men that they are sending and the number of men who did not go on
8 assignment for reasons of their own or otherwise. And -- because some
9 people just refused to go. And they had to inform the PJP command
11 Q. Thank you. Now, I'd like us to move on to look at some of the
12 documents in which the chiefs of the SUPs would inform whether they will
14 MR. STAMP: Could we first look at 05264. Well, before we move
15 from this document, before we move on, can we just go back to the first
17 Q. I just want you to note here, Mr. Keric, that this is
18 dispatch number 587 on the 21st of March. Do you observe that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 MR. STAMP: Now, if we could move on to 65 ter number 5264.
22 Q. Could you tell us briefly who this is from and what this purports
23 to accomplish?
24 A. This is information in response to Dispatch 587 from the public
25 security department which ordered the deployment. And this information
1 is to inform them how many men have been sent, how many were absent, and
2 for what reasons. And as we can see, there's also mention of the route
3 they took, and this route actually corresponds to what was ordered in
4 that dispatch.
5 Basically, they are just reporting that they had followed the
6 instructions or orders as issued earlier by the chief of this department.
7 Q. Yes, and this is one that you sent yourself?
8 A. No, it was our duty to do so, as I mentioned earlier. In each
9 instance where a certain number of men are ordered to be sent to
10 Kosovo and Metohija, we had the duty to report whether all the men who
11 had been mentioned in the dispatch of the chief of the department had
12 been sent and who had not been sent, and practically this is just in
13 response to the order sending these men.
14 Q. Yes. I just asked if this one, this response, is your response?
15 A. Yes, it is. Yes. This is my reply. Actually, the reply from
16 the Secretariat in Uzice. But whether I actually signed this or the
17 chief of the crime police because he coordinated all this, so on some
18 occasions he would sign these dispatches that had to do with assigning of
19 men to a certain task or a mission because this was part of the work that
20 was to be done by the Secretariat in Uzice.
21 But at times, I would get a dispatch to sign of this type. In
22 this particular case I can't see whether I actually did sign it or
23 whether it was signed by the chief of the department who was acting at
24 the time. I can't see here exactly, it doesn't state clearly whether I
25 actually signed this or not, but most probably I did.
1 Q. And bearing in mind the last order, the previous order we saw
2 from General Djordjevic deploying PJP units to Kosovo, you note here that
3 the subject line indicates that this is in regard to RJB dispatch
4 number 587 on the 21st of March, 1999, which is the same dispatch number
5 and date of that last dispatch that we looked at.
6 A. If you read this carefully, you can see that it says:
7 "Reference to ..."
8 In other words, we are referring to dispatch 587 of 21st March,
9 and this was done, it was accomplished on the 21st or 22nd of March, on
10 that night. And then on the next day we prepared the reply saying that
11 all the measures as ordered by this dispatch were actually implemented.
12 So this is in reference to dispatch number 587.
13 Q. And if you look above that, we see the addressees. Was it
14 addressed to the MUP of the Republic of Serbia, the police
15 administration, and the PJP command?
16 A. It was addressed to the Ministry of the Interior, the police
17 administration, in other words, the uniformed police, and also to the PJP
18 or Special Police Unit command. I think, I'm not sure, but there may
19 have been other replies from the Uzice Secretariat or from other parts of
20 Serbia, but in any case, these replies were sent to the police
21 administration or to the PJP command.
22 So these orders, dispatches containing orders, were signed by the
23 chief of the public security; but the replies were sent to the PJP
24 command and the police administration because the PJP command probably
25 was part of the police administration.
1 Q. But I see also the MUP of the Republic of Serbia. Was it also
2 sent to the MUP or the seat of the MUP headquarters in Belgrade?
3 A. The seat of the MUP headquarters in Belgrade, yes, precisely.
4 All dispatches were sent to the ministry, and particulars are given at
5 the bottom of the dispatch, or below it to whom it was sent. Whether it
6 was the police administration or the traffic administration or the border
7 police, and so on.
8 This was standard procedure, and I think it was done the same way
9 in all other Secretariats.
10 Q. Organisationally in the MUP, who or what bodies were the police
11 administration and the PJP command subordinate to?
12 A. The police administration and the PJP command, I know for certain
13 that the police administration was subordinated to the public security
14 department. The command of the PJP, I think I've already mentioned this,
15 I think was in a special status. Formally it was within the police
16 administration. However, I think that it was at a higher level and that
17 it had closer ties with the minister rather than the police
18 administration. And the police administration also had certain tasks
19 regarding the training, equipment, logistics of those units that were
20 used by the PJP units of the ministry.
21 MR. STAMP: Very well. Your Honours, could this document be
22 given an --
23 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01191.
25 MR. STAMP: And I think, Your Honours, this is also another one
1 that is not yet on the list.
2 JUDGE PARKER: It will be marked for identification.
3 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P01191 marked for identification,
4 Your Honours.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Is that a convenient time, Mr. Stamp?
6 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE PARKER: We'll have our second break now, resuming at 5
8 minutes past 6.00.
9 [The witness stands down]
10 --- Recess taken at 5.34 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 6.07 p.m.
12 [The witness takes the stand]
13 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Stamp.
14 MR. STAMP: Thank you.
15 Q. Mr. Keric, you said in the last session that there were similar
16 orders or similar responses like the one you sent back to the MUP
17 headquarters in respect to the dispatch you had gotten from the MUP
18 headquarters, number 587, you say that other SUPs would have sent back
19 the same or a similar response indicating the level of compliance in
20 their area. And I'd like to show you some of those very quickly and for
21 you to tell us if these are documents that you are referring to.
22 MR. STAMP: Could we look at 5262, please.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is the same text as before.
24 It's a response that people were sent out to mission, but it's very
25 specific here. It says Republic of Serbia MUP, and it's only for PJPs.
1 As I said, PJPs, Special Police Units, were formally part of the police
2 administration, but organisationally and all other issues concerning the
3 equipment and vehicles were handled, in my opinion, by the minister
4 rather than any other organisational part.
5 In this particular document, it's only sent to the PJP, the
6 response, in this case. And it's signed by the police department chief,
7 and it's related to your question on whether I signed the fax. Sometimes
8 I signed it if the police department chief brought it to me, or it could
9 have been signed only by the police department chief, which was done in
10 this particular case. It says it was signed by the Lieutenant-Colonel
11 Miloslav Dimitrijevic. So it was head of the Secretariat, chief of the
12 Secretariat, but chief of the police department. I don't know if I'm
13 clear enough.
14 Q. Yes. Thank you.
15 MR. STAMP: Could this one be received in evidence.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01192.
18 MR. STAMP: Thank you. And this one is similar, I'm now
19 informed, Your Honour, to the others that are not yet on the list but for
20 which applications were made.
21 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
22 JUDGE PARKER: As you indicated, Mr. Stamp, it appears that it
23 must be marked at this stage.
24 MR. STAMP: Indeed, Your Honours.
25 THE REGISTRAR: So, Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01192
1 marked for identification.
2 MR. STAMP: And if we could look at 5262. Sorry, 5263.
3 Q. Is that a similar dispatch or a response from the SUP Subotica
4 this time to --
5 A. This document is completely identical to the previous one, apart
6 from the fact that in this case, unlike the case of Smederevo, this is
7 sent to the police administration and the PJP command. And it is signed
8 also by the chief of the police department and not by the chief of the
9 Secretariat, because these tasks of informing people and sending out
10 people were under the direct authorities of the police department, or
11 rather, the chief of the police department.
12 MR. STAMP: Thank you. Could this one also be marked for
13 identity, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01193 marked
16 for identification.
17 MR. STAMP: Could we now look at 5265.
18 Q. Is that a similar response from the SUP Prokuplje?
19 A. The answer is the same as before, but in this case, this document
20 was sent only to the PJP command. And it was, again, signed by the chief
21 of the police department and not by the chief of the Secretariat, which
22 is in line with what I've previously said. And it's sent to the police
23 department too, sorry, yes.
24 MR. STAMP: Could this also be marked for identity, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01194 marked
2 for identification.
3 MR. STAMP: Could we now look at 5266.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is also the same response to
5 the dispatch. It was sent only to the PJP command, not the police
6 administration, and it was signed by the chief of the department from
8 MR. STAMP: Could this be marked as well, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01195 marked
11 for identification.
12 MR. STAMP: Could we bring up 5270.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's the same substance of the
14 document. It is sent to the police administration and PJP command, and
15 it was signed by the chief of the Secretariat in Pancevo.
16 MR. STAMP: Could this be given an -- or could this be marked for
17 identity, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01196 marked
20 for identification.
21 MR. STAMP: Could we look at 5271.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is also a response to the
23 dispatch for staff from Pirot to be sent out. Only the chief of the
24 Pirot SUP
25 administration was Mr. Simic, but the chief of the Secretariat signed it
1 from Pirot.
2 MR. STAMP: Could this also be marked for identity.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01197 marked
5 for identification.
6 MR. STAMP: Could we see 5273.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can you just move the document to
8 the part where I can see the signature, please. This is addressed to the
9 police administration, and it was signed by the chief of the Secretariat
10 at that time Major-General Marinko Kresoja the substance is the same for
11 the deployment of personnel in the area of Kosovo and Metohija.
12 MR. STAMP: Could that one also be marked for identity,
13 Your Honours.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01198 marked
16 for identification.
17 MR. STAMP: And could we now look at 5274.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is from Sombor addressed to
19 the police administration and the PJP command, signed by, just a minute,
20 chief -- it doesn't say of what. I suppose it's the chief of SUP, should
22 MR. STAMP: Could that one be given an exhibit number -- sorry,
23 could be marked for identity as well, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01199 marked
1 for identification.
2 MR. STAMP: And could we look at 5261.
3 Q. This one -- well, could you tell us what this one is about? You
4 know the date and that in the reference section it is --
5 A. It's the same dispatch from 1998. It's a response to dispatch.
6 It provides information on what was done upon the order or the dispatch
7 from 17th of July, 1175, which means of transport shall be used, and
8 which routes. Chief of Secretariat is to be signed -- it was either
9 signed by me or the chief of police department. In other Secretariats it
10 was the chiefs of police departments who signed it.
11 Q. So can I take it from these responses, showing compliance with
12 the order of the assistant minister in charge of the
13 RJB General Djordjevic, that the system remained the same between 1998
14 and 1999 in terms of how units were deployed in Kosovo and the
15 responsibility to report as to compliance with these orders?
16 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Popovic.
17 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Mr. Stamp at this
18 occasion used only some dispatches that he used to try and --
19 MR. STAMP: I have to interrupt.
20 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] But you cannot make such a
21 conclusion on the basis of that, so that's my objection.
22 MR. STAMP: Your Honour, I'm so sorry to interrupt the objection,
23 but the objection is not a proper one. This is a matter for
24 cross-examination, and if he is going to object in that manner --
25 JUDGE PARKER: Your question was one that was hardly supported by
1 what had gone before.
2 MR. STAMP: But it's a question --
3 JUDGE PARKER: In those terms --
4 MR. STAMP: That is why I wanted to give --
5 JUDGE PARKER: You might ask whether there was any change of
6 procedure and compliance between those dates, and you could not be
8 MR. STAMP: That is probably a better way to ask it but --
9 JUDGE PARKER: Carry on, Mr. Stamp, don't debate with counsel.
10 MR. STAMP: Very well.
11 Q. Having regard to the document that you just saw and what you
12 know, were there any changes in the procedure in respect to compliance
13 with the orders for deployment?
14 A. Until the 1st of May, 1999, as far as I can recall, no changes
15 happened. This is -- this was the standard procedure to rotate units.
16 And after that, after the 1st of May, 1999, and throughout the entire
17 rest of the 1999, I couldn't say because I was no longer there. I was
18 assigned to work on a different position in the Federal Ministry of
19 the Interior in Belgrade, so don't -- can't say anything about what
20 happened after the 1st of May.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. STAMP: Could this one be tendered into evidence,
23 Your Honours, and be given an exhibit number. I think this one is on the
25 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, it will be received.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01200.
2 MR. STAMP:
3 Q. Now, Mr. Keric, in order to save some time, and with the leave of
4 the Court, of course, I want to show you a set of documents quickly, and
5 basically I'd like you just to tell us whether or not these were orders
6 issued by the MUP of the Republic of Serbia, or if you see anything in
7 them which would indicate that they were not. I think you were shown all
8 of these before.
9 MR. STAMP: So if we could move quickly to 5301.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Orders from the ministry. These
11 are orders from the Ministry of the Interior, public security department.
12 This one is on the abuse of sick leave, and other issues.
13 MR. STAMP: Thank you.
14 Q. Could you just look at the second page and say more precisely
15 where in the ministry it's from?
16 A. This is public security department. There is no signature by
17 hand but a printed signature by the head of the RJB.
18 MR. STAMP: Could this one be received in evidence and given an
19 exhibit number, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Exhibit P01201.
22 MR. STAMP: Thank you. Could we move to 5302.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a dispatch from the
24 ministry, or rather, from the public security department, on the needs to
25 carry out strengthened security measures in the territory of each
1 Secretariat in order to prevent terrorist activities, explosions,
2 burnings, arsons, and other events. It was sent to all Secretariats
3 existing in the territory of Serbia.
4 MR. STAMP: Thank you. Could that one be received.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01202.
7 MR. STAMP: Could we look at 5303.
8 Q. Can you indicate what it is quickly?
9 A. Can you just increase the font, please. I can't see the exact
10 date, but this document is related to the time just very close or very
11 close before the air-strikes by NATO to increase security measures by
12 updating defence plans, by protecting vital facilities, by protecting
13 important people; and it's a dispatch which was sent by the ministry, by
14 the public security department chief Vlastimir Djordjevic who signed it
16 Q. If you could pause quickly on this one. Although we can't make
17 out the date, can you make out the month and the year of the document?
18 A. I can see that the year is 1998. I suppose it's the end,
19 something like October -- 17th of October or the 7th of October, but I'm
20 not sure. But it should be somewhere at the end of the year because it
21 talks about imminent danger to the territorial integrity of the country,
22 as it says in the document.
23 Q. The document, you will see, contains various orders.
24 A. These are orders to prepare for carrying out measures in saving
25 and protecting people and facilities if air-strikes occur, which did
1 happen in that particular case.
2 Q. Were the PJP command an organisational unit of the RJB?
3 A. Can you repeat the question. Do you mean the Secretariat or some
4 place else?
5 Q. The PJP command that was sometimes the addressee?
6 A. The PJP command was in the Ministry of the Interior in Belgrade,
7 and the organisational structure of the command consisted of something
8 that was called detachments and these --
9 Q. Yes, what I'm asking you is --
10 A. -- were located in the Secretariats.
11 Q. The PJP command that you and other SUP chiefs sometimes addressed
12 your responses to the deployment orders from General Djordjevic, were --
13 was that PJP command an organisational unit of the RJB?
14 A. I think that formally the PJP command was part of the department.
15 But in essence and in fact, the deployment and use of these resources,
16 especially a large number of personnel and material resources, had to be
17 dealt -- were dealt with directly by the minister.
18 Q. Yes, I understand that. I think you have said that two or three
19 times now, Mr. Keric, without my asking that. I'm really asking what the
20 PJP command that you send your letters to an organisational unit of the
22 A. Yes, it was. It was part of the RJB.
23 Q. And you see this order is also addressed to the ministry staff in
24 Pristina, to the head?
25 A. It was addressed to all Secretariats in Kosovo and Metohija. And
1 there were seven such Secretariats of the interior: Pristina, Pec,
2 Prizina [as interpreted], Prizren, Djakovica, Urosevac, and Kosovska
3 Mitrovica. But at this time, I was not there because my job as the chief
4 of the staff ended with the 23rd of June.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. STAMP: Your Honours, could this document be given -- be
7 marked for identity.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01203 marked
10 for identification.
11 MR. STAMP: Thank you, could we now look at 5304.
12 Q. What is this, Mr. Keric?
13 A. It's a dispatch. Let me just see what it is about. It was
14 signed by the chief of the department, sent to all Secretariats, to the
15 ministry staff in Pristina, the head of the staff, to the post-secondary
16 school of Internal Affairs director, and the secondary school of
17 Internal Affairs. This is on the occasion of the 29th of November, which
18 used to be a national holiday --
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. -- although it is not celebrated lately. And it orders enhanced
21 security measures to prevent unexpected activities. Enhanced security
23 Q. Thank you. I see here when you mention the addressees, it seemed
24 that you missed RJB organisational units here "all - chief." Do you have
25 that in your version in Serbia?
1 A. I do have it, but that's implied because all the dispatches that
2 we discussed earlier, they all included all the chiefs. There were 33 in
3 all in Serbia, Secretariats, including Kosovo. So in other words, to the
4 special SPP
5 here, all MUP staff in Pristina head, security institute, post-secondary
6 school of Internal Affairs, and secondary school of Internal Affairs, so
7 practically to all organisational units of the Ministry of the Interior.
8 MR. STAMP: Could 5304 be marked for identity, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01204 marked
11 for identification.
12 MR. STAMP: Could we look at 5309, please.
13 Q. What is this one quickly? Is this another dispatch?
14 A. This dispatch is from the public security department. It deals
15 with controls and traffic checks and checks of various goods, staples,
16 foods, medicines, oil, because at this time there were already
17 difficulties in supplying these goods. So this order is intended in
18 order to prevent any abuses of -- with the transport of these goods to
19 Kosovo and Metohija.
20 And also increased checks of vehicles to make sure that no
21 weapons or explosives are transported.
22 MR. STAMP: Thank you. And if we just look at the last sentence
23 or last paragraph on page 2 in both the English and the B/C/S.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The ministry --
25 MR. STAMP:
1 Q. Yes.
2 A. -- and the chief of the RJB warn in this dispatch that the direct
3 controls, additional controls, would be applied; and that authorised
4 representatives of the Ministry of the Interior would actually conduct
5 inspections of various check-points to make sure that these orders are
6 being complied with. And this was done.
7 Q. Yes. In the English version it says:
8 "... will visit check-points and regional Secretariats ..."
9 Do you have the regional Secretariats in your copy?
10 A. Well, it says regional Secretariats which is more correct because
11 each Secretariat was actually established for a certain area or, well, we
12 can use regional or district, the sense is the same practically.
13 Q. Was it -- or can you tell us briefly what was the role of the
14 ministry headquarters, that is, the head of the RJB, in organising these
15 inspections of the regional Secretariats and the various check-points?
16 A. The chief of -- the head of the RJB, together with the other
17 administrations, had full powers in these checks. He could order
18 inspections to any administration within the ministry. He could order
19 the certain measures which were to ensure the public and citizen
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. STAMP: This is 5309. I think this one, Your Honours, is on
23 the list. And I'd ask that it be received in evidence.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01205.
1 MR. STAMP: And moving to March 1999, if we could look at 5315.
2 Q. Briefly, can you tell us what this one is?
3 A. This dispatch was sent to all Secretariats, to all
4 administrations at the seat of the ministry, and it relates to additional
5 enhanced measures, measures that had already been issued earlier in the
6 dispatches as mentioned here. And this happened on the eve of the NATO
7 air-strikes, on the 18th of February, which means a few days before the
8 air-strikes. So they are calling for an increased level of security in
9 keeping with the -- as compared to the measures that had been ordered
11 MR. STAMP: Thank you. Could 5315 be received.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01206.
14 MR. STAMP: Could we look now at 5316. I think the B/C/S copy is
15 very difficult to read on the screen, so with the assistance of the
16 Usher, I can just hand him a copy.
17 Q. 5316 is now the 12th of April, 1999.
18 A. This dispatch followed after the NATO air-strikes had already
19 begun, and it orders certain enhanced measures in cooperation with the
20 local authorities, the municipal authorities, the staffs of civilian
21 protection, various rifle associations, and others. And it instructs
22 everyone to enhance measures in discovering radio locators; explosive
23 device; unexploded ordnance, because there was a lot of that; discovery
24 of certain propaganda material, leaflets. And they also insist with the
25 chiefs of districts, to take steps to normalise life and normal daily
1 activities, the supplies of consumer goods, agricultural goods, and so
2 on, in order to ensure that there was -- that they function normally.
3 It was from the ministry of -- from the department of public
4 security, although there is nothing in the signature portion. It also
5 orders the controls of illegal trafficking of such goods. And I
6 apologise, I see that there is a signature on the next page. So they are
7 calling for enhanced measures and also cooperation between all various
8 departments on this.
9 Q. Who is it from?
10 A. It's from the department of public security at the
11 Ministry of Interior, the chief of the department,
12 Mr. Vlastimir Djordjevic, but his signature does not appear, rather,
13 there is a stamped signature.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MR. STAMP: Could 5316 be received in evidence, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01207.
18 MR. STAMP:
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Keric. Mr. Keric, the next five documents I
20 propose to show to you, with the leave of the Court, are documents that
21 were issued after or just about the time when you left the republican SUP
22 to go to the federal SUP
23 opportunity to review those documents. And I'm just going to show them
24 to you briefly, and I would like you to tell us or not whether they
25 appear to you, based on your experience as SUP chief, to be authentic
2 MR. STAMP: Could we look at 5318.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Popovic.
4 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, our objection would
5 go to what Mr. Stamp just said. The documents that he will put to the
6 witness now, which have been actually produced after he retired and it is
7 quite certain that he could not have received them, and also in view of
8 the fact that we will hear other witnesses who will be able to
9 authenticate these documents, we consider that it is inappropriate to put
10 these documents to this witness. Thank you.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Stamp.
12 MR. STAMP: Your Honour, the witness has indicated his years of
13 experience in the SUP
14 saying whether or not they do or do not appear to be orders issued by the
15 headquarters, his headquarters. He is capable of doing that from his
17 JUDGE PARKER: Proceed, and we will see what it is precisely that
18 he can say, Mr. Stamp.
19 MR. STAMP: Thank you.
20 Q. This document dated 29th of April, 1999, I believe that you
21 examined this document before. Can you say whether or not this appears
22 to be an order by dispatch from the MUP headquarters, from the
23 assistant minister General Djordjevic?
24 A. Judging by the content, this was sent, in my view, from the
25 ministry, from the chief of the department, which we can also conclude
1 from the signature, and it relates to promotions and awards which was
2 done every year and done regularly for those employees who actually
3 did -- excelled in their work.
4 MR. STAMP: Can this one be marked for identity, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE PARKER: It will be marked.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01208 marked
7 for identification.
8 MR. STAMP: 5319.
9 Q. Having had an opportunity to review this document over the
10 weekend and it's there before you again, can you tell us from your
11 experience whether that appears to be a genuine and authentic order from
12 the MUP Serbia?
13 A. As this was sent on the 1st of May, 1999, when I was physically
14 already in the ministry, I could not really confirm this, especially so
15 because we don't see the stamp of the signature, especially because this
16 relates to police academy cadets and students of the college of internal
17 affair, and it doesn't look familiar. I did see this document, but I
18 really don't know when it arrived there because I was not there when it
19 arrived. And there was no signature either, so I can't really tell by
20 the signature itself.
21 Q. Very well.
22 MR. STAMP: Could we move to 5317.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This too was sent when I was
24 already in another ministry, and I couldn't really speak of any of the
25 these dispatches that were sent after 1st of May. Although it does say
1 the Secretariat of the Interior public -- and in the signature part we
2 see that it says public security service. I cannot speak about it.
3 MR. STAMP:
4 Q. No, my question is this: Does it appear to you based on your
5 experience to be an authentic dispatch from the ministry headquarters?
6 Is there anything that you see about it that would indicate that it is
8 A. The substance of this dispatch and also its form would indicate
9 in my view that this is an authentic dispatch of the Ministry of
10 the Interior of the Republic of Serbia.
11 MR. STAMP: Could 5317 be received in evidence, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. We are mindful of your objection,
13 Mr. Popovic.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01209.
15 MR. STAMP: And could we look at 5320.
16 Q. Look at the front page quickly and move on to the second page.
17 And could you just tell us based on your examination of this document,
18 and I know you have examined it before, whether or not this appears to
19 you to be a genuine and authentic order issued by the MUP headquarters?
20 A. Well, my answer is the same as earlier, to me it seems to be an
21 authentic dispatch from the Ministry of the Interior of the
22 Republic of Serbia.
23 MR. STAMP: Could we move to page 2.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here we also have the signature of
25 the chief of the department, the assistant minister for public security,
1 Colonel-General Vlastimir Djordjevic.
2 MR. STAMP: Thank you. Could that one be received in evidence,
3 Your Honours.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01210.
6 MR. STAMP: Your Honours, the last document in total.
7 JUDGE PARKER: You have one more.
8 MR. STAMP: If I could just finish this. Could we look at 5321.
9 Q. This is a document demobilising MUP reservists. And, again, it's
10 dated in August 1999 after you had left the republican MUP, but does it
11 appear to be a genuine order from the MUP headquarters? Is there
12 anything that gives you reason to think that it is not a genuine order?
13 A. I cannot confirm this, but judging by the style in which it was
14 drafted, I would say that this is a genuine document.
15 MR. STAMP: Thank you. Could this one be received in evidence,
16 Your Honour.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01211.
19 JUDGE PARKER: I think we've got to call it a time now,
20 Mr. Stamp.
21 MR. STAMP: Yes, sorry. It is indeed, a good time Your Honours.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Some of these last exhibits have been received on
23 the basis that they are apparently authentic, but the evidence goes no
24 higher than that. And I mention that so that Mr. Popovic understands.
25 We adjourn now. We resume tomorrow at 1:30, to hopefully
1 complete the evidence of this witness.
2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.03 p.m.,
3 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 22nd day of
4 July, 2009, at 1.30 p.m.