1 Thursday, 27 August 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. We will have the first witness, and
6 for that purpose can we go into closed session.
7 [Closed session]
11 Pages 8483-8516 redacted. Closed session.
17 [Open session]
18 --- On resuming at 11.13 a.m.
19 [The witness entered court]
20 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning.
21 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Would you please read aloud the affirmation shown
23 to you.
24 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
25 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
1 WITNESS: PHILIP COO
2 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much. Please sit down.
3 Mr. Hannis.
4 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Examination by Mr. Hannis:
6 Q. Good morning, sir. Would you please state your name for the
7 record, please.
8 A. My name is Philip Coo.
9 Q. Where are you currently employed?
10 A. I'm working at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.
11 Q. Before that, Mr. Coo, where did you work?
12 A. I was employed for ten months at the UN International Independent
13 Investigation Commission in Beirut
14 the ICTY working for the Office of the Prosecutor.
15 Q. In your current position, what's your job title, what do you do?
16 A. I'm now the head of analysis in the Office of the Prosecution --
17 Office of the Prosecutor at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.
18 Q. And during your time here at the ICTY in the OTP, what was your
20 A. I began in 1999 as an analyst in the military analysis team and
21 retained that function throughout the nine years here, but in 2004 I
22 added the function of head of the military analysis team.
23 Q. How long did you serve as the head of what we call MAT, M-A-T?
24 A. I was the -- I was the acting head until from -- I think it was
25 August 2004 and was appointed formally in January 2005 and remained the
1 head until I left in -- at the end of February 2008.
2 Q. Could you tell us briefly what your background was in terms of
3 education and experience that led you to performing that kind of work at
4 the OTP.
5 A. I did a university degree in psychology and immediately after
6 university in Canada
7 intelligence officer. I spent nine years as an army intelligence officer
8 in a variety of functions from the tactical level to the strategic level
9 at the national defence headquarters including one tour in Bosnia
10 Q. And during your service at the OTP, did you work on any cases
11 involving the conflict in Kosovo?
12 A. Yes, all the cases I worked on were the Kosovo cases. I began by
13 working on the Milosevic case, the Kosovo portion of that, and worked on
14 that throughout the Milosevic trial and moved on to the Milutinovic case
15 with a short period of time assisting on the Limaj case.
16 Q. In the course of that work, did you write any reports that were
17 tendered as expert reports in any of those cases?
18 A. Two of the reports I wrote were tendered as expert reports, the
19 Milosevic report and the Limaj report. The report that I wrote for the
20 Milutinovic case was an expert -- written on the basis of an expert
21 report, and tendered, I believe, in the legal -- my understanding of the
22 legal term is correct as an expert report, but I didn't testify as an
24 Q. Did you testify as an expert in any other cases?
25 A. I testified as an expert in Milosevic and in the Limaj cases.
1 MR. HANNIS: Could we bring up 65 ter number 02845, please. And
2 if the usher would assist me, I can hand a partial hard copy of this
3 document to the witness. Thank you.
4 Q. Can you tell us what that is, Mr. Coo?
5 A. Yes. This is a report that I was asked by the Prosecution in the
6 Milutinovic case to draft to account for the provenance of the materials
7 that were used in the report that I had written for that case.
8 Q. Okay. And I think the first five pages, four or five pages, are
9 text describing how these documents used in your expert report were
10 obtained; is that right?
11 A. That's correct, Your Honours.
12 Q. And attached to it then was a list of all of the documents that
13 had been used in your report, which up to that time, I think in
14 February 2007, had not otherwise been admitted during the trial in the
15 Milutinovic case?
16 A. That's correct.
17 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I would indicate for our purposes this
18 document has that list of exhibits, I think it's 20 some pages. Many of
19 those either were not on the 65 ter list in this case. Many of them have
20 already been admitted in this case with another number. So we may later
21 want to adjust this exhibit in e-court and perhaps remove that list to
22 avoid any confusion, because I have an updated list which we now have in
23 the system as 65 ter number 02845.01, which I've tried to bring
24 up-to-date by removing from the list that's a part of this exhibit any
25 that either are not being tendered in this trial or which have already
1 been admitted with separate exhibit numbers, different from those that
2 they had in the Milutinovic case.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Well, you're telling us what might happen in the
4 future. We will await events.
5 MR. HANNIS: Okay.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
7 MR. HANNIS:
8 Q. And, Mr. Coo, I want to go through with you the new list which
9 I'll show you a little later. I think we've reduced it to now something
10 like 95 or 96 exhibits. I don't intend to show you each and every one,
11 but I want to pick some that are representative of various categories and
12 then we'll talk about those shortly. But first I want to show you a
13 couple documents that aren't on that list but I think you can help us
14 with. And the first one is 02615.
15 MR. HANNIS: While that's coming up, Your Honour, I would like to
16 tender 02845 at this time because I want you to have his text of that
17 provenance report about how the documents were gathered.
18 JUDGE PARKER: It's not presently being displayed. It's a very
19 lengthy list I take it. I'm trying to identify --
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE PARKER: -- wishing to tender, Mr. Hannis.
22 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour, I'm sorry. I'm just trying to
23 tender --
24 JUDGE PARKER: Is it a document that has been put in our hands
25 this morning?
1 MR. HANNIS: No, it's not that.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Not that, okay.
3 MR. HANNIS: But it's a -- it's a five-page or four-page written
4 report with a list attached.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, and it's not a document that's been
6 previously used?
7 MR. HANNIS: Correct.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djordjevic.
9 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] In view of the fact that my
10 learned colleague has been talking about what he wants to have tendered,
11 I would just like to say in advance that the Defence will not challenge
12 or object to the admission of this document but without any attachments,
13 so just the basic document, where it says what the origin was, how they
14 came by the documents. As to the attachments, we're going to have some
15 objections to some maybe. So that's what I wanted to say.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for that.
17 This document will be received, Mr. Hannis.
18 MR. HANNIS: And for the record, Your Honour, I would indicate
19 that those pages are ERNs K053-8187 up to and including 8191.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Now, is it a document that we're likely to be
21 referring to constantly?
22 MR. HANNIS: No.
23 JUDGE PARKER: It's just a background, resource document?
24 MR. HANNIS: That's correct, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 02845 will be
2 Exhibit P01284.
3 MR. HANNIS: I'll discuss that matter with the Registry Officer
4 during the break about how we can perhaps clean that up and remove the
5 old list of documents that is not pertinent.
6 Q. Now, Mr. Coo, I wanted you to look at 02615. There are two
7 pages, both maps. Can you tell us what that is?
8 A. Yes, Your Honours. That's a depiction of the information derived
9 from a number of Joint Command orders covering the period mentioned on
10 the graphic, the 23rd of March to the 4th of April. I had taken the
11 geographical information from the Joint Command orders, which described
12 where combat operations would take place as ordered by those particular
13 orders. And --
14 JUDGE PARKER: Could I interrupt you there, Mr. Coo, to hear what
15 it is that Mr. Djordjevic wishes to say.
16 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I certainly understand,
17 Your Honours, the will to the Prosecution to have this document tendered,
18 but I'd like to remind my colleague that this Trial Chamber has decided
19 that this witness here today can only be a witness to the facts, whereas
20 we're now going into an expert opinion based on an analysis of the
21 documents received. And I think the decision made was that something
22 like that will not be possible when it -- we're dealing with
23 Mr. Philip Coo, this gentleman here.
24 So if -- in my view, this represents an expert report so it
25 cannot be the subject of an examination-in-chief and even less so can it
1 be tendered into evidence and admitted. Thank you.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Hannis.
3 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours. I intend to ask the
4 witness to explain how this was composed. At the end of that or later
5 on, after we've talked about perhaps some of the Joint Command orders
6 that underlie the composition of this map, I may move to tender it. I
7 don't think that it's necessarily expert testimony, what's been done
9 And I would indicate for Your Honours that in the Milutinovic
10 case Mr. Coo was proposed as an expert. Judge Bonomy determined that
11 given -- partly given the fact that he had participated in suspect
12 interviews of some of the accused, interviews of numerous witnesses in
13 the case, and because he was employed by our office, he was in essence
14 too close to the Prosecution to be called as an expert, although he left
15 it open whether or not his report could be an expert report, which was
16 discussed during the trial. Two or three attempts were made to modify it
17 to remove opinion.
18 In the end it was not allowed, but he was allowed to testify, not
19 as an expert but what in my jurisdiction we would call a summary witness.
20 Someone in-house who had become familiar with a large collection of
21 documents, organised them, understood them in a certain way, that could
22 be helpful to the trier of fact. I don't know what it is in your various
23 jurisdictions, Your Honours, but that's somebody who falls short of an
24 expert but is somebody other than simply a fact witness, in terms of a
25 percipient witness of the events at issue.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Could I observe for the benefit of both counsel
2 that this Chamber has indicated it will hear Mr. Coo as a witness of
3 fact, not receive his report as an expert report. Now, that does not
4 exclude that he may have knowledge and expertise which could ground
5 opinion which we will receive; but what we have done because of Mr. Coo's
6 closeness to and association with the Prosecution case is insisted that
7 he be called and his evidence given orally so that, A, there is
8 opportunity to deal with any aspect of it which is particularly affected
9 by that closeness; and B, if it is that he moves into an area of opinion
10 in some respect, that can be the subject of full cross-examination as
12 I am not familiar with what you call a summary witness,
13 Mr. Hannis. This is a witness called as a witness of fact, but he may
14 also be an expert for some purposes. What is important is that his
15 evidence is not simply received by way of a written report. You have to
16 deal with his evidence piece by piece, and if there is an area of
17 expertise identified and he's adequately qualified, it may be that in
18 that respect the Chamber will receive an opinion from the witness.
19 Now, I hope that assists both counsel. We are very conscious of
20 the fact that Mr. Coo has been very close to the Prosecution case, and
21 we'll be evaluating whatever it is that he says in his evidence in light
22 of that. Thank you.
23 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour. I understand.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 MR. HANNIS: I see Mr. Djordjevic on his feet.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djordjevic.
2 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. All I
3 wanted to do was to refer to your ruling of the 5th of March, 2009
4 especially points 19 and 20, from which I was able to conclude that this
5 witness can only address the facts linked to how the documents were
6 procured. And because of this close link with the OTP which has been
7 going on, especially with respect to his work on the Kosovo cases,
8 related cases, the Limaj case, the Milosevic and Milutinovic cases, this
9 witness then in view of that -- well, his opinion and views can always be
10 challenged because he has this close relationship with the OTP.
11 On the other hand, I think that when we're dealing with things of
12 this nature and when we have a document to decide upon, a document which
13 the Defence deems goes beyond testimony about the facts - and as we've
14 just heard from the witness, he compiled this map and marked the map - so
15 this is a problem as far as the Defence is concerned with respect to the
16 rights of the accused when it comes to witnesses of this kind. Thank
18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for that, Mr. Djordjevic. I've been
19 able to refresh my memory of paragraphs 19 and 20. I can understand that
20 the position in which Mr. Coo stands may be not altogether clear to you.
21 We are receiving him as a witness of fact. He may qualify on a
22 particular matter as an expert, and we will receive his opinion if that
23 should arise from his oral evidence. We are, though, very conscious of
24 the question of his partiality of impartiality because of his
25 association, and will therefore be evaluating what he says, including any
1 opinion that he may be allowed to give in light of that circumstance. So
2 it is not the fact that he may not be allowed to give any opinion
3 whatever about matters, but we are wanting to hear him orally as a lay
4 witness so that we can make a proper evaluation and so that you will have
5 a full opportunity to cross-examine. We are not simply receiving a
6 written expert report for the reasons that have been indicated.
7 I hope that will assist you to understand what you have been
9 Now your concern with this document is that it is based on his
10 reading or assessment of certain other documents. Now, we could debate
11 for a day or two, conduct a seminar, on whether that involves expertise
12 as an expert witness or it is merely the evaluation of factual material
13 in the course of evidence.
14 The Chamber, where it knows what it is that the witness has
15 relied on to produce this, will usually be prepared to receive something
16 like this as merely his assessment of the effect of some other documents
17 presented in a convenient form. The Chamber will then assess that
18 evidence as lay evidence to determine whether it agrees or does not agree
19 with what the witness says about that matter and the views that he has
21 The -- in a sense, the special standing often accorded to an
22 expert opinion is not going to sit upon the evidence of this witness, but
23 that doesn't mean that he may not be able to express certain things. If
24 he does, we will evaluate them for ourselves fully, not with the
25 enhancement that might be given to his evidence if he were an expert but
1 merely as a lay witness.
2 So if you could continue, Mr. Hannis.
4 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] May I just be allowed to say
5 something briefly. I'm just wondering whether we are experts enough to
6 be able to evaluate his opinions and his conclusions linked to documents
7 of this type. Nothing more than that. Thank you.
8 JUDGE PARKER: We will do our best.
9 Mr. Hannis.
10 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
11 Q. Mr. Coo, could you explain for us how you went about preparing
12 this document.
13 A. I --
14 THE INTERPRETER: The speakers are kindly asked to pause between
15 questions and answers for the interpreters. Thank you.
16 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, the -- we had a -- I reviewed a
17 series of Joint Command orders, ordering combat operations, and those
18 orders specified where the operations should occur by referring to
19 geographical features. For the most part, those features were towns and
20 villages. I plotted those features on a map of Kosovo and -- by hand and
21 then asked an assistant in trial support, Iain Reid, to convert the
22 hand-drawn maps to an electronic form. And the electronic form is this
23 exhibit which I had checked once Iain Reid had drawn the electronic form,
24 I confirmed that it was -- matched the form that I drew.
25 MR. HANNIS:
1 Q. Based on your experience in working on investigations and
2 indictments arising out of incidents in Kosovo, is this an accurate
3 graphic depiction of the shape of Kosovo and the various locations of the
4 towns and, I guess, Dubrava prison named thereon?
5 A. I believe it is, Your Honours. I can't recall precisely where
6 I -- I got the map from, but it was an official map, if my memory serves
7 me correctly.
8 Q. And how did you make these graphic representations where you've
9 drawn various shapes in colour at certain locations? For example, the
10 green shape which we see in your list refers to a Joint Command order
11 dated the 23rd of March - with an ERN of K052-5806. What did you do with
12 that Joint Command order to be able to draw that shape?
13 A. I took from the section of that Joint Command order which
14 described by reference to the geographical features where the future
15 combat operations as ordered in the order would take place, and I copied
16 those on to a map of Kosovo. And the area bounded by these geographical
17 features was, from my interpretation of the Joint Command order, where
18 these future combat operations were to occur.
19 Q. And based on your work and your participation in the Kosovo cases
20 and your testimony in various trials related to Kosovo, were you aware of
21 whether or not the operations set forth in those Joint Command orders
22 actually took place, do you know?
23 A. My understanding was that the operations did take place and
24 conformed generally to the way in which they were ordered in the
25 Joint Command orders, and I came to that assessment by reviewing a
1 document such as daily combat reports and war diaries where the units
2 that were taking part in the combat operations were reporting on their
3 activities to their superior headquarters.
4 MR. HANNIS: I see Mr. Djordjevic has arisen.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Djordjevic.
6 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just briefly, let
7 me refer to this witness's testimony, who says that in electronic form he
8 introduced this information -- that this information was introduced by
9 Iain Reid, as he said, and it was a case manager -- he was a case manager
10 in the pre-trial proceedings of this trial. So that is yet another
11 reason for my objecting. So he was a case manager in the pre-trial of
12 this case, the person who was related to this map and this witness.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Coo, is it the position that the depiction on
14 the map in front of you is one which in your assessment reflects the
15 effect of the orders that you have referred to?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is, Your Honour. I -- once Mr. Reid had
17 transcribed my hand-drawn depiction in electronic form, I confirmed it
18 against the hand-drawn depiction and the Joint Command orders and
19 considered that the electronic depiction was accurate. So I took
20 responsibility for the accuracy of these graphics, not Mr. Reid.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Is it then a correct understanding that the work
22 of Mr. Reid was undertaken because of his school with electronic
23 presentation rather than his evaluation of the original documents?
24 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honours, that's the sole reason why he
25 was involved in this.
1 JUDGE PARKER: For that reason, Mr. Djordjevic, we would not
2 accept the validity of your objection. Mr. Reid is in the capacity of an
3 electronic draftsman in drawing rather than in any way making any --
4 himself any evaluation of the source material on the evidence that was
5 made by this witness.
6 Carry on, please, Mr. Hannis.
7 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours.
8 Could we go to page 2 of this exhibit.
9 Q. My understanding, Mr. Coo, is that by that description that first
10 map that we looked at covered the time-period from 23 March to
11 24 April 1999
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. And now the second map we have here, was this created in the same
14 fashion you described earlier?
15 A. Yes, it was, Your Honours.
16 Q. And we see on the document itself it says it's for operations
17 conducted during the period of mid-April to May 1999; right?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. All right. I have no more questions about that at this time.
20 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I would like to tender this document.
21 I would indicate for your benefit and counsel's benefit that some of the
22 Joint Command orders listed here, I think some may already be in evidence
23 but most of them are not yet in evidence. So if you prefer I wait until
24 I've addressed some of those additional Joint Command orders, I can do
1 JUDGE PARKER: You will be tendering them all?
2 MR. HANNIS: I believe so. I believe they're all on my list.
3 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber would receive the tendered maps. It
4 would do so subject to Mr. Djordjevic's objection, which we note but we
5 have overruled. It does so on the simple factual basis, Mr. Hannis, that
6 if you don't in the end prove the source material, we're not going to be
7 able to place any reliance at all on this visual presentation.
8 MR. HANNIS: I understand, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE PARKER: So it's up to you to make good the foundation for
11 MR. HANNIS: I will.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Djordjevic.
13 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] It is not my intention to
14 comment further. I have stated my objections. But as to the way in
15 which documents are to be admitted and tendered, I think it would be more
16 useful and we'd save more time if my learned friend would do this step by
17 step as his alternative, as a second possibility, because then the
18 Defence would have quite a number of objections to make. First of all,
19 as you said, Mr. President, the authenticity of the documentation, to
20 begin with, that can of course be dealt with during the
21 cross-examination. But I think we'll save more time as we take each
22 document in turn, as was Mr. Hannis's second alternative. Thank you.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Hannis, do you have any submission?
25 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I could go now to the updated list of
1 the documents in Mr. Coo's provenance report and address some of the
2 Joint Command orders that are on that list and underline this map. I
3 could do that right now.
4 JUDGE PARKER: But is that going to advance the coherent
5 presentation of the case?
6 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, that's my eternal hope with whatever
7 I'm doing.
8 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber I think, Mr. Hannis, is of the view
9 that it would stay with what has been indicated. Can I once more try and
10 quickly explain the Chamber's approach to these matters for the
11 assistance of counsel.
12 When the establishment of facts involves a number of steps such
13 as here, the witness is saying, I've looked at a number of Joint Command
14 orders. In my view they indicate certain things which can be depicted on
15 a map. That has been done, in this case it's been done electronically,
16 it looks better, and it's easier to follow. In the end, that represents
17 my understanding of what certain orders say.
18 Now, that's one set of factual issues. It's an aid to everybody
19 in the courtroom understanding the evidence and understanding of the
20 witness. If it is the case that some of the documents relied on by the
21 witness are in the end not admitted into evidence or if they're admitted
22 into evidence in the end the Chamber concludes that it can't accept them
23 as genuine or it concludes that its understanding of the document is
24 different from the witness's, well then this map ceases to have its force
25 and validity. It's in evidence, but our own evaluation as a Chamber
1 tells us we can't rely on what is being shown in it.
2 We've got to start somewhere at understanding the history of
3 events, and in that process a map of this nature may well be of
4 assistance. So we start at a logical place. There are other logical
5 ways of dealing with all the evidence, but in the end, wherever we start,
6 there have to be certain factual decisions made. For instance, if we
7 started the other way and wanted to have all the basic documents first
8 proved, we may not be in a position to evaluate whether they are genuine
9 or not, whether we accept them or not at this stage of the trial. We may
10 have to wait to the end of the trial before being able to reach a final
12 Now, it's not the case that we must reach a final decision about
13 those matters now before we can move on to evidence of this nature. It
14 will just have to be understood that we will hear and evaluate objections
15 as to the genuineness, the reliability, and the true interpretation and
16 any other point that's raised of these various sorts of documents by the
17 time we come to make a final evaluation of the whole case. That having
18 been done, we start with this depiction of what this witness considers
19 those documents reveal as an easy way into understanding other parts of
20 his evidence. And we will be dealing with objections that are made as
21 they arise and we may have to reserve our decision about them, but at the
22 end of the day this evidence and this map or these maps will have no more
23 force than we are able to make of the reliability of the source documents
24 relied on to produce these maps and of the proper interpretation of those
25 source documents.
1 So it's not that the Defence is going to lose any advantage
2 whatever, however we approach this task; in the end the final evaluation
3 will have to be made by the Chamber on the basis of all the evidence
4 about these matters.
5 Now, I've spent some time in two or three occasions so far in
6 trying to explain our position to assist counsel to understand. I don't
7 want to have to keep doing that. We have noted the objections of
8 Mr. Djordjevic. They'll be taken into account. They'll be evaluated in
9 the course of the other evidence, including and especially of his
10 cross-examination of this and other witnesses about those source
11 documents before we come to a final decision.
12 So I will now ask you to continue, Mr. Hannis.
13 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 If we could go back to the first map I can give some indication
15 regarding those Joint Command orders which -- regarding the first map,
16 all of those appear to be in evidence in this case already, and I can
17 indicate the numbers for which ones perhaps we can take note of now. The
18 first Joint Command order that's represented by the colour green is
19 Exhibit P972 in evidence. For the blue it's Exhibit D105. For the red,
20 Exhibit P350. The purple, Exhibit P371. For the orange, Exhibit P970.
21 And lastly, at the bottom, for the yellow, P1235.
22 And Ms. Kravetz is assisting me in double-checking the ones on
23 the second page. But with that in mind, Your Honour, I would ask to
24 tender this map at this time and any -- I know there are a few
25 Joint Command orders regarding the second map that are not yet in
1 evidence, but they are on the list that I intend to go through with
2 Mr. Coo today.
3 JUDGE PARKER: The first map will be received.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01285.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
6 Do you proceed also to tender the second at this stage,
7 Mr. Hannis?
8 MR. HANNIS: Yes, I would like to, Your Honour. I can
9 preliminarily indicate that a couple of Joint Command orders regarding
10 that second page in this exhibit, the map for mid-April to May 1999 are
11 already in evidence. The second one for -- with a start date of
12 15 April 1999
13 JUDGE PARKER: Sorry, we haven't got the map on the screen yet,
14 so --
15 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry.
16 JUDGE PARKER: It will help us if it comes up as you speak.
17 THE INTERPRETER: Could all unnecessary microphones please be
18 switched off. Thank you.
19 MR. HANNIS: Now on this map, the second one, K052-0059 that's in
20 evidence as P766. And then going down to the last two, start date of
21 23 April K052-0089 and P767, and the last one in green K052-0084 on
22 25 April is P969.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Hannis. Now that map also will be
24 received subject to the same objections and on the basis that I have
25 sought to amplify.
1 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
2 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
3 MR. HANNIS: Now, Your Honours, I would like to turn to what's in
4 e-court as 65 ter number 0284501 -- point 01.
5 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the second map will be
7 Exhibit P01286.
8 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. And if the usher could assist me, I'd
9 like to hand Mr. Coo a hard copy of this.
10 And I would indicate, Your Honours, now I am going to be
11 referring to the hard-copy document that was handed out to you and
12 Defence counsel at the start of this session.
13 Q. Mr. Coo, I would indicate to you, this is the reduced list from
14 the original list that was attached to your provenance report. And I
15 have removed from it those documents that either we, the Prosecution,
16 decided not to tender in the Djordjevic case and those documents which
17 were already received in this case and have an exhibit number in this
18 case. So you'll see it's a somewhat smaller list than what you
19 originally had attached to your provenance report.
20 And you describe in the MAT
21 source or how the particular documents were received. I want to ask you
22 about some particular ones. And the first one I would like to show you
23 is exhibit -- well, it's 65 ter number 00717. And on your hard copy that
24 will be item number 3.
25 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, and Mr. Djordjevic, I would indicate
1 that this document is in MOS exhibit number order from lowest to highest,
2 so that may assist in following as I go along.
3 Q. Mr. Coo, do you recognise 00717 that's on the screen now?
4 A. Yes, I do, Your Honours.
5 Q. And can you tell the Judges where the OTP received this document
6 and how?
7 A. I'm afraid I don't recall -- this is one of the few that I don't
8 recall the provenance of. It was already in our system when I was
9 preparing my report. I came across it through electronic searches of our
11 Q. Based on your experience in working on the case and testifying in
12 the Milosevic and Milutinovic cases -- well, did you also follow those
13 trials that you were a participant in?
14 A. Yes, I followed those trials closely, Your Honours.
15 Q. And are you aware of this particular document being presented in
16 both of those cases?
17 A. Yes, I am.
18 Q. And based on that, do you have any information about authenticity
19 of this particular exhibit?
20 A. I believe the contents of the letter from the former Chief of the
21 General Staff, General Perisic, are accurate. They were assessed against
22 other documentation that had been acquired independently.
23 Q. And were you aware of discussions about this document in the
24 Milosevic trial and the Milutinovic trial?
25 A. Yes, I was, Your Honours. I believe it -- there was a -- the
1 contentious point was the allegation about the existence of a
2 Joint Command and the illegal use of the VJ.
3 Q. Are you aware of anything else outside the contents of the letter
4 itself that would suggest what's written therein is accurate and correct?
5 A. I believe it's -- the authenticity is supported by the official
6 stamp, the format of the document.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Djordjevic.
8 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I have to indicate once again
9 that the Defence has understood it that this witness can be asked about
10 what he knows, what knowledge he has, and not what he thinks. That's all
11 from me. Thank you. The answers the witness has been giving is what he
12 thinks and not what he knows. So may we stick to the facts and hear what
13 he knows and what knowledge he has. Thank you.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Fair comment, Mr. Hannis.
15 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour. I would indicate that some of the
16 witness's knowledge comes from following two trials in which this
17 document --
18 JUDGE PARKER: We've understood that.
19 MR. HANNIS: Okay.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. And the simple issue is whether or not from
21 its face and its earlier use this document can be accepted as reliable or
22 not, as to which the Chamber is not in a position to make a final
23 judgement at this time. And so it will be assessed for that question as
24 well as what use is made of it.
25 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours.
1 Let me move to Exhibit P -- I'm sorry, 65 ter number 01000,
3 Q. Mr. Coo, do you recognise the document that's on the screen now?
4 A. Yes, I do, Your Honours.
5 Q. Can you tell us what it is and how OTP came into possession of
6 this one?
7 A. The document is the minutes of the body called the
8 Supreme Defence Council, which was comprised of the president of
10 Chief of the General Staff in most of the meetings. The document, I
11 believe, was acquired by -- in response to a request for assistance to
12 the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or its successors.
13 Q. Let me ask you a general question to this point. Requests for
14 assistance, sometimes referred to by the acronym RFAs, can you explain
15 briefly to the Judges what that process is and how it works in the OTP?
16 A. When the OTP felt that a particular category of information or a
17 particular document likely existed in the archives or the holdings of a
18 state or information, whether documentary or not, we would draft a
19 request for assistance addressed to that state requesting the
21 Q. And with regard to Serbia
22 documents were processed once they were drafted in the OTP?
23 A. The --
24 Q. Who -- first of all, who signs them in the OTP when they're sent
25 out to Serbia
1 A. They were signed by the Prosecutor and then sent through the
2 Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which would ensure that the -- the
3 request was sent to the proper bodies within Serbia itself who could
4 provide the response.
5 Q. Okay. Do you know how it worked on the Serbian end? Was there a
6 particular entity or person who was responsible for dealing with the RFAs
7 from the OTP, if you know?
8 A. I don't know of a particular individual, but there was a -- on
9 the VJ requests that were requesting VJ documentation there was a VJ
11 Q. And with regard to a document like this, the minutes of the
12 Supreme Defence Council, would that go to a different entity or the same,
13 if you know?
14 A. There was an entity, but the name of it escapes me.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. It was responsible for coordinating the responses to requests for
17 assistance from the OTP.
18 Q. And when these RFAs were responded to, what form did that take?
19 What did the OTP get back, based on your experience?
20 A. If we had requested that documents and the response was
21 successful, normally we would get back a covering letter attached to
22 which were the documents that we had requested, or the letter would
23 indicate that these documents would follow.
24 Q. Okay. With regard to this particular exhibit which is a session
25 of the SDC
1 this meeting or the minutes of this meeting?
2 A. Yes, I am.
3 Q. Okay.
4 MR. HANNIS: And, Your Honours, I would indicate, you'll see on
5 the document there is a list of these documents, items number 44 through
6 47 on your list which have the MOS exhibit numbers P01574 through 1577
7 are similar documents, they're minutes of other sessions of the SDC, the
8 5th, 6th, 7th, and 9th sessions. You'll see from the MAT comment that
9 these also were received in response to an RFA, the same number as the
10 one that pertains to 01000 on the screen now. So I bring that to your
11 attention because they're from the same source on the same date and
12 they're the same kind of document.
13 I don't know what the best procedure, Your Honour, is, if I
14 should try to introduce these now. I had proposed to talk about some of
15 the different categories on the list, and then I wanted to tender all the
16 documents on Mr. Coo's list, but it may be more appropriate to deal with
17 them one at a time.
18 JUDGE PARKER: How many do you need to deal with specifically?
19 MR. HANNIS: In addition to these five I have one, two, three,
20 four -- I have another 12, and one of those contains about six documents,
21 it's Joint Command orders. So I'll treat that group of six as a block.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Just one moment.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber thinks it might avoid potential
25 confusion or difficulty by dealing with each of the ones that are subject
1 to particular comment as they are dealt with. In that regard with
2 respect to item number 3 and in respect of item number 7, the two you
3 have dealt with, the Chamber is prepared to receive as -- and accept the
4 admissibility of each of those I think categories rather than particular
6 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
7 JUDGE PARKER: It does so on the basis that it will need to make
8 a final evaluation, and that if in its final evaluation it is not
9 satisfied, well then those documents will not be accorded weight.
10 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. Your Honours, I would ask then in
11 conjunction with 01000 that you treat similarly 01574, 01575, 01576, and
12 01577 similarly, as they all come from the same source, the same date, in
13 response to the same request for assistance, and they are all minutes of
14 Supreme Defence Council sessions.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. We do so on the basis that on the face of
16 these documents there is a sufficient basis of apparent reliability to
17 justify them being received, but we'll re-evaluate that issue if there is
18 other evidence --
19 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
20 JUDGE PARKER: -- or other bases.
21 MR. HANNIS: May I request, I guess -- I don't think I need to,
22 but may I request that at the end of the day if there are some of these
23 or all of these that you find not sufficiently reached the mark for you
24 that the Prosecution be permitted to make a written filing in the form of
25 a bar table motion either addressing concerns regarding authenticity or
1 relevancy or probative value.
2 JUDGE PARKER: That would certainly be practical if there is
3 particular objection --
4 MR. HANNIS: Okay.
5 JUDGE PARKER: -- which is pursued on some evidentiary basis.
6 But in respect of some of these documents, we may hear no more about them
7 until we come to make our final decision, in which event our silence will
8 need to be taken as our confirmation of the view we've tentatively
9 expressed here.
10 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Now, are you proposing that these be admitted
12 separately or simply the whole 97?
13 MR. HANNIS: Um --
14 JUDGE PARKER: We're going to spend a couple of days, I fear,
15 just sorting out this --
16 MR. HANNIS: Yes, I would not want to make all of us sit through
17 that, but I think each of the documents that has a separate exhibit
18 number here probably needs a separate exhibit number in this case.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Well, we might deal with that then, as it were,
20 on -- by a motion en masse at the end of this document and it can be
21 sorted out administratively rather than proceed document by document
22 orally here, which will take a very long time.
23 MR. HANNIS: Yes, I agree, Your Honour. I think that's what I'll
24 try to do. I'll address some of the ones that I particularly want to
25 bring your attention to. I'm sure my learned friend across the hall will
1 raise objections about any that he particularly has difficulty with. And
2 at the end of the day then I'll be able to make such a motion.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Right. Proceed down your particular path, Mr.
4 Hannis, for the moment.
5 MR. HANNIS: If we could look at 65 ter number 01011.
6 And, Your Honour, if I may, I would indicate that Mr. Coo, if it
7 assists him, I would suggest that he may look at his hard copy of the
8 list if he needs to to refresh his memory about the provenance of a
9 particular document as long as he indicates on the record that he's doing
10 that instead of from the top of his head.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Now, which particular document is this?
12 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, this would be the one that's number 8
13 on your hard copy.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Number 8, yes.
15 Mr. Djordjevic.
16 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I am going to object straight
17 away to having this document admitted and the documents that emanate from
18 this one, because I think that the level of reliability cannot be such as
19 to be considered absolutely correct and that everything in this book is
20 correct and reliable, but I'll deal with that during the
22 On the other hand, I will make a submission on what the Defence
23 is not going to agree upon. There is certain matters, as we're dealing
24 with administrative matters, that were dealt with at Status Conferences.
25 For example, the provision on the Ministry of the Interior and its
1 organisation. The Prosecution and Defence have agreed on which one is
2 valid, whereas here I see the law that we jointly agreed was not relevant
3 and not applicable during a particular period of time. But not to waste
4 any time, the Defence, too, would like to be as efficient as possible in
5 these proceedings, and we're going to prepare a submission and we'll
6 provide it to the Prosecution and of course the Trial Chamber, with your
7 permission, in due course. Thank you.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Grateful indeed for that, Mr. Djordjevic, but can
9 you just help me with this document. Are you saying that you object that
10 some of the contents of the document are not reliable or are you saying
11 this isn't what it purports to be, a document of the Yugoslav Army?
12 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I personally have no knowledge
13 about that, but I see that this is a book, a publication compiled by a
14 certain Ivan Markovic. Now, I don't know the weight that this author
15 has. I don't know who the author is, what material he used, and did he
16 use authentic material in compiling this book.
17 Now, as to who published this book, as for the time being I
18 cannot state my views about that. So that's why I said that we will be
19 making a submission on matters of this kind. Because what the expert
20 referred to then and he's a witness here now was certain documentation
21 and assertions which were -- are allegedly documented in this particular
22 book. But there was a proper way to clear up whether this document was
23 authentic or not in collecting the documents from the archives of the
24 Army of Yugoslav and a request to give assistance by the body that we
25 heard existed in Serbia
1 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Hannis.
2 MR. HANNIS: I think I can try to address some of that with the
3 witness, Your Honour, if I may.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
5 MR. HANNIS:
6 Q. Mr. Coo, where did this document come from? How did the OTP get
8 A. We came across a reference to it on the VJ's web site and had
9 some -- someone from our field office in Belgrade go to a shop which
10 we -- I know is the VJ bookshop to buy a copy of this book.
11 MR. HANNIS: And, Your Honours, if we could go to page 3 in
12 e-court, page 3 of this document in English.
13 Q. Do you see that on your screen, Mr. Coo, do you see Press and
14 Information Centre, Vojska?
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 Q. Do you know what that is or was?
17 A. Vojska is the publishing house --
18 Q. For --
19 A. -- the VJ.
20 Q. Thank you. And have you seen the contents of this document?
21 A. Yes, I have. I've read the document.
22 Q. And some of the -- well, what kind of documents does it contain?
23 A. The book refers in a number of areas to orders issued by the VJ,
24 and they include excerpts or pictures of those orders, the -- purported
25 to be the original orders. Some of those orders we did come across
1 during our archive missions or documents provided in responses to RFAs.
2 Q. And the documents that you found during searches and received
3 pursuant to RFAs that are -- that copies of are contained in this book,
4 are they the same? Do they appear to be the same?
5 A. The ones that I was concerned with in drafting my report I did
6 find to be the same. We didn't attempt to verify every single order in
7 this book.
8 Q. Okay. But you found none that were not consistent with the ones
9 that you had gathered yourselves, either pursuant to RFAs or pursuant to
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. HANNIS: That's all I wanted to ask about that one,
14 Your Honours.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
16 MR. HANNIS: I would now like to look at 01259. This is
17 number 29 on your hard copy.
18 Q. Mr. Coo, this purports to be a document from the Federal Ministry
19 of Defence, Pristina defence administration. Do you recall where you got
20 this one?
21 A. I don't recall this specifically. There's so many orders that we
22 got from a variety of means, RFAs, archive missions, collected in Kosovo.
23 I'd have to check the document just to refresh my memory.
24 MR. HANNIS: Can we look at page 2. I'm sorry, I need to go to
25 the last page, the signature page.
1 I see Mr. Djordjevic on his feet.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Djordjevic.
3 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Well, I'd like to request that
4 we clear up the question of the authenticity of the document first, since
5 I see that the source, the provenance, is a member of the Prosecution
6 team, Mr. Fred Abrahams, that's number one. And number two is: I see
7 that another source is Mr. Ylber Hysa. So as to the authenticity of this
8 document, well that is questionable. So let's clear that up first; see
9 what this is about. And the same refers to the document -- the three
10 documents listed above, but we'll deal with that in due course.
11 JUDGE PARKER: The course we are now following is that the
12 Prosecution will identify documents that it feels require specific
13 assistance from the evidence of the witness. You, as I understand it,
14 wish to make a written submission in objection. And when we've finished
15 this process, we'll identify a time by which that will be done and we
16 will then make a decision.
17 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's better. Now I
18 understand. Thank you.
19 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. Do you know who Petar Ilic was from other documents that you may
21 have looked at in preparing your report?
22 A. I do, Your Honours. He was in charge of a Ministry of Defence --
23 a Federal Ministry of Defence body in Kosovo which was responsible for a
24 function known as civil defence.
25 Q. Okay. And I think you indicated in your comments concerning this
1 document that the authenticity is supported by official stamps?
2 A. Yes, Your Honours. In assessing the authenticity of this, I
3 would look at the -- for the existence of official stamps, for a
4 signature block, reference number, assess the contents to see whether
5 they're corroborated by documents gained independently. And in addition,
6 if my memory serves me correctly, I don't believe there was anything
7 inciteful - that's inciteful with a C - in this document that would
8 warrant anyone going to the effort of forging before giving it to us.
9 Q. Your comment also indicated that there was corroboration of the
10 general concept of local security in Kosovo shown by other independently
11 acquired documents. Do you recall what you were referring to there?
12 A. Yes. There was a concept which I'd referred to as local defence
13 in Kosovo, where they had set up village defence forces in non-Albanian
14 villages and involved a mixture of -- or various organisations were
15 involved, the VJ, the MUP, and it involved the arming of local civilians.
16 MR. HANNIS: And for the record, Your Honour, I would indicate or
17 I would refer you to the testimony of General Djakovic, when he was here
18 we showed him some documents signed by Mr. Ilic concerning Joint Command
19 instructions for the defence of populated areas. That, I think, pertains
20 to this remark. And I don't recall the exhibit numbers in this case. I
21 know they were 65 ter numbers I think 01064 and 01067, but I'm not up to
22 speed on the exhibit number in this case.
23 If we could go next to 01268.
24 While that's coming up, Your Honours, may I inquire when we
25 should break. I know we were starting a little later.
1 JUDGE PARKER: You're close to the time now.
2 MR. HANNIS: Okay.
3 JUDGE PARKER: At a convenient break.
4 MR. HANNIS: Well, let me do this one, Your Honour, and then I
5 will ask for a break.
6 Q. Mr. Coo, do you recognise this document? It's dated the
7 30th of April, 1999, purportedly signed by General Lazarevic.
8 A. Yes, I do, Your Honours.
9 Q. And any comment on authenticity of this one?
10 A. It complied with another document that we had acquired through an
11 RFA, which was the rules of correspondence and office administration in
12 the VJ, where it set out how the correspondence in -- the format, among
13 other things, to be used in various correspondence in the VJ is set out.
14 This document has a stamp, a signature, and a signature block. It -- the
15 content appears to be corroborated by other documents that I had
16 reviewed, and generally it appears -- it has a reference number and
17 generally appears to comply with the VJ's methods for drafting
19 Q. And the content of this document dated 30 April 1999 in terms of
20 relating to clearing of the battle-field, is that something that was a
21 topic being discussed at that time in the VJ?
22 A. Yes, it was.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, perhaps we could take our break now.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Very well, Mr. Hannis. We will resume at 1.00.
1 --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 1.02 p.m.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Please sit down, Mr. Coo.
4 Yes, Mr. Hannis.
5 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours.
6 Next I would like to look at 01318, that's number 32 on your hard
7 copy, Your Honours.
8 Q. Mr. Coo, do you see that document? It appears to be a response
9 from Serbia
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. Can you tell us what -- the genesis of this, where this came
12 from, how it came about?
13 A. This was a response to, I think, our original request for
14 documentation on the Joint Command.
15 MR. HANNIS: And I would indicate -- Your Honours, I would remind
16 the Court that when General Djakovic was here we tendered an exhibit with
17 him concerning the Joint Command that was a response to an RFA. That was
18 Prosecution Exhibit Number P1245.
19 Q. Can you tell us in your investigation in the MAT concerning
20 Joint Command, how did you first learn about it? How did it first come
21 up on your radar screen, so to speak?
22 A. The -- there were references to a Joint Command in 1998 and some
23 of the documents from that year. For example, there was a document on
24 the defence of populated places in Kosovo which was issued under the
25 authority of something called the Joint Command. So this piqued our
1 interest, and I believe early on another witness, a VJ officer, had told
2 us that he had attended a Joint Command meeting in 1999.
3 Q. And your initial request for documents from Serbia, what did they
4 indicate about the existence of a Joint Command in 1999, initially?
5 A. The initial responses from -- at that time it was the FRY, the
6 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, was that the Joint Command did not exist
7 in 1999.
8 Q. This document talks about -- it uses the term "shared command."
9 Where does that come from and is that different from Joint Command?
10 A. I don't know if that's -- I would presume that that's a
11 translation issue. That's a response to a request from us about the
12 Joint Command.
13 Q. Okay.
14 MR. HANNIS: And I would indicate, Your Honours, perhaps we can
15 engage the assistance of the interpreters but in the B/C/S copy on the
16 left-hand side of the page the third line down in the main body I see
17 what I seem to recognise from experience is "Zajednicka Komanda" which
18 generally has been interpreted as Joint Command in the other documents
19 I'm familiar with. I don't know if we can inquire from my learned
20 friends across the way or from the interpreters whether I'm stating that
21 correctly or not.
22 JUDGE PARKER: I would invite any comment from the interpreter.
23 We're getting no comment.
24 THE INTERPRETER: The Joint Command is indeed
25 "Zajednicka Komanda."
1 JUDGE PARKER: Joint Command. Thank you very much.
2 MR. HANNIS: And --
3 JUDGE PARKER: While we're understanding language, in your
4 question that's just gone off the screen referred to the MAT, what on
5 earth is that?
6 MR. HANNIS: That is our acronym for military analysis team.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
8 MR. HANNIS: That was a unit that Mr. Coo worked in. I'm sorry,
9 Your Honour.
10 Q. And after you got this response in November 2002, did you later
11 learn of any information suggesting that there had been a Joint Command
12 functioning and in existence in 1999 in Kosovo?
13 A. Yes, we did. One of the -- the key things that allowed us to
14 seek it with some authority was the -- we came across a reference in a --
15 I think in a VJ order, I think it was a Pristina Corps order or a
16 General Staff order which referred to a Joint Command order of the
17 15th of April, 1999. So we then requested that Joint Command order by
18 making reference to the reference number and the date and the subject.
19 Q. Did that come up when General Delic testified in the Milosevic
21 A. There was certainly a reference through General Delic's
22 testimony, and in one of the Milosevic Defence witness exhibits which
23 allowed us to make the request by referring to a very specific document.
24 Q. Okay. And you see the signature block on this, it's the
25 president of the commission, Lieutenant-General Terzic. Do you know what
1 that commission was? I see at the top it says:
2 "Commission for Cooperation with The Hague Tribunal."
3 What do you know about that body and General Terzic?
4 A. I don't know much about General Terzic, other than what it says
5 here about his title. I know the body was put together in the VJ to
6 provide -- to act on requests for assistance from the OTP. So those
7 requests would filter down through the -- from the Ministry of
8 Foreign Affairs once they had left the ICTY and I -- in my opinion they
9 would be then given to the VJ commission, and the VJ commission would
10 then ensure or its role would be to acquire the documentation that we
11 were asking for in theory and provide those documents to us and also to
12 review those documents to he see if there were any, for example, national
13 security interests that required protection.
14 Q. Do you know who was instrumental in creating that VJ commission
15 for cooperation?
16 A. It was General Pavkovic, who was Chief of the General Staff at
17 the time.
18 Q. And do you know who the members of the commission were or some of
19 the members of the commission?
20 A. I don't. I believe that General Djakovic, who was a staff
21 officer in the 3rd Army during 1999, was a member of the commission.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I'm going to move on now to a document
24 that is 65 ter number 01615. It's number 57 on your list.
25 Q. Mr. Coo, do you recognise this?
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. And it's entitled an operations log or war log for the 3rd Army
3 forward command post. When and how did OTP receive this?
4 A. The OTP received this near the end of General Pavkovic's tenure
5 as Chief of the General Staff. He -- the record in our files is that he
6 handed a package of documents over to President Djindjic, and these were
7 given to the Prosecutor at the time, Ms. Carla del Ponte.
8 Q. And you've reviewed the document itself for content?
9 A. Yes, I have.
10 Q. And any remarks on authenticity?
11 A. I believed -- I didn't see any reason to believe why it wasn't
12 authentic. The operations log or -- and war diary, it's called an
13 operations log before a state of war and then a war diary for the period
14 during the state of war. The contents of the operations log and the war
15 diary tended to match the contents of documents acquired independently.
16 And those documents included reports from subordinate units such as daily
17 combat reports.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MR. HANNIS: Next I'd like to see 65 ter 01878.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel please switch off his
21 microphone when not using it. Thank you.
22 MR. HANNIS:
23 Q. How about this one, Mr. Coo?
24 A. Yes, this is a Joint Command order that I've seen before.
25 Q. And any remarks you can make about authenticity of this
1 particular Joint Command order?
2 A. Again, it corresponds to the document that I'd referred to
3 earlier, which is the VJ rules on office correspondence or office
4 administration and correspondence. It has a header, a serial number. It
5 matches the format of a military order in terms of the subheadings, and
6 the operations ordered in this Joint Command order were compared with
7 documentation, daily operations reports, daily combat reports, war
8 diaries of the subordinate units which were engaged in the operations
9 that were ordered. And we could see that the subordinate units were, in
10 fact, conducting operations which did correspond largely to the contents
11 of this order.
12 Q. Let me ask you a question about the registry number at the top
13 under Joint Command, that number 455-148, does that have any significance
14 for you?
15 A. The 455 series of orders was used for Joint Command orders, but
16 in addition, 455 was used for Pristina Corps orders. And if I recall,
17 455-1 was a Pristina Corps order from, I think, January 1999 which
18 covered combat operations in Kosovo, future combat operations in Kosovo.
19 MR. HANNIS: I would indicate for Your Honours, that's an exhibit
20 in evidence already. I don't recall the number, but it was the
21 16th of February, 1999, signed by General Lazarevic, it's 455-1.
22 Can we look at the last page.
23 Q. I see there's no signature on this. Any comment about that?
24 A. The lack of a signature would be in contravention to the
25 regulations and the rationale for issuing orders, and I had no
1 explanation for that.
2 Q. Is that lack of signature common to all the Joint Command orders
3 that you found from 1999?
4 A. It was with the exception of one Joint Command order, which was
5 in fact an amendment to a Joint Command order, and that had the
6 Pristina Corps commander's signature block on it and signature,
7 General Lazarevic.
8 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, for the record, that's D105 in
9 evidence, the document that the witness just referred to.
10 All right. I would like now to move to 01878 -- or, I'm sorry,
11 that's the one we're looking at.
12 Q. Yes, I had another question about this one. Do you recall seeing
13 a document that was signed by General Ojdanic that was entitled
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 Q. Okay.
17 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I would indicate you have seen that
18 too from when General Djakovic testified, it's Exhibit P1236 in evidence.
19 Next I want to look at 01898.
20 Q. That doesn't tell us much on the cover, but do you recognise that
21 just from the cover page?
22 MR. HANNIS: This is item number 61 on your list, Your Honours.
23 THE WITNESS: No, not from the cover page. Most of the time I
24 was looking at the English translation.
25 MR. HANNIS: Okay. Could we look at the next page.
1 THE WITNESS: I think, actually -- I think I see a reference to a
2 Poetry Day, it must be the notebook of a MUP officer.
3 MR. HANNIS:
4 Q. Okay. Well, we're not getting to the meat of the matter. On
5 your list you have this notebook listed as belonging to a particular
6 person. Do you need to look at your list to refresh your memory?
7 A. No, I don't. It's the -- the notebook of
8 General Obrad Stevanovic, a MUP officer, a member of the public security
9 department of the MUP.
10 Q. Okay. And when and how did this come to OTP?
11 A. I don't remember the year. It was during the Milosevic trial.
12 Q. Okay. Do you remember did --
13 MR. HANNIS: Oh, I see Mr. Djordjevic --
14 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djordjevic.
15 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as I promised, I
16 wouldn't be on my feet unless I considered this to be very important.
17 The authenticity of this document can only be confirmed by the individual
18 whom the witness just mentioned, that is to say General Obrad Stevanovic.
19 Every other possibility is excluded, and that is why the Defence very
20 fervently objects to these diaries, notebooks, or whatever they were
21 called by the Prosecutor, and we feel that that is in contravention to
22 the Rules of Procedure, especially so as this witness did not have any
23 direct contact, as far as I know, with General Obrad Stevanovic. And
24 everything he knows he knows -- is second-hand knowledge which, of
25 course, has not been checked out and verified.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. And you'll be including that again in
2 your written submissions. Thank you.
3 MR. HANNIS:
4 Q. Mr. Coo, are you aware of General Stevanovic testifying during
5 the Milosevic trial?
6 A. Yes, I am.
7 Q. Was this diary shown to him during the trial?
8 A. It was, yes.
9 Q. And what comment, if any, did he make about whether it was his?
10 A. I -- I can't say for certain, but my memory of his testimony is
11 that he essentially confirmed that this was his diary. He may have had
12 some questions about particular parts of it, but largely it was a
13 confirmation of it being his diary.
14 Q. Okay. Do you remember him testifying about a particular meeting
15 that is described in the diary, a particular meeting on or about the
16 20th of May, 1999?
17 A. There was testimony about a meeting concerning cleansing of the
18 battle-field and crimes, investigation of crimes, in Kosovo, a high-level
20 Q. Did he confirm that part of the diary was written by him?
21 A. I don't recall that.
22 Q. Okay. Thank you. I'd like to next show you 01905.
23 Have you seen this document before?
24 A. Yes, I have.
25 Q. And your spreadsheet indicates this was received in response to
1 an RFA from the OTP?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. Do you have any comments on its apparent authenticity?
4 A. Again, it has the -- correspondence to the VJ's rules for
5 drafting documentation, it has the required header, footer, security
6 classification, and I don't see a signature but there may well be a
7 signature and stamp.
8 MR. HANNIS: I'd like to next look at 01922.
9 Q. This one has a couple of stamps and a signature. Do you recall
10 what this one was about, where you got it?
11 MR. HANNIS: This is number 65 on the list, Your Honours.
12 THE WITNESS: I don't recall specifically whether we got this
13 through an RFA or in an archive -- during an archive visit, but I believe
14 it was one of those two means.
15 MR. HANNIS: And if we could go to the next page.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel.
17 MR. HANNIS:
18 Q. I know you indicated you don't remember presently where you got
19 it, but on your spreadsheet there were indications about this coming
20 pursuant to a response to an RFA. Are you comfortable that the entries
21 on the spreadsheet regarding your comments are accurate?
22 A. Yes, I am, Your Honour.
23 Q. I see this document appears to be talking about the destruction
24 of certain daily operations and combat reports from 1998, do you recall
25 that --
1 MR. HANNIS: I see Mr. Djordjevic on his feet.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Djordjevic.
3 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Just briefly. I think that
4 leading questions are being asked here during the examination-in-chief
5 which I don't consider to be fair. The witness can certainly answer
6 because he has a hard copy of this list and once again we know who
7 compiled the list. So I think what the witness said suffices.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Carry on, please, Mr. Hannis.
9 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
10 Q. Do you recall -- do you recall this one, Mr. Coo?
11 A. Yes, I do, Your Honours.
12 Q. Were you able to determine whether or not that destruction was in
13 the regular course of VJ business or do you know?
14 A. I don't know for certain. I know that there are regulations on
15 the destruction of documentation and, for example, if combat reports,
16 combat-related reports, produced during a state of war have to be
17 retained permanently or for a much longer period than those produced
18 outside the time of war. It sets out four specific categories of
19 documentation, how long they are to be retained for in archives, and
20 destruction has to be logged.
21 Q. Okay.
22 MR. HANNIS: Could we look at the last page in English, please.
23 Q. You see the signer on this document is Lieutenant-General Susic.
24 Do you know who he was, what position he held in 1998 and 1999?
25 A. He held the position on the Supreme Defence Council as the -- I
1 think his title was the secretary of the Supreme Defence Council.
2 Q. He took the minutes of those meetings?
3 A. Yes, he did.
4 Q. Okay. And, Mr. Coo, are you familiar with a document -- the
5 minutes of a meeting that was called the Inter-Departmental Staff for the
6 Suppression of Terrorism in Kosovo that took place on the
7 29th of October, 1998?
8 A. Yes, I am.
9 Q. And that document, I believe, also indicated that General Susic
10 was the note-taker in that meeting, do you recall?
11 A. I don't recall specifically whether he was. I'd have to see the
13 Q. And were there any other minutes or documents of meetings of that
14 group other than that one from 29 October?
15 A. To my recollection, that's the only one that we had.
16 Q. Were there -- was there other evidence to indicate that there had
17 been other meetings besides that one?
18 A. I don't remember.
19 Q. All right. Thank you.
20 MR. HANNIS: I'd like next to look at a series of Joint Command
21 orders and the first one will be 01970.
22 While that's coming up, Your Honours, I would indicate that in
23 Exhibit P1286, which was the second map we showed earlier, I've noted
24 there is a typographical error in the ERN and the date for one of those
25 Joint Command orders. It's for the colour brown and K052-8502 should be
1 K036-8502 and the date should be the 15th of April. What I propose to do
2 is, with Mr. Reid's help, make a correction to that date and that ERN and
3 substitute it if Mr. Djordjevic has no objection.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
5 MR. HANNIS:
6 Q. And 01970, do you recognise that one, Mr. Coo?
7 A. Yes, I recognise that as one of the Joint Command orders.
8 Q. The same format as the others that we looked at before?
9 A. Yes, it is.
10 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, that's number 74 on your list. The
11 next ones, number 75 through 78, are also Joint Command orders, 01972,
12 01973, 01974, and 01977. I'm not going to show those, but just to
13 indicate to you they are identical in format. And I will move to a
14 different one that I want to bring up, 65 ter number 01981.
15 Q. Mr. Coo, your notes indicate this was used by Mr. Milosevic in
16 his trials in an exhibit with the witness Bozidar Delic. What can you
17 tell us about this document? You've seen it before?
18 A. Yes, I have, Your Honours. This is an order from the
19 549th Motorised Brigade, which was one of the subordinate units of the
20 Pristina Corps commanded by General Delic at the time.
21 Q. Okay.
22 MR. HANNIS: Can we go to the last page of both documents.
23 Q. The stamp and his signature or what appears to be his signature?
24 A. Yes, I -- I can see that.
25 Q. And is this the standard format for a VJ document of this type?
1 A. Yes, it is.
2 Q. Could you relate or connect the operation described in this
3 document - if we could go back to page 1 of both English and B/C/S - can
4 you relate or connect that to a Joint Command order?
5 A. Yes. If you compare the contents of this order, particularly the
6 area that it was ordering the subunits to conduct combat operations in
7 with one of the Joint Command orders. I don't remember which one in
8 particular but one of the Joint Command orders at the time, it
9 corresponds to part of that Joint Command order.
10 Q. Now, in discussions about the map you indicated that the areas
11 you had drawn on the map were places that the Joint Command orders
12 described as where future actions were going to take place. I want to
13 show you 01995 and ask you a question about that. This is a document
14 dated the 30th of March, 1999. Again, this is another one that your
15 notes indicate came in during Mr. Milosevic's case with Defence witness
16 General Delic. Have you seen this one before?
17 A. Yes, I have.
18 Q. And you'll see a reference in the first paragraph, this appears
19 to be a post-action report describing what General Delic's brigade had
20 done in providing support to the MUP pursuant to a Pristina Corps order.
21 It makes reference to number 455-63 dated the 23rd of March.
22 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I would indicate that that document is
23 Exhibit P350 in evidence in this case and it is a Joint Command order.
24 Q. So do you need to read the rest of this or do you know what it
25 describes in terms of the activities that were carried out by the 549?
1 A. I recall that this was a requirement for Pristina Corps brigades
2 to submit post-operations reports to the corps headquarters, and this is
3 one such report. And they reported on the combat operations which had
4 formerly taken place on the results of the operations to the corps. And
5 this one corresponded to a large extent with the operations ordered in
6 the Joint Command order and then subsequently ordered at a lower level by
7 the 549 Brigade order that had been shown earlier.
8 There's never a precise correspondence between the actual
9 operations that take place and what's ordered in advance of the
10 operations, but largely the correspondence between the documents was
11 close enough to show that they were in a sequence.
12 Q. And is there an explanation for that lack of precise
13 correspondence between the post-action description and the pre-action
15 A. It's essentially that you can never predict what's going to
16 happen once combat operations start. You have a plan and then you order
17 that the combat operations should take place and you hope that the
18 operations go according to plan, but sometimes there's -- or usually
19 there are some differences. So for perhaps more resistance met in one
20 village or they haven't assessed the enemy strength accurately enough and
21 it takes longer than they originally envisaged.
22 Q. All right. Thank you.
23 MR. HANNIS: Next I would like to look at 02018.
24 This is described at number 89 in the hard copies, Your Honours.
25 Q. Mr. Coo, this is described as an interview with
1 General Radosavljevic, and your note indicates this was provided to the
2 OTP by the Brook Lapping documentary company. Can you tell us what
3 Brook Lapping was and what this interview pertained to?
4 A. It's -- it was my understanding that Brook Lapping was a company
5 that was commissioned by the BBC
6 Kosovo and the period preceding the NATO bombing in 1999. And this is a
7 transcript from Brook Lapping which they provided at our request. And my
8 understanding was that this transcript covers more than what eventually
9 appeared in the public documentary.
10 Q. Okay.
11 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I would indicate that the first seven
12 pages of this interview pertain to events in 2002 and later. They're not
13 of interest to us, but I included it to be the full transcript. We
14 really only think from page 8 through 27 are of interest to this case,
15 especially pages 14 and 22.
16 Q. Next I'd like to show you 02621. This is number 94 on the list.
17 Do you recognise that?
18 A. Yes, I recognise that as something from the VJ web site.
19 Q. When and how was that taken from the VJ web site?
20 A. Again, I don't remember the precise date, but I checked the VJ
21 web site during the Milosevic trial and they also produced some in
22 English, I think, and there was a -- this public announcement by the
23 former 3rd Army commander, General Pavkovic, commenting on issues that
24 were relevant to the -- or issues concerning the war in Kosovo.
25 Q. This appears to be part of what seems to be an ongoing debate or
1 discussion between the army and the police or between Pavkovic and the
2 Minister of the Interior, Dusan Mihajlovic, at this time, June 2001. Do
3 you have other evidence to verify that that was going on, that there was
4 this kind of debate or discussion taking place at that time?
5 A. Yes, there's -- there are a number of different sources,
6 including contemporaneous documents from the VJ in 1999 and the issue --
7 the core issue here was whether or not the MUP had subordinated itself to
8 the VJ during a state of war.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I see it's time. I might have another
11 30 minutes, if I'm permitted. I've gone through the list, but I -- there
12 are some VJ collegium minutes I wanted to show to Mr. Coo and ask him
13 about. There are two items on this list that I want to withdraw because
14 item number 2, P00998, has already been admitted in this case after it
15 was marked by Professor Riedlmayer as, I think it's P1118. And we would
16 also withdraw item 11 on the list, 01072, because think that was not in
17 effect at the time of the events.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Those two can be withdrawn, and you wish to finish
19 tomorrow morning?
20 MR. HANNIS: If I may.
21 JUDGE PARKER: We will adjourn now to continue at 9.00 tomorrow
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.
24 to be reconvened on Friday, the 28th day of
25 August, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.