Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 8569

 1                           Friday, 28 August 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

 5                           [The witness takes the stand]

 6             JUDGE PARKER:  Good morning.  I would remind you, Mr. Coo, that

 7     the affirmation you made to tell the truth still applies.

 8             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes, Mr. Hannis.

10             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I guess the first thing I'd

11     like to do this morning, Your Honour, is tender 02845.01, which is the

12     list of exhibits in Mr. Coo's provenance report.

13             JUDGE PARKER:  The list, yes.

14             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

15             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01287.

17             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

18                           WITNESS:  PHILIP COO [Resumed]

19                           Examination by Mr. Hannis: [Continued]

20        Q.   Mr. Coo, there are two other general types of documents or

21     categories of documents that I'd like to address with you while you're

22     here.  One involves VJ collegium minutes.

23             MR. HANNIS:  And if we could have 00928 on screen to start with.

24        Q.   Are you familiar with those meeting minutes from your work at the

25     OTP?

Page 8570

 1        A.   Yes, I am, Your Honours.

 2        Q.   And do you know how those were received in the possession of the

 3     OTP?

 4        A.   I'd have to check my -- the spreadsheet I prepared, but I believe

 5     we got them in response to an RFA.

 6        Q.   And did you review those minutes?

 7        A.   Yes, I did.

 8        Q.   And during the Milutinovic trial, did you follow when those

 9     minutes were discussed with various witnesses, including several of the

10     attendees of those meetings?

11        A.   I did.

12        Q.   Are you aware that they were admitted into evidence in the

13     Milutinovic trial?

14        A.   Yes, I am.

15        Q.   Were you aware of any challenge or claim that they were not

16     authentic?

17        A.   I don't recall any.

18        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  I don't know if you can see that on your

19     screen now.

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Okay.  Is this the same format in which they all appeared to be

22     printed?

23        A.   Yes, it is.

24        Q.   Okay.  Do you need to look at any of the rest of it to

25     familiarise yourself with it?

Page 8571

 1        A.   No, I don't.  I recognise this.

 2        Q.   Okay.

 3             MR. HANNIS:  Could we, for a moment, though, look at page 2 in

 4     both the B/C/S and the English.

 5        Q.   And here we have a list of those present at this particular

 6     meeting.  Was it -- is that standard formatting for these minutes?

 7        A.   Yes, it is.

 8        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.

 9             MR. HANNIS:  I don't have any more questions about that.

10     Your Honour, I would like to tender this one 00928, and there are a

11     series of these.  It runs through 0941, and these are all meetings I

12     think from December 1998 through -- and up to the beginning of the war.

13     There's only one during the war, I think it's on April 9th, 1999, but

14     they were all received pursuant to the same RFA, they're all in the same

15     format, and they were all testified about by many of the attendees of

16     these meetings during the Milutinovic trial.  And we would offer them in

17     their entirety, although there are portions in the meeting clearly where

18     subject matters are being discussed that may not be pertinent to your

19     final findings in this case, but we feel that you need to have the entire

20     meetings to have the context of what's being discussed, to understand the

21     inter-relationships between the speakers and the events about which

22     they're talking about.  Certainly at the end of the case when we file our

23     final brief we will be directing your attention to those particular most

24     pertinent points from our point of view, but that's our proposal.

25             JUDGE PARKER:  I take it these are not on the list we were using

Page 8572

 1     yesterday?

 2             MR. HANNIS:  No, they were not, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE PARKER:  They were not.

 4             Is there any objection to these, Mr. Djordjevic?

 5             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I was just about

 6     to stand up, and I must say that I'm a little bit surprised by this

 7     gesture by my colleague, Mr. Hannis, because we were not quite

 8     specifically informed what would be in the announcement.  So I'm a little

 9     bit surprised about this type of use of this document.  I didn't have any

10     time to look in detail exactly what it's about.  I assume it is something

11     that I've already seen and read, but at this point I really am unable to

12     say anything about it.

13             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, if I may make a suggestion.  I would

14     propose to provide a list to the Registry of those exhibits that I intend

15     to offer, these VJ collegium minutes, and certainly allow Mr. Djordjevic

16     time to review if there are any particular ones that he objects to and

17     respond in writing if that's necessary or helpful.

18             JUDGE PARKER:  I think that could be the way most usefully for us

19     to take, Mr. Hannis.  There will be -- if when he reviews them, if there

20     are concerns of Mr. Djordjevic he's going to put them in writing to the

21     documents that you were dealing with yesterday, and this could be

22     included in that exercise.

23             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] In principle, I am not opposed

24     to that, but I would just like to point out to the Chamber that this

25     should not be something that becomes a practice.  Documents that are

Page 8573

 1     going to be used should be provided in advance.  I'm going to ask for two

 2     weeks for the bar table submission, and at the same time, since

 3     Mr. Hannis is already talking about this, that after the conclusion of

 4     the examination-in-chief of this witness we be provided with a final list

 5     so that the Defence can then know precisely what it is dealing with in

 6     terms of the documents that were being used.  Thank you.

 7             JUDGE PARKER:  As I understand it, Mr. Djordjevic, you have the

 8     list from yesterday that has been the subject of specific evidence in

 9     some respects, and there are now tendered this and a number of other

10     minutes of this same body, the collegium of the Chief of the

11     General Staff.  So that should be at the moment the totality of the

12     documents.  There may be more which Mr. Hannis is going to deal with now,

13     but we'll move on.  The motion for them to be received in evidence will

14     be dealt with when we've had any objections in writing that

15     Mr. Djordjevic wishes to put forward.

16             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I do want to indicate that

17     although these VJ collegium documents were not on the initial

18     notification concerning Mr. Coo, we did notify the Defence by e-mail

19     Wednesday, near the end of the day, that I would be addressing these with

20     Mr. Coo as well.  Thank you.

21        Q.   The last general category of documents, Mr. Coo, I wanted to

22     address with you are RFAs, requests for assistance, which we talked about

23     a little bit before.  The first one I'd like you to have a look at is

24     02335.

25             I don't know if you will have seen this particular one before or

Page 8574

 1     not, but in terms of your general practice, does this look like the --

 2     look like -- is it in the format in which you would typically receive a

 3     response to an RFA request?

 4        A.   Yes, it is.

 5        Q.   And I see that the first paragraph says the Ministry of Foreign

 6     Affairs presents its compliments -- I think you told us yesterday that

 7     these were generally processed by the MFA, the Ministry of Foreign

 8     Affairs?

 9        A.   That's correct.

10             MR. HANNIS:  This one, Your Honours, is brought to your attention

11     because on page 2, if we could turn to that in the B/C/S and English,

12     it's a response to several RFAs.  And on page 2 you'll see reference to

13     ICTY request 1098 regarding Mala and Velika Krusa.  It has a list of

14     names of several individuals and then describes what information MUP had

15     about these particular persons.  And on page 4 of the English, if we

16     could, the other one that we wanted to bring to your attention is the

17     portion that responds to ICTY request, near the bottom of the page, ICTY

18     request 1105 with the names of three individuals in connection with

19     Bela Crkva.  I'm sorry, in the B/C/S I think we need to go one page

20     further, and we have to go to the bottom of the English.  Thank you.

21             And then if I can explain the process further, if we could have a

22     look at 02855.

23             While that's coming up I'd like to tender 02335.

24             JUDGE PARKER:  Is there going to be a series of these or a number

25     that is quite separate?

Page 8575

 1             MR. HANNIS:  The one that's on the screen and one more

 2     following -- the first three of these are related to each other, they're

 3     part of a chain, but I don't know if it's -- it may be more useful to

 4     have separate numbers.

 5             JUDGE PARKER:  Well, this will be received.

 6             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01288.

 8             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

 9        Q.   Mr. Coo, now on the screen is 02855, you recognise this format?

10             MR. HANNIS:  I see Mr. Djordjevic on his feet.

11             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes, Mr. Djordjevic.

12             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The Defence can note that the

13     B/C/S does not -- that the B/C/S does not correspond to the English text.

14     What we see on the screen is not what my learned friend is referring to.

15             JUDGE PARKER:  That seems to be the correct one now.

16             MR. HANNIS:  That's correct.

17             MR. DJORDJEVIC:  Thank you.

18             MR. HANNIS:

19        Q.   Do you see that, Mr. Coo, this, what's on the screen right now

20     says it's a reminder RFA 1315.  You recognise this format?

21        A.   Yes, I do.

22        Q.   And can you explain what reminder RFAs were about?

23        A.   Those are issued when the dead-line for the original RFA has

24     passed without a response being received.

25        Q.   Okay.  And you see in the text of this one it makes reference to

Page 8576

 1     an earlier request on the 15th of September.

 2             MR. HANNIS:  If we could go to another page in English, I'm not

 3     sure which page it is in the sequence.  I think it's the one we had up on

 4     the screen first in English.  Yes.  And if we could find the

 5     corresponding page in the B/C/S.  I apologise that they weren't sequenced

 6     correctly, Your Honour.

 7                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 8             JUDGE PARKER:  There is a problem in that there are only two

 9     B/C/S pages in the e-court system, whereas the document in English has

10     five pages.

11             MR. HANNIS:  That is a problem.

12             Could I see the other page of the B/C/S, or is that it on the

13     screen now?

14             Well, Your Honours, I'm afraid I'm going to have to abandon ship

15     on this one for the moment.

16             JUDGE PARKER:  Do you want the witness to comment at all on the

17     content of this?

18             MR. HANNIS:  Yes, if I may, and then I will attempt to locate the

19     B/C/S translation of this.

20        Q.   Mr. Coo, can you describe for us what's on the screen now in

21     terms of the general format?

22        A.   It's the general format of our requests for assistance.

23        Q.   Okay.

24        A.   To the Government of Serbia.

25        Q.   And you'll see in the fourth paragraph of the text it makes

Page 8577

 1     reference to a response T-166-22/2006/9.  The persons in Annex A were

 2     identified as holding positions within the MUP.

 3             MR. HANNIS:  If we could go to the next page.

 4             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes, Mr. Djordjevic.

 5             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm afraid that in

 6     this way we're going to violate the rights of the accused to defence

 7     because this is a document that he cannot understand, perceive, or

 8     follow.  And because of that I'm concerned that my learned friend,

 9     Mr. Hannis, was correct when he said that for now he might need to leave

10     this document aside.  Thank you.

11             JUDGE PARKER:  What is occurring, Mr. Djordjevic, will not

12     involve any violation of any rights of your client.  You know, as well as

13     we, that many times in this trial it has been necessary to deal with a

14     document usually put forward by a member of the Defence team that is in

15     one of the two main languages we are using and not the other.  We have

16     dealt with the document and then held it until a translation is

17     available, and then when that has occurred the document has been

18     exhibited.  What is happening here is exactly that:  A document is being

19     shown to the witness, the witness is commenting on it, the witness's

20     comments are being translated to your client.  This document will not be

21     received as an exhibit unless and until there is a proper translation.

22     And I think in that way your client will not be in any way disadvantaged

23     and we can move on, which is the important thing we are trying to do at

24     the moment with a document which is no more than a formal request.  Thank

25     you.

Page 8578

 1             Please carry on, Mr. Hannis.

 2             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 3             If we could go to the next page in this document.

 4        Q.   We have Annex A to this request which has a list of names, and it

 5     makes reference to a prior request numbered 1098 and 1105 --

 6             MR. HANNIS:  Which I would indicate to Your Honours were names

 7     that we saw in the exhibit prior to this one, which now has Exhibit

 8     Number P1288.  And you'll see in the body of this request that it is

 9     attaching those names and asking for further information from the MUP

10     about these individually identified active and reserve MUP members.

11             So if I could, Your Honour, I would like to have this marked for

12     identification until I can get a translation.

13             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be marked.

14             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01289, marked

16     for identification.

17             MR. HANNIS:  Next if we could look at 02850, and if we could go

18     to the -- we see the name Zvezdan Nikolic on the screen.  If we could go

19     to the second page of both B/C/S and English.

20             Your Honours, this is -- Mr. Nikolic is one of the individuals

21     named in the MFI'd document for whom further information was requested

22     and he's one of the individuals named in P1288 from Mala Krusa, listed as

23     being a fireman in the MUP.  And we would like to tender this and the

24     remaining documents 02851, 2852, and 02849 as all being part of that same

25     series of requests for information.  2849, 2851, and 2852 relate to other

Page 8579

 1     individuals named in the original response to the RFA concerning

 2     individuals in Mala Krusa.

 3             JUDGE PARKER:  They will be received.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, 65 ter 02850 will be

 5     Exhibit P01290; 65 ter 02851 will be Exhibit P01291; 65 ter 02852 will be

 6     Exhibit P01292; and finally, 65 ter 02849 will be Exhibit P01293.

 7             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you for that.

 8             MR. DJORDJEVIC:  Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes, Mr. Djordjevic.

10             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] These documents are evidently

11     translated into English, B/C/S, but I wanted to ask since these are

12     accessible documents and they are marked for identification, I think

13     these documents would also need to be marked for identification since

14     they accompany original documents, they're accessories.  So they would

15     need to be referenced in view of the fact that we don't have the main

16     document.

17             JUDGE PARKER:  I'm afraid I haven't followed the point you're

18     making.

19             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour.  I am

20     going to repeat myself.  I believe that these documents also need to be

21     marked for identification, since they are accessories to the main

22     documents or an exhibit that has already been MFI'd, because if they get

23     an exhibit number independently now and the previous number that has been

24     marked for identification is never admitted, then these documents are not

25     going to be quite logical -- quite a logical part of the brief, of the

Page 8580

 1     case.  So I believe that they need to be admitted together with the main

 2     document.  This is all that I wanted to say.

 3             JUDGE PARKER:  [Previous translation continues]...  I must be

 4     slow this morning.  It's a possibility that I didn't think was real

 5     enough to be a problem.  We've got a document that simply needs to be

 6     translated; once it's translated, it will be exhibited and I think

 7     they're in a sequence number.  So we'll leave them as they are.

 8             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 9        Q.   Two more, Mr. Coo, and then I think I'll be finished, 02856.

10     Yes, I'm relieved to see this time we seem to have the translation with

11     this document.  This is another RFA, Mr. Coo, and similarly you'll see in

12     the fourth paragraph there's a reference to a response indicating the

13     persons named in Annex A had been previously identified as holding

14     positions within the MUP and requesting further information.  Again, this

15     seems to be in the similar -- the usual format of an OTP RFA?

16        A.   Yes, it is.

17        Q.   Okay.  And could we look at Annex A, I think it's the third page

18     in the English.  And I don't know if there's a translation of this list

19     of names -- yes, we do have that.

20             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honours, we'd like to tender 02856.

21             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01294.

23             MR. HANNIS:  And lastly 02857.  I see we have English on both my

24     pages on the screen.  I hope there's a B/C/S.

25             JUDGE PARKER:  We don't seem to be having a lot of luck with your

Page 8581

 1     documents, Mr. Hannis.

 2             MR. HANNIS:  Not any good luck, Your Honour.  I think if we could

 3     have the English that was previously on the right-hand screen now put up

 4     on the left-hand screen it will match the B/C/S that's on the right-hand

 5     side now.  And that's what I'd like to see.

 6                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 7             MR. HANNIS:  Yes.

 8        Q.   And, Mr. Coo, you -- can you see this response, does it appear to

 9     be in the typical format from the Government of Serbia?

10        A.   Yes, it does.

11        Q.   Thank you.

12             MR. HANNIS:  And, Your Honours, these named individuals were

13     persons that we saw in the first exhibit, P1288 -- 1288 connected with

14     Bela -- with Orahovac and Bela Crkva.  These individuals were also named

15     by witnesses who testified in this case, by first name, Lulzim Vejsa

16     mentioned these individuals, and I think the witness Sami Parashumti also

17     mentioned these individuals in Exhibits 1290 through 1293.  Those

18     individuals identified in the RFA responses were mentioned by the

19     witnesses from Mala Krusa, Lutfi Ramadani and Mehmet Krasniqi and also

20     John Sweeny in terms of relevance.  I want to bring that to your

21     attention.  And I don't recall, if I haven't tendered this one, I would

22     like to tender it now.

23             JUDGE PARKER:  You haven't moved.  I notice two things about the

24     B/C/S -- well, one thing about the B/C/S, it does not include the last

25     paragraph of the English, and the second thing is that the English is

Page 8582

 1     labelled as an unofficial translation.

 2             MR. HANNIS:  Well, Your Honour, I would move to submit the B/C/S

 3     for an official translation; and you're right, I don't see the additional

 4     paragraph.

 5             JUDGE PARKER:  It's merely a complement, but if we're to look at

 6     a translation, or have a translation, it ought to be, A, official; B,

 7     correct.

 8             I think I'm doing your job, Mr. Djordjevic.

 9             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to thank you for

10     that.  First of all, I would like to say that you're absolutely right,

11     that the last passage is missing from the translation; on the other hand,

12     I don't see the purpose of telling the witness which witnesses in these

13     proceedings have mentioned the people mentioned herein.  This witness is

14     not speaking about the contents of the document; he's speaking only about

15     the authenticity.

16             JUDGE PARKER:  [Previous translation continues]...  Judges, to

17     assist us in seeing how these documents are relevant in the case.  We

18     will mark for identification at the moment, Mr. Hannis, and I'm afraid

19     you must attend to the problems that we've identified.  And could I also

20     draw to your attention that the way these have been provided and loaded

21     into e-court is extremely confusing.  And I would suggest that for

22     everybody's ease of reference that they be properly matched in e-court.

23             MR. HANNIS:  I take your words to heart, Your Honour, and we will

24     try to do better in the future.

25             Oh, I see the Registrar.

Page 8583

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01295, marked

 2     for identification.

 3             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you.

 4             I should indicate, Your Honour, I think K74 also mentioned these

 5     individuals.

 6             Let me ask Mr. Coo a question concerning these RFAs because I'm

 7     not clear on one thing about the translations.

 8        Q.   Mr. Coo, when the OTP received responses to RFAs, in what

 9     language did we receive it?  Did we receive it only in B/C/S, or did

10     Serbia send us a translation of the B/C/S document that they were sending

11     us as well, if you know?

12        A.   I don't know who provided the translation, Your Honours.

13        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.

14             MR. HANNIS:  I have no further questions for this witness,

15     Your Honour.

16             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you, Mr. Hannis.

17             Mr. Djordjevic.

18             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I do have some questions.  I

19     would just kindly ask you to bear with me to prepare myself for the

20     cross-examination.

21                           Cross-examination by Mr. Djordjevic:

22        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Coo.  I name is

23     Dragoljub Djordjevic and I represent the accused in these proceedings.  I

24     have some questions for you along the lines which will lead us to

25     establishing the level of authenticity of the documents that Mr. Hannis

Page 8584

 1     has been asking you about, and I may go even a step further.

 2             Mr. Coo, tell me, when did you finally stop being engaged by the

 3     Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY?

 4        A.   3rd of March, 2008, was my last day of work at the ICTY,

 5     Your Honours.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Coo, what I would like to hear about is your

 7     formal education.  You said that you have a degree in psychology.  When

 8     did you graduate?

 9        A.   I graduated in 1987.

10        Q.   And then you joined the Canadian Army.  What kind of jobs did you

11     perform in the army?

12        A.   I joined the Canadian Army as an intelligence officer.  After the

13     intelligence -- six-month intelligence officers course, I was assigned to

14     national intelligence headquarters where I was a desk officer on the --

15     on a -- where my role was the study of the strategic rocket forces in the

16     former Soviet Union.  I then became a watch officer in the watch centre

17     in national defence headquarters which was responsible for 24/7

18     monitoring of events in the world.  My next job was to be in charge of an

19     imagery analysis team at the national level, which also incorporated

20     other sources of information.  I was then posted to the 1st Canadian

21     Division Headquarters and served there as the head of the intelligence

22     collection and analysis cell within the division's intelligence company.

23     During that posting I was sent to -- on a tour, a seven-month tour, in

24     Bosnia in 1996, finishing in 1997.  I came back to the 1st Canadian

25     Division Headquarters and became the adjutant to the commanding officer

Page 8585

 1     of the intelligence company.  Subsequently moved to Calgary, leaving the

 2     regular force and taking up an appointment as a reserve officer with the

 3     6th Intelligence Company which is based in western Canada which is a

 4     subunit of a reserve brigade, and that's where I completed my military

 5     service.

 6        Q.   You said that in 1996 and 1997 you toured Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 7     What did you do there, what kind of jobs?

 8        A.   My official title was G2 operations within the multi-national

 9     brigade headquarters, which was centred on a Canadian brigade.  We had

10     components from other nationalities in the brigade headquarters.  Our

11     area of responsibility covered from Prijedor over to Bihac and down to

12     Drvar, primarily the area of the 5th Corps, the Bosnian Army's 5th Corps.

13     We -- my function was to analyse the information that was being collected

14     on activities in our area of responsibility and to be responsible for the

15     team of intelligence analysts and operators for the production of

16     intelligence reports, including a daily intelligence report, on security

17     issues, political issues, and any issue concerning the mandate of the

18     brigade and of interest of the brigade commander within that area of

19     responsibility.  So in essence my responsibility was to ensure that the

20     brigade commander was kept informed of what the former warring factions

21     and other entities were doing within his area of responsibility.

22        Q.   Thank you for your answer.  What was your rank when you left the

23     Canadian Army?

24        A.   Captain.

25        Q.   Captain.  Tell me, please, did you leave with some work

Page 8586

 1     characteristics, with a reference of any kind?

 2        A.   I'm sorry, I don't understand the question, Your Honours.

 3        Q.   I can assume, but I believe that a person who leaves the army is

 4     given a letter of reference or a "to whom it may concern" letter stating

 5     the evaluation of that person's work.  I assume the same applies to the

 6     Canadian Army.  So my question is whether you were given such a letter of

 7     reference with the evaluation of your work?

 8        A.   There was no letter of reference.  We had annual assessments, but

 9     upon leaving -- although I can recollect receiving certainly not a letter

10     but certification that I'd left with good standing, but it didn't go into

11     any detail.

12        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Coo, once you left the Canadian Army, where were

13     you employed?

14        A.   My next job after the Canadian Army was the position of an

15     analyst in the Military Analysis Team at the ICTY.

16        Q.   Did you land the job immediately, or did you do some other things

17     in the OTP before you became an analyst?  Did you work as an

18     investigator, for example?

19        A.   No, I had no association with the OTP or the ICTY until I arrived

20     late May 1999 to become an analyst.

21        Q.   And after that stint, did you then work as an investigator?

22        A.   I've never had the title "investigator."  I've perhaps done in

23     the ICTY what an investigator does at times, but that wasn't my primary

24     function.  For example, I've taken part in the interviews of witnesses,

25     but my primary function wasn't that of investigator.

Page 8587

 1        Q.   But the fact that you did that as well, de jure you had another

 2     posting.  Will you agree with me that that's true?

 3        A.   I wouldn't describe it as another posting.  I had varied

 4     responsibilities or varied use was made of my knowledge within the OTP,

 5     and that included taking part in the interviews of witnesses, but I was

 6     never formally considered or even de jure considered an investigator.  I

 7     had no -- never made an application to be an investigator or was

 8     considered -- called an investigator.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  The interpretation was bad.  I didn't say that this

10     was your other posting; I said something completely different.  What I

11     said was this:  De jure you had your job; however, de facto in part what

12     you did was also the job of an investigator.  I never said that that was

13     your other posting.  Let's make things clear here.

14             My next question, however, is this:  Did you participate in the

15     interviewing of the accused in the related cases, such as the Milosevic

16     case, the Milutinovic case, the Limaj case, and I believe that there is

17     another Kosovo case, did you participate in interviewing the accused or

18     whether you were present when the accused in the -- these cases were

19     being interviewed?

20        A.   I only interviewed or was present during the interviews of

21     accused in the Milutinovic case.

22        Q.   Mr. Coo, which of the accused did you interview personally?

23     Maybe I can be of assistance.  If you can't remember, I can jog your

24     memory by giving you the names of all the accused.

25        A.   I -- I took part in the interviews of Generals Pavkovic,

Page 8588

 1     Lazarevic, and Lukic.  I think those are the only three that I'd -- that

 2     I was -- three accused with whom I was involved.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Did you participate in interviews with the witnesses

 4     who appeared in some of the cases?

 5        A.   Yes, again in -- primarily in the Milosevic and the Milutinovic

 6     case.  I don't recall ever interviewing any witnesses in the Limaj or

 7     Haradinaj case -- in fact, I wasn't involved in the Haradinaj case.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Do you remember the names of some of the witnesses,

 9     some of whom have already testified in this case?

10        A.   I do remember some of the names.  It would probably be easier for

11     me to confirm if given names, but I certainly remember interviewing VJ

12     Generals Djakovic, Vasiljevic; MUP General Radosavljevic; and there were

13     a number of other witnesses who don't spring to mind at the moment but

14     I'd certainly remember them if prompted.

15        Q.   Were you present during the interview of General

16     Aleksandar Vasiljevic, were you there all the time?

17        A.   General Vasiljevic was interviewed a number of times, including

18     for the other components of the Milosevic case.  I wasn't involved in all

19     of those interviews.  I recall being involved in -- certainly in one

20     lengthy interview, possibly a second time, but there were many others

21     that I wasn't involved in.

22        Q.   Do you remember having interviewed Zarko Brakovic?

23        A.   Yes, I do.  He was a PJP commander.

24        Q.   Did you participate in the interviews with Richard Ciaglinski,

25     John Drewienkiewicz, with Shaun Byrnes as well?

Page 8589

 1        A.   Yes, I did, with all three of those.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Coo, when did you start working on documents

 3     related to this or these cases?

 4        A.   I began working on the documents as soon as I started my work at

 5     the ICTY at the end of May 1999.

 6        Q.   Am I right in saying that you perceive yourself as an expert for

 7     military and security issues and analysis?  Do you consider yourself a

 8     military and security analyst?

 9        A.   I consider myself a military analyst.  That's the title I had

10     here.  The title of "expert" I wouldn't want to bestow on myself; that's

11     for others to decide.

12        Q.   You said that at the beginning of your military career you took a

13     short intelligence course.  Did you also attend some higher military

14     schools where you would be dealing with military theory, analysis,

15     philosophy, war doctrine, and similar disciplines?

16        A.   No, that would be handled at staff college.  I didn't attend

17     staff college.  I attended an intermediate tactics course which dealt

18     with company-level tactics.

19        Q.   How long was the course that you attended?

20        A.   The basic intelligence officer's course in the Canadian Army at

21     the time was -- began in January, I believe, and finished in June 1989.

22     The intermediate tactics course was a one-month course.  I did do a

23     number of shorter courses during my career, for example, a course in

24     indications and warnings, which is an effort to predict in a systematic

25     way enemy intentions and activities.

Page 8590

 1        Q.   Before you joined the ICTY, did you author an article, a

 2     professional article, dealing with military analytical issues?  Did you

 3     publish any papers with that topic?

 4        A.   No, I didn't.  All my publications were intelligence reports and

 5     classified intelligence reports.

 6        Q.   Mr. Coo, can you please tell me, if when you arrived at

 7     The Hague, if you attended any type of course or attend any type of

 8     training that focuses on the maintaining and the preservation of archives

 9     and so on, since I understood that you did nothing like that before you

10     came to The Hague?

11        A.   No, I never attended such a course.

12        Q.   Can you please tell me if as part of the tasks for the OTP and

13     for this Tribunal you acquainted yourself in detail with the structure of

14     the Army of Yugoslavia, and in accordance with that with the manner in

15     which it archived its documents during the relevant period?

16        A.   Yes, that was one of the main functions I had was to understand

17     the structure of the Army of Yugoslavia during the period of interest,

18     and we also sought through various means to understand the documentation

19     that it produced and where that documentation would be kept or archived.

20        Q.   And how did you learn about the manner of the archiving of

21     material in the Army of Yugoslavia?  My specific question is:  Was this

22     through conversations with the pertinent people, or was it by reading

23     laws, books of regulations, or any other sources?

24        A.   I don't recall any single document which enlightened us fully

25     about the archiving.  It -- we asked witnesses, for example, VJ officers

Page 8591

 1     who would be familiar with it.  We -- I noted in some documents

 2     references to archiving.  We finally obtained the rules of office

 3     administration and correspondence for the VJ, which made reference to

 4     archiving regulations.  And there was a general understanding, also

 5     assisted by our leadership research team in the Office of the Prosecutor,

 6     which was -- did have people familiar with archiving that there were

 7     state archives within the former Yugoslavia and, as I said, general

 8     understanding that militaries do -- are required to archive their

 9     documentation.

10        Q.   When did you get this military archiving regulations document?

11        A.   I don't recall the specific date.  It was -- I believe it was

12     during the later stages of the Milosevic trial.

13        Q.   Can you please tell me if you acquainted yourself in the same way

14     with the structure of the Ministry of the Interior; and if not, did you

15     inform yourself about the way of maintaining the Ministry of the Interior

16     archives; and if you did, again I would like to ask you what sources did

17     you use for that?

18        A.   The same approach was taken with the Ministry of the Interior.

19     We were less successful in obtaining documentation which would enlighten

20     us about the archiving procedures and similarly with witnesses, and in

21     the end we never had the same understanding of MUP archiving that we had

22     with the VJ's archiving system.  But again, we operated from the -- or I

23     operated from the approach that there were state archives and there's

24     laws, regulations, mandating states to archive official documentation.

25     So we certainly made efforts to seek access to archives and to seek

Page 8592

 1     documents that we believed would be in the archives.

 2        Q.   Do you know what a document register is?

 3        A.   Yes, I'm familiar with document registers and we also reviewed

 4     document registers eventually.

 5        Q.   I have to go back to a question.  When you interviewed

 6     General Vasiljevic, did you interview him in the capacity of a witness or

 7     suspect at that time?

 8        A.   My understanding is that General Vasiljevic was a suspect in

 9     connection to the Croatian part of the Milosevic indictment.  I don't

10     remember for certain whether we interviewed him as a suspect when

11     interviewing him about Kosovo, but I know for certain that he was a

12     suspect in one component of the Milosevic trial.

13        Q.   Thank you.

14             Did it ever occur to you that the forensic investigation of the

15     archived material that you received and the documents that you obtained

16     yourselves from non-government organisations, institutions, and

17     individuals for the purposes of checking the -- these documents needed to

18     be carried out?

19        A.   I was aware of the potential for documents to be forged or

20     modified in some way.  The capacity and the ability to justify a

21     forensic -- a full forensic examination, including handwriting analysis

22     or analysis of the font, for example, for every single document just

23     wasn't there.  And I also didn't feel that it was required for most of

24     the documentation that I was reviewing because I -- I found that it --

25     much of it could be corroborated by documentation obtained independently

Page 8593

 1     and the content of the documentation was often so innocuous that I

 2     couldn't imagine somebody going to the effort of forging or modifying it.

 3     And in addition, there were also official stamps and -- for the most part

 4     and signature blocks.  So I didn't feel very concerned about a

 5     requirement to conduct a full forensic analysis of the documents, with a

 6     very small number of exceptions which I don't recall ever using in my

 7     reports anyway.

 8        Q.   Were there any documents that were investigated or tested in this

 9     particular way?

10        A.   I believe that we did request some forensic analysis, handwriting

11     analysis, for example, of some documents used in or which we had

12     connected to the Kosovo cases.  I can't recall the specifics.  There was

13     one document in the Milosevic case which was a list of Albanians or

14     Siptars to be killed.  And certainly in the Milutinovic case and in my

15     reports, that document was not referred to.  We were very skeptical of

16     that document.

17        Q.   Did you receive any kind of forensic findings?  I'm asking you

18     this in reference to perhaps a request for handwriting analysis of a

19     particular document.  Did you receive any results of analysis or not?

20        A.   I -- I believe the OTP received some reports from the Netherlands

21     Forensics Institute on handwriting analysis, but I don't remember

22     receiving any specifically myself or being involved in the interaction

23     with the Forensics Institute or study of those particular documents.

24        Q.   Who else was entrusted with analysing the documents in the OTP?

25     Weren't you the sole person responsible for that?  This is what we have

Page 8594

 1     been led to believe, at least regarding the analysis of police and army

 2     documents.  Can you tell us the name if there is such a person?

 3        A.   A number of people reviewed documents for a variety of purposes,

 4     investigators, other analysts, research officers looking at the more

 5     political level of documents.  For the purposes of writing the reports

 6     that I wrote, I was responsible for reviewing those documents for

 7     incorporation into my reports.  Many of those same documents would have

 8     been also reviewed by other people for other purposes.

 9        Q.   Very well.  But you told me that you issued requests for certain

10     analysis to be conducted for specific documents, handwriting analysis; am

11     I correct to understand that that was so?

12        A.   No.  I don't think I said that, but if I did that's incorrect.  I

13     never requested handwriting analysis.

14        Q.   Because then that is the right answer then because you said

15     something so we all understood something different from what you have

16     just said.

17             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we ask the usher now to put

18     two documents up on the screen, and I would like to first place the

19     Serbian, B/C/S, originals, side by side.  This is 65 ter number --

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the counsel please repeat the number.

21             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] -- I think that is P887.  And 65

22     ter document number 01722, D -- this is D204, the first one was 65

23     ter 01460.  All right.  All right, that is the first document.  Can we

24     now look at the second document.  [In English] Please.  Correct.

25        Q.   [Interpretation] When you look at these two documents, even

Page 8595

 1     though they're in B/C/S - and you said you dealt with examining the

 2     authenticity of the document - are you familiar with the format of this

 3     document or not?

 4        A.   Yes, the formats of both look familiar.

 5        Q.   Do these documents seem to be original documents, authentic

 6     documents, to you?

 7        A.   At face value they look authentic.

 8        Q.   Very well.

 9             MR. DJORDJEVIC:  I would now like to ask to zoom in on

10     document P887 -- actually, to zoom the stamps on both documents, the

11     first one, for example, the command of the 3rd Army.  Could we zoom in on

12     that.  It's in the top left-hand corner at -- in the heading of the

13     document.  Thank you.  And can you please zoom in the same place on the

14     document, the text there is typed, but then there is something that is

15     entered by hand.  Yes, precisely.  That's the part.

16        Q.   The first document has number 872-94/2, and bears the date the

17     19th of April, 1999.  You can see that, right?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   The second document bears the same number 872-94/1 and bears the

20     date the 20th of April, 1999; you can see that, right?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   These are two separate documents, the documents that we see on

23     the left-hand side was signed by General Ojdanic, and the one on the

24     right-hand side was signed by General Pavkovic.  The left document is a

25     telegram or an order signed by General Ojdanic, and the right document is

Page 8596

 1     an order signed by General Pavkovic.  Would you agree with me that in

 2     1999 General Ojdanic was the one who could issue orders to

 3     General Pavkovic and that General Pavkovic was subordinated to

 4     General Ojdanic?

 5        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 6        Q.   It's clear that on the 19th of April General Ojdanic wrote the

 7     document, this is 1999, and that on the 20th of April General Pavkovic in

 8     relation to this document wrote his document.  How do you explain the

 9     fact that document that is the earlier document bears the marking /2, the

10     original document, and the later document is marked with the number /1?

11     Does that bring any doubts in your mind in reference to this?

12        A.   It does look odd.  I think I would have to see the full

13     translations to make a definitive -- offer a definitive opinion on these.

14        Q.   Thank you.

15             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I would now like to ask to have

16     the versions that are translated of these documents placed on the monitor

17     side by side, please.

18        Q.   Can you please look at the first sentence in the first paragraph:

19             "Pursuant to the order, strictly confidential ..."

20        A.   Yes, I see that.

21        Q.   So this refers to the previous document that bears the number /2,

22     and this one bears the marking /1.  So may I hear your comment on this

23     now, please.

24        A.   I understand the one on the left is the General Staff's order on

25     subordination of the MUP to the VJ issued on the 18th of April, 1999,

Page 8597

 1     that it has a stamp on the top of the 3rd Army with the reference number

 2     872-94/2, dated the 19th of April, 1999.  I don't know what that stamp is

 3     doing there.  It may be the stamp to indicate receipt of the

 4     General Staff's order.  The document on the right I understand to be the

 5     3rd Army's response to the order of the General Staff which is issued on

 6     the 20th of April, 1999, and given the strictly confidential number

 7     872-94/1.  Why there's a discrepancy between the stamp at the top of

 8     the -- 3rd Army stamp at the top of the left-hand document and the one on

 9     the right, I don't know.  94, by which I mean 94/2, preceding in date

10     94/1.  It seems odd.  It could be a transcription error, but I have no

11     explanation for what the reason is.

12        Q.   There is no typing mistake for the simple reason that you saw the

13     originals and you saw what it says in the originals.  Second, I am

14     wondering that you are wondering about this stamp.  Don't you know that

15     this is a register number, not a receipt stamp.  Do you know what a

16     receipt stamp looks like used by the Army of Yugoslavia, it says

17     "received" at such and such a time.  Do you know, did you ever see such a

18     stamp before?  Actually, we are on this topic and you are an expert on

19     this.  Did you know that this is a register number not a receipt stamp?

20        A.   I have seen the receipt stamps on documents.

21        Q.   So why are you wondering?  You're saying perhaps it was received

22     then, but this is actually the document register number of the basic --

23     the main document.  All right, thank you.  Well, anyway, something is odd

24     here, something is not clear here, all of this is used in these cases.

25             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Well, I would like to ask the

Page 8598

 1     Trial Chamber to permit that these two documents be admitted side by side

 2     if possible, to have the two English documents admitted side by side both

 3     and then the B/C/S versions of the documents also, if it's possible to do

 4     it this way.

 5             JUDGE PARKER:  Are they not already exhibits?  I thought you said

 6     that the first of them is Exhibit P887 and the second Exhibit D204.

 7             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, and this other one is

 8     D204.  I just thought for the sake of being practical to place these two

 9     exhibits side by side in the electronic evidence data, even though

10     they're already admitted.  I don't know if this is necessary or not, but

11     I thought perhaps for the sake of being practical I suggested that.  I

12     don't know if so far the practice was like this.

13             JUDGE PARKER:  [Previous translation continues]...  we don't need

14     to attempt to place them side by side unless at some other stage we're

15     having to compare the two again, and then it's a matter of just doing as

16     has been done here.

17             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Then in future I

18     will not be making any suggestions like this then, Your Honour.

19        Q.   Mr. Coo, you said that documents were collected in several ways.

20     You referred to that in our report, but let's go by order.

21             THE INTERPRETER:  The counsel is asked to read more slowly the

22     title of the report.

23             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] This has already been admitted.

24     This has already been admitted as evidence.  And I'm not going to refer

25     to it in particular or ask for the document to be placed on the screen.

Page 8599

 1        Q.   You said that the first way of gathering the documents was going

 2     on a mission to seek the documents.  Is it correct that the OTP

 3     immediately after the signing of the Kumanovo Agreement and NATO's entry

 4     in Kosovo set off to compile documents or collect documents?

 5        A.   That's correct.  The OTP sent teams to Kosovo as soon as the war

 6     ended.

 7        Q.   Was this done according to a specific plan or of -- with the aims

 8     of a specific plan or goal in terms of the Federal Republic of

 9     Yugoslavia, or was it done also in terms of the Albanians and the KLA in

10     the beginning?

11        A.   I'm not clear, Your Honours, on what the -- what it means by "in

12     terms of the Albanians and the KLA," but there was a plan - I wasn't

13     privy to the planning, I just essentially just arrived at the ICTY at the

14     time.  But certainly a plan to send teams to Kosovo as soon as the war

15     ended to visit sites where MUP and VJ had headquarters and also the

16     political institutions in Kosovo, the municipal headquarters, for

17     example.  So teams were sent to such facilities to look for documents and

18     to seize them before anybody else did.

19             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think that this

20     would be an appropriate time for our first break.

21             JUDGE PARKER:  We will take the first break now and resume at

22     11.00.

23                           --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.

24                           --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.

25             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes, Mr. Djordjevic.

Page 8600

 1             MR. DJORDJEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 2        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Coo, when NATO forces and IFOR entered after

 3     the Kumanovo Agreement, did anybody deal with the crimes that were

 4     committed by Albanians against the non-Albanian population of Kosovo?

 5        A.   Your Honours, I don't know specifically what NATO and KFOR did in

 6     regard to the crimes, such crimes.

 7        Q.   I'm asking about the OTP, I'm asking about the ICTY.  Immediately

 8     after NATO came, did the ICTY or anybody in the ICTY deal with the crimes

 9     committed by Albanians against the non-Albanian population of Kosovo?

10     That's what I'm asking.

11        A.   Sorry, I see.  I don't know when the OTP's -- when the OTP began

12     its investigations into the crimes alleged by -- against the Kosovo

13     Albanians.  I worked on the -- and supported the team that was tasked

14     solely with the crimes falling under the Milosevic indictment.

15        Q.   I can see in the record against the Kosovo Albanians [In

16     English] -- against the Kosovo Albanians.

17             [Interpretation] My question was as follows:  Against the

18     non-Albanian population by the Albanians.

19        A.   No, I'm not -- Your Honours, I'm aware of any specific

20     investigation conducted at that time in that regard.

21        Q.   And subsequently was anything done at any later stage as far as

22     you know?

23        A.   The crimes committed by Albanians against the non-Albanian

24     population, my understanding has formed the basis for the Limaj and

25     Haradinaj indictments; and the team that was dealing with those, the

Page 8601

 1     investigation team that was dealing with that aspect of Kosovo, I wasn't

 2     working with that team.  So they may well have investigated other crimes

 3     and considered other indictments.

 4        Q.   Therefore, if I understand you properly, you did not deal with

 5     any documentation that was collected with regard to the war crimes

 6     committed by Albanians?  Am I right in assuming that?  As a military

 7     analyst and as an expert, you didn't deal with that documentation as an

 8     expert of the OTP?

 9        A.   The -- I wouldn't want to phrase it so -- in such a constrained

10     way or specific way.  The documentation that I reviewed for the task that

11     I was assigned meant that I came across a lot of documentation that may

12     have eventually made its way into or could be considered as documentation

13     that was relevant to crimes committed by Albanians against non-Albanians.

14     I can't remember the specifics or specific examples, but I would have in

15     the process of conducting electronic searches of our evidence database,

16     for example, have come across far more than simply VJ orders or

17     activities of the VJ and MUP in Kosovo.

18        Q.   That was not my question, sir.  Tell me, from the very outset was

19     there a unique pattern governing the collection of documents on Kosovo?

20     Did you have a regulation or an instruction as to how to deal with the

21     collected documents?

22        A.   The documents collected in Kosovo had to be processed in

23     accordance with the OTP's procedures on handling of evidence.  So

24     maintenance of the chain of custody, consideration of documentation which

25     may have had exculpatory information in it.  So certainly if we came

Page 8602

 1     across information or any of the teams coming across information that was

 2     deemed to be relevant, either inculpatory or exculpatory, it had to be

 3     handled in accordance with our OTP provisions on the handling of

 4     evidence.  So it was registered and entered into our evidence system.

 5     The way that documents were collected at that time, immediately after the

 6     war, was that the -- there wasn't much time to get to the documents

 7     before the potential of them disappearing or being taken by others or

 8     destroyed by the weather, because a lot of them were in destroyed

 9     buildings, occurred.  So there was some urgency and not every document

10     could be reviewed in great detail.  So in that respect a lot of

11     documentation that may have had no relevance at all to any cases was

12     collected.

13        Q.   You will then agree with me that as a matter of fact there was an

14     agreed process when it comes to the collection of documents, but there

15     was no regulation governing the mission to search for documents?  There

16     was nothing formal in that respect?

17        A.   There's no standing regulation for -- there was no standing

18     regulation for the collection of documents in -- on these

19     document-collection missions in Kosovo, no.  There were -- there were

20     instructions to the team members of the document-collection missions on

21     how to collect and process these documents and where to go, what we were

22     looking for, and how to ensure that the regulations for handling evidence

23     were maintained, such as maintenance of chain of custody.

24        Q.   I apologise for the digression that I'm going to make.  When you

25     were collecting documents and when you analysed the documents originating

Page 8603

 1     from the Army of Yugoslavia, did you collate the numbers that you found

 2     in the heading of the documents with the book in which the documents were

 3     recorded?  Was that an approach that you adopted in cross-checking the

 4     documents that you collected?

 5        A.   That didn't occur until we had access to the archives of the Army

 6     of Yugoslavia, which came much later.  I believe it was in 2006 that we

 7     finally gained access to archives, and at that point we had access to the

 8     registers.  Before then we didn't have any access to the registers.

 9        Q.   Once you had access, did you back-checked the documents that you

10     collected previously?  Did you collate the numbers you found in the

11     headings of the documents with the books in which the documents were

12     recorded?  Did you do that ex post?

13        A.   We couldn't do this retroactively in a systematic fashion.  We

14     checked some of the more important documents in the registers of the

15     archives by register number, by date, by document title and content.  But

16     for the most part those archive missions were to seek documents that we

17     didn't already have, and there was a limited time to conduct those

18     missions.  So the approach taken was to review the registers, identify

19     documents that were likely to be of interest based on the dates and the

20     titles, and to request to see those documents in the archive.  We would

21     review them in the archive, and if in fact they were of interest we had

22     to come back here and then submit an RFA saying that on the basis of the

23     archive mission we would like to be given these documents.  And it would

24     take a few months minimum to be given those documents.

25        Q.   You said that there was some documents that you deemed to be very

Page 8604

 1     relevant and that you checked them and collated them with the books.

 2     After that, did you somehow mark those documents as having been

 3     double-checked in that way, or did you not do that at all?

 4        A.   There was no specific marking of double-checking because we --

 5     the protocol agreed to for archive access was that we would be shown the

 6     registers in the archive and we could go through the registers.  And we

 7     would note or list which documents based on the register number we would

 8     like, and we also provided some additional detail such as the title and

 9     the date.  We kept a record of that and we requested it when we came back

10     to the ICTY, and when we received the documentation we did check it

11     against what we had requested to ensure that the response matched the

12     request.  In some cases we weren't given all of the documents that we had

13     asked for, but that's the extent to which the double-checking went.

14        Q.   You've mentioned your concern with regard to the documentation

15     going missing during the mission.  How were the buildings secured if they

16     contained archive material and documentation that was collected during

17     the mission?

18        A.   Many of the buildings weren't secured.  They -- a number had been

19     destroyed by NATO bombing, a number had already been -- clearly had

20     been -- the documentation had been -- some documentation had been

21     removed, either by the Serb forces leaving Kosovo or by others.  But for

22     the most part, we were there so soon after the NATO forces -- KFOR had

23     moved in that it just wasn't possible for all of these buildings to be

24     secured.

25        Q.   In other words, you will agree with me that anybody could access

Page 8605

 1     those buildings, any third person could access those buildings and could

 2     misuse or misappropriate the documentation in question?

 3        A.   It would depend very much on the building.  But yes, there were

 4     some buildings which anyone, in theory, could access; some buildings

 5     which people certainly couldn't access.

 6        Q.   You're saying that the mission was carried out in the following

 7     way:  The documents would be collected and placed in boxes, which would

 8     then be sealed.  Tell us something more about the boxes and how the boxes

 9     were sealed.  This is what I'm reading in your report.

10        A.   The earliest missions, the documents would be collected with

11     little time to sit in the buildings or elsewhere reviewing them, and they

12     would be put into the -- into boxes with chain of custody forms.  The

13     boxes would be taped up, and eventually it was organised that one of the

14     KFOR forces, I believe the Dutch, would fly the boxes under ICTY/OTP

15     escort to maintain chain of custody to The Hague via an airfield in the

16     Netherlands.  Later on the missions -- document exploitation missions

17     were able to document and log the documents in the field office in

18     Pristina, and there was a bit more order to the processing of those

19     documents.  But in the summer of 1999 it was -- the collection of

20     documents had to be done fairly hastily.

21        Q.   Was there a person in Pristina who was specifically tasked with

22     handling documents and maintaining the chain of custody and was that

23     person appointed by the OTP of the ICTY?

24        A.   I don't believe there was a specific person, certainly not

25     initially.  Representatives of the evidence unit were sent to Kosovo to

Page 8606

 1     assist with the processing of documents, but it was also incumbent on the

 2     analysts and investigators involved in these collection missions to

 3     ensure that the chain of custody procedures were maintained.

 4        Q.   You're saying that it was recorded where documents were taken,

 5     when they were taken, how they were taken.  Were the documents recorded

 6     on site, where it was taken; or whether it was done subsequently, perhaps

 7     in the Pristina office or even later here in Holland?

 8        A.   I can only speak for the document missions I was on, one of which

 9     I recall in sifting through documents in a large metal container in the

10     former barracks of the 549 Brigade near Prizren.  We would select the

11     documents that we considered relevant and collect those together on site,

12     transport them to the office in Pristina, under observation at all times;

13     and the logging of those documents and the packaging of those documents

14     would take place in our field office in Pristina.  Eventually the

15     documents collected in the summer 1999 document missions, which we

16     informally called the 85 box collection in the OTP, was - as I noted

17     earlier - flown here by the Royal Netherlands Air Force, under escort of

18     the OTP.

19             I also should add that I -- eventually, as we got more

20     cooperation from Serbia, a large number of those documents that we found

21     in Kosovo became redundant.  Some were certainly used as evidence and

22     some were certainly mentioned in my reports, but many were superseded by

23     documents that we got through RFAs and archive missions.

24        Q.   The end did not sound very clear to me.  Are you saying that some

25     of the documents that were found in Kosovo existed in an identical form

Page 8607

 1     in the former -- Serbia?  Did I understand you well?  For example, you

 2     found a document in Kosovo and then you come across an identical one in

 3     the process of providing legal assistance to the ICTY by the states?

 4        A.   There were a small number that I'm aware of which fall into that

 5     category.  I can't think of specifics.  So, for example, if a brigade

 6     generated a report and sent that report to a higher unit, the version of

 7     the report that made it to the higher unit we found in the archive and

 8     found the original version of the report in Kosovo, because obviously for

 9     many reports there's multiple addressees getting copies.  For the most

10     part, however, the documents that we acquired through archive and --

11     archive missions in Serbia, in Belgrade primarily, and through RFAs,

12     those documents were new documents.  The documents we tended to find in

13     Kosovo were 1998 or before, and because of that we determined that the

14     Serb forces had taken -- had certainly done as much of a review as

15     possible and tried to destroy documentation that they weren't taking and

16     taken the most current documentation with them when they withdrew.

17        Q.   You said that there were some documents of that sort and you also

18     said that some documents were destroyed.  Are you speaking from

19     experience?  Are you personally aware of some documents having been

20     destroyed?  Did that happen sporadically?  Do you know anything about

21     that?  Could you tell us more?

22        A.   The condition of some documents that we found in some of the

23     buildings suggested that they -- an effort had been made to destroy them.

24     We had been told in response to some RFAs that some documents had been

25     destroyed.  Documents of interest such as the Pristina Corps war diary,

Page 8608

 1     the VJ was never able to provide an account of its -- of its fate

 2     essentially.  So it was never found in an archive, it was never found in

 3     Kosovo, and nobody in the Pristina Corps could give us a clear answer

 4     about what happened to such an important document.  So whether destroyed

 5     or lost, it certainly does -- did appear to me that there are examples of

 6     that happening.

 7        Q.   In your report you state that there were other persons and

 8     non-governmental organisations that were allowed to take away documents.

 9     What did you mean when you stated that?  Which persons did you refer to?

10     Which persons and NGOs were able to take documents away from Kosovo after

11     the entry of NATO and KFOR?  I'm sure that you were not speaking about

12     the Serb forces.

13        A.   I don't know of any individuals by name or title and I don't know

14     the specifics of organisations -- I also can't say that they were allowed

15     to take documents.  But I'm aware of, for example, some witnesses giving

16     documents to investigators that they had found in Kosovo in a variety of

17     buildings.  And I'm aware of KFOR seizing or collecting some of the

18     documents that they would come across in some of the buildings and KFOR

19     gave us access to the documents that they had seized.

20        Q.   You very briefly touched upon this in the Milutinovic et al.

21     case, but can you please tell me, what do you know about the presentation

22     of documents by the then-Prime Minister Djindjic regarding

23     General Pavkovic to the Prosecutor at the time, Madam Carla del Ponte?

24        A.   Yes, I mistakenly called him president, but

25     Prime Minister Djindjic.  The Prosecutor went on a trip to Belgrade,

Page 8609

 1     July 2002, I think it was, and was given a number of VJ documents and

 2     some Joint Command ones, including minutes of the Joint Command from

 3     1998, in a package, two plastic bags if I recall correctly.  And the note

 4     taken by her political advisor who was with her receiving these documents

 5     which we have in our system records -- I believe, I would have to see it

 6     to confirm, but I believe the note states that the documents were put

 7     together by General Pavkovic, who was Chief of the General Staff at that

 8     time.  Many of these documents I had noted were similar to the documents

 9     that appeared in that book produced by Vojska which we had bought at the

10     VJ bookshop.

11        Q.   The documents that were presented by Prime Minister Djindjic and

12     General Pavkovic in two bags, was it submitted accompanied by a list and

13     was a receipt given for its receipt by Madam del Ponte, or was it just

14     simply handed over without any kind of receipt being signed?

15        A.   There was a list of the contents of the two plastic bags.

16     Whether or not there was a receipt, I'm not aware.  I don't know.

17        Q.   The list was drafted later in the OTP of The Hague Tribunal, not

18     at the time when the documents were received; am I correct?

19        A.   Again, I would have to see this -- the contents of this package,

20     but I believe that the -- there was a list which was compiled by, I

21     presume, the VJ, not by us certainly.  We did create a log ourselves

22     later on, but I believe that there was a list with the documents.

23        Q.   Do you think this, or do you know it?

24        A.   I wouldn't like to say with a hundred per cent certainty, but I'm

25     quite sure that there was a list provided to us with the documents.

Page 8610

 1        Q.   Can you please tell me, did you work with these documents once

 2     they came to The Hague, specifically those documents, or did somebody

 3     else process them in the beginning?

 4        A.   I did work with those documents once they were processed.  We did

 5     create a log and we submitted them into evidence with the assignment of

 6     ERNs.

 7        Q.   Can you please tell me whether the authenticity of the documents

 8     was checked at any point in time and was there any doubt about the

 9     veracity of the documents that you received at the time from the person

10     who was the Chief of the General Staff?

11        A.   It was obviously a concern to be handed a collection of documents

12     by General Pavkovic without us specifically asking.  So that was

13     certainly in the back of our minds.  When reviewing the documents I was

14     aware of the need to look out for any signs of tampering or any signs of

15     forgery.  There was nothing specific that suggested to me that any

16     particular document had been forged or tampered with.  The only thing

17     that was I thought unusual and commented on in my report was the sheer

18     number of orders relating to adherence to the Geneva Conventions and the

19     Laws of War and disciplinary issues.  I found it unusual that the VJ

20     would have to issue so many orders in that regard during a relatively

21     short period of time.  But we subsequently got some of these same

22     documents through an archive mission in 2006 and the contents were

23     checked against documents received in other ways, and there wasn't, from

24     my recollection, any particular document where we -- where it was

25     questionable -- where the contents were questionable, in question.

Page 8611

 1        Q.   Can you please tell me, did you receive the document registers

 2     along with that documentation, log-books?

 3        A.   We didn't receive the registers.  I would have to see again the

 4     collection to see whether or not the lists that I believe came with the

 5     package, the bags of documents, was a copy of a register.  But

 6     specifically, no, we didn't receive the registers.  We had requested

 7     registers and [Realtime transcript read in error "had"] access to

 8     registers in RFAs during the Milosevic trial.  And I -- I note in the

 9     transcript it says "had access."  We requested access.  We didn't have

10     access during the Milosevic trial.

11        Q.   Yes, that was meant to be my next question actually.  Can you

12     please tell me who was the political advisor of Carla del Ponte when

13     Prime Minister Djindjic and General Pavkovic submitted the documents in

14     two plastic bags to Carla del Ponte?  What was his name?  Of the

15     gentleman?

16        A.   I can't remember who it was in 2002.  The name Jean Jacques rings

17     a bell, but I can't be sure that it was him in 2002.

18        Q.   Thank you.

19        A.   It may have been Anton Nikiforov who was another -- working in a

20     political advisor capacity.

21        Q.   Thank you.  Except for what seemed strange to you, such a large

22     number of orders about the respect of the Geneva Conventions and

23     humanitarian law and the laws and customs of war, did you undertake any

24     actions regarding the forensic analysis of the documents in order to

25     double-check the things that seemed odd to you or not?

Page 8612

 1        A.   No, I don't believe these -- this collection of documents was

 2     submitted to what could be called forensic analysis.  The efforts to

 3     assess the veracity and the authenticity consisted of my efforts to

 4     compare them with other sources and compare them with what witnesses had

 5     told us, to seek to get the original copies or to seek -- we continued to

 6     seek archive access for a number of years, and to assess the contents --

 7     it was an assessment of the contents.

 8        Q.   What do you believe that your expertise is based on when we're

 9     talking about the analysis of such documentation?  Is it the experience

10     that you gradually acquired working on documents, or is it something

11     else?

12        A.   I believe that my ability to analyse documents about --

13     military-related documents or documents about armed organisations was

14     developed from -- during my time as an intelligence officer in the army,

15     where I was working in a division and brigade headquarters.  And in those

16     headquarters I understood how divisions and brigades work, how the staffs

17     operate, the commanders function, what types of reports are generated by

18     lower units, such as daily combat reports.  I understood how militaries

19     function.  And then at the ICTY as I studied the documentation on the VJ,

20     with my background in military, I came to understand through the

21     documentation how the VJ and also the MUP operated, how it was -- how

22     both of them were structured, what reports they would generate, and the

23     regulations within which and the laws within which they were bound to

24     operate.

25        Q.   These experiences were acquired in the Canadian Army; is that

Page 8613

 1     correct?

 2        A.   The basic experience in understanding how military functions

 3     certainly began in the Canadian Army; but as I mentioned, as I studied

 4     the documentation of the Army of Yugoslavia and the MUP of Serbia I could

 5     draw on that background to interpret those documents.  And as an

 6     intelligence officer in the military I also understood our own military

 7     function from working in it.  But our task was also -- it was - the Cold

 8     War still existed - was to study and work on eastern European and former

 9     Soviet Union militaries.

10        Q.   Thank you.  Responding to questions from my learned colleague

11     Mr. Hannis yesterday you talked about a commission of the Army of

12     Yugoslavia which was set up for purposes of cooperation with The Hague

13     Tribunal.  Do you know who formed the commission?

14        A.   I --

15        Q.   Who was at the head of the Army of Yugoslavia at that time?

16        A.   I'm not certain, but I believe General Pavkovic formed the

17     commission.

18        Q.   Can you recall any of the members of the commission who were also

19     witnesses in the Milutinovic case?

20        A.   I can't again remember for certain any names.  I believe

21     General Djakovic was on the commission.

22        Q.   That is correct, thank you.  I'm just briefly going to deal with

23     the confiscations or seizure missions of documents, and we're talking

24     about the IFOR and the SFOR missions in Bosnia.  You referred to the

25     doctrine of the Army of Yugoslavia and similar documents in those seizure

Page 8614

 1     missions.  I don't know when this took place and was it really necessary

 2     in view of the accessibility of those documents on the part of Serbia.

 3     What did you mean when you talked about that particular aspect of

 4     document collection?

 5        A.   In Bosnia-Herzegovina the international force there, initially

 6     IFOR and then SFOR, conducted seizure missions.  And I'm not familiar

 7     because I didn't work on those cases, I'm not familiar with the details

 8     of these seizure missions.  Some of them were done on behalf of the OTP,

 9     some of them for IFOR and SFOR's own purposes, but in the process -- and

10     some of these seizure missions had members of the OTP on them.  In the

11     process a large number of documents were collected and I believe have

12     been used in other cases for the 1992 to 1995 conflict.  For Kosovo there

13     really wasn't much of relevance in those collections, with the exception

14     of some doctrinal manuals from the JNA.  We sought to verify whether or

15     not these had been superseded by VJ manuals, and at the time we were

16     having -- we weren't getting any cooperation from the Federal Republic of

17     Yugoslavia.  Eventually we talked to some witnesses and we continued

18     asking for doctrinal manuals through RFAs to the Federal Republic of

19     Yugoslavia and successor states and came to the conclusion that most of

20     these manuals were still applicable, they hadn't been updated and

21     replaced with VJ manuals.  We had one manual on command and control that

22     was a VJ manual from 1996, I believe, and that was a manual which --

23     which was used at their General Staff college.

24             The other assessment was that even if these manuals had been

25     updated, what they were saying were very basic principles of command and

Page 8615

 1     control that it was assessed would be very unlikely to change, such as

 2     the responsibility of a commander and having a single chain of command.

 3     It just wouldn't be very plausible for such basics of military command to

 4     change from the JNA to the VJ.

 5        Q.   We're now moving to the assistance requests sent to the Federal

 6     Republic of Yugoslavia.  When, according to your information, does the

 7     cooperation between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and The Hague

 8     Prosecutor's office begin?  Because you said earlier that at that time

 9     the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was not cooperating with the OTP, with

10     The Hague Tribunal.

11        A.   I'm not sure if it could be called cooperation, and I'm not

12     really placed to conclude or assess that, but during the Milosevic case

13     there was a 54 bis proceeding which was quite lengthy, the outcome of

14     which was the issuance of some Court orders to Serbia and Montenegro --

15     or perhaps it was still the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to comply with

16     some the -- some aspects of the RFAs from the OTP.  And there was some

17     compliance with those at that point, but it wasn't until 2006 when we

18     gained access to the archives that I would consider cooperation to be

19     anything approaching full cooperation.

20        Q.   Do you know when the law on the cooperation with The Hague

21     Tribunal was adopted in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?

22        A.   No, I don't, Your Honours.

23        Q.   Do you know when the body called the Council for Cooperation with

24     The Hague Tribunal was established?

25        A.   I don't.  I believe it was sometime during the Milosevic trial,

Page 8616

 1     if not before.

 2        Q.   Very well.  Now we're going to go back to a very important

 3     subject, the archives of the army and the MUP.  You talked about that --

 4     well, now we're talking about 2006 and the mission when you -- when a

 5     part of the team arrived in May and the other part arrived in August, as

 6     you said, and you reviewed documents, and that you received replies

 7     pursuant to your RFAs in September and some in November.  However, what

 8     I'm interested in is -- well, were you there in May 2006, in that team?

 9     First tell me that.

10        A.   Yes, I was.

11        Q.   All right.  Now that is quite clear.  Can you please tell me --

12     for example, you said that the MUP furnished this documentation in

13     September and the Army of Yugoslavia in November of the same year.  After

14     that you said that the way the Army of Yugoslavia archived its document

15     was quite proper and well done, compared to the MUP way of archiving.

16     What exactly did you mean when you said that?

17        A.   The Army of Yugoslavia had an archive which was of the size that

18     I would expect for such an organisation.  It was -- it had to be

19     relocated because the original location had been bombed by NATO, so it

20     was in the basement of a school or academy in Belgrade at the time we

21     went -- the first time we went.  They had proper archive registers, and

22     when those registers were reviewed by us within the archive or the

23     temporary archive we would ask for -- to see a particular document and

24     very quickly they could bring us the document.  There was a very

25     systematic way of documenting their information.  They had millions of

Page 8617

 1     pages of archive materials.  They had professional archivists, at least

 2     the people we met, that's what I was led to believe was their function

 3     and background.  In the MUP, in contrast, we were taken to a room or two

 4     rooms next to each other in the headquarters in Belgrade, and we were

 5     shown what they called the dossier KiM or the dossier Kosovo and

 6     Metohija.  And it was explained to us that this was a compilation put

 7     together on General Lukic's instruction of all the materials that they

 8     considered relevant to Kosovo.  So in that respect I wouldn't consider

 9     that an archive.  And we never did see anything in the MUP that I would

10     have considered an archive in the terms that I understand an archive, a

11     very systematic -- systematically ordered and formal system for keeping

12     documents that have been archived in accordance with archiving

13     regulations.  What we saw was a collection that had been put together for

14     a specific purpose.

15        Q.   Do you know when General Lukic ordered the forming of the KiM

16     dossier?  Was that in 2001?

17        A.   I don't remember when exactly.

18        Q.   Do you remember what function General Lukic held at that time?

19        A.   I believe that when we -- General Lukic was the head of the

20     public security department of the MUP at the time.

21        Q.   Very well.  And what about General Djordjevic at the time, at the

22     time when General Lukic was the chief of the service, do you know what

23     his position was at that time before the indictment was ever issued?  Did

24     you ever dwell upon that?

25        A.   I can't remember the precise date when General Djordjevic left

Page 8618

 1     his position as head of the public security service of the MUP.

 2        Q.   And do you remember the conditions under which he left?  Were you

 3     ever interested in that as you were working on this case, as I see you

 4     were?

 5        A.   I'm not aware of the details of the conditions.  I was primarily

 6     concerned with 1999 and 1998.  I know that -- or I believe that he fled

 7     around about the time that allegations of the hiding of bodies and the

 8     refrigerator truck were surfacing.

 9        Q.   Do you only think that, or do you know this?

10        A.   That's the -- my best recollection.  So I'm not absolutely

11     certain.

12        Q.   Very well.  Do you know what function was held by

13     General Djordjevic before he left MUP?  Do you know the exact title of

14     that function or position?  What was his position in the Ministry of the

15     Interior?

16        A.   The last position that I'm certain of him holding, whether or not

17     it was the last position in the MUP, was the head of the RJB, which is

18     the public security department of the MUP.

19        Q.   And with respect to the minister of the interior, what was his

20     position or role vis-a-vis the minister of the interior?  Do you know

21     that?  Was he his assistant or his deputy, to be more precise?  Do you

22     know that?

23        A.   I'd have to review the Law on Internal Affairs, but -- and again

24     I've seen it sometimes translated as assistant and sometimes deputy, but

25     I believe it's assistant to the minister, and there were a number of

Page 8619

 1     other assistants to the minister.

 2        Q.   How come that in some reports he's referred to as

 3     deputy minister, which he never was?  I agree with you on that.

 4        A.   I don't know.  It could be that it's a translation issue.  I know

 5     that there were two components to the MUP:  The public security

 6     department and the state security department, the RDB.  And the two heads

 7     reported to the minister.  And under each of the respective heads there

 8     were a number of assistant ministers.

 9        Q.   Thank you.

10             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the accused would

11     like to consult with me, so I will ask your leave to allow me to do so.

12             JUDGE PARKER:  Certainly, certainly.

13                           [Defence counsel and accused confer]

14             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

15        Q.   In any case, Mr. Coo, I understand that you cannot be very

16     precise in remembering the organisation without reviewing your notes.  So

17     when it comes to the structure of the MUP, I believe that we have not

18     obtained the most precise answers from you.  I will not dwell upon the

19     issue, though the only thing I'm interested in now is the basis of your

20     faith in public sources.  I'm referring to the press, the internet, web

21     presentations by the ministry, the army, and the police.  And I'm also

22     referring to the dailies, magazines, different comments and different

23     interviews, different other sources, although you never knew whether any

24     authorisation was obtained for publication from the person with whom the

25     interview was allegedly conducted.  What is the probative value that you

Page 8620

 1     assign to such sources?  How do you see such sources?  How do you

 2     interpret them?

 3             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Hannis.

 4             MR. HANNIS:  Your Honour, I have an objection to the portion of

 5     the question about asking this witness what probative value he assigns to

 6     certain items.  I think that's an ultimate question for Your Honours and

 7     not for this witness.

 8             JUDGE PARKER:  I'm afraid I don't agree with you, Mr. Hannis.  I

 9     think the question is proper.  What was being asked is what probative

10     value did this witness attach, and I think that's a proper approach.

11             Carry on, please, Mr. Djordjevic.

12             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Let us hear the witness's

13     answer.

14        Q.   Do you want me to repeat my question, or can you answer it

15     without me repeating it?

16        A.   No, that's fine, I understood the question.

17             The probative value would depend on -- and the value generally

18     that I gave to an open or a public source would depend on the source, and

19     I'd have to see each one.  But in general terms I wouldn't accept such a

20     source in isolation.  It was always integrated in the analysis with

21     corroborative sources, generally official documents.  If the source was

22     official, such as the Vojska magazine produced for the VJ, by the VJ, I

23     would attach more value to that -- certainly that it had been at least

24     authorised by the VJ and the contents screened by the VJ.  If it was a

25     newspaper, I might attach less -- or be less certain of the contents or

Page 8621

 1     statements but certainly attempt and would feel more reassured about what

 2     was being said if the contents were corroborated by other independently

 3     acquired, especially official, information.  So in general terms I think

 4     open sources or public sources could have some probative value.

 5        Q.   I will bring my today's examination to an end with the following

 6     question:  Do you know that the central archive building of the Ministry

 7     of the Interior was also bombed in a NATO campaign which started on the

 8     24th of March, 1999.  Are you aware of that?

 9        A.   I'm aware that the MUP headquarters in Belgrade was bombed, but

10     we always maintained that when we were told in response to RFAs that

11     documents had been destroyed in that bombing, the documentation that we

12     were seeking would not have been archived by that time.  It would still

13     be with the units that were producing the documents.  So in that regard

14     we didn't accept the reasoning given that because the archives or the MUP

15     headquarters had been destroyed that the documents of interest to us had

16     been destroyed.

17        Q.   Did you personally inspect those buildings?  Not only the central

18     MUP building in Kneza Milosa Street, but also those buildings which were

19     bombed outside the capital in other towns and places?  Do you have any

20     personal knowledge of the destruction?  Did you visit those buildings or

21     not?  Can you tell us something about that.

22        A.   I visited some of the MUP or SUP headquarters in Kosovo, not

23     outside Kosovo.  We knew that the SUPs and other units had moved out of

24     these buildings when NATO bombing began under -- with the knowledge that

25     they would be primary targets for NATO.  But we were never told that the

Page 8622

 1     MUP had kept archived documents in other places in Serbia.  We were

 2     essentially told that the -- all of the available documents that we were

 3     seeking were in the dossier KiM or in some of the offices of different

 4     units, such as the border police in parts of Belgrade, which -- and we

 5     did visit those offices on subsequent missions and came across only a

 6     handful of documents.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  I have no more questions for you.  I believe that we

 8     have received enough answers, including the answer about the

 9     documentation, whether it was destroyed in the NATO campaign or not.  It

10     seems that your knowledge is not reliable, that it is more --

11             MR. HANNIS:  Objection, Your Honour to that commentary --

12             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djordjevic, you know better than that.  What

13     your views are about the reliability is not the sort of thing you can

14     make an observation about.  In due course you will be able to put

15     submissions to us on the evidence.

16             Mr. Hannis, do you re-examine?

17             MR. HANNIS:  Yes, I have a few questions, Your Honour.

18             I'd like to start with P887 and D204.  These are the documents

19     that Mr. Djordjevic had a question about at page -- starting at page 26

20     today.  And I guess for -- if it's possible, if we could have both

21     English versions up for Mr. Coo side by side.

22                           Re-examination by Mr. Hannis:

23        Q.   Mr. Coo, I think you'll remember this discussion.  One is the

24     order from General Ojdanic, and it's on the left side of the screen; and

25     on the right is the related order from General Pavkovic.  I will -- and

Page 8623

 1     the document on the right, which is sign -- has a signature and a stamp

 2     from General Pavkovic, you'll see above the signature block the initials

 3     MDj and BV.  Do you see that?

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  Mr. Hannis is kindly asked to speak into the

 5     microphone.  Thank you.

 6             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I do.

 7             MR. HANNIS:  Sorry.

 8        Q.   And General Djakovic testified here and indicated to us that the

 9     MDj were his initials as the author of that document.  Were you familiar

10     with that manner of notations in VJ documents?

11        A.   Yes, I am.  I believe that the first initial was the authorising

12     officer and the second would be the drafter.

13        Q.   Now, Mr. Djordjevic asked you a question about the registry

14     numbers at the top of each of these.  General Pavkovic's on the right is

15     872-94/1 and the one on the left is 872-94/2.  What do you know about the

16     numbering system within the 3rd Army and Pristina Corps in 1999?  What do

17     you understand about how documents were assigned numbers like this?

18        A.   My understanding was that the 872, the first three digits, would

19     be related to the -- it was either the unit or the subject.  So, for

20     example, operations -- operational related information might have a

21     particular three-digit number.  The second part of the number after the

22     dash I believe was -- although I'm not fully familiar with the system,

23     General Vasiljevic explained part of it at one point.  But I believe it's

24     a sequential numbering system.

25        Q.   And the stroke 1, stroke 2, does that indicate anything about

Page 8624

 1     those two documents and the relationship with each other?

 2        A.   I can't say for sure, but I believe they're different copies --

 3     they reflect the different copies of these documents.

 4        Q.   Did you learn anything in the course of your work about how these

 5     numbers were assigned within the Pristina Corps or the 3rd Army?  Who

 6     gave the document a number and when was the number attached to the

 7     document?

 8        A.   Again, it was my understanding that the numbers would be assigned

 9     by a clerk essentially, who would be responsible for the dissemination of

10     the document, not the drafting.

11        Q.   And do you know at what point in time that clerk would put the

12     number on the document?

13        A.   I don't know for sure whether it was before or after the document

14     had been signed.  I believe it was after when it was being registered by

15     the clerk in the unit's register.

16        Q.   And apart from these two documents, do you have any other

17     evidence to support that General Ojdanic indeed did issue such an order

18     on or about the 18th of April?

19        A.   Yes, I did.  There was the -- the order from the -- not the order

20     but a report from the 2nd Army at the same time making reference to the

21     same General Staff order about subordination of the MUP to the VJ.  There

22     was -- there were some other orders, one in fact in 25th of May, I

23     believe, from the 3rd Army discussing the issue of subordination.

24        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.

25             And with regard to General Pavkovic's order, in essence relaying

Page 8625

 1     the order on down to subordinates, did you have other documentation from

 2     other sources suggesting that that indeed had occurred on or about that

 3     day?

 4        A.   I don't recall for certain.  I think some of the brigades

 5     reflected the -- the Pristina Corps reflected this in its own order and

 6     some of the Pristina Corps brigades followed up, so the chain of command

 7     issued a sequence of orders regarding the subordination of the MUP.

 8        Q.   Okay.

 9        A.   There was more general discussion about the whole issue of the

10     subordination of the MUP within -- within the VJ's documentation, and it

11     was also certainly mentioned by witnesses.

12        Q.   All right.  Now let me turn to another subject at page 39 today,

13     line 16.  Mr. Djordjevic was asking you about missing documents, and you

14     specifically mentioned the Pristina Corps war diary.  What can you tell

15     us about that?  Where -- where from your knowledge of how archiving was

16     done in the VJ after the war would you have expected to find the

17     Pristina Corps war diary?

18        A.   By the time we got to the archives in 2006, that war diary should

19     have been in the archives of the VJ in Belgrade.  And under the archiving

20     regulations, because it was produced during a state of war, should have

21     been kept permanently.

22        Q.   And when it was not there, did you make inquiries and what were

23     you told?

24        A.   We did make inquiries, and they simply didn't know.  They said

25     the war diary, there's no record of that war diary having been submitted

Page 8626

 1     to the archives.  General Lazarevic was asked during his interview and

 2     also failed to account for the location of the war diary.

 3        Q.   Do you recall what he specifically said about it?

 4        A.   I can't recall the specifics.

 5        Q.   Okay.  And lastly, the question concerning your view on the

 6     probative value of some of the documents from public or non-official

 7     sources.  The documents that were on your provenance list that were part

 8     of the supporting materials in the reports that you wrote concerning the

 9     Kosovo conflict, some of those include internet sources or newspaper or

10     magazine articles.  Did you ever rely for any of the points written in

11     your report solely on an unofficial public source?

12        A.   No, I didn't.

13        Q.   Thank you.

14             MR. HANNIS:  I have no other questions, Your Honour.  I do have

15     one administrative matter, if I may, though.  With regard to

16     Exhibit P1289, which was marked for identification, that was one of the

17     documents related to the RFAs, the translation has been located.  It's

18     been disclosed to the Defence.  I believe the Registry officer has it

19     now, and we would ask if it can be attached and admitted.  Thank you.

20             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes, that has been marked for identification,

21     pending translation.  The translation now provided may be attached and it

22     will become an exhibit of the same number.  Thank you, Mr. Hannis.

23             Mr. Coo, you'll be pleased to know that that completes the

24     questions for you.  The Chamber would thank you for your attendance and

25     your assistance.  You may of course now resume your normal activities and

Page 8627

 1     a Court Officer will show you out when we rise, which will be in a

 2     moment.

 3             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djordjevic, does the question of the written

 5     submission you want to make about the various documents, what time do you

 6     feel you would need for that?

 7             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Two to three weeks would be

 8     enough for us to submit our written submission with regard to the list

 9     that I have before me.  So the break should suffice for us to do so in

10     order to explain things, as we already announced during the proceedings.

11             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

12             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Secondly, I would kindly ask my

13     learned friend, Mr. Hannis, to submit an updated list because some of the

14     evidence was withdrawn from the list after our objections.  For example,

15     the Law on the Ministry of the Interior, which is no longer valid.  This

16     would allow us to be more precise with regard to the admitted evidence.

17     There were some additional documents outside of the notice that we

18     previously had, so this is my other request with regard to the

19     administrative matters in these proceedings.  Thank you very much.

20             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Hannis.

21             MR. HANNIS:  We'll certainly do that, Your Honour.  I think there

22     were only two we dropped from the original list, but I also have the list

23     of the VJ collegiums and we'll provide that to the Registry officer and

24     Mr. Djordjevic.

25             JUDGE PARKER:  How long will that take you, do you think?

Page 8628

 1             MR. HANNIS:  I think we could have it to him by Monday, if not

 2     the end of today.

 3             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.  If you can do that.

 4             Mr. Djordjevic, I think we should allow you the time after you

 5     get that list, so we will ask that you provide your written submissions

 6     within two weeks of next Monday, so you have two weeks after next -- from

 7     next Monday to provide the submissions.  Thank you very much.

 8             We will now adjourn and we resume on Monday.

 9                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.28 p.m.,

10                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 31st day of

11                           August, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.