1 Wednesday, 27 January 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
5 [The witness takes the stand].
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning, Mr. Jovanovic.
7 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE PARKER: The affirmation you made still applies of course.
9 Mr. Stamp.
10 MR. STAMP: [Microphone not activated]
11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for counsel.
12 WITNESS: ZIVADIN JOVANOVIC [Resumed]
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 Cross-examination by Mr. Stamp: [Continued]
15 Q. You indicated yesterday that you did not attend the talks at
16 Rambouillet. Did you attend the talks later on in March in Paris?
17 A. No, I did not.
18 Q. Your assessment of those or of what transpired at those two
19 venues comes from the reports you received from the FRY and Serbian
20 delegation, particularly Mr. Sainovic and Dr. -- or Professor Markovic;
21 is that correct?
22 A. No, it's not.
23 Q. Who was your -- or from where did you get your information on
24 what transpired at those two meetings?
25 A. I personally drafted an analysis of all the texts which followed
1 from Rambouillet and Paris. I read them in the English original, and
2 this is how I got the gist of the process. And on the other hand, as is
3 known, I had a large team of diplomats and technical staff who followed
4 on a constant basis all the activities at Rambouillet and Paris, and they
5 briefed me through the Paris embassy on the course of negotiations on a
6 daily basis, virtually on a daily basis.
7 Q. I see. Well, did you receive reports from Mr. Sainovic and
8 Professor Markovic at all?
9 A. No, I do not recall them informing the ministry about the results
10 and the course of the activities at Rambouillet and Paris --
11 Q. Okay, very well --
12 A. -- but because I was just a minister in that government.
13 Mr. Sainovic was the vice-president of the federal government, and
14 Mr. Markovic was the vice-president of the Serbian government.
15 Q. Could we briefly look at P398, I think it is. I think it's
16 P1151, I'm sorry. It will come up on your screen, Mr. Markovic [sic].
17 A. I apologise. Do I have this document in my binder or not?
18 Q. I don't think so.
19 A. Is this binder of any use at all now?
20 Q. It possibly might be.
21 A. I apologise. I'm asking because I have technical difficulties
22 approaching the -- this screen. If I can have a hard copy, it's much
23 easier for me than watching things on the screen. I'm of poor sight, you
25 MR. STAMP: My apologies to the Registrar. It's P1513.
1 Q. I'm afraid, Mr. Jovanovic, I don't have a hard copy, but it is
2 one page, and I'll have it brought up to a bigger picture if possible.
3 And I think it's a pretty straightforward document. This is a letter of
4 the 26th of March from the former Prosecutor of this Tribunal,
5 Louise Arbour, and it's just at the onset of the NATO intervention, and
6 it is addressed to President Milosevic. If you could quickly familiarise
7 yourself with the contents of the letter.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Do you recall -- I believe this letter would have been sent
10 through diplomatic channels. Do you recall seeing and -- well, seeing
11 this letter at or about the time when it was sent?
12 A. No, I do not recall this letter. May I remind esteemed,
13 Mr. Prosecutor, that this goes to the relationship between the Federal
14 Republic of Yugoslavia and the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY. And
15 in the legal system of the time, Yugoslavia's relations with The Hague
16 Tribunal were within the exclusive remit of the federal justice ministry.
17 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not have any particular competences
18 in this regard even today. This matter is managed by the National
19 Council for the co-operation with the Tribunal or some such body. So at
20 the time this letter were written and today Serbia's relations with the
21 Tribunal were never within the remit of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
22 Q. Okay. Very well.
23 A. As regards -- as regards the competence of the Ministry of
24 Foreign Affairs, back at the time when I was minister and today, those
25 competencies are precisely laid down in the foreign affairs law which is
1 still in force.
2 Q. Did you in your meetings that you had with the leadership of the
3 FRY and Serbia discuss or know of any discussions of the contents of this
4 letter or of the grave concerns expressed by the Prosecutrix at the time?
5 A. No, I do not recall that. I do not recall the content of this
6 letter being discussed at any meeting that I attended. As I've already
7 stated, matters of this kind were either within the exclusive competence
8 of the Ministry of Justice, and there is ample state documentation about
9 this, including the correspondence between the Ministry of Justice with
10 the OTP and other UN agencies.
11 Q. Did you -- well, let me clarify something. Mr. Vlajko
12 Stojiljkovic, the minister of justice -- sorry, not justice, the minister
13 of the MUP, the minister of interior, was also a leading member of the
14 party like yourself; is that correct?
15 A. No. Mr. Vlajko Stojiljkovic may have been for a time in the top
16 leadership of the SPS, but I'm not familiar with that fact. For years of
17 the SPS's existence I held diplomatic posts abroad, meaning outside the
18 country, but while I was vice chairman of the party in charge of
19 international relations, I do not recall that Mr. Stojiljkovic had any
20 elevated position. It's possible that he might have been a member of a
21 committee which numbered more than 350 individuals.
22 Q. Did you during the -- or during 1999 participate in any meeting
23 where Mr. Stojiljkovic was present?
24 A. I'm sorry, but that question is very vague. Do you mean any
25 meeting with -- over 365 days in a year? Could you be more specific,
1 please. I must point out, as a rule Mr. Vlajko Stojiljkovic as minister
2 of the interior of Serbia and yours truly as the federal minister for
3 foreign affairs of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia chanced upon each
4 other extremely rarely and even less rarely did we attend the same
5 meetings. We held posts at different levels. He held a republican post,
6 and I was a member of the federal government.
7 Q. Right. So I presume, since you are -- chanced upon each other
8 very rarely, as you put it, that you recall if you met or if you
9 participated in meetings that he participated in. And I'll be more
10 precise. Let's just talk about meetings relating to affairs in Kosovo.
11 Did you at any level, whether federal or republican, participate in any
12 meetings with Mr. Stojiljkovic in respect of matters relating to Kosovo?
13 A. No, I do not recall any such meeting.
14 Q. Very well. Do you recall - and I'm moving on to something else,
15 Mr. Jovanovic - meeting with the High Commissioner for -- the UN High
16 Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, in 1999 during the war?
17 A. I'm sorry, Your Honours, it doesn't seem right that I see some
18 documents for the first time as the one before this, that I had no
19 opportunity to see before entering this courtroom. And the document
20 being announced now is something I did not see. For instance, the last
21 document, although not very long, requires that I get familiar with it in
22 advance, at least a bit in advance, so that I can be of use as a witness.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
24 Carry on, please, Mr. Stamp.
25 MR. STAMP: Thank you.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did attend more than one
2 meeting with Madam Robinson. I cannot recall exactly how many there
3 were, but at least there were two meetings. I recall one meeting with
4 her at the New York headquarters of the UN. We attended a working
5 breakfast together.
6 MR. STAMP:
7 Q. When was this?
8 A. I believe it was in September, but I'm not sure whether it was in
9 1998 or 1999, because in September of 1998 and in September of 1999 I
10 went to the UN and I met her at one of the General Assembly meetings and
11 had a working breakfast with her. And it's true, she did visit Belgrade.
12 Q. Yes. That's what I'm talking about. Did she visit Belgrade in
13 May 1999?
14 A. If my memory serves me right, yes, she did.
15 Q. And did she tell you that in her capacity as UN High Commissioner
16 for Human Rights, she had received reports that there was a campaign of
17 ethnic cleansing - to use the word then in general parlance - being
18 conducted against the Kosovar Albanians in Kosovo?
19 A. I cannot recall all the issues that we discussed in any degree or
21 Q. Very well.
22 MR. STAMP: Could we bring up 65 ter 06019.
23 Q. This is a UN HCHR press release of the 13th of May, 1999, and I
24 probably don't need to read this into the record. Can you read the first
25 four paragraphs, Mr. Jovanovic?
1 A. I can see only two paragraphs on the screen.
2 Q. When you're through reading them, we'll scroll down. You could
3 just let us know when you're through.
4 A. I read those first two paragraphs.
5 [Prosecution counsel confer]
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I read the remaining text.
7 MR. STAMP:
8 Q. Thank you. Well, firstly, do you recall that when she visited
9 Belgrade, she met and spoke with you?
10 A. It was a time of war. There were many such visits. She did
11 visit, but I cannot recall specifically the time. But yes, we did hold
12 talks in Belgrade. I see that this is a press release. I'm sure that
13 the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Yugoslavia issued its own
14 communique about that, but I do not have it with me at that if I may say
15 so my communique or press release.
16 Q. According to the UN HRCR release, she complained to you or told
17 you that she had received accounts given by hundreds of Kosovar Albanian
18 refugees about a campaign of ethnic cleansing carried out by the army and
19 police and paramilitary forces. Do you recall her telling you that?
20 A. No, I do not recall such an assessment.
21 Q. Do you recall her telling you anything at all about Kosovar
22 Albanian refugees? After all, she was the High Commissioner for Human
24 A. That's true, but unfortunately I must say that I do not recall
25 almost any issues that we discussed, apart from -- in principle the UN
1 High Commissioner for Human Rights was interested in the state of human
2 rights in the area of Yugoslavia, including Kosovo. But I personally
3 cannot recall in any degree of detail any issue or any intervention that
4 may be akin to that statement that she provided at a press conference in
6 Q. Well, can you recall having any discussion with her about any
7 matter having to do with human rights?
8 A. Well, today, 11 years after the meeting, the only thing I can say
9 is that at that meeting we discussed human rights, but I cannot be any
10 more specific about which issues, which matters, which terms were used by
11 Madam Robinson, which assessment she uttered, either talking to me or at
12 the press conference. This is something that I cannot recall.
13 Q. Well, this is a quote from Mrs. Robinson, and I'll just read it.
14 She said:
15 "Justice must be done. I am determined that there will be
16 accountability and that we will break the cycle of impunity. The
17 similarities between Kosovo and Bosnia should not include suspected war
18 criminals walking around freely after a settlement is reached."
19 Now, surely you must remember that statement, Mr. Jovanovic?
20 MR. STAMP: Can you assist him, please?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not have to recall. I have
22 already said that I do not remember, and in any case, this is a statement
23 by Madam Robinson at a press conference, not something that she said to
24 me personally. So I really cannot recall whether anybody published or
25 whether this was published or not. In any event, I can agree with Madam
1 Robinson, with her statement, at the press conference that justice must
2 prevail. Yes, of course, justice must prevail. I agree with that
3 statement by Madam Robinson given at the press conference.
4 MR. STAMP:
5 Q. Whatever it is that Madam -- or Mrs. Robinson told you about the
6 human rights situation in Kosovo -- and I understand that you say you
7 don't recall what she told you, but can I take it that you would have
8 communicated what she said to the relevant government department, that
9 is, the MUP and the defence department responsible for the army?
10 A. Yes, of course. Each one of my conversations with foreign
11 representatives, particularly such a high-ranking representative from the
12 UN system, is something that I would inform the federal government about,
13 and then the federal government made the decision as to whom they would
14 convey the contents and to whom they would issue certain instructions so
15 that certain things could be resolved. I am seeing this text for the
16 first time. I didn't have time to check back what my ministry did in
17 relation to the federal government and other institutions of the system,
18 but I can state with a high degree of certainty that a report was made on
19 this and pursuant to the usual practice, it was submitted to the federal
20 government and other authorised bodies, for them to act further upon the
22 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Jovanovic.
23 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Your Honours. I have nothing
25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Stamp.
1 MR. STAMP: Oh, before I sit, Your Honours, could this document
2 be received in evidence?
3 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01519.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic.
6 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Before I
7 begin my cross-examination, I would like to make an objection to
8 providing documents after the examination-in-chief of the witness has
9 begun. We received six or seven documents yesterday, and as for this
10 document, I think I received it the day before yesterday during the
11 examination-in-chief. And I think yesterday I received this letter by
12 Madam Louise Arbour. I would like to ask the Prosecution not to make
13 this a practice, this type of behaviour, because that puts us at a
15 MR. STAMP: I apologise, Your Honours, and to counsel. There was
16 a problem in our review, the research system, last week, which we have
17 overcome. And we will not make it a practice, but I accept that we did
18 not have the facility to find these documents until very late, and we
19 disclosed them to the Defence immediately upon doing so.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Stamp. You will well appreciate
21 that the efficiency with which we proceed and the completeness and
22 reliability of anything a witness may say about a document will be
23 adversely affected if that document is not known to the witness before
24 giving evidence. Our procedures will work far better if the witness has
25 had a time to reflect upon documents before giving evidence.
1 Mr. Djurdjic, please.
2 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Re-examination by Mr. Djurdjic:
4 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Jovanovic.
5 A. Good morning.
6 Q. Although you've already responded, did the Ministry of Foreign
7 Affairs ever receive this document or any kind of press release, as it is
8 stated here, by the High Commissioner from the 17th of March, 1999?
9 A. In principle, this is something that one would not receive, just
10 like other regular mail. It's something that would be read in the media,
11 and all that the ministry would receive would be a bunch of documents.
12 So the minister would not really have access, other than the things that
13 were directly addressed to him.
14 Q. Mr. Jovanovic, having in mind the gravity of what is stated here
15 as being told to you as serious violations of human rights in Kosovo,
16 would it be usual in diplomatic practice to provide such statements in
17 the form of a note and to inform the Ministry of Foreign Affairs?
18 A. Yes, that would be usual. We had an example earlier of a letter
19 by Madam Arbour.
20 Q. Thank you. Did you ever receive a note during the aggression on
21 the FRY or the Republic of Serbia in 1999 that had to do with violations
22 of human rights in Kosovo and Metohija and crimes by the FRY and Serbian
23 security forces?
24 A. No. No, we didn't receive such protests, either in the form of
25 notes or written interventions.
1 Q. Thank you. Is it possible that Madam Mary Robinson informed you
2 about this in a conversation and that you would then not remember that?
3 A. You know, we can conclude very clearly from the text that this
4 was a statement by Madam Robinson given at a press conference. In
5 conversations between high-ranking government representatives and
6 representatives of other international legal subjects, legal entities,
7 one would very infrequently encounter such phrases that were used in the
8 statement to the press, that we had the opportunity to see today for the
9 first time.
10 Q. Thank you. Had something like that been said to you in the
11 talks, in this manner or in a less forceful manner, would you have
13 A. Of course this is a dialogue that we're talking about, and I
14 would like to remind you that analysis by the federal government and the
15 republican Government of Serbia indicated that the terrorist KLA forced
16 its compatriots to leave their settlements in order to create the
17 appearance of a humanitarian catastrophe in order to justify the NATO
18 aggression. This doesn't mean that there were no individual crimes
19 committed by persons from all over the place, but that does not also mean
20 that the state conducted any kind of policy of persecution, ethnic
21 cleansing, or mass violence, as it is more or less stated in the text
22 that we had the opportunity to see.
23 Q. Thank you. Mr. Jovanovic, Mr. Stamp showed you yesterday on page
24 56, lines 1 to 3, your statement from the Milutinovic transcript where
25 you stated that Kertes gave you money, amongst other things, for the
1 reconstruction of the diplomatic offices. You stated so in the
2 Milutinovic case. I'm asking you whether the embassy of China is a
3 diplomatic premise?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. So could you please tell me why the Chinese spent over 470.000
6 German marks for repairs of their embassy?
7 A. The federal government, first of all, assigned or allocated a
8 building for their use. If I remember correctly, this was to be used by
9 the consulate. The building was dilapidated when it was handed over, so
10 in order to make it fit for use, it was necessary to make a significant
11 investment, which the federal government was not able to cover because
12 the budget had a deficit. So there was an agreement reached with the
13 Chinese side that they should do the repairs of the building with their
14 own funds, the building that they were going to use, and then the
15 Yugoslav side would compensate for these funds over a longer period of
16 time by waiving the rent.
17 After the agreement was reached, for the Chinese embassy to leave
18 the restored building before the waived rents would be able to cover the
19 entire amount that was invested in order to repair the building, the
20 condition for vacation was a difference of some 475.000, which was
21 supposed to be paid to the Chinese side so that the accounts would be
22 settled in terms of what they invested.
23 Q. Thank you. But just tell me, when you were talking about the
24 expenses for the diplomatic offices, which ones were you actually
25 thinking of?
1 A. We are talking about the embassy of the People's Republic of
3 Q. Thank you, Mr. Jovanovic.
4 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have
5 completed my cross-examination.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much.
7 Questioned by the Court:
8 JUDGE PARKER: On this last issue, Mr. Jovanovic, are you saying
9 that the federal government in effect provided the embassy premises for a
10 foreign government in Belgrade?
11 A. Yes, Your Honour, in two ways: Either as property or property to
12 be rented. In the first case it was on the basis of reciprocity and in
13 the second case it was as-needed.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Was this a normal diplomatic arrangement in the
15 federal government's dealing with other nations?
16 A. Yes, Your Honour. Pursuant to the convention on diplomatic
17 relations and diplomatic practice, the universal rule is to provide
18 buildings for foreign diplomatic representatives on the basis of
19 reciprocity. If one country should hand over to another country their
20 property in order to be used for diplomatic purposes, it is assumed that
21 the other country would also provide a premises to them in turn for their
22 embassy. It's not so in every single case, but depending on the
23 relations and the legal systems, this is the case in the vast majority of
24 cases throughout the world. Lesser degree -- to a lesser degree, these
25 matters are resolved by providing buildings for rent.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I add a question. Why was this money
3 transferred in cash?
4 A. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for a considerable period of
5 time was subject to sanctions, so the financial payment system did not
6 function internationally. No money practically could be transferred
7 through the usual banking channels. Your Honour, during the period of
8 the sanctions, the entire Yugoslav diplomatic corps was financed by
9 having cash brought and distributed to the embassies. You can imagine
10 what an effort this was if one keeps in mind that Yugoslavia had
11 diplomatic relations with 178 countries and that it had over 100
12 embassies and consulates throughout the world. Each one had to be given
13 money in cash during the period of the sanctions, and this cash had to be
14 obtained or provided by the federal ministry.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
16 JUDGE BAIRD: I want to direct your mind to evidence you gave on
17 the 25th of January in answer to Defence counsel. He asked you a
18 particular question.
19 "The measures undertaken in Kosovo and Metohija, were they
20 directed against people who were not engaging in terrorism, irrespective
21 of their ethnic background?"
22 Do you recollect this question being asked of you?
23 A. Your Honour, the government measures were directed primarily at
24 terrorists, exclusively against terrorists and elements that used
25 violence in order to achieve their political goals. The measures were
1 not aimed against the civilian population.
2 JUDGE BAIRD: Well, you see, I just wanted to have it clear
3 because you answered:
4 "Of course."
5 So I imagine you meant "of course not."
6 A. Your Honour, I'm very grateful to you for this intervention
7 because evidently it was not properly stated or was inadequately entered
8 into the transcript, but it is quite clear that the measures by the
9 organs of authority were not directed against the civilian population but
10 against elements and the organisations which used terrorism and violence
11 in order to achieve their political goals.
12 JUDGE BAIRD: Thank you. And this you can verify as a fact, can
14 A. Your Honour, I can confirm this as the policy of the federal
15 government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, whose foreign minister
16 I was. The policy of the federal government and the policy of the
17 Government of the Republic of Serbia was to secure at any cost a peaceful
18 political solution and compromise with respect of the UN resolutions and
19 the Helsinki Final Act, as well as with respect of the principles of
20 sovereignty and territorial integrity. So in that sense, Your Honour,
21 there were no obstacles to Yugoslavia to even accept a political solution
22 in Paris. Yugoslavia and Serbia were not able to accept secession and
23 the breaking away of Kosovo and Metohija. This is where the problem
25 JUDGE BAIRD: Thank you very much. Now, there's just one small
1 point I shall like you to clarify for me, just one more. Now, in some
2 areas of your evidence in answer to Defence counsel you referred to the
3 Albanian ethnic minority.
4 A. No, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE BAIRD: Pardon?
6 A. Yes, Your Honour.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Yes, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE BAIRD: Now, were the Albanians always in the minority?
9 A. The Albanians were always a minority outside of their home state
10 of Albania. Albanians as a ethnic minority mostly lived in Serbia, then
11 in Macedonia where percentage-wise in relation to the total population of
12 Macedonia there are many more Albanians than this percentage in Serbia.
13 There are also Albanians living in Greece and in Montenegro, and in all
14 these countries they live as a national minority. Why a national
15 minority? Because pursuant to the Convention of the Council of Europe on
16 the rights of members of ethnic minorities, there are homeland states,
17 parent states, and so the person who does not live in their parent
18 states, who lives in another country, would enjoy the status of an ethnic
19 minority in that country. This is a legal term that is absolutely
20 respected in the Council of Europe Convention on respect for the rights
21 of national minorities. Thus, Your Honour, there are more than 1 million
22 Albanians in Kosovo. There has been no census there for quite some time,
23 so this is not a reliable figure, but regardless of this number, over
24 1 million citizens, in Serbia they are an ethnic minority. They are not
25 an ethnic minority only in Albania. In all the other neighbouring
1 countries, the Albanians are an ethnic minority and, Your Honour, they
2 enjoy the rights arising from the Convention of the Council of Europe,
3 which include many rights in terms of their culture, education, history,
4 identity. But the rights of members of national minorities do not
5 anywhere include the right to secession --
6 JUDGE BAIRD: Okay.
7 A. -- the right to self-determination --
8 JUDGE BAIRD: Thank you very much indeed. Thank you.
9 A. It's a pleasure.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Djurdjic.
11 Mr. Jovanovic, you'll be pleased to know that ends the questions
12 for you. The Chamber would thank you for your attendance here and for
13 the assistance you've been able to give us, and you are now of course
14 free to go back to your normal activities. And an officer of the Court
15 will show you out. Thank you.
16 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 [The witness withdrew]
18 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic.
19 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, our witness is ready.
20 I don't know if it would be better to take a break now and then to
21 continue, or do you think we should continue with our new witness?
22 Mr. Aleksandar Popovic will be examining the next witness.
23 JUDGE PARKER: We have over half an hour to the normal break. I
24 think we could call the witness.
25 [The witness entered court]
1 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning, sir.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Would you please read aloud the affirmation that
4 is shown to you now.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
6 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much. Please sit down.
8 I believe Mr. Popovic has some questions for you.
9 WITNESS: RADOMIR GOJOVIC
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 Examination by Mr. Popovic:
12 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Gojovic.
13 A. Good morning.
14 Q. Mr. Gojovic, before I start my examination, I would like to ask
15 you, since we speak the same language, after hearing my question make a
16 pause to allow the interpreters to finish interpreting my question and
17 then to start interpreting your answer.
18 Please state your name.
19 A. My name is Radomir Gojovic.
20 Q. Could you please tell us your date of birth and place of birth.
21 A. I was born on the 1st of February, 1943, in the Sekiraca village
22 of the municipality of Kursumlija, the Republic of Serbia.
23 Q. Thank you. Mr. Gojovic, did you testify before this court in the
24 Milutinovic trial on the 2nd and 3rd of October --
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. -- in 2007? During the proofing session, did you have an
2 opportunity to read through what you testified about in the Milutinovic
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. If I understood you correctly, you would like to make certain
6 corrections and to explain and clarify some of your answers recorded in
7 the transcripts of your testimony in the Milutinovic case. Now I would
8 like to allow you to do that. And for the benefit of my learned friends
9 and Their Honours, I would like to point out that in the Milutinovic
10 transcript on page 16764, line 25, and on page 16765, lines 1 to 4, what
11 is recorded there is the question of the Presiding [as interpreted] Judge
12 Nosworthy about whether there was an obligation on the part of citizens
13 to report a crime and the witness' answer to that question.
14 Now I'm giving you an opportunity to clarify your answer that you
15 provided then and to state it loud and clear here.
16 A. A misunderstanding occurred then, and I overlooked something, and
17 I would like to add to make it more precise and accurate. Each citizen,
18 if learning that a criminal offence has been committed, punishable by
19 death sentence, should report such an offence; failing that, he may be
20 punished by three years in prison. This is a federal law provision and
21 applies to military police officers, et cetera. So an official person
22 which learns ex officio that a criminal offence has been committed
23 punishable by five years in prison or more and fails to do so, then they
24 may be punished by three years in prison and more. Which means all
25 military officers when executing their duties has also the character of
1 an official person. I overlooked this provision because we were
2 discussing the Law on Military Officers, which regulates the question and
3 the issue of such relations and obligations. And I believe that now I've
4 clarified this matter.
5 Q. Thank you. After you've clarified this point, would you answer
6 all the questions from the transcript, would you answer them in the same
7 way that you did then during the Milutinovic trial?
8 A. Yes. There were no other reasons for me to say anything other
9 than what I said then.
10 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Gojovic.
11 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I move to tender this document,
12 65 ter 1664. This would be the transcript of Witness Gojovic's testimony
13 in the Milutinovic trial.
14 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00496.
16 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Now I'm going to read out a
17 summary of the witness statement of Mr. Gojovic.
18 The witness is a lawyer who spent more than 40 years as member of
19 the Yugoslav Army, before retiring with -- holding the rank of major in
20 2001. In his professional career, witness was the presiding judge of the
21 military court in Belgrade from 1st of January, 1994, to the 16th of
22 April, 1999, when he was appointed chief of the administration of the
23 General Staff of -- the legal administration of the General Staff of the
24 VJ. He is going to testify about the efforts he invested in improving
25 the military legal system, inter alia, by within his remit providing all
1 the necessary logistic support to the military justice system, and he
2 requested and allowed the inclusion of the necessary professional
3 personnel into the military justice system of the FRY and contributed to
4 a normal functioning of the military justice system and the execution of
5 its legal obligations and duties.
6 The witness is going to discuss and explain the criminal
7 procedure from detection to conviction or the final judgement. He is
8 going to testify about the documents which the military handed out to all
9 members of the VJ and about the training that members of the VJ
10 undertook, particularly in respect of honouring international regulations
11 and conventions, regulated the conduct during war and the respect for
12 international humanitarian law. The witness is going to testify about
13 the position, autonomy, and independence of the organs of the military
14 justice system in relation to all the other organs, departments, and
15 services of the General Staff of the VJ.
16 In his testimony, he will particularly analyse information,
17 reports, and overviews and summaries prepared for the use of the General
18 Staff and for the VJ which contained reports about criminal offences
19 perpetrated by the members of the VJ in Kosovo. He's going to talk about
20 the number of criminal reports, the number of investigations conducted,
21 the number of indictments, and the number of judgements in such
23 The witness is going to analyse orders issued by the General
24 Staff of the VJ, who he -- which he personally drafted, which insisted on
25 the need to detect crime and emphasized the obligation of all members of
1 the VJ to respect the provisions of international humanitarian law. From
2 his personal experience, he's going to confirm that if crimes were
3 detected and reported, that they were all investigated and processed if
4 there were grounds for -- to initiate proceedings.
5 Thank you very much. That would be the summary of the witness'
7 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Popovic.
8 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Mr. Gojovic, were you a member of the VJ, and until what time if
10 you were?
11 A. I was member of the Yugoslav People's Army. I was an active
12 officer from July 1961, and after that I was member of the VJ until the
13 1st of April, 2001, when I retired. Before that, I graduated from the
14 military high school from 1959 to 1961.
15 Q. Thank you. Please tell me, when you retired, which rank did you
17 A. I was major-general in the legal department.
18 Q. Could you please explain your education.
19 A. I graduated from the military high school, and after that I
20 graduated from the grammar school and the law school in Sarajevo. Then I
21 passed the bar examination and the examination for major, and I spent my
22 whole career in the military justice system. In the meantime, I achieved
23 a master's degree in Belgrade at the criminal law department of the law
24 school in Belgrade.
25 Q. Could you please slow down when providing your answers.
1 Could you please briefly explain to us which posts you held
2 within the JNA and the VJ in your career.
3 A. After graduating from the military school, I stayed at that
4 school as a commander and teacher of the cadets. After that I commanded
5 a platoon until 1971. I was then promoted to the rank of lieutenant in
6 the legal department, and I took up a post at the military court in
7 Sarajevo. After trainership and after passing the bar exam, I was
8 appointed deputy military prosecutor in Sarajevo. I spent four years
9 there occupying that position. Then I was an investigative judge at the
10 military court in Sarajevo for another four years. After that I was
11 deputy military ombudsman and for another five years --
12 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat the answer -- the last
13 portion of his answer, please.
14 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Could you please repeat the last section of --
16 A. The secretary of the military disciplinary tribunal and deputy of
17 the public prosecutor at the command of the 7th Army in Sarajevo. After
18 that I was president of a panel of judges for another three years at the
19 same military court in Sarajevo. After that, deputy prosecutor --
20 military prosecutor in Sarajevo for another two years. Then for another
21 three years, a military prosecutor in Sarajevo. After that, I was deputy
22 military prosecutor general of the JNA for two years. After that,
23 president of the military court in Belgrade from the 1st of January,
24 1994, until the 16th of April, 1999, more than four years. Then head of
25 the general legal department of the General Staff from the 16th of April,
1 1999, and then head of the legal department of the Ministry of Defence of
2 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
3 So that would be all the posts within the legal profession, both
4 as a clerk and as an officer or an official within that system.
5 Q. Thank you. After retiring in 2001, did you perform any tasks or
6 were you involved or engaged by the VJ, its General Staff, or the
7 Ministry of Defence?
8 A. Yes. After retiring, there was a need at the time to establish
9 co-operation between the Ministry of Defence and the VJ General Staff
10 with this Tribunal. There were some requests concerning the delivery of
11 documents and similar matters. And for that purpose, the minister of
12 defence, in co-operation with the Chief of the General Staff, established
13 a commission. It was labelled a Commission For the Co-Operation with The
14 Hague Tribunal. I was asked to accept the post of deputy chairman of
15 that commission as a professional, an expert, or a person who would
16 facilitate the work of that commission. That commission worked for a
17 period of three years. Later on, a different commission was established
18 with different members.
19 Q. You told us what the tasks of that commission was. Just briefly,
20 if you remember, how many members did the commission have, and could you
21 maybe name some of those permanent members. Very briefly, if you
22 remember; if not, we will just carry on.
23 A. As far as I can remember, the commission had seven permanent
24 members. The chairman of the commission was an active-duty general,
25 Lieutenant-General Zlatoje Terzic, who was at the head of the training
1 sector, military training sector. I was his deputy. And then there was
2 also a representative from each sector of the ministry or the General
3 Staff, so that there were a total of six or seven members. I was the
4 only one who was retired. Also, Lieutenant-General Geza Farkas was
5 retired. All the others were active-duty members of different ranks.
6 Q. Thank you. We will go back to 1999. If I understood you
7 correctly, on the 16th of April, 1999, you were appointed as chief of the
8 legal administration at the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia?
9 A. Yes. This is the legal administration in the General Staff.
10 There is a difference. When you say "in the General Staff" or "attached
11 to the General Staff." If it's in the staff, then it's a part of the
12 General Staff; if it's an organ that is attached to the General Staff,
13 it's an independent organ, but that has some connection to the General
15 Q. How long did you stay at that post?
16 A. I stayed there until mid-2000, then I became the chief of the
17 legal administration at the Ministry of Defence because those two
18 administrations had merged. This was in order to stream-line our
20 Q. Can you explain a little more to us what the role and the
21 function of the legal administration is in the General Staff of the Army
22 of Yugoslavia when you took on that post.
23 A. Its main task was to be a professional organ that dealt with all
24 the legal matters for the needs of the General Staff, and the most
25 important thing other than that was to organise and secure the
1 functioning of military courts and military prosecutors during the war.
2 Q. When you took up your duties on the 16th of April, 1999, what
3 were the tasks that you were given, and what was the situation regarding
4 the military courts and prosecutors' offices that you encountered when
5 you took up your duties?
6 A. I would just before that like to say that with the declaration of
7 the state of war on the 24th of March, 1999, and pursuant to the plan,
8 the military courts and military prosecutors were activated in wartime.
9 This function does not exist in peacetime. During wartime, the structure
10 and the organisation of these bodies is quite different. So putting them
11 into effect was something that was done for the first time after World
12 War II, and in that sense there was a lack of experience and other
13 knowledge as to how they would work in practice. There was a lot of
14 theory, but of course, there is a lot of difference between theory and
15 practice, particularly in the middle of a state of war. I was the
16 president of the military army -- of the military court of the 1st Army.
17 So on the 16th of April, a couple of days before that, we were organising
18 and establishing these courts, getting them up to operate. So in the
19 situation of these newly formed courts, of which there were 23 or 24, and
20 of course there were the military prosecutors, the first difficulties and
21 discrepancies began to appear between practice and what was assumed in
22 theory. This was something that was noticed, of course. So there was a
23 need for someone who had enough experience and knowledge in the
24 profession to reorganise all of that in order to create a more favourable
25 environment. The superiors thought that I, because I was one of the rare
1 ones in the legal practice who had carried out all these duties, the
2 prosecutor, the presiding of the panel of judges, I worked in commands
3 outside of the courts, I worked in higher courts. So they believed that
4 I had a lot of experience throughout my professional duties, and so they
5 appointed me in order to improve the organisation and the functioning of
6 the courts. And this is a complex matter, it's something that is evident
7 here as well. In any kind of operation of the court there is a lot of
8 logistical support required in order to meet the specific and quite
9 considerable requirements that were set.
10 So these were the reasons that guided my superiors to appoint me
11 to this post.
12 Q. If I understood you correctly, you've given us a pretty
13 exhaustive answer, so let us summarise. You, as an experienced
14 professional in the legal field, were appointed to set up the legal
16 A. Yes, the legal and military bodies.
17 Q. When we're talking about the legal administration, what would be
18 the relationship of the military administration within the General Staff
19 in relation to the military courts and the military prosecutors' offices?
20 A. I mentioned earlier that the legal administration is a
21 professional organ in the General Staff in relation to the military
22 courts and the military prosecutors who are independent and autonomous in
23 their work. The legal administration is a link as a professional organ
24 between the General Staff, their requirements in terms of uncovering and
25 processing the perpetrators of crimes, and the military courts and the
1 military prosecutors. So I was the link which on the one hand
2 communicated with those organs and on the other hand, because the
3 organisation is headed by a professional service of the General Staff,
4 the legal administration is entrusted with all the tasks that had to do
5 with the organisation and the formation of the wartime military tribunals
6 at military staffs and units. So this is a unit that provided logistical
7 personnel and professional support.
8 Q. Thank you. Still on this subject, let us now go back to the
9 peacetime period. How were the military courts organised in peacetime?
10 A. The military courts are organised in a completely different way
11 in peacetime. During that period there were three military courts, three
12 military prosecutors' offices at the first instance, and there was the
13 supreme military court and the supreme military prosecutor as the
14 institutions of second instance. The military court was seated in
15 Belgrade. The lower military prosecutors' offices were also located in
16 Belgrade as well as the higher court. There was also a lower military
17 court in Nis and Podgorica, and they had prosecutors' offices there as
18 well. They were appointed according to the territorial principles, so in
19 specific territories.
20 In wartime, these bodies are not formed according to the
21 territorial principle but according to the personnel principle. They
22 were attached to the unit commands. So they're only there in order to
23 prosecute members of a specific command; that is why we had many more of
24 them, 21 lower such courts and there were -- was one supreme military
25 court with its four departments. And I can talk about them more
1 specifically later. This is what the difference is. The lower military
2 courts in peacetime cover all the territories that -- all the units that
3 happen to be in that territory. So they prosecute the perpetrators of
4 crimes from units which are located in the territory they're responsible
6 Q. All right. Can we now deal with this. You explained the
7 functional and the actual jurisdiction of the peacetime courts. What
8 changed with the proclamation of the state of war?
9 A. With the declaration of the state of war - because these are
10 completely different and more complex circumstances - the military
11 justice organ -- organisation was adapted to these newly created
12 circumstances, meaning that they are formed at the commands of specific
13 units so that they encompass all the units that are established in
14 wartime at a specific level. And the courts were then formed at the unit
15 commands, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Armies had these bodies; then the naval
16 military command; the air force command also; the corps commands also had
17 these bodies as well as the command of one division because this was an
18 independent unit. So this is as far as the operational units are
19 concerned. Then these bodies were formed at the military district
20 commands too. Then the supreme military court was formed with its four
21 departments, the headquarters of this court were in Belgrade, and the
22 departments of the supreme military court were then at the army commands.
23 Parallel with that, you had the same situation as far as the military
24 prosecutor was concerned. The headquarters were in Belgrade at the
25 General Staff, and its departments were located at the army commands. I
1 mean, we can talk about the number of corps that there were, then the
2 number of military districts. So then the system of military courts were
3 adapted to the conditions so that they could be out there immediately in
4 the field and could do their work there.
5 Q. When we're talking about numbers, you said that there were three
6 military courts during peacetime?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. How many of them were during the war?
9 A. There were about 20 or 21 during the war. The lower courts and
10 then we had one court of higher instance that had four departments which
11 were dealing with appeals cases. And there was the same number of
12 prosecutors, military prosecutors, as well.
13 Q. Of course --
14 JUDGE PARKER: Is that a convenient time, Mr. Popovic?
15 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have just one more
16 question that will round off this topic.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Please proceed.
18 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 Q. General, let's clarify just one more thing. When you explain the
20 work of the military courts, you say that they are attached to the
21 command. Could you please explain what this word means, that they were
22 "attached." Does that mean that they were under the command of the
23 command that they were attached to or established, or does that mean
24 something else?
25 A. They are completely independent in their judicial and
1 prosecutorial work. When you say that they're attached, it just means,
2 it's a description saying that this command is obliged to provide
3 conditions for this body to work unimpeded, to carry out all its
4 requests, because it covers the territory also covered by that command.
5 So the command is obliged to provide premises, accommodation, security,
6 protection. This is what it means. In its actual peacetime, it is
7 completely independent and the logistics matters are covered by the
8 Ministry of Defence; but in wartime these technical matters are dealt
9 with by the command where they are located, logistics including
10 protection, premises, transport. They would make these requests to the
11 command because there is no other organ which would be able to provide
12 and fulfil these requests. And that is why this term is used "attached."
13 It is not in the command and is not part of the command, and the command
14 has no authority over this body in any kind of essential manner.
15 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you very much.
16 I think that we could go and take our break now.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Popovic.
18 We must break for half an hour for the tapes to be rewound, and
19 we will continue again at five minutes past 11.00. A court officer will
20 assist you during the break.
21 [The witness stands down]
22 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 11.08 a.m.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Popovic.
25 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 Q. General, a few more questions about the relationship and the
2 independence of military courts. You explained what it means to
3 establish military courts after the proclamation of the state of war,
4 which would then be attached to the commands. Can you please tell me
5 what the relationship of the military courts is vis-ā-vis the General
6 Staff, what was that relationship?
7 A. The relationship was the same. There is a certain distance. The
8 General Staff is the highest command in the army in relationship to the
9 military justice organs, so you would have the supreme military court in
10 the same seat as the General Staff. But courts do not have direct
11 contacts relating to their jurisdiction other than matters that have to
12 do with the administration of these courts, and that was something that
13 our legal administration dealt with. This practically means that the
14 courts and the prosecutors were independent in making their decisions,
15 and they are obliged only to apply the laws and regulations in effect in
16 accordance with the law and the constitution.
17 Q. Thank you. This is perhaps just a confirmation of what you have
18 just said, but in order to be precise, could military commanders in any
19 way influence the work of the military courts; and based on your
20 experience, were there such cases, such instances?
21 A. A military commander by the very nature of their duties and
22 functions and in view of the fact that their powers are also regulated by
23 laws, had no authority pursuant to any law or regulation to influence the
24 work of the court or the military prosecutors. Their only duty was to
25 report the perpetrators of crimes to the prosecutor, and at the request
1 of the prosecutor to obtain evidence, documents, and so on. That's where
2 their work ended. They had no legal authority or possibility to exert
3 any influence, so they did not do that. They could voice some desires,
4 requests for faster processing of a specific perpetrator of a crime; they
5 could perhaps point to this, but nothing more than that.
6 Q. Thank you. This seems to be an answer that deals more with the
7 legal aspects of the matter. Based on your experience and since in 1999
8 you were involved with military courts and prosecutors' offices, did you
9 notice that anyone from the structures and the organs of the Army of
10 Yugoslavia exerted any kind of influence or attempted to exert such an
11 influence on the military courts?
12 A. I have been in the military judicial branch for over 30 years.
13 I've been carrying out many duties, and I have never come across such a
14 case and did not come across any such instances during the war. There
15 was one kind of incident at a lower level. This happened in Novi Sad,
16 where one military senior officer submitted charges for some conscripts
17 that did not respond to the call-up, and in order to prevent such
18 behaviour he ordered his subordinates to take measures and to submit a
19 report. And in that document he asked for severe punishment. When the
20 prosecutor received that, they immediately informed the president of the
21 supreme military court that such excesses should be prevented. On the
22 part of the command the courts were acting pursuant to their conscience.
23 So any kind of such behaviour was ridiculous. I mean, it was probably a
24 senior officer without much experience. So this is the only instance in
25 my career that spanned 30 or 40 years, where I came across such a
2 Q. Thank you. What you just described I think is mentioned in one
3 of the documents that we will look at a bit later --
4 A. Yes, it is mentioned in one overall analysis document that was
5 drafted in order to study what experience the military courts had in
6 their work.
7 Q. Thank you. You as head of legal administration within the
8 General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia, did you attempt to influence the
9 work of the military courts or military prosecutors during that period of
10 time, 1999?
11 A. No, I did not influence their work. I exerted no influence over
12 their work. My duty was to assist them in doing their work without any
13 hindrance. So I provided any assistance that I could as a colleague,
14 assistance and support on all matters without influencing their work. I
15 never attempted to influence anybody's work, either during peacetime or
16 during wartime, as a president of the court or in any other capacity,
17 because the essence of the work of judges and prosecutors is such that
18 they need to work independently. That is the role in any legal system.
19 Q. Thank you. Now let us go back to the 16th of April, 1999. You
20 take new office on that day -- you took new office. Did you observe any
21 problems at the time; and if so, which were those problems that you came
22 across at the very beginning of your new position as head of legal
23 administration within the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia?
24 A. Based on my previous experience, I knew that whenever one assumes
25 new office, takes new position, and comes into a new working environment,
1 they -- and they want to be responsible in their work, they need to first
2 take stock of the situation in that institution. As a professional with
3 a long-standing experience, I knew the duties and obligations of every
4 prosecutor and on every court; and I knew that there were always some
5 deficiencies, first of all in organisational sense and also in legal
6 technical sense. When I say "organisational," I mean that, yes, there
7 was a certain organigram that was followed in setting up any institution,
8 but how does one go about organise the work of any court? It can only be
9 done by a person who is very well familiar with exact duties of the
10 court. So it's not just a machine that you need to plug in.
11 And as for the legal specialist kind of work, there were some
12 issues there too. In order for somebody to work in a court, they need to
13 have a law degree and take a bar exam and also have an officer's rank.
14 There were situations in practice that clerks who assigned people to the
15 post of a judge had to make sure that all those requirements are met, but
16 they didn't necessarily always make sure that they had the necessary
17 experience. So, for example, we had situation where somebody used to
18 work in a bank as a lawyer and had a bar exam and had an officer's rank
19 and was appointed to the post of a judge without any necessary
20 experience. So naturally such people could not do their work properly
21 because in wartime one has no time to learn how to work as a judge.
22 So those were some of the problems and they resulted from the
23 fact that some of the clerks who worked in those posts did not have the
24 necessary skills or knowledge. I immediately saw this as a problem. I
25 commenced with reorganisation of personnel, and I demanded that people be
1 appointed to the post of a judge only with previous judicial experience
2 or experience as a judge in other courts. And if they lacked the
3 necessary experience of an officer, I proposed that such people be
4 promoted in an extraordinary procedure because there was a possibility to
5 do that under the law. And in this way, we were able to appoint proper
6 judges, professionals who were up to the task. That was one of the first
7 steps because without the necessary staff one could not do the job under
8 those difficult conditions.
9 Now, when it comes for technical problems, meaning typists,
10 computers, technical, logistical assistance, yes, a lot of work needed to
11 be done there, there were a lot of problems there, because the commands
12 did not have the necessary knowledge or experience to know what needs to
13 be done. They had never come across such tasks before. And yes, there
14 were difficulties there, and not only the General Staff but also the
15 lower-level commands had a lot of understanding and provided a lot of
16 support for us in that regard. I introduced professional transcript
17 court reporters, and we hired typists who had proper mental and physical
18 capabilities to perform under those difficult circumstances, wartime and
19 so on.
20 Q. Now, in view of everything you have told us so far, in wartime it
21 is -- speed can be a problem and obviously speed is of the essence here.
22 Now, in rectifying these deficiencies, were you able to do it speedily,
23 and were you able to correct everything in a satisfactory manner?
24 A. Realising what problems and difficulties existed -- and I was
25 able to do that within a couple of days through my contact with the
1 president of the Supreme Court and the prosecutor because we were all in
2 the same location and via contacts with prosecutors and judges out there
3 in the field, and later on I was able to tour these locations as well.
4 So having done all that work, I was able to come up with a proposal and
5 it was done overnight and submitted to the General Staff. And it was
6 immediately that same evening submitted to the General Staff. They
7 looked at it at 7.00 p.m. one evening, and on the following day in the
8 morning I was told that a decision was taken to resolve this. And then I
9 went further on, had contacts with prosecutors, and got in touch with the
10 Ministry of Justice to implement this, to promote the people that were
11 qualified, so that they could take up their posts. So yes, it was done
12 rather quickly, and the same approach was taken with regard to technical,
13 logistical problems. There were contacts with the military police as
14 well and they got in touch with the people out in the field because you
15 know that was wartime, and courts needed to have security detail and the
16 necessary capabilities in that sense. You know, they needed to secure
17 the detention facilities and so on.
18 So when it comes to my proposal and the request that I sent to
19 the General Staff, all of it was resolved in less than 24 hours. The
20 courts and the prosecutors worked around-the-clock, except for the time
21 when they slept, which was some four to five hours; the rest of their
22 time was devoted to work.
23 Q. Thank you for your exhaustive answer. We just need a sort of a
24 conclusion here. Do you think that you received full support and
25 assistance from the General Staff that was available and possible at that
1 point in time?
2 A. Yes, absolutely.
3 Q. Thank you. We spoke about the independence of courts. Now, tell
4 me, please, as far as you're concerned, were you independent in your
5 work? Were you able to make decisions independently, on your own, could
6 you make proposals about how your administration needs to function, what
7 improvements need to be made in the judicial system, and so on, within
8 your scope of authorities of course?
9 A. Whatever was within my competence, whatever I could decide upon
10 as chief of the administration, I did without any interference from
11 anybody else. And as for my proposals that General Staff or some other
12 organ had to rule upon, it was done immediately, without any hesitation.
13 I did my best to make sure that my proposals were proper, rational,
14 competent. I had enough knowledge and experience to make sure that I
15 didn't request something that objectively could not be done. All my
16 superiors, all superior officers acknowledged this and made sure that my
17 requests were met as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
18 Q. General, do you believe that while you held office as chief of
19 legal administration, military courts, military prosecutor's office, and
20 military judicial system in general in the territory of FRY and Serbia
21 functioned properly and met their mandate under the law?
22 A. In the given conditions and circumstances and in accordance with
23 the optimum of their mental and physical abilities, the judicial system
24 performed their work at an exceptionally high level. Whatever was not
25 possible to do given the objective circumstances, they didn't do it; but
1 whatever was up to them to carry out, they did it. And looking at the
2 number of cases that were processed and looking at the quality of work,
3 one is bound to give very high marks to their work.
4 Q. Thank you. Now can we please turn to some more specific issues,
5 issues that are of interest to everybody in this courtroom, and that is
6 the manner in which the legal system of Serbia and Yugoslavia treated
7 crimes against civilians and what was their attitude towards abiding by
8 international conventions and provisions of the international laws of
9 war? By putting this question, I first of all want you to tell us what
10 laws regulated this area and what is it that military courts and military
11 prosecutors relied upon in their work and as part of the laws in effect
12 in Serbia and Yugoslavia at the time.
13 A. Any state should have its own ordered judicial system. The
14 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as a state, a newly formed state after the
15 preceding state, the SFRY, created all the laws and regulations also that
16 dealt with international humanitarian law. They also covered this matter
17 in the constitution. I think it was Article 16 of the FRY constitution
18 which stated that all international agreements, which are ratified and
19 published pursuant to the constitution as well as all generally accepted
20 rules of international law, comprise an integral part of a country's
21 internal order. I mean, this is a constitutional article that deals with
22 this matter, which is also covered by the Geneva Convention and is also
23 one of the tenets of the legal order of the Federal Republic of
24 Yugoslavia. So the Criminal Code devotes Section 16 to this matter,
25 which provides for punishment for all of these crimes which are covered
1 by international humanitarian law, including genocide, war crimes against
2 civilian populations, against prisoners of war, wounded persons, and so
3 on and so forth. So these crimes are regulated, and punishments for them
4 are laid down. There's also a Law on Defence, which in Article 19 I
5 think regulates cases when members of the Army of Yugoslavia who take
6 part in combat are duty-bound in all circumstances to abide by the rules
7 of international laws of war and other laws regulating the treatment of
8 prisoners, wounded persons, and that cover protection of the civilian
9 population. So on the basis of all of these laws and regulations dealing
10 with this subject, certain instructions are also provided for members of
11 the army, and they include everyone starting from just regular soldiers
12 all the way up to the command, how each individual taking part in combat
13 should behave and how they should adhere to these international norms.
14 In case they fail to respect them, they are subject to the appropriate
15 punishment as laid down in the law. This is precisely why military
16 courts were formed at the level of each unit. So this was put into
17 practice covering the organisational normative, operational, and all
18 other aspects, so that this particular subject matter would be covered
19 enabling the normal functioning and the respect for the laws laid down by
20 international agreements.
21 Q. Thank you. We heard about the legislative framework, which was
22 in place for the application of international humanitarian law. Please
23 tell us, in your work did you insist on a certain type of conduct on the
24 part of the military officers in the field in terms of uncovering
25 possible criminal offences and submission of information on such?
1 A. Let me emphasize apart from the legislative framework that at the
2 level of the General Staff a summary was produced of all international
3 humanitarian law provisions and rules of war and produced for each member
4 of the VJ at different levels, the combatants, officers, at different
5 levels; how to conduct themselves in war. Of course, the war colleges
6 teach attendees on such matters. There were also courses at different
7 commands and units provided for the staff. So we did conduct some
8 training at command levels. What your question hints at is as follows:
9 Apart from all the instructions and the regulations and the aide-memoirs
10 and the brochures sent to unit commands, I produced a memory-jogger which
11 summarises all legal proceedings in practice, starting from the duties of
12 military officers, what they should do if his subordinates were to
13 perpetrate a criminal offence, all the way to military courts. So I
14 summarised the duties of the military officers; then investigation and
15 detection organs, which means military police; then who receives any
16 criminal reports; and then there was an explanation of what does -- what
17 the military prosecutor does, what the military court does, and appeal
18 proceedings. This was put in one place, in one brochure, which could be
19 used by any individual to take action with respect to the criminal
20 offence, the perpetrator of such criminal offence in respect of evidence,
21 and the procedure to -- how to treat the detainee. And this was also
22 done in the process of preparation so that everybody had that brochure
23 with them so that they shouldn't wonder whether they could do something
24 or could not, whether they should do something or not. I provided with
25 this summary of procedural mechanisms.
1 Q. Thank you. Mr. General, let's go through some documents, and for
2 that purpose I will give you a binder of documents.
3 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to seek assistance
4 from the usher. This is our standard procedure. We produced a binder of
5 documents to facilitate the process. We just put down the numbers of
6 documents that we are going to work on. It's not annotated in any way
7 other than by giving -- being separated by tabs. So if you allow me, I
8 would like to provide that binder to the witness.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
10 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 Q. General, each time I'm going to announce documents to be seen in
12 e-court, I will refer to the number of each tab. So this would be your
13 guidance to find the relevant documents. Let's see, please, document
14 D011-0912. That would be tab 2 in your binder, General.
15 This is a document entitled: "Regulations of the Application of
16 International Laws of War in the Armed Forces of the SFRY." General, my
17 first question to you is: Are you familiar with this document?
18 A. Yes, it is, I'm familiar with it.
19 Q. Before I ask you about its contents, let's take a look at the
20 bottom of this page. It can be seen in the Serbian version, and it can
21 be seen in the English version if we were to scroll down. The year
22 printed there is 1988. My question to you is: Those rules on the
23 application of international laws of war in the armed forces of the SFRY
24 were in force in 1999?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Could you please tell us something more about this document. It
2 is a voluminous document. We're not going to go into details. Briefly,
3 whatever you can say about it, do so, please.
4 A. This is a large volume containing the most salient provisions of
5 international humanitarian and international laws of war and all other
6 rules and customs of war as envisaged by international conventions,
7 treaties, in a detailed but very user-friendly way. It contains an
8 instruction prepared by the federal secretariat for national defence on
9 the basis of an order of the president of the Presidency of SFRY, who
10 authorised the federal secretary to prepare such an instruction, and this
11 was done. This addition was adapted to the domestic legal order. It had
12 existed beforehand. It still applies, but of course there are different
13 provisions within laws and the constitution who govern such issues. This
14 contains Geneva Conventions, international humanitarian law. The
15 contents have not been changed because no other international conventions
16 have been brought into force to modify or amend the erstwhile
17 conventions. It was in force then and this volume was used for training,
18 for educating our officers at war schools, at military schools, and of
19 course it was in force in the VJ, and it was part of the internal legal
20 order of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia and then in the
21 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and today in Serbia.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I move to tender this document
24 into evidence, please.
25 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
1 Ms. Gopalan.
2 MS. GOPALAN: Your Honours, if I may, I believe this document may
3 already be in evidence as a Prosecution exhibit, P1342. Perhaps this can
4 be checked just to avoid duplication of documents in the record.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
6 We will leave the matter of its admission, Mr. Popovic, until
7 that can be resolved. Perhaps you can look at it over the next break if
9 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Absolutely, Your Honours. Thank
10 you. And I would like to thank my learned colleague. We will check the
11 documents already admitted. Thank you.
12 Now let's see D011-1132.
13 Q. That would be tab 3 in your binder, General.
14 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 Q. On the screen you can see this document entitled: "Rules of
16 Conduct For Soldiers." Please tell us, first of all, whether you are
17 familiar with this document and after that what you can briefly tell us
18 about what it constituted, who the target audience was, and who received
20 A. I'm familiar with this document. The staff of the Supreme
21 Command prepared it, and it contains the most important rules for conduct
22 for combatants, and "combatant" is an international law term. This was
23 delivered to each and every soldier, and it summarises the duties and the
24 rule of conduct for combatants in combat. For instance, there are rules
25 of combat briefly: Fight only against soldiers, attack only military
1 targets, treat people, et cetera, et cetera, this -- these are the rules
2 derived from the rules of combat.
3 Then we have treatment of wounded enemy soldiers, what treatment
4 they should be given. Then treatment of prisoners of war and treatment
5 of civilians, in keeping with international humanitarian law. We can see
6 four pages here. It is a pocket-sized volume. It was printed on
7 plastified paper, which means it's water and humidity resistant, and each
8 soldier received one copy. Whenever they were called up, this was part
9 of the equipment they were given, together with a helmet, a rifle, a
10 first aid kit, and this was part and parcel of the regular issue
11 equipment. Each soldier was familiar with this document. They had a
12 copy in their pocket, in keeping with what we saw on the previous
13 document and in keeping with the legislative framework that we described
15 Q. This would be an abbreviated instruction for each soldier on how
16 they should behave?
17 A. Yes. A summary of rules of conduct in combat adapted to their
18 needs, and each soldier could read and conduct themselves in keeping with
19 what they read.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this into
22 evidence, please.
23 JUDGE PARKER: This appears to be a 2005 edition, Mr. Popovic.
24 Is there any change between the time relevant to us, 1999 and 2005?
25 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I will ask this of the witness and
1 we are going to determine that.
2 Q. General, could you please tell us, in 1999 this document, the
3 "Rules of Conduct For Soldiers," did they contain the same contents back
5 A. Yes, it was identical. It was prepared for the soldiers then and
6 this is nothing new. This is already -- always happened, and the only
7 changes were in the technology of print, the materials they were printed
8 on, I mean water-resistant paper, and each soldier had a copy in their
9 kit, and this is what was delivered to the soldier conscripts when the
10 call-up occurred in 1999.
11 Q. Thank you very much, General.
12 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] And now I'd like to move to tender
13 this document into evidence.
14 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00497.
16 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Now let's see document D011-1137.
17 Q. That would be tab 4, General. In Serbian D011-1145 page in the
18 Serbian version, and in the English version -- yes, the one we see. In
19 the B/C/S D011-1145. Thank you.
20 General, here you can see this document which is entitled:
21 "Handbook for VJ Members Engaged in Areas Affected by Sabotage and
22 Terrorist Activities."
23 First of all, are you familiar with this document?
24 A. I am familiar with it.
25 Q. Thank you. Could you please tell us what is the nature of this
1 document and why it was produced at all.
2 A. This document, this handbook, is an expanded version and modified
3 version of the preceding document. It was used in 1998 and delivered to
4 soldiers because at that time in the area of Kosovo and Metohija armed
5 conflict had broken out. Before that sabotage and terrorist activities
6 were at play there and this is the legal qualification of what those
7 were, and there were also illegal paramilitary formations and units who
8 engaged in terrorist activities. And that phenomenon was spreading and
9 prompted by that, the General Staff produced a handbook for the soldiers
10 for that purpose. At that time we had regular army unit soldiers doing
11 their national service without any reserve units, without conscripts, and
12 this is a volume which gives an overview of how to conduct themselves
13 because the methods of work of sabotage and terrorist groups, which were
14 smaller groups, dispersed throughout the territory, were engaged in
15 establishing ambushes, and this was a much more complex situation that
16 those young soldiers found themselves in and officers, so that we
17 provided them with some instructions how to behave. You can see that
18 instead of prisoners of war we have people who have been arrested, which
19 means that this follows from the qualification of armed insurgency. And
20 this is -- but we wanted them to be treated within the legislative
21 framework which is applicable to combatant within -- engaged in an
22 internal armed conflict. And this is why we used that -- those terms in
23 the area of Kosovo and Metohija, similar to what we saw before but
24 modified for the purposes of the day. Mind you, at that time we had not
25 proclaimed the state of war. This was a state of emergency, and such
1 instructions were necessary for the soldiers who are engaged in
2 activities against such insurgent groups, and this is the gist and the
3 purpose of this handbook prepared for members of the VJ of the time.
4 Q. When we're talking about the time-period, could you be a little
5 more specific, please. We can see that the document has July 1998 as the
6 date, is that correct? Does this apply to the period of 1998 then and
7 early 1999?
8 A. This applies to the period of 1998 until the state of war was
9 declared on the 24th of March, 1999. Once the state of war was declared,
10 this second part comes into effect, and those who had it kept it with
11 them. It's not superfluous. These documents augment each other; they do
12 not exclude each other.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm going to ask for this document
15 to be admitted into evidence, please.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00498.
18 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Could I please look at document
20 Q. It's document 5 in your binder, General. This is a document that
21 we only have in Serbian at the moment. It has been submitted to CLSS for
22 translation. I am not going to spend a lot of time on this document.
23 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is a summary of
24 the Geneva Conventions of the 12th of August, 1949, and the Additional
25 Protocols. I'm just briefly going to go through the document.
1 Q. General, are you familiar with this document, and just briefly
2 can you tell us what it contains even though the title speaks for itself?
3 And could you tell us who this document was intended for?
4 A. Yes, I am familiar with this document. It was at all the unit
5 commands since the establishment of the JNA. Here it's just been adapted
6 and refreshed in co-operation with the International Committee of the Red
7 Cross during a seminar conducted on the protocol in 1996 or 1997. This
8 is when this summary was drafted. It existed earlier, and it was
9 distributed to the unit commands in their libraries and in the equipment
10 of the unit command. It was a part of that. The top command of the unit
11 had that among its document. These are the Geneva Conventions of the
12 12th of August, 1949, and the Additional Protocols, and this was
13 something that the then-Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had as
14 part of its documents and it was then also in the possession of the Army
15 of Yugoslavia. And all the parties were informed about it and knew that
16 it existed. This was something that was of importance during a state of
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
20 tender this document, and we will provide the translation as soon as
22 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received, and you are authorised to add
23 the translation to the exhibit.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00499.
25 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 Can we look at document D011-1170.
2 Q. This is document -- the sixth document in sequence, General. I'm
3 going to look at page D011-1184. In the English version, it's D011-1186.
4 General, can we now look at the document which is called the
5 "Fundamentals of the Law of War," and this is a summary for senior
6 officers, rules of conduct in combat, and training programme. Can you
7 please tell us if you are familiar with this document and for whom was
8 this document intended?
9 A. Yes, I am familiar with this document. It existed in different
10 forms from a while back in the army. This is a modified amended document
11 in co-operation with the International Committee of the Red Cross
12 following a seminar on the topic. The document is a summary for senior
13 officers, rules of conduct in combat, training programme. It's a little
14 bit expanded. We looked at the part that had to do with soldiers, then
15 we had something that applied to the commands, and now we are looking at
16 a document intended for officers. Each officer had a summary in his war
17 kit, combat kit, the same as any fighter is supplied with certain
18 equipment and documents from the military section, other instructions.
19 So a part of those instructions would be this summary, for them to have
20 it handy, not only to apply it but also to go through training with
21 soldiers during the war, to keep reminding the soldiers and to conduct
22 checks whether the soldiers were familiar with all of these rules and
23 instructions that each soldier is required to know to be able to remind
24 themselves of the duties and obligations of officers.
25 The summary here is a little more detailed than what is provided
1 for the soldiers. Officers' duties are a little bit broader and their
2 knowledge of international military law should also be broader. This is
3 also a pocket-sized handbook, something that a person can always have
4 with them, something that can be consulted and looked at at all times.
5 It's not something that is just kept at the command post. This is
6 nothing new. It's something that all the officers were issued, also in
7 the former JNA. This is just an updated version.
8 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
9 document into evidence, please.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00500.
12 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 Can we now look at document D011-1202.
14 Q. And this is document number 8 in your binder, General. You can
15 see that this is the Official Gazette of the Federal Republic of
16 Yugoslavia dated the 13th of February, 1998. It's a decree on the
17 organisation and work of the military prosecutor during the state of war.
18 My question is: Are you aware, are you familiar with this decree, first
19 of all; and second, was it in force during 1999 or from the moment that
20 the state of war was declared?
21 A. Yes, I am familiar with this decree. It was adopted by the
22 federal government, and it regulates the organisation and the work of the
23 military prosecutor during the state of war. So the organisation and the
24 manner of operation of the military prosecutor is regulated, and on the
25 basis of this decree, the organisational aspect is covered for the work
1 of the military prosecutor within the new organisational and
2 establishment structure that we talked about at the beginning. The
3 decree is based on the Law on Military Prosecutors with some adjustments
4 to the new circumstances and the fact that they were supposed to operate
5 during a state of war. This was done, this decree was applied in the
6 course of 1999 after the state of war was declared, and the prosecutors'
7 offices were deployed in the state of war.
8 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at document 011 --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please be asked to repeat the
11 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] It's 1204 in the B/C/S and 1208 in
13 JUDGE PARKER: Are you tendering the decree on the prosecutor?
14 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is the same
15 document. On the following page of the same document we have also
16 standing orders which actually comprise one and the same document, and
17 they're both published in the same Official Gazette which contains two
18 things: The first is the decree on the organisation of the work of the
19 military prosecutor during the state of war; and the second one is the
20 work of military courts during the state of war. My idea was to tender
21 them as a single document, but if you would prefer to have them tendered
22 as separate exhibits, we can also do that.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Proceed as you propose, Mr. Popovic.
24 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 Q. General, we can see before us the rules of procedure on the work
1 of military courts during the state of war. It's the same
2 Official Gazette of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of the 13th of
3 June, 1998. My question is: Are you familiar with this -- these rules
4 of procedure, and were they applied in 1999?
5 A. Yes, I am familiar of these rules of procedure, and precisely on
6 the basis of these rules of procedure the military tribunals were
7 mobilised and organised after the state of war was declared, and they
8 served as the military or judicial basis for the work of the judges.
9 They were guided by these rules of procedure, and they worked and
10 operated pursuant to these rules during the state of war. From the day
11 that state of war was declared until the state of war no longer applied,
12 these were the work procedures of the military courts.
13 Q. Thank you very much. Now I'm going to ask to have this document
14 tendered into evidence, please.
15 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be Exhibit D00501.
17 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at document D011-1219.
18 Q. And this is document number 10 in your binder, General. Thank
19 you. This is the Official Gazette of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
20 of the 4th of April, 1999. At the bottom of the page 1, in B/C/S you can
21 see that this is a decree on the application of the Law on Criminal
22 Procedure during the state of war. General, my question to you is this:
23 Are you familiar with this decree; and if yes, what were the reasons for
24 its adoption, what was amended vis-ā-vis to the Law on Criminal Procedure
25 that was in effect during peacetime?
1 A. I am familiar with this decree on the application of the Law on
2 Criminal Procedure during the state of war. I would just like to
3 emphasize that all of these decrees are decree laws. All the decrees are
4 actually decree laws, and in this decree the procedure was somewhat
5 modified in order to secure the effective operation of the courts. This
6 applied to all the courts, including the military courts. The purpose of
7 these amendments was to shorten some process dead-lines in order to gain
8 time and to be able to shorten some dead-lines. This is one of the main
9 amendments. There was also something new that was introduced which does
10 not actually exist in the Law on Criminal Procedure in our laws. So the
11 investigating judge or the court would conduct an investigation here;
12 however, the option is given for the prosecutor to be able to conduct the
13 investigation, which is the practice in some Anglo-Saxon systems. So the
14 prosecutor is hereby empowered to conduct investigations in order to have
15 a more efficient procedure. This is the main amendment. There are some
16 other minor details, but we don't really need to discuss them too. These
17 would be dead-lines to appeal to the higher court, and so on, issuing
18 charges, charges for crimes subject to ten-year prison sentence for --
19 otherwise the prosecutor is permitted to issue --
20 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask the witness to slow
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Prosecutor here is not required
23 to have the permission of the investigating judge to issue charges
24 without conducting an investigation first. The objective was to
25 stream-line the criminal proceedings during wartime. That is the essence
1 of these amendments.
2 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
6 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00502.
8 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see D011-1226,
10 Q. Which is your tab 11, General. This is the Official Military
11 Gazette dated the 20th of March, 1995. This is the Law on the Military
12 Prosecutor. My question to you is: Was this law in force in 1998 and in
13 1999, given the amendments and the decree on the military prosecutor in
14 wartime, but first of all let me ask you: Are you familiar with this
15 document and then can you please comment on it if you are?
16 A. Yes, I'm definitely familiar with the Law on the Military
17 Prosecutor. It provides the organisation, the functioning, and the
18 competencies of the military prosecutor. It was also in force, and it
19 was applied in the course of 1999 during the state of war. The previous
20 decrees that we saw that brought some amendments, they were simply a
21 supplement to this basic law. So the basic competencies are regulated by
22 this law and then there was some additional decrees providing some
23 broader powers for the military prosecutor in order to enable him to work
24 more efficiently. So these are two documents that complement each other.
25 This basic law was not set aside when these additional decrees
1 were passed, and these additional decrees provided for additional powers
2 for the prosecutor during wartime.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we have this tendered into
5 evidence, please.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00503.
8 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see D011-1241.
9 Q. Which is your tab 12, General. General, you spoke about your
10 role as chief of the legal administration within the General Staff of the
11 Army of Yugoslavia. You told us about the problems, the difficulties
12 that you faced from the moment you took office. Now before us we have a
13 document entitled: "List of Establishment Posts and Military Judicial
14 Organs." Would you first tell us whether you're familiar with this
15 document; and if so, do you know who drafted it? And then please explain
16 to us the number of establishment posts and how that relates to the
17 personnel and personnel decisions made in various units. The question is
18 a bit long but we can take it step by step.
19 A. I understood your question. We have this list of establishment
20 posts in military judicial organs according to the wartime establishment.
21 This is a definite list after all the amendments. I redacted and went
22 over this document, which shows the military courts. We have the name of
23 commands and then the names of corps and so on. So we have first Novi
24 Sad corps and then the number of judges, one plus five means one is the
25 president of the court and then there are five judges. And then in the
1 next column we have number of prosecutors, one plus three. Number one is
2 the prosecutor and then each prosecutor has three deputies. Then we have
3 Drina division, which for judges has one plus four and for prosecutor has
4 one plus two, and then we have the other formations, Kragujevac Corps,
5 Belgrade Corps, Podgorica Corps, and so on. These are corps whose name
6 is linked to various cities, Uzice Corps, Nis Corps, where they have one
7 plus six judges and then one plus three prosecutors. And then in
8 Pristina Corps we see a greater number of judges, or rather, Nis Corps
9 had a greater number of judges, and that reflects the amount of work they
10 had. And as for Pristina Corps, they had the greatest number of judges
11 because that court had the greatest amount of work in the territory -- in
12 the jurisdiction of that court most of the fighting went on, most of the
13 combat, and that reflects the combat with NATO alliance not with Albanian
15 Then we have the first-instance court Military District Belgrade
16 court, and then the one in Novi Sad, Kragujevac, Podgorica, Uzice, Nis,
17 and Pristina, all of them had an identical number of judges, one plus
18 seven, and then the number of prosecutors differed, one plus five, one
19 plus four, and so on.
20 And then the last row are the courts within the army districts,
21 the 1st Army, 2nd Army, 3rd Army districts, and then air force and
22 anti-aircraft defence district and then the navy military district. And
23 then the number of judges, the number of prosecutors for them. And in
24 order to make sure that it is clear to everybody, I need to say that the
25 courts within the army commands had jurisdiction only for the members of
1 the army as a formation, not units that are subordinated to that army.
2 And the military courts within the military districts have jurisdiction
3 for the personnel of the military district. So you can see that the
4 fewest number of judges is in -- is within the courts that are attached
5 to army districts.
6 Q. Thank you, General.
7 A. Let me just add this, that these are all first-instance courts,
8 and then the second-instance court is the supreme military court and then
9 the supreme military prosecutor, and the supreme military court had three
10 departments within the army commands.
11 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now see D011-1245 in the
12 B/C/S and 1249 in the English version.
13 Q. General, on this page we see some data written by hand. Do you
14 know who wrote this; and if so, can you please explain what these figures
15 represent. First we have numerical strength and then we have the
16 heading, Judges -- Judges who are jurors, and then who was promoted into
17 the rank of reserve second lieutenant. Are you familiar with this?
18 A. Yes, I am familiar with this. This is the summary of the
19 previous list. I simply wrote this down here to have it summarised in a
20 different form. We have the number of judges here. There was a total of
21 155 judges. There were 92 prosecutors, which is a total of 247. Why did
22 I add judges and prosecutors up here even though they're two separate
23 organisational units? I did it for the simple reason so that we could
24 see how many professionals we had, people who had a law degree, who had
25 passed bar exam, and who had previous experience as either judges or
1 prosecutors so that they could be qualified to work in military courts
2 during wartime. This is why I added this up, because this is an
3 impressive figure. And then underneath we have a heading, Judges-Jurors.
4 Both in wartime and in peacetime according to the Law on Criminal
5 Procedure, in addition to professional judges each chamber dealing with
6 criminal cases had to also have judges-jurors. There always had to be an
7 odd number of judges in each chamber, and each chamber had to have
8 judges-jurors. We have figures here reflecting that a total of 525
9 judge-jurors were appointed for the needs of all of these courts.
10 Judge-jurors could be either non-commissioned officers or officers,
11 depending on who was on trial. If an officer was tried, then at least
12 one member of the chamber had to be a non-commissioned officer; and if an
13 officer was put on trial, then at least one judge-juror had to be an
14 officer of an approximately same rank. And then the third heading deals
15 with those who were promoted into the rank of reserve second lieutenant,
16 a total of 125 persons were so promoted. And I told you that
17 reorganisation was conducted in the organisation of courts and
18 prosecutor's office 125 persons were promoted into the rank of reserve
19 second lieutenant in order to fulfil the requirement that existed under
20 the law, that only persons with a certain rank could be appointed as
21 judges or prosecutors. In peacetime the Army of Yugoslavia did not have
22 such a high number of professional officers with the experience of judge
23 or a prosecutor who could serve as such in wartime.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I tender this document into
2 JUDGE PARKER: Did you mean to tender the previous one?
3 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is all one
4 document. The previous one has been admitted, and then this document has
5 a total of three pages if I'm not mistaken -- no, four pages. We looked
6 at the first, second, and fourth page.
7 JUDGE PARKER: That's fine.
8 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] It's the same document.
9 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00504.
11 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think this is a
12 good time for a break because we're moving on to a totally different
14 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. We will have the second break now and
15 resume at 1.00.
16 [The witness stands down]
17 --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 1.03 p.m.
19 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
20 avail myself of this opportunity before the witness comes in to say that
21 my learned friend Gopalan was right, and the document that we moved to
22 tender is already in evidence under P1342. So there's no need to
23 re-admit it.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for that.
25 And thank you, Ms. Gopalan, for drawing it to our attention.
1 [The witness takes the stand]
2 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Popovic.
3 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. General, I'm duty-bound to ask you this. We were discussing
5 military courts, military prosecutors' offices, et cetera. Could you
6 please tell us, what was the situation concerning defence counsel in 1999
7 after the declaration of the state of war? Was everybody indicted
8 offered possibility to have their own defence counsel ex officio if they
9 could not procure their own defence counsel otherwise or their
10 court-appointed defence counsel available to them?
11 A. With respect to defence, it's an integral part of a justice
12 system, including military justice system, both in peacetime and in
13 wartime. This was resolved in the following manner. I, in co-operation
14 with the president of the supreme military court, sought from each
15 regional chamber or bar association to provide each court a list of
16 attorneys who would be available to each particular court so that the
17 court could retain their services at any time when necessary if there is
18 a suspect or an indictee requiring their services. So each court had
19 available a substantial or sufficient number of defence counsel, and they
20 were engaged and they had this task as priority. There were, therefore,
21 no problems in respect of this. Of course each indictee could choose
22 from a list to give power of attorney to such defence counsel.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Now let's see D011-1617, please.
25 Q. That would be tab 13, General. You can see on the screen a cover
1 letter referring to a guide-lines that were compiled on the operation,
2 procedure, authorization, and responsibilities of the military judiciary
3 and other organs with regard to the detection of crimes, their
4 perpetrators, initiating criminal proceedings, and adjudicating. The
5 document is dated 22nd of May, 1999.
6 General, are you familiar with this document?
7 A. I'm familiar with this document. This is a supporting document
8 on the basis of which assistant Chief of the General Staff forwarded
9 this -- these guide-lines to the addressees pursuant to the title of this
10 document and as specified here. And an instruction was issued that such
11 guide-lines should be disseminated and that officers in units should get
12 familiar with those guide-lines.
13 Q. Thank you. I believe that you spoke briefly in your testimony
14 about this document, but let me ask you: What were the reasons to draft
15 such a document and, first of all, do you know who authored this
17 A. I did it. I authored it. Having regard to a long-term
18 experience, professional experience, in my practice I used to brief all
19 those who are duty-bound in terms of criminal -- in situations where
20 criminal offences are perpetrated to do so something, and they were the
21 public for my summaries, where I would provide a summary overview of the
22 authorisations, powers, and duties if criminal offences perpetrated by
23 officers. It spans all the segments of criminal procedure. It would
24 contain relevant provisions from laws on military courts, et cetera.
25 Q. Thank you. But before we go into the contents of this document,
1 let me ask you this: You told us that these guide-lines were to be
2 distributed to all members of the VJ, and this was stated in the cover
3 letter. Could you please tell us how this is done, how would such a
4 document be disseminated to units, and how would they or their members be
5 made familiar with it?
6 A. Well, units get familiar with this in the following manner: It
7 is corroborated by a cover letter signed by assistant chief of the VJ
8 staff to give it authority down the chain of commands. It is distributed
9 to the units subordinated to the General Staff, and when commands of
10 those units receive it, then they produce the necessary number of copies
11 for each unit subordinated to them, and then they forward it under the
12 same cover letter, issuing a task for not only officers, but also
13 non-commissioned officers and soldiers to be made aware of that document.
14 And they do it in the appropriate way because officers maintained daily
15 contact with their subordinated units. And among other tasks, this was
16 another task that they had to carry out in practice.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Let's turn to the next page of
19 this document in both versions, the B/C/S and English.
20 Q. General, let's focus on certain portions of this document. First
21 of all, under item 1, the heading, Superior Military Officer is followed
22 by a subheading A, sub-item A, measures to be undertaken, and it says:
23 "If a crime has been committed in this unit, every superior
24 military officer shall undertake measures to prevent the concealment or
25 escape of the perpetrator of the crime for which prosecution is
1 officially mandated."
2 Would such instructions be the guide-lines of two military
3 officers how to go about when a crime has been perpetrated and what to do
4 with the perpetrators?
5 A. Of course this is one of the basic instructions to any officer,
6 not only in wartime but also in peace, and this is a legal wording from
7 the laws on military officers in other bylaws, specifying the duties of a
8 military officer whenever a criminal offence is perpetrated in his unit
9 and if such crime is prosecutable ex officio. Such military officer is
10 the most responsible person because this has been done in his unit or, to
11 put it in a proverbial way, this is something which happens in his home,
12 in his house. So the superior officer is responsible for everything, and
13 as such he must undertake such measures because he's the immediate
14 superior officer at that moment out in that unit.
15 Q. Thank you. I don't want to sound superfluous, but if a criminal
16 report is not submitted, can any proceedings be initiated?
17 A. If there's no criminal report, then the military prosecutor can
18 find out in another way about the same event and not only the prosecutors
19 but also detection and investigation organs, such as military security
20 detachments, military police units. They apply their own methods, and if
21 a superior officer fails to bring criminal -- file a criminal report,
22 they may detect and file charges through their methods, particularly if
23 such criminal offences are perpetrated under cover of the night. What we
24 are reading here is -- concerns criminal offences which are perpetrated
25 in public. But for both types of criminal offences, criminal reports
1 must be filed.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Let's go to page 2 or to the next
4 page in both the B/C/S and English.
5 Q. General, please tell us, to the best of your knowledge, was there
6 any criminal report submitted to the military prosecutor's office which
7 was not acted upon, and were there such cases where the appropriate
8 action was not taken in response to such a criminal report?
9 A. I'm fully familiar with the state of affairs and the number of
10 criminal reports filed with military prosecutors. They are registered in
11 certain registers. These are permanent documents which can be checked.
12 And the prosecutor's legal obligation is to undertake certain procedural
13 steps on the basis of such a criminal report within his remit. If he
14 failed to do so, he would be violating the law. There's no possibility
15 for prosecutors to contravene the law. Of course in wartime conditions,
16 it was more difficult to work and military prosecutors did everything
17 they could within their objective circumstances. They acted upon
18 criminal reports. Criminal reports were recorded, registered. Steps
19 were taken to obtain evidence and documents. Prosecutors do that through
20 organs of the interior, meaning military police on the one hand and on
21 the other hand, by filing a request to conduct an investigation to the
22 competent investigating judge who heads the investigation, collects the
23 data and evidence in co-operation with the prosecutor. So no case which
24 has been brought to the attention of the prosecutor has not been
25 registered and acted upon depending on the character of the criminal
1 offence and the possibility to obtain evidence. So procedure is taken
2 and for the case to be brought to trial, or otherwise depending on the
3 decision of the military prosecutor within his powers.
4 Q. Concerning some of the previous documents, you said that there
5 were a number of judges of general jurisdiction, not military judges were
6 involved at military courts because of the declaration of the state of
7 war. Would such guide-lines be addressed primarily to that public, to
8 that group of people, who performed their tasks and duties of military
9 prosecutors and military judges?
10 A. Of course this -- these guide-lines were prepared just because I
11 had my personal experience in terms of explaining what are the powers and
12 authorities of superior officers, procedure with respect to detention,
13 arrest, what military police and military security should do, then we
14 have a chapter on prosecutors and their competencies, and then the
15 courts. Well, one may ask question: What kind of guide-lines are to be
16 issued to prosecutors and judges because they are professionals? It's
17 true, they were professionals, they knew their judge, but judges who are
18 appointed to military courts who had no previous experience of military
19 subordination, chain of command, command and control, relations in terms
20 of superior officer/subordinate officer, and what was their place in the
21 organisational and establishment scheme, this -- these guide-lines helped
22 them to find their bearings within this structure all at once within a
23 single document so that in procedural sense they could better communicate
24 and work. This was just a reminder for them to have everything in one
25 place so they don't have to leaf through different laws and regulations.
1 These were -- they were the first audience. The second audience was the
2 command staffs so that they knew what was their relationship with the
3 military court or with a view to make the work easier and more effective
4 under such wartime circumstances.
5 Q. Thank you very much.
6 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I move to tender this into
7 evidence, please.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Before that happens, perhaps you could help me, if
9 you could. Suppose there was a report or an indication that there had
10 been a theft, a stealing of a citizen's property by a member of the army
11 during the performance of the duty of that army member, was there some
12 provision which regulated whether it would be the army military courts
13 and investigators that dealt with the matter or the ordinary civilian
14 courts and investigative authorities?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In a case where a criminal offence
16 has been perpetrated, as you describe it, perpetrated by a member of the
17 military, then exclusive jurisdiction lies with the military prosecutor
18 to indict and for the military courts to try. If a civilian were to be
19 the perpetrator from outside the ranks of the military, in that case a
20 civilian court will have jurisdiction and civilian prosecutor. But if a
21 military officer detected such criminal offence, he may notify Ministry
22 of the Interior or the competent civilian prosecutor to act upon such
23 report. But military courts were -- had jurisdiction over members of the
24 military, of soldiers, non-commissioned officers, and officers. But in a
25 case where co-perpetrators are civilians together with military
1 personnel, then military courts held jurisdiction. There have been such
2 cases but very rare, but that possibility is not excluded in -- by no
4 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. And in that context, officers of the
5 Ministry of Interior, police, were they civilians, or were they members
6 of the military for the purposes of this distinction?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Members of the Ministry of the
8 Internal Affairs were under the jurisdiction of the civilian courts, not
9 the military courts. They are not considered to be military personnel,
10 even though they are in formations of a military character. The civilian
11 court would be authorised to deal with them.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. And the position you've described, did
13 that apply to all offences, that is, that the military courts had the
14 competence to deal with offences by members of the military?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Law on Military Courts
16 regulates the jurisdiction of military courts for specific crimes. They
17 are laid down in the law, if they are committed by civilians. That falls
18 under the jurisdiction of the military court. These would be crimes such
19 as those that are directed against military facilities, military
20 personnel. For example, if somebody would attack a military officer
21 while they were performing their duties, the military court would be
22 authorised to deal with that. Also issues having to do with the defence
23 capacity, also activities directed against military facilities, also
24 crimes of espionage of military personnel or facilities. So the law does
25 list the type of crimes for which a military court would be responsible
1 no matter who the perpetrator was, but that is a very, very narrow area.
2 JUDGE PARKER: In the more usual case where the allegation is
3 that a member of the defence force has committed a crime - and you've
4 indicated that it is the military court and authorities that had
5 jurisdiction in that case - does that -- was that the law for all
6 offences, or was there some listing of particular offences?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All offences committed by a member
8 of the military are subject to processing by a military court for as long
9 as that person has that status. In these specific cases during the state
10 of war, a large number of soldiers or members of the military after the
11 state of war ends no longer are considered to be military personnel. And
12 in that case, the military court is no longer authorised unless the
13 process has already been initiated before the military court. If it's
14 still in the investigation phase, then the authorised civilian court
15 would deal with that case, and these cases would be handed over to the
16 authorised civilian court and prosecutor, except for those crimes which
17 fall specially under the jurisdiction of the military court, and we
18 mentioned those crimes a little bit earlier. And also for ongoing
19 proceedings that had been initiated before the military court, they would
20 be completed by the military court.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much for that assistance.
22 Now, the guide-lines will be received, Mr. Popovic.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00505.
24 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I was following the
25 interpretation of what the witness said in answer to your question, and I
1 fear that that is not entirely translated correctly. So now I am going
2 to go through each stage of the proceedings in order to clarify the
3 situation completely. Who becomes authorised at a particular moment.
4 We're talking about the civilian courts even though proceedings were
5 initiated before a military court.
6 Q. Sir, let's start from the time the proceedings are initiated.
7 How can a procedure be initiated pursuant to the rules of the Law on
8 Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Serbia or rather the Federal
9 Republic of Serbia at that point in time -- the Federal Republic of
11 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Any authorised prosecutor,
13 regardless of whether he's a military or civilian prosecutor, would
14 initiate criminal charges from his area of responsibility on the basis of
15 a criminal report submitted to them. It could be an individual, it could
16 be an organ of the interior, organs of the military police, or some
17 institution or facility. Well, this is that official channel. If the
18 charges are not submitted but one only hears of it, let's say the
19 prosecutor, then he's duty-bound to initiate the procedure and to obtain
20 other evidence and material in order to be able to initiate proceedings.
21 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Thank you. What I would just like to ask you is to be as precise
23 as possible so that we could clarify how these proceedings evolve. After
24 receiving a criminal report, what are then the steps undertaken by the
25 authorised -- by the competent body?
1 A. When a prosecutor receives the document, it would be a document
2 describing the nature of the charges and also specifying whether the
3 perpetrator is known or not known. With the criminal report, the person
4 submitting the report is obliged to present certain evidence that they
5 have at their disposal or that they obtained or to indicate where such
6 evidence could be found. On that basis, then the prosecutor would make
7 his decisions, if there was sufficient grounds to issue an indictment, if
8 its minor offence providing for an imprisonment of up to five years in
9 peacetime or in wartime, then the prosecutor can issue an indictment for
10 a specific offence against a specific perpetrator.
11 If there is insufficient such evidence, the prosecutor then would
12 issue a request for an investigation to be carried out and would submit
13 that request to the investigating judge, who then based on his
14 jurisdiction and competence - which is much broader - would then proceed
15 to obtain evidence and to conduct an investigation. Then this judge
16 would then go out into the field, carry out on-site investigation, engage
17 the professional and expert services in order to assist him in this work.
18 They're also obliged to provide all the available evidence and material
19 to the said investigating judge. Once the judge receives all of these
20 documents and once he believes that there are sufficient elements and
21 relevant evidence for the prosecutor to be able to make a decision, he
22 would then return the case to the prosecutor for him to decide whether he
23 would issue an indictment or not in the event that the evidence is
24 insufficient that this particular person did commit such an offence.
25 Q. All right. Let us stop here for a moment. First of all, what is
1 the dead-line provided for under the Law on Criminal Procedure within
2 which the investigative judge is required to complete his investigation?
3 A. In peacetime, this dead-line is six months; in wartime, the
4 dead-line is much shorter. But some investigations cannot actually be
5 completed within that time-period, but these are exceptional cases. And
6 in that case the investigating judge is able to obtain the requisite
7 evidence within the six months, unless the investigation is very
8 complicated and they are unable to carry out all these things within that
10 Q. From the time when the prosecutor submits a request for an
11 investigation to be carried out until the time the investigation is
12 completed - and you have mentioned that this can be a period of up to six
13 months - the perpetrator of the crime who was a member of the Army of
14 Yugoslavia at the time when he committed the crime or the offence in that
15 period ceases to be a member of the Army of Yugoslavia, which court would
16 in that case be competent to try him for the offence committed during the
18 A. In the event that the criminal procedure is not completed before
19 the military court, either during the investigation phase or the
20 sentencing or judgement phase or that the indictment did not go into
21 effect, then that case would be handed down to the competent court which
22 had territorial jurisdiction. This would be territorial local
23 jurisdiction. In specific case, since we are in a situation where the
24 war is no longer going on, most of the offences that happened in the
25 relevant period did occur in Kosovo and Metohija, and in that period the
1 courts with jurisdiction in Kosovo and Metohija were transferred to a
2 different territory, then these cases were handed to judges depending on
3 the place where the offence was committed. In case that this was not
4 possible, the Law on Criminal Procedure provides for the possibility of
5 procedure according to the permanent place of residence of the
6 perpetrator if this is known. A large number of offences were
7 unfortunately committed by perpetrators who at the time the procedure was
8 initiated, their place of residence was unknown. And the court,
9 regardless of whether it was a military or a civilian court, was still
10 obliged to continue compiling and collecting evidence until the
11 perpetrator was discovered and processed or until the statute of
12 limitations for that particular crime expires.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I hope that we have managed to
15 clarify the course of the proceedings.
16 Your Honours, I would like to move to quite a broad topic now.
17 All right -- I mean, I will begin anyway.
18 Can we please see document D011-1274.
19 Q. General, this is in tab 15 in your binder. General, you can see
20 in front of you information about the work of judicial organs during the
21 time of war. Just briefly, are you familiar with the document, and do
22 you know who drafted the document?
23 A. I am familiar with the document. I actually drafted this
24 information about the work of judicial organs in wartime.
25 Q. Thank you. Before we begin an analysis of this document, I'm
1 just going to ask you this: I see in the English version, in the upper
2 right-hand corner it says, 12th of September, 1999. General, sir, when
3 was this document compiled, and I would like to look at the last page of
4 the B/C/S version. This is page 2179 -- 1279 and 1285 in the English
5 version. This is the page. Thank you. And we can see here that the
6 date is the 12th of May, 1999. General, is this the date when the
7 document was compiled?
8 A. Yes, that's the date. This information I wrote on the 12th of
9 May, 1999, and this mistake that was there, this is somebody who actually
10 when this document was being presented to the prosecutor put the
11 numbering there by mistake. This error is something that I intervened
12 about in the Milutinovic case for this to be corrected, and I believe
13 that that's when it was corrected. So this is information from the 12th
14 of May, 1999.
15 Q. Thank you very much. I'm now going to ask that we go back to the
16 first page of the document. This is page 1275 in B/C/S and 1281 in the
17 English version. General, let us look at paragraph 1 where it says,
18 Formation. In the middle of the first paragraph of that section the
19 sentence begins:
20 "A total of 24 military courts and 24 military prosecutors'
21 offices have been set up in military districts, corps, corps commands,
22 and the commands of strategic groups. A decree issued by the SFRY
23 president appointed 88 prosecutors, 149 judges, and 421 judge-jurors,
24 while 245 lawyers were promoted to the rank of reserve officer in the
25 legal service."
1 If I'm not mistaken, this is information that you mentioned in a
2 previous document of yours, and it's just summarised here?
3 A. That is correct. This data was given as of on May 12th. That
4 was the status on May 12th. The numbers here are a little different
5 because after this date some things were also done, and this information,
6 which I drafted after I had toured all the courts and prosecutors'
7 offices that existed -- these 20 basic courts and prosecutors' offices
8 and departments in the commands of the army districts, I also went to see
9 the Supreme Court and the prosecutor's office. I actually went to those
10 locations. I informed myself about the -- their manner of work. And on
11 the basis of what I saw and on the basis of reports I received from them,
12 I drafted this information about the situation and the work of judicial
13 organs. I also passed this information on -- the object of this
14 information was to provide the General Staff with all the key information
15 that I believed they needed to be informed about.
16 Q. My next question is to whom -- for whom was this information
17 intended? I think that we cannot see that specifically from your answer,
18 so could you please tell us.
19 A. The information was primarily intended for the Supreme Command
20 Staff, for their information. They were monitoring the situation and
21 were interested in knowing what it was. So this was an overview. As of
22 this date some excerpts from this information were passed through other
23 reports to their subordinates, to the 2nd and 3rd Army because -- and the
24 navy because I had provided a brief overview of each of those sections
25 and each of those courts. And of course I suggested certain measures
1 that needed to be taken.
2 Q. Thank you. Can we now look at the next page in the B/C/S and the
3 English version.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Popovic, I'm afraid we've reached our time.
5 Can you hold yourself in patience until tomorrow?
6 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Absolutely.
7 JUDGE PARKER: We have to adjourn now because another Chamber
8 will occupy the courtroom.
9 We must adjourn now and continue tomorrow morning at 9.00.
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,
11 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 28th day of
12 January, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.