Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 10751

 1                           Thursday, 4 February 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.09 a.m.

 5             JUDGE PARKER:  Good morning.  Seems to have been a little

 6     confusion this morning at the change of courtrooms, which I did mention

 7     last night before we broke.  This morning Judge Baird is not feeling

 8     well.  It is hoped that he will be able to join us during the morning but

 9     whether that can happen or not, we will continue to sit under Rule 15

10     bis.

11             If we could have the witness.

12                           [The witness takes the stand]

13             JUDGE PARKER:  Good morning.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

15             JUDGE PARKER:  I remind you that the affirmation you made to tell

16     the truth still applies, and Mr. Djurdjic is continuing his questions.

17                           WITNESS:  DJORDJE CURCIN [Resumed]

18                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

19                           Examination in chief by Mr. Djurdjic:  [Continued]

20        Q.   Thank you, Your Honour.  Good morning, General, sir.

21        A.   Good morning.

22        Q.   If we may, I would like to continue where we left off yesterday

23     and that is the organisational chart drawn by the General.

24             MR. DJURDJIC:  [Interpretation] Your Honour, can I tender this

25     hard copy now of the diagram into evidence, or should we use the machine?

Page 10752

 1             JUDGE PARKER:  We will be getting some explanation of this

 2     diagram, I take it?

 3             MR. DJURDJIC:  [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

 4        Q.   General, could you please explain the diagram that you have drawn

 5     for us.

 6        A.   First of all, I would like to apologise because it doesn't look

 7     so great, but it was not the best way to draw it on the desk with the

 8     binder underneath, but in any case, this command diagram is considerably

 9     different from the one that I saw yesterday drawn by somebody from the

10     Prosecutor's Office.  What exactly is the difference?  The main thing is

11     that the Supreme Defence Council in peacetime is the Supreme Command in

12     war time headed by the president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

13     who pursuant to the constitution and the law and we heard the appropriate

14     articles commands in peacetime and war time the Army of Yugoslavia in

15     accordance to the Supreme Defence Council.

16             In that sense, at the strategic level, you have the Supreme

17     Command staff as the professional staff organ of the Supreme Command,

18     that's why it's called the Supreme Command staff.  It this is headed by

19     the Chief of the Supreme Command staff, so that is one level of

20     commanding.

21             As we can see, the president of the Federal Republic of

22     Yugoslavia, that box has two lines leading down because the president

23     commands the strategic groups as the supreme commander, so the president

24     of the FRY, the supreme commander, commands the 1st, 2nd, and the 3rd

25     Army, the navy, and the air force and anti-aircraft Defence.  Then you

Page 10753

 1     have a dotted line underneath the Chief of the Supreme Command staff

 2     because he can pursuant to decision by the Supreme Command also issues

 3     orders, tasks to the strategic groups pursuant to the decisions of the

 4     supreme commander and the Supreme Command.  The difference between this

 5     diagram and the one we saw yesterday lies in the fact that there we have

 6     a separate level of command, the Supreme Defence Council, the Supreme

 7     Command are separate and then underneath that you have the Supreme

 8     Command staff and Chief of Staff.  That would mean that these are two

 9     separate levels of command and would imply that the Supreme Command would

10     have to have considerably more people in order to be able to put into

11     practice the decisions of the supreme commander pursuant to conclusions

12     of the Supreme Defence Council.  So there is a considerable difference

13     there.

14        Q.   Thank you.  I just want to ask you this:  We see the strategic

15     groups here.  Within the 3rd Army would you be able to tell us what were

16     the subordinate organisational units there?

17        A.    Both in peace time and war time, there were a number of them.

18     At this point I'm just going to focus on the war time situation and if

19     necessary, I can also provide explanations for circumstances in

20     peacetime.  The 3rd Army commander had under his command the following

21     units:  The Nis Corps, the Pristina Corps, the Nis Military District and

22     the Pristina military district; some independence and staff units such as

23     the armour unit, communications regiment, reconnaissance units, military

24     police units and so on, and we also had two logistics bases:  One was in

25     Nis for the territory covered by the Nis Corps that provided materiel and

Page 10754

 1     equipment to all the Nis Corps units and other units in that area, and

 2     one base in Kosovo and Metohija or in Pristina which served the logistics

 3     needs of all the units that were located in Kosovo and Metohija.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Can you please tell me how the chain of command

 5     functioned in the Army of Yugoslavia in the course of 1999?

 6        A.   During 1999, we have two periods which would be of interest for

 7     this Court.  The first one was from the 1st of January until the 24th of

 8     March, and the second one from the 24th of March until the 20th of June.

 9     The chain of command was the one defined by the laws and the constitution

10     so the Supreme Command council in peace time; in war time the supreme

11     commander commanded the strategic groups directly or through the Chief of

12     the Supreme Command staff or the Chief of the General Staff.

13        Q.   Thank you.  I'm interested in the Supreme Defence Council.

14     Yesterday we looked at the composition so we know that.  Who had the

15     right of decision-making in the Supreme Defence Council?

16        A.   I'm not sure that I spoke in more detail about the Supreme

17     Defence Council, but I am going to just say one sentence.  The Supreme

18     Defence Council, according to the constitution, comprised the president

19     of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the president of the Republic of

20     Serbia, and the president of the Republic of Montenegro.  That was the

21     full composition and the only composition of the Supreme Defence Council.

22             Let me add also, all of these members, these three presidents,

23     made the decisions and agreed on matters, and whatever they agreed on

24     then the president of the FRY then formulated that into orders, commands

25     and so on and so forth.  In war time, that was the Supreme Command.  That

Page 10755

 1     body.  Since I did say we had two periods which is up until the 24th of

 2     March and after the 24th of March, so exclusively through the president

 3     of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Chief of the Supreme

 4     Command staff orders went down to commanders of the strategic formations.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Are you aware if any other persons attended meetings

 6     of the Supreme Defence Council and if yes, what was their role?

 7        A.   Yes, I am aware that from time to time depending on the topic

 8     that was being discussed at the Supreme Defence Council, the president of

 9     the Supreme Defence Council would invite certain people to attend.  Most

10     frequently it was the minister of defence that was invited, the prime

11     minister, the Chief of the General Staff and some other ministers

12     depending on the sphere or the topic that was being discussed.  These

13     persons could not participate in the decision-making or the voting.

14     These persons were only there to reply to questions and to propose.  I

15     know this amongst other things because I occasionally participated in the

16     preparation of the material for the Chief of General Staff.  That would

17     be used for the meeting of the Supreme Defence Council.

18        Q.   Thank you.  I'm interested in two things, but we can take it one

19     by one.  First of all, during the aggression, how did the communication

20     proceed between the Supreme Command staff and the Chief of Staff with the

21     Supreme Defence Council?  Are you informed about that?

22        A.   I have already said that the Supreme Command and the Supreme

23     Command staff is one body.  They were at the same location, the same

24     command post.  So where we were in the Supreme Command staff that is also

25     where the Supreme Command was.  I know that they were in contact on a

Page 10756

 1     daily basis and that the Chief of the Supreme Command staff had the unit

 2     at least once a day to meet and to see members of the Supreme Defence

 3     Council who were at the command post.  They communicated probably by

 4     telephone, even though it was only that they were two floors apart, or

 5     they also communicated through the military cabinets.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Could you please inform us a little bit more about

 7     the reporting to the members of the Supreme Defence Council during the

 8     aggression and even before 1999, how were they informed?

 9        A.   During the aggression every morning by 6.00 a.m. the combat

10     report that we had the opportunity to see yesterday was provided to the

11     military cabinet of the president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,

12     and it was for the president of Yugoslavia and also for the president of

13     the Republic of Serbia, Mr. Milutinovic.  There was a separate report, I

14     mean the same report was sent to other persons that usually received such

15     reports primarily it was sent to the minister of defence who was not at

16     the command post.  The president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

17     would read the report by 8.00 and the attachments, and at that time

18     around 8.00 a.m. he would call or would go himself to the Chief of Staff

19     of the Supreme Command to discuss the situation.  I know this because

20     this is something that the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command General

21     Ojdanic told me several times that he would be surprised that the

22     president had studied the report and the attachments especially reports

23     of the 3rd Army command that were sent as attachments.  He would put some

24     questions only that needed to be clarified because he was more or less

25     familiar with the situation on the basis of the written report.

Page 10757

 1        Q.   Thank you.  General, you are now retired.  Let me ask you this:

 2     When a military person and a general is retired, does he have access to

 3     documents of military nature that are now topical that are part of the

 4     current work?

 5        A.   No.  Although I'm a lieutenant-general and used to work in that

 6     first administration, I do not have access to any document short of

 7     passing through a special procedure.  Nobody has the right to share

 8     documents with third parties even if these third parties are retired

 9     generals.

10        Q.   General, are there any rules in the Army of Yugoslavia, were

11     there any rules when you were active, about the safekeeping and archiving

12     of documents?

13        A.   Yes, there are rules of office management concerning the drafting

14     of documents and safekeeping and archiving of documents.  Every document

15     that is produced is recorded in the register and so is every document

16     received from another command.  At the end of the year, all of these are

17     archived, only originals though.

18             And another thing, the Chief of the Supreme Command staff ordered

19     on the 23rd of April, 1999 when a state of immediate threat of war was

20     proclaimed that a special register should be opened to register all the

21     incoming and ongoing documents, and that stayed in place until the 20th

22     of June, 1999.  At the same time, the Chief of the Supreme Command staff

23     ordered that all these documents, all these originals be kept and

24     collected into archives at the end of the war.  Under that written order

25     from the Chief of the Supreme Command staff, I was tasked with organising

Page 10758

 1     the archiving of all documents from the Supreme Command staff and all the

 2     documents that the Supreme Command staff received from subordinate units.

 3     Let me emphasise that at the command post 1 register was kept at the

 4     office administration, and that is where all the documents were logged.

 5     Ingoing and -- incoming and outgoing.  There was another register in the

 6     office of the Chief of the Supreme Command staff because various parties

 7     such as ministers, politicians, businessmen often met with him and

 8     addressed him, and that's why this register was kept.

 9             Another service, namely the security administration, had its own

10     register.

11        Q.   General, would the fact that a stamp of the archives is found on

12     a certain document mean that the document is authentic?

13        A.   Not necessarily.  Depends on some other elements, although I

14     would like to explain this using a specific example.  If there are no

15     other stamps or signatures, and I would be able to establish that as a

16     professional, then the document would still not be authentic.

17        Q.   Since you asked for an example I would like to take you back to

18     two documents we saw today.  One of them is dated 25 of May 1999 sent by

19     the 3rd Army to the Supreme Command staff.

20             MR. DJURDJIC:  [Interpretation] It's P888.

21        Q.   And in your binder it's 32.

22             JUDGE PARKER:  Before we move on, are you going to deal with this

23     document?

24             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]  We dealt only with -- oh, you

25     mean the diagram?  Thank you, Your Honours.  I tender the diagram drawn

Page 10759

 1     by the witness.

 2             JUDGE PARKER:  Could the display again show the diagram, please.

 3     Thank you.  Before we receive it, I need to get a couple of things more

 4     clear.  VSO-VK, what does that stand for?  What is that the abbreviation

 5     for?  Could you help us?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] VSO is Supreme Defence Council.

 7     It's the Supreme Command in war time.  Supreme Defence Council equals

 8     Supreme Command in war time.  And then we see an acronym for the Supreme

 9     Command staff and VK means Supreme Command.

10             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.  Below that you have, I believe, the

11     president of the federal republic on your diagram.  He was the president

12     of the Supreme Defence Council?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  The president of the Federal

14     Republic of Yugoslavia was also chairman or president of the Supreme

15     Defence Council and from that we drew the conclusion that he was also the

16     supreme commander in war time.

17             JUDGE PARKER:  The other members of the Defence Council that you

18     mentioned are the presidents of Serbia and Montenegro; is that correct?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

20             JUDGE PARKER:  In peacetime, did that Supreme Defence Council

21     exist?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, and it was convened from time

23     to time at the request of the president, and it also had a standing

24     secretary General Susic who kept minutes, records, produced documents,

25     et cetera.

Page 10760

 1             JUDGE PARKER:  In peacetime, could the Supreme Defence Council

 2     issue orders to the military?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've already said that both in

 4     peacetime and in war time, the armies under the command of the president

 5     of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in keeping with the decisions of

 6     the Supreme Defence Council, therefore the Supreme Defence Council as a

 7     collective body did not issue assignments and tasks.  That was done by

 8     the president in peacetime and in war time.

 9             JUDGE PARKER:  I would understand that at some time earlier than

10     March of 1999, the Supreme Defence Council comprised the presidents of

11     the different republics of Serbia as well as the president of the federal

12     republic; is that correct?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I did not quite

14     understand because at that time there were only two republics, Serbia and

15     Montenegro.

16             JUDGE PARKER:  There must have been at some time presidents of

17     Croatia, for example, Slovenia.  Were they parts of the Supreme Defence

18     Council?  Were they members of it at a time earlier than March of 1999?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps ten years before that.

20     Until 1991 there was a body called the Supreme Command.  And presidents

21     of all republics, Slovenia, Macedonia, Croatia, et cetera were

22     represented on it.  The president of Yugoslavia was at the head.

23     However, after the break-up, after 1991, they did not participate any

24     longer in the work of this body, the Supreme Defence Council.

25             JUDGE PARKER:  I ask the questions in that way because it seems

Page 10761

 1     to me that the Supreme Defence Council was a body that brought together

 2     the political heads of the different components of the federal republic;

 3     is that correct?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 5             JUDGE PARKER:  And as you say in 1999, there were the republics

 6     of Serbia and of Montenegro as well as the president of the federal

 7     republic?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 9             JUDGE PARKER:  Now, also on your diagram below the president of

10     the federal republic you have SVK.  Could you tell us what that is?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  This acronym which is actually SVK

12     is there because the General Staff was actually the staff body for

13     preparing, organising, and executing combat activity.  The acronym means

14     Supreme Command staff.  It was the staff of the Supreme Command.

15             JUDGE PARKER:  If the president of the -- or the chairman of the

16     Supreme Defence Council, that is the president of the federal republic,

17     by decision of the Supreme Defence Council wished to issue an order to

18     all or some of the strategic elements of the army, would the staff that

19     you have designated there prepare that order for the president?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

21             JUDGE PARKER:  And that staff was headed by the Chief of the

22     Supreme Command staff?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Yes.  At the head of this Supreme

24     Command staff was a chief, specifically Colonel Dragomir Ojdanic, who

25     before that was Chief of the General Staff.  And in war time, he became

Page 10762

 1     Chief of the Supreme Command staff.

 2             JUDGE PARKER:  You've already answered my next question.  The

 3     Chief of the General Staff and the Chief of the Supreme Command staff

 4     were in fact the same person, they just changed names when war was

 5     declared?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're right.

 7             JUDGE PARKER:  Now, below the SVK you have another box.  What is

 8     that?  Nacelnik SVK it appears to be or some such, you'll have to pardon

 9     my Serbian pronunciation.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Following the same procedure, the

11     same logic, when I said that the person number one in the Supreme Command

12     was the president of Yugoslavia, I also tried to explain that the Chief

13     of the General Staff was at the head of the Supreme Command staff under

14     those circumstances.

15             JUDGE PARKER:  So that lower box is the Chief of the Supreme

16     Command staff?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

18             JUDGE PARKER:  In peacetime, is it really the effect of what you

19     are saying that the Supreme Command -- sorry, the Supreme Defence Council

20     rarely met, so for the most part it was for the General Staff to command

21     the army?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Supreme Defence Council met in

23     peacetime, and as far as I know, there are stenographic minutes from all

24     the meetings of the Supreme Defence Council.  I had occasion to see them.

25     In peacetime, the General Staff did its job based on those decisions and

Page 10763

 1     the decisions of the president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia who

 2     was supreme commander.

 3             Now, considering that the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command

 4     executed many tasks in the army on behalf of the president, he headed

 5     this body and that's why he is represented on the diagram with an

 6     interrupted line because the exclusive right to command the army in

 7     peacetime and in war time belonged to the president of Yugoslavia.

 8             JUDGE PARKER:  It seems to me that the effect of what you are

 9     saying really is that there were changes of name in war time, and maybe

10     the Supreme Defence Council became much more active, but really there was

11     no fundamental change to the command structure?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, or rather, no, there was no

13     change in the structure, but there was a change of name, and the Supreme

14     Command staff was much smaller than the General Staff was in peace.

15             JUDGE PARKER:  That's a very interesting observation on

16     efficiency.  I noted that in your evidence earlier.

17             The president of the federal republic held his authority as

18     president of the Supreme Defence Council; is that correct?  His authority

19     to command the army was because he was president of the Supreme Defence

20     Council?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, and because the Law on Defence

22     in certain articles that we read yesterday, I believe, it is stipulated

23     that he is the only one who is entitled to command the army in peacetime

24     and in war time.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Perhaps you can help me as well.  Were the prime

Page 10764

 1     minister of the federal republic and the republics of Serbia and

 2     Montenegro and the minister of defence of the federal republic not

 3     involved in this structure?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm afraid you misunderstood me.

 5     Only the minister of defence does not belong in this body.  This body

 6     includes the president of Yugoslavia, the president of Serbia, the

 7     president of Montenegro.  They are the three members of the Supreme

 8     Defence Council.  The minister of the Defence, the Chief of the General

 9     Staff, and the federal minister are invited occasionally to discuss

10     specific matters at the Supreme Defence Council, and they do not have the

11     right of vote.

12             JUDGE PARKER:  The question of Judge Fluegge arises from a

13     comment you made earlier.  You would understand the prime minister and

14     the president to be the same person, or a separate person?  Two different

15     people?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The president is one thing, and the

17     federal prime minister is another thing.  Sometimes, and that may cause

18     confusion, we call prime minister president of the government.  He was

19     invited occasionally to the sessions.

20             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes, but they were not -- the presidents of the

21     governments of the Federal Republic Serbia and Montenegro were not by the

22     law members of the Supreme Defence Council?  They could be invited to

23     attend; is that correct?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know of a single case when

25     prime ministers, that is presidents of the governments of the constituent

Page 10765

 1     republics, were invited to a session of the Supreme Defence Council.  We

 2     have somewhat a different attitude towards prime ministers.  The

 3     president of a republic represents the republic, and the prime minister

 4     probably plays a more modest role than in western countries.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you for that explanation.  What about the

 6     minister for defence?  Was he not part of this structure, the chain of

 7     command?  Didn't he take part in any decisions or meetings?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.  He is not in this chain of

 9     command.  He is subordinated to the federal prime minister.  He has

10     civilian authority and the civilian supervisor of the army.  He may

11     attend certain sessions depending on the subject matter, in which case he

12     would be invited and provided with background material in good time, and

13     he may participate in discussion, but he does not have the right of vote.

14     That's how it was according to the constitution and the law.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

16             JUDGE PARKER:  This diagram drawn by the witness will be

17     received.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit Number D00566.  Thank you, Your

19     Honours.

20             JUDGE PARKER:  Now, I interrupted you, you were moving on,

21     Mr. Djurdjic.

22             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]  After questions like this, it's

23     almost a shame for me to continue.  I had asked for a document though.

24        Q.   Tab 32, General.

25        A.   I think I found it, but maybe you could sort of clear the screen

Page 10766

 1     so I could follow.

 2             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness see the document

 3     on the -- sorry, could the witness look at the transcript instead of the

 4     document.  You don't have to look at me.

 5        Q.   This document is a report from the 3rd command -- 3rd Army

 6     command, 25 May 1999, strictly confidential, 872-94/1-2.  There's no

 7     stamp that it was archived.  If this document found its way into the

 8     archives, could we establish when it was created?

 9        A.   In my humble opinion, this document could never find its way into

10     the archives because it's not complete.  It's true that there is a number

11     and the time on the first page which tells us something about its

12     provenance, but on the second page, certain elements that would make the

13     document acceptable and valid are missing.

14             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]  Can I ask for the second page in

15     English, please.

16        Q.   You may go on.

17        A.   Can I also see the -- yeah, thank you.  It's the same as my hard

18     copy.  There is a signature, there is a stamp, but I cannot say whether

19     it's real or not, but there is evidence in the form of stamp and date

20     that this document arrived at the command of the -- at the Supreme

21     Command staff, and it was registered.

22             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]  P1505 is the next document I

23     would like to request.

24        Q.   General, sir, we can see the document.  It's a telegram of the

25     4th of June, 1999, from the 3rd Army command sent to the Supreme Command

Page 10767

 1     staff, ground forces sector.  Could you please look at the document and

 2     then tell us?

 3             JUDGE PARKER:  While that's happening, Mr. Djurdjic, we don't

 4     know the number of the previous document.  Is it an exhibit?

 5             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]  P88, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

 7             MR. DJURDJIC:  [Interpretation] For the transcript, it's P888.

 8     That's the previous document.

 9        Q.   Sir, looking at this telegram again, what can you tell us as to

10     its authenticity?

11        A.   Thank you.  The document has something that the other one does

12     not have that does not have enough elements to for me to be able to

13     assert that it is a valid one; namely, there is no signature of the

14     commander, there is no signature by the Chief of Staff, there is no

15     stamp that would certify each of the signatures, that of the commander

16     and that of the Chief of Staff.  There is no rectangular stamp at the

17     bottom indicating the time of dispatch, the time of receipt, and the time

18     it was received at the Supreme Command staff.  So that stamp that is

19     there, I can tell that it's the archives stamp, that's possible, but a

20     document like this should not have and must not have been accepted into

21     the archive.  I note that it was my administration that was responsible

22     for the collection of all the documents, our documents from the Supreme

23     Command staff and subordinate archives before they were handed over to

24     the archives, so all the war time documentation was handed into the

25     archive so my chief would not accept or pass on to the archives a

Page 10768

 1     document of this type.

 2             There is something else that I've noticed.  The heading of this

 3     document says, 3rd Army command, ground forces sector.  You can see that

 4     ground forces sector, reading it quickly in this telegram, that would not

 5     be the sector authorised to deal with these questions.  Underneath that

 6     when it says, Reference, SVK and then strictly confidential 03/ and so on

 7     and so forth, I know because the recording of documents was in my

 8     jurisdiction, so the ground forces sector is -- has the marking 02.  03

 9     is the air force and anti-aircraft defence sector, so it's not clear why

10     they would be sending it to the ground forces sector, but the reference

11     would be to the air force, and the operations staff and the operations

12     administration would be writing to subordinate organs.

13             When you analyse this you can very quickly see that this is a

14     telegram which even has some seven or eight addressees to whom it would

15     be dispatched.  Not everyone is authorised for ammunition, for artillery,

16     for some unrest among the population, the role of certain officials in

17     disbanding units and so on and so forth.

18        Q.   Thank you, General, sir, just one thing, regardless of this

19     discrepancy as to whom it was sent and so on, had it be been received by

20     the Supreme Command staff, would this be noted or marked on this document

21     regardless of the organisational unit?

22        A.   Yes, in any case there would be a stamp, a date, a number

23     indicating that it was received and when it was received in the Supreme

24     Command staff.  A telegram like this, if it is authentic, I conclude that

25     it was not received, and I do not remember it.

Page 10769

 1        Q.   Thank you.  Had such a telegram been expedited from the 3rd Army,

 2     would it have to have an indication that it was dispatched?

 3        A.   Yes, it would have to have a stamp, the time, the date,

 4     indicating when it was dispatched, when it was processed, when it arrived

 5     at the Supreme Command staff and so on and so forth.  We had the

 6     opportunity to see yesterday during previous documents my previous

 7     testimony what such a document was supposed to look like so we did have

 8     proper examples of such documents.

 9             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]  Thank you.  Can we now look at

10     document 65 ter Defence list 871 or --

11             JUDGE PARKER:  Before you move on, Mr. Djurdjic, I wonder whether

12     the Chamber can be assisted more.  Two documents now, Exhibit P888 and

13     P1505.  The witness has said things which indicate that he can't confirm

14     that it is authentic.  Is the witness saying that what we are looking at

15     may be a document that was not properly dealt with at the time, or is he

16     saying this is not a real document?  There's something that suggests that

17     it is not authentic.  Is the witness saying something about either of

18     those things, or what is he saying?

19             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]  Your Honour, I was afraid to put

20     a question like that to the witness.

21        Q.   Please, sir, could you respond to the question put by His Honour

22     Judge Parker.

23        A.   I'm going to be very cautious regarding the previous one, I don't

24     remember the number of the 25th of May, that telegram I assert did not

25     reach the General Staff while I was at the General Staff because

Page 10770

 1     definitely I would have seen it, familiarised myself with it, and would

 2     have had to react pursuant to it.  As for this telegram, all I'm saying

 3     is that I did not see, we did not discuss it, and it was not included in

 4     our analysis and that the evening collegium during war time and sometime

 5     later, neither of the telegrams were discussed.

 6             What can be drawn as a conclusion on the basis of that is

 7     something that I am leaving up to the Court, and perhaps the Prosecutor

 8     will also have the opportunity to deal with this in more detail.

 9             JUDGE PARKER:  That's the difficulty, you see.  These both appear

10     to be routine documents of the Yugoslav Army, I think in each case

11     documents that emanate from the 3rd Army.  And you are either saying,

12     well, this is a document which didn't comply in all respects with what

13     was normal and proper, and I don't remember seeing it at the Supreme

14     Command staff, or is it that it could be the case that this was not a

15     document at the time at all and for some reason, by some means within the

16     army it has been created since May and June of 1999?  It's a document

17     from within your army, and we need some guidance whether this is a

18     document that existed at the time, although it may have been imperfectly

19     dealt with under administrative arrangements, or alternatively, whether

20     this is a document that appears not to be genuine?  Are you able to help

21     us about that, you may not be able to?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will try, but there are a lot of

23     questions that I have.  First of all, these are not usual documents by

24     format, the typing, the signature, the items, and so on and so forth, but

25     since some very important things are missing proving that the document

Page 10771

 1     was received, then I can openly say that this did not arrive at the

 2     General Staff at that time in 1999.  I recall the first one definitely,

 3     and this one too was never discussed.  How can you believe that it is

 4     usual that neither the commander nor the Chief of Staff did not sign the

 5     second page of this document?  We don't see it here, but perhaps we could

 6     look at the second page of this document, sir.

 7             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]  Could the usher please show us

 8     page 2 of this document.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, excellent.  This document

10     without any signatures, without the initials of the person who typed it,

11     without a stamp, how can this be -- the document then be considered as an

12     authentic document?  I say that it cannot be considered authentic.

13     Beneath this stamp you would need to have another stamp about the

14     encryption where it would indicate when the document was dispatched, when

15     it was received, then you would also need to have a rectangular stamp

16     with the register number from the administration, operations

17     administration indicating the number it was recorded under.  I can show

18     you or look at a number of properly processed documents and then on the

19     basis of that you could clearly see what is missing in this document.  On

20     the basis of that, I conclude that it is an improper document and not an

21     authentic one.

22             The archive stamp at the top right-hand corner that is there does

23     not really say anything and cannot compensate for the lack of these other

24     verification stamps.  Perhaps I hope that we will look at another

25     document that contains all the proper elements and then I can point out

Page 10772

 1     to them -- point them out and say yes, they exist on that document but on

 2     this one, however, they are not there.

 3             JUDGE PARKER:  Are you saying that telegrams were signed before

 4     they were sent?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you could not send a telegram

 6     unless it was signed by the person who wrote it because I could send a

 7     telegram on behalf of the commander, the Chief of Staff.  The encryption

 8     department has to have the signature proving that that was the signature

 9     of the person sending or ordering the telegram.

10             We have the situation here that the 3rd Army command resorted to

11     a signature by some other person.  For example, what it says here is the

12     telegram can be sent, and it's then -- below that it says, Chief of

13     Staff, Major-General Ljubisa Stojmirovic.  He was the second ranking

14     person in the staff so then you had this option, but in that case General

15     Stojmirovic would have had to sign it so that the telegram could have

16     been dispatched.  Again I say some other elements are missing here, and

17     I'm saying that if we encounter those in other elements during my

18     testimony I can point them out to you so then you can see exactly what

19     indicated that a telegram was sent from the 3rd Army command and received

20     by the General Staff.

21             JUDGE PARKER:  The technology that you are used to may be

22     different from what I was familiar with.  I can understand that at the

23     3rd Army the commander or the author or his second in command would sign

24     a document intended to be send by telegram to the Supreme Command, but

25     the signed document, in my understanding, would remain at the 3rd Army

Page 10773

 1     and what would be sent would be a telegram that did not include the

 2     original signatures.  Do I have a wrong idea about the technology?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, you didn't misunderstand the

 4     technology, but I would like to clarify.  If we take that variant, then

 5     in that case the original signed telegram had to be in the encryption

 6     department until the encryptions officer completed his work and

 7     dispatched the telegram.  Once it arrived at the end user, the original

 8     of the telegram with the stamp and the signature would be returned to the

 9     archive.  So in that case, we would have the opportunity to look at the

10     original document from the army command which is original.  Here it's not

11     the original document, it wasn't archived, this is some sort of copy.  I

12     don't know how it came about, how it came to where it came, and I still

13     stand by my assertion that it is not a valid copy.

14             Perhaps I could help by --

15             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you for that.  Sorry to be -- Mr. Djurdjic,

16     carry on.

17             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]  No, excellent intervention.  Let

18     us clarify, General.

19        Q.   The next document will have the stamps and all of that, but His

20     Honour Judge Parker asked you very nicely, the first copy I don't call

21     that a telegram, I call that a text that has to be dispatched with the

22     teleprinter or some other machine.  I call it the first copy or the

23     original.  Does that have to be signed by the author when it arrives at

24     the encryption station?

25        A.   Yes.  If I may --

Page 10774

 1        Q.   Yes, yes, let me continue.  You can add some things later.  Do we

 2     see any signature on the document that we are looking at now?

 3        A.   No.

 4        Q.   And can this copy be that first original copy on the basis of

 5     which a document is dispatched from the communications centre?

 6        A.   Absolutely not.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  And now, this copy that we see, had it been sent from

 8     the communication centre of the 3rd Army, what would it need to have at

 9     the bottom?

10        A.   I was at liberty to leaf through the document.  Forgive me for

11     not answering directly, but in tab 23, we have a similar example from the

12     3rd Army --

13        Q.   Just one moment.

14        A.   Yes, it's tab 23 in my binder, and if you can call document on

15     the -- on the e-court.

16             MR. DJURDJIC:  [Interpretation] I have that, Your Honours, as

17     D204, and can we look at that on the screen.

18        Q.   We can see the document, go ahead and you can explain.

19        A.   I apologise again, but I knew that we did have documents like

20     that.  This is an original authentic valid document.  We have the

21     signature of the commander.  We have the stamp of the 3rd Army next to

22     the commander's signature.  We have the addressee, and at the bottom we

23     have the rectangular telegram where it states when it was dispatched,

24     received, processed, and another stamp proving all of that and then at

25     the end in the upper right-hand corner we have the stamp of the archive.

Page 10775

 1             We did not have any of those other elements except for the

 2     archive stamp in the document that we were looking at just now, and the

 3     document of the 25th of May.  I'm going to be happy and satisfied if I've

 4     helped to understand the difference, and I think the difference is very

 5     evident between the first, second, and the third document.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  What you have just said at the end, is that something

 7     that you read from the stamp?  Did you read the time of dispatch and the

 8     date?  I think you said something else that was under the signature.

 9        A.   The date is indicated on the stamp.  It's stamped.  The time of

10     the telegram was received at 1055 hours.

11        Q.   Yes, that's all I wanted to hear you made a lapse so it's been

12     corrected.

13             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]  Now can we look at P1505.

14        Q.   Let us now look at this option:  Expediting a telegram from the

15     3rd Army, then it arrives at the Supreme Command staff.  What would that

16     copy of the telegram, the one that was received, have to contain?

17        A.    Other than the things that we have seen and this is evidence

18     that this is the first copy from the 3rd Army, once that arrives at the

19     Supreme Command staff or some other address, it would need to have the

20     stamp, the date of its registration in the log-book, that it was received

21     at the address or the Supreme Command staff.  We have such stamps so I'm

22     going to perhaps point them out if we encountered such one.

23        Q.   Sir, can we look at your tab 27 and 871 on the 65 ter list, and

24     that is exhibit or document 405265 of the Prosecution.

25             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]  It's P1449 I have just been told.

Page 10776

 1        Q.   General, sir, have you found the document?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   We see here that a document was sent from the 3rd Army command on

 4     the 20th of April, 1999.  It's a telegram.  With respect to the

 5     suggestions, can we now look at page 2 of the document in order to

 6     comment on it in respect of the previous question.  Can you please read

 7     this text, I do have a question about it.

 8             General, sir, is the term "joint command" mentioned anywhere in

 9     this telegram?

10        A.   Just reading through the document quickly, I did not come up with

11     the term "joint command."

12        Q.   All right.  Thank you.  Since in the previous transcript we have

13     something like this, let's look at page 2 of this document, and can you

14     please comment regarding the previous question about how the document was

15     received and what was then noted later or subsequently?

16        A.   Perhaps I'm going to disappoint you a little bit with my answer.

17     We don't have everything that we would need to have because this is a

18     again an example from the 3rd Army and not one that was received by the

19     General Staff; namely, we do have a stamp here when this was sent at 1155

20     hours when it was processed, when it was received at 1205 hours, however,

21     this is evidence for the encryption -- of encryption in the 3rd Army.

22             What do we have underneath that?  The addressees.  This is

23     something that was added by the person received -- who received the

24     telegram.  The telegram was sent to the chief -- the deputy -- the

25     assistant Chief of the Supreme Command staff, and it was supposed to be

Page 10777

 1     sent to the chief of the operations administration and the chief of the

 2     ground forces administration, and they were supposed to be informed of

 3     the contents of this telegram in order to be able to react.  The stamp at

 4     the bottom without the without the date, however, is proof by Colonel

 5     Vujic that the copy reflects the original when the telegram was sent, and

 6     I see the familiar number in the upper right-hand corner.

 7        Q.   Thank you, General, sir.

 8             MR. DJURDJIC:  [Interpretation] Can we now look at document

 9     D006-0389, please.

10        Q.   This is tab 28 in your binder, General, sir.  I apologise.  Can

11     you just briefly tell us whether this is again a document pertaining to

12     the Rogovo sector, and what does this order refer to?

13        A.   Yes, I recall discussing the matter of Rogovo at least on two

14     occasions, sometime on the 18th of May.  No, I apologise, on the 17th and

15     the 18th of April and here on the 20th of May.  We needed here to repeat

16     our order to the commander of the 3rd and the 2nd Army to organise joint

17     action in the area where the 2nd and 3rd Army overlapped because

18     evidently the Rogovo action from the telegram of the 17th was not

19     implemented correctly, and it had to be repeated again.  We are pointing

20     out to them what we wrote previously and what the chief of the staff

21     ordered earlier to organise close co-operation in order to prevent the

22     terrorists from spilling over into the territory of Kosovo and Metohija.

23        Q.   Thank you.

24             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]  Your Honours, could I tender this

25     document, please.

Page 10778

 1             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  As document Exhibit Number D00567.  Thank you,

 3     Your Honours.

 4             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]  Could we look at document

 5     D006-0779, please.

 6        Q.   This is tab 29.

 7             MR. DJURDJIC:  [Interpretation] Can we now please turn to page 54

 8     in Serbian and page 40 in English.

 9        Q.   This is an overview of the archives of the Army of Yugoslavia for

10     the years 1998, 1999, sir.

11             General, under number 112, I would like to ask you to tell us

12     what type of document that is, who drafted it.  We can see that the date

13     is there.

14        A.   Yes.  Next to number 112, this is page 50 in my document.  It

15     states that the type of document, this is in column 2, it says that it's

16     a suggestion.  Then column 3 indicates that this was sent by the Supreme

17     Command staff.  The classification is strictly confidential.  The number

18     is 01/ --

19             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter is unable to see the number.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 014801, then we have a brief

21     content, and it says, The suggestion to the commander of the 3rd Army to

22     take measures to consolidate the 7th Infantry Brigade, so in brackets

23     there are six specific proposals.

24             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Very briefly during the war there were several documents phrased

Page 10779

 1     as proposals.

 2        A.   To the best of my knowledge this is certainly not the only one.

 3             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]  Thank you.  Thank you very much.

 4     I have no further questions, Your Honours, and I tender this document.

 5     The English version is page 40.  The number should be 112.

 6             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit Number D00568.  Thank you, Your

 8     Honours.

 9             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]  Your Honours, it's time for the

10     break, I think.

11             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes, we must have the first break now.  It will

12     take 30 minutes for the tapes.  We will resume at 5 minutes past 11.00.

13                           [The witness stands down]

14                           --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.

15                           --- On resuming at 11.08 a.m.

16                           [The witness takes the stand]

17             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djurdjic, I didn't thank you for your

18     assistance during that evidence.  Thank you.  We now turn to

19     Ms. Petersen.

20             MS. PETERSEN:  Thank you, Your Honours.

21             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes, Mr. Djurdjic.

22             MR. DJURDJIC:  [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I apologise to both

23     the Trial Chamber and Ms. Petersen, I would just like the combat report

24     that we agreed on with the Prosecution to be admitted into evidence, and

25     it has also been made available to the Registry and the Trial Chamber.

Page 10780

 1                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 2             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you, Mr. Djurdjic.  A number will be

 3     provided later for that.

 4             Yes.

 5             MS. PETERSEN:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 6                           Cross-examination by Ms. Petersen:

 7        Q.   Good morning, General Curcin.  Without giving a -- you don't need

 8     to give a specific address, but generally, where were you physically

 9     during the NATO intervention?

10        A.   Well, good day.  At least that's what we say in our parts instead

11     of good morning because we rise earlier probably.  During the NATO

12     intervention for the first few days I was in the building of the General

13     Staff.  However, after the first air-strikes, I personally went to the

14     command post of the Supreme Command staff where my friends, associates,

15     and superiors were already.  So throughout the war I was at the command

16     post of the Supreme Command staff.

17        Q.   Okay.  And just so you know, there may be a moment after you

18     answer a question where I don't speak yet, it's just because I'm waiting

19     for the translation to catch up, so just in case there's a pause, that's

20     what it is.

21             Now during the NATO intervention, did you visit Kosovo at all?

22        A.   No, I did not have a single opportunity in my tenure as head of

23     the first administration to go to Kosovo, especially not during the NATO

24     aggression because my job required me to be at the command post all the

25     time.  There were many of my colleagues which, according to plans and

Page 10781

 1     various assignments, had to go to Kosovo at the time.

 2        Q.   General, do you know the accused in this case, Vlastimir

 3     Djordjevic?

 4        A.   What do you mean, do I know him?  Do I know him personally?

 5        Q.   Well, let's break it down, sir.  Did you know him in your

 6     official capacities?

 7        A.   Well, I didn't know Mr. Djordjevic personally.  I think we met

 8     once at some official reception and greeted each other like all people

 9     did at the large reception sometime in 1995.

10        Q.   So it would be fair to say that you knew who he was and his

11     position, but you didn't know him personally?

12        A.   Yes, I knew from the media who he was, and I knew his position.

13        Q.   Thank you, General.

14             MS. PETERSEN:  If we could now turn to Defence 65 ter 509.  If

15     the Defence could possibly help with one of the ID numbers that could

16     help bring this up.  Line has it.  Okay, it is D008-2943.  Thank you.

17        Q.   General, this is one of those combat reports that you spoke about

18     yesterday, is it not?

19        A.   I suppose so because I see only the first page.  It would be

20     important for me to see the second page as well, if you intend to ask

21     question.

22        Q.   Okay.  All right.

23             MS. PETERSEN:  If we could please go to the second page.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The last page.

25             MS. PETERSEN:  All right.  If we could go to the last page,

Page 10782

 1     please.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We are obviously at cross purposes.

 3     Not the second, third, or fourth, but the last page of the text where the

 4     necessary elements for me to establish what it is would be.  Is this the

 5     last page?

 6             MS. PETERSEN:

 7        Q.   General, I actually have a hard copy of this.  Perhaps that would

 8     help if the usher could hand this to the general.

 9             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djurdjic.

10             MR. DJURDJIC:  [Interpretation] I apologise to my learned friend.

11     You said that he looked at that document yesterday.  Do you mean the form

12     of the document or this precise document?  Because this document, I can

13     tell by date, was not shown yesterday.

14             MS. PETERSEN:  I just meant combat reports in general.  Not that

15     this is a specific one that you saw, but that this is one of the combat

16     reports, the type of which you spoke of yesterday.

17             And if this could be handed to the witness, perhaps that would

18     assist.

19        Q.   Is this the combat report, sir?

20        A.   Yes.  This is the combat report number 28 from the Supreme

21     Command staff dated 21st April, 1999 and now I see the attachments and

22     the last page, and I can be of assistance.

23        Q.   Thank you, sir.  If you look at the third page of this, and it's

24     paragraph 2.4 where it discusses the 3rd Army.

25             MS. PETERSEN:  If we could just go to page 3 in both B/C/S and in

Page 10783

 1     English.

 2        Q.   Under section 2.4, the second paragraph, and I'll just read this

 3     out so we have it on the record.  It says:

 4             "Between 19 and 20 April 1999, about 3.000 people crossed from

 5     Kosovo and Metohija to the Republic of Macedonia through the Pristina

 6     Corps 78th motorised Brigade 3rd Battalion combat disposition along the

 7     Presevo-Miratovac-Lojane axis, organised and escorted by the Presevo

 8     MUP."

 9             My question to you, sir, is basically what this is reporting is

10     that this column of refugees had MUP officers or MUP police officers

11     travelling alongside it, is that what we can gather from this report?

12        A.   Based on this report, several conclusions that can be made, not

13     just the one.  First of all --

14        Q.   I'm just asking about the one thing, we don't need to go into

15     more detail.  I just want to know from this, can we conclude that the MUP

16     were walking alongside or were alongside this column?

17        A.   Well, I must insist on a comprehensive answer.

18        Q.   Sir, I'm only interested in that one thing about this.  I know

19     there's a lot more information in this report, I'm just asking you if it

20     appears that the MUP were alongside this column?

21        A.   If you say so and you insist an answer like this, then make your

22     conclusion.  I wanted to be of assistance.  This does not apply to

23     Kosovo.  This is outside the territory of Kosovo.  The 78th Brigade was

24     defending itself in the part of Serbia outside of Kosovo.  Presevo,

25     Miratovac, and other of these places are along that axis, along the Nis

Page 10784

 1     Skopje road, so this does not relate to the territory of Kosovo.  But you

 2     are right, and it is written there, we did not hide it, that this column

 3     passed through there and went on towards Macedonia, and it says clearly

 4     escorted by the MUP.

 5        Q.   Thank you, sir, and it does say that these 3.000 people crossed

 6     from Kosovo to Macedonia, does it not?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8             MS. PETERSEN:  Thank you, sir.  If we could -- I believe this

 9     probably was tendered with all of the combat reports of the Defence.  If

10     not, I would seek to tender it.  It was included?  Okay.  Thank you.

11             Next if we could go to P965.

12             JUDGE PARKER:  Can you remind us of the number given to the

13     bundle of combat reports, Ms. Petersen.

14             MS. PETERSEN:  I'm not sure that I know that, actually.

15             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be turned up by the Court Officer who will

16     tell us.

17             MS. PETERSEN:  Okay.  Sorry, Your Honour.

18                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

19             JUDGE PARKER:  A number is yet to be assigned.

20             MS. PETERSEN:  Thank you, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djurdjic.

22             MR. DJURDJIC:  [Interpretation] I can be of assistance, I

23     believe.  On this list that was submitted, it's 509.  That's the Defence

24     65 ter number.  65 ter number 509.  My learned friend also said that when

25     she announced the document.

Page 10785

 1             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

 2             MS. PETERSEN:  Thank you.  And if we could now look at P965.

 3        Q.   And this is the minutes of the collegium meeting held on the 11th

 4     of March, 1999.

 5             MS. PETERSEN:  If we could look at in the English page 11, and in

 6     the B/C/S page 10.

 7        Q.   General, it appears that you are speaking here; correct?

 8        A.   May I just ask for the text to be enlarged if I'm supposed to

 9     read it.

10        Q.   Is that you speaking, sir?

11             JUDGE PARKER:  Would you answer the question, please.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I answer?  Is that what you are

13     asking?  Yes, yes, that's my report to the Chief of the General Staff,

14     and these are the stenographic notes.

15             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes, Mr. Djurdjic.

16             MR. DJURDJIC:  [Interpretation] I wanted to be of assistance.

17     It's tab 10 for the general.

18             MS. PETERSEN:  Thank you, Mr. Djurdjic.

19        Q.   If we look at the second paragraph after you start speaking, and

20     I'll just read this out.  It says:

21             "The 37th Motorised Brigade" -- and in the English it says, "the

22     ready forces of the 2nd Army, has been relocated from the Raska garrison

23     to Kosovska Mitrovica and resubordinated to the Pristina Corps.  The

24     combat group of the 25th Nis Corps has been relocated to the Urosevac

25     sector and resubordinated to the 243rd motorised brigade of the Pristina

Page 10786

 1     Corps."

 2             And if we look in English onto the next page, I believe in B/C/S

 3     it stays on page 10, two paragraphs down, you go on to say:

 4             "First in the preceding period, the commands of the strategic

 5     groups in the 2nd and 3rd Armies were given orders and permission to

 6     relocate the 37th motorised brigade of the 2nd Army and the combat group

 7     of the 21st Nis Corps and to resubordinate them to the Pristina Corps."

 8             And then skipping one paragraph and going down one more:

 9             "The order to transfer soldiers from the 1st Army, the 2nd Army,

10     and RM navy units to the Pristina Corps and the 3rd Army has been carried

11     out under the order, 2.173 soldiers were to be transferred, and according

12     to reports, 1,697 or 476 fewer than the number specified in the order

13     have been transferred so far."

14             So my question to you, sir, is:  On the 11th of March, you're

15     reporting that these transfers into the Pristina Corps have happened?

16        A.   There are several questions there, and I'll try to take them in

17     order.  It's correct that I'm reporting about a relocation of the ready

18     forces of the 37th motorised brigade from the Raska garrison to the

19     Kosovska Mitrovica garrison where they were resubordinated to the

20     Pristina Corps.  The strength was 325 men, officers, and soldiers, and

21     it's correct that this relocation took place of the combat group 21 from

22     the Nis Corps some 75 to 80 men were moved to Urosevac.  That's correct.

23             Second, there was a question about the transfer of soldiers from

24     the 1st and 2nd Army and the navy to the Pristina Corps and the 3rd Army.

25     I think I dealt with it in greater detail yesterday.  The Chief of the

Page 10787

 1     General Staff had forbidden young conscripts, recruits, to be sent to

 2     Kosovo until they finished their training, and that's why the December

 3     contingent of soldiers was sent to the similar units of the 1st and 2nd

 4     Armies and the navy, to completed their training in the duration of 2

 5     months and 23 days.

 6             Since that was completed and those soldiers were to be brought to

 7     their planned units, they were transferred by train to their units with

 8     prior notification to the OSCE Mission.  First of all, the relocation of

 9     the 325 soldiers on the 37th motorised brigade and the other soldiers.

10     Not all 2.000 and something soldiers were actually transferred, and that

11     was because those soldiers did not arrive in Kosovo in December.  Instead

12     they were sent for training first and then on to Kosovo in March.

13        Q.   So, sir, it's your testimony that there was proper notification

14     through proper channels to the OSCE Mission?

15        A.   Yes.  That was the job of other authorities.  I did not deal with

16     that personally.  There was a special commission to deal with that.

17        Q.   So you don't have firsthand knowledge of that actually happening?

18        A.   I did not do that because it had been reported at one of the

19     meetings because -- it had been reported at one of the meetings that it

20     had been done, so I cannot speak from firsthand knowledge about that, I

21     can only speak about my contributions at these meetings.  But I claim

22     that it was done.

23        Q.   Do you recall which meeting this was reported in?

24        A.   No, we had a lot of meetings.  Sometimes only a few members of

25     the collegium met to solve a particular problem.  I don't remember that

Page 10788

 1     particular day.

 2             MS. PETERSEN:  Okay.  If we could now go to 65 ter 06032.  It

 3     this is a Prosecution 65 ter number.

 4        Q.   Sir, if you can just look at this, you'll see that the date on it

 5     is 6 March 1999; correct?

 6        A.   I see the date, but I don't see the text.

 7        Q.   I do have a hard copy of this if it would be helpful for the

 8     witness.  I apologise, the print is still small on the copy, but...

 9        A.   That's enough.

10        Q.   And do you see that it's the 6th of March, sir, 1999?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And does this appear to be one of the things that you were

13     reporting on at that 11th of March collegium meeting?

14        A.   Yes, that's our order from the first administration sent to the

15     commands of the 1st and the 2nd Armies -- sorry, the 2nd and 3rd Armies

16     because the 2nd Army was superior to the 37th Brigade and the 3rd Army

17     because it was supposed to receive this units, they were notified that on

18     day such and such the resubordination will take place.  So there are all

19     the elements there, and it speaks clearly about the peacetime complement,

20     and it says reports on task implementation are to be delivered in one of

21     the next documents, and from those reports you can see exactly how many

22     men had left.

23             And I report this because the Chief of the General Staff was

24     aware of this as was the deputy Chief of Staff who signed in his stead.

25     This is the usual format of an order, and I have nothing to add except if

Page 10789

 1     you have something specific to ask on any of the points.  The document

 2     was created by us in the first administration.  Colonel Gutovic created

 3     it.

 4             MS. PETERSEN:  Thank you, sir.  I will seek it to tender this

 5     document.

 6             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P1522.  Thank you, Your Honours.

 8             MS. PETERSEN:

 9        Q.   Now, sir, you recall and you spoke yesterday about your testimony

10     in the Milutinovic trial; correct?

11        A.   Yes, correct.

12        Q.   And during your testimony in the Milutinovic trial, you stated

13     that you had heard mention of something called the Joint Command at a

14     collegium meeting in January; do you recall that testimony?

15        A.   Yes, I recall.

16        Q.   And, sir, I believe in your testimony you described the Joint

17     Command as a co-ordinating body; is that correct?

18        A.   Yes, I answered roughly that according to what I learned later,

19     it was a body for co-ordination between the army and the forces of the

20     Ministry of the Interior.

21             MS. PETERSEN:  If we could look at your exact testimony.  This is

22     Exhibit 555 beginning at page 111, line 22.  It's also, if one has the

23     transcript, it's transcript page 17045, if that's easier.  And I can just

24     read it.

25        Q.   I believe your testimony was:

Page 10790

 1             "This was a body that was used for co-ordinating joint activities

 2     that were being carried out in the same area at the same time by army

 3     units and MUP units, and that's the only thing it is."

 4             Does that sound like a fair description of your testimony?

 5        A.   Well, I cannot recall the exact phrasing because I answered more

 6     than one question about it, I was interrupted, and even the Trial Chamber

 7     questioned me about this so I don't know in which context I stated that.

 8     So it's obviously not in the context of the collegium meeting at the

 9     Chief of the General Staff collegium from January.

10             MS. PETERSEN:  I think we need to go down to page 17045 to look

11     at the testimony.  Yeah, I guess the next page of the exhibit -- of the

12     testimony.

13        Q.   Now, sir, you reviewed this testimony before you came here today;

14     right?

15        A.   I don't speak English, so I did have an opportunity to see the

16     transcript generally, yes, during my preparation.

17        Q.   Well, sir, yesterday, I believe that you stated you had reviewed

18     it and the testimony was true and accurate?

19        A.   Yes, and that I stand by everything that I stated then, and that

20     I would give the same answers now to the same questions as I did then.

21        Q.   Okay.  Just to make the record clear, I think we found it.

22             MS. PETERSEN:  It's there on page 17046 beginning at line 22 was

23     the testimony that I referenced.

24        Q.   Sir, if we could --

25             MS. PETERSEN:  If we could now look at P1236.

Page 10791

 1             JUDGE PARKER:  I think you mean 17045 then, not 6?

 2             MS. PETERSEN:  Yes, yes, 17045.

 3             JUDGE PARKER:  And in our transcript at page 39, line 8, the last

 4     exhibit should be recorded as P1522.  Thank you.

 5             MS. PETERSEN:  If we could now go to P1326.

 6        Q.   General, do you recognise what this document is?

 7        A.   Yes, I do recognise the document.

 8        Q.   Are they suggestions made by General Ojdanic?

 9        A.   Yes, yes, this is a document that is called "Suggestion" here

10     sent to the 3rd Army commander personally on the 17th of April, 1999, by

11     a set of circumstances, I participated in its drafting and then I took it

12     for the signature of the commander at the Supreme Command staff, and

13     after he signed, I took it to the encryption section.

14        Q.   And, General, in Milutinovic you testified about a map that was

15     associated with these suggestions.  Can you explain to the Court how

16     General Ojdanic came to be in possession of the map that was associated

17     with this?

18        A.   Yes, gladly.  One evening, I can see that this was the 17th of

19     April, I was called by the Chief of the Staff of the Supreme Command to

20     come and see him immediately because my superior was not there at that

21     time.  The chief of the sector, General Blagoje Kovacovic.  I came to his

22     office and he showed me an excerpt from a map of ratio 1:50.000.  When I

23     say "excerpt," what I mean is that I didn't see the entire map but only a

24     map where the top and bottom parts were cut out by scissors.  I do

25     remember that map, I remember that the Chief of the Supreme Command staff

Page 10792

 1     said, I just met Nesa [phoen] in the corridor a little while ago, Nesa is

 2     Lieutenant-General Nebojsa Pavkovic commander of the 3rd Army, and he was

 3     just carrying this map, he was returning from the president, I asked him

 4     what was he doing because he thought that at that time he was in Kosovo,

 5     and he replied what he replied and then General Ojdanic asked him if he

 6     could look at the map to see what this was about.  He gave him the map

 7     and left.  And the Chief of the Supreme Command staff studied the map and

 8     immediately called me.  That is a part of the story from that testimony.

 9     If you would like me to go into more detail and to continue I can

10     immediately answer or perhaps you can put a question, if you wish.

11        Q.   So General Ojdanic got this map from General Pavkovic who had --

12     from Pavkovic who had just come from meeting Milosevic with the map?

13        A.   Yes, he got the map from General Pavkovic directly.

14        Q.   Sir, you testified in Milutinovic that the map had some writing

15     on the top of it.  And just to be clear on that, if we look at in the

16     transcript, it's transcript page number 16977.  And in the exhibit it is

17     page 50, I believe, and you can just read it.  You stated:

18             "I cannot recall exactly the word order, but it was 'decision for

19     operation.'  And below that:  'Order of the Joint Command.'  And as it

20     says here:  'Strictly confidential,' number such-and-such."

21             Do you recall that testimony, sir?

22        A.   Yes, but I don't know this strictly confidential number part.

23     Yes, I do remember -- well, when I looked at the map as a professional, I

24     could see that it was not the whole map, that it was an excerpt.

25     Secondly, that in the left upper -- upper left-hand corner there was no

Page 10793

 1     name of the person who approved it.  There was no name, rank, signature,

 2     or stamp, and in the lower right-hand corner there was no information

 3     about who drafted the map.  There was no signature, no stamp, or anything

 4     like that.

 5             Then I paid attention to what was represented on the

 6     topographical map by the usual tactical markings and then I looked at the

 7     top exactly what that was, and that's where I read that this was a

 8     decision on action in the sector of Rogovo pursuant to a command by the

 9     commander, or rather the Joint Command for Kosovo and Metohija, and there

10     was some number, I think 148/ some other number, and that's what that --

11     and that's more or less what you are saying now.

12        Q.   And referring back to P1236, are these suggestions that General

13     Ojdanic came up with after reviewing this map with you?

14        A.   Yes, these suggestions were made after that short meeting in the

15     corridor at the Supreme Command between the Chief of the General Staff

16     and the 3rd Army commander.  So that is an analysis of the situation on

17     the map and what was stated on the map.  I remember very well that there

18     was no order.  I state that the Chief of the Supreme Command staff did

19     not have an order there that would be mentioned.  When he wrote these

20     suggestions, he had to refer back to some document that he had looked at

21     in order to more easily direct the 3rd Army command as to what he was

22     thinking when he was writing this, that's why.

23        Q.   So when you say there was no order, you mean the map did not have

24     a corresponding order attached to it?

25        A.   No, no, all I want to say is that us, we in the staff, the

Page 10794

 1     Supreme Command staff chief did not have that order.  That is why he

 2     wrote these suggestions purely on the basis of the situation on the map.

 3        Q.   Okay.  But at the top of the map it did say, Order of the Joint

 4     Command, even though no other order, no typed up order was attached;

 5     correct?

 6        A.   Yes, you are correct.

 7        Q.   Now, if we look on this exhibit at P1236 where it says, "Link:

 8     Kosovo and Metohija Joint [Realtime translation read in error "Supreme"]

 9     Command Order, Strictly Confidential Number 455-148 of 15 April 1999,"

10     does this mean that these suggestions are referring to that order?

11        A.   You mentioned the Supreme Command and some others, I don't know

12     that, but I would like to look at the first page at least of this order

13     in my language.

14        Q.   I think this is the first page.  I'm just referring to the part

15     that said "link."

16             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djurdjic.

17             MR. DJURDJIC:  [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise, I have

18     a technical intervention.  When I read the text in Serbian, and when I

19     look at the translation that is in English, I don't know whether it's a

20     translation problem, but it doesn't state anywhere "super command" as it

21     is in the transcript and I think the colleague is reading the English

22     text, and I think the witness also pointed that out.

23             MS. PETERSEN:  Actually, you are correct, the transcript is

24     wrong.  What the order says, what the exhibit says is link:  Kosovo and

25     Metohija Joint Command order.  Not supreme command.  Joint Command order,

Page 10795

 1     Strictly Confidential Number 455-148 of 15 April 1999."

 2        Q.   General, does this mean that these suggestions are referring back

 3     to that Joint Command order with that strictly confidential number?

 4        A.   No, once again absolutely not.  I tried to explain that last time

 5     when I testified but evidently that was not a properly entered into the

 6     transcript, if this is what is happening.

 7        Q.   Let me see if I can just clarify.  I'm not asking you right now

 8     if General Ojdanic reviewed that other order.  I'm just asking if this

 9     link means that this is making suggestions to this other order that it's

10     referring to?  Whether he looked at it or not, I'm not asking that

11     question at this time.  Does this mean link, this is related to that

12     order, that other order?

13        A.   Once again, no.  Why?  He is writing his suggestions only on the

14     basis of what he saw on the map and this title on the map, so he cannot

15     write on the basis of some command without having seen it at all, and it

16     cannot be understood in that way.  We know what a command or an order

17     looks like, and it would be even better if we could see this order

18     somewhere and comment on it.

19             So only on the basis of the situation on the map because I

20     remember that Judge Bonomy had asked me whether I would be able to make

21     suggestions like this or some other document only on the basis of the

22     situation that you could see on the map.  And I answered convincingly

23     that I would, that I'm a trained officer with completed military

24     education and that I'm capable only on the basis of what is entered on to

25     the map to write even more suggestions than are what written here.  This

Page 10796

 1     is what I said.

 2        Q.   Okay, General, so your testimony is these suggestions have

 3     nothing do with Kosovo and Metohija Joint Command Order Strictly

 4     Confidential Number 455-148 dated 15 April 1999; is that what you are

 5     saying, or ...

 6        A.   Yes, other than the title, they have nothing to do with each

 7     other.

 8        Q.   Okay.

 9             MS. PETERSEN:  If we could now look at Exhibit P1328.

10        Q.   And if we look at the top of this document, we see that it says

11     "Joint Command for Kosovo and Metohija, Strictly Confidential Number

12     455-148, 15 April 1999."  Would you agree, sir, that that is the same

13     title, strictly confidential number, and date that are referred to in the

14     suggestions document P1236?

15        A.   Yes, I do agree, but I would only kindly ask to look at the

16     complete order in hard copy in order to be able to look at it if I'm

17     expected to give any more answers regarding this document.

18        Q.   Sir, I think it's sufficient.  You are agreeing that it's the

19     same number, date, and title, your testimony is you do not believe that

20     General Ojdanic saw this or referred to this; do I have that right?

21        A.   It's sufficient in order to note that it's the same number, but I

22     would like for the purposes of my testimony, for the purposes of the

23     truth, to look at the complete order including the last page because only

24     then can I provide valid testimony about this.  The fact that it has the

25     same number as over there at this point in time means nothing to me.  I

Page 10797

 1     am convinced that it has nothing to do with others because here, for

 2     example, here underneath the title it says "map ratio 1:50.000, page 1,

 3     2, 3, 4, that is an integral part of the order, and I would provide much

 4     better comments if I could look at the complete order if I'm to provide

 5     authentic testimony.

 6             And finally, I assert that this document was not in the General

 7     Staff at that time and was not provided to the Chief of the Supreme

 8     Command staff or to me.  I have managed to look.  I recall perhaps seeing

 9     it before two and a half years ago.

10        Q.   All right.  Thank you, sir.

11             MS. PETERSEN:  And finally if we could just look quickly at

12     Defence 65 ter 46 and those doc ID numbers are D006-0499.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Does that mean that we are not

14     going to look at this document anymore?

15             MS. PETERSEN:

16        Q.   Yes, sir, I think we understand your testimony.  Your testimony

17     is General Ojdanic did not look at the order, he only looked at the map

18     that he had received from Pavkovic; is that a correct statement of your

19     testimony?

20        A.   That is correct, but I would like to add one more sentence and

21     that is just like earlier when we were looking at some documents without

22     a stamp or signature, as far as I'm concerned, this is not a valid

23     document because it does not state who drafted it, who typed it, it does

24     not contained the stamp or actually the name and the last name of the

25     signature, so some elements are missing, and if I were the commander

Page 10798

 1     would receive such an order, I would simply put it aside and would not

 2     react.  I would ask to receive a proper order from the person who was my

 3     superior.

 4        Q.   General, you would agree this is not a VJ document, it's a Joint

 5     Command document; correct?

 6        A.   Regardless, I would not agree with that because I can see here

 7     only military units that are listed.  Thus, the assignment was issued to

 8     the 125th Motorised Brigade.  That is a unit of the army.  I don't see

 9     that some other unit was given an assignment because it does not state

10     that here, so that no one can issue assignments to a military unit other

11     than a military commander regardless of what is said at the beginning or

12     in the body of the text.

13        Q.   General, I believe if you look at point 2 in this order, it does

14     say the Pristina Corps with the reinforced and armed non-Siptar

15     population of KiM is to support MUP forces in breaking up and destroying

16     the SDS in the zone of responsibility; does it not say that?

17        A.   Yes, this is the assignment received by the Pristina Corps from

18     the 3rd Army and then it is talking about its assignment further on, so

19     this is something else.  The only task to the establishment units in

20     article or paragraph 5.1 is given to the 125th Motorised Brigade for us

21     professional soldiers.  This indicates without any doubt that is an

22     assignment issued to a military unit to keep MUP units in the

23     implementation of an assignment.  There are -- or to support military

24     units in the implementation of an assignment.  There are no other

25     assignments.

Page 10799

 1             And I believe that this is a classic document of the Pristina

 2     Corps entered in the log-book of the Pristina Corps which does have the

 3     markings of the Joint Command but does not contain the signature or stamp

 4     of any command, neither the Joint Command nor the Pristina Corps.

 5        Q.   All right, sir.  If it we look quickly at 65 ter 46.

 6             MS. PETERSEN:  If we could have that up on the screen, D006-0499.

 7     And if we could just go in the English to page 4, paragraph 6 and in the

 8     B/C/S to page 3, paragraph 6.

 9        Q.   Sir, I just want to --

10        A.   I apologise, I apologise, I don't see much, and I insist on a

11     hard copy because I'm really unable to read here what you would like me

12     to read.  I don't see the date, I don't see what this is about.  All I

13     see is just blurry text.

14        Q.   Sir, I just need you to look at paragraph 6 if we could.

15        A.   Very gladly, but you need to tell me what this document is, what

16     is the date, and everything else for me to be able to say something.

17        Q.   All right.

18             MS. PETERSEN:  Could we look at the first page, please.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you please zoom in at the top

20     of the page so that I could see what the date is.  Yes, I see now what

21     this is about.

22             MS. PETERSEN:  Can I please see it in English also.

23        Q.   So, sir, I just want to confirm with you at paragraph 6 that this

24     is just seeking confirmation that that telegram with the suggestions was

25     sent.  Is that what that is?

Page 10800

 1        A.   No, I know that it wasn't, but still, I would like to look at

 2     this text and have it in front of me.  Every evening -- just the last

 3     point that you are referring to.  I don't need to have a hard copy, just

 4     if you can zoom in the relevant part on the screen for me, please.

 5        Q.   Okay.  Sir.  So we can see that this is a briefing of the Chief

 6     of Staff of the Supreme Command on April 18th, 1999, and in paragraph 6

 7     of it, if we could go back to that.

 8             MS. PETERSEN:  Page 4, paragraph 6 in English; page 3, paragraph

 9     6 in B/C/S.

10        Q.   It says:

11             "Lieutenant-General Curcin find out when the telegram was sent to

12     the 3rd Army command and when the telegram was delivered."  I'm not

13     asking if it was delivered, I'm just asking if these minutes reflect that

14     you were asked to find out that information?

15        A.   Yes.  First of all, this is the evening briefing at the command

16     about the situation at the front, primarily in the Pristina Corps area,

17     and we can see that they are discussing all the members are, and at the

18     end it says closing address by the Chief of the Supreme Command.  So he

19     is precisely issuing instructions to everybody and he is issuing this

20     assignment to me that you have just referred to.

21        Q.   Okay.  And he is referring back to that telegram that we looked

22     at, Exhibit 1236, correct, his suggestions dated April 17th; is that

23     correct?

24        A.   Yes, that is correct, because there was a problem about delivery,

25     non-delivery, what he wrote was not respected, and he asked that it be

Page 10801

 1     exactly established when it was sent, when it was received, when it was

 2     delivered and a few days later we do have a report from the 3rd Army

 3     commander about this.  And I also reported once I had established what

 4     had happened here to the Supreme Command staff chief about all of that

 5     because the problem is broader here than what is said in this document.

 6        Q.   Okay.  And we don't need to get into that today.

 7             MS. PETERSEN:  If we could just tender 65 ter 46, please.

 8             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  It shall be received as Exhibit P01523.  Thank

10     you, Your Honours.

11             MS. PETERSEN:

12        Q.   Now, General, when you were looking at this map with General

13     Ojdanic and at the top of it that said Joint Command order, did he say at

14     any point, who is this Joint Command?

15        A.   No, I didn't ask about it nor was there any mention of it at the

16     previous meeting.  We were interested in the tactical situations, the

17     indications we had, and the assignments of the forces represented on the

18     map, and since it was not map, there was no approved at the top, nor

19     indication who produced it at the bottom, I had in reason to ask about

20     it.

21        Q.   Sir, I'm not asking you if you asked about, I'm asking if during

22     the time you were looking at this map with General Ojdanic if he said,

23     Who is this Joint Command at the top of this map?

24        A.   No, I've already said in my previous answer that it was not

25     mentioned once in that evening discussion.

Page 10802

 1        Q.   All right.  Thank you, sir.  Yesterday you were asked questions

 2     about the resubordination of the MUP to the VJ.  Do you recall those

 3     questions?

 4        A.   Yes, I remember the topic and most of the questions.

 5        Q.   General, the resubordination order from President Milosevic -

 6     D203, I believe - General Ojdanic never sent this to the Ministry of the

 7     Interior; correct?

 8        A.   I'm sorry, I don't know the numbers by heart.  You mean the order

 9     of President Milosevic or his order?

10        Q.   The order of President Milosevic.

11        A.   Yes, I can see it now.  General Ojdanic did not have the

12     authority to send a telegram like this on behalf of President Milosevic

13     and his military office, that's why there was the military office headed

14     by Colonel Susic.  This telegram under the name of the president could

15     not be sent by General Ojdanic to anyone.

16        Q.   So just to be clear, he did not -- he did not forward this to the

17     Ministry of the Interior?

18        A.   I insist on the expression I used.  He did not have -- he was not

19     in charge of sending, forwarding such things.  He did not have the

20     authority.  Somebody else from the office of the president had that

21     authority.  So the answer is no, he didn't.

22        Q.   Thank you, sir.  And your testimony in Milutinovic was that the

23     MUP was never actually resubordinated to the VJ in the end, correct?

24        A.   Yes, I remember that from that previous testimony.

25        Q.   Thank you, General.  I'd like to talk to you a little bit now

Page 10803

 1     about the incident at Racak.  I don't know if we need to call these

 2     exhibits up, we'll see how it goes.  But yesterday there was reference to

 3     two exhibits.  There was one, which I believe is D556, which was a

 4     request for a report on where the -- on whether the Pristina Corps had

 5     been involved in the Racak incident.  Do you recall discussing that,

 6     General?

 7        A.   Yes, I remember that.

 8        Q.   And there is D557, which was a report back up saying that no,

 9     that the VJ had not been involved; correct?

10        A.   Yes, that's correct.  This telegram was one I drafted on the

11     orders of the Chief of the General Staff and the reply came that same

12     night from the 3rd Army which had received its answer from the Pristina

13     Corps saying that the army was not involved in that incident, as you call

14     it, in Racak.

15        Q.   Now, General, you yourself were not on the ground in Racak;

16     correct?

17        A.   No, no, I was not.

18        Q.   Okay.  So what you know about it, you know from this report; is

19     that correct?

20        A.   We trusted our commanders as they trusted us, and when they are

21     explicitly ordered to provide a reply bearing full criminal, moral, and

22     other liability, putting their signatures on it, then they reply.  This

23     was not broadcast because of possible media manipulations and because of

24     claims by certain verifiers that 40 artillery shells had been fired at

25     Racak and to deny it had to be written like --

Page 10804

 1        Q.   I need to stop you there because my question for you was simply

 2     this is the extent of your knowledge about Racak, correct, this report is

 3     the basis of your knowledge; correct?  Yes or no?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Now, sir, were you aware that international observers monitored

 6     the incident at Racak on 15th of January, 1999?

 7        A.   I heard about it from the media.  I also heard about it at the

 8     Milutinovic et al. trial, but I also know that it was a tangentious

 9     report that was not truthful.  I mean, their claims were not truthful.

10     And plus, I'm wondering why Racak is not in this indictment, in the

11     indictment against Milutinovic and others, if it's accurate.  President

12     Milosevic proved that it was a staged incident --

13        Q.   I'm going to stop you there, and I'll be asking you the

14     questions, sir.

15             MS. PETERSEN:  If we could just look at P1250.

16        Q.   Now, looking just below the date, this report was -- oh, yes,

17     sir.

18             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djurdjic.

19             MR. DJURDJIC:  [Interpretation] Your Honours, first, this is from

20     a website we don't know when it was created and when it was updated.

21     Second, their translation is not correct --

22             JUDGE PARKER:  Sorry, Mr. Djurdjic, you have to wait, the

23     questions will be put and answered, and then if you have a comment, you

24     can make it.  You remember this is the concern that I've expressed

25     several times when you are suggesting possible answers before the witness

Page 10805

 1     has an opportunity to deal with the matter.  We will hear you later.  At

 2     the moment now, the witness should carry on answering the questions.

 3             MS. PETERSEN:

 4        Q.   General, if you look at this report, it's from the -- it's an

 5     update from the Kosovo Diplomatic Observer Mission, and it states just

 6     starting right after the date:

 7             "US KDOM observed the FRY police/military attack on the

 8     Racak-Petrovo-Malopoljce area throughout the day on January 15th.  VJ

 9     armoured units and mortars fired into the villages, with at least three

10     tank rounds visibly hitting civilian houses.  Fires started by the

11     shelling burned in the villages for several hours after the attack."

12             Sir, were you aware that international observers saw VJ armoured

13     units and mortars fire into the village of Racak?

14        A.   I don't understand any of this because I don't have a

15     translation.  All of this is in English.  On the left side and on the

16     right side as well.  Second, I understand your question.  KDOM was a

17     separate American mission that was never subordinated to the OSCE

18     Mission.  It acted independently.  I know that much.

19             Second, I knew mainly from the media that they claimed what we

20     see here, but reading carefully the reply of the 3rd Army, it says that

21     one tank platoon, that means three tanks, had been in the area, they had

22     been carrying out certain activities, and they were attacked.  Fire

23     ensued from the surrounding hills and elevations.  They stopped,

24     organised themselves for defence, and fired a number of projectiles.  The

25     exact number is in the report of the 3rd Army, broken down by calibres.

Page 10806

 1     They assert they had not targeted Racak village but instead opened fire

 2     at the forces which from two elevations were firing at them in

 3     self-defence.

 4        Q.   Sir, I don't believe that report says that the fire was coming

 5     from inside the village of Racak, does it?

 6        A.   The military unit couldn't have known that for sure because they

 7     were not around Racak or in Racak.  They were fired at from the

 8     surrounding hills, not from Racak village.  So they returned enemy fire

 9     outside Racak village.  If you are kind enough, you will read during the

10     break the report of the 3rd Army in detail and you will see that the

11     report says something different.

12             So nobody can accuse the army of firing upon Racak village.

13        Q.   Sir, in the KDOM update, the observers state that they witnessed

14     firsthand at least three tank rounds visibly hit civilian homes in Racak.

15     Now, assuming that these troops were fired upon from the hills, is it an

16     appropriate response to shoot tank rounds into the village of Racak?

17        A.   Are you suggesting that these three shells were fired at Racak

18     village?  I never said that.  And I maintain and the 3rd Army commander

19     maintains that artillery and tanks never fired at Racak village.  If you

20     understand me correctly, then that answers your question.

21             Plus I don't see that this is a very fresh date.  What January is

22     it?  15, 16, no, it's 26.

23        Q.   You are correct, sir, it's an update with dates of multiple

24     things included.  But, sir, my question to you was not whether you had

25     stated that tanks fired into Racak.  I'm putting to you that this KDOM

Page 10807

 1     update states:

 2             "VJ armoured units and mortars fired into the villages with at

 3     least three tank rounds visibly hitting civilian houses."  My question to

 4     you is, if these -- if this unit was fired upon from the hills, is it an

 5     appropriate response to fire with tanks into a village hitting civilian

 6     homes, towards civilian homes?

 7        A.   First of all, I have to say once again there was no fire opened

 8     at Racak.  Did I understand you correctly as saying that these shells

 9     seen by KDOM were fired at Racak?  I have to understand that first in

10     order to be able to reply.  I did not understand from what is written

11     here that they were claiming that.  They did hear, maybe they even saw

12     shells, but not a single shell fell on Racak village.

13             Another thing, not here, not anywhere do we see a definition of

14     proportionate response, but if somebody is firing at the army from nearby

15     elevations, are these soldiers supposed to fan out and go chasing their

16     attackers through the woods?  This is how it happened that they responded

17     to fire and the moment that they fired back, the fire from the elevation

18     stopped as well.

19        Q.   Sir, is it proper to respond to small arms fire with tank fire?

20        A.   If necessary, but I maintain that there was not just infantry

21     fire.  In the report of the 3rd Army command, they say exactly which

22     weapons had been used to fire at them.  It was not just infantry weapons,

23     as you say.

24        Q.   And, sir, just one more question on this.  Your assertion that no

25     shells fell on Racak, again that's not based on your own observation,

Page 10808

 1     that's solely based on this report; correct?

 2        A.   Yes, on the report of the 3rd Army, and I believe the commander

 3     of the 3rd Army and the Chief of Staff that they provided a perfectly

 4     honest answer.  That would not have dared to play with the truth because

 5     the international public was already outraged and there were quarrels

 6     with Mr. Walker.  The Chief of the General Staff wanted the truth,

 7     whatever it was.  On the 21st of January, at the meeting, you can see

 8     that, and at later meetings as well.  It was not in our interest to lie.

 9        Q.   Sir, it certainly wasn't in the interest of the VJ to be seen as

10     being involved in the Racak incident, was it?

11        A.   No.  If it had been necessary, maybe we would have gotten

12     involved, but then the reports would have reflected that and would have

13     specified how the army was involved, but I maintain once again, it was

14     not.

15             MS. PETERSEN:  Your Honours, I have a new area to go into, so if

16     it's probably a good time to take the break right now.

17             JUDGE PARKER:  Let me first ask Mr. Djurdjic, is there a matter

18     he now wishes to raise?

19             MR. DJURDJIC:  [Interpretation] Your Honours, in the course of

20     this trial, I've learned some things and I never make objections during a

21     cross-examination by the other party except procedural.  But we would

22     have wasted a lot less time with this document if we had received it in

23     good time.  The Prosecution sent us this document three minutes before

24     8.00 p.m., and the search engine of Mr. Stamp was repaired a few days

25     ago.  These documents should really not be used in this way and notified

Page 10809

 1     belatedly when the Defence had no longer any time to prepare.  I believe

 2     we should be given documents to be used in cross-examination 24 hours

 3     earlier.

 4             JUDGE PARKER:  As you are aware, Mr. Djurdjic, that is the order

 5     and the procedure to be followed.  And if there is a variation from that,

 6     leave needs to be sought, as you yourself sought on a number of

 7     occasions.  Anything by way of observation, Ms. Petersen?

 8             MS. PETERSEN:  Yes, Your Honour.  First, this is a document that

 9     is in evidence, and it's been in evidence for quite a while, so the

10     document itself is not new.  I'm not sure of the exact date, but I

11     believe it was in August of this year that the document was tendered.  So

12     this is not a new document.

13             And also, we have -- maybe we should improve our practices but

14     both the Defence and the Prosecution have been somewhat flexible with

15     each other if a document that one of us wants to use the Defence have

16     availed themselves of this with their direct examination, and yes, I did

17     make a decision to use this document yesterday and noticed it as soon as

18     I made that decision, although our notice was sent within the 24-hour

19     period.  This was something that was later added, but both sides have

20     been flexible with each other in doing this.  If the Defence no longer

21     wants to have that practice we can have a discussion, but we have been

22     flexible with one another in that.

23             JUDGE PARKER:  There's no reason for any further particular

24     comment from the Chamber in respect of this exhibit.  The point raised is

25     simply that there was not notice that an exhibit would be used in

Page 10810

 1     cross-examination.  As both parties are aware of documents that are

 2     exhibited, that is not a serious breach of courtesy.  If Mr. Djurdjic is

 3     in some difficulty in respect of re-examination about the document, he

 4     can raise that specifically with us, and we'll consider it.

 5             We will now have the second break and resume at 3 minutes past

 6     1.00.                 [The witness stands down]

 7                           --- Recess taken at 12.33 p.m.

 8                           --- On resuming at 1.03 p.m.

 9                           [The witness takes the stand]

10             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes, Ms. Petersen.

11             MS. PETERSEN:  Thank you, Your Honours.

12        Q.   I'd like to move to a new topic now.  Yesterday you were asked

13     about training that you received in international humanitarian law.  Do

14     you recall those questions?

15        A.   I remember very well.

16        Q.   And you went to a training at Topcider Barracks; is that right?

17        A.   If you mean that last one round in September 1998 or December

18     1998, yes, but we had many training courses before.  When we had the

19     first workshop based on the agreement between the minister of defence and

20     his counter-parts at the ICRC we organised these workshops, and I had

21     occasion to organise the first such workshop in the 1st Army.  We all

22     received certificates of instructors, and all these instructors had the

23     obligation at corps level and at the brigade level to conduct similar

24     workshops and all the officers down to brigade level had the obligation

25     to go through such a course and become instructors.

Page 10811

 1             And on the 25th of November 1998 was the last workshop attending

 2     by representatives of the ICRC who came to greet us and to work with us

 3     for three days.  I can tell you more about it if you were interested.

 4        Q.   When was the first training, sir?

 5        A.   I think the first one -- the first workshop was in 1996 at the

 6     command of the 1st Army, and then across other strategic groups, training

 7     was held on orders of the Chief of the General Staff.  And each of these

 8     workshops was attended by appropriate representatives of the ICRC

 9     including the head of mission in Belgrade.

10        Q.   When you say "ICRC" you are referring to the Red Cross; correct?

11        A.   Yes, yes, that's the acronym.

12        Q.   Now, sir, did you take this training seriously?

13        A.   Absolutely.  I personally took it very seriously and participated

14     and made every effort to learn as much as possible and to teach my

15     subordinates, and I received great praise from the representatives of the

16     International Red Cross, and I have to say that all our offices from all

17     levels took this training very seriously, the training in international

18     humanitarian law and devoted great attention to implementation.

19        Q.   And do you think forces, both police or military, if people in

20     the police or military violate international humanitarian law or commit a

21     war crime, do you think they should be punished?

22        A.   I believe that everywhere in the world, including in our country,

23     anyone who violates international humanitarian law should be punished, be

24     it a serviceman or a civilian or a member of the Ministry of the

25     Interior.  But that should apply everywhere in the world, that is my deep

Page 10812

 1     conviction.

 2        Q.   Thank you, sir.  Do you know Ratko Mladic?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   And how long have you known him?

 5        A.   You have to give me a moment to remember because I didn't know I

 6     would be faced with questions like this.  I know him from the time when

 7     we served at the command staff academy and then went to our units.  It

 8     could have been in the 1970s.  And in the same brigade we served in

 9     Macedonia in the 3rd Army as battalion commanders.  And later on we were

10     friends and our families were friends.

11        Q.   General, are you aware that Mladic has been indicted by this

12     Tribunal for war crimes?

13        A.   I heard about it, and I know, if I can believe the media, and Mr.

14     Harmon made a point of making me aware of it.  He is the prosecuting

15     attorney I met in Belgrade once and again in end March last year when I

16     testified before this court.  I haven't seen the indictment though and I

17     don't know any details.

18        Q.   Well, are you aware that the charges in the indictment against

19     Mladic include that he slaughtered over 7.000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys

20     in Srebrenica?

21        A.   I had the opportunity to hear and read about it in electronic and

22     printed media over the past years.

23        Q.   Now, sir, based on your training in international humanitarian

24     law, you would agree that that charge -- not asking you your belief about

25     whether it's true or not, but you believe that that charge alleges a

Page 10813

 1     violation of the rules that you learned about in your training, would you

 2     agree?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   And, sir, are you aware that there is an international arrest

 5     warrant for Mladic and that there has been for quite sometime?

 6        A.   Well, conditionally speaking, I could say yes, although I haven't

 7     seen the indictment, and the media have reported all sorts of things, and

 8     there was a time when it was the talk of the town.

 9        Q.   Now, sir, are you familiar with two Yugoslav Army facilities

10     called Rajac and Stragari?

11        A.   I know these two military installations, Stragari and Rajac.

12        Q.   And these are both VJ facilities; correct?

13        A.   I received interpretation that seems to refer to some sort of

14     buildings, I need clarification because at Rajac there's only a hotel

15     open to the public, and free weekend cottages.  The other one is more

16     built up but again there are no major buildings.  Not in the sense that

17     we use the word building, edifice.

18        Q.   Are these facilities of the VJ?

19        A.   While I was in the army, they belonged to the VJ, but they served

20     as special purpose.

21        Q.   Now, sir, at Rajac, not just a soldier would be allowed to stay

22     there, correct, you'd have to be an officer if you wanted to say at

23     Rajac; is that right?

24        A.   No, that's not correct.  It's a hotel open to the public, there

25     is a price list in the Official Gazette listing tariffs for overnight

Page 10814

 1     stay, lunches, dinners, full board, et cetera.  Anyone can book, not only

 2     military personnel.

 3        Q.   But it was owned by the VJ, correct, sir?  It's a VJ facility?

 4        A.   Yes, just like some spas across Serbia such as Vrnjacka Banja and

 5     other places across Yugoslavia, and on the coast we used to have resorts

 6     and hotels on the seashore, on mountains.  Those were recreation and rest

 7     facilities for military personnel and for civilians.

 8        Q.   Sir, did you visit with Mladic at both of these facilities

 9     beginning in 1997?

10        A.   I cannot recall, but there is a statement I've given to the OTP

11     and my testimony, you probably know that, and if you jog my memory, I'll

12     confirm or deny.  We did meet a couple of times in public places, at

13     these facilities, but I can also tell you we went once one night to the

14     football match between Yugoslavia and Croatia, and we watched it together

15     at the stadium of the Red Star Football Team in Belgrade.  I don't know

16     if I was asked about that last time, but if I wasn't, I'm volunteering

17     the information now.

18             MS. PETERSEN:  If we could look at 65 ter 06031.  This is the

19     testimony of this witness in the Perisic trial.

20        Q.   And if we turn to page 18 of the exhibit, sir, on page 18 you

21     were asked:  "General Curcin, did you see General Mladic at the Rajac

22     facility?"  "Yes," you answered.  Question:  "When did you see

23     General Mladic at the facility?"  Answer:  "In early July of 1997."  And

24     then on line 7 you said you couldn't remember exactly but you were sure

25     you saw him at least once -- approximately one month later.  Does that

Page 10815

 1     refresh your memory about the number of times you saw him at Rajac?

 2        A.   Yes, yes, there's nothing contentious there, as far as I am

 3     concerned.

 4        Q.   And on page 26 of this transcript you visited him again at Rajac

 5     much later.  Does that refresh your memory that you visited him again at

 6     the Rajac facility?

 7        A.   No, I know that I did visit him, but I don't know when, what

 8     month, what year.  I know that we did see each other at least one more

 9     time at Rajac, and I know probably what your next question will be and

10     that is at one occasion when we were there General Perisic simply also

11     dropped by.  If that is your following question, he just stopped by in

12     his private capacity just like myself, and we briefly met there.  This is

13     also in the transcript although I didn't have the opportunity to look at

14     the transcript either in Serbian or in preparation for my testimony

15     today, but I do remember, and I'm sure you will help me.

16        Q.   Sir, actually my next question for you is still about the Rajac

17     facility.  One of your tasks around the time that Mladic stayed there was

18     to make it more liveable there; is that correct?

19        A.   No, that is not correct.  This is a very clumsily put by the

20     director of the training centre Corporal 1st Class Gujn [phoen], and it

21     seemed to him that the assistance became more intensive after or when I

22     visited Rajac on one occasion.  I'm going to explain.  The army command

23     had decided to rent out that facility so investments had to be made,

24     civilian sheets and blankets had to be procured, at least one woman had

25     to be hired for housekeeping.  We needed to buy washing machine and

Page 10816

 1     dishwasher and also some equipment for cutting the grass because the

 2     facility was a little bit neglected.  All of this began a little bit

 3     earlier because this was discussed at the collegium of the 1st Army

 4     command under whose jurisdiction this facility was, and that really has

 5     nothing do with Mladic.

 6        Q.   Sir, let me ask you if on page 13 of the transcript we are

 7     looking at, did you not say when referring to your task with regard to

 8     Rajac:

 9             "What I meant was the internal division between me and the

10     logistics assistant who it was to be between the two of us who would take

11     care of facilities to make them liveable for the people who go to rest

12     there."

13             So did you not have a role in making the Rajac facility liveable

14     for the people went to rest there?

15        A.   Perhaps that is what I said, but that is not what I meant.  What

16     I meant was that it was necessary for the two of us in some way to divide

17     our duties, and I'm going to tell you why now.  I'm not going to ask for

18     a closed session because the facility was --

19        Q.   I just want to know if you performed that task or not, if you

20     played any role in that task?

21        A.   No, I cannot answer you in that way.

22        Q.   You will not tell us if you played that role or not?

23        A.   Well, I do -- well, I don't have the right not -- well, I don't

24     have the right to not reply because I was create problems for me, for my

25     family, bring shame upon myself or criminal prosecution, but since I see

Page 10817

 1     that you are very persistent, I'm going to tell you that this began much

 2     earlier.  We received the assignments much earlier from the 1st Army

 3     command to renovate these facilities because this was the place where our

 4     commands went in case of an alarm, some sort of alert or emergency or

 5     danger of war.

 6             In such a situation we would directly go to these facilities, the

 7     logistics of the 1st Army went to Stragari, and the command went to

 8     Rajac.  Since I was in charge of that operation section, then I took it

 9     upon myself to bring it up to such state that you could immediately go

10     and use those facilities and not for somebody to come from the outside or

11     for a foreign country or something to be able to rest there.  So this is

12     actually a much broader explanation than I think the one that you

13     requested of me.

14        Q.   And after your renovation Mladic stayed there; correct?

15        A.   I assure you that the renovation began much before that and that

16     the renovation was carried out according to the funds we had at our

17     disposal.  I don't know when he went there and how long he stayed.

18     Others went there too, and I also spent at least seven days each year

19     there, of course, and I paid for it, and I'm still keeping all the bills

20     or invoices that I paid for each of my stays there.

21        Q.   General, did you continue seeing Mladic up until 2002?

22        A.   We did see each other a few times up until January -- early

23     January 2002, and from that time on we definitely never met one another

24     again.  I testified about that in detail and it is in the transcript.

25        Q.   Okay.  So during this time that you would see Mladic, from 1997

Page 10818

 1     to 2002, at that time were you aware that there was an indictment from

 2     this Tribunal and a warrant for his arrest for war crimes?

 3        A.   I did hear somewhat later about that from the media, as well as

 4     the reward that was published for anyone who would assist in his capture.

 5        Q.   And, sir, did you not tell others at the Rajac facility that they

 6     were not to tell anyone else about Mladic's visits to the facility?

 7        A.   Yes, I did.  That is what it says in the transcripts from my

 8     previous testimony in March last year.

 9        Q.   And, General, this was to assist Mladic in evading arrest on the

10     charges of this Tribunal, wasn't it?

11        A.   No, not as far as I'm concerned.  Simply there was the danger

12     that choppers or helicopters from Bosnia or in some other way NATO that

13     had its forces there could suddenly come, violate our air-space, and

14     capture and hand over General Mladic.  Secondly, there were some renegade

15     groups in our country, members of some other forces there, who could also

16     do something like that.

17             We did have a case of one of our citizens being kidnapped

18     somewhere on a mountain and then he was transported across the river

19     Drina and handed over, so the idea was, and I talked about that, was to

20     prevent any harm from happening to him.

21        Q.   Sir, I believe your testimony was just that the reason you told

22     people not to say where Mladic was is that there was a danger that

23     choppers or helicopters from Bosnia or in some other way NATO that had

24     its forces there could suddenly come, violate our air-space and capture

25     and hand over General Mladic, meaning arrest and hand over General Mladic

Page 10819

 1     to the custody of this Tribunal to face the charges against him; correct?

 2        A.   Well, yes, you could understand it that way too.  I'm not denying

 3     that.

 4        Q.   All right, sir.  Now, after the Law on Co-Operation with the

 5     Tribunal was passed in 2002, since that time and at that time you did not

 6     inform anyone of any of the information you have about the whereabouts of

 7     General Mladic; correct?

 8        A.   No, namely the last time I saw him was sometime between the 7th

 9     and the 14th of January 2002.  Already I was retired by that time.  The

10     law was passed in April.  After this date when the law went into effect,

11     I did not see or hear or communicate with General Mladic again.  So I

12     couldn't really then report having any kind of contact with him either.

13        Q.   But in 2002, you didn't turn over to authorities any information

14     that you had up until that time about places he went or where he might

15     be?

16        A.   No.

17        Q.   Now, sir, in the Perisic case, if we could turn to page 83, line

18     16.  Judge David asked you:

19             "You said also that you had not received orders to inform the

20     presence of General Mladic in your statement today.  Had you received

21     orders to do so, to reveal his presence, would you have done so because

22     of your friendship and relations to the general?"

23             And your answer was:  "I do not know who would issue such an

24     order, but I would never reveal my information about this, not on any

25     cost."

Page 10820

 1             General, as you sit here today, that's still true, isn't it?

 2        A.   I know what somebody would perhaps like to say in answer to this

 3     question.  I'm a serious man, a general, and I gave my solemn statement

 4     at the beginning of the testimony.  Perhaps it would be fit for me to say

 5     at this moment that I would very gladly report him and seriously very

 6     sincerely, I did think a lot from last March until now what would happen

 7     were I to know, and I must say in response to your quite definite

 8     question that I am today also saying that I would not report, hand over,

 9     or extradite General Mladic were I to know where he was at any price.  So

10     since this is a hypothetical question, my answer is also a hypothetical

11     one.

12        Q.   And your answer is no, correct, you would not?  You would not

13     turn him over?

14        A.   I would not.

15        Q.   Thank you, sir.  Now, you were asked questions about the combat

16     reports yesterday.  Do you recall those questions?

17             MS. PETERSEN:  Oh, Your Honours, I would like to tender the

18     transcript from the Perisic trial.

19             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes.  Just those pages, is that it?

20             MS. PETERSEN:  Well, it would really be up to the Court.  I'm not

21     sure if you would prefer to have the context of the rest.

22             JUDGE PARKER:  I don't want to receive the whole of the

23     transcript of the Perisic trial.

24             MS. PETERSEN:  Those pages are fine then, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

Page 10821

 1             MS. PETERSEN:  Well, oh, yes, just this testimony.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  It's received as Exhibit Number P01524.  Thank

 3     you, Your Honours.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I am not mistaken, these are

 5     just answers to specific questions.  This is not my entire testimony.

 6     These are questions taken out of context of the entire testimony, but I

 7     don't have a problem to have this admitted.

 8             MS. PETERSEN:

 9        Q.   All right.  Sir, I'd like to talk to you about the combat reports

10     that you spoke about yesterday.  Looking at your statement, your witness

11     statement, which I believe is D553.

12             MS. PETERSEN:  If we could look at paragraph 9.  And if we could

13     just go to paragraph 9.

14        Q.   All right, sir, in paragraph 9 you discuss that you have studied

15     all of these combat reports.  I assume these are the ones that are now in

16     evidence in this case; correct?

17        A.   I haven't managed to read paragraph 9, so if you can just kindly

18     zoom in on that paragraph, if that's all you are interested in this

19     report, because I would just like to remind myself a little bit.  I don't

20     need to read everything in detail.  Yes.

21        Q.   All right.  Yes, and it is your statement in this document that

22     in these reports there are no reports of any VJ officer taking away

23     identity documents; is that correct?  I'm sorry, I should be more

24     precise, any members of the Pristina Corps taking away any identity

25     documents; is that correct?

Page 10822

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And there are no reports of attacks on the civilian population;

 3     correct?

 4        A.   Correct, yes.

 5        Q.   No reports on mass killings?

 6        A.   Correct.  There were no reports.

 7        Q.   No reports on the deportation of the Albanian population?

 8        A.   Not as a topic and not deportation.  First of all, let's see if

 9     we are thinking of the same thing.  Deportation is one thing, internal

10     refugees are something else, and the population leaving on its own is

11     something else.  If I remember well, nowhere was any kind of deportation

12     of civilians organised from Kosovo.  This was not in any report either.

13        Q.   Okay.  And there is no report of deliberate destruction of

14     religious buildings, is that also what you are telling us in paragraph 9?

15        A.   Yes, yes, there were no reports.

16        Q.   And if we look at paragraph 22, you speak again about this, here

17     you say that there are no reports of ethnic cleansing, correct, in these

18     reports, in these combat reports?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Okay.  No reports of looting or torching and destroying property

21     also?

22        A.   It says mass looting, nothing about mass or large-scale looting,

23     that's correct.

24        Q.   All right.  Thank you, sir.  Now, so if we were to go through all

25     of these combat reports that are in evidence now, we wouldn't find any

Page 10823

 1     reports of any of those things; is that your testimony?

 2        A.   Yes, that is what I state.  That is how it is.  Individual cases,

 3     individual killings in some place two or three, for example in Kosovo

 4     Polje were mentioned, but all of these things were processed.  What was

 5     under the jurisdiction of the corps command and the army command, that

 6     was discovered and reported was also something that was dealt with,

 7     processed.

 8        Q.   All right, sir.  Now, just to clarify, do these reports contain

 9     reporting about MUP activities?

10        A.   I don't know which reports you mean.  The Supreme Command staff

11     ones or the ones by the 3rd Army command?

12        Q.   I mean the combat reports that came into evidence that you were

13     shown yesterday and you spoke of, those combat reports that went up to

14     the Supreme Command, were those reporting --

15        A.   Of the Supreme Command staff?

16        Q.   The ones that went to the Supreme Command staff, I believe.

17        A.   Excuse me, these are distinctions but very important ones.  There

18     are two reports, reports that reached the Supreme Command staff, and an

19     integral combat report which the Supreme Command staff submitted to the

20     supreme commander each morning.  I don't know which ones you mean.

21     According to the list that was discussed this morning, I assume that you

22     mean the combat reports of the Supreme Command staff, so please, could

23     you repeat your question.

24        Q.   Sir, I'm referring to what you're referring to in your statement.

25     You said you reviewed combat reports and they don't contain reports of

Page 10824

 1     any of these things in them.  I'm asking you if those reports you're

 2     referred to, if they report on the MUP or just the VJ?

 3        A.   No, they could not contain detailed information about the MUP

 4     because this is a different structure, it had a different chain of

 5     command.  The reports referred to events in their own ranks and maybe

 6     sometimes incidentally there would be a sentence about some unit of the

 7     3rd Army of the Pristina Corps supported MUP units in the implementation

 8     of some assignment, that could have been in the reports, yes.  Otherwise,

 9     there were no detailed reports about what the MUP did.  It was not part

10     of their duty to have to do that, no.

11        Q.   All right.  Sir, now I'd like to speak to you about the plans and

12     orders that came down from the General Staff or the Supreme Command

13     staff.  I want to make sure I have your testimony clear.  Your testimony

14     is that you were in the unit in charge of drafting all of these orders;

15     is that correct?

16        A.   For the most part, yes, I was at the head of the administration,

17     that mainly was entrusted in peacetime and war time with writing

18     commands, orders, reports and so on and so forth.

19        Q.   And your testimony is knowing of all the plans that were drafted,

20     there was no plan to expel the civilian population; is that correct?  And

21     I'm also referring here to your statement at paragraph 20, that there has

22     never been a plan to expel -- to assist or support terror and violence

23     against the Albanian civilian population; is that correct?  Is that your

24     testimony?

25        A.   Yes, that is correct.  That is my testimony.

Page 10825

 1        Q.   Now, all these things that we just discussed, mass killings,

 2     deportation, destroying religious sites, based on your training in

 3     international humanitarian law, you understand that those would be war

 4     crimes; correct?

 5        A.   I have to say that I don't understand the question, I didn't

 6     speak about that, I didn't say that that there were any deportations,

 7     mass killings, crimes and so on and so forth.  This is what I think you

 8     mentioned and asked for my view, but I claim that this was not contained

 9     in the reports.

10        Q.   Sir, I understand it's your testimony that it's not in the

11     reports.  Those activities would be considered a war crime if they took

12     place; do you agree with that?

13        A.   This is a hypothetical question, and I'm going to give a

14     hypothetical answer, no.

15        Q.   Sir, I'm asking you based on all of the training that you

16     received in international humanitarian law, your opinion about whether

17     these would constitute war crimes, your understanding about whether these

18     are war crimes.

19             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djurdjic.

20             MR. DJURDJIC:  [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would just like

21     the statements to be presented correctly, especially if they are being

22     read out, and I think a document is being read out.  My learned friend

23     said just now that religious facilities and other things, other crimes,

24     were not referred to in the reports.  It says in the statement:

25             "I state with full responsibility that in the Army of Yugoslavia

Page 10826

 1     or the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia there was never any kind

 2     of plan, order, or anything which in any way supported or instigated any

 3     type of crimes against the Albanian population."

 4             I don't want to read the entire thing.  All I wanted to say is

 5     that what is being presented by the Prosecutor at this case is incorrect,

 6     and if it is being presented, I would then kindly ask that it be done

 7     correctly because what is stated in paragraph 20 has nothing to do with

 8     the combat reports that were the topic of questions a little bit before.

 9             JUDGE PARKER:  I believe we've moved on from combat reports,

10     Mr. Djurdjic.

11             Carry on, please, Ms. Petersen.

12             MS. PETERSEN:  Thank you.  Your Honours, I do note the time.  I'm

13     on my last topic, I would guess depending on the speed here it could be

14     done in the next 10 or 15 minutes if we want to push through so the

15     witness can leave.

16                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             JUDGE PARKER:  I'm afraid we must adjourn now.  There is another

19     trial sitting in the courtroom at 2:15.  So we must give them half an

20     hour to change over.  That means we must now adjourn to resume tomorrow

21     morning at 9.00.

22                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.

23                           to be reconvened on Friday, the 5th day of

24                           February, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.