Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 11001

 1                           Tuesday, 9 February 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

 5             JUDGE PARKER:  Good morning.

 6                           [The witness takes the stand]

 7             JUDGE PARKER:  Good morning.  [French on English channel]

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

 9             JUDGE PARKER:  The affirmation you made to tell the truth still

10     applies, and Mr. Djordjevic is continuing his questions.

11                           WITNESS:  MILAN RADOICIC [Resumed]

12                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

13                           Examination by Mr. Djordjevic:  [Continued]

14        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Radoicic.  We are going to

15     continue from the point where we broke off yesterday.  My next question

16     after everything you said yesterday, technically speaking, what was your

17     obligation on the basis of the position you then held in the office of

18     the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command, previously the General Staff?

19        A.   Yesterday I described it in quite a bit of detail.  Technically

20     speaking it meant being in charge of persons who on the basis of

21     establishment were working in the office of the Chief of General Staff in

22     peacetime, and in war time, the Chief of the Supreme Command staff.  That

23     meant being in charge of the realisation of all expected and unexpected

24     tasks.

25             Then the use of personnel and equipment and overall resources in

Page 11002

 1     the implementation of these tasks.  That would be it in the briefest

 2     possible terms.  If it is necessary for me to go beyond this technical

 3     description --

 4        Q.   We heard about it yesterday.  With regard to this technical

 5     aspect of it, we have heard the general aspect, but I'm interested in a

 6     specific aspect now.  Yesterday you explained that you prepared a certain

 7     number of documents, orders, notifications, et cetera.  Let us now speak

 8     about how mail was received in your office, what preceded the receipt of

 9     mail, was it registered, and if so, how, and vice-versa.  How did mail

10     from your office go to other units, state organs and so on?  Generally

11     speaking, how did this communication develop, did the mail come and go

12     via courier or some other way?  Could you please tell us how things went

13     in peacetime and how things went in war time.

14        A.   Very well.  In the technological process of organising the

15     receipt -- I mean, I will try to explain the details of this process.  So

16     the receipt, review of all the characteristics of the mail concerned

17     because who would be dealing with that mail depended on what kind of mail

18     it was.  In the office of the Chief of General Staff, or rather, the

19     Chief of Supreme Command staff, there was a chief of office of the head

20     of office of the Chief of General Staff.  Now, that person checked the

21     mail and checked the propriety of the mail received.  And I emphasise

22     that.

23             One of the important characteristics involved is whether the

24     mail, as it had previously been reviewed before arriving at the office of

25     the chief of office, whether it had been subjected to the so-called

Page 11003

 1     anti-sabotage inspection.  If that had been the case, then the person

 2     involved in this work was authorised to affix a stamp on that mail, a

 3     square stamp saying "PDK," that meant that there were no elements in this

 4     mail that could lead to any undesirable effects.  PDK meaning

 5     anti-sabotage control.

 6             Once all of that had been dealt with, the chief of office was

 7     duty-bound to hand that mail, all of that mail to the head of office or

 8     the deputy head of office, as I was at the time.  So that was our duty.

 9     Of course, before taking the mail to the head of the office or to myself,

10     he had a log-book of mail received, so that came from the general

11     forwarding service, so they received and sent all mail that arrived,

12     either from Belgrade or from other parts of the country, or from foreign

13     countries.  All mail that was being sent to the units and offices of the

14     Army of Yugoslavia.

15             So once the person from the forwarding office would bring this

16     mail for the Chief of General Staff or chief of command staff in war

17     time, we did not receive all the mail, I emphasise that, but only for the

18     Chief of the Supreme Command staff.  So that person from the forwarding

19     service had the duty on the basis of this log-book to hand over the mail

20     and then the head of office had to register all the mail he received in

21     the log-book of his office.

22             As I said a few moments ago, he had to review it after handing it

23     over to the head of office or to me as a deputy head of office.  He

24     actually had to categorise the mail received and then to register who he

25     was forwarding it to further.

Page 11004

 1             My job was on the basis of visible features on the mail

 2     concerned -- there were -- there was also an open kind of mail, if I can

 3     put it that way, telegrams.  So I had to deal with whatever the mail was.

 4     If it was urgent, then I had to deal with it urgently.  If it was urgent

 5     for the Chief of the Supreme Command staff, then it would immediately be

 6     handed over to him.  So that was the process of receiving mail in that

 7     part of the staff of the Chief of General Staff.

 8             If you are interested in further activities carried out by myself

 9     and the head of staff, I can explain that too.

10        Q.   When the Chief of the General Staff would receive mail from his

11     associates, primarily his own Chief of Staff or deputy Chief of Staff,

12     what measures were taken and what kind of obligations did you then have?

13        A.   Immediately after receiving the mail and familiarising ourselves

14     with that mail that we then handed over to the Chief of General Staff, we

15     were either asked by him personally to stay at his office to see what

16     kind of mail or document this was so that action could be taken

17     immediately, quite literally on the basis of that mail, or if five or ten

18     minutes were required, not more than that, then we could wait in front of

19     his office and then he would call us back in, and he would give us orders

20     either in writing or orally about what should be done with that mail.

21             I repeat, if the mail was urgent, so throughout the aggression,

22     regardless whether it was day are or night, we received from him orders

23     either on the document itself, rather, the description of our duties in

24     terms of how we should act upon that mail on the basis of his having

25     looked into the content of that mail, or he would attach a piece of paper

Page 11005

 1     to that mail saying what he had to say on the basis of the significance

 2     of the mail concerned.

 3             Then on the basis of his position stated on the document itself

 4     or on this attached additional document, we knew very clearly what we

 5     should do further.  If the mail was a report or a request or whatever,

 6     there were many different types of documents, so in that report it was

 7     usually command reports or requests from subordinate commands.  Then on

 8     this attached document or on the margin of the document itself, he would

 9     state his views, and then it was quite clear to us what should be done

10     further, whether it should be sent to one organ or several organs of the

11     Supreme Command staff or strategic groups, or perhaps we should be

12     addressing some of the state organs, the federal government or particular

13     ministry or several organs.

14             Each and every time he presented his position very clearly,

15     immediately, so the chief of the office and I were very rarely faced with

16     a dilemma as to what we should do with a document.  Once we would be

17     given these tasks, then the head of office or I would process the

18     document technically, and our duty was to hand that over to the chief of

19     that office that was in charge of distributing that mail, or rather,

20     sending it to the appropriate organ or ministry concerned.

21             All of that was part of that process of receiving and

22     distributing mail, and it was based on instructions that had previously

23     been adopted, so it was very clear for all how mail could be traced.  I

24     think that I've been quite clear.

25        Q.   One of my questions was in what way did mail leave your office?

Page 11006

 1     Was there just one way, or was there a number of ways depending, for

 2     instance, on the secrecy, the importance, confidentiality?

 3        A.   Well, that was precisely my duty.  I will try to be very brief,

 4     but for laymen, it may look simple, although the entire procedure is very

 5     complex.  Anyway, I'll try to be brief.

 6        Q.   I'm sorry, but this is going to be very important for our later

 7     understanding of certain things that you will be explaining in the

 8     process of our Defence case, but please try to make it understandable for

 9     laymen.

10        A.   If a document had to be delivered to one of the assistants of the

11     Chief of the Supreme Command staff or a representative of any of the

12     agencies that were located together with the Supreme Command staff in

13     this special facility, which was our base at the time, after technical

14     processing which meant formatting, retyping, in keeping with the position

15     stated by the Chief of the Supreme Command staff, that document would be

16     logged.  That was compulsory.  If it had a regular number 250-1, then

17     after our logging, it would become 250-2.  That was done in the filing

18     department.

19             If it was to be delivered within the same location, then it would

20     be simply handed in personally by our office manager or his deputy within

21     the premises of the Supreme Command staff.  If it had to be delivered to

22     someone outside the base of the Supreme Command staff, then an authorised

23     representative of the central forwarding service would be called in and

24     they were located not in the same place as the Supreme Command staff, but

25     in the vicinity.  That person would come to take over the mail because

Page 11007

 1     the central forwarding service had well-established organisation, had the

 2     technical means, and facilities to deliver mail throughout the territory

 3     of Serbia.

 4             So that person from the forwarding service would receive the

 5     mail, sign for receiving it in our log-book, and then that would be the

 6     end of that part of the process.  And I also have to emphasise that on

 7     that document even there would be an indication of urgency such as very

 8     urgent, or defence, strictly confidential, or military secret strictly

 9     confidential.  There was a place for that indication on the envelope and

10     the authorised person from the forwarding service would have a very clear

11     indication of what procedure was required.

12        Q.   Now, after this explanation, I would like to know what kind of

13     log-books you had, what kind of registers, and how you archived your

14     documents.

15        A.   Log-books are a prescribed type of document, and they exist even

16     today within the system of correspondence in the defence system, which

17     includes the army and the defence ministry.  On the very forms that are

18     printed on each page, on the left page and the right page, and in the way

19     they are bound, they provide for a very precise and clear overview of the

20     entire procedure, any document goes through, be it a document of the

21     highest level of secrecy, state secret, or military secret.  So that book

22     has the left side and the right side.  On the left side you would see the

23     entire procedure of handling the document by the sender and the

24     addressee.  On the right-hand side, however, you would see further action

25     taken upon the document.

Page 11008

 1             So the author of this log-book designed this in a very purposeful

 2     and practical way.  It has proven to be a book that provides for security

 3     and clarity.  You can see immediately what was sent, what was received,

 4     who it was received by, what it was done with it later.  Every step in

 5     the process of handling with all time indications for every step.

 6             The log-book makes it easy even for a layman to understand, the

 7     entire process of handling and distribution while proper concern is given

 8     to secrecy.

 9        Q.   Now, in archiving, was there a possibility for a document to be

10     received by the office of the Chief of the Supreme Command staff without

11     being logged?  And if that happened at all, when would that happen?

12        A.   Again, I will try to be as brief as possible.  All documentation

13     that the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command received was not received

14     exclusively from our office, but perhaps 90 per cent went through us

15     because he was well aware of the importance of the technical processing

16     of the documentation according to proper procedure.

17             However, in exceptional cases, one of his immediate associates or

18     assistants who were constantly in touch with him would bring directly to

19     him a document that had been received by their organ, and after

20     consultation with the Chief of the Supreme Command staff, the chief would

21     always make a decision what to do with it so that there would be no loose

22     ends.  He would invite the chief of his office or me and tell us to log

23     the document as received, and that action would be taken in a way that he

24     would indicate either on the margins or on a separate piece of paper, as

25     I described earlier.  Anyway, that circle had to be closed so that

Page 11009

 1     everyone would know what to do with the document afterwards.

 2        Q.   What about archiving?

 3        A.   Archiving became topical only after the end of the aggression.

 4     The Chief of the Supreme Command staff immediately after the aggression

 5     ended issued to the entire army and all the related organs, all the

 6     organs associated with the Supreme Command staff with a central order

 7     that was very almost perfectly precise indicating what had to be done

 8     with all the documentation that had been received or sent immediately,

 9     all the correspondence from the beginning until the end of the

10     aggression.  Everything was prescribed very clearly and every chief of

11     every organ had a clearly prescribed procedure to follow including

12     dead-lines.

13             So everyone in this defence system knew what he had to do in the

14     process of preparing documents for archiving because this is a very

15     complex process, from initial review, initial inspection, to check

16     whether all the properties of the document meet the requirements, to

17     checking whether all the action necessary had been taken upon a document,

18     in that if this action had not been completed, then archiving had to be

19     postponed.  Or perhaps, the document had to be deferred and archived with

20     an indication that action upon it had not been completed.

21             All these instructions were contained in this central order which

22     was very comprehensive but not so comprehensive to be completely

23     sufficient, but in any way, everyone knew what to do in order to carry

24     out this procedure properly, because it was a very serious and very

25     complex task.

Page 11010

 1        Q.   My last question in this set of questions --

 2        A.   Sorry, in that order, in addition to those people who had to deal

 3     with the preparation, it was very clearly said and agreed what the

 4     military archives had to do.  They had a plan which told the archives at

 5     what time they would be receiving a representative of which organ with

 6     their documentation, and then that included inspection, whether the

 7     documentation was properly processed and whether all the requirements for

 8     receipt by the archives had been met.

 9        Q.   Last time you mentioned -- many times you mentioned rules and you

10     said these things were prescribed and this was a time-tested process.  My

11     question is, was there a bylaw or a rule book on office management in

12     those situations, not only in terms of archiving, but also in terms of

13     log-book and office administration?

14        A.   When I say the army and the defence system, I mean the Ministry

15     of Defence itself as an agency of the state and the entire state system,

16     and they prescribed every aspect of the functioning of the defence

17     system.  How, where, and when, those were the pillars of the state.  At

18     that time in Yugoslavia and later in the union of Serbia and Montenegro,

19     as everywhere in the civilised world, the system of defence closely

20     monitored all these procedures, so the Army of Yugoslavia did not

21     function all by itself.  They followed the general administrative

22     proceedings as prescribed and they applied to all state organs.

23     Everything that was written in the law on state administration and the

24     bylaws concerning office administration, and that was applicable to the

25     defence system was applied.

Page 11011

 1             These were not any idiosyncratic special rules, apart from the

 2     rules concerning dead-lines because our documents were sometimes marked

 3     military secret, and they had a limitation on safekeeping that had to be

 4     observed by the archives.  All the rules on administration and handling

 5     were the same as for civilian authorities.  There were the same laws,

 6     bylaws, and decisions of the defence authorities, various determinations

 7     and orders, all these regulated the office administration in the army and

 8     defence.

 9        Q.   You also mentioned weekly and monthly plans at the office of the

10     Chief of the Supreme Command staff.  During the war, what did that mean?

11        A.   In view of the complexity of our work in peacetime and war time,

12     and when I say "our work," I mean the whole system of the armed forces,

13     in view of all that complexity much earlier when the first plans began to

14     be used in our system of work in the army planning became a very

15     important function because the implementation of every task could be

16     optimised by planning.

17             We tried to place everything within a planned framework and thus

18     we created weekly and monthly plans.  There was an annual plan that lay

19     as a basis for these.  These plans were discussed and adopted at the

20     sessions of the collegium of the chief of office -- sorry, the Chief of

21     the General Staff in peacetime and Supreme Command staff in war time, and

22     during the war we also tried to work in a planned manner, not

23     chaotically, and as we made weekly and monthly plans, but also daily

24     plans because our duties multiplied to such an extent that it would have

25     been impossible to work without a plan.  But we tried to reflect all our

Page 11012

 1     weekly and monthly duties in these plans to facilitate their realisation.

 2        Q.   In war time, was there an establishment body that was hired in

 3     the Supreme Command staff?

 4        A.   The entire defence system envisaged that in case of a state of

 5     war or a state of emergency partial or complete, there was the highest

 6     organ of the state managing the entire system of the state, and it was

 7     called the Supreme Defence Council.  That was the highest body at the top

 8     of that pyramid conditionally speaking.  The Supreme Defence Council.

 9             And the first body in the defence system subordinated to that

10     highest body was the Supreme Command staff.  I suppose you know about the

11     Supreme Defence Council?

12        Q.   Certainly, certainly.  But I want to ask you, during the war in

13     1999, what kind of communication was there between your office and this

14     body, the Supreme Defence Council?

15        A.   Everything about that communication was prescribed and regulated,

16     and it worked like this:  The Chief of the Supreme Command staff, because

17     the Chief of Staff always had his own office in peacetime and war time,

18     and in war time it was called the office of the Chief of the Supreme

19     Command staff.

20             In war time also, the president had his military office.  That

21     office was headed by the head of the military office, and the Chief of

22     the Supreme Command staff also had his head of office.  So if there were

23     some assignments or duties that emanated from a position taken by the

24     president or the Chief of the Supreme Command staff, and if they had

25     decided that communication should be relegated to the interoffice level,

Page 11013

 1     then we would do so, we would organise communication between the

 2     president's military office and the office of the Chief of the Supreme

 3     Command staff.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Tell me, the Supreme Command staff, during the war,

 5     was it in the territory of Kosovo and Metohija, or was it in Belgrade all

 6     the time?

 7        A.   The actual seat of the Supreme Command staff was at the command

 8     post of the Supreme Command staff in war time, and that meant in the

 9     Belgrade garrison.  I say that intentionally, the seat.  The function of

10     the Supreme Command staff implied that it would function throughout the

11     territory as required by all the tasks placed before it.

12        Q.   Thank you.  The head of staff of the Chief of Supreme Command

13     staff was who?

14        A.   Colonel Milan Vlajkovic.

15        Q.   You were deputy?

16        A.   Yes, I was deputy head of office.

17        Q.   Tell me, to what extent, if any, did the scope of his

18     responsibilities differ from yours?

19        A.   Well, our scope of responsibility differed in terms of the actual

20     responsibility involved.  Colonel Vlajkovic was the person with top

21     responsibility, and he had the highest degree of authority in terms of

22     the unimpeded functioning of the entire office.  That was in his hands.

23     According to internal regulations that stipulated the rules governing

24     everyone's work within that office, he had the obligation and duty to

25     convey certain duties to his deputy.

Page 11014

 1             So the responsibilities of the deputy differed to a small degree

 2     from the responsibilities that he had.  That was the rules in peacetime

 3     and in war time.  But if you remember, I said yesterday that our tasks

 4     and responsibilities grew at such a rate that the two of us really did

 5     not look into all of that, who had more powers in which particular field.

 6     We simply tried to share the workload.  We acted with full responsibility

 7     anyway and we thought we should share the workload.

 8        Q.   Tell me, ex officio or in some other way, did you attend meetings

 9     of the Supreme Command staff, and if so, what role did you play in that

10     context?

11        A.   I did have the authority to attend if the head of office was away

12     on official business, then it was my right and duty, of course, to attend

13     these sessions.  Our overall activities, I mean, mine and Colonel

14     Vlajkovic's, meant that it was only once or twice that Colonel Vlajkovic

15     was prevented from personally attending that session or such a session,

16     so once or twice I attended sessions of the collegium.

17             Some people call them briefings, other people call them sessions,

18     but officially the name was sessions of the collegium of the Chief of the

19     Supreme Command staff.  They were held every day.  Sometimes when what

20     was happening in the territory of the entire country required it, then

21     even two daily sessions were held.  At any rate, they were held once a

22     day usually in the afternoon or in the early evening.  I underline that

23     because after these sessions people got very busy.  They had to act on

24     the basis of the tasks issued at those sessions.

25             When I participated in these sessions, or rather, when I attended

Page 11015

 1     them, it was my duty, just like Colonel Vlajkovic's, to have minutes

 2     written up and to record in brief terms what happened at the session so

 3     that after the session we could technically process together with the

 4     other organs of the Supreme Command staff the tasks that were invariably

 5     set at these sessions.  Of course, it was the Chief of the Supreme

 6     Command staff that issued these tasks.  He received proposals from

 7     different organs but at the end of the session, he was the one who would

 8     draw the appropriate conclusions and set the tasks.

 9        Q.   If I understand you correctly, the -- it was the head of staff

10     who was particularly duty-bound to attend these sessions?

11        A.   Yes, yes.  Ex officio, it was the head of staff, the chief of

12     office, rather, of the Chief of the Supreme Command staff who was

13     supposed to attend these meetings.

14        Q.   During the aggression against the FRY, did you know the accused

15     police General Vlastimir Djordjevic?

16        A.   As a citizen and as a person who was within the defence system, I

17     just know of him from the media and from official reports.  However, I

18     did not know General Djordjevic personally.

19        Q.   Tell me, did you ever have a document leave your office and go to

20     Mr. Vlastimir Djordjevic, or rather, to the position that he held then,

21     head of public security either personally or, as I said, simply to his

22     office, to the particular office holder that he was at the time?

23        A.   I personally never had occasion to see any such document or to

24     personally take part in the processing of such a document, or did the

25     chief of office ever inform me of the existence of any such document.

Page 11016

 1        Q.   Mr. Vlastimir Djordjevic then held the office of the head of

 2     public security of the MUP of Serbia, and did you ever receive any

 3     official mail from him at the office of the Chief of the Supreme Command

 4     staff during the war?

 5        A.   No, I'm not aware of any such thing, and I personally have never

 6     seen or received any such thing.

 7        Q.   My last question within this particular set is whether you

 8     personally had any knowledge during the NATO aggression against the

 9     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia about the alleged ethnic cleansing or

10     persecution of Siptars, or rather, Kosovo Albanians by our organs?  When

11     I say "organs," I'm referring either to the military or the police or

12     both the army and the police, and if so, could you please explain that to

13     us?

14        A.   I had no such knowledge.

15        Q.   Thank you.

16             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Before I move on to my next set

17     of questions, I would like to ask the Trial Chamber to allow the usher to

18     give the witness a binder with written exhibits that will be shown to him

19     in order to facilitate the proceedings because very often the copies are

20     not perfectly clear when displayed on the monitor.  This is what we did

21     in previous cases as well.

22             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes.

23             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24        Q.   Mr. Radoicic, could you please look at document number 2.

25             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Otherwise, could we have on our

Page 11017

 1     screens document D008-1213.  I beg your pardon, D008-1053.  In the binder

 2     it is number 2.

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter could not hear the witness.

 4             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, number 1.

 5        Q.   Mr. Radoicic, could you please look at this document and explain

 6     to us, or rather, could you first tell us whether you know of this

 7     document, whether you've ever seen it.  And if that is the case, could

 8     you explain to us within your answer what kind of document this is?

 9        A.   I've seen this document several times.  The first time when the

10     document itself was created, that is to say, at the time when its

11     processing was completed within my duties as an authorised official in

12     the office of the Chief of Staff.  And the second time was when before

13     this same court there was another defence case going on and then now

14     again, so I'm saying, yes, I know this document.

15        Q.   Can we have your comments today with regard to this document?

16        A.   Well, this is a document, of course this is a copy, is called

17     "Archive List" and as such, it constituted a document, or rather, a form

18     that military archives provided to all responsible persons within

19     responsible organs of the Supreme Command staff who had the duty on the

20     basis of the order I mentioned a few moments ago and the process of

21     preparing documentation for military archives.

22             So this is a form that was and still is called the archive list.

23     It has different sections, and when a party was submitting such a

24     request, then they had certain obligations and then the party receiving

25     it had certain obligations too.  Should I go on?

Page 11018

 1        Q.   Could you please stop at this point.  From the OTP we received a

 2     document also called "Archive List," D008-1713 is the number of that

 3     document.

 4             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] First of all, I would like to

 5     tender this document, I mean, the one that we've just seen.  The one that

 6     we've just seen I'd like to tender.

 7             JUDGE PARKER:  Is this a document with any particular relevance

 8     to this case, or is it being tendered simply as an example?

 9             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.  The question that

10     will follow after the question that I will put now will pertain to both

11     archive lists, so perhaps we can wait for that to happen and then I'm

12     going to tender both documents.

13             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

14             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Maybe it would be wiser if we

15     did it that way so that it would be clear to the Trial Chamber what the

16     intention of the Defence is.

17        Q.   So, please have a look at this document.  It seems to me that the

18     number of the document is identical, if I'm not mistaken.  In your binder

19     that is number 9 probably.  No, sorry, 7.  It should be 7.

20        A.   There is no number 9.  Very well.

21        Q.   7.  Or if you cannot find it, just look at the screen.

22        A.   It's not on the screen, it's still the archive list.

23        Q.   No, no, it's a different document, that's why I'm asking you.

24     This is a document provided to us by the OTP.

25        A.   The document that is on the screen is number 1 in the binder.

Page 11019

 1     Number 7 is the log-book here in the binder.  I've just found it.  It's

 2     number 6.  6.

 3        Q.   6.

 4        A.   I've just found it, number 6.

 5        Q.   Yes.  Please compare the two documents.

 6        A.   It is hard for me to carry out an appropriate comparison.  In

 7     this binder under number 1 in the upper left-hand corner I can barely see

 8     the degree confidentiality and the date.  I can perhaps make an

 9     assumption as to the date on the basis of some of this other information

10     that is barely legible.  And now this other document that was shown to me

11     that is number 6 in the binder, it is very clear that it is document

12     400-6.  The date is the 10th of August, 1999.  However, in this document

13     I cannot see what the content is.  Now, was that done intentionally?

14     There's this column, Title and brief description of contents of archive

15     unit.  Was this redacted on purpose when it was copied?  Quite simply we

16     cannot know what is written there.

17             It's only on page 7 that we can see.  So on pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,

18     6 respectively of this archive list that you showed me now at this later

19     stage, it is only number -- page number 7 starting with number 79 that

20     has a title and brief description of the contents of the document.  Here

21     it is.  That is the difference that I managed to notice.

22             So in my view, it is not equally visible and you cannot see --

23        Q.   On the basis of the stamp what can you conclude?

24        A.   Well, I see the stamp of the -- which one do you mean?

25        Q.   This one at the top in the right-hand corner?

Page 11020

 1        A.   In the left-hand corner is the logging stamp or seal, as it

 2     should be called, of the Chief of the Supreme Command staff.  And in the

 3     right-hand corner is something that is printed as part of the format.  It

 4     looks like a seal, but it isn't.  The receiving party in this case, the

 5     military archive, assigns a reference number under which the document was

 6     received, the date of receipt, and in these appropriate boxes they write

 7     how many documents and how many sheets in total are contained.

 8             On the document you've shown me, all this information is visible

 9     in the first copy you've shown me and in the second one.  The difference

10     between the previous one and the current one, as far as this part is

11     concerned, on the first page, is that on the previous one, there is a

12     stamp of the military archive in the right-hand top corner, whereas on

13     this one there is no such stamp.  Why it is missing, I really don't know.

14     These are briefly my observations.

15        Q.   Could we now --

16             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djordjevic, we are not able to grasp what is

17     being explained.  Are the two documents that are on our screen the two

18     documents being compared by the witness, or does he have some other

19     document?

20             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I'm comparing a Defence exhibit

21     with a Prosecution exhibit contained in their notification.  I just want

22     to know if these are the same archive lists bearing the differences the

23     witness indicated in view of the reference numbers on the stamp, on the

24     right-hand side, or these are perhaps different documents.  The witness

25     just explained what is on the stamps, both the left and the right one,

Page 11021

 1     and he noted that one column on one of these is pasted over.  So we are

 2     trying to establish whether this is indeed the same document with the

 3     appearance slightly changed because on the Prosecution copy one part is

 4     not visible, maybe because the paper was placed on top of the document

 5     during photocopying.  I just wanted to clarify this because I believe --

 6     you see the inventory number, 21606 --

 7             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djordjevic, could you just stop and listen.

 8     We have on our screens two documents.  One is an original.  It may be a

 9     copy of an original.  The other is a typed English translation.  Now, the

10     witness seems to be talking about some different document from the one we

11     have on the screen.

12             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Now I understand, Your Honour,

13     what the confusion is about.  Here on the screen we have a document, the

14     original, and the English translation.  What was shown to the witness

15     previously was a -- I will give you the number of the proposed exhibit

16     and I'll ask the usher to place it on the screen.  D008-1053 in Serbian

17     next to the document D008-1017, also in Serbian or B/C/S, so we can

18     compare these two original pages.

19             That was my question.  You see the B/C/S on the right-hand side,

20     it says "Archive List," but this is document D008-1053, and on the

21     left-hand side, we have a document proposed by the OTP and the number

22     is - just a moment - D008-1713.  So these are two documents.  Now, we see

23     the reference stamp on both.  We see the contents of the third column on

24     one of them but not on the other.  That's what I wanted to ask the

25     witness.

Page 11022

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have one more difference to point

 2     out.  One of these has the military archive stamp, and the other doesn't.

 3             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Which one has it?

 5        A.   The one you called D008-1053.  In the right-hand top corner where

 6     it says inventory number, it also has the military archive stamp.  And

 7     the one on the left-hand side, it has the stamp of the office, but not --

 8     no, no, please, let me draw your attention to this.  Both documents

 9     normally in the left top corner say the same thing, the Supreme Command

10     staff, et cetera, although legibility is not equally good.  However, the

11     document on the right has the same inventory number, but one of them has

12     a round stamp of the military archives in the right top corner, and the

13     one, the other one you showed me, D008-1713 does not have that stamp in

14     the right top corner.  So to me as a connoisseur of this business, it is

15     quite clear that it is the same document but from two different points of

16     processing.  From two different times, two different stages.

17             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I believe this is enough.  I

18     will move to my next question.  Could we now place on the screen

19     D008-1017, both the B/C/S and the English versions.

20        Q.   I think in your binder it's number 2.

21        A.   It's not on the screen.

22        Q.   We are waiting.  Here it is.  You see it on the screen now?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   What kind of document is this?

25        A.   I've seen this one before, this is the third time I'm seeing it.

Page 11023

 1     This is a letter from the retired army general, Mr. Dragoljub Ojdanic,

 2     that he addressed to the chief of office personally, chief of the office

 3     of the Federal Defence Ministry, and at that time yours truly was

 4     occupying that position.  May I continue?

 5             He addressed this letter to me with a kind of urgent appeal and

 6     he is pressing me to receive documents that he had requested earlier.

 7     And in this letter, in addition to the urgency of the request, he also

 8     expresses his personal dissatisfaction over my attitude to his request

 9     addressed earlier referring to the same issue.

10             I received this.  It was officially logged at the office of the

11     federal defence minister in March 2002, which happens to be my 51st

12     birthday, and I was frankly surprised by his comments addressed to me

13     personally.  At first, I thought he was sending me a card, and I was

14     really surprised by some of his even insulting remarks, but he was

15     expressing some justified dissatisfaction because he had expected a

16     quicker response.

17             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Now, so that we can understand

18     why this letter was addressed to you, let's have on the screen P888.

19        Q.   In your binder, it's number 3, I think.  All right.  You see the

20     document?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Is that the document preceding this letter by General Ojdanic

23     written on your 51st birthday, as you said?  First of all, do you know

24     this document?

25        A.   Not contemporaneously, but I know about it from my evidence in

Page 11024

 1     Milutinovic when I was shown the document.  I know it from that time, and

 2     this is the second time I see it.  But during my tenure and on this date,

 3     I didn't see it.

 4        Q.   Can you comment?

 5        A.   I can comment --

 6        Q.   From the technical viewpoint?

 7        A.   Looking at the technical features, I can't understand.  Normally

 8     documents that are marked military secret, state defence, and strictly

 9     confidential always have to be numbered because it's either a state

10     secret, very important, or military secret strictly confidential, also

11     very important, which must have an indication of how many copies were

12     made and are distributed under specific numbers to a limited number of

13     persons.  This number is missing.  That's my first comment on the

14     technical aspect.

15             Second, I can't understand --

16             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we see the second page

17     before the witness continues.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On page 2, I don't see that the

19     creator of this document and the sender of this document indicated, as he

20     should have, to whom it was delivered and what action was taken further.

21     If it's addressed -- well, I believe that people who are familiar with

22     this technique know very well the difference between addressing something

23     and delivering something.  Those are two different things.  The sender

24     did address the letter.  It could have been addressed to me or to the

25     United Nations or I don't know who, but the address is there.  Here at

Page 11025

 1     the end it doesn't say delivered to.

 2        Q.   At the bottom to the left we see some kind of stamp.

 3        A.   Where to the left?

 4        Q.   Well, below the signature of the commander, colonel-general, I

 5     don't know which.

 6        A.   In my document under tab number 3 there's no such thing.  Anyway,

 7     it doesn't say to whom it was delivered.  Just let me finish.  If it's

 8     delivered to just one person, it has to say "delivered to" at the top,

 9     and the second line would read "files" or "archives" otherwise we

10     couldn't trace it.  It is prescribed by the rules that the sender has to

11     indicate to whom his correspondence was delivered.  Nobody cares to whom

12     he addressed it.  Copy number 1 to one institution, copy number 2 to

13     another institution, et cetera.  This sender could have also sent -- have

14     sent this to the Supreme Defence Council for their information, but it's

15     not indicated.  Nothing is indicated.

16             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we go back to page 1,

17     please.

18        Q.   We see something in the right-hand corner on the monitor.  We

19     need to see clearly the number in the right top corner, it begins with a

20     7, but there's something else.  Now we see it.  What does this number 72

21     mean?  Do you have any idea?

22        A.   I have no clue.  At the office of the Supreme Command staff, such

23     handling of documents is not allowed.  So this must have come from

24     somebody in the military archives or somebody who handled the document

25     or, I don't know, I can only guess.

Page 11026

 1             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Now we have the same

 2     problem that we had as we did with the archive list.  This same document,

 3     except that now the document has some other markings on it as well, was

 4     received from the OTP.  So could we please have the first page of the

 5     document submitted by the OTP, that is 3D10-0057.  Could we have the

 6     first page of the original of that document, the B/C/S version, placed

 7     right next to the B/C/S version of this document that we now have on the

 8     screen.  6038 is the 65 ter number.  Could you lower it a bit?

 9        Q.   Please have a look at this now.  Is it the same text?  Is it the

10     same organ?

11        A.   Do you have it in the binder, or is it only on the screen?

12        Q.   I think that it should be under number 4 in your binder.  So

13     first tell me whether you can recognise the text as being the same or not

14     as was the case with the archive list a few moments ago?

15        A.   As far as I can see on the screen, it is one in the same text.

16     The same form of processing.  This does not have the number of copies in

17     which it was made.  Before you asked me about number 72, but as opposed

18     to that, this document has number 248, and I also have no idea where it

19     came from.

20        Q.   What about this seal?

21        A.   It has a stamp that I cannot see, but I can only assume --

22        Q.   Please have a look.

23        A.   I can only see some letters, so I'm just making an assumption.

24     If it's the military archive, then I see OJ, and I can see the coat of

25     arms.  But the copy of this document is almost useless.  We see something

Page 11027

 1     that resembles the stamp of the military archive though.

 2        Q.   What is this down here that we see starting with a Y and then it

 3     says Y0252272?  What's that?

 4        A.   This is the first time I see it.  It is not characteristic of any

 5     kind of action that is taken at the office of the office of the Chief of

 6     the Supreme Command staff.

 7        Q.   Yes, that was my question.

 8             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] So could we have both pages

 9     right next to one another.

10             JUDGE PARKER:  Could I be reminded which document has which

11     exhibit number?

12             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] On the right-hand side, Your

13     Honour, is 3D10-0057.  And the one on the left-hand side is P888.  On the

14     left is P88 -- it's part of the Defence notification, and the one on the

15     right-hand side is part of the Prosecution notification.

16             JUDGE PARKER:  The number you are giving, could I point out,

17     Mr. Djordjevic, 3D10-0057 is the number in the Milutinovic case.  In this

18     case, the same document is 65 ter 6038.

19             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] 6038.  I've already said that

20     once, I'm sorry.  But once I saw with regard to this document it is -- I

21     see that the transcript does not reflect what I said.  It is 5888 [as

22     interpreted] so it's three 8s.  Could both be scrolled up.

23             JUDGE PARKER:  Is that preceded by a 5 or a P?

24             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] P, a P.

25             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

Page 11028

 1             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Please look at the document on the right.  6038 is its 65 ter

 3     number.  We see that there is one extra stamp on the left-hand side.  Can

 4     you give us your comment on that?

 5        A.   You won't mind, but I keep distinguishing between a stamp as in

 6     "pecat" and a stamp as in "stambilj."

 7        Q.   I'm sorry, I'm not very knowledgeable about that kind of thing.

 8     I do apologise.

 9        A.   I guess that this is a professional deformity on my part, so I

10     make a fine distinction between the two.  So this stamp says the Federal

11     Republic of Yugoslavia, the Supreme Command staff, the office of the

12     chief, Strictly Confidential Number 248-2, the 26th of May, 1999.  What I

13     truly cannot understand is how come two documents can circulate whereas

14     one does have a marking to the effect that someone had received it, and

15     the other one does not have that marking?  So this stamp of the office of

16     the Chief of the Supreme Command staff could be placed subsequently, but

17     I'm saying I see these two together for the first time, how is it

18     possible for the same a document to be circulating in two different

19     versions in terms of processing?  I mean, there can be a stamp here that

20     it's was received at the Hague Tribunal as well, for instance.

21             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the speakers please not overlap.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There can be different kinds of

23     processing, but I've already said that I did not see these two this way

24     before, so I do not understand how come this happened.

25             I have to add one more thing that is very noticeable.  Perhaps if

Page 11029

 1     somebody else has this kind of a professional deformity in terms of a

 2     high degree of perception in this respect, the first document had the

 3     signature of the sending party, and then in the left-hand part there was

 4     a signature with a stamp, the command of the 3rd Army with the coat of

 5     arms of Yugoslavia, how is it possible that on this other document this

 6     stamp has a different position as it were and a different slant in terms

 7     of how it was stamped?  And it also doesn't say how many copies were

 8     made.  So it's either someone who is not very well versed or someone who

 9     is not responsible or someone who is not authorised to act.  I don't know

10     what to call that person.  If this was done only two copies, then it is

11     possible to have these two differences, or rather two places stamped in a

12     different way, but if it was done only in one single copy, if there's

13     just one original, then how can a photocopy be made and differ from the

14     original?  Because we see these details here on the screen, and I can see

15     it in my binder.  It is quite obvious, it is glaringly obvious that these

16     are documents that within a certain period of time were handled

17     subsequently by certain persons with a certain intention.  Probably today

18     for some reason one can go to a particular place and ask to have this

19     kind of seal affixed.

20             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, would this be a

21     convenient moment to take a break?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me tell you one more thing.

23     The signature is not --

24             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I cannot tender documents

25     because I have a number of questions left before I tender this document

Page 11030

 1     because I would like the Trial Chamber to understand what I'm saying.

 2             JUDGE PARKER:  Is it the proposition of the Defence that the

 3     contents of this -- these two documents differ, or merely that there are

 4     the differences that have been explained so far by the witness?

 5             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The contents are absolutely

 6     identical.  However, the differences are in the accompanying stamps or

 7     seals, "pecat" or "stambilj" as the witness says because I really am not

 8     knowledgeable enough to make that kind of a fine distinction in terms of

 9     stamps, but there are differences in terms of registrations and numbers,

10     and we'll go back to the archive list as well so that I can explain to

11     the witness why I asked to have an explanation of what this archive list

12     was and then I'm going to tender both.

13             You saw that the archive lists are the same, they have the same

14     numbers, however one has an extra stamp and then some numbers differ, and

15     I think that ultimately it is going to be perfectly clear to one and all

16     once we reach the end.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sorry, may I make another important

18     observation in this regard?

19             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Please go ahead.

21        A.   If we are talking about the date, I see that here on the stamp it

22     says the 26th of May, and the document was processed on the 25th of May.

23     So if we are talking about urgency, if the Chief of the Supreme Command

24     staff should be familiarised with this urgently, then the document had to

25     say "urgent," "very urgent," or if this cannot be sent as a telegram by

Page 11031

 1     teleprinter, if it had to be sent by courier, then it would have to say

 2     "urgent" or "very urgent" on the document itself.  Very urgent meant that

 3     if the territory so permitted, it would be done within the course of the

 4     same day, and urgent meant by tomorrow at the latest.

 5             And it would have to state that it's compulsory sent by courier.

 6     So in order for this document to reach the Supreme Command staff from the

 7     command to the 3rd Army within such a short period of time it had to be

 8     sent by courier or by teleprinter.  There was no third option.  It

 9     doesn't say how urgent it is and also it was not sent by telegram.

10        Q.   How come you know it wasn't sent by telegram?

11             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter did not hear the answer.

12             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Your Honour, I could

13     break at this point because the next point --

14             JUDGE PARKER:  The last answer was not heard, the last answer of

15     the witness, because you and the witness are overlapping in your haste.

16             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I so apologise.  I was quiet

17     while he was giving his answer.

18        Q.   So let us repeat it.  You said that the document, the document

19     that you explained, or rather, the last thing that you said, could you

20     repeat it once again, and I shall wait patiently.

21        A.   Subsequently I asked you to give an important remark in my view,

22     something that I noticed subsequently as I looked at it, namely, if the

23     document was processed on the 25th of May, and this is the first time

24     that I see that it was received on the 26th of May, I see on that stamp.

25     So if we are talking about such a brief period of time, this kind of

Page 11032

 1     important document in terms of its content could have been sent in

 2     addition to the shortcoming that I referred to originally, it doesn't say

 3     in how many copies it was made.  It also has no marking as to whether

 4     it's urgent or very urgent.  Then further on, I explained if it's very

 5     urgent then it had to be dispatched within the same day, and if the idea

 6     was to have it received within the course of the same day then it had to

 7     be marked that it should be sent by courier.  To this day, there is a

 8     stamp, an auxiliary stamp precisely for these purposes in all military

 9     units and in all organs of the Ministry of Defence and of the army, this

10     stamp is placed on a document and on it it says "urgent" or "very

11     urgent."  And underneath that it says "deliver by courier."

12             On this document, which in terms of its importance and in terms

13     of the speed, according to which it should be delivered, there is no

14     marking as to whether it's urgent, very urgent, or whether it should be

15     delivered by courier, and it is certain that it was not delivered by

16     telegram or as a telegram because the document does not contain the

17     characteristics of a telegram.

18             Perhaps I did not quite identically put it as I did the first

19     time, but that is it.

20             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21             JUDGE PARKER:  We will resume at 5 minutes past 11.00.

22                           [The witness stands down]

23                           --- Recess taken at 10.37 a.m.

24                           --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.

25             MS. PETERSEN:  Your Honours, I would like to address something

Page 11033

 1     before the witness comes in, if that would be all right with you.

 2             JUDGE PARKER:  Ms. Petersen, yes.

 3             MS. PETERSEN:  Because there's a little confusion with some of

 4     the documents that are being discussed with this witness, I thought it

 5     might be helpful if I give the Court a little contextual information and

 6     it may make some of the testimony make more sense.

 7             With regard to two exhibits, which it may be helpful if the Court

 8     just had.  I have hard copies of them that you can have before you when I

 9     say this so you know what I'm referring to.  With regard to Defence 65

10     ter 638, and Defence 65 ter 644, if the usher could just bring that to

11     the Court.

12             JUDGE PARKER:  Are these documents which have been put to this

13     witness?

14             MS. PETERSEN:  Yes, these were the two archive lists that the

15     witness was comparing.

16             JUDGE PARKER:  The numbers you just quoted are not the ones that

17     seem to have been used at the time.

18             MS. PETERSEN:  Yes, I'm using the 65 ter number.  I think the

19     Defence is using a document ID number which I do not necessarily have all

20     of their document ID numbers.  638 is D008-1053, and 644 is D008-1713.

21     These are basically -- they are two copies of an archive list from this

22     witness's office to the archives, to the military archives, and this

23     first copy, which is Defence 65 ter 638, which looks like this, if Your

24     Honours can see, this one, this was presented by the Ojdanic Defence in

25     Milutinovic, and they obtained it from the government of Serbia.  This is

Page 11034

 1     a copy obtained from the archives, and it's an excerpt of this list.  So

 2     because it's a copy, it has this stamp from the archives here that it's a

 3     copy from the archives, and it's a shorter excerpt.  And later the

 4     Ojdanic Defence requested a full colour copy of the original, and so

 5     that's what this other list that the witness was comparing, that is what

 6     65 ter 644 is.  The Ojdanic Defence then got this colorful copy of the

 7     list, so it doesn't have the copy stamp up here, and it's longer.  It's

 8     not an excerpt and the archives, or someone, redacted out some of the

 9     content because apparently they didn't want that to be given.

10             So that is the source of these two documents there.  The same

11     thing, they are just -- one is an excerpt form and a copy and the other

12     in full form and not a copy.

13             And the other two documents that were being compared are P888,

14     this 25th May letter from 1999, and 65 ter 06038, which is the same 25th

15     of May letter, but it has on the back page a stamp from the office of the

16     Chief of the Supreme Command staff, and it also has another stamp on the

17     front.  And P888 was received by the Prosecution in the Milutinovic case

18     from the government of Serbia, and 06038 is another Milutinovic exhibit.

19     That one was received by the Ojdanic Defence, and they were asked on the

20     record where they got that document, and they said that they received it

21     from the National Council for Co-operation.  So these are documents that

22     those received from different sources.  Possibly that can give the

23     Chamber some context so when you hear these documents referred to you

24     will have that background information.

25             I believe with the archives which I spoke of first, it seems that

Page 11035

 1     this witness may not be aware of that so he may not be able to speak to

 2     it.  However, this information about the source of these was contained in

 3     the Milutinovic testimony of Mladenovski, who I believe is on the

 4     Defence's list of witness, so if the Chamber has further questions he may

 5     be someone that you can address.  So hopefully that can be of assistance.

 6             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

 7                           [The witness takes the stand]

 8             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djordjevic.

 9             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

10        Q.   Mr. Radoicic, let's pick up where we left off.  We still have the

11     document on our screens, the one that we have been discussing previously.

12     My next question is, since we already heard from you that during war

13     operations you had not had an opportunity to see such a document,

14     assuming that this kind of document has reached the office of the Chief

15     of General Staff or the Supreme Command, what was the presumed procedure

16     and what would follow thereafter?  Let's say that this is our working

17     assumption just as I gave it to you.

18        A.   In my earlier statement, I described in general terms the

19     procedure applicable to all documents, and what kind of methodology was

20     implemented by the chief of supreme staff and his office.  This kind of

21     document or report, first of all, if it had arrived from the area of

22     responsibility of the 3rd Army, or rather, its forward command post, as

23     it is stated in the letter, received special treatment for the reason

24     that in this area, all the combat operations were at their highest.  And

25     in comparison to all other documents and reports, arriving from the area

Page 11036

 1     of the responsibility of the 3rd Army were given, I have to say extremely

 2     pronounced importance and was given highest priority in processing them.

 3             So if this kind of report would reach the location where the

 4     Supreme Command staff was, and especially if it was addressed to the

 5     Chief of Staff of Supreme Command, then the responsible personnel from

 6     the chief's office would deliver this document to him directly in the

 7     fastest possible way.  When I say "in the fastest possible way," means

 8     that if the Chief of Staff at the moment when he is in receipt of such an

 9     important document, was somewhere outside the very headquarters of the

10     Supreme Command, then this important document would deserve to be

11     delivered to him as soon as possible and literally we will resort to a

12     procedure of urgent delivery to his hands directly wherever he is.

13             If he was in the seat of the Supreme Command, he would receive it

14     immediately.  However, if he was outside of the seat of the Supreme

15     Command staff, he would also receive it within the shortest possible

16     term.  I'm positive, and I say with full responsibility that he, the

17     chief of supreme staff immediately after being informed about such

18     important issues contained in these documents would write his

19     instructions on the document itself indicating who and when is obliged to

20     continue to act upon this document.  From the content of this document,

21     one can see that this kind of document would definitely warrant, based on

22     his assessment, immediate distribution of the document to the members of

23     the staff of Supreme Command, and I'm sure certain state organs as well

24     because this has to do with the resubordination of MUP units as it is

25     stated in the document.

Page 11037

 1        Q.   I have to ask you this:  In view of the time that you spent

 2     alongside the Chief of Supreme Command and Colonel Vlajkovic, who was

 3     chief of office of the Chief of the Supreme Command, and you said that

 4     you spent quite a lot of time with him, do you remember that there was

 5     information to the effect that you acted on the content that is contained

 6     in this document, and would you remember such an occurrence?

 7        A.   I would definitely remember that.  As far as I can remember

 8     concerning this particular document, I did not take any action because I

 9     didn't have a chance to see it while the aggression was in progress.  But

10     let me ask you, and first of all, I would ask the Trial Chamber to tell

11     them that during the break I - I felt some kind of anxiety, first of all

12     because I have given a solemn declaration, and throughout my career I

13     only made one oath and that is when I joined the army in which I pledged

14     that I was going to abide by everything contained in that oath.

15             When I appeared before this court for the first time, I also gave

16     a solemn declaration to speak the truth, and as a lawyer, I am personally

17     interested in committing to do everything as long as I live for things to

18     be proven and preserved.  I'm really upset, maybe you can feel it in my

19     voice, that there are two types of documents in circulation that the

20     processing methodology of these documents give rise to a high degree of

21     anxiety in me, and I wonder if something happened with these documents in

22     terms of the tampering or being abused.  So for the sake of truth or

23     untruth, some people are incarcerated and some other people are free.

24             As a human being and as a lawyer I think it is my duty to do my

25     best not to deprive someone of their freedom by addressing all these

Page 11038

 1     issues responsibly.  So by looking at this document, it seems that

 2     somebody has received this document but only subsequently, and somebody

 3     is trying to prove something with that, then the truth must be completely

 4     different.  And I would really like to emphasise that this gives me rise

 5     for concern and anxiety that the truth is being treated in this and that

 6     way.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Can we please continue.

 8             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have again Defence

 9     Exhibit Number D008-1053.

10        Q.   That's number 1 in your binder, Mr. Radoicic.  We have both

11     versions in B/C/S and English, and could you please show us the last page

12     of this document where we have the seal and two signatures.  Can the

13     witness please tell us who signed this archive list.

14             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] And if you can please zoom in on

15     the signature and the seal.  Thank you.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We see only one signature on the

17     screen.

18             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Okay.  Who signed it?

20        A.   This is my signature because I was the only authorised person to

21     do that.  That's why you have this note on the left that I personally

22     put, and it says, P over O which stands for by authority of the chief of

23     office, Colonel Vlajkovic Milovan, who gave me this authority, and that

24     was my working task in processing the documents for the military archive,

25     and, therefore, I signed this document.  And only the seal could be put

Page 11039

 1     on my signature and the signature of Mr. Vlajkovic.  Other persons were

 2     not entitled to that.

 3        Q.   Can we please now look to the left and see who has compiled this

 4     list.

 5        A.   We see here that this list was compiled by Miodrag Jankovic, but

 6     his signature both on the screen and on the hard copy is almost

 7     invisible.  You can see just two or three lines, no more than that.

 8     Therefore, I cannot say definitely whether it was him who signed this

 9     document.

10        Q.   Thank you.  Can we please look at the document itself.  We have

11     that there were some corrections and additions made in this document, in

12     the original.  Can you comment on that?

13        A.   Unfortunately I don't have the original here, all I have are some

14     rather illegible copies, but as far as I can discern, in column 7 it

15     says, Received on behalf of the military archive warrant officer 1st

16     Class Dusan Mladenovski and this is probably his signature, so this is no

17     one from the office who signed this but rather this warrant officer from

18     the military archive.

19        Q.   But this column that has a register number, who added these

20     things in writing?

21        A.   If we look at page 8, these are corrections probably made by this

22     warrant officer or the responsible person from the archive, that is what

23     he did at the moment when he received the documents.  So during the

24     hand-over they literally checked all the numbers and all the elements

25     relating to the documents that were being handed over, and this warrant

Page 11040

 1     officer Mladenovski probably for the reasons known only to him, probably

 2     by complying with some regulations, he made some additions.

 3             In one place on this page, page 8, I see that actually he made

 4     more than one correction, but it is very legible, as if this were a

 5     financial document.  He did cross out certain entries, but you can still

 6     see what was stricken out.  So he did it properly, and one can see what

 7     was before and what was added subsequently.

 8        Q.   Thank you.

 9             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please look at the

10     previous page, and that's page 7 in the original.

11        Q.   Please take a look at entry 82, what does it say?

12        A.   It says:

13             "Official Note of the meeting between the Chief of Supreme

14     Command staff and the chief of administration for the preparation of the

15     republican organs for defence in the Republic of Serbia and the Federal

16     Ministry of Defence."

17             Do I have to repeat it slowly?

18        Q.   Yes, please do.

19        A.   "Official Note of the meeting between the Chief of Supreme

20     Command staff and the chief of administration for the preparation of the

21     republican organs for defence in the Republic of Serbia of the Federal

22     Ministry of Defence."

23        Q.   Thank you.

24        A.   May I clarify?

25        Q.   Yes, you may.

Page 11041

 1        A.   Apart from Yugoslav Army there were other organs who were

 2     responsible for Defence under the Law on Defence.  I hope that you know

 3     that we had two laws.  The Law on Defence as the broadest legal

 4     instrument that governed all defence issues in the then Yugoslavia, and

 5     the Law on the Army which governed only the issues relating to the army.

 6     Since in addition to army there were other organs responsible for the

 7     tasks and obligations relating to the defence system, there were a few of

 8     them, and amongst them was an organ which was called, Administration for

 9     the preparation of the republican organ in Serbia, and the same organ

10     existed in Montenegro.  Both of them were under the jurisdiction of the

11     Federal Ministry of Defence.

12             In peacetime the Chief of General Staff didn't have any

13     jurisdiction over the activities of these two organs.  However, during

14     war since the whole functioning and the regulation of the whole defence

15     system is unified, and as I said at the very beginning, involving units

16     and organs of the Yugoslav Army and that of Ministry of Defence, all of

17     them were in war time under a unified command which was called the

18     Supreme Command.

19             So for that reason, the Chief of Supreme Command had the right

20     and the authority to regulate certain activities of these organs as well

21     in the given circumstances.  For that reason, probably this Official Note

22     was drafted, and it was necessary to draft it because they definitely

23     discussed certain tasks that these administration organs were obliged to

24     carry out.  For example, to take care of the functioning of

25     transportation, traffic, railway transportation, communication system,

Page 11042

 1     et cetera.

 2             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] So for us to understand

 3     everything that has been done so far, can I please have next to this page

 4     7 B/C/S version of 65 ter 6038.

 5        Q.   We shall see that in this original there is something written

 6     that is closely related to what we have been discussing so far.

 7             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can you -- yes,

 8     that's right, we need to see the stamp and the seal.

 9        Q.   We can see here in this document in the upper right corner the

10     number 248, and we have a seal for which you assume that this is the

11     archive seal, but if we look on the left side under item 82 in this

12     archive list, we see number 248-1, and underneath somebody wrote 248-2.

13     Then in the next column we see that somebody crossed some numbers by hand

14     and added new numbers.

15             Since you signed this document, did you enter these corrections

16     and what is -- what do these corrections signify?

17        A.   Earlier when I was explaining this document to you I said that I

18     put my signature on this document after the responsible person from the

19     office of the Chief of General Staff compiled this list and confirmed

20     that it was ready for hand-over.  That means that it contained all the

21     entries, numbers, description, register numbers, and all these boxes that

22     needed to be filled.  But this was not done by us as the ones who were

23     handing over the document.  All these documents were done at the moment

24     when the hand-over took place.

25             So present during the hand-over was the responsible person from

Page 11043

 1     the handing over party, and also the responsible person from the

 2     receiving party, in this case, the archive.  The only person authorised

 3     to carry out these corrections was the representative, or rather, the

 4     authorise person from the archive.  We were never allowed to enter any

 5     corrections ourselves.  So all these corrections that you see in this

 6     document were done actually, I suppose, by this warrant officer

 7     Mladenovski as a recipient responsible person.

 8             While I'm answering your question, I'm looking at these

 9     correction that is entered under number 82, I can't help but notice that

10     the handwriting under 82 of this correction is not identical, or at least

11     it doesn't look identical to me, to the handwriting of the only person

12     authorised to make corrections, that is the person from the archive.  It

13     seems to me that this was written by someone else who I don't think was

14     authorised.

15        Q.   What does this 248-1 and 248-2 mean in this entry number 82?

16        A.   Well, nothing is striked.  It was just added in this column log

17     number below 248-1, it was just added, 248-2.  And in the columns number

18     of documents and number of sheets, corrections were indeed made 2 and 5

19     were written instead of 1 and 3 respectively.  That means there were two

20     documents instead of one and five sheets instead of three.

21             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]  Let's go back to page 1 and to

22     the stamp.  I just -- we just need to change the left side.  D008-1023.

23     Sorry, 1053.  We need to see the first page.  Let's see the stamp on the

24     right.

25        Q.   It says here, Number of document 277, and sheets 735.  That's in

Page 11044

 1     the stamp.  Now if this correction was made and rubricated too, does that

 2     mean that the number documents would have to match if we add up the

 3     documents and sheets, should the final result be as written here, 277

 4     documents containing a total of 735 sheets?  Should that be so?

 5        A.   That's what I understood you were saying, but I told both you and

 6     in the previous Defence case, this is not a stamp, it's part of the

 7     formatting, and these boxes are envisaged and printed there to be filled

 8     in.  As to your question, you are absolutely correct.  From what I can

 9     see, the handwriting of this authorised official from the military

10     archive indicates that there were 277 documents, no correction added; 735

11     sheets, no correction added.  And it's quite certain that at the end

12     after receipt, you should have counted the documents and the sheets and

13     written the correct number.  It's up to that authorised official.  He

14     should do this in a responsible manner.  Anything else would be forgery,

15     it would amount to forgery and tampering.

16        Q.   Now, next to this -- my last question about the relationship

17     between these two documents, does the document on the right, 248, we see

18     that it completely correlates with the archive list, does that number

19     have anything to do with this first document, and in what cases would a

20     number be placed on the document as an addition under the rules?

21        A.   This number added subsequently, 248-2 with a basic number 248-1,

22     this number 248-2 is the number of some follow-up document that should be

23     related to the basic document.

24        Q.   Would there be an obligation to state what document it is about?

25        A.   Perfectly correct.

Page 11045

 1        Q.   We see only one document indicated?

 2        A.   Yes, that person indicates two documents but does not specify

 3     what the other document is.  You had an opportunity to see what the

 4     log-book looks like.  248 is the basic number, and everything that

 5     follows, which is called subnumber, dash 1, dash 2, dash 3 or 4 must be

 6     correlated with a basic number.  So if 248-1 is the basic document and

 7     refers to the minutes from this meeting, all the follow-up documents,

 8     dash 2, dash 3, et cetera should relate to that document that those

 9     minutes.

10             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] After this, the Defence will

11     tender, and I give my thanks to my learned friend from the Prosecution

12     who took the trouble to give us additional information about the sources

13     of these documents, I will tender, as I said, D008-1053, which is the

14     archive list we've just seen, but also the other one, D008-1713, also

15     archive list which we established would be the same document but

16     redacted, some of the information is concealed.  And we also tender 65

17     ter 6038.  It's the number given by the Prosecution, and the exhibit

18     number is P888, but it's related to the previous three exhibits, and

19     that's why I want the previous three documents to be admitted as well.

20             JUDGE PARKER:  Exhibit, the one which is D008-1053 will be

21     received.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00583.

23             JUDGE PARKER:  And the other archive list, D008-1713 will be

24     received.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D00584, Your Honour.

Page 11046

 1             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] And the relationship of these

 2     two documents with P888, we have another document 65 ter 6038.  It's

 3     identical to --

 4             JUDGE PARKER:  65 ter 6038 will be received.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D00585, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

 7             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I have got to tender

 8     D008-1017.  That's a request or an application by the already retired

 9     Chief of the Supreme Command staff to this witness, and it's P888.  And

10     we also tender D008-1017, the letter by General Ojdanic sent to the

11     federal Defence ministry, to the attention of the witness.

12             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D00586, Your Honours.

14             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can we now call up

15     D008-1109.  D008-1059.

16        Q.   In your binder it's number 5, Mr. Radoicic.  Would you tell us

17     what this is?

18        A.   It's the log-book, and it's bound in such a way that sheets

19     cannot be taken out.  Otherwise it would be punched and have a special

20     guarantee string running through it.  It's written on the cover that it's

21     the log-book, but this is the first page.

22        Q.   What is that book for?

23        A.   You enter or register or more precisely file all the documents

24     that deserve to be registered in the log-book of the agency keeping the

25     log-book in keeping with its purpose.  This is the log-book of the chief

Page 11047

 1     of office of the Chief of Staff of the military command, and it's marked

 2     to indicate that there is only one book which means that it contains the

 3     proper record of all the documents that were designated by the rules as

 4     deserving to be entered into this book.

 5             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now call up something

 6     that's already been exhibited.  But before that, I tender this document.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe I are forgot to say one

 8     important thing, namely, on this page we also see the stamp of the

 9     military archives, which I suppose means that the military archives must

10     have received all the documentation logged here because they affixed a

11     stamp.  Or perhaps the military archive was duty-bound to place this

12     log-book at somebody's disposal, if they were so required.

13             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  May I tender this

14     document now.

15             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D00587, Your Honours.

17             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now call up D008-1729.

18        Q.   In your binder it's number 7.  Is it the same document?

19        A.   At face value I would say it's the same document.  I mean, the

20     same page because it's not a document, it's a page.  Except that the one

21     you are showing me now does not bear the stamp of the military archive,

22     whereas the other one did.  And one thing escapes me, what does this

23     number 1 mean?  This 1 was written there by someone for reasons only they

24     knew, because to me to put it informally it looks like scribbling.  So

25     somebody with no authority scrawled this 1.  An unauthorised person.

Page 11048

 1        Q.   Would it be allowed to make subsequent corrections?

 2        A.   This log-book was treated in the same way as financial documents,

 3     meaning that it was not allowed to take out any sheets or tear anything

 4     out.  And any correction wherever would have had to be marked as a

 5     correction.  Who could have made corrections and at what time?  If the

 6     correction was made while the log-book was still operational, running,

 7     that correction would have to be explained, and the explanation would

 8     have to be indicated in a proper rubric or column, that is, in one of the

 9     vertical or horizontal boxes, if there was any room to make a correction

10     there under the same number.  If there was no room, then an Official Note

11     could be written up describing what was done and for what reasons, for

12     what justified reasons, and that correction would have to be reflected in

13     that Official Note, and the Official Note would have to be attached to

14     the page where it -- to which it pertained.  And it would then not be

15     allowed to separate that Official Note from the page in question.  It

16     would certainly not be allowed to use this white paint you call corrector

17     or fix-it.

18             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] May I tender this document as

19     well.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And I emphasised, I don't know if

21     you were paying attention, it would certainly not allowed to make these

22     corrections on the part of the sender.  Now, later when it was already in

23     the hands of the archive, I don't know what approach they took and what

24     actions they were allowed to take.

25             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] We have another witness who will

Page 11049

 1     be speaking about that, I'm only interested in the part that concerns you

 2     and the office of the Chief of the Supreme Command staff.

 3             So this document D008-1729 is hereby tendered.

 4             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D00588, Your Honour.

 6             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please go back to

 7     D008-587 [as interpreter].  That's document that has already been

 8     admitted, the previous document.  Could we please have a look at page 54,

 9     I believe it's the second page in terms of what was submitted.  D008-7059

10     was the number actually.  Just a moment, please.  It's the second page,

11     isn't it?  So could we have page 54.

12             THE INTERPRETER:  Counsel please be asked to speak into the

13     microphone.  Thank you.

14             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] D587 for the transcript.  I see

15     that it has not been recorded correctly.  Could you please zoom in on

16     248.

17        Q.   What can you tell us about this?  Obviously it is P888, that's

18     already been admitted into evidence under that number.  So you see 248,

19     so it's the log-book of the Chief of General Staff, his office.  It says

20     number 2 --

21        A.   Sorry, what number is that in the binder?

22        Q.   We haven't got it in the binder.  You can look on your screen.

23     It can be seen very clearly.

24        A.   Well, I have to say that a few moments ago I had on my screen the

25     original of the page with the original colour of the ink and stamp and

Page 11050

 1     now I see this other thing where it says 248.  I can barely discern, so

 2     there's a difference between me saying I can see or I can barely discern.

 3     So is this, to strictly confidential S.POV, the 26th of May, 1999, and as

 4     far as I can discern in the column where it's 15th of May, 1999, it says,

 5     SMO dash -- I'm barely discerning what is says there, I can barely barely

 6     discern this, I think it says [B/C/S spoken] administration.  But I don't

 7     know what the rest says.  As opposed to that first entry, the other one

 8     on the 26th of May, 11 days later that is, says KDA 3rd commander, IKM,

 9     and it says that the sending party sent it 872-94/1-2.  I mean, it says

10     here slash 1-2, but that does not look like what documents should be

11     marked like with all propriety.  So I can see this second entry very

12     clearly, I mean, the handwriting, but not the first one.  And I don't

13     understand why not.

14             And also, this basic number where there is a reference to the

15     sending party, namely the Ministry of Defence, it says, Command of the

16     3rd Army.

17        Q.   Is there any logic there?

18        A.   From the point of view of everything that I have tried to explain

19     to you so far, with regard to the prescribed procedure and the powers and

20     authority in keeping records and registers, this does not look like

21     proper record keeping.  If I can take the liberty of saying this, it

22     looks like something that was subsequently entered.  It either has to do

23     with someone's ill intentions or ignorance.  I believe that the

24     responsible person who was in charge of doing this could or should never

25     have done any such thing.

Page 11051

 1        Q.   We have the right person to ask about that?

 2        A.   I must say that I personally within the discharge of my regular

 3     duties in war and in peace supervised everything single day and provided

 4     guide-lines, that was part of my job, to the work of the office at the

 5     office of the Chief of General Staff in peacetime and also in war time,

 6     and it could never happen that -- I mean, there would hardly be a day

 7     that would go by, I mean, I'm not talking about working hours I'm talking

 8     about days because often we worked all day, so hardly a day would go by

 9     without me looking at books.  This kind of thing would not have happened

10     without me knowing about it.

11        Q.   Tell me once again, you saw the first document, we cannot even

12     see what it says.

13        A.   Just allow me to say one more thing.  So what was done under this

14     basic number two completely different documents from two different fields

15     were put together.

16        Q.   Can that be done?

17        A.   That is unlawful.

18             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The last topic that I would like

19     to deal with is P1505.  Could I please have it on the screen.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have to admit to you that this

21     was really unskillfully done.  I mean, no matter how hard some person

22     tried --

23             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] P1505, please.  Thank you.

24     Could we have the English version as well.  Thank you.

25        Q.   In your binder it's number 8, Colonel.

Page 11052

 1        A.   Very well.

 2        Q.   This is a document, please have a look.  I would like to clarify

 3     this matter.  I don't want it to remain undiscussed, and we do know of

 4     its existence in evidence.  So again we are talking about resubordination

 5     of MUP units.  Again we are talking about the command of the 3rd Army,

 6     again with your talking about General Nebojsa Pavkovic, you will see that

 7     when we look at page 2 of the document, however, what you have before you

 8     is a hard copy so you are already seeing this, but could you please give

 9     us your comment on page 1.

10        A.   Well, there is scope for making comments in terms of the quality

11     and technical aspect involved, and also the content involved and also the

12     structure of the content as far as I can see as I glance at it

13     diagonally.  There is scope for both types of comments, technical and

14     substantial.  With regard to page 2 of this document as well.

15             So first of all, it says on page 2, a telegram can be sent.  So

16     my first technical observation is that if this was sent as a telegram,

17     then it had to have as an integral part a copy of the technical

18     processing of this document.  Although it is marked as a telegram, it is

19     a document, or rather, what is marked here is the intention of the

20     sending party to send this as a telegram.

21             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we just interrupt you for a

22     moment, and can we just show page 2 now for the benefit of our colleagues

23     from the OTP.  So please wait for a moment for page 2 to appear on the

24     monitor.  Not everything can be seen now so could you please adjust the

25     page accordingly.  Very well.

Page 11053

 1        Q.   Continue, Mr. Radoicic, please.

 2        A.   Well, now that we have page 2 here as well, first of all, we

 3     cannot see that it's page 2.

 4        Q.   What do you mean?

 5        A.   Well, it's not marked that it is page 2 in relation to page 1, so

 6     this in its own right can be a page that continues on to another text.

 7     It doesn't say that it's page 2 of this document at all.  That's my first

 8     observation.

 9             Secondly, if an authorised official like the Chief of Staff, and

10     over here there is a mistake, it doesn't say Chief of Staff, instead of a

11     B, there is a V, so maybe it's a typo.  There should be a signature by

12     the said person here because he was authorised by the commander that it

13     says here that this can be sent as a telegram.  So the assumption is that

14     say the commander dictated to him over the telephone, but he is

15     authorised to act further on in accordance with this document that it can

16     be sent as a telegram as it says here, so if he did send it, he had to

17     sign it because the commander who had issued the order, or whatever page

18     1 says, is absent, so in his absence it is this person who is authorised

19     to sign the document for him so that the document can be sent as a

20     telegram, so the commander, I mean or rather the person processing the

21     document had to say commander, Colonel-General Nebojsa Pavkovic S.R.

22     that means on behalf of, for, signed for, so this other page -- this page

23     does not have S.R., and it doesn't have the signature of this other

24     person who is authorised to order the teleprinter operator to send this

25     as a telegram.  What I started saying a moment ago when you interrupted

Page 11054

 1     me was that there is no evidence of this document being sent as a

 2     telegram.  This is typed out on a computer.  When a document is being

 3     sent as a telegram you probably had occasion to see what it looks like,

 4     what it looks like when you are sending a document by a telegraph.  So it

 5     does not contain any proof of that here.  There should be a signature of

 6     the authorised official here that it was sent as a document.  Had it been

 7     sent as a telegram, it would have to say who it was delivered to, so the

 8     teleprinter operator on the basis of the regulations regulating the work

 9     of teleprinter operators, state that once a telegram is sent on the -- or

10     rather, I'm sorry, in the lower left-hand corner he has to leave a stamp,

11     the teleprinter operator, when he received it, when he sent it, and when

12     the receiving party received it.  So there is no trace of all of these

13     actions that are prescribed.  Without that, this document is just a piece

14     of paper, although it does have up here a seal that I can barely see.

15             While I tried to explain at first in terms of how documents

16     should be treated when they are state secrets, military secrets, strictly

17     confidential, et cetera, it doesn't say what number it is.  This is a

18     strictly confidential document.  I glanced at its content, and it

19     certainly could have had a higher degree of confidentiality because it

20     involves a large number of organs in the defence system and also state

21     organs as well, so it doesn't say how many copies, it doesn't say,

22     therefore, which particular number this copy is, the one that we see now,

23     and in relation to the breadth of the issue that is being dealt with by

24     the author of this text because if it were the sending party then it

25     would be marked as a document that is being sent, and there is not a

Page 11055

 1     single marking that this was sent let alone received elsewhere.

 2             So the author, the creator of this text did not deal with that.

 3     There is no number as to what copy this is.  So if he had the intention

 4     to send this, instead of sending it to the Chief of Staff at the Supreme

 5     Command, he is sending it to the sector for KoV.  So I don't understand

 6     what his reasons were to address it to the sector of the KoV.

 7        Q.   What is important is whether you remember since you held the

 8     position you held at the Supreme Command staff, do you remember this

 9     document?  Did you see this document during the war, the document you are

10     looking at now, either as a telegram or in this form?

11        A.   Let me tell you, in the briefest possible term, I had no occasion

12     to see this, I did not see it.  I deeply believe that this kind of

13     document was never received.  As I've already said, it has no markings in

14     that sense that it had been received and I mean, it hasn't even been

15     marked by their teleprinter operator, let alone that it was received at

16     the Chief of Staff at his office, I must point out paragraph 8 is so

17     important that this must -- this would have to reach the Chief of General

18     Staff or had it reached the Chief of General Staff, he would have to

19     inform the head of the VSO about it.  There is a reference here to a

20     certain Levic and then also to Djindjic and Vesna Pesic and Velimir Ilic,

21     Veli Ilic.  So these are systems -- persons outside the defence system,

22     so it is certain that if the Chief of General Staff had received it this,

23     the president of the Supreme Defence Council would have to receive that.

24        Q.   Who would work on these documents?

25        A.   Either the office or one of the organs of the Supreme Defence

Page 11056

 1     Council because there's so many questions here, look at 10, shortage of

 2     ammunition, the assistant chief of the -- the assistant commander for

 3     logistics would have to deal with this.  And also say communications,

 4     again by the appropriate assistant commander in that field.  Then number

 5     8, paragraph number 8, this would certainly call for action on the part

 6     of the information administration, the security administration, one of

 7     the assistant commanders and also the position of the Chief of General

 8     Staff would have to be sent to the president of the Supreme Defence

 9     Council, either through the military office or the president of the

10     Supreme Defence Council would be aware of this, or at regular meetings,

11     the Chief of the Supreme Command staff himself would at a meeting of the

12     Supreme Defence Council make the president aware of that.  So that would

13     be say paragraph number 6 local electronic media.  Again the

14     administration for communications, then another paragraph, the

15     appropriate administration that was supposed to regulate matters related

16     to conscripts who were mobilised, then also other matters related to the

17     Supreme Defence Council, was it the president of the Supreme Defence

18     Council or the president of Serbia who would have to look into this kind

19     of conduct by representatives of the MUP.  Then number 2, privileged

20     position of the members of the MUP under quotations marks.  So 1, 2, 3.

21     Important questions are being raised here with regard to the activity of

22     the MUP.  So this is such a comprehensive document that the Chief of

23     General Staff would have to have an extraordinary meeting of his

24     collegium to deal with all these important matters.  And of course, he

25     would also urgently familiarise the head of the Supreme Defence Council

Page 11057

 1     about that.

 2        Q.   Had that been done, what you discussed just now, could it have

 3     happened without you having no knowledge of it whatsoever?

 4        A.   I'm stating to you with full responsibility that I had no

 5     opportunity to see any such thing, and I do not remember seeing any such

 6     thing.  There is not a single piece of information that would jog my

 7     memory in the sense of my having seen this earlier on.

 8             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I would thus

 9     conclude my direct questions for the witness, and I would like to thank

10     you Mr. Radoicic for having devoted his time to us so that we would all

11     work in the interest of justice.  Thank you.

12             Let me not forget, can I tender this document.  Oh, no, actually

13     it has been admitted.  Sorry.

14                           Cross-examination by Ms. Petersen:

15        Q.   Sir, I just want to make sure --

16             JUDGE PARKER:  Ms. Petersen, yes.

17             MS. PETERSEN:  Sorry, Your Honour.

18        Q.   Sir, I just would like to make sure I understand a few things

19     about the position you had during the period of the NATO bombing.  In

20     paragraph 3 of your statement you say that you prepared almost all

21     documents sent to the military office of the president of the FRY.  Who

22     would these document have been from, and I don't need an extensive -- was

23     it just documents from your office, or was it from other organs?

24        A.   When I said that we, I'm referring to the entire office, not only

25     to myself personally, when we wrote to the military office of the

Page 11058

 1     president of the Republic of Yugoslavia, or rather, in war time, the

 2     president of the Supreme Defence Council, that could have been only, and

 3     I'm emphasising this through my words and my tone of voice, it could have

 4     only been on the basis of the positions taken by the Chief of the Supreme

 5     Command staff.

 6             And when the Chief of the Supreme Command staff would decide that

 7     the president of the Supreme Defence Council should be made aware of

 8     certain information, then it could only be sent that way with the

 9     signature of the Chief of the Supreme Command staff.  If he personally

10     was the author of a particular document and stated his position, and if

11     he would sign that document and then he would give me, that is me and

12     the -- and Colonel Vlajkovic I'm saying we in that sense.

13        Q.   Sir, I'm only asking if the documents that you prepared were from

14     the office of the Chief of the Supreme Command or if other organs, you

15     were preparing documents from other organs.  That's all I need to know.

16        A.   I cannot go into the entire history of the creation of these

17     documents for the following reasons:  The Chief of the Supreme Command

18     staff was made aware of certain things in different ways, in writing or

19     orally.  So all organs that had an obligation towards the Chief of the

20     Supreme Command staff sent written information to him or informed him

21     orally.  As for the military office of the president of the Supreme

22     Defence Council, it's only the Chief of the Supreme Command staff who

23     could directly address him, not someone else.  Not anyone else for that

24     matter.

25        Q.   Thank you, sir.  You stated that after the evening briefings, you

Page 11059

 1     worked with the chief of the office to process and distribute tasks.  I

 2     just want to understand what you mean by that.  Do you mean that when the

 3     tasks would come from the evening briefing you would process them into

 4     written tasks and distribute those to the people who were to do the

 5     tasks?  Were these tasks in writing, that's my question?

 6        A.   If you are only interested specifically in whether they were in

 7     writing, then the answer is yes, but I can also explain to you the

 8     technology involved in these tasks, but that really depends on your

 9     interest.

10        Q.   Just to clarify your answers, they were in writing and then those

11     written tasks were distributed to the people who were to do them; would

12     that be accurate?

13        A.   You have understood that very well.  These tasks were written up,

14     logged, registered in log-books, in books of records, and submitted in a

15     proper way to all organs who were supposed to act on the basis of those

16     tasks during the course of that day.  Of course this procedure of sending

17     and receiving was also recorded from the organ who was sending it to the

18     organ receiving it.  So a document always had a closed circle.  A

19     document could not start moving without its entire movement being

20     recorded.  It's not that it would start in some way and then no one could

21     see how it was finalised.  That simply could not happen.  One of my

22     obligations was not to allow through my own work or through my

23     supervision of -- over the work of others that this be in any other way.

24        Q.   Thank you, sir.  And I believe you stated today that you attended

25     the evening briefings yourself one or two times; is that correct?

Page 11060

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And did you attend any other meetings with General Ojdanic?

 3        A.   There were such meetings and discussions.  When I say "meetings,"

 4     that means involving two or more persons.  There were also talks with one

 5     person only and on such occasions, he would ask me or Colonel Vlajkovic

 6     to come in order to take notes or to leave a written record of that

 7     conversation if it so merited.

 8        Q.   So of the meetings that General Ojdanic had in the office where

 9     people would come in to meet with him or out of the office where he would

10     go out to meet with other people, would you usually go with him, or was

11     this something that you only did sometimes?

12        A.   I or Colonel Vlajkovic went with him on those occasions and to

13     those places when he deemed it necessary.  We did not go regularly.  He

14     knew that we were busy enough as it was in the implementation of the

15     other tasks that we had, he highly respected the time involved for

16     carrying out these tasks and the obligations we all had.  He didn't

17     really mind about that kind of thing.  He was really very caring in that

18     respect.  It was just important that a person who would be a note-taker

19     would accompany him.

20             MS. PETERSEN:  All right.  I think it's time for the break, Your

21     Honours.

22             JUDGE PARKER:  We will have the second break now.  Resume at

23     1.00.

24                           [The witness stands down]

25                           --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.

Page 11061

 1                           --- On resuming at 1.01 p.m.

 2                           [The witness takes the stand]

 3             JUDGE PARKER:  Ms. Petersen.

 4             MS. PETERSEN:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 5        Q.   Sir, if someone else attended a meeting with General Ojdanic as a

 6     note-taker, was it part of your job responsibility when those notes came

 7     back to review all those notes?

 8        A.   Among other duties, it was also the duty of the office of the

 9     Chief of the Supreme Command to look at such documents, and he would

10     mandatorily indicate his position on such documents or he would invite us

11     personally to tell us his position and what to do with the document.  How

12     to dispose of it or whether to archive it if no further action was

13     required.  But it would certainly have to be logged.

14        Q.   Are you talking about documents or the notes?  I'm asking you

15     about the notes taken by a note-taker at a meeting.

16        A.   Every meeting had its form and if notes were taken, notes are

17     also official, at least in our understanding and jargon so notes were

18     also an official document.  And the very copy book in which the

19     authorised person wrote down bullet points or took notes about the

20     activity concerned, was an official document.  The copy book itself was

21     an official document.  And if a separate sheet of paper was used, that

22     separate sheet of paper was also an official document.  So notes were

23     also a document.

24        Q.   And did you personally review all those notes?

25        A.   If I was the person who was entrusted with that, yes, but it

Page 11062

 1     would be either the chief of the office or myself.

 2        Q.   Okay.  So did you -- I'm trying to find out if you did or not.

 3     Did you regularly do that, or was that not something that you regularly

 4     did?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   All right.  Thank you, sir.  Now, you explained in your -- when

 7     you were being questioned earlier that when documents came into your

 8     office, they got logged.

 9             MS. PETERSEN:  If we could look at 65 ter 645.  Okay.  I'm sorry,

10     I guess I failed to note that this has already been admitted.  It's 588.

11     D588.

12        Q.   Sir, is this the log of your office where you logged -- where the

13     office logged all of the documents that are received?

14        A.   I have said already in my evidence that this is the first page

15     after the cover of something that should be a log-book, is supposed to be

16     a log-book.  So I don't know if this is log-book.  This is just the first

17     sheet in what is supposed to be a log-book and in the form that I see on

18     the screen --

19             MS. PETERSEN:  If we could just look at one more page, perhaps

20     that would help.

21        Q.   So, sir, is this the log-book for all the documents that were

22     received in the office of the Chief of the Supreme Command staff?

23        A.   What I can see are two pages of one sheet in this log-book.  And

24     what we see on the screen is a copy of the original of that book, in

25     fact, a scan of these pages, and if we could just zoom in a bit.

Page 11063

 1     Perfect.  Maybe zoom out a little now.  So this is a scan of the

 2     original, and on these pages we see what the Defence counsel asked me

 3     about a moment ago.  This document 248 --

 4        Q.   Okay.  And for now I just wanted to confirm, so we are clear,

 5     that this the log-book.  We'll come back to this in a bit, and I'll ask

 6     you a little more about it, but right now I just wanted to confirm that's

 7     what that was.  If we could now --

 8        A.   Sorry, I just have to intervene --

 9        Q.   Sir, sir, we'll come back to this, and just for the sake of time,

10     we don't need to -- you gave a very good explanation in your other

11     testimony and so I have some specific questions later, but for now if we

12     could just move to D584.

13        A.   But I would really like to be given an chance to say that I want.

14        Q.   Sir, the only question put to you is whether this was the

15     log-book of your office.  That's all.

16        A.   No, you asked me if it is the log-book.  You asked me if it was

17     that log-book, and that's what I wanted to say.  These are pages from the

18     log-book, but I am -- can't say that those are the pages of that

19     log-book.  They are pages in a log-book of the kind that is kept at the

20     office.  I don't know which pages they are or whether it's that log-book,

21     the cover of which you've shown me.  Those are two separate things, and

22     that's why I thought I should point it out.

23        Q.   Well, sir, is this a log of documents received in the office of

24     the Chief of the Supreme Command staff?

25        A.   What?  Which?  What we see on the screen now?

Page 11064

 1        Q.   No, the document we were looking at before that you were still

 2     giving an answer about.

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  Now looking at this document, this is, and you

 5     spoke about this before, this is the archive list of documents from the

 6     office of the Chief of the Supreme Command staff that were taken over to

 7     the military archives.  Sir, were all of the documents that came into

 8     your office archived, or were some not?

 9        A.   All documents, if you remember from my previous evidence, all

10     documents action upon which was completed from the period to which the

11     order for the archiving of documentation during the aggression pertained,

12     all documents upon which action was completed were thereupon archived.

13        Q.   All right.  I'm just --

14        A.   I hope you understand when I say completed.  If I need to explain

15     why, please go ahead.

16        Q.   Well, let me ask you this:  If we look in column 4 - and if we

17     could scroll up the exhibit a little - I've noticed that it appears that

18     numbers are skipped, if we were to look at -- this pattern follows on

19     other pages also, but here if you notice it goes from 135 to 137 and

20     without going on I would represent to you if you look at other pages,

21     it's the same thing, not every number is included in the log number, so I

22     just was wondering, does that mean that certain documents were not

23     archived, or can you explain why some numbers are skipped?

24        A.   That follows up on where I stopped in my previous answer.

25     Documents were turned over only if action upon them was completed.  And

Page 11065

 1     in that basic order where the Chief of the Supreme Command staff

 2     prescribed to perfection which documents had to be turned over to the

 3     archives, it was stated that those documents upon which action is

 4     completed should be prepared and turned over to the archives.  And those

 5     documents upon which action was spending.  If for, some instances they

 6     concerned material damage incurred during the NATO aggression and the

 7     amount of damage had to be established and claims had to be settled,

 8     these documents were not turned over because action was still pending,

 9     and some of these have still not been completed.  And those documents

10     were not turned over to the military archive.  And those documents that

11     were not archived were the subject of reports prepared by every

12     organisational unit in the Supreme Command staff.  And that's how you get

13     the sequence of number skipping a few.

14             Only by comparing log-books and identifying the numbers missing

15     can you understand the substance of my comment.

16        Q.   Okay.  Thank you, sir.  So if we were to look through this,

17     through the pages of this, we've seen, as you can see on this first page,

18     there are handwritten amendments to this archive list, and I think you

19     stated in your direct examination that these were not made in your

20     office.  So would you agree that it appears that at the archive unit,

21     errors were discovered and corrected by hand on this list?

22        A.   The person in charge at the military archive made these

23     modifications and additions with certain justified reasons.  I could not

24     arrogate the right to give you an objective comment of all these reasons

25     that were guiding that person, but I know for sure that this authorised

Page 11066

 1     person from the military archive would not allow themselves to make an

 2     addition or modification without any justified reason, including the Law

 3     on the State Military Archive of which -- on which I'm not an expert, as

 4     well as reasons that the military archive found in the same order,

 5     because that order did not apply only to the Supreme Command staff but it

 6     also specified the obligations concerning appropriate procedure for

 7     receipt of documents by the state military archive.

 8             This is all I can tell you in answer to this question.  But that

 9     these additions were made by someone other than the authorised official,

10     that should not happen.  So I believe that somebody did this in a

11     perfectly appropriate way because he left visible marks.

12        Q.   Okay.  All right.  Thank you.  I'd like to now move on to the

13     letters between you and General Ojdanic.

14             MS. PETERSEN:  If we could first look at D586, please.

15        Q.   Now, in this letter General Ojdanic asks you to look into whether

16     the office of the chief of the office of -- the chief of the office of

17     the Chief of the General Staff, if you had received these two letters or

18     documents from General Pavkovic, the 25th of May document and the 4th of

19     June document.  And in this letter he refers to you, if we look at the

20     second paragraph of the text of the letter, he says:

21             "I urgently remind you to fulfill your official obligation to me,

22     which in no way a private one, in your capacity as chief of the office of

23     the Chief of General Staff of the VJ."

24             Now, during the time of the NATO bombing, that wasn't correct,

25     right, you were the deputy chief of office; correct?

Page 11067

 1        A.   Very well.  This appeal from him without this reference to the

 2     second paragraph is completely justified.

 3        Q.   Sir --

 4        A.   But in the second paragraph if we look at the entire

 5     chronology --

 6        Q.   Sir, I'm only -- all I want to know is if this is inaccurate that

 7     he referred to you as the chief of the office when you were, in fact, the

 8     deputy chief of office?  Is that right, that you were not the chief of

 9     office as he referred to you in this letter?

10        A.   Well, I have to tell you that he personally recognised his own

11     mistake.  It was an honest mistake because at that time I was deputy

12     chief and not the chief.  You're right.

13        Q.   Okay.  Now, if we look at your letter in response to him, which

14     is -- I don't believe this has been used yet.

15             MS. PETERSEN:  It's 65 ter D -- 65 ter 633, it's D008-1015.

16        Q.   If we look at the third paragraph of the text of your letter, you

17     say:

18             "With regard to your second letter, your reminder which I

19     received on 11 March 2002, I have no knowledge for the reasons stated

20     above (because I was not chief of office at the time) that any such

21     report was ever sent to the Chief of General Staff of the VJ."

22             It seems that you are saying in the letter that you don't know

23     whether that report was received because you weren't chief of office; is

24     that what you're saying in the letter?  And we'll look at the next

25     sentence also, but were you saying you didn't have personal knowledge

Page 11068

 1     because you were not chief of the office?

 2        A.   Maybe I did not put this in the best way.  Among other things, I

 3     did not know anything about this also for the reasons indicated in that

 4     paragraph.

 5        Q.   And if we look at the next sentence it says:

 6             "In addition, a check shows that such documents have not been

 7     recorded in the register of the office of the VJ, Chief of the General

 8     Staff."

 9             Correct?  That's what you've put in that letter?

10        A.   Yes, correct.  I can explain further, if necessary.

11        Q.   Well, are you stating that it wasn't in the log, that you asked

12     someone to check and they checked the registry and it wasn't in that log

13     that we've seen?

14        A.   Precisely.

15             MS. PETERSEN:  Now, if we go to D585, which is this letter in

16     question that we are talking about here.

17             JUDGE PARKER:  Are you wanting this tendered?

18             MS. PETERSEN:  Yes, Your Honour, can I please tender that letter.

19             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P01528, Your Honours.

21             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

22             MS. PETERSEN:  Thank you.

23        Q.   And if we look at the second page of this down at the bottom of

24     the page, on the left-hand bottom corner, is that a stamp that shows that

25     something is received by your office?

Page 11069

 1        A.   Yes, it's a stamp from the Supreme Command staff, office of the

 2     chief.  So it's the stamp of the office of the Chief of the Supreme

 3     Command staff, but I cannot confirm that it was received.  What I can see

 4     is an authentic stamp of the office of the Chief of the Supreme Command

 5     staff.  Whether the handwriting and the rest are really those of the

 6     authorised official, I cannot know because this does not verify delivery

 7     by someone.

 8        Q.   What does it mean?  Does it mean -- I was understanding that it

 9     meant that it was received by your office, but is that an incorrect

10     understanding?

11        A.   No, it's not an incorrect understanding.  I know that there is a

12     prescribed procedure and if it were followed, this document should not

13     be -- have been treated in this way.  However, the stamp could have been

14     affixed later.  I cannot exclude that possibility.

15        Q.   And setting aside at this moment whether it's possible someone

16     could have done it later, this is the stamp of your office, though; is

17     that correct?

18        A.   I've told you, it looks to me like it is.  This is a copy of a

19     copy, but this corresponds to the form of the stamp of the office of the

20     Chief of the Supreme Command staff.

21        Q.   Okay.

22        A.   I can only say that it looks like it.

23        Q.   All right.  Thank you, sir.

24             MS. PETERSEN:  And if we look back at Exhibit D584.  No, I'm

25     sorry, I need the registry, D587.  And if we could go to the second page.

Page 11070

 1     Oh, I wanted the one that is the original.  It should be -- it was 645.

 2     I'm sorry, 588.  And if we can just zoom in a little bit, and we don't

 3     need the English.  I think we're a little more concerned about what the

 4     original -- the scan of the original looks like here.  If we could just

 5     look at the line closely that says -- for the document that says 248.

 6        Q.   Now, setting aside, I realise, sir, that you have certain

 7     questions about this line, but on its face does this line in the log-book

 8     log that this document was received, if we compare the number of the

 9     document?

10        A.   Could you please repeat that question.

11        Q.   Well, we don't need to look back at the other document, but I'd

12     submit to you that the letter we've been speaking about is Strictly

13     Confidential Number 872941-2, and if we look at this line 248, does this

14     appear to log that a document with that strictly confidential number was

15     received by your office on the 26th of May, 1999?

16        A.   On the face of it, it looks like it was logged, and that means

17     received.  But it also looks to me like something written subsequently,

18     at a later date, not only subsequently, but incorrectly or

19     inappropriately.  Obviously with some ulterior motive, the person made

20     this entry subsequently, at a later stage, because the basic document,

21     248-1, relates to the administration for the preparation of defence

22     organs.  And it's incomparable, these are unrelated things and even a

23     layman would not have made such a notorious mistake to place a document

24     that has to do with the army and a strategic group in the same column of

25     something that relates to organs of the Ministry of Defence.  And me as a

Page 11071

 1     stick in the mud professional, it is obvious even from the ink that this

 2     was added later.  Everything is written in italics in this second line

 3     and much more legible than the first line.

 4             The document with dash 2 is from a completely different opera.

 5     It's like putting fruit and vegetables in the shop window of a jewellery

 6     store.  These things do not go together, but it all depends on the

 7     intentions of whoever wrote this, and they could have had bad intentions.

 8        Q.   Okay, sir --

 9        A.   This could not have been done like this in my office.

10        Q.   Now, sir, if you look at the first line in 247 and compare the

11     handwriting where it appears that the same thing has been written in

12     column, I believe that's column 4, doesn't the handwriting in 247 look to

13     be the same handwriting as in 248?

14        A.   I did not say it was not the same handwriting.  It's evident that

15     the author is the same.  The handwriting is either similar or the same.

16     I didn't say it was a different handwriting.

17             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djordjevic.

18             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] We are now going into something

19     that looks like graphological expertise, and neither the witness nor my

20     learned friend are experts in the field.  So I think I am justified to

21     object.

22             JUDGE PARKER:  I remember several passages of his evidence in

23     chief, Mr. Djordjevic, in which he expressed views where the handwriting

24     was of a particular person or not.  We are well aware that this witness

25     doesn't claim to be a handwriting expert, but his evidence is given on

Page 11072

 1     that basis.

 2             Thank you, Ms. Petersen.

 3             MS. PETERSEN:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 4        Q.   And, sir, I guess you've stated that it appears that the entry

 5     for 248-2 was written in later, but it would have been written in later

 6     than the line above it because that document was received on the 15th of

 7     May; correct?

 8        A.   Either you were not interpreted correctly or perhaps you

 9     misspoke.  Chronologically viewed, the date 15 May is earlier than 26

10     May, so the 26th of May could not have come before.

11        Q.   I was asking -- you stated that the handwriting for the entry for

12     the document 248-2, which has a date of the 26th of May, you said that it

13     was written later.  I am assuming you meant later than the document one

14     line above it.  And my question to you was, it would be written later,

15     correct, because the date for that document above it was earlier?

16        A.   Yes, yes.

17        Q.   Thank you, sir.  You stated in your examination-in-chief that you

18     were never aware of General Ojdanic - I hope I'm saying this right -

19     being part of any plans for ethnic cleansing.  And I think in your

20     statement at paragraph 14 you stated that you don't know of any plans for

21     ethnic cleansing of Albanians in that paragraph also, or you've never

22     seen General Ojdanic in your presence urge anyone to commit war crimes.

23     But, sir, we have established today that you did not accompany General

24     Ojdanic for many of his meetings, correct?

25        A.   You just asked two questions.  Which one am I supposed to answer?

Page 11073

 1     Two or more questions.

 2        Q.   Sir, the question to you is, we've established that you didn't

 3     accompany General Ojdanic to many of his meetings, correct?

 4        A.   I've answered that.  It's correct.

 5        Q.   So you only would have known of such plans if they were included

 6     in a written task or written notes that were then archived in these

 7     books, in these logs; is that correct?  These notebooks?

 8        A.   Correct.

 9        Q.   If there were plans to do such a thing, do you agree it probably

10     would not be written down in official documents and tasks?

11        A.   I didn't hear the interpretation, but I understood.

12        Q.   I'm sorry, would you like me to repeat it?

13        A.   I couldn't say.  You can ask that question rightly only of the

14     person who was the author of such activities.  I cannot make any

15     assumptions.  I was only involved in processing documentation in keeping

16     with the verbal instructions I received.

17             MS. PETERSEN:  Thank you very much.  And I don't have any more

18     questions for this witness.  Thank you.

19             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djordjevic.

20             MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] It's Djordjevic actually, for

21     the interpreter.  I do not have any redirect examination.

22             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.  I believe I did do my best at

23     addressing you correctly.

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25             JUDGE PARKER:  You will be pleased to know that that concludes

Page 11074

 1     the questions for you.  The Chamber would want to thank you for your

 2     attendance here in The Hague and for the attention and assistance that

 3     you have been able to give to us.  You may, of course, return to your

 4     normal activities now.  And a Court Officer will show you out.  Thank

 5     you, sir.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

 7                           [The witness withdrew]

 8             JUDGE PARKER:  There seems no point in commencing a further

 9     witness at this hour, unless you have an urgent need to do so.  Is there

10     any matter that needs to be raised by either party?

11             MS. KRAVETZ:  Your Honour, I had announced that I had a matter to

12     raise but given the time, I would prefer to raise it first thing tomorrow

13     morning before we commence with the next witness.

14             JUDGE PARKER:  If you can remind us of that tomorrow morning,

15     Ms. Kravetz, we'll --

16             MS. KRAVETZ:  No problem, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE PARKER:  We will resume tomorrow morning at 9.00.

18                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.43 p.m.

19                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 10th day of

20                           February, 2010,at 9.00 a.m.