1 Friday, 12 February 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
5 [The witness takes the stand]
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning.
7 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Please sit down.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 JUDGE PARKER: The affirmation you made to tell the truth still
11 applies. Mr. Djordjevic.
12 WITNESS: MILOVAN VLAJKOVIC [Resumed]
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 Examination by Mr. Djordjevic: [Continued]
15 Q. [Interpretation] I would kindly ask for D010-0728.
16 In your binder, Mr. Vlajkovic, it is tab 17. Very well.
17 Mr. Vlajkovic, are you familiar with this document?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Could you comment on it, please.
20 A. It is an Official Note from a meeting with the Chief of the
21 Supreme Command staff. It was held with the administration for the
22 preparation of the republican organs for defence affairs. It is an
23 administration of the federal defence ministry, that is to say, an
24 institution which was outside the military system, and was not under the
25 competence of the Supreme Command staff. It dealt with completely
1 different issues as opposed to those that were dealt by the Chief of the
2 Supreme Command staff.
3 The contents of the Official Note, as well as the establishment
4 position of that institution indicate that the document of the 3rd Army
5 Command under resubordination of MUP units could not have been archived
6 under number 2 alongside this document.
7 Q. Is this not the document which is actually under number 1 in the
8 archive list, which we have seen as an exhibit? I believe the date
9 indicated there was the 15th of May, 1999, and is it not the same
10 document entered in the log-book under 248, also sub-item (1) dated the
11 15th of May, is it not the same document?
12 A. Yes, it is. I told you about that document, that in terms of its
13 content as well as the origin, it's a document which could not have gone
14 together with the 3rd Army Command document.
15 Q. Does it have to do anything with the rule on office management in
16 the Army of Yugoslavia?
17 A. It is completely contrary to the provisions of that rule.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this concludes my
20 direct examination of witness Mr. Vlajkovic. I wish to thank him for
21 coming here to testify. Also, would I seek to tender this particular
22 document into evidence.
23 JUDGE PARKER: This document will be received.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00607.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Djordjevic.
1 Ms. Kravetz.
2 MS. KRAVETZ: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Cross-examination by Ms. Kravetz:
4 Q. Good morning, sir.
5 A. Good morning, Madam Prosecutor.
6 Q. Yesterday, during the course of your testimony you were shown
7 several documents, and I want to go through some of them with you today,
8 and I hope to get through them quite quickly. If we can start with D588,
9 and this is a copy of the log-book of the cabinet of the Chief of Staff
10 that is from your office. And if we could just simply have it displayed
11 in the B/C/S in the full screen, just so we can have a close look at it.
12 While this document is being brought up, sir, I have understood from
13 testimony that this log-book was kept in your office; correct?
14 A. It was initially created and kept in our office, and we were
15 supposed to retain it in the office for the next five to ten years.
16 Q. And I take it, sir, that only persons authorised to make entries
17 in this log-book were the ones who actually made use of it, only persons
18 from your office were authorised to do so, no?
19 A. Yes. That is to say, the chief of office and the person, the
20 clerk working there as well. These are the only two persons who were in
21 charge of keeping this document.
22 Q. So that would have been you and you also referred to a clerk?
23 A. No.
24 Q. I see you are shaking your head. Who were these two persons?
25 A. The office within its composition has a separate sub-office, and
1 the person working in that sub-office is the head of that office. He
2 also has a clerk in charge of the log-book. So in other words, the head
3 of the sub-office of the chief of office.
4 Q. Okay. I understand.
5 A. At that point in time it was --
6 Q. Go ahead. Yes, you were going to --
7 A. It was Mr. Jankovic, Miodrag, warrant office.
8 Q. So I take it, sir, from what you've said, other than these two
9 persons, no one was authorised to make any entries in this log-book?
10 Other officers weren't allowed to just come and make entries and log
11 documents in this log-book?
12 A. The person in charge and responsible for the log-book was the
13 head of the sub-office. However, as the chief of office, I was entitled
14 to make certain entries as well, because I was their superior office. In
15 their absence, I could enter certain documents. That is why I had to be
16 privy to the process itself. As far as the need for me to take part in
17 it, that occurred when we organised our ourselves in shifts and when we
18 worked around the clock, irrespective of whether an officer in charge was
19 absent or present.
20 Q. Okay. So I'm understanding these were all the persons who were
21 authorised to log documents in this log-book.
22 MS. KRAVETZ: If we can look at page 2 of this document. Yes.
23 If we could just zoom in. I have a question, sir, regarding the right
24 side of the document. It's column number 8.
25 Q. There are a number of names there, I see mostly your name, and I
1 believe in some place there's also a Mr. Nikolic further down. What does
2 that column represent, the one that has your names and then -- in column
3 number 8, what is that for?
4 A. The column number 8 is something that is filled out by the
5 log-book clerk, that is to say, the person who received documents.
6 However, we can see that greatest number of documents were sent to me.
7 The documents sent to Colonel Nikolic probably had to do with protocol
8 obligations which he dealt with in the office, and for that reason it was
9 sent to him. Colonel Nikolic, Dragutin Nikolic, he was the head of the
10 protocol department of the General Staff. He was in charge of all
11 protocol matters. And all such documents pertaining to that were sent
12 directly to him.
13 Q. So --
14 A. So the log-book clerk entered the name of the person to whom the
15 document was sent. This is not my signature.
16 Q. Okay. I understand that. Now, sir, just directing your
17 attention to entry -- the entry we are concerned with 248, we see there's
18 a number 2 there, and you've spoken quite extensively on that. And if I
19 could ask you if we could zoom out. Sorry. If we could have 248 on 247
20 together. One thing I notice sir, just looking at this document, and I
21 am like yourself not a handwriting expert, is that entry number 2 of 248
22 and entry number 1 of 247 seem to have been done in the exact same
23 handwriting, would you agree with that, sir, that the handwriting of both
24 entries looks quite similar? These two documents seem to have been
25 logged by the same person?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now --
3 A. If we look at the handwriting, most likely it was the same
5 Q. And both of these documents, the both of these entries say 3rd
6 Army Command, no, that's what is written there?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now, sir, if we can zoom out again. Sorry, we are zooming in and
9 out of this document. We see that both of these documents, the one in
10 the first line of 247 and the one in the second line of 248 are logged as
11 being received by you; correct? That's what column 8 says, has your name
12 Vlajkovic next to it?
13 A. Yes. Yes.
14 Q. Now, would you allow for the possibility that this matter which
15 concerns us here about this mysterious entry number 2 under 248, that
16 this was simply a mistake made by the person who was entering the
17 information in this log-book and that instead of logging it under 247 it
18 was logged by error under 248 with an unrelated document? Do you allow
19 for that possibility, sir, that that's what happened here?
20 A. There is always a possibility of making a mistake, but if there
21 had been a mistake there, it should have been a correction too. If we
22 suppose that this indeed was a mistake, it should have been corrected
23 subsequently. However, it is my view that the log-book clerk would not
24 have made such a type of error.
25 Q. But mistakes were made from time to time, no, in entering
1 documents in the log-book?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And it could have happened that the person entering the log-book
4 at the time did not realise this was a mistake so no correction was made
5 subsequently, correct, that is also possibility of what could have
6 happened, why there's no correction?
7 A. As I have said already, mistakes are possible, but the nature of
8 this document required greater attention.
9 Q. Sir --
10 A. I would rather suppose that this was not a mistake.
11 Q. Okay. But this is just something you are supposing? You do
12 accept that mistakes are possible when logging documents?
13 A. Yes.
14 MS. KRAVETZ: If we could go now to D584. This is the archive
15 list. We only need the B/C/S version. If that could be displayed.
16 Thank you.
17 Q. If I understand, sir, this is the list that was prepared in
18 August of 1998 when -- in 1999, I'm sorry, for the hand-over of these
19 documents to the military archive?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And we see the date on this is 10th August, 1999, that would have
22 been when the hand-over occurred?
23 A. On that date the archive list was created and the archive
24 documents gathered and handed over to the military archives.
25 Q. Okay. And before this list was sent to the archive, can I take
1 it that you as head of this office would have looked at it and approved
2 it? You would have checked the list? Or was there someone else
3 responsible for doing it?
4 A. As I testified yesterday, in August I was already preparing
5 myself to leave to a new position. The dead-line for this task was the
6 end of the year, and I delegated that responsibility to my deputy,
7 Colonel Milan Radoicic, who at the same time was preparing himself to
8 assume the duties of the chief of office. I authorised him to complete
9 this task in technical terms. He was the person tasked with completing
10 the job.
11 Q. I take it, sir, this was not the first time you were doing a
12 hand-over of documents to the military archive? This was quite regular
13 procedure, that you at a certain point would hand over documents that you
14 had in your office to the military archive for a more permanent
16 A. From the office we used to hand over archival material once a
17 year. However, these were war-time documents, and the chief had ordered
18 that the archival process of all war-time documentation be completed and
19 that all documents be handed over to the military archives. Peacetime
20 documents were dealt with slightly differently, i.e., we usually handed
21 them over in bulk at the beginning of each year.
22 Q. Okay. I see that. I see this is a typed-up document, so I take
23 it, sir, that once this document was typed up, you didn't make any
24 corrections to it? Your office didn't make any handwritten corrections
25 to it? You would hand in a clean typed-up list to the archive?
1 A. We needed to hand over a list with all the columns filled in to
2 the military archives. Once we had processed such documents, those
3 working in the military archives would process them further in order. We
4 can see that our archive on the 24th of September, in other words, it was
5 handed over in August, but the archives have only processed it in late
6 September. We handed over the form with no corrections whatsoever.
7 Perhaps we should focus on column number 3, if I may, where one is
8 supposed to answer the contents, a note on the contents of the document.
9 The person in charge of the log-book would enter such a remark. We will
10 need that later, I presume. Or do you want me to go on?
11 Q. No, that goes well beyond my question actually, sir. I think
12 that is sufficient for now.
13 Just drawing your attention to the, let's say it's column 4 from
14 what I can see, it's at the bottom of the page, we see there's a
15 handwritten annotation.
16 MS. KRAVETZ: If we can zoom in maybe we can see it better.
17 Q. The number 217-1 has been entered. This would have been -- from
18 what I understand, this would have been something that the archivist at
19 the military archive would have written on the document. It wasn't made
20 by you?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. This was after further review of your list, and they would have
23 inserted this correction here? After they had analysed the documents in
24 more detail that you sent them?
25 A. The person reviewing the archival material did so following the
1 list. Under number 6, that person ascertained that the number of the
2 document was incorrect and made corresponding corrections. There might
3 have been an attached document, the number of which had not originally
4 been entered, and that is why we have this additional entry. That would
5 have been the procedure followed by the military archives.
6 Q. Okay.
7 MS. KRAVETZ: If we see number -- page 2 of this -- the next page
8 of this document. I'm sorry, I believe it's page 3. If we can zoom in.
9 Q. We see here, sir, that there are quite a few of additional
10 corrections that are made, right, handwritten corrections?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And these would have also been mistakes that had been spotted by
13 the archive officer in charge of doing the review of these documents?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. I'm not going to take you through the whole archive list, sir,
16 but just reviewing it for the purpose of your testimony, I notice that it
17 is, in fact, quite full of corrections, documents that were omitted,
18 incorrect reference number, incorrect page numbers. You agree with me
19 that there -- we just see it on this page, there are quite a number of
20 corrections that have been entered?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And these would have been all corrections to the mistakes that
23 had been made in this the log-book that your office was keeping; right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Thank you, sir.
1 MS. KRAVETZ: If we can just move onto the next document. This
2 is a document you've spoken about extensively. This D585. It's a
3 document we are concerned with here, it's a document prepared by General
4 Pavkovic dated 25th of May, 1999.
5 Q. I'm sure you remember this document, you've been shown it now
6 several times both here and in your previous testimony.
7 MS. KRAVETZ: If we could just see the second page. We only
8 need -- well, we can have both of them up. If we can see the second page
9 of this document. And in the B/C/S as well.
10 Q. So I understand from your testimony yesterday, sir, that on this
11 second page --
12 MS. KRAVETZ: No, we can zoom out, please, in the B/C/S. Thank
14 Q. On this second page you recognise this stamp from your office?
15 This document bears a stamp?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And it is marked as being received on the 26th of May of 1999;
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And, sir, you strike me, just from having heard your testimony
21 here today, as someone who takes his job quite seriously, so I take it,
22 sir, that the stamp that your office had to stamp documents upon receipt,
23 that wasn't something that just anyone -- any other officer could just
24 come in and use, correct? Only authorised people from your office had
25 access to this stamp?
1 A. I commented on these two documents yesterday. And because of
2 other technical indicators when you compare them --
3 Q. Sir, if I just stop you there. We have your testimony, and I'm
4 quite clear on your position on this document and the other unstamped
5 documents so there no need for you to repeat that. All I'm asking you is
6 did anyone else other than the persons authorised in your office have
7 access to the stamp that you use to stamp documents when they were
8 received by the cabinet of the Chief of the General Staff of the VJ, or
9 was it just persons in your office who had access to that?
10 A. Only authorised persons that I referred to earlier.
11 Q. So this stamp could not have been put by anyone other than
12 persons authorised to stamp documents when they were received; correct?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Now, sir, yesterday in response to when you were explaining your
15 position on this document and the other version we've seen, which does
16 not bear the stamp, you said something that just made me quite curious.
17 You were explaining your position and you said:
18 "The significance of the document and the person it was addressed
19 to would not mean that it would be archived with only five or six
21 Now, sir, I'm quite curious to know, who told you that this was a
22 significant document? Why did you say that yesterday when you were
23 referring to this document?
24 A. Well, preparing for this trial I informed myself, I looked over
25 this document, but that includes also my testimony in the Milutinovic
1 case, and this is why I said it was an important document. I looked at
2 the contents while preparing for my testimony. With contents like this,
3 I would probably be able to reconstruct things and recall whether it had
4 reached the office or not, so in that context, I said that the contents
5 were important. But I learned the contents while I was preparing for my
7 Q. But, sir, I'm sure that the Chief of the General Staff received
8 many important documents during the course of his work, no?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So --
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. I'm not quite clear why you say -- you have noted this document
13 as being a document significant importance. Is that something someone
14 told you about the document, that this was a document of significance?
15 A. No, this is my own assessment. Resubordination of the MUP forces
16 or placing of all the forces in the zone of operations under a single
17 command is a document that is not unimportant. That is why I said that
18 the contents are important. This is not something to be underestimated.
19 Q. Okay. Sir, yesterday you were shown by my learned colleague this
20 document, and it was compared with the unstamped version.
21 MS. KRAVETZ: Maybe we could have the other version up. This is
23 Q. You remember that both documents were shown to you together?
24 They were put up on the screen?
25 A. Yes.
1 MS. KRAVETZ: If we could have the second page of the other
3 Q. Sir, when you were being shown these two documents one of the
4 things my learned colleague drew your attention to was the signature
5 under where it says commandant or commander, and he said -- where we can
6 see the signature and the stamp so that we can see them more closely, and
7 your answer -- you said:
8 "I am not a handwriting analysis expert, but it's evident here
9 that it's not the signature and the stamp is different, indicating that
10 it's a different copy."
11 So you commented that these two documents had a different
12 signature? Do you recall that testimony yesterday? This is at page
13 11220 of yesterday's transcript. Do you recall saying that, sir, making
14 that comment?
15 A. Yes, I do. I do recall it.
16 Q. Now, sir, you told us yesterday and you told my learned colleague
17 in response to one of his questions that you recall testifying in the
18 Milutinovic trial and that you would not change the answers that you had
19 given in that trial? Do you recall saying that?
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 Q. I take it, sir, that in that trial you told the truth? You
22 recall under oath?
23 A. Yes. I was expecting a question.
24 Q. That was my question, sir. Thank you for that answer.
25 Now, I just wanted to direct your attention to a passage of that
1 transcript. This is page 16048. This is page 28 in e-court of the
2 transcript. And this is a passage where you are being shown both of
3 these documents, and in response to a question from Judge Bonomy
4 regarding the stamped version, you say -- and this as the witness:
5 "If I understood your question correctly, the signature is that
6 of the commander, but what is visible here -- I beg your pardon, that
7 both copies were signed by the commander, General Nebojsa Pavkovic."
8 Do you recall giving that testimony, sir?
9 A. I do remember saying that, but I'm not asserting that this was
10 not signed by the commander. Both signatures are the signatures of the
11 commander, but obviously this is not a copy or these are not copies of
12 the same documents. The copies are different, so as far as I'm
13 concerned, these are two separate documents. This is Nebojsa Pavkovic's
14 signature, but it's not the same on both copies. If it's an identical
15 copy there can be no difference. According to the rules, the chief would
16 sign one document which would then be copied and distributed. He would
17 sign the first copy, the original. This is what I was talking about
19 Q. Okay. So we can agree that both of these documents bear the
20 signature of General Pavkovic?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, sir, if we just focus on the one that does not bear the
23 stamp of your office as having been received on the 26th of May, would
24 you accept the possibility, sir, that that copy of the document is simply
25 a copy that was received by this court, and it's a copy that -- of the
1 document before it was received or before it was sent out to your office?
2 Could you accept that possibility that this is simply a copy of the
3 document before it was received by your office?
4 A. If I try to understand your question and place that in the
5 context of how this is regulated by the rules, I really don't know how to
6 answer. The commander did sign one copy which was distributed, archived,
7 or dispatched. All the rest are copies which would need to be the same
8 according to all the other technical elements. I don't know if he signed
9 anything later and what that was, but pursuant to the rules, he would
10 sign one document which then -- which would then be copied and
11 distributed. So the copies that are made from that one document cannot
12 be different from the original. All the copies made later must be
13 identical to the original and the copy itself must be certified. So you
14 would certify the copy, but then that copy would have an original stamp.
15 This is how it should be done by the rules. But here this does not seem
16 to be the case.
17 Q. But you've looked at both documents and they have the same
18 contents, correct? I mean, you've studied these documents in quite some
19 detail to prepare for your testimony? The contents is the same?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So it is possible, sir, that the document we see on the left is
22 not a certified copy, it's just simply a copy of the document before it
23 was sent out, that this court received. Is that possible, sir, do you
24 accept that possibility that that's what this is?
25 A. I cannot say whether that can be the case or not, but what I'm
1 saying is that the document that a person would sign is treated pursuant
2 to the rules. It's distributed. What the copies are before signing,
3 after signing, before dispatch, after dispatch, it's very hard for me to
4 say. As far as I'm concerned here, it's the same document, this is a
5 fact, signed by the commander, but the signatures on the two documents
6 are different. If it were a copy, then the two documents should be
7 identical, there should be no differences. If I understood your question
9 Q. Okay. Thank you for that, sir. We'll move on from this
11 MS. KRAVETZ: If I could have P1240 up on the screen.
12 Q. This is also a document that was shown to you yesterday. Do you
13 recall looking at this document? This was a document prepared by the
14 Pristina Corps Command.
15 A. Yes, I recall the document.
16 Q. And I take it you've also had the time to look and study this
17 document in preparation for your testimony here; right?
18 A. I did look at the contents of the document, but not really in
19 detail. I know roughly what it's about. But I can see that it's a
20 document of the Pristina Corps sent to the 3rd Army commander, meaning
21 that the document was not available to me and could not have been
22 available to me before I began to prepare for my testimony here.
23 Q. And I know, sir, I'm not suggesting it was at all.
24 Now, sir, having studied this document, you probably noticed that
25 they refer to the same topics, correct? I mean, this one and the
1 previous one we looked at that was prepared by General Pavkovic?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And yesterday when you were being shown this document, one of the
4 things you noticed was that this document did not have a distribution
5 list? You mentioned that as one of the problems you saw with the
6 document. Do you recall saying that?
7 A. I do, yes. This is just a technical problem, a technical failing
8 of the document. In principle, the document is addressed to the 3rd Army
9 commander personally, but it can also be dispatched to some other people
10 at the same time which would then be noted at the end of the document.
11 And because this is a strictly confidential document, the number of the
12 copy would also be indicated and so this -- because this was an archived
13 document, it should be copy number 2 if it's sent to this particular
14 person, and that should be evident from the document itself.
15 Q. But, sir, if General Lazarevic, who wrote this document, only
16 intended for this document to reach General Pavkovic, the commander of
17 the 3rd Army, he did not need to include any distribution list, no? I
18 mean, that wouldn't be required if that was the only person he wanted to
19 send this document to?
20 A. If the document is being addressed and sent to only one person,
21 that does not rule out the need for the document to be archived. And
22 then you would need to note that copy number 1 was sent to the archives,
23 and copy number 2 was sent to the addressee.
24 Q. But, sir, you are not really familiar with the practices used by
25 the Pristina Corps when logging and archiving their documents; correct?
1 I mean, you did not work there. I know there are general practices but
2 you were not working there at the time, so.
3 A. No, I'm talking from the aspect of the rules regulating these
4 matters and applied in the Army of Yugoslavia throughout.
5 Q. So the fact that this document did not indicate the number of
6 copies made could have just been simply an omission, correct, when it was
8 A. You could consider it an omission, but you could also consider it
9 a violation of the rules.
10 Q. Okay. And if General Lazarevic just intended for General
11 Pavkovic to receive it who worked in the same office and simply handed it
12 himself or sent one of his officers to hand it over personally, there
13 would be no need for any sort of distribution list?
14 A. Regardless of the way the document was distributed, it still had
15 to be archived and logged in, which this document does indicate in the
16 upper left-hand corner. It was -- it went through the office, it was
17 logged in the log-book, verified with a stamp and then handed over to the
18 army commander. If they worked in the office together, well, then, I
19 don't know. There is no stamp there and no log-book. This should have
20 been done or must have been done through the person responsible for such
21 duties. It had to be done through the logging office.
22 Q. Okay. But I understand your position that what you are saying is
23 that procedure wasn't followed in this case. That is your objection with
24 the document?
25 A. Yes. This is one of the things that I'm noting in relation to
1 this document. I don't know how significant that is for the proceedings.
2 But technically, this was not processed in accordance with the rules.
3 Q. I see that, sir. I want to move on to a different topic that you
4 spoke about yesterday. And we are no longer going to be looking at the
5 document on the screen.
6 Yesterday at the beginning of your testimony, you spoke about the
7 evening briefings that were held at the VJ General Staff. Do you
8 remember talking about that?
9 A. Yes. Evening briefings.
10 Q. Mm-hmm. And I understood your testimony to be that you regularly
11 attended these meetings?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And once the conflict started, the NATO bombing complaints
14 started in March of 1999, did these meetings happen on a daily basis?
15 A. Every day, but I can also note that the Chief of Supreme Command
16 staff did not preside over each of the evening briefings. In his absence
17 these were chaired by either his deputy or the chief of the operations
18 administration. But the briefings were held practically every day until
19 the end of the bombing campaign.
20 Q. And when circumstances required, were there also morning
21 briefings held at the VJ General Staff?
22 A. For the most part there were afternoon briefings. I cannot
23 recall any morning briefings.
24 Q. Okay. You don't recall that in the mornings there were sometimes
25 as well when required meetings that took place?
1 A. I don't recall that. They could have been held later because the
2 usual time was between 17- and 1800 hours. Sometimes it would happen
3 that because of some duties, it would be held at 2000 hours. But I don't
4 recall any morning briefings.
5 Q. Okay. And you said yesterday, if I recall your testimony
6 correctly, that these meetings were attended by General Ojdanic, and you
7 said by his deputy sometimes. And also by the heads of sectors and
8 administrations of the VJ General Staff?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And if I understood your evidence correctly, the purpose of these
11 meetings was to go over events that had taken place the previous day?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And was there generally a format followed? I mean, were these
14 meetings usually opened by General Ojdanic or his deputy who was there in
15 his place, whenever general Ojdanic was absent, was that usually the form
16 that he would open the meetings?
17 A. The usual minutes were not done --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The usual agenda
19 were not usually done. The meeting would usually be opened by his chief
20 or his deputy depending who was conducting the session. Then the first
21 address would be by the chief of the operations team that monitored the
22 situation 24 hours a day. Then after his report the other members would
23 then make their own assessments and evaluations and possible suggestions
24 according to a set order, which would probably be first the person
25 General Krga with the foreign affairs estimate of the situation and then
1 there would be others who followed him.
2 Q. Okay. I see. And you have explained in your statement and also
3 you said yesterday in your testimony that there was no official record
4 kept of these meetings? These weren't tape recorded and later there was
5 an official transcript prepared, correct, that wasn't done?
6 A. Yes. There were no technical possibilities for recordings, but
7 the minutes were kept regularly in a book, and this was in the hands of
8 the operations administration, and this was most frequently done by
9 Colonel Paskas and Colonel Mucibabic [Realtime translation read in error
10 "Vuci Babic"] from that administration. They would be writing the notes
11 from the briefing into the book. They are not stenographers, so they
12 would note down whatever they managed to note down and what they thought
13 was important using, as far as I could see and as far as I could know,
14 some abbreviations of their own in order to be able to note down as much
15 as possible. I'm saying that because now we are having problems to
16 decipher those abbreviations.
17 Q. Okay. So these two persons, Colonel Mucibabic and Paskas -- I
18 think Mucibabic, his name is incorrect in the transcript.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. These would be the two persons taking handwritten notes during
21 the course of these meetings. Now, I believe you told us yesterday that
22 at the conclusion of these meetings General Ojdanic would issue tasks to
23 those present?
24 A. The Chief of the Supreme Command staff issued assignments also
25 during the briefings which was something that I did note down. At the
1 end he could repeat that also and issue new assignments. During the
2 briefing he would immediately order that this, this, and that, had to be
3 done or taken care of, and at the end of the meeting, he would summarise
4 all of that including those same tasks and perhaps others, maybe some
5 assignments that did not directly arise from the things that were
7 Q. And these tasks once they were issued, in order for them to be
8 carried out, they would have to be written up somehow, I believe, and
9 sent to the respective administrations that were to carry out these
11 A. On the basis of my own notes and having followed the briefings
12 and the things that the chief and the others stated and commented on,
13 after the chief would complete the briefing, I would then formulate the
14 conclusions and the assignments. I would put them in proper language. I
15 would type it up, copy, and dispatch that to all of those who were
16 indicated as responsible for each assignment.
17 So the person responsible for an assignment would have by
18 midnight a typed updated list of assignments and was obliged to refer
19 back to me, report back to me about the implementation of those
20 assignments. On the basis of those reports back to me and monitoring the
21 activities that the Supreme Command staff at the following briefing, I
22 would then inform the Chief of the Supreme Command staff or the entire
23 Supreme Command present at the briefing whether the tasks were
24 implemented and what stage of the implementation they were in.
25 Q. So I understand that it would be you, the person doing the
1 follow-up of whether these tasks were actually being implemented, the
2 tasks that were should at these evening briefings by General Ojdanic;
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Now, yesterday during your testimony you were shown Exhibit D606.
6 MS. KRAVETZ: If we could have that up on the screen.
7 Q. This is a document dated the 7th of April. Do you remember
8 seeing this document yesterday?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Now, in connection with this document yesterday, you said that
11 this is probably a transcript of the minutes from a briefing and you said
12 the minutes were kept in an A4 copy book and somebody transcribes these,
13 and you went on later and this is page 11213 to say:
14 "We can't see any authorisation of this transcript. There's no
15 indication that it's been verified." And you say, "... certain
16 imprecisions that combined with the lack of any data about verification
17 make it difficult to determine how authentic it is."
18 Do you recall saying that yesterday?
19 A. That's what I said, and I stand by it. I am sure, though, that
20 this was not a shorthand note, but that this was a transcript. The
21 people who took notes were not stenographers. They took notes as much as
22 they were be able to do. And I also said this is a transcript of these
23 evening briefings and it was done and it was really pregnant with many
24 imprecisions. There was no authorisation or certification, and as such,
25 this transcript I don't know in what way and to what extent it can serve
1 as evidence material, given that it hasn't been authorised. That it's
2 imprecise, that it contains so many imprecisions.
3 Q. Now, sir, we can look at another document, and this is a similar
4 document you were shown yesterday, and this is D008-2190. This is a
5 document dated 7th of April. Do you recall being shown this document
6 yesterday, sir?
7 A. I'm trying to look at the date. The 7th of April, yes.
8 Q. Now, in connection with this document, you said at page 11214,
9 it's again a transcript from the book of minutes kept at the briefings of
10 the Supreme Command staff, and this one is of 7th of April and you said:
11 "It has the same features ... unauthorised with many imprecisions
12 that make it difficult to interpret it."
13 Do you recall saying that, sir?
14 A. I said that the note-takers used certain abbreviations that were
15 not in standard use. For that reason it would have been better for this
16 transcript to have been authorised, which will enable the author to know
17 exactly what he meant, and that would contribute to its being more
19 Q. Okay. Do you recall, sir, that you were shown this same document
20 in the Milutinovic case, and in that case it was 3D639? And this is
21 testimony that starts at page 16036. At this time you were shown this
22 document by counsel for the Ojdanic Defence. I'm just going to read to
23 you very briefly what you said in connection with this document. You
24 say -- you were asked:
25 "Q. Sir, you went to these evening briefings during the war; is
1 that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Were you present at all of them, at most of them?"
4 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please slow down when reading. Thank
5 you very much.
6 MS. KRAVETZ: My apologies.
7 Q. "Were you present at all of them, at most of them?"
8 And this is on page 16037 I'm reading. And you said:
9 "I could say that I was present at a large part of them."
10 And you were asked about a passage in this document, and this is
11 on page 3, which says:
12 "Review of sentences to read inside and to keep a diary of
14 In connection with this passage, you said:
15 "There was a discussion over the previous days or in previous
16 speeches," and this is on page 16038, "about the members of the army who
17 had been processed for war crimes and committed crimes and to inform the
18 units and the public in more detail about this."
19 So you said:
20 "So what I said was not really recorded quite correctly, but my
21 proposal had to do with having the information about the perpetrators of
22 crimes announced to the units, the members of the units, where these
23 crimes were committed."
24 Do you recall saying that, sir?
25 A. I remember saying that have to interpret this transcript as to
1 what I could of said at that moment, and this is in support of the
2 validity of these transcripts. Later on I tried to reconstruct what it
3 was I could have been talking about.
4 However, since there was discussion to have full names or maybe
5 family member names in the public media of the people who were brought to
6 trial, and if I mentioned crimes in that contents, one of the crimes was
7 also desertion or failure to respond to a call-up, or evasion to serve in
8 the reserve forces. So in that sense, I said, I probably said that if
9 that was the case, that shouldn't be published in the media but in
10 conformity with military rules, this should have been announced in front
11 of the unit where these crimes took place.
12 Q. I understand that, sir. But you would agree with me, sir, that
13 when this same document was shown to you by Ojdanic Defence, you said
14 nothing about the fact that you had concerns regarding its authenticity?
15 A. They didn't ask me about authenticity, but basically what I said
16 was that that was a transcript of the minutes, but since it was I who
17 said that, I later recalled what I said in principle which I couldn't be
18 able to say about someone else who stated similar things.
19 It is true, I didn't tackle the issue of validity, but I told you
20 essentially what this was all about, what kind of documents we are
21 talking about.
22 Q. So we can agree that you confirmed that you were at that meeting
23 and that you made a statement there although it might not have been
24 recorded exactly in the same terms as how you stated it?
25 A. Yes. If you allow me, I interpreted my own words. But as for
1 the statements made by other persons, I wouldn't be able to do that. In
2 other words, by providing authorisation for this transcript, it could
3 become much better and then we can discuss what was being debated.
4 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honours, I would seek to tender this exhibit.
5 I'm going to move to a different one.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01531.
8 MS. KRAVETZ: Now, you were also shown in the course of the
9 Milutinovic case, exhibit, which in this case is 65 ter 04021, if we
10 could have that up on the screen. If that case that was 3D580. And I'm
11 referring to a passage that is at page 16088, begins there which is page
12 74 in e-court.
13 Q. Now, in relation to this document, which is dated 26th of March,
14 1999, Judge Bonomy asked you a question and he said:
15 "If we could go back to the question you asked, is the format of
16 the minutes of the briefing that you're familiar with -- is this the
17 format of the minutes of the briefing that you're familiar with?"
18 And you said:
19 "No, no, this format is something that I saw during my
20 preparation for my testimony and --"
21 THE INTERPRETER: Kindly slow down for the interpreters.
22 MS. KRAVETZ: My apologies again.
23 Q. And it's an excerpt from the minutes from the original book where
24 the actual minutes were taken by hand, and then you were asked by counsel
25 for the Prosecution Mr. Stamp:
1 "When you say excerpt, what do you mean?"
2 And you say:
3 "Not excerpt, but typed as written in the actual minutes."
4 Do you recall saying that, sir?
5 A. Not in detail, but this is minutes of the meeting that has been
6 retyped or a transcript thereof made, and that's it.
7 Q. Sir, can we agree on something that these different documents
8 that we've been looking at are not an official record of what was said at
9 these meetings? These are not like the VJ collegium minutes where an
10 official tape-recorded record was kept and then that was typed up?
11 A. Yes. Handwriting notes were transcribed, but there we have a
12 tape recording transcribed, and there's a difference between the two.
13 Here we have the transcript of handwritten notes taken during the very
15 Q. And can we also agree, sir, that what the documents we've been
16 looking at that refer to these collegium briefings that took place in
17 once the conflict had started, these are a typed-up version of the
18 handwritten minutes that were taken? That's what you've previously
19 stated, no, that they are a typed-up version of the notes that were
20 taken? I'm leaving aside the issue of whether there were imprecisions
21 and corrections.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And so if I understand your answer correctly, this would have
24 been a typed-up copy of the notes taken either by Colonel Mucibabic or
25 Colonel Spasic [as interpreted] who you have told us were the ones taking
1 notes at these meetings?
2 A. Colonel Paskas, not Spasic.
3 Q. I'm sorry, I misspoke. So it's Colonel Mucibabic or Colonel
4 Paskas. That's what this would be, yes. Thank you.
5 Now, sir, you've told us that you regularly attended these
6 meetings; correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And this week we had the -- your deputy Mr. Radoicic testify
9 here, and he told us that only once or twice you were prevented from
10 attending -- from personally being there, would that be accurate? That
11 you were there mostly throughout when these meetings occurred?
12 A. I said is that I attended a great majority of the meetings.
13 Probably Colonel Radoicic concluded that I missed one or two meetings and
14 it might as well be true.
15 Q. Okay. That's fair enough. Thank you.
16 MS. KRAVETZ: Could I have this document exhibited before I move
18 JUDGE PARKER: Before we do, the documents on the screen do not
19 appear the same.
20 MS. KRAVETZ: I thought we had corrected the translation of this
21 document. There might be a problem with the English translation, Your
22 Honour. I can look into that.
23 JUDGE PARKER: It's a different document, if you look at it.
24 MS. KRAVETZ: Yes, yes, I know. What I'm saying is I think we
25 may have uploaded an incorrect translation in e-court. So at this stage
1 if we could have this marked for identification.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, it will be.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P01532 marked for identification, Your
5 MS. KRAVETZ: And I note, Your Honour, that this is the copy that
6 was shown to the witness in the Milutinovic case, and if we scroll down
7 on the English --
8 JUDGE PARKER: You are speaking of the Serbian.
9 MS. KRAVETZ: The Serbian, yes. If we scroll down on the B/C/S
10 version of the document, I don't see it, but this in any case was Exhibit
11 3D580 in that case. I just say that for clarity of the record, Your
13 I want to move away from this document, if we could have
14 D006-3266 up on the screen.
15 Q. And this is a document -- these are again these typed-up minutes
16 of the evening briefings, and this one is dated 3rd of April, 1999, and
17 we see, if we look at the document, different persons speak on the first
18 page, and the last one to speak in both the English and B/C/S is Colonel
19 Gajic. Do you recall what was his position at the time? We are talking
20 in April 1998. Do you recall what Colonel Gajic's position was, what
21 rank he held?
22 A. I remember at the time he was a colonel, and he was the head of
23 the security administration.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MS. KRAVETZ: Now if we can turn to page 2 both in the English
1 and the B/C/S, I'm going to read out a passage of what has been recorded
2 in these notes.
3 Q. This is still Mr. Gajic -- Colonel Gajic speaking. It says:
4 "With regard to the territory there are problems with
5 paramilitary formations. Intelligence has it that there are volunteers
6 who have arrived in KLM
7 the MUP reserve forces," -- and then there's a proposal -- "inform MUP
8 and other organs to undertake measures within their competence."
9 MS. KRAVETZ: If we can also now turn to page 4 both in the
10 English and in the B/C/S.
11 Q. I just want to read out another passage to you before I ask you
12 but this. So it's at the bottom in the B/C/S, I'm looking at number 9,
13 and this is General Ojdanic speaking and he says:
14 "For military formations documents in keeping with the Federal
15 Republic and Ministries of the Interior."
16 Now, sir, do you recall the issue of paramilitary formations
17 being raised at this meeting, paramilitary formations that were attached
18 to the MUP as reserve forces? Do you recall this issue being discussed
19 by General Gajic and -- Colonel Gajic and General Ojdanic?
20 A. The issue of paramilitary formations that should have been placed
21 under the army control is something that I do remember about it. It is
22 difficult for me, though, to tell you the dates. It was being discussed
23 but most often within the context of an obligation and even orders issued
24 by the Chief of General Staff, that under the law, these paramilitary
25 formations be placed under the army control. I know nothing about MUP
1 paramilitary formations. We didn't discuss this kind of units, and we
2 didn't seek any solution of how to treat them. But there was an order of
3 the Chief of General Staff for paramilitary formations or volunteers who
4 refused to be placed under the army control to be disarmed and removed
5 from combat operations. Those were the orders issued but how it was
6 implemented in practice, I don't know much about.
7 Speaking about MUP paramilitary formations, I don't know how they
8 acted and treated these units.
9 Q. Yes, I'm not asking if you know how the MUP acted or treated
10 these units, I was just asking about what is being said here. Now, this
11 number 9 I just read, which is headed "paramilitary formations" is noted
12 at the end of these briefing notes, and it's General Ojdanic speaking and
13 you have already told us that at the end of these briefing notes he would
14 generally issue tasks to those present. Do you remember you've just told
15 us that earlier?
16 A. Yes, yes.
17 Q. You've told us also that you were the one in charge of following
18 up and making sure that these tasks were carried out, correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, my question, sir, is where it says here, "Document in
21 keeping with the Federal and Republic Ministries of Interior," who would
22 be the addressee of this task, who would be in charge of documenting this
23 or of contacting the MUP about these -- this information that is being
24 given at this briefing about the existence of paramilitary formations
25 attached to the MUP?
1 A. According to the structure and tasks of the Supreme Command
2 staff, this task was to be carried out by the head of the security
3 administration. His duty was to draft a document to be sent to the
4 republic MUP containing the observations that we made and that would be
5 verified by the chief and the chief -- or the head of the administration
6 would then forward this document. Having forwarded this document by the
7 head, I would have deemed this task to be carried out.
8 If you look at the list of assignments from this particular
9 briefing, probably you can find who was appointed to carry out this task
10 and what the dead-lines were. But basically this was under the
11 jurisdiction of the head of the security administration, and I think it
12 was Colonel Gajic who was at the helm of this administration at the time.
13 Q. Okay. And do you know to whom in the MUP he would send this
14 document that you spoke about containing the observations that were made
15 during this briefing? Who would this be addressed to in the republican
17 A. If you are referring to a particular person, but normally that
18 would be sent to the office of the minister of the interior, because the
19 system of communication with institutions outside the military such as
20 ministries, the federal government, the president of the FRY, and other
21 dignitaries, all the communications normally went through their
22 respective offices. They were delivered to the offices or directly to
23 the responsible minister.
24 Q. Thank you. And the minister of interior at the time was
25 Mr. Vlajko Stojiljkovic; correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, if we look at number 2, which is on the page, and it's also
3 under the tasks that are issued but General Ojdanic, and we have that
4 also in the English on the top of the page, it says "prepare denials on
5 refugees" and the -- in parentheses, we have "administration for
6 information." Do you see that, sir?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 Q. So if I understand you correctly, if how we should be reading
9 these minute, this would be a task that had been issued to the
10 administration for information to prepare denials on refugees?
11 A. Yes.
12 MS. KRAVETZ: Thank you. I'm going to move on from this
13 document. Your Honours, at this stage I seek to tender this.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01533.
16 MS. KRAVETZ: Now I would like to have another document up, and
17 this is dated -- it's document 65 ter 04025.
18 Q. I just want to draw your attention to page 1 both in the English
19 and B/C/S, and these are again briefing notes of the Supreme Command
20 dated -- Supreme Command Chief of Staff, and they are dated 16th of
21 April, 1999. And if we see number 3 we have again Colonel Gajic
22 speaking, and the third bullet point under his name indicates:
23 "I propose political measures be taken, there are problems with
24 paramilitary activities."
25 Do you see that, sir?
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 MS. KRAVETZ: Now, if we turn to page 4 in both versions of the
3 document. If we look at number 6.
4 Q. It says, "security administration" -- I see the document is being
5 enlarged there. Thank you. "Security administration - investigate and
6 prove the existence of paramilitary activities, place, purpose, who and
7 by whose approval they entered the territory of KiM." Do you see that,
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So, sir, I take it that -- and this, I should have clarified, is
11 again under the section of "Tasks and Responsibilities," and they are
12 issued by General Ojdanic. So I take it, sir, that based on what you've
13 told us, we see here that the security administration is again being
14 tasked to investigate and approve the existence of paramilitary
15 activities in Kosovo?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Just for clarification, if we can scroll up on both versions of
18 the document. We see there where it says, "Tasks and Responsibilities,"
19 it says NSVK; you see that? I'm probably not --
20 A. Yes, it stands for the Supreme Command Chief of Staff.
21 Q. So that would be a reference, an abbreviation for General
22 Ojdanic; correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honours, I seek to tender this document into
1 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that be Exhibit P01534.
3 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honour, I'm going to move on to a different
4 document, so I suggest we have the break two minutes early so I don't
5 have to interrupt my questions on the next document.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. We resume at 11.00.
7 [The witness stands down]
8 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.
9 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.
10 [The witness takes the stand]
11 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Kravetz.
12 MS. KRAVETZ: Thank you, Your Honour. If we could now have
13 D008-1936 up on the screen, please.
14 Q. And, sir, while this document is being brought up is again a set
15 of briefing notes, and it's dated 22nd of April, 1999. I'm just waiting,
16 sir, for the document to come up in the English on the screen.
17 MS. KRAVETZ: Now, if we could go to page 4 both on the English
18 and B/C/S.
19 Q. And I would like to draw your attention to number 3 on that page.
20 This is again, sir, this is the conclusion of these minutes, and this is
21 General Ojdanic who is speaking. Now, number 3 there, one of the tasks
22 he is issuing, says "Contact the state security or DB and the minister of
23 interior regarding volunteers." You see that number 3 up on the screen,
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now, earlier when we had seen another one of these notes where
2 General Ojdanic was issuing similar instructions, you had told us that
3 the person responsible for carrying out this task would normally have
4 been the head of security administration Colonel Gajic.
5 Now, would he also have been the person responsible for carrying
6 out this task that he is issuing here, the contact say security and the
7 minister of interior regarding volunteers?
8 A. Yes.
9 MS. KRAVETZ: Thank you. Your Honours, I seek to tender this
11 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01535.
13 MS. KRAVETZ:
14 Q. And finally, sir, if we could have up on the screen, D008-2144.
15 And these are briefing notes of the Chief of Staff of the VJ General
16 Staff of 6 May 1999.
17 MS. KRAVETZ: And if we could have page 3 both in the English and
18 the B/C/S. If we could scroll down on the B/C/S and in the English zoom
19 in somewhere on the middle of the page.
20 Q. Now, we see the abbreviation that you have told us stands for the
21 chief of the VJ General Staff or General Ojdanic, and it says:
22 "Closing speech and task," and under there there's a number 1:
23 "Are there any paramilitary units in Kosovo and Metohija?"
24 And Colonel Gajic says: "Yes, there are unfortunately."
25 Do you see that passage there?
1 A. I can see it, yes.
2 Q. And based on what you've told us about the discussions on
3 paramilitary units at these briefings, can we conclude that this is yet
4 another occasion when the issue of paramilitary units is brought up at
5 these briefing sessions that were carried out?
6 A. Yes.
7 MS. KRAVETZ: If I could tender this exhibit, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01536.
10 MS. KRAVETZ:
11 Q. Now, sir, moving away from these briefing notes, I would like to
12 show you a press article, and this is 01696. And this is a press article
13 which is headed "Army, police heads inform Milosevic of successful
14 defence." And if we could zoom in a bit more on the document. Thank
16 Now, sir, this press article reports on a meeting that took place
17 and the 4th of May and among those listed here as having attending are
18 President Milosevic; 3rd Army commander, Nebojsa Pavkovic; General Sreten
19 Lukic, and there are other persons mentioned including General Ojdanic.
20 If -- I'm sorry, I have a bit of a cold so I'm losing my voice -- we
21 could scroll down to a bit to the bottom sentence starting with "along
22 with carrying out tasks." So here we see that what is being reported it
23 says, "along with carrying out these complex tasks, these security forces
24 dealt with numerous cases of violence, killings, pillage, and other
25 crimes arresting several hundred perpetrators whose crimes were a great
1 danger to the civilian population." This I put to you, sir, is an
2 article that refers to this situation in Kosovo at the time.
3 Now, sir, do you first recall General Ojdanic attending a meeting
4 on the 4th of May with the persons that I have mentioned?
5 A. I heard for the first time about the meeting discussed here when
6 I was shown these documents. The chief did have meetings with the
7 supreme commander, and there were sessions of the Supreme Defence
8 Council. As for who attended those sessions and in what capacity, that
9 is something I was not privy to. However, as for the meetings attended
10 by the chief of staff, there must have been at least minimum preparations
11 for each and every one of them. Documents were supposed to be read,
12 things prepared, et cetera. I don't know about this meeting in
13 particular, whether it was held indeed, and whether it was held on that
15 It seems a bit odd to me that the supreme commander is holding a
16 meeting and being briefed by Ojdanic and Lukic and also in attendance
17 were their superiors. I didn't follow the press at that time because I
18 could not, therefore, I don't recall having seen this article at the
20 Q. I put to you, sir, that this was published in "Politika"
21 magazine. Are you familiar with that publication?
22 A. I know of the publication. And I was also able to read it, but
23 not during the bombing campaign. There was simply no time.
24 Q. I understand that, sir. It was probably a very busy time for
1 Sir, you said that there were usually preparations made, minimum
2 preparations for each and every meeting. You don't recall having done
3 any preparation for this specific meeting on the 4th of May which this
4 article reports General Ojdanic attended?
5 A. If I may, I'll try to be more precise. I wanted to say at least
6 minimum preparations. If some meetings were held at short notice. I
7 don't recall though, having prepared any materials for the chief where he
8 would have briefed on the issues reported by "Politika."
9 Q. And, sir, just to clarify, I did not suggest that he was doing a
10 briefing, that's not what the article said. The briefings were made by
11 General Pavkovic and General Lukic. So I did not suggest to you that it
12 was General Ojdanic who was briefing, simply that he was present at this
14 A. Within the system of command, the Supreme Commander can only be
15 briefed by the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command, or, if he
16 authorised the 3rd Army commander to do so. That is based on the system
17 of command. If this was conveyed by "Politika" correctly, then the
18 system of command must have been incorrectly applied. Therefore, I
19 question some of the allegations in this article.
20 I don't recall a meeting at which the Chief of the Supreme
21 Command staff was accompanied by the 3rd Army commander when he had to
22 deal with certain issues with President Milosevic. That would have been
23 against all existing regulation.
24 Q. Okay. So I understand your evidence is that you don't recall
25 this specific meeting.
1 MS. KRAVETZ: Just for reference, Your Honours, this exhibit is
2 already --
3 A. No.
4 MS. KRAVETZ: Is already in evidence, and it's in evidence as
5 D443. The reason I'm using this specific copy is just because it's more
6 legible than the version in evidence.
7 And I seek to tender this specific -- this version, Your Honours.
8 Unless Your Honours do not consider it necessary. I know it's already
9 part of another exhibit which the Defence has tendered.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djordjevic.
11 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I'm afraid this has already been
12 admitted as D443. Perhaps that is of assistance. I stand to be
13 corrected, if I'm mistaken.
14 JUDGE PARKER: I think that's correct. And the question is
15 whether we should receive this as a separate exhibit or as an addition to
16 443. I think we'll receive it as a separate exhibit.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01537.
18 MS. KRAVETZ: Thank you.
19 Q. And just on the topic of meetings, sir, do you recall a meeting
20 that took place on the 17th of May, 1999, which General Ojdanic attended
21 and which was also attended by other members of the VJ and some
22 representatives of the MUP, and the topic of this meeting was the
23 security situation in Kosovo including crimes committed in Kosovo? Do
24 you recall --
25 A. Could you please be more precise. A meeting where in whose
1 office? I'm not sure what the type of the meeting you have in mind. At
2 the supreme commander's or in the Supreme Command staff premises?
3 Q. Yes, I was talking about a meeting in the premises of the Supreme
4 Command staff attended by these persons. Do you recall that meeting?
5 A. I don't. I don't recall a single meeting at which there were
6 people in attendance who were outside the composition of the Army of
7 Yugoslavia where the Supreme Command was briefed on anything. And not
8 only the Army of Yugoslavia, but of the police as well. At the location
9 where there were meetings of the Supreme Command staff, there was no
10 access to anyone -- for anyone else save for those military personnel who
11 were members of the command.
12 Q. I'm sorry, sir, I just misspoke. I meant at the supreme
13 commander's. I didn't mean at the premises of the Supreme Command staff.
14 A. It is possible that such a meeting was held with the supreme
15 commander. It would have entailed co-ordination and co-operation between
16 the army and MUP. In such light it would be logistic for a meeting of
17 that nature to be held. As for the 17th of May specifically, that is
18 something I cannot recall as a date for such a meeting, but by the nature
19 of the situation such meetings did, indeed, take place at the supreme
20 commander's office.
21 Q. Okay, sir, I understand. You don't recall that specific meeting.
22 Just going back to the evening briefings very briefly, and this is the
23 last document I want show you.
24 MS. KRAVETZ: If we could have D008-2171 up on the screen.
25 Q. Sir, do you recall any discussion -- while this document is being
1 brought up, I just wanted to put a question to you -- do you recall any
2 discussion at these evening briefings towards the end of May 1999 about
3 the indictment that had been issued by this Tribunal against members of
4 the Serbian leadership including General Ojdanic? Do you recall any
5 discussion about that?
6 A. I don't recall the indictments being discussed at any briefings
7 about charges being brought and indictments issued. There may have been
8 mention, though, of that possibility of indictments being issued, but I
9 don't ever recall having heard a discussion on specific indictments which
10 had been issued prior to such meetings.
11 Q. Okay. If we look at this page, and this is the briefings of the
12 28th of May, 1999. Under number 2 where Major-General Krga speaks, if we
13 look it at the last bullet point it says:
14 "Bringing an indictment has several purposes, one of them is, of
15 course, stalling peace initiatives."
16 Do you see that?
17 A. I do.
18 Q. I put to you, sir, that this reference here we have in this
19 minutes is in fact a reference to the indictment that was being prepared
20 and had been issued by this Tribunal which included charges against
21 General Ojdanic and other members of the Serbian leadership. You don't
22 recall hearing this discussion on this occasion?
23 A. No. The way it is formulated here, I really don't know where you
24 draw the inference that this pertains to any ICTY indictments. These
25 could have been any other type of indictments. It could have been
1 proceedings held before our military courts or as part of our judiciary.
2 I don't recall such discussions ever being held in the context of the
3 International Tribunal in The Hague.
4 Q. You did say earlier, though, that you do recall there being
5 mention of a possibility of indictments being issued, and I ask you this
6 in the context of an indictment issued by this Tribunal. Was that
7 discussed, the possibility of this Tribunal bringing an indictment
8 against members of the Serbian leadership including General Ojdanic?
9 A. At that time, I did not have such knowledge. I can't say
10 specifically that this was discussed in such precise terms and in that
12 Q. When you say it wasn't discussed in such precise terms, can I --
13 can we conclude that there was discussion on the topic, or are you saying
14 something else when you say you can't recall it was discussed in such
15 precise terms?
16 A. If I try to be more precise, then I would be more inclined
17 towards stating that it was not discussed.
18 Q. Okay. Thank you very much, sir.
19 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honour, I seek to tender this exhibit.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01538.
22 MS. KRAVETZ: And I have no further questions for this witness,
23 Your Honour.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
25 Mr. Djordjevic.
1 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Defence
2 will have certain questions in our redirect.
3 Firstly, let's go back to D587. In particular, entry 248, only
4 the B/C/S original. Zoom in, please, so that we can have a good view of
5 item 248. D587. This is not it. Yes, I guess this is it. 248, please.
6 Zoom in. The page on the opposite side of this one, column number 8. So
7 the continuation of entry 248.
8 Re-examination by Mr. Djordjevic:
9 Q. We would have to deal with this Vlajkovic entry. First of all,
10 you said that this was not your signature?
11 A. No, it's not.
12 Q. Secondly, who wrote Vlajkovic?
13 A. The person authorised to do so. The person in charge of the
14 log-book. At that time it was staff sergeant, I think, the head of the
15 sub-office Jankovic.
16 Q. What's his first name?
17 A. Miodrag.
18 Q. Very well.
19 A. If I may.
20 Q. Please go ahead.
21 A. Under 248 we have two documents. In the archive list, there's
22 only one.
23 Q. That's correct.
24 A. Which means that such an error could not have happened to our
25 chief -- or head of sub-office. I allow for the possibility that this
1 was inserted later on.
2 Q. How much later?
3 A. At the time when I was no longer with the office.
4 Q. Who was your successor?
5 A. It could have happened in 2001 when there was a technical check
6 of all archival material from 1998 and 1999. That took place in 2001.
7 Q. Thank you. This clarifies a lot your previous answer you gave to
8 my learned friend. My next question has to do with D585, page 2.
9 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Please zoom in on the bottom of
10 that page on the left-hand side. Please zoom in on the left-hand side
11 bottom part.
12 Q. This is the stamp you discussed with my learned friend having
13 previously discussed it with me as well. Firstly, you said that this
14 document, D585, and the other one, P888, I think, I don't think we need
15 to bring it up because we have discussed it so extensively that I believe
16 you recall all the details. In any case, my learned friend asked you who
17 told you that this was an important document, and you said that that was
18 your own conclusion. I'm asking you this: Given that you say that you
19 don't know about this document and that you don't know of the other
20 document which remained with the 3rd Army that was signed by General
21 Lazarevic which logically speaking would have preceded this document that
22 is in front of us, to ask you again, because I have to, give that you had
23 the obligation to control the implementation of tasks and orders of the
24 Chief of Supreme Command staff, do you recall given the issue raised in
25 this document signed by General Pavkovic, that there was any contact with
1 MUP regarding that, or were you circumvented and Mr. Gajic contacted
2 directly? Is it possible that you didn't know about any activities
3 undertaken following this document particularly having in mind that you
4 say that the document was of some importance?
5 A. The document is addressed to the Chief of Staff of the Supreme
6 Command which means that he was supposed to received it -- had to have
7 received it. Had he received it, he would have reacted to it, which mean
8 that is he would have written on the document itself who would have any
9 duties regarding from the organisational units of the Supreme Command
11 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the counsel please
12 repeat his question and the witness repeat his answer because the
13 speakers are overlapping.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Could you just pause, please. You and
15 Mr. Djordjevic are speaking too quickly and at the same time. We have to
16 go back to your question and then the answer. Thank you.
17 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Could you please repeat. I put the question in view of this
19 importance of the document, is it possible that in view of the position
20 that you had during the war, in the office of the Supreme Command staff,
21 that you had been circumvented and not been informed about the contents
22 of the document and had not been asked to react to the document?
23 A. It's practically impossible for this document not to come to the
24 office after the Supreme Command -- the Chief of the General Staff had
25 looked at it except relating to specific assignments.
1 Q. Except for the chief of security Gajic, I think, would you
2 personally have had to have known about this document?
3 A. Pursuant to the methodology of the work, I would have had to
4 forward this document for action to Gajic and not only Gajic, but to some
5 other or organs of the command and possibly some institutions along the
6 vertical line.
7 Q. Would you be the person who would control whether the orders, the
8 commands of the chief of the General Staff were implemented, and would
9 you have to report back on that?
10 A. Yes, once an assignment was implemented, Colonel Gajic or the
11 others who would be entrusted with tasks from this document would have to
12 report back about the implementation of the same.
13 Q. As my colleague asked you, are mistakes possible - I'm going to
14 ask you directly - if it's possible whether this stamp was put on the
15 document later?
16 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm sorry, the
17 Defence has been carried away by the factual state and by my profession.
18 Q. Okay. I'm going to repeat my question: As my learned friend
19 Ms. Kravetz asked you, is it possible for mistakes to have occurred
20 during the drafting of the archive log-book, I'm going to ask you whether
21 it's possible, I'm directly asking you whether this stamp was put on the
22 document later once you had left the duties of which you were in the
24 A. It's possible. And the complete problematics relating to these
25 three documents would tend to indicate that. The log-book, the archives,
1 and this document that we are looking at now. It's quite possible,
2 because the same person had remained and worked in the office after me
3 for some time definitely. I don't know for how long.
4 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Before I move to my next
5 question, I would like to see again the first page of this document,
6 please. Thank you.
7 Q. My learned friend insisted on you allowing for the possibility
8 that P888 is a copy of this document, namely that that possibility was a
9 realistic one. You explained to my learned friend that that was
10 practically impossible and illegal to say the least, and quite contrary
11 to the rules that we had discussed yesterday.
12 I'm asking you now, if we look on the right side of the document,
13 it says, Copy number, and that is blank, and then if we go back to that,
14 if there is a blank for the copy number here, is it possible then that
15 there is P888 as a copy, this is short and sweet, and it has to do with
16 the rules that we talked about.
17 A. You could always make a copy.
18 Q. But do you need to put a number on it though? This is what I'm
19 asking you, the copy number.
20 A. The original would bear number 1, and copy would bear number 2 if
21 there were no more.
22 Q. So what does that indicate in terms of P888 if it's not there,
23 the copy number here or there?
24 A. Well, the most simple -- the simplest explanation would be that
25 it was not sent to them.
1 Q. Thank you. And my next question has to do with these briefings.
2 I would just like to clarify completely one story that has to do with the
3 understanding and the use of certain terms. We spoke about the evening
4 briefings, meetings, and you said that Mucibabic, Paskas colonels were
5 taking minutes by hand, it was not a stenogram. And they managed to
6 write down whatever they managed to write down. This here, as a
7 consequence possibly of such minutes, is something that you refer to as a
8 transcript. We understand a transcript to be what is transcribed from
9 the audiotape or an audio recording. Would we be able to call it what my
10 learned friend Ms. Kravetz called it handwritten minutes, and relating to
11 the authenticity of this document, would you be able to say whether it's
12 undoubtedly something that is authentic or perhaps can there be any doubt
13 as to the authenticity of these minutes? Is there a possibility that
14 they are not authentic?
15 A. I'm sorry for being imprecise. When I say transcript, I would
16 mean by that what is not typed out. I did not differentiate between an
17 audiotape and a written down notice. These minutes were taken by hand
18 and then they were typed out.
19 Q. Let us stop here. This handwritten note, where was that written
21 A. This what written down in the book, log-book of minutes of the
22 Supreme Command staff at the command staff premises during the briefing.
23 Q. Was this a bound book or loose-leafed book?
24 A. This was a bound book in hard covers.
25 Q. Would you notice if possibly a page of the book was torn out?
1 A. The pages were numbered and that could also be an indicator if
2 something like that was done. It would be noticed in any case.
3 Q. And you as the Chief of the Supreme Command office, did you ever
4 co-operate with somebody, or did you issue anyone an assignment for those
5 handwritten minutes to compare these briefings from the book with these
6 ones here?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Are you aware that anyone ever after you, once you left the
9 chief's office perhaps did something like that, that they compared these
10 two and verified them?
11 A. No, I'm not aware of that. Since all of that was archived by the
12 end of the year, I'm really don't know about anything like that.
13 Q. So you have no information that this was ever verified or
14 authorised by any authorised official?
15 A. No, no, I don't.
16 Q. Thank you. We are now going to go back to document which was
17 admitted here. This is document P101354 [as interpreted].
18 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please look at this
19 document on the e-court. I can see in the transcript that the number is
20 wrong. The number of the document. The document is P1534. Can we
21 please look at this document.
22 Q. In reference to this document, you said that as far as the MUP
23 was concerned, actually, we saw there the Ministry of Internal Affairs
24 and the Republican Ministry of the Internal Affairs should be informed
25 and that the person in charge of this by establishment was the chief of
1 security Colonel Gajic; is that correct?
2 A. I think that he was the chief of the administration at that time.
3 Q. Administration for security?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And now, do you have information whether he co-operated with the
6 ministry, or did he co-operate more with one of the departments within
7 the MUP? Let me remind you, we have two departments: Public securities
8 department and state security department. Do you have that information?
9 A. I don't have precise information about that, but since I know
10 Gajic, he mostly referred to co-operation with the state security
11 department. But we did contact them in writing through the MUP chiefs
13 Q. In relation to one of these evening briefings, my learned friend
14 mentioned, and she just asked you whether you noticed that paragraph 2 in
15 the minutes states that a denial should be issued regarding the refugees.
16 Do you have any other comments on that other than you having said that
17 yes, I see that that is written there?
18 A. As I understood in that briefing from what I can recall, there
19 were some overexaggerated writing in the press about refugees from
20 Kosovo. Since that number, according to our assessment, and I'm talking
21 about the assessment of the Supreme Command staff, was not nearly that
22 figure, and since a number of those refugees were directed towards
23 Sandzak, Montenegro, and south-eastern Serbia, the information bureau was
24 informed to issue a denial in the media and to explain what it was really
25 about, to explain the extent, the causes, and the consequences.
1 Q. And that is your answer?
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, we are going to
4 have a small -- yes, let me check something.
5 Q. In the translation here, I think that that is line 1 and 2 and
6 page 52. In the transcript it says that when you were explaining first
7 that Gajic got in touch with members of the state security, you also say
9 "Q. I would try to translate that back to you, but we had
10 contacts with them. You are thinking of --
11 A. The Supreme Command staff.
12 Q. Yes, yes, yes, that the Supreme Command staff got in touch
13 with the MUP," and here it says, "through the main office of the MUP?"
14 A. Through the cabinet, the office of the MUP.
15 Q. Whose office?
16 A. The office of the minister of Internal Affairs.
17 Q. All right, and that is clear now. My learned friend mentioned
18 several times paramilitaries, paramilitary units as a problem. I would
19 like to ask you, you explained that there were attempts to uncover such
20 units and if they were not resubordinated to the army or not pursuant to
21 the positive laws of the then-state, which was called the Federal
22 Republic of Yugoslavia, such people were then disarmed, and you said that
23 you would return them. I don't know where you returned them to, but this
24 is not what I want to ask you. I want to ask you, as far as I'm
25 concerned, the paramilitary unit to me means something that should be
1 under the army but is not under the army, and the para-police forces
2 could be, for example, the reserve compositions of the MUP, perhaps.
3 According to me, that's not it either, so I'm asking you to give a
4 distinction here.
5 JUDGE PARKER: You are there putting specific information and
6 knowledge and a view that you have to the witness instead of asking the
7 witness what does he mean or what is meant by a paramilitary force. You
8 having done that, his answer now has lost much of its value, whatever it
9 may be. Do you understand the problem? Thank you. Would you proceed as
10 you think best.
11 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Of course, Your Honour. I
12 completely accept your objections and the reaction by my learned friend
13 as well as your reaction.
14 Q. My question would be, what do you imply that paramilitary forces
15 means specifically, and what would that mean exactly in our language,
16 what should that mean?
17 A. That would mean that these are armed compositions which are
18 outside of the systems of the command of the army which happen to find
19 themselves there without having been sent there by the command units of
20 the Army of Yugoslavia. This is what we considered to be paramilitary
22 Q. Thank you. In regard finally let me ask you about the last
23 document that was shown to you, and that is document -- actually, it's an
24 article in the "Politika" daily. At these briefings of the Supreme
25 Command staff chief, was there ever any discussion about articles in
1 newspapers or what was written in newspapers?
2 A. The Supreme Command staff administration for information and
3 morale monitored that particular area, and it was responsible for
4 contacts with the media, with foreign journalists, domestic journalists
5 and media. So as part of their briefings, the chief of the
6 administration would present certain things that were noticed in the
7 press about the writing in the press. But as for specific meetings, this
8 was not discussed because what was written in the press was never on the
9 Supreme Command staff agenda. Although, in certain evaluations and
10 assessments by the information administration, there were reactions
11 issued to some writings in the press, specifically the denial about the
12 extent or the scale of the migration of the population, and so on.
13 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. And this would be my
14 last question in my redirect, I'm thanking you for coming to testify.
15 Your Honours, I'm finished.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Djordjevic.
17 Questioned by the Court:
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Sir, I'm sorry, but I have to take you back again
19 to the log-book we saw several times during your testimony. D588. The
20 left page I would like to have on the screen. Only the left side of this
21 document, please.
22 Earlier you answered the question of the Defence counsel who was
23 it who took the notes here and made this entry. Could you perhaps tell
24 us who was the person? You mentioned Miodrag Jankovic. Was it the
25 person who made these -- all these handwritten entries?
1 A. At the time, Mr. Jankovic was the office manager of the office of
2 the Supreme Command staff chief, and this is his handwriting.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: All handwritings -- all notice on this page?
4 A. I would really have to look at everything. Since he had an
5 assistant who was also an active-duty serviceman, it is possible that
6 this other person entered some of these document, and that his
7 handwriting can appear here. That is to say, the handwriting of
8 Mr. Jankovic and his assistant, Mr. Nikolic.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: These are two different persons. Do we know the
10 handwriting of both persons?
11 A. This one appeared more frequently and, therefore, I recognise it
12 more easily, but if I had an opportunity to look at Mr. Nikolic's
13 handwriting, I'm not sure if I would be able to recognise it.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Sir, once again, the entry under number 248,
15 there are two different entries, as we know, both from the same person or
16 from different persons?
17 A. It is evident that different pencil was used, but as for the
18 handwriting, I would say it belongs to one and the same person.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And that is, as I understood you, Mr. Miodrag
21 A. Yes.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. Now I would like to have a look on
23 the other document, D587, the same page, please.
24 On this page we can see all entries in column number 5. Perhaps
25 you can tell us, what is written down there? Just one entry after the
1 other, what does it mean? Starting at 247.
2 A. This means that according how these columns are arranged,
3 information about the received documents were entered in the order of
4 receipt in the office. 247, the next one is 248, 249, et cetera.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: What is written there in column number 5 under
6 item 247? What does it mean? Read it, please.
7 A. "Command of the 3rd Army."
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now, 248, the two entries.
9 A. "SMO" stands for the Federal Ministry of Defence "-
10 administration for defence preparations," et cetera.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Why do you say "et cetera?"
12 A. I can't read it because it is an illegible copy. I know the
13 exact name of this administration, and it's not being fully entered
14 because it's a very long name, and you couldn't put it in one column.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Then the next entry, the next line?
16 A. Under 2 entered on the 26th of May, it reads, "Command of the 3rd
17 Army - forward command post" or IKM.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. And now 249?
19 A. It's a poor copy, but I would say that this is a sector of RV and
20 PVO which stands for air force and anti-aircraft defence, and it was
21 registered as an incoming document coming from them.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. And please continue with 250.
23 A. "Supreme Command staff - sector for operations and staff affairs.
24 It's one of the organisational units of the Supreme Command staff," which
25 means that this was a document produced by this particular sector and was
1 sent either to the office of the chief or for someone to act upon it.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: There are two dates, 15th and 26th of May, 1999,
3 but without an entry in column number 5, the second date. Have you any
4 explanation for that?
5 A. Whether somebody had intended to enter something on the 26th of
6 May and then gave up on the idea, I cannot tell.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Okay. Let's move on to item 251, two entries.
8 What is written there in column number 5?
9 A. Number 1: "Supreme Command staff, sector for education,
10 training, and scientific publications." Under number 2: "Federal
11 Ministry of Defence - sector for," I think it is CP which stands for
12 civilian affairs.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. And now the next entry, 252?
14 A. "Federal Ministry of Defence - Secretariat of the ministry"
15 because that was one of the ministry units.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And then the next line, 19th of May, 1999?
17 A. I cannot recognise this acronym, primarily because this is a poor
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. And number 253, 16th of May, 1999?
20 A. This is SP, which is a designation for the document produced in
21 the office itself. So if you look in the archives under 253, you would
22 see exactly what it contains. And this SP stands for own product,
23 literally translated.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The next column is blank on item 253. There is
25 no registration number. Do we have any explanation for that?
1 A. That means that in relation to this document of ours, there were
2 no other related documents, so this number remained only with this
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. And now the last item 254 with four
5 entries, four different dates.
6 A. Yes. On the 16th of May, the Federal Ministry of Defence, SMO -
7 Secretariat, sent a document, and it was received under number 1. At
8 this moment I cannot tell what the content was and probably under 2, the
9 sector for recruitment, third administration reacted to this previous
10 document by providing a response and probably because it deals with the
11 same topic, it was entered under number 2. There is further
12 correspondence related to this matter. I have lost the image on my
14 I've touched the screen, and I apologise for that.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: There it is again.
16 A. Yes. So document number 3 is own product, something that was
17 issued by the office, and finally number 4, "Sector for education,
18 training, and scientific publication," which means that they also had
19 some connection with this original document under number 1. So we have
20 four documents under 245 [as interpreted] which all generate one from
21 another. That is why they are related. This facilitates the tracing of
22 documents, and the handling of the documents.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much indeed.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE BAIRD: I shan't keep you very long. I just want you to
1 help me with a small definition you gave coming to the end of your
2 re-examination. You described the paramilitary units, and you said that
3 they are armed compositions which are outside the system of the command
4 of the army, which happen to find themselves there without having been
5 sent there by the command units of the VJ.
6 Now, can you assist us as to by whom would they have been sent?
7 A. Yes, I can, but I only have subsequent knowledge in that respect.
8 Units were sent to combat zones by political parties. Those were groups
9 of volunteers armed by political parties and were sent down there in
10 compliance with their propaganda in order to defend the people or depend
11 the territory. As far as I and my colleagues learned later, there were
12 several such paramilitary formations set up by various political parties
13 in Serbia. All of that was beyond any influence or any capability of the
14 army to prevent that, and they did their best to prevent it.
15 JUDGE BAIRD: [Overlapping speakers] ... and this particular
16 information you would have required subsequent, not at the particular
18 A. Precisely so. Precisely so. At a later stage.
19 JUDGE BAIRD: Thank you very much indeed.
20 JUDGE PARKER: You will be pleased to know, sir, that completes
21 the questions for you today. The Chamber would thank you for your
22 attendance here again and for the assistance you've been able to give.
23 You may return to your normal activities and a Court Officer will show
24 you out. Thank you.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you too.
1 [The witness withdrew]
2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djordjevic.
3 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Our next witness should be
4 Mr. Dusan Mladenovski.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
6 [The witness entered court]
7 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Could you please read aloud the affirmation which
10 is shown to you now.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can you please repeat. I'm sorry,
12 I didn't have my headphones on.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Would you please read the affirmation which is
14 shown to you now.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
16 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Please sit down. Yes, Mr. Djordjevic.
18 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
19 WITNESS: DUSAN MLADENOVSKI
20 [Witness answered through interpreter]
21 Examination by Mr. Djordjevic:
22 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Mladenovski.
23 A. Good afternoon.
24 Q. Tell us your full name, please.
25 A. Dusan Mladenovski.
1 Q. When were you born?
2 A. On the 11th of June, 1957.
3 Q. Thank you. Where were you born?
4 A. In the village of Vladimirovo, Berovo [Realtime translation read
5 in error "Birovo"] municipality, Republic of Macedonia.
6 Q. Sir, on 14th of June, 2008, did you give a written statement to
7 investigator Ratko Djukanovic?
8 A. But I would just like to correct the name of the municipality is
9 not Birovo but rather Berovo, B-e-r-o-v-o.
10 Q. So on the 14th of June, 2008, did you give a statement to
11 investigator Ratko Djukanovic?
12 A. I don't know whether it was on the 14th June or January.
13 Q. Yes, January.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Before your today's evidence, did you have an opportunity to look
16 at this statement of yours given in January 2008?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Thank you. If you were to be asked the same questions, would you
19 repeat today everything that you told Mr. Djukanovic at the time?
20 A. Yes, I would.
21 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Your Honours, I
22 tender the statement of Dusan Mladenovski number D010-0685 into evidence.
23 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00608.
25 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Did you give evidence in the Milutinovic et al. trial I think on
2 the 21st and 22nd of April, 2008?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Would you repeat today everything that you said on that occasion?
5 A. Yes.
6 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I tender the evidence of
7 Mr. Dusan Mladenovski in the Milutinovic transcript, D010-3302 to be
8 admitted into evidence.
9 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
10 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D00609, Your Honours.
11 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] This witness carried out
12 administrative duties in the army. He reviewed and received archive
13 materials. He reported for duty at the archive on the 13th of July,
14 1999, and he is going to testify about the archiving procedure including
15 corrections and entering of new material into the archive.
16 He is capable of identifying incorrectly registered information
17 that are not in compliance with standard archiving procedure,
18 particularly written amendments that were not properly certified and
20 The witness is going to help us with identifying certain pieces
21 of evidence in this case, and he is going to convey to us what he knows
22 about what the proper archiving procedure should and would be. So this
23 would be a short summary of the evidence to be given today by this
25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
1 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Mr. Mladenovski, can you please tell us something about your
3 educational background?
4 A. I finished secondary military school of ground forces, which
5 lasted four years.
6 Q. Is that all?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Can you tell us something about your career?
9 A. From 14th of July, 1975, when I finished school and started
10 working, I was a platoon commander and I also work as a desk officer for
11 general affairs, and I was an office manager of the mailing room. Then I
12 was a desk officer for organisation and mobilisation, and as of the 13th
13 of July, 1999 until the termination of my service on the 31st of
14 December, 2006, I was the handler of archive material.
15 Q. Department which covered the period up to 19 --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: After 1945.
17 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. When were you pensioned off?
19 A. On the 31st of December, 2006.
20 Q. Can you tell us specifically what your duties were in 1999?
21 A. Since the premises where the military archive was housed was
22 relocated or actually the material was relocated from the premises that
23 were damaged, we were scattered on different locations. For that reason,
24 I was not able to carry out my duties. After that, the chiefs entrusted
25 us with a task of reviewing and receiving the archives that were produced
1 during the war operations.
2 Q. Mr. Mladenovski, was there a rule in force, regulation, or
3 instructions that you used in the course of your work in the archives,
4 save for the instructions you received from the chief of the military
5 archives or other department chiefs which is something one would suppose
6 you did?
7 A. There are instructions on the reception, protection, and use of
8 archival material. Given that the material in question was rather
9 specific, the chief of the military archives and department chiefs,
10 before we began working on that material, carried out additional
11 preparations. They issued separate instructions and guide-lines about
12 how we were to review and receive the material. As for any need for
13 clarification we may require in the course of our work, we always had the
14 chiefs at our disposal. If there was anything in question, we could
15 always put questions to them in order to receive further guide-lines.
16 Q. Did you work on the archiving the war-time material including the
17 documents received from the Chief of Supreme Command staff and his
19 A. I did not work on the archiving process itself. I worked on
20 receiving and reviewing that material.
21 Q. Did you work also in the process of receiving the material --
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. -- when the war-time material is in question? I want to ask you
24 about the rule per se because it is already in evidence and anyone
25 interested may peruse it. I wanted to ask you something else. You said
1 that per establishment there was a chief of the military archives. Next
2 there were two department chiefs. Firstly, tell us what those
3 departments were, and who the chiefs were by the first and last name, if
4 you recall. That would be the first question. The second, to the best
5 of your recollection, can you tell us what instructions did you receive
6 concerning those documents which were not encompassed in the rule we
8 A. At the helm of the military archives, there was a chief. Within
9 the archives there were two departments as well as a general affairs --
10 general administrative affairs department. The first department dealt
11 with archival material dating back to 1887 until the 15th of May 1945.
12 In that department, the material contained therein was completely
13 processed in terms of archival science, and it was open to public.
14 The second department contained material created after 1945, that
15 is to say, after the 15th of May. They were in charge of that period.
16 And I was appointed clerk for archival material in the first department,
17 that is the department dealing with material up to 1945.
18 Q. What about during war time?
19 A. Since I could no longer perform my establishment duty during that
20 time, the chiefs decided to use all available personnel who could not
21 perform their regular duties to assign to the process of receiving and
22 reviewing archival material.
23 Q. Do you recall any specific instructions that went beyond certain
24 rules which were in place that you received from the chief? You did say
25 that you received separate instructions. If you recall, can you just
1 tell us the most important points?
2 A. The most important point was that the material concerned required
3 different handling. In peacetime it is handled differently. During war
4 time, the person receiving such material upon observing a mistake would
5 return that for correction.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: That was the
7 situation in peacetime.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] However, given that the material in
9 question was voluminous, they decided that the documents should not be
10 returned to the author for correction, but they provided us some
11 guide-lines that we were supposed to follow. And I apologise for not
12 having answered the second part of the question. The chief of the first
13 department at the time was Colonel Nikola Bibic and the chief of the
14 second department was Lieutenant-Colonel Stanislav Krstic [phoen].
15 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. What about the chief of the military archives?
17 A. Colonel Velimir Ivetic.
18 Q. Do you recall any other instructions, for example, those dealing
19 with the contents of those documents?
20 A. If I need to explain in detail.
21 Q. Yes, please answer my question.
22 A. Perhaps it will be best to do it using a document, but I can also
23 just simply tell you that. The instructions were received was for us to
24 control the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th column. They excluded the
25 3rd column. The chief of the military archives put particular stress on
1 the importance of us not reading the documents even to the extent that we
2 would need to enter a brief remark, but not to read it at all, he
3 insisted on that with the department chiefs, to caution us not to do
4 that. Among other things one of the reasons was probably that we should
5 not waste our time reading through the documents in order to complete the
6 job ASAP.
7 Q. As part of your work were there any other persons present engaged
8 on the same task?
9 A. Yes, there were between 10 and 12 of us concerning receiving and
10 reviewing the material. When you asked me a moment ago about the
11 archives of the Supreme Command staff, if you went through all of the
12 material, you would probably come across different names of people who
13 were in charge of receiving and reviewing documents, including myself. I
14 don't know if I'm make myself clear.
15 Q. Certainly. Concerning the corrections you were supposed to make,
16 firstly, were there any deviations or departures from the rule that was
17 in force in terms of handling archival material or not?
18 A. If one would consider a departure what I have already mentioned,
19 then it was a different procedure. We no longer returned documents to
20 the authors for correction. We made them ourselves. And as for anything
21 that may have been unclear, the chiefs were there to provide instruction.
22 Q. So instead of returning documents to the sender, you were
23 authorised to make corrections following the procedure given to you by
24 the chief?
25 A. Precisely.
1 Q. While on the topic of corrections, please describe what you did
2 precisely, from the moment when you receive an archive list with new
3 documents, let's start with that.
4 A. A person who would bring in documents in bulk would usually bring
5 documents in bundles, and we probably always went by archival unit based
6 on the archive list. For example, entry number 1, we would take the
7 documents belonging to that particular archival unit in order to check
8 whether the number of documents tallies, the number of sheets, and if
9 there was anything else. For example, to see whether it was a photocopy
10 or another document attached to the original. And we were supposed to
11 make corrections that were supposed to be visible.
12 We followed the bookkeeping method, meaning that we would simply
13 cross out an incorrect digit and write by hand the correct number of
14 documents or sheets. These were columns 5 and 6.
15 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Let's stop here. In order to
16 make it clear to all those who are following, we would perhaps need to
17 see documents from a binder we have prepared for the witness. I would
18 kindly ask the usher to assist us in that. We have hard copies in that
19 binder that the witness can peruse.
20 Could we please have D584 on the screen. Only the Serbian
21 version, please, because we have been seeing it so frequently in the
22 course of the past few days. Could we please zoom in.
23 Q. In your binder, Mr. Mladenovski, that is number 1. Please go on
24 with your explanation. This is the archive list that we are discussing?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Briefly only, do you recognise this document as the document you
2 drafted as opposed to the documents of other people who worked alongside
4 A. Yes, this is my list. You can see on page 8 that I signed it.
5 Q. We'll discuss that later. We were still with the corrections you
6 made and how you entered them. Let us zoom in on the table part alone
7 where the columns are. And then we can go by numbers. What is the blue
8 patch here.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The white patch?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To tell you the truth, I have no
11 idea why this was covered, and by whom, I have no explanation.
12 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Very well. Let's start with 1 and go down to 6. Let's go by
14 columns rather.
15 A. Before that, let me tell you this, this is the archive list.
16 This was a template form for the hand-over of archival materials and
17 documents. Archival unit 1, entry 1 in column 1, then binder 2 is in
18 column 2. In column 4 we have the log-book number.
19 Q. What about column 3?
20 A. I was about to get there. So in the fourth column we have
21 134-1,2. Two documents and three sheets. This means that the person
22 handing over the documents wrote that there were only two sheets. When I
23 checked, I established that there were three. Most of the mistakes
24 occurred with the number of sheets because the sender usually did not
25 count them carefully. If there were any remarks or cover pages when we
1 specifically speak of the Chief of Supreme Command staff, their documents
2 always had a cover page and in such cases the sender usually disregarded
3 that. And at the beginning of, say, a plan or some such document, they
4 merely forgot to count that page because it only contained a title.
5 However, according to archival science, even if there's a single letter
6 on a sheet of paper, it is a document. For that reason we needed to make
7 the corrections. I don't know if I'm making myself clear.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] We will resume after the break
10 although we are already late for that break. I just wanted to round off
11 this topic.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Djordjevic. Could the
13 Chamber point out that there is no value in us using time unnecessarily.
14 The witness's statement deals with quite a bit of the detail of the work
15 that he did and what he did with this exhibit. Similarly his evidence in
16 the previous trial canvassed some of this again. We just don't have the
17 time in this case to receive his statement and his transcript and then go
18 over all his evidence again in detail. So if you could bear that in mind
19 during the break to see how you could bring him to just the most
20 essential points that are additional to those that are in his statement
21 and his transcript. Thank you.
22 We adjourn now and we resume just after 1.00.
23 [The witness stands down]
24 --- Recess taken at 12.34 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 1.05 p.m.
1 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Before the witness enters, I
2 wanted to draw your attention to D609, the transcript, given that a
3 significant portion of it was given in private session, I would kindly
4 ask that it be admitted under seal. Also, we have the redacted version.
5 It is D011-2810. And I would like to have that admitted as well. So
6 D609 admitted under seal. We have already admitted that, and I apologise
7 for not having directed your attention to that fact. And the second one
8 is D011-2810. It is the redacted version, and I seek to tender that as
10 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much. Ms. D'Ascoli?
11 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, Your Honours. Just to clarify because I
12 don't remember the testimony of Mr. Mladenovski entirely -- mostly in
13 private session during the MOS trial. I was looking at my version of the
14 transcript and I have it from page 25769, I don't have the current court
15 page, until two pages late, and that's all I have in private session, so
16 if maybe my learned counsel can verify that, probably there's no need to
17 have one version under seal and the other with redaction, or -- it was
18 just a suggestion because I don't remember that mainly in private
20 JUDGE PARKER: We won't delay the witness now, we'll look at that
21 and deal with it at another time. Thank you.
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, respecting what you
24 said just before the break, I will strive to conclude my redirect -- my
25 direct examination as soon as possible, especially bearing in mind that
1 it is Friday afternoon and that the witness should go home since he
2 awaited his testimony for a number of days. Another option is since the
3 courtroom is free in the afternoon, we may ask for some additional time
4 to conclude the witness today. I also forgot to say that Ms. Aapio an
5 intern of ours is with us here today. I will continue with my direct
6 examination. Could we please go back to D584 --
7 JUDGE PARKER: We are not in a position to continue after 1.45,
8 so if we can finish by then it will be wonderful.
9 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we please have
10 D584 and D583 placed next to each other. The B/C/S versions. D584 and
12 JUDGE PARKER: I see the transcript had me saying 1450 hours.
13 That's not so. It's 1.45.
14 MR. DJORDJEVIC: I would rather like that you said.
15 JUDGE PARKER: I won't delay you further, Mr. Djordjevic.
16 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] D584 and D583. One next to each
17 other. I think this is one in the same version. D584 and D583. That's
18 it. Much better.
19 Q. Mr. Mladenovski, is this the same document?
20 A. It is, however, the one on the left has column number 3 covered,
21 pasted over. And on the left document, I don't see the stamp in the
22 upper right-hand corner, whereas the one on the right does.
23 Q. I'll stop you right there. We see a part of the form on the
24 right-hand side where the figure of 21606 is. What is it?
25 A. As I said, this is a standard template when there is any
1 hand-over of archival material and documents. In the upper right-hand
2 side corner we have the inventory number containing the inventory number
3 of the archive list in question. Next is the date when the material was
4 received and reviewed. Next we have a total of documents and of sheets.
5 This is standard procedure.
6 Q. Who inserts figures there?
7 A. It is done after having received the documents. We have the date
8 of the 24th September. I put in the number of sheets. As for the
9 inventory number, it was entered by the person who was in charge of
10 filing it following our review.
11 Q. Thank you. Next question. The number of documents and sheets,
12 is it including the corrections or without?
13 A. The number of documents and number of sheets, I believe you
14 originally said pages.
15 Q. I apologise.
16 A. That is the number with the corrections entered in columns 5 and
18 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we go to the last page of
19 both documents.
20 Q. Since we have it on the screen now, can you tell us who made the
21 annotations, the handwritten notes?
22 A. The bottom left corner list compiled by warrant officer and the
23 right bottom corner, colonel who was the chief. He was chief of office
24 of the Supreme Command. As for the handwritten notes in the last column,
25 we have my signature there and the note says: "Received and reviewed by
1 Mr. Mladenovski."
2 Q. What was the rule concerning corrections? You said you followed
3 the bookkeeping method of crossing out?
4 A. Yes, and then we would enter the correct number above the
5 incorrect one, unless the previous number was at the very top of the box
6 when you can't fit your correction.
7 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Let's go to item 82, please.
8 You could do it on the right-hand side document, page 2. Please zoom in
9 so that we have entry 82 alone.
10 Q. Let's have a look at that. Your comment, first of all, is this
11 your correction?
12 A. This is an archival unit line 82, and just like I told the
13 investigator en route in the statement and confirmed in the previous
14 transcript and I'm confirming now that I was not the one who made this
16 Q. And you're claiming this on what basis?
17 A. First of all, on the basis of the instructions of my chiefs on
18 how to make corrections. Had I made this correction, if we look at this
19 box 5 and 6, there is enough space for the numbers to be written above
20 the line, and evidently, they were written here below. That's one thing
21 that would seem to prove my assertion. And secondly, if you look at the
22 entire list from first to last page, none of the boxes was corrected with
23 the number below, only that archival unit with the number 82.
24 Q. And did you later check the subtotal that you spoke about? We
25 saw the first page of the form and all of them and we saw the number of
1 the pages. Does that correspond?
2 A. I checked that when I was giving my statement to the investigator
3 Ratko Djukanovic, and that was when we established that without this
4 correction in the archive unit number 82, without that correction there
5 taking into account all the other corrections, the number of the
6 documents does tally and comes to 277, the number of pages tallies and is
8 Q. Including this correction?
9 A. With this correction, then you would have 278 documents or 737
11 Q. Thank you. Do you have an idea who could have made this
12 correction other than you?
13 A. Well, let me first tell you that the correction could have
14 happened after the 24th of September, 1999, after I signed the list. So
15 from the 25th of September, 1999 on until the time this document was
16 photocopied. I don't have any idea who could have done that.
17 Q. All right. That will be enough.
18 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we place D588 and D587
19 Serbian version next to each other, please.
20 Q. And what is this about?
21 A. I see here the log-book or a photocopy of the log-book of the
22 cabinet of the Supreme Command staff chief from 1991 [as interpreted].
23 We can see that this is book 4 -- book 1 and starts from the number 1.
24 Q. Thank you. Now, can we please look at the entry 248 in this
25 log-book. Can we look at both the documents in the second document I
1 think this box would be on page 7, on the left-hand side. And your
2 comment, please, is this more or less the same thing?
3 A. I see here, well, I apologise. I see the number 248-1, that it
4 was logged in on the 15th of May, 1999, and as far as I can see, the
5 federal defence ministry administration for, it doesn't matter, then
6 248-2 on the 26th of May, 1999, this was sent from the command of the 3rd
7 Army forward command post 872-94/1-2. I could possibly give you my
8 comment because in the course of my career, I did perform some log
9 keeping duties. I don't know how much that is --
10 Q. That is not the question. My question relates to this, did you
11 have the opportunity so have this log-book in your hands in preparation
12 for testimony here?
13 A. I did, during my previous testimony, it was presented to me. I
14 personally did not -- I don't know, perhaps it was in some archive list
15 that perhaps I received it.
16 Q. And can you comment here about this entry or not? Can you just
17 tell me that?
18 A. I've told you, I can just do it on the basis of my experience.
19 Because I did those kinds of assignments during my career, so there is no
20 logic there in the sense of linking one document to the other because
21 usually you would link together the same topics if something referred to
22 the same topics. Evidently here, I don't know, as I say, we did not.
23 The chief forbade us strictly to read texts so the administration for
24 preparation and the 3rd Army Command, I don't know whether there would be
25 something in common there.
1 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] All right. I would like to
2 thank the witness for this, for coming today. I would like to complete
3 my examination-in-chief. And I would like to tender page 2574 -- or
4 transcript pages which were in the private session 25767 to 25769. And
5 that is why we said we would like to keep this under seal.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Mr. Djordjevic, we'll look at the
7 question of private session and seal later. We will try and deal with
8 the witness now.
9 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, Your Honour, but those pages are in private
10 session so there is no problem about that. I just understood that he
11 wanted the whole transcript done. It was a different issue, sorry, I was
13 Cross-examination by Ms. D'Ascoli:
14 Q. I'll try to be quick, Mr. Mladenovski, so that we can finish
16 MS. D'ASCOLI: You have already -- can we call on the screen can
17 we call back the exhibit, the archive list D584, please.
18 Q. And you have already explained in your statement also is pretty
19 much detailed all the procedure and your duties in this archive procedure
20 so I won't go into that, but if we -- I'm waiting for the document to be
21 on the screen. If you go to the last page of this document, as you said
22 we see the signature at the bottom of the last page of warrant officer
23 Miodrag Jankovic who was supposedly the person who prepared the list, is
24 that correct, from the office of the General Staff?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Okay. And you received this list as compiled by this warrant
2 officer. Your duty, as we said, was to verify the accuracy and we
3 learned that you corrected many mistake on the list. I was going through
4 this list just to have a look at the mistakes, and I could notice that we
5 have over, more or less over 60 mistakes in this list. So would it be
6 fair to say, Mr. Mladenovski, that this list you received wasn't a
7 perfect example of accuracy; correct?
8 A. Well, you could say that it's not an example of accuracy or
9 correctness, but there were some archival lists that were 100 per cent
10 accurate. And unfortunately, there were some with many more errors, but
11 like I said, in the instructions issued to us by the chiefs and in order
12 not to waste time and in order to complete that job, they suggested that
13 we carry out the error -- the corrections --
14 Q. Of course. We heard about that. May I stop you there so that we
15 can proceed quickly. You said that of course there were lists with zero
16 errors but there were also lists with many errors, and my point was that
17 this list that we are discussing it was an example of inaccuracy and
18 presented many errors. That was my point. Would you agree with that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. Sir, I suppose that during your job at the archives
21 between the 13th of July, 1999 and 2001, you had to inspect and check
22 many of these archive lists, right?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. Would you be able to give us an approximate number of, for
25 example, how many lists you corrected in the first two months you worked
1 there meaning July until September 1999? Just an approximate number.
2 Was it like hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands?
3 A. Well, to tell you the truth, I have no idea, but the person who
4 did take care of these -- this information afterwards would probably have
5 the precise data. I don't have the precise data. We did not keep
6 records of who did how much.
7 Q. I understand that. I was just asking whether you went over many
8 of these lists in terms of numbers in those first months or you corrected
9 just a few of these archive lists received from the, for example, the
10 General Staff?
11 A. I really cannot remember, please believe me.
12 Q. No problem. Your work on this list and in particular on the one
13 that we have on the screen, in any case, dates back to more than ten
14 years ago by now; is that correct?
15 A. More than ten years, yes. Yes.
16 Q. And would it be fair to say that you can't remember specifically
17 this list that we are looking at in the sense that you can't have a
18 specific memory about this list, but you recognise that you dealt with it
19 because you've seen it or it's on the last page of it indicating that you
20 were the clerk, the officer who was assigned to review and correct this
22 A. Not only the signature but when looking at the numbers also that
23 I corrected that would be on the basis of that as well. And it's also in
24 the list. You can see other handwritings, and I made the entries myself
25 by hand. This is how I can tell, by the handwriting and the numbers.
1 Q. Thank you, sir. So you said that you recognise all the
2 corrections made in this list with the exception of the archive unit 82;
4 A. Right.
5 Q. And you said you recognise those corrections -- you don't
6 recognise also the correction at the archive unit 82 because the numbers
7 were written below rather than above the new digits that were entered
8 because they were not according to the procedure?
9 A. Not just the fact that they were written below, but also by
10 looking at my numbers, I don't write numbers in that way. If you look at
11 this other list, you can probably see that the numbers are different.
12 Q. Okay.
13 MS. D'ASCOLI: Can we then go at page 3. We can just keep the
14 B/C/S version. I don't need the English.
15 Q. If we go at page 3 of the original archive list, and for example,
16 we have a look at the archive unit number 29. The correction that you
17 entered, this digit the number 2, was that entered by you; right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And if we scroll up a bit and we look also at the archive unit
20 number 21, also this other number 2 was written by you; correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Would you then agree that at least on the face of them, these two
23 number 2s, they look slightly different? They don't look exactly the
24 same way?
25 A. They look different but that would again depend on the speed of
1 writing and whatnot. Maybe perhaps if one were not in a rush, the
2 numbers would be written slightly differently, you know.
3 Q. I understand that, sir. So you would concede that your way of
4 writing the number 2 would differ depending on, of course, the way you
5 were writing and in the first case the archive unit 21 we see that
6 there's a straight termination of the 2 while at archive unit number 21
7 we see there is a more curved termination of the 2? Of course, I'm not
8 like a handwriting expert like yourself, you're not too, but I was just
9 asking whether you agree with this difference which is pretty evident,
10 and you said you did, so thanks for that.
11 MS. D'ASCOLI: Can we move to page 5 of the archive list.
12 Q. Also here, sir, would you agree that for example, the way the
13 number 2s are written in the different corrections we see, they don't
14 look always the same, and I'm talking about line 51 and then compare with
15 line 54 or 56. Doesn't this confirm what you said, depending on the
16 speed of writing numbers could end up being written differently?
17 A. Correct. In 54, it's slightly different. But as I'm saying,
18 this is at the point of time that it was written.
19 MS. D'ASCOLI: I was just asking about that, thank you. Now, if
20 we go to the problematic archive unit number 82. This is at page 7,
22 Q. Wouldn't you agree that, for example, the way the number 2 is
23 written in column 5 of archive unit 82 resembles the way the number 2 is
24 written in archive unit number 21, for example -- 29, the one that we saw
25 at page 3 of the archive?
1 A. I would agree that it is somewhat alike, but I think this is
2 really evident, this top part where the 2 is written. You are just
3 looking at the bottom part of the actual number. I think that -- there
4 is a difference there. If you permit me to tell you as far as my
5 previous testimony is concerned, this would be the final testimony in
6 Belgrade. I did submit my handwriting to a handwriting expert attorney
7 Ackerman asked that and I said that yes, I agreed to provide a sample of
8 my handwriting, and I did.
9 Q. Sure, but it's not the case in this situation, so thank you very
11 A. Excuse me, I apologise.
12 Q. No, no need to apologise. I was just interested in whether you
13 would immediately recognise that the way you are writing certain numbers
14 and the way you've written certain numbers, for example the number 2,
15 differs on the different entries and on the different digits that we have
16 on this archive list, that was all I was asking. Thank you, sir.
17 Let's move on so that we can finish. I have some few questions
18 about the procedure. I understand that you said that after you concluded
19 your check, you would hand the bundle with the archive list to the
20 archivist who would insert the inventory number on top. Could you please
21 tell me how the process would continue after you checked the folder and
22 handed everything to the archivist? Are you aware of how the procedure
23 would continue?
24 A. I am going to tell you the person who would receive the bundles
25 back from us, that would be the archives person who was in charge of
1 allocating the inventory numbers and registering the other information
2 from that particular bundle. That is something that I am familiar with.
3 As for what happened after that, there would be some records of that, but
4 I don't know what would happen to that bundle later. The person was
5 obliged to check that --
6 Q. Let me stop you there. That's what I was interested in. My
7 question is: Do you know if someone else checked the archive list after
8 you or if a supervisor, if someone else would go again over it or whether
9 you were the last person in the process to check the data in the archive
10 list and together with the relative documents? Were you the last person
11 or someone else would run a further check after you?
12 A. Yes, in looking it over and checking for the signature, I was the
13 last person and then after that we would hand it over to the person who
14 would be in charge of recording it and processing it further, and then
15 the chiefs would check that person in turn. Actually, I don't know
16 whether they were responsible for that or somebody else. We were in one
17 set of premises, she worked in a different office, so I don't know what
18 happened with the bundle after that.
19 Q. Okay. And in any case, corrections to the archive list would be
20 only authorised persons working in the archive would be able to make
21 corrections to these archive lists, I take it?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. Okay. I should clarify something else about -- you mentioned
24 copies of these archive lists that were made, and you said that generally
25 three copies were produced of these archives lists. Could you tell us at
1 which moment in time these copies were produced?
2 A. I don't know if I mentioned copies here or photocopies of archive
3 lists in my testimony today. In my previous testimony I did explain in
4 detail that archival lists are made in three or four copies generally of
5 which the original list accompanies the original documents with the
6 bundle. One of them would go to the military archives in order to write
7 up the contents, and the third would be returned to the copy that -- to
8 the office that provided the documents.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the last thing
10 he said.
11 MS. D'ASCOLI:
12 Q. The interpreter asked if you can repeat your answer, but maybe I
13 will go through it again so that it is clearer.
14 Before that I just wanted to clarify something that you were
15 saying before. I had asked you about whether you were the last person or
16 not in the process because you said that in the Milutinovic testimony,
17 this is page 33 of the transcript in e-court, you said that when the
18 bundles were finished, they were dealt with further and there would be a
19 person who would check everything probably. I'm quoting from a response
20 that you gave during your testimony. So that's why I ask you whether you
21 were aware of being the last person or not in the process. You said
22 that, yes, you were the last one checking the archive list. But would
23 you agree that, would it be fair to say that someone else given than you
24 are not completely aware of this, would it be fair to say that someone
25 else could made additional corrections after you completed your work and
1 you hand it in?
2 A. Well, I can explain that now. The person to whom we handed it
3 over to who did all the logging in probably did go over that again. If
4 they found any irregularities, they would return the list to the person
5 who signed it, the person who had previously gone over it. So there were
6 such cases when they noticed that something was not done, but then they
7 would immediately return it back to the person who worked on it. And
8 then the corrections -- the list with the corrections would be sent to
9 that person again.
10 Q. This last person you said, in this case it would be you who
11 signed the list, correct?
12 A. Specifically, had I made a mistake in this list, it would have
13 been returned to me. Not just this list, but I recall that no list was
14 ever returned to me.
15 Q. Thanks for the clarification. If we could go back to the issue
16 of the copies. I was just interested in understanding whether basically
17 you were filling in three identical originals of the same archive list
18 meaning that you had to put, to insert your corrections on these three
19 copies that you received, or whether this was produced later after you
20 had finished the checking on the archive list? Could you help me with
22 A. All three copies of the archives list we had to correct
23 personally. When we would finish the first copy, we would correct the
24 second copy, then we would correct the third copy, and then we would hand
25 them over to the person for further processing.
1 Q. Okay. Thanks for that clarification. Basically you would
2 produce let's say, three originals at the same time, each mirroring the
3 same corrections that you made of the document. Okay. Do you know given
4 that you said that one of these copies would be returned to the
5 originating unit was sent the initial archive list, do you know when this
6 copy would be sent back to the unit, at which moment in time after you
7 ended as a final one?
8 A. To tell you the truth, I don't know that because this was done by
9 the person whose job this was, so I don't know when this would be
10 returned to the unit.
11 Q. Okay. You don't know whether it was in a matter of a week, two
12 weeks, or a month, or longer? You don't know about that?
13 A. No, I don't know.
14 Q. Okay. No problem. Sir, I understand that these three copies of
15 course were identical as made at the same time. So if someone else would
16 have make a correction in those copies at a later stage after you had
17 finished checking those, they would be obliged to make a correction on
18 all three copies; correct?
19 A. Correct, correct.
20 Q. So that all copies would reflect exactly the same corrections.
21 What if we also seen that these copies would be then separated in the
22 sense that for example, one would be kept in the vault, the other one
23 would be used for consultation, and the third one would be returned to
24 the originating unit. Wouldn't it be fair to say that if someone had
25 made a correction or had altered the record in one of these copy at a
1 later stage, to do a fine job, that he or she would have had to make the
2 same correction on all three copies in order for them to mirror the
3 content on each other, to look identical as they should be?
4 A. Precisely so.
5 Q. Okay. And considering -- I think you testified in Milutinovic
6 that just for -- just from the face of it, you are not able to say
7 whether the copies that we have here on the screen is which of the three
8 copies this archive list is, are you able to say that, if it is the
9 original kept in the vault or the one used for consultation purposes, or
10 the one returned to the unit? Would you be able to say that?
11 A. Based on this list, I wouldn't be able to tell which particular
12 copy of that list is, whether that's the one that accompanied the
13 material, whether that's the one that was kept by the military archive as
14 information piece or whether it was the copy intended for the unit.
15 Q. Okay. Sir, as a former VJ officer, would you have access to the
16 VJ archives, would you have the possibility of going there and checking
17 the copies that are kept there?
18 A. I have to correct you. I was a non-commissioned officer.
19 Ex-non-commissioned officer.
20 Q. But you worked -- thanks for the correction. You worked at the
21 archives, the VJ archives?
22 A. Yes, as a non-commissioned officer. Not an officer.
23 Q. Sure. Sir, I was just wondering whether before your previous
24 testimony in the Milutinovic case or before your testimony in this case
25 considering the issue at hand, whether you went to the VJ archive office
1 and you checked whether the copies kept there had this correction and
2 whether, for example, both copies that you could access had this
3 correction, did you have the chance of checking that?
4 A. I did not have any opportunity, and I wouldn't have liked to
5 check that either. If any checks are necessary, there are authorised
6 personnel who should do that. It was not my place to do the checking.
7 Q. But would you agree that would have been something to help
8 clarifying the issues, to see whether we had -- we still have three
9 identical copies or whether if the correction was entered at a later
10 stage, that was done in an appropriate way just on one of those? Would
11 that probably help clarifying the matter?
12 A. It would probably be helpful, but as I said, I wouldn't like to
13 check that myself. There are other people who can do that.
14 Q. I understand that, sir. I was just making the point that without
15 having a complete record and without knowing exactly how things went, you
16 are not in a position to say what really happened, whether this was a
17 correction enter after you finished your work was a correction entered in
18 an inappropriate way in a different form? I was just asking you whether
19 you would agree with this point.
20 A. I don't understand your question entirely. What do you want me
21 to agree with, whether this correction was appropriate. I'm sorry, I
22 didn't understand your question.
23 Q. No worries. I was just asking whether -- a way of clarify the
24 matter would have been to have access to the copies, to the three copies
25 existing of this archive list and verify whether for example the
1 corrections at the archive unit 82 was present on the old copies, on all
2 the copies?
3 A. I think I already answered that question. I said that that would
4 probably help but your next question was something with regard to
6 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you, sir. Those were my questions. Your
7 Honour, I'm finished my cross-examination.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Ms. D'Ascoli.
9 Mr. Djordjevic.
10 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Only one question.
11 Re-examination by Mr. Djordjevic:
12 Q. [Interpretation] Are you sure that it wasn't you who made these
14 A. When I gave my statement and when I testified in the Milutinovic
15 case, and I'm saying it now, that it wasn't me who made this correction.
16 Q. Could it be that this correction was made only after you or maybe
17 at some completely different period of time?
18 A. I already said I'm going to reiterate that this correction may
19 have occurred between -- after the 25th of September 1999 until the date
20 when a photocopy of this archive list was made.
21 MR. DJORDJEVIC: No more redirect, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Djordjevic.
23 Questioned by the Court:
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Sir, if I recall correctly, you mentioned that
25 you had the chance to go through the whole list and count the number of
1 documents and the number of pages. And that differed because of this
2 correction -- this specific correction we were talking about, that
3 differed from the whole number. When was it that you had the chance to
4 go through the whole document?
5 A. I think I already said this at the beginning, which is that I did
6 that when I was giving statements to the investigator Ratko Djukanovic.
7 I was shown the entire list at the time and that is when I did the adding
8 up. And eventually, I found out together with the correction in entry 82
9 that the number of documents and the number of sheets did not correspond.
10 So that was for the first time that I discovered this discrepancy.
11 Without the correction of entry 82, the number of documents and the
12 number of sheets do correspond.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
14 JUDGE PARKER: You will be pleased to know that completes the
15 questions. Thank you for coming. Thank you for your assistance. You
16 are free to go. When we now rise, you will be able to go off and look
17 after your ordinary affairs. We thank counsel for the speedy treatment
18 of this witness. We resume again on Monday at 2.15. We now adjourn.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
20 [The witness withdrew]
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.53 p.m.
22 to be reconvened on Monday, the 15th day of
23 February, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.