1 Tuesday, 16 March 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
5 [The witness entered court]
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Would you please stand, and if you could read
9 aloud the affirmation shown to you on the card.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
11 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much. Please sit down.
13 I think Mr. Djordjevic has some questions for you.
14 MR. DJORDJEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
15 WITNESS: DANICA MARINKOVIC
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 Examination by Mr. Djordjevic:
18 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning.
19 A. Good morning.
20 Q. Before we start with the examination-in-chief, I would like to
21 warn you to make an effort, since we speak the same language, and
22 considered that everything I will be examining you about today is
23 interpreted into other languages, and that the interpreters need some
24 time to interpret what I -- what I ask and then what you answer. There
25 should be a pause between my question and your answer to enable the
1 interpreters to interpret everything that is said. Please bear that in
3 Tell us your first and last name for the record, please.
4 A. Danica Marinkovic.
5 Q. When were you born?
6 A. On the 2nd of April, 1951.
7 Q. Where were you born?
8 A. In Bosanski Brod, Bosnia
9 Q. What is your ethnicity?
10 A. I'm Macedonian by ethnicity.
11 Q. Tell me, did you on the 25th of February, 2008, give a statement
12 to Mr. Djordjevic's [as interpreted] Defence counsel -- Mr. Lukic and --
13 THE INTERPRETER: The second name escaped us.
14 Could counsel please repeat the number.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
16 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. The number of the statement is D007-2736. Let me first ask you,
18 during the proofing for this examination, did you have an opportunity to
19 review the statement that you gave to Mr. Lukic and Mr. Ivetic?
20 A. Yes.
21 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Before we continue with the
22 examination, I must point out that on page 2, line 12, it isn't
23 Mr. Djordjevic's Defence counsel, but Mr. Lukic's Defence. That's page
24 2, line 12. Thank you.
25 Q. Would you repeat everything you said then if you were asked the
1 same questions today in that statement?
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this statement
4 into evidence.
5 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00853.
7 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
8 Q. Did you testify in the Milutinovic the et al. case before this
9 Tribunal on the 29th of February, 2008, and on the 4th of March, 2008?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did you have the opportunity to review that transcript during the
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. This being the case, would you today repeat everything that you
15 stated during your evidence in that trial?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. This is Defence Exhibit D010-4044. I seek to tender this into
19 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00854.
21 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] 65 ter summary, the 65 ter
22 summary is as follows: The witness was an investigative judge of the
23 district court of Pristina during the relevant period of time. She will
24 testify to the structure and functioning of the judicial organs in Serbia
25 during the relevant time-period and prior to that time. She will -- she
1 will also testify about investigation procedure under the Law of Criminal
2 Procedure that was in force at the time, but also about the Criminal Code
3 of Serbia
4 judicial bodies functioning as independent bodies.
5 Ms. Marinkovic will also speak about rulings passed by the
6 district court in Pristina against criminal groups for war crimes and
7 terrorism as well as acts directed against the constitutional assistant
8 of Yugoslavia
9 She will also give evidence about her personal knowledge of
10 investigations carried out into terrorists acts and crimes committed by
11 the KLA and other armed groups against the state, the police, the army,
12 as well as citizens of Albanian ethnicity and other ethnicities. Those
13 investigations were conducted both before and during the NATO bombing
15 She will also give evidence about her personal knowledge about
16 other investigations conducted into crimes including her attendance and
17 participation in the investigations of the Racak incident from 15 through
18 18 January 1999
19 during her meeting with General Drewienkiewicz and about other events at
20 the police station in Stimlje. She will testify about her meeting with
21 General Vlastimir Djordjevic who stands accused here, as well as what she
22 knows about the activities of Ambassador William Walker on the 16th of
23 January, 1999, in the village of Racak
24 We will hear from the witness who was with her at that on-site
25 investigation, as well as the forensic findings with regard to the bodies
1 found in the mosque in Racak that involved a pathologist from Belarus
3 police in all these investigations, and she will also speak about the
4 difficulties in these investigations due to the attacks by the KLA and
5 NATO bombings. She will testify as to the Prosecution individuals,
6 including the police for crimes committed in the Autonomous Province
7 Kosovo and Metohija. She will also testify about any investigation of
8 specific incidents of the indictment that are personally known to her in
9 the jurisdiction of the district court of Pristina.
10 She will give evidence about the general situation in the
11 Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija in the relevant time-period.
12 Q. Ms. Marinkovic, you were born in Bosanski Brod. Tell me, did you
13 go to school there or did it happen otherwise, because that town is today
14 in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
15 A. I was only born in Bosanski Brod because my mother was born there
16 and lived there. I went to school in Skopje in the Republic of
18 Q. How did your education go?
19 A. I graduated from primary and secondary school as well as from the
20 faculty of law in Skopje
21 education was in the Macedonian language.
22 Q. And then?
23 A. After graduating from the faculty of law on the 1st of March,
24 1975, I started working as a judge trainee at the municipal court in
1 Q. In which department of the court did you work? Did you deal with
2 specific issues, special issues, or did you work on all sorts of cases?
3 A. As a judge trainee, I worked in the registry, in the
4 administration, and I worked in the various departments. I first worked
5 with a judge who worked on civil lawsuits, and later on I worked with a
6 judge who worked on the criminal cases.
7 Q. And after that?
8 A. After nine months as a judge trainee or intern with the municipal
9 court in Skopje
10 Pristina. That was in September 1976 when I moved to Pristina with my
11 family because I had married Stefan Marinkovic who was born in Pristina
12 and who lived and worked there.
13 Q. How long did you work as an intern at the commercial court in
15 A. I'm waiting for the interpretation.
16 As an intern at the commercial court in Pristina, I worked for
17 another few months in order to complete my internship of 12 months.
18 After that, I -- all the requirements were fulfilled to apply for a state
20 Q. Where were you examined?
21 A. It was in June 1976, and I passed immediately.
22 Q. And what did you do after that?
23 A. After I had passed my examination in September 1976, I started
24 working as an expert collaborator with the Supreme Court of the
25 Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, and my specialisation was
1 administrative lawsuits, administrative law.
2 Q. And how about the continuation of your career, what about it?
3 A. As an expert collaborator, I stayed until July 1984 with the
4 Supreme Court when I was selected to be a judge of the district court in
5 Pristina where I continued working.
6 Q. And how did your career develop after 1984?
7 A. At the district court in Pristina, I stayed until 1999 when we
8 had to leave Kosovo and Metohija. I left Pristina in June 1999 and
9 continued working with the district court in Kragujevac where I worked as
10 a judge until December 2009.
11 Q. Before we continue, I would like to know what exactly you did at
12 the district court in Pristina, what -- which area of law did you deal
13 with, until the time you left Pristina?
14 A. Once I was appointed judge of the district court in Pristina, I
15 first started working on civilian lawsuits. I was a judge, an individual
16 judge where I dealt with lawsuits, civil lawsuits from damages to all
17 other sorts of matters of civil law.
18 Q. How long did you do that?
19 A. As a judge in civil lawsuits, I worked until November 1994.
20 Q. And after that?
21 A. After that the president of the court appointed me as an
22 investigative judge at the district court in Pristina.
23 Q. And from that point on did you only do investigations, or did you
24 also have other duties until 1999?
25 A. Until 1999 I worked as an investigative judge mostly, and
1 sometimes I was also a member of the criminal trial chamber of the first
2 instance when I was appointed to be a member of such trial chamber.
3 Q. You told us that you worked at the district court in Kragujevac
4 until the 31st of December, 2009. What is your status today?
5 A. Currently I'm without a concrete assignment because in the first
6 round of reappointment of judges I wasn't reappointed. Meanwhile, I
7 applied in the second round, and I hope to be appointed again.
8 Q. Thank you. After this, now that we've heard your biographical
9 information, the Defence will like to hear about the appointment of
10 judges. How did these things go when you were appointed judge in 1984?
11 What was the practice at the time in this Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?
12 How were judges appointed specifically in Kosovo?
13 A. The appointment of judges [as interpreted] in the Autonomous
14 Province of Kosovo
15 parliament of the autonomous province appointed judges. As far as the
16 then Yugoslavia
17 Metohija was specific in that an important element was whether there were
18 vacancies in specific courts and who will be appointed because it
19 mattered whether the vacant post was for a judge of Albanian ethnicity or
20 a judge of another ethnicity.
21 I'm saying this because at the time when I ran for the post of
22 judge, there were two vacancies at the district court of Pristina. One
23 was for an Albanian and the other for a non-Albanian. So that there was
24 no specific time-frame for applications, but as soon as a post became
25 vacant, it was -- that fact was published and the commission of the
1 parliament considered the applications, and upon the proposal of that
2 commission, the parliament selected judges.
3 Q. Thank you. I have remark to the interpretation. It starts on
4 page 8, line 13. It says the appointment of judges. What was meant was
5 actually the selection of judges. I believe that you understand what I
6 mean, Witness, and therefore my question is as follows: There's the
7 selection and the appointment of judges. What is the difference? Can
8 you explain that to us. What is the selection and what is the
9 appointment of judges?
10 A. The selection of judges is the following: When parliament
11 selects somebody to be a judge and after being selected, the candidates
12 are sworn in. After that they are appointed as judges and can start
14 Q. Thank you. Now it's much clearer.
15 Can you please explain on the basis of what procedure the
16 Assembly selects judges, what happens before a judge is selected? Does
17 someone announce a vacancy, a calling on interested parties to apply for
18 the job? What happens?
19 A. Before judges are selected, a vacancy is announced in the
20 newspapers. The number of posts and for what rank of court is listed as
21 are the criteria a candidate has to meet in order to be considered for
22 the post of judge.
23 Q. Thank you. My next question is the following: Once a person is
24 selected as a judge of a certain court, whether a municipal or district
25 court, is that person then selected to carry out a certain task, or are
1 special tasks assigned only at a later stage, and if this is the case, if
2 the former is the case, who decides which judge is to do what? What was
3 the system in the former Yugoslavia
4 A. When a judge is selected by the Assembly, that person is selected
5 only as a judge in general. After that the president of the court to
6 which the judge has been selected draws up an annual plan signing
7 particular assignments, particular jobs to each particular judge. So
8 when a judge is selected, the person is selected to be a judge in
9 general, not a particular kind of judge performing a particular kind of
11 Q. You said that in 1994 you were assigned investigations, and only
12 in some cases were you a member of a trial chamber. Was that decision
13 made by the president of the court?
14 A. Yes, that decision was made by the president of that court. In
15 that year, he assigned me to the post of investigating judge.
16 Q. Thank you. In the years preceding the outbreak of the conflict,
17 you were a judge of the district court in Pristina. Can you tell me what
18 the ethnic makeup of that court was at that time. So let's look at the
19 period preceding this time. You said you were selected to the district
20 court in 1984, so what was the ethnic composition then, and how did it
21 change, if at all? We have the amendments and the constitution that
22 followed in later years so that's why I'm asking you this so that we can
23 draw parallels.
24 A. When I was selected to be a judge of the district court in
25 Pristina in 1984, the ethnic makeup in that court was such that most of
1 the judges in that court were Albanians. I can't recall the precise
2 numbers but between 85 and 90 per cent of the judges were Albanians. As
3 an example, I can tell you that out of four investigating judges at that
4 time, one was a Serb, three were Albanians. The trial chamber had one
5 judge who was not an Albanian and the other three were Albanians.
6 As for civil suits, where I worked, that was a mixed chamber.
7 One judge was Albanian, one was a Croat, I was a Macedonian in that
8 chamber, and there was one colleague who was Turkish by ethnicity. The
9 remaining judges were all Albanians.
10 Q. In that period until 1994 when you became an investigating judge,
11 were there any changes as regarding the reappointment of judges or
13 A. In the period up to 1994, there were no changes as regards the
14 kind of court, but when in 1990 Serbia
15 was a general re-selection of judges all over Serbia. I would like to
16 add the following: Before the new constitution was adopted and the
17 general re-selection of judges announced, judges were selected for an
18 eight-year term of office. After the adoption of the new constitution in
19 1990 and the re-selection of judges in 1992, judges were appointed for a
20 permanent tenure. There was no time-limit.
21 Q. And can you describe the re-selection process in your court, the
22 one where you worked?
23 A. As regards the re-selection of judges in the Pristina district
24 court, vacancies were announced, as was the case with all the courts in
1 There were no preconditions or preset criteria, apart from the fact that
2 each candidate had to have graduated from the faculty of law, they had to
3 have passed the exam for judges, and they had to have the bar exam. So
4 they had to have the appropriate qualifications.
5 All of us who applied for the district court in Pristina, both
6 Albanians and candidates of other ethnicities were selected.
7 Q. Tell me, how many Albanians applied for the post of judge of the
8 Pristina district court, and did they all take the oath and start working
9 as judges?
10 A. The candidates applying for those posts included four Albanians,
11 to the best of my recollection, and all of them were selected. There was
12 one colleague who was of Turkish ethnicity who was selected, but did not
13 take the oath and was not appointed a judge of the district court, and
14 there was another colleague who was of Muslim ethnicity and she, too, was
16 Q. Were there other judges who did not take the oath?
17 A. A number of judges, to the best of my knowledge, were selected
18 for the district court in Pristina. These were Albanians, but although
19 they had been selected, they did not take the oath. They did not turn
20 up. And they did not then continue working as judges.
21 Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, tell me, do you remember that at that time or
22 after that time while you were still in Pristina up to 1999, taking into
23 account that you are a Macedonian by ethnicity, someone asked you to sign
24 a sort of declaration of loyalty to the authorities of the FRY?
25 A. I can tell you that at that time no one asked me to sign anything
1 of that sort, anything about loyalty to the then Yugoslavia.
2 Q. I'll ask you now more specific questions about your department,
3 the investigative judges department in 1994. Can you tell us how many
4 people were involved in these investigations, what was the number of
5 judges, what the ethnic composition was, gender equality. So tell us
6 everything you can about this in the period from 1994 when you became an
7 investigating judge to the time when you left Kosovo and Metohija in
8 1995, for well known reasons.
9 A. In 1994 when I began working as an investigating judge in the
10 district court in Pristina, there were four investigating judges.
11 Whenever it was possible, that was the number of judges that were
12 supposed to be working on investigations. In 1994 there was myself, an
13 Albanian colleague and two colleagues who were Serbs.
14 This was the case until 1997, the beginning or middle of 1997. I
15 can't remember precisely. At that time a colleague was re-assigned by
16 the president of the court to the criminal trial chamber and another
17 colleague was re-assigned by the president of the court who was
18 authorised to do this to fill the post of acting president of the
19 municipal court in Pristina, so that my colleague who was an Albanian and
20 myself covered all the investigating work.
21 In the course of 1998, a new judge was selected and the president
22 assigned him to the investigations department to be an investigating
23 judge. And towards the end of 1998, the colleague who had been acting
24 president of the municipal court in Pristina returned and continued
25 working as an investigating judge, so that until the NATO air-strikes,
1 there were four of us, four investigating judges, that is.
2 When the NATO air-strikes began, a colleague was called upon to
3 be a judge of the military court, the Albanian colleague was forced for
4 security reasons to avoid him and his family being killed by the KLA to
5 leave Pristina with his family, so that I and another colleague remained
6 covering all investigations in the course of the NATO air-strikes.
7 Q. Thank you. And to round off this topic, could you try to compare
8 the workload you had just before the NATO air-strikes and during the NATO
9 air-strikes. Was the workload the same, was it more or less, before or
10 after, and if so, how much more or less? Can you remember anything about
12 A. In 1997 and 1998 the workload in the investigations increased
13 because there were frequent terrorist attacks, both against civilians,
14 Albanian and non-Albanian, and against police officers, soldiers,
15 buildings where state institutions were located, so that there were many
16 investigations for -- in cases where there was terrorism or a conspiracy
17 to engage in hostile activities.
18 Q. Can you tell us to what extent the workload increased because I
19 believe you told us that there were only two investigating judges working
20 in that period instead of the usual four. So how were your duties
21 organised, your duty shifts and so on?
22 A. Well, during the air-strikes, the workload increased even more.
23 We had our regular work, and in view of the fact that NATO began bombing
24 civilian facilities where we were the court that had jurisdiction, we had
25 to go and carry out on-site investigations. There were also
1 investigations conducted against Albanians who were charged with a crime
2 of conspiracy to engage in hostile activities and terrorism. So we
3 worked under very difficult conditions. We spent more time at work than
4 we did at home, and the security situation was very bad. We had constant
5 air-raid warnings. We were constantly under stress and in fear, but we
6 tried to keep everything under control, and as regards urgent cases in
7 the court, to carry out all our duties in compliance with the law.
8 When the NATO air-strikes began, a number of judges who had young
9 children were relieved of their work duty, and they left Pristina with
10 their children and their families in order to protect themselves both
11 from the NATO air-strikes and from the terrorist activities that
12 frequently occurred in Pristina. Many employees left the court so that
13 our work was carried on under very difficult conditions.
14 Q. We will now move on to a topic which I think we have to deal with
15 briefly, and it has to do with the procedure of investigations since most
16 of those familiar with common law are not familiar with the procedures
17 followed at that time in the FRY, that's why I feel it necessary to throw
18 some light on that part of your activity in order to clarify to all those
19 in the courtroom what rules and principles were followed.
20 Please tell us what process law applied at that time as regards
21 criminal cases. What law were you guided by?
22 A. The Law on Criminal Procedure. We refer to it by the acronym
24 Q. Was it a federal law, a republican law, or a law that applied in
25 the province of Kosovo
1 A. It was a federal law which applied on the entire territory of the
2 then Yugoslavia
3 Q. Very well.
4 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now have 65 ter 1824 on
5 the screen, please. Or D011 -- yes, this is it. Can we see the English
6 version. Could we please see Article 157. That should be around page 30
7 of the original, and as for the English version ...
8 Thank you.
9 Q. It seems to me that Articles 157 and the following articles deal
10 with preliminary examination. Do take a look at that article or any
11 article that you know better. I believe that goes until Article 181.
12 A. Yes, that's the procedure.
13 Q. The law that we are looking at now, until what time was it
15 A. It was applied until 2001. In 2001 or 2002 the Republican Law on
16 Criminal Procedure was passed.
17 Q. So this law was applied in the relevant time-period from May to
18 June 1999?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Thank you. Tell me, since we are talking about the FRY, the
21 continental system of criminal law was applied. Do explain to us the
22 section of the law that speaks about preliminary examination and what
23 were the duties of the investigating judge, what was the procedure like?
24 A. Well, to provide an answer to that question, I will need some
25 time. I will have to be -- it will have to be a longer answer. Under
1 the Law on Criminal Procedure, an investigation is launched against a
2 certain person if there is found a suspicion that the person has
3 committed a crime. The investigation is conducted based on a request of
4 the authorised public prosecutor who files a request to the president of
5 the court that an investigation be launched, and such an investigation is
6 mandatory for every crime that is punishable with five years of
7 imprisonment or more.
8 The case files submitted by the prosecutor the investigating
9 judge is reviewed, and then the investigating judge will decide whether
10 the investigation will be launched or continued, but before that decision
11 is taken on conducting an investigation or preliminary examination, the
12 investigating judge is duty-bound to interview the suspect or the
14 Once the decision on conducting a preliminary examination is
15 taken, the investigating judge, during the preliminary examination,
16 collects evidence, such as witness statements, or possibly certain
17 forensic analyses have to be conducted. After all that, once the
18 preliminary examination is completed, the case file is sent to the public
19 prosecutor who decides whether or not an indictment will be raised.
20 If so, and once the indictment is in force, a court hearing is
21 scheduled. The procedure is continued until the passing of a first
22 instance ruling against which the parties can appeal.
23 Q. You have mentioned that the preliminary examination is mandatory
24 if the act committed is punished by five years of imprisonment or more.
25 What about acts which are punished by a lesser punishment?
1 A. When an act is punishable by less than five years, an indictment
2 can be raised without a preliminary examination.
3 Q. Thank you. Do describe what an investigating judge can do under
4 this law.
5 A. The investigating judge is authorised to conduct an investigation
6 against a person for whom there is a founded suspicion that he or she has
7 committed a crime. During the investigation, the investigating judge is
8 the only person authorised to collect evidence. During the
9 investigation, the investigating judge has some powers, for example, if
10 he or she doesn't agree with the request of the public prosecutor that an
11 investigation be launched, the investigating judge can express his or her
12 disagreement. In that case, three professional judges will decide about
13 the matter.
14 During the investigation, the investigating judge also decides
15 about the request of the prosecutor to put the suspect into detention,
16 whether there are legal grounds to detain that person and the
17 investigating judge can also disagree or fail to grant that request.
18 During the investigation or, rather, even before it is launched,
19 the investigating judge can conduct certain investigative activities.
20 Q. Thank you. How does one become an investigating judge? In
21 earlier proceedings this question was also raised because it was
22 obviously unclear. Once you became investigating judge, you said that in
23 1994 you became -- you were assigned to that position. Was a special
24 training required for judges to become investigating judges? Was there a
25 special procedure or anything?
1 A. To do the work of an investigating judge, no special training is
2 required, nor is there a special procedure in place to appoint somebody
3 to become an investigating judge. It's only important that the judge
4 implement the law and know the law. The judge needs a certain amount of
6 Q. Thank you. Speaking about investigations or preliminary
7 examinations, it was also unclear what exactly happens and what is done.
8 Firstly, what are investigative activities? I would like to hear an
9 answer to that.
10 And, secondly, in connection with these investigative activities,
11 can some of these activities be transferred to the police? Does the law
12 provide for that? In which cases is that possible, and how far can that
13 go? And then we'll continue.
14 A. The Law on Criminal Procedure stipulates that the investigating
15 judge is authorised to conduct certain investigative activities. There
16 are some activities of this type that the judge can conduct during the
17 investigation itself. Such as, summoning the accused and interviewing
18 him or her, interviewing witnesses, conducting forensic analyses,
19 conducting other analyses and on-site investigations that are done by
20 crime techs, and there are also some investigative activities that the
21 investigating judge can transfer to the police.
22 The investigating activities of the latter type are an order to
23 search certain facilities, if necessary to locate the perpetrator of a
24 crime or if necessary to find objects that were used in committing a
25 crime. Likewise, such objects can be taken away from the suspect. A
1 receipt is issued to him or her, and all these activities, these
2 investigative activities, can be transferred to the police before the
3 investigation itself is launched, during the investigation itself.
4 Upon the order of the investigating judge, the police are
5 duty-bound to act if the accused who has been informed but failed to
6 respond to the summons. The police then brings in the suspect upon the
7 order of the investigating judge to be interviewed. The same applies to
9 Q. After the decision is taken to conduct an investigation, does the
10 police have any powers with regard to the suspect once he or she is
12 A. No, the police have no powers from that moment on. Once the
13 decision on conducting an investigation is taken, not only does the
14 police have no powers, but also the public prosecutor has no right to
15 interfere with the work of the investigating judge, although the
16 investigating judge acts upon his or her request to conduct an
18 Q. As there have been doubts with regard to the misuse of rights of
19 investigating judges, let me ask you the following: Under this Law on
20 Criminal Procedure which was in force in the relevant time-period, did
21 the investigating judge have the right under precisely defined conditions
22 to withhold evidence from defence lawyers during the investigation? Tell
23 us all you know about that, please.
24 A. The investigating judge has the right and the powers during the
25 investigation to withhold some rights from the defence counsel of the
2 Q. In which cases is it possible to do that?
3 A. The law clearly stipulates the conditions for that, namely when
4 the interests of the state are concerned and for security reasons related
5 to defence or the state borders. In such cases, defence counsel can be
6 prevented from reviewing the case file.
7 Q. Does that mean that the defence counsel were able to review the
8 case file once the indictment was raised?
9 A. Yes. The law stipulates the time-period required for them to
10 review the file and prepare the defence.
11 Q. My next question will refer to the police. Was the investigating
12 judge duty-bound to inform the police about his or her activities?
13 A. I apologise, but there's something else I would like to add. As
14 far as my decision was concerned that I passed during the investigation
15 to prevent the defence counsel from reviewing the case file, the parties
16 to the proceedings had the right to appeal.
17 Q. Thank you. Do you remember my previous question, were you
18 duty-bound to report to the police on the development of the
19 investigation once the investigation was launched?
20 A. No. I, as an investigating judge, acted independently, and I had
21 -- I was not duty-bound to report to the police or inform them on the
22 development of the investigation. I act upon the request of the public
23 prosecutor, and once the investigation is completed, I return the file to
24 the prosecution. The police has no such rights, nor am I duty-bound to
25 inform them. The police also is not duty-bound to carry out some
1 activities during the investigation.
2 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that it
3 would be advisable to go into private session now since the witness is
4 about to speak about some events and mention names of some persons we
5 believe should be protected.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Private.
7 [Private session]
11 Page 12903 redacted. Private session.
17 [Open session]
18 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] As we have hitherto spoken of
19 the Law on Criminal Procedure --
20 THE REGISTRAR: I apologise, counsel.
21 Your Honours, we are in open session.
22 MR. DJORDJEVIC: Yeah, yeah, thank you. I'm sorry, because I'm
24 [Interpretation] Could 65 ter 1824 that the witness spoke about
25 be admitted into evidence, please.
1 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00855.
3 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. The next topic which I think we have enough time to deal with is
5 investigations when there is a state of war. Do you know when a state of
6 war was declared, and whether there were any special changes in the Law
7 on Criminal Procedure or something similar? In other words, did the
8 procedure change when a state of war was declared, the one that you
9 followed as an investigating judge?
10 A. A state of war was declared on the 24th of March, 1999, and some
11 ten days later, the federal government issued a decree on the
12 implementation of the Law on Criminal Procedure in war time.
13 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now have P200 on the
14 screen, please.
15 Q. Please look at this "Official Gazette," look at the provisions.
16 Is this the decree on implementing the Law on Criminal Procedure during
17 the state of war that you referred to?
18 A. Yes. That is the decree issued on the 24th of April, 1999
19 it entered into force the following day.
20 Q. Could you please comment briefly on the process rights of the
21 investigating judge that were changed, what the position of the accused,
22 the prosecutor, the police was. Please explain.
23 A. It says here 24th of April, I think it should be -- or, rather,
24 the translation says the 4th of April.
25 Q. Yes, your remark is quite correct. It's the 4th of April, as we
1 can see.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Is not the original the 4th of April?
3 MR. DJORDJEVIC: Correct, Your Honour.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It says the 24th on the copy I see.
5 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Could you please answer my question, which was, what changes did
7 this decree introduce?
8 A. In view of the state of war and the difficult conditions of work,
9 this decree provided for the investigating judge and the organs of the
10 interior to be able to carry out certain investigative activities even
11 without authorisation from the public prosecutor if the matter was
12 urgent, but they had to inform the public prosecutor immediately. So
13 that even without a request from the public prosecutor, the investigating
14 judge was authorised to conduct an investigation to carry out an on-site
15 investigation without the authorisation and presence of the public
16 prosecutor. And as regards detention or remanding people in custody, the
17 investigating judge and the organs of the interior could detain a person
18 who was a suspect for up to a month.
19 This decree also shortened the dead-lines after the prosecutor
20 raised an indictment as regards the right to appeal and the procedure on
21 deciding on these appeals was also cut short, so as to enable a speedier
23 Q. And the right to file an indictment without the participation of
24 an investigating judge, did this change?
25 A. Yes. The public prosecutor was authorised to file an indictment
1 directly for crimes involving a minimum sentence of up to five years.
2 Q. My next question is as follows: There were two investigating
3 judges in the district court in Pristina. There were also times when
4 there were three or four investigating judges. How were cases assigned
5 to a particular judge? Were there judges dealing with special kinds of
6 cases, or was another principle applied when assigning cases? Of course,
7 it's understandable if there are only two judges, they would take cases
8 in alternate -- in an alternating way. But what about when there were
9 more than two judges?
10 A. Well, when the situation was normal, according to the rules of
11 the procedure of court, the cases were assigned in the order they
12 arrived, in the order that the judges had, so one could not influence the
13 assignment of cases and every judge would get the next case that arrived.
14 So all four of us would get one case, and then the first person would get
15 the fifth case, so the consecutive order would be followed. The clerk
16 assigning the cases knew this. So it didn't matter what the case was
17 about, what the persons involved were, who they were, and so on.
18 Q. Were there any exceptions to this rule?
19 A. Yes, there were exceptions. When an investigating judge was on
20 duty there were four of us, and each one of us would do duty on one
21 Sunday in each month, because there would be four Sundays in a month. So
22 when one of us was on duty, any urgent cases that had to do with
23 remanding someone in custody or carrying out an on-site investigation
24 would take the case, and would keep the case, carry on with it.
25 Q. So that was the only exception to the rule?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And how was it in war time? As of the 24th of March, 1999
3 around the 15th of June, 1999?
4 A. During the war, as there were only two investigating judges left,
5 we took cases according to who had more time at the moment. If I had set
6 out to interview witnesses, for example, and an on-site investigation had
7 to be carried out at the same time, my colleague would do it. Sometimes
8 you would have to go to two places at once, and then he would go to one
9 location and I would go to the other. So we had to act urgently
10 according to priorities, and we didn't pay attention to the consecutive
11 order that the cases arrived in.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 And my last question in this set of questions before we take the
14 break will be as follows: Tell the Chamber what was the territorial
15 jurisdiction of the district court in Pristina?
16 A. The territorial jurisdiction of the district court covered a
17 certain territory, and if a crime was committed on that territory, it
18 would be the district court that would have jurisdiction over the
19 perpetrators. The territorial jurisdiction of the district court in
20 Pristina covered a certain number of municipalities. We had jurisdiction
21 over cases in the territories of the municipalities of Pristina, Lipljan,
22 Urosevac, Djeneral Jankovic, Kacanik, and Novo Brdo.
23 Q. Before we take the break, my last question in this set: Were
24 there any exceptions to this rule? Did you carry on on-site
25 investigations outside the territorial jurisdiction of your court, was
1 that possible?
2 A. No, no, that was not possible. Each -- there were actually five,
3 Prizren, Pec, Kosovska Mitrovica, Pristina, so there were five district
4 courts, and each one was responsible for its own territory.
5 Q. So your answer is no?
6 A. Yes, it's no.
7 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] That was my last question before
8 the break, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Djordjevic.
10 We must have a break now to rewind tapes. We resume in half an
11 hour at 11.00. A Court Officer will assist you during the breaks. Thank
13 [The witness stands down]
14 --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.
15 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
16 [The witness takes the stand]
17 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Djordjevic.
18 MR. DJORDJEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 [Interpretation] Could we now please have P50 on our monitors.
20 Q. I will now have this question for you. Based on what material
21 law was -- were the decisions, court rulings made at the time in
22 question, the relevant period, what were the criminal law provisions that
24 A. Well, speaking about the relevant period, the law that was in
25 force, what I see in front of me now, is the criminal law of Serbia
1 the Republic of Serbia
2 Code of Yugoslavia
3 Q. The Criminal Code of Serbia is what we have in front of us;
5 A. Yes.
6 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please see P1370 so
7 that the witness can confirm whether that was the other law was that was
8 in force. In other words, P1370.
9 Q. This is the Criminal Code of the SFRY?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Very well. Thank you. Now we can move on.
12 Now, tell us, please, what is the difference -- or what was the
13 difference, rather, between these two codes? Were they in parallel, were
14 they in competition, or were they actually complementary? Could you just
15 give us a brief description.
16 A. These two Criminal Codes were not in competition or mutually
17 exclusive. The Criminal Code of Yugoslavia
18 general provisions relating to crimes and criminal sanctions, the
19 Criminal Code of Yugoslavia
20 constitutional order of Yugoslavia
22 organisations, and involvement or engagement in enemy activity. In other
23 words, everything that was against the constitutional order of Yugoslavia
24 and the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia as a whole.
25 The Criminal Code of Serbia
1 individual crimes of a general character.
2 Q. Very well. Thank you. My next question is this, and this will
3 bring us close to the completion of this important area, and relates to
4 the laws in the relevant period.
5 My question would have to do with the substantive jurisdiction,
6 subject matter jurisdiction, and what the relationship was between the
7 regular courts and the military courts, both during and before and after
8 the NATO campaign.
9 A. The subject matter distribution -- jurisdiction of the regular
10 courts, the lower courts and the district courts, was that in they dealt
11 with the crimes regardless of the perpetrator. Whereas the district
12 court actually had the subject matter the jurisdiction for all crimes
13 that envisaged a sentence of over ten years, where the minimum penalty
14 would be a ten-year sentence and over.
15 As for military courts, as far as I can recall now, although I'm
16 not very familiar with that area, the military courts had jurisdiction
17 over all crimes that related to the Army of Yugoslavia and those crimes
18 that were committed by military personnel. It was a special law that
19 pertained to -- or a special code that pertained to a specific -- to
20 specific criminal matters.
21 Q. Thank you. Now, you told us that some of your colleagues, if I'm
22 not mistaken, actually began working as investigating judges for military
23 courts once the state of war was declared.
24 A. Well, after the state of war was declared, military courts were
25 established, their jurisdiction was defined, and judges from the general
1 courts, courts with a general jurisdiction, were taken over by them and
2 they were appointed as military judges and military prosecutors, so that
3 the district court of Pristina, for instance, had some of their judges
4 that dealt with the criminal -- with crimes actually transferred to
5 military courts and some of them also became military prosecutors.
6 Q. And that is one of the reasons why the number of judges in the
7 Pristina court actually went down; correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Thank you. My next question to do with this is this: You've
10 already mentioned that your work was far greater now that the NATO
11 campaign started because you had some additional matters to deal with
12 including damages and offences that dealt with or were related to the
13 NATO campaign.
14 Now, my question will relate specifically to a crime, a great
15 increase in a certain type of crime which was the crime of the offences
16 against the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
17 Could you tell us something about this type of crime?
18 A. When speaking of this criminal offence, forming an organisation
19 in order to engage in enemy activity, the first time that I came across
20 this type of crime was -- and that I dealt with it and investigated it as
21 an investigating judge was in 1994. From that time onwards, although
22 there were instances even before that where we had to adjudicate in these
23 types of crimes, but these were then conducted by a colleague of mine,
24 this was before I actually became an investigating judge, but after this
25 period, this type of crimes increased so that all investigating judges
1 who were in the investigations department had to deal with this type of
2 crime both in the district courts in Pristina as well as in other
3 district courts in Kosovo and Metohija.
4 The number of such criminal offences increased both before the
5 war and during the war-time period.
6 Q. Very well. To wrap up this topic, could you please tell me, what
7 do you know about the difficulties that you had in conducting
8 investigations during the war time and immediately preceding the war
9 time? I'm actually referring to difficulties that you encountered in the
10 conduct of your official duties. Did you have any problems that had to
11 deal directly with your work? Or perhaps you know of some problems that
12 your colleagues encountered in the discharge of their duties. Could you
13 tell us something about it.
14 A. When speaking about our work in war time, both my colleagues and
15 I who remained at the court, both the district and the lower courts, we
16 encountered difficulties because there was fear and panic around us. And
17 very frequently there were cases where NATO aircraft bombed or dropped
18 bombs, and while we were working in the courthouses we could hear nearby
19 the blasts, the explosions. There was panic among the employees, so we
20 had difficulties, for example, ensuring that there is a court reporter,
21 that there is an interpreter in the courtroom.
22 There was also a difficulty sometimes to ensure that there was
23 defence counsel in instances where they had to be assigned, and there
24 were even instances where, for instance I had this, where one night when
25 I set off to conduct an on-site investigation, we actually went the wrong
1 way and we hit an ambush where there were terrorists who had set it.
2 Fortunately we managed to avoid fatal consequences because the operative,
3 the crime technician who was with me could speak Albanian, and we
4 happened to be in a civilian vehicle so that we managed to actually avoid
5 being killed.
6 On the ground, we found and saw many dead people who were killed
7 during the NATO bombing campaign. And even as we were conducting on-site
8 investigations, we could hear the air-raid alarms going off. However,
9 even in such difficult circumstances -- something is off, something was
10 switched off.
11 Well, even though the circumstances were so difficult, my
12 colleagues and I did our best to do our job properly, to do our jobs, to
13 actually keep a record of all such cases and conduct them to the end
14 completing all the measures that we were supposed to do during -- by law,
15 including the investigation, examination, identification of bodies. And
16 everything else that we were able to do in view of the circumstances and
17 the risk that the circumstances posed to all of us.
18 Q. Could you tell me, please, did you ever learn, did you have any
19 knowledge about your life being actually at risk? Did you ever learn
20 that you were in danger?
21 A. Well, threats were issued both in writing and by telephone. And
22 in one of the cases that I worked on against the group of terrorists, one
23 of the accused, among other things, mentioned during his testimony that a
24 group of terrorists that was active in Pristina had planned to execute me
25 as an investigating judge, and he mentioned the name of this
1 investigating judge unaware that actually it was me. And when the
2 prosecutor asked this accused what the reason was and why they wanted to
3 execute this investigating judge, he said that he didn't know, but that
4 he was assigned the task of following me to find out my movements, my
5 normal movements, because the person who was supposed to execute me was
6 to be provided all this -- all these details; whereas his task was just
7 to find out my movements during the day.
8 When he learned that the investigating judge in question was, in
9 fact, me, he began to apologise, and he said to me, Thank God I didn't
10 take part in anything like that, because I can see now that all you are
11 doing is you are doing your job, and there would have been no sense to
12 execute you.
13 The person who was supposed to execute me was soon involved in an
14 incident with a police where he opened fire on a police patrol, and he
15 was killed in this exchange.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 Mrs. Marinkovic, you were an investigating judge in the Pristina
18 district court in 1997 and 1998, the years preceding the war in Kosovo
19 and Metohija. At this time, in other words, before the events that
20 followed in 1999, were there instances where civilians of Albanian or
21 non-Albanian descent were attacked? Were there attacks on police
22 stations or other government institutions?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] With your leave, Your Honours, I
1 would appreciate it if the binder with the exhibits may be provided to
2 the witness so that we can actually move through them more quickly.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
4 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
5 Could we now please pull up 65 ter D007-2620.
6 Q. In your binder, Mrs. Marinkovic, this exhibit is marked under
7 tab 3, so you may take a look at it. Now you have it before you on the
8 screen as well.
9 Please take a look at this document and tell us, we see that this
10 is from the period preceding the NATO bombing campaign in Kosovo and
11 Metohija. Could you tell us something more about this incident. What is
12 it that we are looking at when we look at this document?
13 A. What we see here is an official document. It bears number 36/97.
14 This is an on-site investigation report which I conducted as an
15 investigating judge, and I also drafted this on site investigation report
16 on the 16th of January, 1997. The on-site investigation was conducted
17 regarding -- or into the circumstances or incident in Pristina on the
18 16th of January, 1997, in Vojvode Zivojina Misica Street where a car bomb
19 had exploded. The report also states all the persons present during the
20 on-site investigation. The deputy district public prosecutor, Jovica
21 Jovanovic is named; the Pristina SUP inspector, Srecko Stevanovic; and
22 the crime investigator or officer, Jankovic, Nenad. They were members of
23 the investigative team who always attended crime scenes when an on-site
24 investigation had to be conducted. The investigation was conducted by
25 the investigating judge. The criminal technician was there to assist in
1 drawing up a sketch of the crime scene to fix the trace evidence and do
2 all the necessary measurements on the crime scene.
3 On that day when this car bomb exploded there was a huge blast
4 and it was later established that the explosive that was used was of --
5 was very strong. And as I lived on the same street, we all heard this
6 explosion. This actually instilled fear and panic, panic amongst all of
7 us because we didn't know what was going on.
8 This explosive was planted in a passenger car that the --
9 Mr. Radivoje Popovic, the dean of the Pristina university drove, and on
10 that occasion when the car bomb exploded, the man was seriously wounded
11 as was his driver. In this on-site investigation report, all my
12 observations are stated, everything that I established, and it says here
13 that the vehicles in the immediate vicinity were damaged, and the vehicle
14 in which the dean and his driver were was completely destroyed.
15 They were immediately taken to Pristina Clinical Hospital
16 -- or, rather, this event was the first of its kind in Pristina. This
17 was a kind of terrorist attack in which a car bomb exploded. It was
18 directed against Dean Popovic who at the time advocated in the interests
19 of the university, and he was opposed to the idea that an illegal
20 university be established as a parallel institution to the official one.
21 That's something on which some Albanians insisted.
22 Q. Thanks. That will be enough.
23 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]
24 I seek to tender this document into evidence.
25 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00856.
2 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The next Defence document is
3 D007-0664. Could we please see it on our screens.
4 Q. In your binder, madam, you will see it under tab 4. Thank you,
5 now you can see it.
6 My question is the same as the one about the first document. You
7 have explained the role of the crime technicians and all the other
8 persons present, let us now focus on what you drafted here, what kind of
9 event this was and what consequences did it have, and then we can move
11 A. This is also an official document. It is filed under number
12 115/97. It's an on-site investigation report made on the 18th of
13 November, 1997. The on-site investigation was conducted in the village
14 of Komorane after a terrorist attack was carried out against Camilj Gasi
15 and Eljmi Bubljaku, both from Komorane. This terrorist attack was
16 directed against Albanians who continued working in the government
17 institutions of the Republic of Serbia
18 of that they boycott the Serbian institutions. Camilj Gasi was a
19 director of the socially-owned company in Glogovac municipality, and he
20 was also a federal member of parliament at the time. Eljmi Bubljaku was
21 his driver. And they were ambushed and shot at. Camilj Gasi was
22 wounded, and this report states that cartridges were found at the site,
23 as well as bullet-holes in the vehicle.
24 Camilj was wounded in the right thigh and in the neck by bullets.
25 We secured all the traces at the site. The site was photographed and
1 sketched by hand, and this report was sent to the public prosecutor who
2 received one copy and another copy went to the court.
3 Q. I will now ask you a question that I will repeat with regard to
4 every subsequent document about incidents where people came to harm.
5 Were the perpetrators found? The perpetrators of this crime or the
6 previous one.
7 A. As for the previous one, the car bomb where Mr. Popovic was
8 wounded, during the investigation the perpetrator as well as the
9 organiser and those who planned it were found. And a first instance
10 ruling was passed which was confirmed after an appeal.
11 And the second instance, the perpetrator was not found. Remained
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this document
15 into evidence.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00857.
18 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The Defence moves that Exhibit D
19 -- or, rather, document D007-2624 be put on the screen.
20 Q. Ms. Marinkovic, it's under tab 5 in your binder. Here we have
21 both documents, so my question is the same as previously.
22 A. This is also a report that I drafted as an investigating judge.
23 This has to do with the on-site investigation conducted on the 29th of
24 November, 1997, in Petrastica village in the Stimlje municipality. When
25 a terrorist attack was carried out against Dalip Dugoli who died of the
1 consequences of the injuries sustained. He worked for the agricultural
2 cooperative in Stimlje. This is a classical example of a terrorist
3 attack on an Albanian civilian. He was attacked because he worked for
4 the agricultural cooperative of that village.
5 Q. Perpetrators?
6 A. The perpetrators were not found. He was shot at right outside
7 the yard when he was entering the yard with his vehicle. He was found by
8 his brother Tefik and his cousin.
9 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] We seek to tender this document
10 into evidence.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00858.
13 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we also please see
14 document D007-2628 on our screens.
15 Q. It is tab 6 in your binders, madam. Same question again.
16 A. This is also an on-site investigation report. The investigation
17 was conducted on the 12th of January, 1998, when a building was attacked
18 in which the families of police officers who worked at the Stimlje police
19 station had accommodation.
20 The record number of this document is 2/98. The report states
21 what was found at the site. It's the building of the former primary
22 school which was adapted for housing purposes for police officers'
24 On that day, several bullet-holes were found in the building.
25 The walls were damaged. Six families of police officers lived there,
1 that is their wives and young children. There were bursts of fire from a
2 hill shot at the building, and a number of cartridges were found on that
3 hill. The calibre was 7.62 millimetres. These were collected for the
4 crime techs to inspect them. There was only material damage done, but no
5 persons came to harm.
6 Q. Were the perpetrators discovered?
7 A. No.
8 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I seek to tender
9 this into evidence.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00859.
12 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The next document we would like
13 to see on the screen is D007-2632.
14 Q. Ms. Marinkovic, this is tab 7 in your binder. We can see both
15 versions on the screen.
16 A. In this on-site investigation report which I drafted as
17 investigating judge, deals with an incident that happened on the 12th of
18 January, 1998, when Sejdi Muja a forester from the village of Gradica
19 murdered. He was shot at on that morning when he left to go to work
20 because he worked in Glogovac for the forestry state there.
21 I can say that it was already very risky for our personal -- for
22 reasons that had to do our personal security to go to on-site
23 investigations because terrorist gangs were roaming about, and they would
24 fire without warning. They would ambush people. We found 28 cartridges
25 of 7.62 millimetre calibre fired from automatic weapons.
1 The victim sustained grave injuries and died of these injuries.
2 He was attacked because he worked for the public or state-owned company
3 of Serbian forests in Glogovac. He refused to boycott Serbian government
4 institutions as ordered by the KLA. His neighbour, Selimun Dibrani
5 [phoen] was with him on that morning, but that neighbour wasn't harmed.
6 He stated that he noticed that morning that the deceased was approached
7 by three masked persons. They wore stockings over their faces with
8 openings for the eyes. They were armed with automatic weapons and they
9 approached the victim and said, Stop. And they sent the neighbour home,
10 saying, Don't turn around.
11 The body was sent to the forensic medicine institute where an
12 autopsy was conducted to establish the cause of death. Crime site was
13 photographed and sketches were made by hand. The file was forwarded to
14 the public prosecutor, but unfortunately, the perpetrators of this crime
15 were never found.
16 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this document
17 into evidence.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00860.
20 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I also ask that D007, be brought
21 up on the screen, slash 2636.
22 Q. In your binder, madam, it's number 8, tab number 8.
23 A. I drew up this report, the official number is Kri number 8/98.
24 It refers to an event that occurred on the 27th of January, 1998, in
25 Urosevac, in the town itself, when an explosive device was thrown on a
1 house belonging to Sinisa Marjanovic from the yard of the house. The
2 attack was aimed at him because he had a tenant called Rajko Doder, an
3 employee of the Urosevac SUP. No one was hurt, but there was material
4 damage to parts of the house. On site we found pieces of shrapnel. In
5 the yard we found a crater, 24 by 40 centimetres -- or, rather, 40 by 40
6 centimetres, and its depth was 20 centimetres.
7 This terrorist attack targeted a member of the MUP. Fortunately
8 no one was injured or killed. But this event caused feelings of
9 insecurity and fear among the population. In this period with frequent
10 terrorist attacks against Albanian civilians and non-Albanians, police
11 officers and so on, non-Serbs began to -- or, rather --
12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Non-Albanians.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretaiton] Serbs and others began moving out
14 of Kosovo.
15 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] May it this document be admitted
16 into evidence.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00861.
19 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we have D007-2640 on the
20 screen, please.
21 Q. It's number 9 in your binder, madam.
22 A. This is a report on an on-site investigation which I drew up
23 concerning an event that occurred on the 28th of January, 1998, in the
24 village of Sibovac in Obilic municipality where the family of
25 Dragomir Spasic lives and that whose house a shell from a hand-held
1 launcher was fired. This terrorist attack was aimed at this family
2 because Dragomir Spasic's son was an employee of the police, Momir Spasic
3 was an employee of the Urosevac SUP.
4 I wish to add in connection with this event, while we carried out
5 an on-site investigation late at night, and this was very risky for us
6 because there were frequent terrorist attacks and one never knew where
7 and when fire might be opened. However, as the authorised investigating
8 judge, I told the rest of the team that we would in fact carry out the
9 on-site investigation in spite of the risk because I knew that the family
10 were afraid. They were surrounded by Albanian houses, and I was
11 concerned about them because if they were left to their own devices the
12 whole night, they would be even more afraid, so I wanted to reassure that
13 family by arriving there and carrying out an on-site investigation,
14 drawing up a report, and assuring them that the court would do whatever
15 was necessary to find the perpetrators.
16 According to what they said that evening, they heard a strong
17 explosion. Everything in the house shook and rattled. They didn't know
18 what was going on. They immediately reported this to the duty service of
19 the interior. I heard about this from them, and set out to carry out an
20 on-site investigation. I was accompanied by the deputy of the district
21 public prosecutor and the rest of the team, but that evening for reasons
22 of security the chief and a team of policemen escorted us to make sure we
23 could carry out the on-site investigation without hindrance and to ensure
24 our security.
25 No one was killed here, but there was large-scale material damage
1 and we found shells from a hand-held launcher which we kept for further
2 forensic analysis. The perpetrators of this terrorist attack were not
4 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. May this document be
5 admitted into evidence, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00862.
8 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The next document is D007-2644.
9 Q. In your binder it's tab 10, madam.
10 A. What I see on the screen and under tab 9A --
11 Q. Yes, in fact, it is 9A, I apologise.
12 A. This is a report which I drew up on the 13th of February, 1998
13 concerning a terrorist attack on a postman, Mustafa Kurtaj from the
14 village of Gornje Obrinje, Glogovac municipality. He died of his
15 injuries. I wish to stress that it was risky to go to this area because
16 according to operative information, both the prosecutor and I knew that
17 members of the KLA were active in the area.
18 We carried out the on-site investigation in the morning. We
19 arrived on the site at 9.00 a.m.
20 fast as we could in order to be able to return as soon as possible. The
21 body of Mustafa Kurtaj was found at the bus-stop of the bus going from
22 Gornje Obrinje to Glogovac. He had been on his way to work because he
23 worked as a postman in the post office in Glogovac.
24 On the site we found 27 spent cartridges of automatic weapons.
25 The deceased had injuries to his head which was blown apart, and we found
1 a piece of his skull nearby. There were also injuries to his stomach,
2 chest, and head, and there were traces of the projectile in his clothing
3 in the area of the head. I ordered an autopsy --
4 JUDGE PARKER: Can I ask you to pause, please.
5 Ms. Gopalan.
6 MS. GOPALAN: Your Honours, I just wonder if this document was
7 notified because I'm not able to find it on our notification from the
9 Perhaps Mr. Djordjevic can help.
10 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] My learned friend, that is
11 D007-2644. It is are on the monitor right now. I checked, it's 65 ter
12 205 and 339. D 65 ter, as I said, 205 and 339. There are two numbers
13 because the document in fact, appears twice. There are two copies of it.
14 Q. Please continue, Mrs. Marinkovic.
15 A. Mustafa Kurtaj was an Albanian, a civilian who was killed because
16 he worked in a post office which was a state institution of the Republic
17 of Serbia
18 learned this because his brother worked at Pristina airport, and he was
19 later interviewed, and he said that they had had frequent visits and
20 threats if they did not support the ideas of the KLA. They were told
21 they would have to bear the consequences.
22 The perpetrator of this terrorist attack was unfortunately never
24 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I wish to tender this document
25 into evidence, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00863.
3 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The next document is D007-2648.
4 Could we have it on the monitor, please.
5 Q. In your binder, it's tab 10. Mrs. Marinkovic, please go ahead as
6 soon as the document shows up on the screen.
7 A. This is an on-site investigation report, an official document,
8 number Kri number 38/98. I compiled it and signed it as the
9 investigating judge, and it concerns an attack carried out on the 14th of
10 April, 1998, on the second police station of the Vranjevac department,
11 Vranjevac neighbourhood, Pristina municipality.
12 On site we discovered that the attack was carried out with an
13 explosive device. We established that there was severe damage to the
14 building of the police station, that this had occurred on the previous
15 day between 2300 and 2330 hours, according to what the policemen on duty
16 told us.
17 Besides the damage to the house, there was also damage to a
18 vehicle parked in the yard. We found parts of an explosive device which
19 the ballistics expert who was in the team found to be from a
20 hand-grenade. On that occasion, policeman Budimir Spasic was injured.
21 He had injuries to his left hand and left temple. Parts of the
22 hand-grenade and a piece of shrapnel were taken from the site for further
23 forensic investigation. The injured policemen was born in 1962, was
24 given immediate medical assistance, and was taken to the hospital in
1 Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, were the perpetrators found?
2 A. No, they weren't.
3 Q. How densely populated is this area, Vranjevac in Pristina?
4 A. Well, this neighbourhood is populated mainly with ethnic
5 Albanians. There are many private homes there, and the police station
6 building is right next to the road on the right-hand side as you go from
7 Pristina in the direction of Podujevo. People living in the immediate
8 vicinity heard the explosion. They were afraid, and a feeling of fear
9 and insecurity was created, especially now that the police station had
10 been attacked.
11 Q. We see from the report at what time of day the on-site
12 investigation was carried out. When did the actual explosion take place?
13 A. Well, as it says here in the report, on the 13th of April, 1998
14 at about 2330 hours. However, we could not carry out the on-site
15 investigation immediately; we did it the next morning for security
17 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I wish to tender
18 this document into evidence, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00864.
21 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] And could we now have D007-2654.
22 Q. In your binder, it's tab 11, Mrs. Marinkovic.
23 A. This is an on-site investigation report filed under number
24 Kri 49/98 compiled on the 12th of May, 1998, when an on-site
25 investigation was carried out after a terrorist attack on members of the
1 MUP of Serbia
2 Ljubotenska Street 17 which is in the centre of town, an urban area. It
3 was carried out in the morning, and fire was opened from a house.
4 When I carried out the on-site investigation after this event, in
5 front of the house from which shots were fired, we found many spent shell
6 casings, 28 pistol cartridges, and when searching the house, we found a
7 large quantity of weapons. The report lists all the weapons found. A
8 Chinese automatic rifle, calibre 7.62 millimetres; an automatic sniper
9 rifle; again an automatic rifle with 840 bullets; 8 automatic rifle
10 rounds; 19 hand-held grenades with fuses made in China; a pistol Walter,
11 of the make Walter; a Browning pistol, calibre 7.62 millimetres; a large
12 quantity of ammunition; a hunting knife; a pair of military binoculars;
13 military uniforms; two hand-held radio stations; two gas masks with
14 filters; one military belt, I don't know what the English word would be;
15 a military sketch in Albanian showing how automatic weapons were to be
16 fired; several maps showing the borders of their so-called Republic of
17 Kosovo; two maps of the town of Pristina
18 forces of Albania
19 materials prepared for the issuing of a newspaper called "Qerime"
20 [phoen]; various books and magazines; military booklets with the name of
21 Fatmir Gasi; personal identity cards belonging to Saban Seman [phoen],
22 Naser Musali [phoen]; one of them was from Pristina, the other from
23 Podujevo, another man from Pristina; a military booklet in the name of
24 Fatmir Gasi from Pristina and his health insurance booklet. Their
25 addresses were in other places, but they had rented this flat in order to
1 conduct their activities in it.
2 The body of Isef Hajdari was found in the yard of this house, and
3 next to him, a pistol, Browning pistol, a 7.65 calibre, and a round of
4 8 bullets were found next to his body, as well as two boxes of
5 ammunition, one containing 25 bullets and the other 17.
6 He was injured in the head, and his body was transferred to the
7 forensic institute for an autopsy.
8 In this attack, policemen Svetislav Petrovic was injured who was
9 born in 1968, and he received severe injuries, an entry wound to the
10 right buttock and superficial injuries. He was transferred to the
11 surgery in Pristina for medical assistance. The crime scene was
12 photographed, a sketch was made, and the photo footage was taken with a
13 video camera which actually make up part of this on-site investigation
15 As no other individuals were found in this house except for the
16 body, it is -- it was assumed that one of those who fired the shots was
17 Isuf Hajdari, but the other perpetrators were not discovered.
18 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, I tender this exhibit
19 into evidence, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00865.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djordjevic, can we pause to think what we are
23 doing. We have now been through ten reports out of what I anticipate
24 will be a total of some 30. We have a summary of each one of those in
25 the statement of Mrs. Marinkovic, and we will have exhibited the report.
1 I'm not sure how strong her voice is, but if she's going to have to
2 virtually read a further 20 of these reports, it's going to be a big
3 strain on her, and it's going to take us a great deal of time when we
4 will have them all to read. It occurs to me that it may be possible to
5 be much quicker in dealing with these and spare the task of having to
6 read everything.
7 MR. DJORDJEVIC: I definitely agree with you, Your Honours.
8 I will switch in Serbian now.
9 [Interpretation] And I will ask Mrs. Marinkovic, the witness, to
10 comment on the next documents, and could she just confirm whether she has
11 actually drafted that report. And then we won't go in detail into the
12 report, so that I believe that from now on we will be able to proceed
13 with greater speed.
14 And I appreciate your comments, Your Honours.
15 The next Defence case is D007-2660.
16 Q. That's under tab 12 in your binder.
17 A. This on-site investigation report was filed under number
18 Kri 123/98 and was compiled on the 8th of August, 1998. I compiled the
19 document and signed it. I conducted the investigation. And this relates
20 to an event in Bresje village, Kosovo Polje municipality, where an
21 explosive device was tossed into the yard of the Bogujevci family. It
22 states in the report what was found and the established circumstances,
23 both with regards to the damage and the crime. There were no casualties.
24 This involved the victims, an Albanian family which had been warned by
25 the KLA --
1 Q. That will suffice, thank you.
2 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I tender this
3 document into evidence.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00866.
6 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The next exhibit is D007-2664.
7 Could we please see it on the monitors.
8 Q. In your binder, Witness, Mrs. Marinkovic --
9 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Or rather, this is 2660. I
10 apologise. That was the one we've just discussed, so now we want 2664.
11 Bear with me. The next exhibit on the Defence 65 ter list is 2664.
12 That's correct.
13 Q. So in your binder, you can find that under tab 13. Could you
14 tell us briefly something about this incident.
15 A. This is another on-site investigation report conducted by me as
16 investigating judge together with the an investigating team. The
17 investigation was conducted on the 27th of August, 1998 in, Dragodan
18 where an explosive device was tossed into a yard of the -- actually, the
19 courtyard of the American information centre. There were no casualties,
20 but there was damage to the building.
21 Q. Where was this building?
22 A. The building was in Dragodan settlement which is an urban
23 neighbourhood, and it is predominantly an Albanian settlement or
25 Q. What about the perpetrators?
1 A. The perpetrators were not discovered.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I tender this document into
5 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00867.
7 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The next exhibit is D007-2668.
8 Q. In your binder, that's under tab 14.
9 Please go on.
10 A. This is an on-site investigation compiled by me on the 11th of
11 September, 1998, under Kri number 156/98. I signed this form and the
12 investigation was conducted in Kosare village, Urosevac municipality.
13 After an attack on employees of the Stimlje revenue administration on
14 which occasion an employee of the revenue administration, Mihajlovic,
15 Sinisa from Stimlje was killed. The perpetrators were never discovered.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I tender this exhibit into
19 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00868.
21 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The next exhibit is D007-2565
22 [as interpreted].
23 Q. And in your binder, Mrs. Marinkovic, that's under tab 15.
24 A. This is an on-site investigation report. Here we don't have a
25 Kri number, but rather a Kio number, 119/98. It was compiled on the 31st
1 of June -- on the 30th of June, 1998, in Pristina.
2 Q. Could you please just pause for a moment.
3 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I believe that we have an error
4 in the transcript regarding the number of the exhibit. The number -- the
5 correct number should be D008-5256. 5256.
6 [In English] Correct.
7 Q. [Interpretation] Please go on. This is the on-site
9 A. Yes. Well, I mentioned that this was not a Kri number because
10 that number would mean that it was an on-site investigation before the
11 investigation was actually initiated.
12 Q. Could you please pause for a moment here. This is one example
13 where we want to pause for minute to describe the difference. When
14 testify we have the Kri and Kio, could you describe what the distinctions
15 of these numbers are?
16 A. Well, when an official file is filed under a Kri number, this is
17 a case file where on-site investigation reports are filed and where an
18 investigation has actually not been initiated yet. So this is still in
19 the phase of the investigative measures, the preliminary investigative
20 measures. In other words, an on-site investigation was conducted,
21 perhaps an autopsy if that was the case. And once a perpetrator is
22 found, these files would then be joined to the Kio files where then an
23 investigation would be conducted. In Pristina we had Kri and Kio
24 numbers. We did not use Ki numbers.
25 Q. Very well. Now please discuss this one.
1 A. Well, this is a Kio number, and it was filed as such because one
2 of the accused, Iljber Topali, who was accused in the case Kio 119/98,
3 which I conducted on the grounds that a criminal organisation was
4 established in order to engage in enemy activity. So I conducted this,
5 and one of the accused was brought into my office. And when his
6 handcuffs were taken off, instead of sitting down, he jumped over my
7 desk, dashed past me, and rushed out of my office, and then he started
8 running down the street where the district court was. The guards who
9 escorted him ran after him, and in this rush to catch him, one of the
10 guards shot at him and injured him, injured him in the back. He fell
11 down, and then we went to the crime scene to conduct an on-site
12 investigation. He was still alive, and I immediately ordered that he be
13 transferred to the hospital, after which he was transferred from the
14 Pristina hospital to Belgrade
15 postoperative rehabilitation was conducted in the Belgrade hospital. And
16 in this period I went to see him together with a deputy public
17 prosecutor, his defence counsel, and an interpreter. We visited him at
18 the hospital where I conducted an interview with him, so that when he
19 recovered an indictment was raised against him, and when the court --
20 when the proceedings, the court proceedings began, he attended
21 proceedings, he was in good health, and he was able to attend.
22 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, could I now please
23 tender this into evidence.
24 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00869.
1 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretaiton] I would now appreciate seeing
2 Exhibit D007-2672.
3 Q. In your binder that's under tab 16, Mrs. Marinkovic.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Could you briefly comment on this. First of all, are you the
6 drafter of this document or, rather, of this report?
7 A. Yes, this is an on-site investigation report drafted by me, Kri
8 number 188/98, regarding an incident on the 3rd of November, 1998, in
9 Gracko village, Lipljan municipality, where a terrorist attack was --
10 following a terrorist attack on Fehmi Sopa family.
11 Q. And the perpetrators?
12 A. The perpetrators were not discovered. But I would like to
13 mention here that in addition to finding shells on the crime scene, we
14 also found a camouflage greyish green beret, and we knew that such berets
15 were actually berets used by members of the KLA.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I now tender this document into
19 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, that will be Exhibit D00870.
21 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see D007-2676.
22 Q. In your binder, Mrs. Marinkovic, that's under tab 18.
23 A. Yes. Regarding this event, described in the on-site
24 investigation report before us under number Kri 201/98, of 9 November,
25 1998, and compiled in Malisevo village on site where a terrorist attack
1 had been conducted on a police building, and on this day, we conducted an
2 investigation and found the bodies of the SUP Pristina policeman who had
3 been murdered, Vujosevic, Ilija; and Dejan Djatlov. I would like to add
4 when speaking of this incident that these two policemen had previously
5 been abducted while they were transporting food on a truck for police
6 station from Pristina to Malisevo, and for seven days no one knew where
7 they were. We had some indications that there was a terrorist group, KLA
8 terrorist group, a large stronghold in Malisevo, and that the KLA staff
9 was in Malisevo. And when they were getting ready to go to investigate
10 this incident on site, we were told by the policemen that it was risky to
11 go and conduct an on-site investigation there.
12 The president of the court and the district prosecutor was
13 informed of this, and I was summoned as the investigating judge on duty
14 and the deputy prosecutor. Everyone agreed that it was too risky, that
15 it wasn't secure, and that they were not to go on site to conduct an
16 on-site investigation.
17 The prosecutor decided not to go, but knowing that the bodies of
18 these two policemen had been found on site, and we were told by the
19 police officers who attended the crime scene that their bodies had been
20 massacred --
21 THE INTERPRETER: Mutilated, interpreters correction.
22 THE WITNESS: [Previous translation continued] ... I decided as an
23 investigating judge to go and conduct an on-site investigation which I
24 was authorised to do even without the presence of the public prosecutor
25 or, rather, his deputy, but I asked the police to just send a stronger
1 security detail to accompany me. And that is why it says here that the
2 crime scene was secured by special units of the republican MUP.
3 When I arrived on the crime scene and when I saw what had been
4 done to those two bodies, it was a horrible site. It was a catastrophe.
5 These people were tortured, then they were mutilated, and their bodies
6 thrown out on to the street. We conducted an on-site investigation and
7 took the bodies in order to conduct an autopsy on them. And as we
8 started back we drew fire from all sides, and there was so much shooting
9 that we barely managed to pull out of there alive.
10 When I returned to court I was criticised both by the president
11 of the court and the prosecutor for going there and not actually minding
12 what they told me; however, when I returned, I was very happy that I did
13 actually go to this crime scene and that we brought the bodies back so
14 they wouldn't be pulled away by dogs.
15 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, may I tender this
16 document into evidence, please.
17 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00871.
19 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think this is
20 the right moment for a break.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, thank you, Mr. Djordjevic. We will have the
22 second break now. We resume at 1.00.
23 [The witness stands down]
24 --- Recess taken at 12.31 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 1.05 p.m.
1 [The witness takes the stand]
2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djordjevic.
3 MR. DJORDJEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 [Interpretation] Could we please see document D007-2680 on the
6 Q. That's tab 18 in your binder, madam. Please go ahead, be as
7 brief as possible.
8 A. This is also an official document, an on-site investigation
9 report filed under number Kri 203/98. It's dated 11 November, 1998. On
10 that day I, as investigating judge, with the other members of the on-site
11 investigation team conducted the on-site investigation at Glogovac since
12 a terrorist attack was carried out on the premises of the Glogovac
13 Internal Affairs and other facilities. We stated here what we found
14 there, what the material damage was, the evidence such as cartridges at
15 several locations, and that there was protracted shooting from various
16 directions and that large material damage was inflicted to buildings.
17 Police officers, Slavko Amidzic and Srdjan Stevanovic were
18 wounded. Significant material damage was done to the house of the family
19 of Xhafer Xhory [phoen].
20 Q. Were the perpetrators found?
21 A. No.
22 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this document
23 in evidence.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00872.
1 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please see document
3 Q. In your binder, that's tab 19, madam.
4 A. This is also an on-site investigation report that I drew up about
5 an incident that happened on the 18th of December, 1998, at Careva Cesma
6 nearby Glogovac where the body of Zvonko Bojanic from Velika Slatina was
7 discovered. I wish to say that Zvonko Bojanic was abducted by KLA
8 members two days prior to that. He was kidnapped from his house where
9 his family were present. His whereabouts were unknown until his body was
10 found on the road. It was mutilated. A vehicle was run over him, and
11 considering the agreement between the federal government and the OSCE --
12 or, rather, pursuant to that agreement, the OSCE staff were also present.
13 They observed and asked questions when they didn't understand something.
14 Q. Ms. Marinkovic, this document, Defence document, is important to
15 all of us because this is the first time the presence of OSCE members is
16 recorded. How were they informed? How did they know that something
17 happened? So please explain to us how that co-operation worked in
18 practical terms.
19 A. I believe that it was in November 1998 that the agreement was
20 made between the federal government and the OSCE, and we had a good
21 co-operation, they and I. They were informed by the duty service of the
22 Pristina SUP, the secretariat was duty-bound to inform them of incidents,
23 and that an investigating judge would go to the site with a team, and
24 they had the right to be present if they wished. But they were not
25 allowed to take active part in the investigation activities. They could
1 take notes the way they considered appropriate, and during the
2 investigation sometimes they would ask questions when they didn't
3 understand something or when they wanted additional clarification, and we
4 gave them such information, but that didn't amount to interfering with
5 the work of the investigating judge.
6 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. That will do. I
7 seek to tender this document into evidence.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00873.
10 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please see document
12 Q. That's tab 20 in your binder, madam. We can see that the same
13 place is mentioned, namely the Careva Cesma location.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Give us a brief account.
16 A. On this day an on-site investigation was conducted because at the
17 same place, Careva Cesma, the body of an unknown male was discovered.
18 The body was mutilated, and it bore traces of torture. The body was
19 transferred to the forensic medicine ward for identification and autopsy.
20 It was established that it was Bratislava Sekic who had come from
22 Pristina due to a frequent terrorist attacks, and we learned that on the
23 following morning he took a taxi to Urosevac, but that was the last that
24 was seen of him until the body was discovered.
25 And hereto representatives of the OSCE were present during the
1 on-site investigation. The names of all persons present are stated here.
2 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I seek to tender
3 this document into evidence.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00874.
6 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The next document that we'd like
7 to see on the screen is D007-0674.
8 Q. Now we are going into 1999. This is -- we are showing this
9 really by way of illustration. We will soon pass over to different
11 Go ahead.
12 A. This document is filed under Kri 29/99. It's an on-site
13 investigation report drafted by me about an incident that happened on the
14 1st of February, 1999, in the village of Gornje Godance in the Stimlje
15 municipality when a terrorist attack was carried out on the family of
16 Jetulah Zumeri.
17 They said that on that day KLA members in black clothes, black
18 uniforms armed with automatic rifles entered their house. Their
19 intention was to take a man with them. The family resisted that, but in
20 the process two persons were wounded. The names of those wounded and
21 their injuries are stated in the report.
22 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I seek to tender
23 this document into evidence.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here, too, OSCE representatives
25 were present.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00875.
3 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The next document is D007-2727.
4 Can we please see it on our screens.
5 Q. Go ahead.
6 A. This is an on-site investigation report drafted by me following a
7 terrorist attack in Pristina, in down-town Pristina. The Ardido i Anda
8 bar was attacked on the 5th of February, 1999. The owner of that bar was
9 Gzim Kastrati. The on-site investigation was conducted in the presence
10 of OCE representatives, their were people wounded, their names are
11 mentioned in the report, damage was done to the bar, and the evidence
12 found is also listed.
13 Q. Why was this bar attacked?
14 A. In early 1999, some Albanians who wanted to work and make a
15 living rented business facilities owned by Serbs. This was the Dardanija
16 neighbourhood where both Albanians and Serbs lived. But some Serbs also
17 owned business space, but they were unable to engage in their own
18 business activity there, so they rented it out to Albanians. But these
19 Albanians were punished because they co-operated with Serbs.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this document
22 into evidence.
23 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00876.
25 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The next Defence document is
1 D007-0678. Can we see it on our screens, please.
2 Q. This is tab 23 in your binder, madam. Is the situation here
4 A. Yes, it is. It's an on-site investigation report. I conducted
5 that investigation on the 6th of February, 1999, in Pristina. In
6 Vidovdanska Street where a terrorist attack was carried out close to
7 Mala Pijaca, where Albanians were harmed because they had their shops
8 there. The investigation was conducted in the presence of OSCE members.
9 Some people were killed in the incident. A girl born in the 1981 was
10 killed and two men. All Albanians. One was born in 1947, and the other
11 in 1978.
12 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I seek to tender
13 this document in evidence.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00877.
16 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The next Defence document is
17 D007-2711. Could we please see it on our screens.
18 Q. Ms. Marinkovic, that's tab 24 in your binder.
19 A. In this document there's an on-site investigation report that was
20 conducted on 22 February, 1999, in the village of Pali Vodenica in the
21 Kacanik municipality, following a terrorist attack on the Ljoki family,
22 when Gafur and Driton Ljoki were killed, father and son. They were shot
23 from fire-arms by KLA members who wore black camouflage uniforms. This
24 on-site investigation was also conducted in the presence of OSCE
25 representatives for the Kacanik municipality.
1 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, I seek to tender this
2 document into evidence.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00878.
5 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The next Defence document is
7 Q. That is tab 25 in your binder, madam. Could we please see it on
8 our screen.
9 A. This document that we see is also an official on site
10 investigation report drafted by me. It's filed as Kri 51/99. It's dated
11 27 February, 1999
12 vehicle which was ambushed nearby Krivovo in the Slatina municipality --
13 or, rather, the Kosovo Polje municipality close to Slatina, in this
14 attack policemen were killed. Milorad Mitic born in 1966 was killed, and
15 some persons were wounded. Milorad Petronijovic [phoen] and
16 Ljubisa Denic. The on-site investigation was conducted in the presence
17 of OSCE representatives from Glogovac.
18 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 I seek to tender this document into evidence.
20 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00879.
22 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The next Defence document is
23 D007-2715. That is tab 26 in your binder, madam. Could we please see it
24 on our screens.
25 A. This is an on-site investigation report. The number is
1 Kri 53/99, compiled on the 28th February, 1999. I compiled it as the
2 investigating judge, and it concerns an event in the village of Gajre
3 Kacanik municipality, when a terrorist attack on a police patrol was
4 mounted, and the police patrol was from the Kacanik police station. In
5 this terrorist attack, the commander of the Kacanik police station was
6 killed; his name was Bogoljub Staletovic. And policemen,
7 Slobodan Jankovic, Zoran Djuric, Sladjan Jovanovic, and
8 Djordje Milosavljevic were seriously injured. A member of the terrorist
9 gang was found on-site. He was the one who fired shots at this police
10 patrol from an ambush. He actually launched a shell from a hand-held
11 launcher made in Russia
12 as a uniform and ammunition.
13 Q. Did he have anything else with him, a back-pack or something like
15 A. Yes, he had a back-pack containing civilian clothing with him.
16 We already knew that this was their method of operating. After carrying
17 out a terrorist attack, they would change into civilian clothes, discard
18 their military uniform with KLA insignia, and mix in with the local
19 population, so as not to be discovered.
20 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I tender this into evidence.
21 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00880.
23 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The next document is D007-2691.
24 Q. In your binder it's tab 27, Mrs. Marinkovic. Can we please have
25 it up on the screen. And just give us a brief comments on it.
1 A. This is an on-site investigation report compiled on the 21st of
2 March, 1999, in the village of Poklek
3 a terrorist and sabotage attack in front of the railway crossing on the
4 bridge over the Drenica river at the entrance to Glogovac. This bridge
5 was regularly used by police vehicles and also by citizens passing
6 through from Pristina towards Glogovac. The bridge was damaged so as to
7 be out of use for awhile.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this into
10 evidence, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00881.
13 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The next document is D007-0683.
14 Q. In your binder, it's number 28, Mrs. Marinkovic. May it be up on
15 the screen, please.
16 A. This on-site investigation report was compiled by myself as
17 investigating judge concerning an event which took place on the 21st of
18 March, 1999, in Pristina in Miladina Popovica Street
19 urban area, a built-up area in Pristina, when fire was opened from an
20 ambush on policemen in a patrol vehicle passing down the street. In this
21 terrorist attack, Aleksandar Milojekovic, Dejan Hepkovic [phoen], and
22 Milivoj Nicic [phoen] sustained fatal injuries, as did Vladimir Jevtic.
23 Policemen Nedzad Osmani was wounded, while policemen Zeljko Mitrovic
24 remained uninjured.
25 Q. Were the perpetrators found?
1 A. No, they were not.
2 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] May this be admitted into
3 evidence, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE PARKER: It will be.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00882.
6 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The next document is D007-2699.
7 Q. In your binder it's number 29, Mrs. Marinkovic.
8 Please comment on it briefly.
9 A. This is another on-site investigation report which I compiled as
10 the investigating judge. I carried out the on-site investigation with my
11 team on the 22nd of March, 1999, in Njegoseva Street in connection with a
12 terrorist attack on the Koha coffee bar owned by Ramiz Balja from
13 Pristina. Arinit Keljmendi born in 1969 was seriously injured, and he
14 died of his injures in the insensitive care unit of the Pristina Surgical
15 Clinic. Jasmina Jaha was also seriously injured, as was Agrib Balja.
16 The attack was mounted for the same reasons that I mentioned before.
17 These were catering establishment owned by Albanians.
18 Q. Yes. May this be admitted into evidence, Your Honour?
19 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00883.
21 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] D007-2655. 2695. I do
22 apologise, 2695.
23 Q. In your binder, it's 30, madam.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Please comment on this briefly.
1 A. This is another on-site investigation report. I carried out the
2 investigation on the 22nd of March, 1999, in Pristina. A terrorist
3 attack was mounted in the Medik coffee bar owned by Agron Ljumezi from
4 Pristina. Fire was opened on this coffee bar from an automatic weapon,
5 spent cartridges were found on site. And Leonida Ljutoli, born in 1977,
6 died. Vedat Bahtiri was injured and given medical assistance in the
7 surgical centre in Pristina.
8 Q. Thank you. This is the last incident that took place before the
9 air-strikes. May it be admitted into evidence.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00884.
12 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The next document is D007-0727.
13 Q. It's number 31 in your binder, madam.
14 Please go ahead.
15 A. I drew up this on-site investigation report and the 20th of
16 April, 1999, regarding damaged facilities in Grmija, the post office
17 communications building and the Executive Council building. These
18 buildings were damaged in connection with NATO bombs, because they were
19 hit in the morning by NATO bombs. Both buildings were completely
20 destroyed, and in the rubble we found the body of an employee of the
21 Executive Council. His name was Branko Gudic, he was born in 1944.
22 Q. Thank you. At that time were there still OSCE observers there?
23 A. Well, immediately before the air-strikes began they had left
24 Pristina and were now in Skopje
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I wish to tender this into
3 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00885.
5 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Now, D007-0668.
6 Q. In your binder, it's number 32. Could we have it up on the
7 screen, please, and could you comment on it briefly.
8 A. This is an on-site investigation report which I compiled as the
9 investigating judge when the state of war had already been declared and
10 NATO air-strikes started. I compiled this on the 11th of May, 1999, when
11 I contacted an on-site investigation in Staro Gracko,
12 Lipljan municipality, where three people were killed by NATO aircraft and
13 three suffered serious injuries. Many cluster bombs had been launched
14 there, family homes were damaged. There were no military facilities in
15 the vicinity, and we found a large quantity of cluster bombs in the
16 vicinity which we did not dare touch because we didn't know which of them
17 had been activated and which not.
18 All this is recorded here and photographs are attached.
19 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. May this document be
20 admitted into evidence, please.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00886.
23 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Now may we have D011-4543 on the
25 Q. It's number 33 in your binder. This is an interesting document
1 on which we will dwell a little. Can you explain first of all, whether
2 you compiled this document?
3 A. Well, before I begin commenting on this document, in connection
4 with these on-site investigation reports that we have been looking at, in
5 each one the data is recorded and also the investigating judge in
6 compliance with the law, whenever carrying out an on-site investigation,
7 had to check that the place had been secured by the police, and that was
8 the same for every on-site investigation. So the police would secure the
9 site, they would mark the site, and guard it so as to avoid evidence and
10 traces being lost. When an on-site investigation is carried out,
11 depending on the security situation, the police also have to be present.
12 But the number of policemen and whether only ordinary police officers
13 would be there or the commander of the station or the chief, that would
14 all depend on the security situation. And I'm saying this because in
15 each of these reports, there is a list of who was present from the
16 police, and the police were the only persons authorised to secure the
17 site. But they were not allowed to interfere with the work of the
18 investigating judge and the investigating team from the court who are
19 carrying out the on-site investigation.
20 I wanted to explain this.
21 Q. Well, what can we say about the document on the screen? In your
22 binder it's number 33. And the document is entitled "Review of cases in
23 which I as investigating judge conducted investigations..."
24 A. In this document as a practicing judge, I wanted to make it
25 easier to facilitate the work of this Tribunal, so I compiled a review of
1 cases in which I had conducted investigations. And after my
2 investigation, the prosecutor raised an indictment, trials were
3 conducted, verdicts reached, and appeals filed. I showed here only some
4 of the cases where I carried out the investigations for the crime of
5 conspiring to engage in hostile activities and the terrorism.
6 I made an overview as to the target, whether the persons targeted
7 were civilians, Albanians, and so on, whether the buildings targeted were
8 buildings housing police stations, refugees, buildings where the families
9 of police officers were, and in each case how many people had been killed
10 and how many injured, to make it easier for the Chamber to look at the
12 I also made a list of how many sentences had been handed out, how
13 many people were found guilty, how many were acquitted, what the
14 sentences were, and this covers only part of the cases I was involved in.
15 There were other cases I dealt with and some dealt with by my colleagues,
16 but those I was not able to obtain. And there were also cases dealt with
17 by other district courts in Kosovo and Metohija. So there were many,
18 many more cases than those mentioned here in this review.
19 Q. Thank you. My next question is the following: As we have now
20 seen, the most important investigating procedures you engaged in before
21 and during the NATO air-strikes, as you mentioned, that you had dealt
22 only with those cases falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the
23 district court in Pristina and that you mentioned that there were four
24 other district courts on the territory of Kosovo
25 time, do you have any direct or indirect knowledge that such criminal
1 offences were also committed on the territories of other district courts?
2 A. Yes, I do know that there were such cases in all courts, but I
3 couldn't tell you the number of such cases.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] May this document be admitted
6 into evidence.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00887.
9 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I think this is a convenient
10 moment to break off for today. Tomorrow we will be dealing with Racak,
11 and before that we will look at some verdicts and sentences handed down
12 by the court in Pristina.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Djordjevic.
14 We now adjourn. We resume tomorrow at 9.00 in the morning.
15 Again, a Court Officer will assist you when we retire.
16 We adjourn to resume at 9.00 in the morning.
17 [The witness stands down]
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.
19 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 17th day of
20 March, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.