1 Thursday, 20 May 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic.
6 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
7 Before the witness is brought in, I should like to ask you to allow our
8 Defence team member, Jonathan Flynn to attend the hearing today.
9 JUDGE PARKER: We certainly would allow that, and welcome. Yes.
10 [The witness takes the stand]
11 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning, sir.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
13 JUDGE PARKER: We would remind you of the affirmation you made to
14 tell the truth which still applies, and we continue now your evidence and
15 invite Mr. Stamp to ask any questions he has.
16 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Your Honours, and good morning.
17 WITNESS: RADOMIR MILASINOVIC [Resumed]
18 [Witness answered through interpreter]
19 Cross-examination by Mr. Stamp:
20 Q. Good morning, Mr. Milasinovic.
21 A. Good morning.
22 Q. I was looking at your curriculum vitae, and I see it says in your
23 career resume that in 1972 you were employed at the Ministry of Interior
24 Affairs for the socialist Republic of Serbia
25 you were employed in the federal Ministry of Interior. You worked for a
1 year in 1972 at the Ministry of Interior for Serbia, Republic of Serbia
2 is that your evidence?
3 A. That is correct. However, I also worked for the republican
4 Ministry of the Interior in Croatia
5 total of five years as a staff member of a republican ministry.
6 Q. Oh, I see. Because the transcripts seem to reflect that you were
7 saying that you worked three years in the MUP Republic of Serbia, so that
8 is not correct. You worked one year in the MUP Republic of Serbia and
9 three years in the MUP Republic of Croatia?
10 A. I worked for two and a half years for the republican MUP of
12 Q. Okay. When did you work for the republican MUP of Croatia?
13 A. I worked for the Croatian MUP from the 1st or the 15th of
14 January, 1988 up until November 1991.
15 Q. Okay.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness come closer to the
17 microphones, please.
18 MR. STAMP:
19 Q. When did you work for the MUP Republic of Serbia?
20 A. From the 10th of January, 1992, up until the 15th of May, 1994
21 Q. Can you open your curriculum vitae. [Overlapping speakers] ...
22 A. If my memory serves me well, that is.
23 Q. Yes. Can you have a look at your curriculum vitae, please. I
24 think in line 20 -- oh, let me just ask the witness. You started working
25 in the MUP Republic of Serbia in 1972; is that correct?
1 A. Yes, the 10th of January, as far as I remember.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic.
3 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] My apologies, I should not be
4 interfering at this point, but can you repeat the question because
5 apparently there's been a mistake as far as the years are concerned, and
6 we are wasting time.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Stamp, there certainly seems to be some
8 difference between the printed document and the spoken evidence of the
9 witness. If you think it's important, you better clarify that.
10 MR. STAMP: Yes.
11 Q. Your curriculum vitae indicates that you worked for the Ministry
12 of Interior or interior affairs socialist Republic of Serbia
13 not from January 1972 to May 1994, as you now claim. Which is correct?
14 A. It is correct that I worked from the 10th of January, 19 -- 1972
15 up until the 15th of May, 1974.
16 Q. So what is printed there in your curriculum vitae is not correct,
17 or at least incomplete?
18 A. It may be incomplete, and it is possible that there may be a
19 mistake, but what I'm saying is correct.
20 Q. All right. If I tell you that your curriculum vitae published on
21 the website for the university of Belgrade
22 in the MUP Serbia only during the year of 1972, would that refresh your
23 memory as to when you worked in the MUP for Serbia?
24 A. That curriculum vitae was drafted by a staff member who did not
25 consult me directly but drew upon incomplete information contained in
1 various documents. You see, some of my documents were left behind in
3 mistakes in drafting my CV.
4 Q. I see. But at least with the CV that we have here, I saw
5 yesterday, and I feel very certain that counsel for Mr. Djordjevic did
6 give you an opportunity to correct your CV, but you didn't make use of
7 the opportunity. Is there any reason why?
8 A. I didn't use the opportunity simply because I was giving an
9 overview of all the posts I held in both the republican MUP of Serbia and
10 the federal MUP, so I didn't think that the various dates of -- in terms
11 of office were important. But you can see that I spent the total of five
12 years, at least five years working for the republican ministry.
13 Q. And you are telling us now that you also worked for the
14 republican Ministry of the Interior in Croatia. Can you remember when
15 that was?
16 A. Yes. I think that the whole of 1999, 1990 and 1991 up until
17 November -- or rather, from 1998 when I was employed there, that was when
18 I started working for the Ministry of the Interior of Croatia.
19 Q. Okay. I see here it says from 1998 when I was employed there.
20 Can you say again --
21 A. 1998, yes. From the end of 1998 and the start of 1999 up until
22 November 1991.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Is it perhaps 1989 rather than 1998?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 1989, apologies. 1989 and 1990 and
25 1991 through to almost the end of 1991.
1 MR. STAMP:
2 Q. What position did you hold in the MUP Republic of Croatia?
3 A. I was a lecturer on the subject of security and international
4 relations at the faculty of criminal sciences which was initially part of
5 the republican Ministry of the Interior and eventually it became part of
6 the Zagreb
7 Q. I see. What position did you hold in the MUP Republic of Serbia?
8 A. In the MUP of the Republic of Serbia
9 operative nature aimed at uncovering and suppressing individuals engaged
10 in anti-constitutional activities, or activities against the
11 constitutional order of the Republic of Serbia
12 operative nature.
13 Q. By operative nature, you mean that you were involved in gathering
14 information from persons in the field?
15 A. No.
16 Q. What do you mean by operative nature?
17 A. I meant to say that I first underwent a specialised training and
18 took a number of exams which had to do with the workings of the internal
19 agencies of the Republic of Serbia
20 with the suppression of activities aimed at overthrowing the
21 constitutional order or disrupting the constitutional order. These were
22 tasks that had to do both with state security and public security.
23 Q. Were you employed in state security or in public security or in
25 A. I was an employee of the state security of the republican
1 ministry. Now, in the federal ministry I was head of the information and
2 analysis department which post I held from 1994 to 1998, and there I had
3 tasks pertaining to both public and state security.
4 Q. You have to try to slow down when you speak of dates,
5 Mr. Milasinovic.
6 A. Yes, well, I give you the dates as far as I can remember them.
7 It is difficult to recall each and every date of the activities I
8 performed in the 40 years of my career. I've given you roughly the
9 extent of the posts I held and the time periods concerned.
10 Q. No, but it says here that you claim that you were in the federal
11 ministry from 1994 to 1998. Are you actually saying that you were there
12 from 1974 until 1988?
13 A. That's right. But I said that I was head of the department for
14 research, analysis, and information from 1984, and previously I was
15 charged with performing other sort of duties.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic.
17 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, line 6, but I can't
18 tell which page it was, the witness said from 1984 to 1988 and what we
19 have in the transcript is 1994 and 1998, so we have confusion again.
20 That's page 6, line 1. He said from 1984 to 1988 and not from 1994 to
22 MR. STAMP: Well, in any case, I think I clarified that because
23 later on he said 1974 to 1988.
24 Q. In any case, Mr. Milasinovic, let's just cut this down. Have you
25 ever been employed in the public service department of the Ministry of
1 the Interior for the Republic of Serbia
2 A. Since the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia
3 comprised both the public security and state security departments, their
4 competences overlapped. Therefore, their activities overlapped insofar
5 as when I was working for the state security, I also did some tasks that
6 came under the competence of public security. However, when I said that
7 I was working for the republican ministry, I said that I was discharging
8 duties falling under state security.
9 Q. Let me be clear about this. Did you ever have the employment
10 status of being a member of the public security for the Republic of
12 A. No, not for that department.
13 Q. If we look at page 3 of your curriculum vitae in English under
14 your most important papers, and this is going to your academic career and
15 some of your published books, these are quite impressive list of
16 publications involving intelligence services and the activities of these
17 intelligence services international affairs, especially aimed against the
18 FRY. I probably missed any that dealt specifically with the organisation
19 of the MUP for the Republic of Serbia
20 Among your most important papers, have you published any work in
21 any serious journal on the organisation of the MUP for the Republic of
23 A. Yes, but let me correct you first in one point.
24 Q. No, corrections can come later. Questions can be asked from
25 different parties. I have limited time. Where on your curriculum vitae,
1 you have it in front of you, is that important work on the publication on
2 the organisation of the MUP Republic of Serbia? Look at your curriculum
3 vitae, please, that's what I'm asking you, and find it, and tell us where
4 it is, if it is here?
5 A. "Sources and Forms of Threatening the Security of SFRY." That
6 was one paper that was published. I don't know if it's included here.
7 I've already told you who it was who drafted this. Secondly, the role --
8 "The Place and Role of State Security Organs in Suppressing Crime in the
9 Republic of Serbia
10 was project manager on the subject of the role of the organs of Internal
11 Affairs in the Republic of Serbia
12 the security of the Republic of Croatia
13 included is that I had a consultative role that I played on several
14 occasions on some of these subjects, so what is stated here is most of
15 the work I've done, but there were also projects of an internal character
16 that were used by organisational units of all the republics and provinces
17 which explained the organisation and workings of the organs of Internal
18 Affairs. They were also used by some educational institutions --
19 Q. Mr. Milasinovic, time is limited. Do not waste time and do not
20 evade the questions. Please look at your CV and point to us, if you can,
21 at any publication by you relating to the organisation of the MUP
22 Republic of Serbia
23 A. It's a collection of papers for criminological and sociological
25 Q. Mr. Milasinovic, look at your CV --
1 A. That's precisely what I'm doing. And item -- collection of
2 papers. It's under 12, collection of papers for criminological and
3 sociological research, and the paper was "Role of the Organs of Interior
4 Internal Affairs in Crime Prevention."
5 Q. I'm not asking you about crime prevention or criminology or
6 anything like that. I'm asking you about the organisation of the MUP of
8 MUP Republic
9 A. Yes, in that particular work, that's what -- that's the one that
10 deals with the organisation of the MUP of Serbia precisely. And apart
11 from that, I lectured on subjects related to security.
12 Q. I'm not asking about security. I'm asking you now about your
13 curriculum vitae. Is there anything else on your curriculum vitae in
14 terms of your publications that you say relates to the organisation of
15 the MUP Republic
16 A. This is just part of the work.
17 Q. Can I take it then --
18 A. Part of my work put on that list. It's not here, no.
19 Q. Okay. Thank you. So apart from this work on crime prevention,
20 there's nothing here relating to the organisation of the MUP Serbia?
21 A. Not on this list, no, but I did have such papers --
22 Q. Is there anything -- why, Mr. Milasinovic, you are here
23 presenting this document relating to the organisation of the MUP Republic
24 of Serbia
25 your publications on the management or the organisation of the MUP
1 Republic of Serbia
2 A. Because that wasn't what I was asked to do. And I explained what
3 I did yesterday, and apart from that, the works published here and listed
4 here is not part of the work of the intelligence services aimed against
6 the world, and you can see that from the title, from the title of those
7 various papers and work, and none of them relate to intelligence work
8 against Yugoslavia
9 Q. Specifically the title of this document that you have presented
10 to the court, "The Position and Role of the Chief of the Public Security
11 Department in the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia
12 the Anti-terrorist Activities in Kosovo and Metohija in 1998 and 1999."
13 That's specifically what you title it. And I take it that you would
14 agree with me that you have never published anything in the past on the
15 management, organisation of the MUP Republic of Serbia?
16 A. I did not publish them in scientific and scholarly journals, but
17 I did work on the projects that were used in the organs of the interior
18 and --
19 Q. Where did you publish them?
20 A. It was published -- well, they were internal studies to do with
21 internal projects used -- well, in all the republics and provinces. They
22 were published for the internal requirements, for instance, in the
23 security institute, they were printed in Zagreb, in Belgrade
25 the Internal Affairs organs and for training and educational purposes in
1 the organs and institutions of the Internal Affairs organs.
2 Q. Again, I was asking you about publications in scholarly
3 publications, but you are telling us now that they are internal
4 documents. This is not disclosed in your curriculum vitae. You are
5 aware of that?
6 A. I am conscious of the fact that not all of the papers that were
7 published are listed here, but you can check that out. You can verify
8 the fact that I did have work published in the various collections of
9 works, et cetera.
10 Q. It should be reflected in your CV, Mr. Milasinovic, and I
11 represent to you that you have never published any work in any scholarly
12 publication in respect to the management, organisation of the MUP Serbia
13 before this document that you bring before this court, never.
14 A. In 1994 I did publish a paper of that kind, and you can check
15 that out. You'll find it in the collection of crime and sociological
16 institutions for the institute for sociological research, and the
17 contents of that paper of mine can be found in that collection of
18 crime-related papers.
19 Q. Were you aware, Mr. Milasinovic, that the Prosecution had filed a
20 motion claiming that you were not an expert in the field of the
21 leadership responsibilities in the MUP Serbia? Were you aware of that?
22 A. Yes, I am aware of that.
23 Q. And that was, you know, months ago. Having been aware of that,
24 Mr. Milasinovic, did you not think it was important to indicate on your
25 CV that you had done or prepared some of these unpublished works on the
1 leadership and management responsibilities of the MUP Serbia?
2 A. I did state that I attended a specialist course dealing with the
3 organisation of --
4 Q. Don't evade the question.
5 A. Now, as far as scholarly and scientific papers are concerned, I
6 did not list that for the simple reason that, as far as these
7 requirements go and what was needed here, only the data that was taken
8 off the internet site from the faculty of security were used.
9 Q. Let's move on. Did you write this report with any assistance, or
10 did you receive assistance in writing it?
11 A. I -- well, the final version, yes, but in the initial work I
12 engaged over 50 people who assisted me in compiling this, in compiling
13 this expert report.
14 Q. Were any of those 50 people employed to the BIA in the Republic
15 of Serbia
16 A. They all worked in the military security organs in the public
17 security sector and the state security sector, and some of them were in
18 special units whereas there were also people from scientific institutions
19 and from the university as well.
20 Q. Can we look at one or two aspects of your report because it seems
21 that you've made quite a few statements in the report which don't seem to
22 be supported. If we look at page 10 in the English version of your
24 A. And you are referring to what? The special-purpose units?
25 Q. Yes.
1 A. Does that refer to the special units and groups, the SAJ and the
3 Q. Just a moment, let me find --
4 A. PJP.
5 Q. Give me a moment, please. It's in -- yes, it's at page 12 in
6 English, I'm sorry, and it's under the paragraph that is numbered 2.2.3,
7 and it is the third to last paragraph in that section, the third to last
8 paragraph before section 2.3.
9 A. In Serbian.
10 Q. Third to last paragraph before paragraph 2.3.
11 JUDGE PARKER: While that's being located, Mr. Djurdjic.
12 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we can't be giving
13 references in English. Mr. Stamp must give us the reference in the
14 Serbian version because the pages are different in Serbian, the number of
15 pages are different in Serbian than English. So we are not able to
16 pin-point the reference. What does he mean, paragraph 2.3 of what?
17 Could he give us the Serbian reference, please.
18 MR. STAMP: Paragraphs --
19 JUDGE PARKER: Are not the paragraph numbers the same? Not the
20 page numbers, but the paragraph numbers? He was giving paragraph
21 numbers, so that ought to be -- but, thank you, Mr. Djurdjic.
22 MR. STAMP: Yes, I'm told it's page 12 in the B/C/S as well.
23 Q. But, I think, Mr. Milasinovic, it would be easier to find if you
24 use your own numbering system. You have a section that is 2.3. If you
25 look three paragraphs before that, you see a paragraph which reads: "The
2 strength, up to 200 members but highly homogenised and permanently
3 mobile. The personnel consisting of highly professional, highly
4 organised, specialised and well-equipped police officers.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Stamp not read so fast please, thank
7 MR. STAMP:
8 Q. Had undergone a strict selection process.
9 A. Yes, I've found that.
10 Q. The last section reads:
11 "Their engagement in the performance of special purpose tasks
12 could be ordered only by the minister or by a chief authorised by the
14 You make that statement and there is no support for that
15 statement in your report. What was the source or on what material did
16 you base this statement?
17 A. I based it on the decision on establishing the SAJ in 1996 from
18 the 5th of April, dated the 5th of April, which refers to the SAJ and the
19 characteristics and nature of those special anti-terrorist units, the SAJ
20 which existed in the previous period as well in 199 -- well, before 1998
21 and 1999.
22 Q. So are you saying that the document forming the SAJ stated that
23 only the minister or the chief authorising the minister could engage the
25 A. It's only the minister that can issue orders of that nature. And
1 pursuant to an order from the minister or permission from the minister,
2 somebody else could take it up down the chain.
3 Q. That's what you said. Listen to the question I'm asking you
4 about the basis for saying that. Are you saying that you made this
5 statement because that is what the document on the formation of the SAJ
7 A. Yes, the document and decision on the establishment of the SAJ,
8 but it also refers to the rights and duties of the minister as the sole
9 elected individual by the National Assembly into the Ministry of the
10 Interior, also refers to those documents. And he was the sole person who
11 had the authority to organise the special units, the SAJs and PJPs within
12 the organs of the interior.
13 Q. Is there a reason why you did not cite that document when you
14 made that statement, why you did not give us a footnote indicating that
15 that was the reference and that was the basis on which you made that
17 A. Well, it is stipulated in the earlier observation, so I didn't
18 think I needed to repeat it again to repeat the same sources again,
19 because if you read the document carefully, you would be able to
20 establish that.
21 Q. Okay. Where in the earlier observations did you make that
22 statement and provide a reference?
23 A. Well, Article 7 of the Law on Internal Affairs which is mentioned
25 Q. Mr. Milasinovic, we can't be going all over the place --
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. I read to you a sentence and I asked you what was the source.
3 You said the source was a document on the formation of the SAJ. I want
4 you to show us where it is that you made that statement in the report and
5 cited that source document on the formation of the SAJ.
6 A. Well, it's the decision by the minister on the establishment of
7 the SAJ
8 is 1693/96, the 5th of April, 1996. That's the date of it. That's the
9 date of that decision. It's on page 12, the decision on the
10 establishment of the SAJ
11 number 1693/96 of the 5th of April, 1996. Article 6, para 2, the Law on
12 Internal Affairs, you'll find it there too. Formed by the minister, by
13 decision, that is to say the minister of the interior, on the basis of
14 the laws that were valid at the time governing the Ministry of the
15 Interior and the rules on internal MUP organisation, and then a decision
16 on the establishment of the SAJ
17 Decision on the establishment of the SAJ. So there you have four
18 sources, all of these relate to this observation.
19 Q. Well, you are telling us it's a decision on the formation of the
21 D401 is a decision on the establishment of the SAJ. I'm going to
22 represent to you that it does not say what you stated before the court
23 that it says. If you can find where it says that only the minister or
24 the chief of public security authorised by the minister could engage the
1 A. Well, according to this decision, the special SAJ unit is
2 established as a separate unit so that all the tasks can reflect the
3 requirements of everyone on the basis of Article 6, para 2 of the
4 "Official Gazette" of Serbia
5 Internal Organisation of the Ministry of the Interior, and may we turn
6 the page, please. Next page, please, if possible. Signed by minister
7 Sokolovic. So everything that I have just talked about is set out there,
8 and it refers to the nature of the SAJs themselves and their
9 characteristic features. So this observation --
10 Q. Maybe there was a misunderstanding. Let's do it again. You make
11 the statement that engagement of the SAJ in the performance of special
12 purpose tasks could be ordered only by the minister or by the chief
13 authorised by the minister. And when I asked you on what basis you made
14 that, you said on the basis of this decision. I'm asking you where it is
15 in this decision, what is it about this decision? Point to us what it is
16 about this decision that caused you or that supports that statement.
17 It's a short decision, tell us which statement or which paragraph.
18 A. It was supported by Article 7 of the Law on the Interior and
19 Article 6 as well of the rules, and it refers to the decision made by the
20 minister of the interior.
21 Q. Excuse me. You will now agree with me, Mr. Milasinovic, that
22 this statement here which is not supported in your report, is certainly
23 not supported by this order or this decision of the minister?
24 A. But the decision emanates from the authority of the minister and
25 the authority of the minister is vested in the law governing ministries
1 as an organ of statement administration.
2 Q. Well, you are now saying --
3 A. So that's a broader base, but I'm talking about the decision
4 which is based on the authority given the minister by the laws of the
5 country and passed by the National Assembly as the source authority based
6 on the law governing Internal Affairs and authority stemming from the
7 rules on organisation for the organs of the interior, and the possibility
8 of forming and establishing the SAJs and PJPs in the Ministry of the
9 Interior in addition to the regular units and organisational forms within
10 the ministry.
11 Q. I'm being very precise.
12 A. So they are based on the law.
13 Q. Sir, I'm being very precise. You are saying that the rules of
14 internal organisation of the MUP, Article 7, and the law of Internal
15 Affairs, Article 6, also support that statement that you made?
16 A. Article 6, para 1 of the Rules on Internal Organisation.
17 Q. We'll get back to that. Let's have a look at page 13 on the
18 section 2.4 reserve police squads and local security. And let's look at
19 the third paragraph in that section. Last two sentences.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. [Overlapping speakers] ... were not permanently assigned to them,
22 they were ad hoc units. Once the general mobilisation was declared,
23 their members were signed to appropriate military and police units in
24 accordance with their war time assignments. Again that's a statement for
25 which you have provided no support. What is the basis for that
1 statement? I'm just speaking about the members were assigned to
2 appropriate military police units in accordance with their war time
4 A. Well, I came on the basis of regular procedure during conflicts
5 or imminent danger of war, when it was customary for the reserve police
6 departments and squads to be made up by the reserve force of the military
7 territorial organs and armed as well. And it used to be a social
8 self-protection, a total social self-protection in Yugoslavia before.
9 Here we see it's a question of military and territorial departments and
10 the reserve police force, and this is determined according to their place
11 of residence, and that was the reason for these reserve police
12 departments to be formed to act as a defensive in the various localities.
13 Q. So, I take it that your answer, if you are going to answer me
14 precisely and directly as to the basis of the statement, is regular
15 procedure during conflict, that is what your source for making the
17 A. No, no.
18 Q. On what basis was that statement made?
19 A. It was a recitive [as interpreted] only, something that remained
20 of the earlier practice applied in all the crisis situations from an era
21 that I experienced and remember. It was stated on the basis of something
22 that used to be a practice, and a direct basis can be found in the rules
23 governing the internal organisation of the MUP, although these are
24 reserve squads which until such point as they are engaged and activated,
25 are not part of the organs of internal affairs. In other words, they are
1 not a component part of them until such time as they are deployed and
3 Q. I'm sorry to have to keep interrupting you, Mr. Milasinovic, but
4 you are an expert supposedly. You can just answer questions. I'm just
5 ask you about the source of the information or the information on which
6 you base the statement. Can I ask you this: When you say that they on
7 general mobilisation the members of the RPOs were assigned to appropriate
8 military and police units, are you saying that the RPOs were disbanded on
9 mobilisation? Or what became of the RPOs, according to you?
10 A. First of all, I proceeded from the factual situation. Secondly,
11 as soon as they are mobilised, they are part of the regular police force.
12 In this particular instance, they are not a component part of the MUP.
13 They are merely a defensive force out in the field. There are active
14 policemen appointed to be in command of them because this was dictated by
15 the situation since these operational pursuit groups, they don't have
16 adequate communication systems, so they needed to be supported by the
17 active police force. They lacked proper communication system between
18 various localities. You will know that in Kosovo Metohija, the
19 atmosphere that prevailed is one that you are well informed of according
20 to security assessments. It was necessary under the circumstances to
21 mount a defensive resistance to the attacks by terrorists and other
22 subversive elements.
23 Q. Mr. Milasinovic --
24 A. In other words, it was a defensive protection accorded to the
25 non-Albanian population.
1 Q. You say that these operational groups did not have adequate
2 communication systems, that was a part of your answer. Were these RPOs
3 operational groups? It's at line 20 -- at page 20, line 8, you said:
4 "There are active policemen appointed to be in command of them
5 because this was dictated by the situation since these operational
6 groups, they don't have adequate communication systems."
7 Were these RPOs operational groups?
8 A. If you are referring to -- no, they were not operational groups.
9 Q. [Overlapping speakers] ...
10 A. They were PJPs, Posebne special units.
11 Q. The RPOs were PJPs?
12 A. The RPOs were part of PJPs, however, the RPO was not a part of
13 operational pursuit groups. If you are referring to operational pursuit
14 groups, then they were part of Special Police Units. In other words,
15 PJPs; whereas, the RPOs did not hold the status of members of the MUP up
16 until the point of their deployment, engagement, or mobilisation into the
17 regular police units.
18 Q. Okay. So you are saying -- I'm reading now what you just said.
19 They were part of the PJPs, however, they were not part of the
20 operational pursuit groups. Who told you this?
21 A. The RPOs were not a part of the regular police units. That's a
22 mistake. I may have misspoken. If I said that, it was a mistake on my
23 part. The reserve police squads are not part of the regular police
24 force. What I thought you were asking me about were operational pursuit
25 groups, operational pursuit squads. I thought you were asking me about
1 the squads of pursuit groups. They were part of the police force, but
2 not the RPOs, the reserve police squads. They had nothing to do with the
3 regular or Special Police unions, and can you please have that corrected
4 because I either misunderstood or misspoke or it was not recorded
6 Q. Let's get back to the statement in your report that the members
7 were assigned to appropriate military police units in accordance with war
8 time assignments on general mobilisation. And the question is this: On
9 general mobilisation, were the RPOs disbanded, or did they remain in
11 A. All the military conscripts would, based on their war time
12 assignments, report either to reserve police units or military police
14 Q. Okay, simple question --
15 A. Now, as to whether they would be disbanded or not, this is a
16 different issue which would depend most probably on the security
17 assessment. The RPOs were comprised armed members of the reserve forces
18 of the military territorial organs and the reserve police force. In the
19 event of mobilisation, they would be deployed to the localities as
20 defined in their war time assignments. And they could simply not, in
21 this sense, be able to operate as reserve police squads in different
23 Q. Now, I'm asking a question again for the third time. Having
24 regard to what you said here, is it that on general mobilisation, the
25 RPOs were disbanded because their members were assigned to the
1 appropriate military or police units, or did the RPOs remain in
3 A. Since it was precisely the individuals who had war time
4 assignments would join -- would be members of the reserve police squad,
5 for this very reason, the RPOs could not remain in existence for the
6 purposes for which they were initially put together. They could not
7 remain in existence because they were composed of military territorial,
8 or rather, the reserve force of the military territorial organs and the
9 reserve police force according to their place of residence. In other
10 words, these were not individuals who arrived from elsewhere. They were
11 locals who were given the possibility of self-defence in the event of an
13 Q. Can you just stick to my questions. This statement that you made
14 in your report, which you said is based on your practical experience, and
15 the statement that you make now, which you say could not remain in
16 existence, I am going to ask what's the basis, on what information do you
17 say that?
18 A. Based on the practice and everything that took place in Kosovo
19 and Metohija.
20 Q. Who informed you of the practice that took place?
21 A. Because I tasked 50 individuals to research this, and they were
22 supervised by their mentor and the president of the commission. They
23 were the ones researching the subject, and these were researchers,
24 scholars who were tasked with providing me with a detailed explanation of
25 the workings of this.
1 Q. You know, it's no where in your report do you tell us that you
2 had these 50 people from state security and military security helping you
3 with your research. You should have told us about this, I put it to you.
4 A. Not from state security, but from the public security department.
5 Most of them came from the public security department, and some of them
6 came from the military and state security department. However, 90 per
7 cent of these individuals were from public security departments at all
8 levels post-graduate, graduate, masters, and doctoral research.
9 Q. That's not the point, Mr. Milasinovic. Don't you think that
10 somewhere in your report you should have informed us that many of these
11 statements, and I represent to you that this report is replete with
12 unsupported statements, don't you think you should have told us that you
13 were receiving information from these sources?
14 A. I could have cited that, but I did not necessarily have to cite
15 everything, all the sources of my knowledge. I also toured there -- the
16 various areas of Kosovo and Metohija, interviewed people, and the
17 interviewees were Albanians, Serbs, and non-Albanians. So I was very
18 familiar with these subjects, and not everything I stated in the report
19 needed to have a footnote.
20 Q. Mr. Milasinovic, you did not tell us also that you toured Kosovo
21 and received information that you put in your report. But when did you
22 tour Kosovo?
23 A. Yes, I toured it in January of 2006 and in 2007. In other words,
24 a year and a half ago. 1998. And so it was in 2008, I'm sorry. And I
25 was in Kosovo in the earlier years as well. In 1992 I was elected a
1 professor at the Kosovo university, so I had dealings there between 1981
2 and 2009.
3 Q. I'm talking about information that you said you put in this
4 report which is unsourced. When did you tour Kosovo? You said you
5 toured Kosovo and interviewed these people in 2006, 2007, 2008. For what
6 purpose? What assignment were you undertaking when you toured Kosovo in
7 2006, 2007, 2008 to interview people?
8 A. It was not a questionnaire that I had or a poll. It was more of
9 a conversation, an interview I held with people about the events in
10 Kosovo during those war time years. It wasn't a real survey. It was
11 merely for me to gain insight into some of these issues that existed out
12 in the field, that existed in reality rather than drawing upon sources
13 which did not fully reflect the events. I'm not saying that either side
14 is right --
15 Q. Mr. Milasinovic --
16 A. My personal principles, all the principles of work ethics would
17 not allow me to take sides.
18 Q. Try to keep your answers short and direct. These tours of Kosovo
19 when you interviewed people, were they for just out of your personal
20 interest as seems to be indicated by your last answer, or were you
21 undertaking an assignment as an employee or representative of anyone?
22 A. No, I wasn't anyone's representative. It was my personal
23 interest in that, and the purpose was to produce a more adequate
25 Q. When were you engaged to do this analysis, this one that you have
1 brought before the Court?
2 A. I think I was engaged roughly 18 months ago. I'm not sure of the
3 exact time. Perhaps 14, 15 months ago.
4 Q. Which year?
5 A. I think it was in 2009 or 2008. I don't remember exactly, and
6 please don't pin me down on any dates because I'm not good on dates. So
7 it was a year and a half ago, roughly. At any rate, before my departure
8 to Kosovo and Metohija.
9 Q. When you were engaged to create this report, had this trial
11 A. The trial had already started. I don't know when exactly I was
12 engaged, but I've been working on the analysis for at least a year. So I
13 had been working for a year roughly, and I must have been engaged earlier
14 on. June of 1999. I went to Kosovo on several occasions, and I know
15 that I went there once I was -- I took up this assignment.
16 Q. Yes, well --
17 A. So 13 or 14 months ago.
18 Q. This trial started last year, 2009, you know. So you are telling
19 us --
20 A. 2009. Which month?
21 Q. I don't recall. But you were telling us that you were going to
22 Kosovo in 2006, 2007, 2008 to interview people for this report.
23 A. That was when I went to Kosovo, but it was only after I took over
24 this assignment of producing the analysis, and that was in January 2009,
25 yes, right. It was the last time I visited Kosovo.
1 MR. STAMP: Okay. Let's look quickly at P771.
2 Q. While it comes up -- while the document comes up I just submit to
3 you -- or not submit, I put to you that you are not correct when you say
4 that these RPOs went out of existence because their members were assigned
5 to the military or police units.
6 This is the minutes of a MUP staff meeting of the 7th of May,
7 1999 after the general mobilisation.
8 MR. STAMP: And if we could look at the last page.
9 Q. The second to last bullet point, and I think you can see from
10 your copy in Serbian that this is General Lukic speaking. He says:
11 "Members of the RPOs must not wear police uniforms, and this must
12 be prohibited immediately except when they have been engaged according to
13 the plan in the reserve police. This must also be applied to military
14 uniforms and ensure that RPO members wear military uniforms only when
15 they are engaged as part of the VJ reserve complement."
16 MR. STAMP: And if we could look at another document. P764.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. As soon as general
18 mobilisation was called, their members were assigned to appropriate
19 military or police units based on their war time assignment. We need to
20 bear this in mind as it is the truth.
21 MR. STAMP: And this is -- these are the minutes of the MUP staff
22 meeting of the 4th of April, 1999. And if we go to page 3 in both
23 English and Serbian.
24 Q. Under item 2, fifth bullet point, Sreten Lukic instructs:
25 "Use ammunition and mines and explosives very rationally and
1 especially draw attention of RPO commanders."
2 Now, having seen those two documents, and let me refer you again
3 to what you said based on your report, this is at page 23, line 5. You
4 said, the RPOs could not -- sorry. Page 22, lines 19 to 21 you said, the
5 RPOs could not remain in existence. That is your evidence here and that
6 is based on this report that is unsourced. Can I ask you, if, according
7 to you the RPOs could not remain in existence after mobilisation, what is
8 General Lukic referring to at these two MUP staff meetings when he speaks
9 about the RPOs and their commanders?
10 A. According to the laws of physics one cannot be in two places at
11 the same time. Those who were mobilised could no longer be members of
12 the RPOs in the place where they were deployed. They were mobilised and
13 therefore had to report to the point of assembly based on their war time
14 assignment, so this would be contrary to the logic and laws of physics.
15 What General Lukic meant when he said this is something that he should be
16 asked about. But it's simply, if someone is mobilised and assigned
17 accordingly, he can only be in that particular location to which he was
18 deployed pursuant to his assignment. There could be armed people left
19 behind who didn't have war time assignments, however, what we see here
20 are individuals who were military conscripts whilst members of the RPOs,
21 but they were at the same time reservists of either the police or the
22 army. You simply can't have one individual in two places at the same
24 Q. Well, that's a conclusion you draw, as you say, on the laws of
25 physics. But you have no explanation as to why after general
1 mobilisation General Lukic, the chief of the staff, would be referring to
2 the RPOs and their commanders and giving instructions with respect to
4 A. I don't know what he meant exactly.
5 Q. Very well.
6 A. He was probably referring to some individuals who stayed behind.
7 I don't know. But it definitely did not refer to what I was talking
8 about, i.e., the RPOs.
9 Q. If we could move on quickly to page 16 of your report. This is
10 another statement that I will represent to you you have not supported,
11 just an unfounded, unsupported statement that you made.
12 MR. STAMP: Page 16 in English and it's -- in B/C/S it's three
13 paragraphs before your section 3.2.
14 Q. Paragraph entitled "Response to Terrorist Acts."
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. It's a short paragraph so I'll just read it in full. Or I'll
17 just start with the second sentence of that paragraph.
18 "In the period starting with the arrival of the Verification
20 the police refrained from anti-terrorist actions and in most cases merely
21 responded to terrorist attacks."
22 This is another, in the context of this case, relatively
23 important statement. On what basis, what was the source of your
24 information to make the statement A, that they were in full compliance
25 with the agreement in respect to the Verification Missions and two, they
1 refrained from anti-terrorist actions and merely responded to terrorist
2 attacks? You have given no citation, you have not told us where you got
3 that information from.
4 A. It was an agreement reached with --
5 Q. No, no, just a minute --
6 A. -- one side, that is to say the Serb side --
7 Q. I don't want you to tell us about verification agreements, that's
8 not what I'm asking you. I just read to you the statement you made and
9 I'm asking you simply, what was the source of the information that you
10 base this statement on?
11 A. The source of information was the knowledge that this was not
12 applied. Through interviews we learned this and general knowledge, that
13 the number of units was reduced and that it was only when there was a
14 specific terrorist attack underway that they responded to that.
15 Q. Stop there. Please don't repeat what you say. The question is
16 source. I take it your source is interviews?
17 A. And the documents.
18 Q. Who did you interview? Start with the interviews. Who told you
20 A. The direct participants told me. They told me that they did not
21 launch anti-terrorist actions after an agreement was reached between the
22 parties and that they withdrew the heavy weapons, reduced the number of
23 units --
24 Q. Mr. Milasinovic --
25 A. And, therefore, did not want to provoke any further incidents in
1 Kosovo, so it stems from the agreement that was respected on all counts.
2 Q. The question again, I remind you I'm asking you about the source
3 of your information. So you say you interviewed the participants, and
4 they told you they were respecting the agreement. Which participants did
5 you interview in order to make this statement?
6 A. I first of all read the agreement and then I went ahead and
7 interviewed quite a number of people. I really can't give you the names
8 now. They were some of my students that were doing specialist training
9 for their MAs, PhDs, and so on that were well versed in those affairs.
10 So there were written documents. I became acquainted with the agreement,
11 and of course then there was practice as well, standard practice and what
12 was done and that testifies to the truth and correctness of this
14 Q. So you can't help us with the names?
15 A. It's based on my personal knowledge, what I personally wrote.
16 Well, I can help you out, but I can't tell you their names, and their
17 papers are found in the faculty for security, and they used customary
18 methodology to establish facts for the commission when defending their MA
19 thesis or PhD thesis, and it was papers written for that period, and this
20 gave me a general insight into the situation in Kosovo and Metohija as
21 well as the interviews I had with people, the people I talked to there
22 concerned in these events.
23 Q. And the next question is going to be, which commission are you
24 speaking of, but I see, Your Honours, that --
25 JUDGE PARKER: Ask that question because if you don't, I was
1 about to.
2 MR. STAMP: But will we take the break or will we proceed?
3 JUDGE PARKER: Ask what the commission is.
4 MR. STAMP:
5 Q. Yes, which commission, for the second or third time you keep
6 referring to, that assisted you in establishing these facts?
7 A. They were scientific and tuitional commissions, teaching
8 commissions assessing the exactness and truthfulness of the facts
9 presented in the MA thesis of the various people and their PhD thesis.
10 MR. STAMP: I wonder if we could take the break, and I could
11 consider whether I should follow it up.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. And there was a reference earlier to the
13 president of the commission, which I think needs to be identified as
14 well. But we will have our first break now and resume at five minutes
15 past 11.00.
16 [The witness stands down]
17 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.
18 --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.
19 [The witness takes the stand]
20 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Stamp.
21 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honours.
22 Q. Mr. Milasinovic, very quickly if we can, you said you had --
23 there were some persons, possibly 50 engaged in research assisting you in
24 setting the facts, and they were in a commission. Who was the president
25 of this commission?
1 A. In most cases I was the president of the commission, a member of
2 the commission, or one of the mentors. It was the political science
3 faculty, the police academy, and crime institute and so on.
4 Q. So there was a commission set up that was staffed or that
5 included members from those three bodies that you have mentioned. When
6 was this commission set up?
7 A. The commission was -- well, actually, it was an ad hoc
8 commission, and commissions linked to a special problem. They were
9 scientific commissions, the faculties proposed commissions, and a council
10 of experts of the university in Belgrade
11 professional council in Belgrade
12 faculties of the Belgrade
13 Q. I'm speaking about the commissions that were set up in respect to
14 your evidence. You said that you had information that you received from
15 50 persons that you tasked who were members of these commissions. When
16 was the commission in respect to your evidence first set up?
17 A. They were different commissions made up of the best people in the
18 field of terrorism and anti-terrorism in the country. They were ad hoc
19 commissions. It wasn't just one commission. They were ad hoc
20 commissions set up, and for every candidate that was a separate
21 commission, but I am just referring to the commissions in which I was at
22 one time the president, a member, or a mentor of the commission. And
23 they are different degrees of education. MA studies, PhD studies and so
25 Q. I see. Let's turn to your report where we last left off. We
1 were at page 16 where you said the police refrain from anti-terrorist
2 actions in full compliance with the agreement and in most cases may have
3 responded to terrorist attacks.
4 MR. STAMP: Can we have a look at P689.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And the reference for my version is
7 MR. STAMP:
8 Q. This was the last part of your report that we were discussing.
9 This is the third to last paragraph before your section 3.2 where you
11 "In the period starting with the arrival of the Verification
13 the police refrain from anti-terrorist actions."
14 It's on page 16 in the English version. I want to show you,
15 Mr. Milasinovic, a document which reflects or in which a record was taken
16 of a MUP staff meeting.
17 MR. STAMP: Could we move to the next page, please. MUP staff
18 meeting on the 2nd of December in Pristina. I think we should move to
19 the third page.
20 Q. You can see here it's dated the 2nd of December.
21 A. Yes, that's right. It's the minutes from the staff meeting,
22 staff members meeting.
23 Q. If you look at the paragraph -- the first paragraph after it
24 says, "the meeting commenced at 1100 hours." In it Major General Lukic
25 briefed the participants on a meeting held in Belgrade by the minister of
1 interior attended by the minister, the chiefs of the departments in which
2 the current security situation in Kosovo was examined and which the
3 duties and further engagement of members of the police of Kosovo were
4 defined. The essence of the meeting was a continued execution of
5 anti-terrorist actions aimed at suppressing terrorism in Kosovo and that
6 in this regard, the police will be more offensive in taking measures in
7 the newly arisen situation.
8 Having regard to the contemporary record of what the head of the
9 MUP staff was saying at that time, would you now agree with me that your
10 statement in your report based on this information you gathered from your
11 researchers that the police refrained from anti-terrorist actions in that
12 period is not correct?
13 A. What I'm saying is -- well, what I said is correct for the simple
14 reason that concrete terrorist activities were reacted to so it was
15 linked, any action was linked to concrete terrorist action, reaction to
16 specific anti-terrorist actions, not broader operations on general
17 anti-terrorist activities. And this, probably although I can't comment
18 the statement made by the general, by General Sreten Lukic, but anyway, I
19 can't say what he was specifically referring to, but certainly you cannot
20 draw the conclusion that after the agreement actions could be
21 intensified, so that's not true, they weren't intensified.
22 Q. But you are saying the police refrained from anti-terrorist
23 actions. That doesn't square up with the contemporary record.
24 A. Well, they refrained from carrying out planned actions
25 undertaking the kind of actions that they had undertaken previously. But
1 they reacted to concrete terrorist actions, so there wasn't any planning.
2 It wasn't a planned anti-terrorist action. It was -- it just stated that
3 they needed to intensify standing up and reacting to concrete specific
4 terrorist acts, that's my understanding of this. And to be quite frank,
5 perhaps General Lukic had something else in mind as well when he said
7 Q. The thing is, Mr. Milasinovic, is that you weren't there at the
8 time and you make these sweeping statements without giving us a source of
9 this information except that it is composed of research personnel. Did
10 you see this document before? Have you ever seen this document before?
11 A. I have seen all the documents before, and I interpret them in a
12 way that corresponds to the actual facts, and the facts are that there
13 was no planning of anti-terrorist activities because a war conflict was
14 expected, or rather, an aggression. So nobody in their right mind would
15 have been able to undertake any widespread activities across the board in
16 quantitative terms because certain forces were withdrawn as were weapons
17 and everything else that was linked to broad anti-terrorist operations.
18 I know that for a fact, and I became aware of it based on many documents
19 speaking to the issue, and also what was done on the ground with the
20 forces, police forces, the police forces of Serbia.
21 Q. You must have heard of the Racak anti-terrorist action. Was that
22 one planned, or was it not planned?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. It was planned?
25 A. Terrorist activities on the part of the terrorist organisations
1 and groups and individuals in Kosovo and Metohija were intensified
2 precisely after the arrival of the Verification Commission in October.
3 So as to Racak, yes, I didn't deal with Racak separately in my analysis,
4 and that can be seen from the analysis itself. So that I can't talk
5 about Racak.
6 Q. You also say at page 32 of your report that the MUP staff did not
7 inform the headquarters about anti-terrorist actions. We could keep the
8 document here, but if you could look at page 32 of the report, if you
9 could look at the last paragraph of part 2 of your report.
10 A. Page 32, did you say?
11 Q. No, no, that's the page in English. I'm telling you in Serbian
12 it's the last paragraph of part 2, paragraph --
13 A. What page is that?
14 Q. The paragraph immediately before part 3 begins.
15 A. But what page is it in Serbian, please?
16 Q. I'm afraid I can't assist you. I was using your numbering
17 system, your system of marking it. Mr. Milasinovic, you have part 3 in
18 your report, can't you find that?
19 A. I see, part 3. Status, rights, and responsibilities of MUP
20 personnel. Are you referring to part 3, page 32, the status, rights, and
21 responsibilities of MUP personnel; is that what you are referring to?
22 Q. No, I'm referring to the paragraph immediately before that
23 begins. The last paragraph in part 2. And it's page 31 in Serbian. You
24 say here the secretariats of Kosovo --
25 A. I see, yes.
1 Q. You say here that the secretariats in Kosovo and Metohija and the
2 MUP staff did not inform the MUP on a daily basis about these events, and
3 the events we are talking about is anti-terrorist actions. This
4 statement you made that the MUP headquarters was not informed, again, can
5 I take it that you received this information from the research of this
6 commission, because I don't see the basis on which you make this
7 statement cited here?
8 The question is, what was the source of this statement that the
9 MUP staff headquarters were not informed of the anti-terrorist actions?
10 A. The secretariat of the interior on the territory of Kosovo
11 Metohija and the centres of the public security sectors, the staff which
12 was established by the minister was informed about the issues set out
13 here, but it was not -- but the Ministry of the Interior was not
14 informed. So only the minister of the interior could have been informed
15 by the Chief of Staff for anti-terrorist action in Kosovo and Metohija.
16 Nobody else.
17 Q. You are repeating, Mr. Milasinovic. I have to stop you. You are
18 repeating what you said in evidence before and what you have said in the
19 report. I'm pointing you now to this specific part of the report and
20 asking you, what is the source or the basis for making this statement?
21 A. The source is to be found in the documents. Whether staff makes
22 it incumbent upon the secretariats and centres to supply them alone with
23 reports on terrorist activities that were planned and carried out and the
24 planned and carried out anti-terrorist actions their results and
25 consequences and the movements of police units in Kosovo and Metohija as
1 well as the secretariats in Kosovo and Metohija and the MUP staff, they
2 were -- they did not send daily reports to the MUP. So it's based on the
3 document which the staff forwarded to the secretariats of the Internal
4 Affairs and centres and ordered them to inform the staff and not anybody
5 in the Ministry of the Interior or the analysis department.
6 Here we have a dispatch about SUP mentioned in Kosovska
7 Mitrovica, and then an act, a document of the staff dating back to 1998,
8 the 21st of October, section B, the dispatch on Kosovska Mitrovica. If
9 you turn to the previous page, you will see the sources and basis for
10 that assertion.
11 Q. Which document --
12 A. They are to be found set out there --
13 Q. Mr. Milasinovic -- listen to my question.
14 A. Document number 12, staff document number 12.
15 Q. You are saying that this document stated that the Ministry of the
16 Interior --
17 A. It is a document issued by the staff.
18 Q. The question is, which document states that the Ministry of
19 Interior headquarters was not to be informed?
20 A. The decision establishing the staff sets out only the reporting
21 between the staff and the minister himself. He set it out this way
22 because he drafted the document.
23 Now, in a separate document of the staff issued to -- it is a
24 ministry decision establishing the staff which sets out that the staff is
25 directly responsible to the minister and that it should report directly
1 to him outside of the regular reporting system save for the routine
2 matters. Everything that had to do with anti-terrorist documents --
3 anti-terrorist activities with plans for anti-terrorist activities, none
4 of these were sent elsewhere unless they also had items referring to
5 routine events outside of the scope of work of the MUP staff.
6 These were reports sent up the hierarchy of the ministry, but
7 this sort of reports were kept by the staff. I'm telling you matters
8 that I drew upon in these various documents and on the basis of which I
9 made these inferences. If you look at these documents, you will see that
10 the reporting on the planned anti-terrorist activities does not include
11 as the receiver anyone other than the minister himself. No one else in
12 the ministry including the analysis department and various other
13 departments are included in this reporting system which would otherwise
14 of course have been included on all the other issues.
15 Q. Mr. Milasinovic, we won't have time to go through these reports
16 that went up. But I represent to you that the reports of the MUP staff
17 went to the minister and to the chief of the department. Are you not
18 aware of that? Just answer, please, are you aware that there were
19 reports that went to the minister as well as the chief of the department
20 and these reports were from the MUP staff?
21 A. These reports were not sent to the chief of the department and
22 the minister, rather, a special direct vertical reporting channel was set
23 up. You see, the communication between the minister and the chief could
24 also be verbal. In these documents, however, you can't see anything
25 testifying to that. Now, how the minister would receive reports from the
1 staff is something that should be determined by the minister himself.
2 Q. Mr. Milasinovic --
3 A. This is a bilateral reporting system. I saw reports sent to the
4 minister. In none of these reports did I observe that on these
5 anti-terrorist or planned activities the chief of the public security
6 department was informed to. I did not come across any such documents or
7 any such information that would indicate that the chief of the public
8 security department was informed of matters related to anti-terrorist
9 planning and activities in Kosovo and Metohija.
10 Q. Well, look at this document in front of you again. Here we have
11 the chief of the department and the minister, among others, setting
12 policy, it would seem. The current situation in Kosovo was examined in
13 the meeting in which the duties and further engagement of members of the
14 police were defined. How could Mr. Djordjevic be involved in defining
15 the duties of members of the police in anti-terrorist actions without
16 being informed about the anti-terrorist actions that they were to be
17 involved in?
18 A. General Djordjevic performed the duty of the chief of the public
19 security department. He carried out tasks that fell within that remit.
20 The tasks of suppressing terrorism were outside of his jurisdiction. To
21 put it simply, his role lay more in the field of logistics and logistical
22 support. These were technical and to a certain extent material issues
23 which had to do with the regular activities across the territory of the
24 republic including Kosovo and Metohija save for the duties that were
25 conferred upon the staff for the suppression of terrorism in Kosovo and
2 This is the situation as it was de facto and de jure.
3 Q. Well, it is really for the court to determine the situation based
4 on the evidence. You have received information from sources we can't
5 identify. But coming back to my question.
6 A. Absolutely.
7 Q. Mr. Lukic here is saying that Mr. Djordjevic is involved in
8 defining the engagement of the MUP forces in anti-terrorist operations in
10 engagement of the MUP forces in anti-terrorist operations without
11 receiving information about the anti-terrorist operations?
12 A. Well, I said this for the simple reason because none of the
13 documents evidenced that he was informed of these activities. He could
14 have been informed of certain situations at meetings, but his role had
15 nothing to do with this specific chain of command which he was outside
16 of, and that applied to the head of the state security department too.
17 We had this direct line to the minister who defined that the dealings
18 were to be organised in that manner. So his role was asymmetrical.
19 Q. You keep repeating --
20 A. It's not that I'm defending the gentleman. I'm merely setting
21 out assertions based on the documents and the research I conducted in
22 this field.
23 Q. You seem to refuse to answer my question. Let me ask you this
24 then: Having seen this document --
25 A. Can you repeat the question then if I'm -- misunderstood it.
1 Q. I've asked it three times, we don't have time for that. I'll ask
2 you another one. Having seen this document, if you assume that what
3 General Lukic reported here is true, would you now agree that General
4 Djordjevic, on the basis of this, must have been informed about the
5 anti-terrorist operations in Kosovo if he was involved in defining the
6 task for the engagement?
7 A. This isn't true. He could only have been involved in logistics
8 and certainly not in a matter which was precisely defined or specifically
9 defined in the decision on the establishment.
10 Q. That is your answer, very well. Let's look at the decision on
11 the establishment, P57.
12 MR. STAMP: If we could move to that document.
13 Q. And you treat that document in your report at section 3.1 which
14 begins at page 26 in the English version, but it's section 3.1.
15 A. Page 26.
16 Q. Should be page 26 in Serbian but --
17 A. Tasks of the staff.
18 Q. But -- or page 27 in Serbian. It's the section that you numbered
19 3 .2. That's the beginning of the part where you treat on this document,
20 where you discuss this document. You told us that you base your
21 conclusions on what -- or may I just put this as a question. Your
22 conclusions that anti-terrorist police activities in Kosovo was outside
23 of the sphere of Mr. Djordjevic after this decision was made or issued,
24 and I think you told us that you based it on this document. In the third
25 to last paragraph of this section of your report, section that you number
1 3.2, the third to last paragraph, and this is on page 29 in English, the
2 second paragraph beginning on that page. You say:
3 "As regards the staff for prevention of terrorism and its
4 purview, the RJP chief according to the minister's decision retained
5 jurisdiction only in the sphere of expert and administrative logistic
6 support to the staff and the units engaged in performance of the task."
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Retained jurisdiction only in the sphere of expert support. What
9 does expert support mean?
10 A. In the sphere of expert or professional and administrative
11 logistic support to the staff and the units engaged --
12 Q. Sorry --
13 A. Yes. Well, expert in the sense that it can, in specific
14 situations and not based on the competences it may have in relation to
15 the anti-terrorist staff, rather to provide opinions on specific
16 situations and problems related to the broader security related matters
17 across the republic. It is important for the staff to be well aware of
18 the activities taking place across the Republic of Serbia
19 support was largely logistic and expert in the sense if someone had to be
20 replaced or someone had to be dispatched or someone who is sick may be
21 replaced because these may also have been individuals who were sent there
22 on specific assignments given by the minister.
23 Q. The question dealt, Mr. Milasinovic, only about what was this
24 expert report, and I see your answer. You are saying that --
25 A. Expert and administrative support. You cannot have one without
1 the other. It falls under the same category. Or rather these two terms
2 fall into the same category, expert and administrative logistic support.
3 Q. Now, you say "he retained jurisdiction only in the sphere of
4 expert and administrative logistic support to the staff and units engaged
5 in the performance of the task." And you said "according to the
6 minister's decision." Where in the minister's decision, where in the
7 minister's decision can we see --
8 A. This isn't stated in the decision.
9 Q. So when you write in your report that according to the minister's
10 decision, the RJB chief retained jurisdiction, only the sphere of expert
11 and administration and logistic support to the staff and units engaged in
12 the performance of the task, you are actually misrepresenting what is in
13 the minister's decision, aren't you?
14 A. I am not misrepresenting it, rather I am attaching it to his
15 broader powers stemming from the rules governing the internal
16 organisation of the MUP and the minister's authority to issue his
17 assistance with tasks although these individuals were elected by the
18 government on the minister's proposal. It is the minister who defines
19 the tasks that these individuals are to carry out, but based on his
20 order. They could not have done this individually or independently
21 without his knowledge.
22 Therefore, the documents cannot be seen outside of the context
23 into which they fit. Legally speaking, they must stem one from the other
24 and that's to say the specific ones arise from the general ones or there
25 may even be general ones arising from special ones, and we can see here
1 that it says technical material and various other activities, and, of
2 course, they need to be accompanied by experts. Of course, this doesn't
3 go to say that an individual cannot at the same time be an expert for the
4 suppression of terrorism and other matters. We see that the other
5 assistants were also given their respective fields of expertise and in
6 this way, the jurisdiction or the competence of the head of the public
7 security department was reduced.
8 Q. I'll ask you again, please just stick to what I ask you. You
9 have given us a lot of information again and again without focusing on
10 what I ask you.
11 This decision, when was the first time you saw this decision?
12 A. I don't remember exactly, but I did see it.
13 Q. Was the first time that you saw this decision during the time
14 when you were preparing this report?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So in your previous examinations of the management of the
17 organisation of the MUP, you never saw this report. Question withdrawn.
18 That is obvious.
19 Mr. Lukic was the chief of the staff according to this report.
20 I'd like to show you something he said and ask you about it.
21 MR. STAMP: If we could look at P -- sorry not P, document 00948.
22 That's the 65 ter number. It may be more convenient if we look at P1507.
23 I think the relevant passage had been extracted because the previous
24 document I referred to, the document of some 200 pages, and I'm only
25 interested in one page which was extracted in document MFI P1607 -- 1507.
1 If we scroll to the ...
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I please be given this document
3 in the Serbian language.
4 MR. STAMP:
5 Q. This is the interview of Mr. Lukic in 2002, and it was done with
6 a translator, so you have both the Serbian there and the English there.
7 I wanted to look at the last or at the bottom of the page where Mr. Lukic
8 is asked about who had primacy in respect --
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Who was giving instructions in respect to the use of the special
11 units. He said -- before I read that --
12 MR. STAMP: Your Honours, I just wish to read this part to the
13 witness. I know before this with ordinary witnesses, the Court had
14 indicated that perhaps it could only be shown the document and not be
15 read to them. I think this is an expert witness and he is entitled to
16 give opinions and therefore we could --
17 JUDGE PARKER: There are two quite distinct issues. The first is
18 whether you can read the document given that it is in English, and I
19 think inevitably you must and have it interpreted for the witness. A
20 quite separate issue is whether there would be any -- perhaps I needn't
21 spend time on that now, it may not arise, but you mentioned both issues.
22 We'll just deal with this. Read the passage to which you wish the
23 witness to direct his attention.
24 MR. STAMP:
25 Q. You will see, Mr. Milasinovic, that Mr. Lukic --
1 JUDGE PARKER: I'm sorry, is not there B/C/S as well?
2 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Well, what's the problem then?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation], yes, yes.
5 MR. STAMP: I would like to read the part I want the witness to
6 focus on.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
8 MR. STAMP:
9 Q. Mr. Lukic in answering questions about what primacy in respect to
10 these anti-terrorist operations said:
11 "Effectively, from mid-July until the end of September or
12 beginning of October, the chief of the department, Mr. Djordjevic and
13 Obrad Stevanovic, the assistant minister and commander of the special
14 units, were with me constantly in Pristina."
15 Note he is being asked about who had primacy as a leader.
16 MR. STAMP: If we move to the next page.
17 Q. He continues:
18 "In the hierarchy, they are by all means above the head of staff
19 because they are at the same time ... they are also assistant
20 ministers ..." Mr. Lukic here is indicating that as far as work was
21 concerned in those months in Kosovo, July, August, September, October
22 Mr. Djordjevic was there with him, Mr. Stevanovic was there with him, and
23 in the hierarchy they were above him. Having regard to what you --
24 listen to the question.
25 A. This isn't correct. Very well.
1 Q. Are you saying Mr. Lukic -- well, listen to the question. Having
2 regard to what Mr. Lukic has said here, would you not agree with me that
3 even after the minister issued this order, the previous order we spoke of
4 on the 12th of June, the superior subordinate relationship between
5 Mr. Djordjevic and Mr. Lukic in respect to activities in Kosovo still
7 A. I would not agree at all because pursuant to lex specialis, the
8 primacy was given over the ordinary hierarchy because there was no
9 relationship between Mr. Lukic -- direct relationship between Mr. Lukic
10 and the minister of the interior. So I would not agree. It's not true.
11 MR. STAMP: Counsel, Your Honour, I think he indicates that he
12 has to say something, so may I just ask that we be careful in what we say
13 in the presence of the witness.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Very careful, Mr. Djurdjic.
15 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Absolutely, Your Honour.
16 Mr. Stamp read it out correctly, but in line 47 or page 47, line 15, it
17 says beginning with October, whereas Mr. Stamp read it out correctly, it
18 says until the end of September or from mid-July to the end of September
19 in Pristina and not October as it was recorded in the transcript.
20 JUDGE PARKER: What appears is end of September, beginning of
22 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
24 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Not October, no.
25 MR. STAMP:
1 Q. Well, just so that we can see it again. Could we return to the
2 previous page.
3 From mid-July until the end of September or beginning of October.
4 That is what Mr. Lukic was referring to. You said earlier when I asked
5 you about this, that that is not correct. Are you saying that what
6 Mr. Lukic said here is not true?
7 A. If that refers to September, or rather, October 1998, I didn't
8 see the date properly. May I see the year? If that's the year, then
9 that's not correct.
10 Q. Yes, it's referring to 1998. You are saying that what Mr. Lukic
11 is say something not correct?
12 A. Not correct, no.
13 Q. Now, you are making some interpretations on the basis of this
14 document, this one-page decision of the minister that you read for the
15 first time when you got involved in this case, and you are saying that
16 it's on the basis of this document that you are reading, that you read,
17 that you are saying that Mr. Lukic misrepresented the command
18 relationship between himself and Mr. Djordjevic?
19 A. After the establishment of the staff, it was a mistake. It
20 wasn't the proper relationship and right up to the formation of the staff
21 for anti-terrorism, the contents were quite different and the
22 relationship was quite different in the chain of command. Up until the
23 16th was one case, 1998, the 6th of June when staff was established, the
24 ministry for anti-terrorism in Kosovo and Metohija, and it's quite a
25 different matter the hierarchical setup and chain of command was quite
1 different up until the abolishment of the staff as of the 15th of May,
2 1998. So the situation was different from the 15th of May to the 16th of
3 June, 1998 and different again, a different chain of command after that
4 date, or rather, after the establishment of the staff with the members it
5 had as of the 31st of December, I believe, 1998.
6 Q. Mr. Milasinovic, apart from the minister's decision of June 1998,
7 what information -- and I'd ask you to try to tell us where the
8 information comes from, do you have in respect to the command
9 relationship between Mr. Lukic and Mr. Djordjevic in the latter part of
10 1998 which entitles you to say that Mr. Lukic is not truthful?
11 A. There is a decision on the establishment of the staff for
12 suppressing terrorism.
13 Q. Apart from that --
14 A. Dating 1998.
15 Q. Mr. Milasinovic --
16 A. In June.
17 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't probably ask the question clearly enough. I
18 said, apart from that decision, what information do you have and what is
19 the source of that information in respect to the defacto relationship,
20 command relationship between Mr. Djordjevic and Mr. Lukic in the latter
21 part of 1998?
22 A. In the latter part of 1998 as the source I have the decision from
23 the minister and from that decision and in that decision, you can see
24 everything relating to the various competencies, deployment information
25 and so on.
1 Q. Mr. Milasinovic, the decision is just a little bit more than a
2 page, and I represent to you, we can't reread it in court, that there's
3 nothing in the decision which takes away any authority from
4 Mr. Djordjevic. My question is, leaving the decision aside, what is your
5 information about the actual reality of the command relationship between
6 Mr. Djordjevic and Mr. Lukic in July, August, September, October 1998?
7 A. The Law on Internal Affairs for one. In Article 7, giving the
8 minister the right to organise, as he sees fit, all the organisational
9 bodies in the Ministry of the Interior.
10 Q. Very well, that is your answer.
11 MR. STAMP: Could we look at P886.
12 Q. While that is coming up, since you've done research in the
13 management and command relationships in the MUP, can you tell us, if you
14 know of any reason, why Mr. Lukic would misrepresent the reality that
15 Mr. Djordjevic was his superior in those months?
16 A. I don't understand his reasons. And I don't want to speculate.
17 Q. Very well.
18 MR. STAMP: This document, Your Honours, I must admit and I think
19 that is why I now see counsel on his feet, was not notified. I just
20 realised that, but I only want to use one line of it, actually.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic.
22 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Well, my learned friend Mr. Stamp
23 has already said that this document wasn't on the list as a document that
24 would be used during the testimony of this expert witness, nor was the
25 Defence informed of it, and Mr. Stamp has just explained it and said it,
1 so I don't think it would be in order to use the document, especially if
2 we bear in mind the fact that -- if we bear in mind the analysis of this
3 expert witness who didn't mention it at all.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Stamp, until we see the document, we can't
5 make a decision as to the degree of unfairness that might arise if the
6 document were used. So if you -- if the document could be brought up and
7 you identify the passage, we will then be able to come to a decision.
8 MR. STAMP: This is P886. It's the minutes of a meeting of the
9 Kosovo and Metohija Joint Command. And if we could move to page 19 in
10 both English and B/C/S. A meeting of the 29th of July, 1998, some six
11 weeks or more after the decision of the minister in which we see
12 Mr. Djordjevic present along with General Pavkovic and Mr. Matkovic. And
13 if we could scroll down to the bottom of the page in both English and
14 B/C/S, the third bullet point of what General Lukic says at this meeting,
15 and it says:
16 "The unit did not leave Orahovac as ordered by General
18 JUDGE PARKER: We don't have that on the screen.
19 MR. STAMP: The last line.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
21 MR. STAMP: And that is the only thing I want to ask him about,
22 that line. That statement.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber is of the view, Mr. Djurdjic, that
25 even though the procedural rule has not been complied with, the document
1 is one which you have already had significant general knowledge, and the
2 reference is of such a specific and limited type that it would be
3 possible for you to deal with the matter in re-examination without
5 So please carry on, Mr. Stamp.
6 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Your Honours.
7 Q. Mr. Milasinovic, can you tell us on what basis could General
8 Djordjevic be issuing orders in respect to the engagement of units in
9 this context?
10 A. This is the first time that I'm seeing this document so I can't
11 really comment on it, and I don't see the document in which General
12 Djordjevic issued the order with respect to some anti-terrorist action.
13 So I don't see either of those documents. Nor was I shown any document,
14 for that matter, in which he issues an order on the planning or
15 undertaking of anti-terrorist measures. If such a document exist, could
16 you show it to me so that I can read it and see whether I can comment on
17 it or not. But like this, I can't say anything either way, I don't know
18 what it's about.
19 Q. General Lukic is here saying that the unit did not leave Orahovac
20 as ordered by General Djordjevic, and this is the 27th of July. 29th of
21 July, 1998. As an expert, can you just accept the hypothesis that this
22 is an accurate record of what General Lukic said, and assuming that
23 General Lukic said this, can you tell us as an expert on what basis could
24 General Djordjevic be issuing these orders in Kosovo at that time?
25 A. First of all, I can't comment on this because, as I said, I don't
1 know what specific decision it was, and I think that you should ask
2 General Lukic what he had in mind, what document he was referring to, how
3 the order was issued, on what basis, because none of that is visible
4 here. It's free interpretation, or the story of somebody who was there.
5 But how could I know what the basis for this is. Show me the document
6 relating to General Djordjevic's order that he did this vis-a-vis General
7 Lukic. How am I expected to know that? Either as an expert or as an
8 ordinary witness, or however, if I wasn't there and if I didn't have the
9 documents to look at.
10 Q. I'm just -- I'm asking this question --
11 A. I'm unable to comment.
12 Q. Can you then, Mr. Milasinovic, Mr. Milasinovic --
13 A. It's just a statement. You can't see who or when.
14 Q. Mr. Milasinovic, are you able to tell us what was the Joint
15 Command in Kosovo?
16 A. Since during my career for six and a half years I taught the
17 subject of the history of warfare, in no textbook or document did I ever
18 come across this term "Joint Command." There are associated commands,
19 but this Joint Command, what that means, I never came across it in any
20 encyclopaedia or dictionary, nor do I know what this term "Joint Command"
21 means. It's a phrase that has been put together and of all the people
22 that I've consulted, none of them were able to explain to me what it
23 means. And I consulted professors at the military academy, and they said
24 that this was the first time that they had encountered the term, and to
25 be quite frank, it's the first time I encountered it. It doesn't exist
1 in the literature, it doesn't exist in any lexicon explaining what this
2 term "Joint Command" could mean. Associated command is another matter in
3 military terms, but Joint Command, that's the first time the history of
4 warfare has encountered this or the history of conflicts. I am a
5 conflictologist myself, and I asked professors of conflictology what this
6 meant, but they couldn't explain it to me, none of them knew.
7 Q. Quite a lot of information. Can't focus on all of it, but
8 there's one that is interesting. You said you never saw any document
9 with the expression "Joint Command." The question is this: In
10 preparation for this case, did you not see many documents or orders
11 issued by the Joint Command for Kosovo and Metohija?
12 A. Well, I saw dozens of documents in which mention is made of the
13 Joint Command, but I was not able to understand the substance of the
15 Q. Weren't you aware that the Joint Command was a body that at the
16 minimum involved co-ordination and sharing information in respect to
17 joint MUP VJ action in Kosovo? Were you not aware of that?
18 A. I was speaking about the semantics of the term "Joint Command,"
19 but I did see that that name was used. Now, what it meant in concrete
20 terms, well, it can be a matter of different interpretation and
21 assumptions, but you can't have a professional or scientific or scholarly
22 explanation of the term, just a free interpretation based on, well, who,
23 what, where, when, how, et cetera, it doesn't answer any of that.
24 Q. Well, in your preparation and your previous years of research in
25 the management of the MUP in Kosovo and Metohija, did you not become
1 aware of meetings involving senior police personnel including General
2 Lukic and General Djordjevic, as well as senior political leaders and
3 military leaders, and these meetings were referred to as the Joint
4 Command. You did not become aware of these meetings?
5 A. Well, I read about it, but there's no scientific explanation,
6 because quite simply, they use names and terms which did not imply any
7 strict clear-cut hierarchy and division of labour in performing command
8 activities, and it's just some sort of nonsense which I wasn't able to
9 understand clearly enough, so I don't want to comment further.
10 Q. No, but I wish to ask you some questions about this because --
11 A. By giving a layman's view.
12 Q. But -- no, but you say you are an expert and even Mr. Djordjevic
13 testified, I'm representing to you, even Mr. Djordjevic testified that he
14 attended these meetings. And there's a lot of evidence on this. In your
15 expertise, did you become aware that decisions in respect to
16 anti-terrorist operations were made at these meetings?
17 A. My job was not to deal with that so-called Joint Command and
18 nowhere do I mention it in my expert report. And quite simply, I didn't
19 understand the term and concept of Joint Command. I could make
20 assumptions and speculations, but I didn't want to delve in that. So
21 neither in the functional sense or real sense -- well, if you give the
22 wrong name to someone, then let's put it this way: A mouse can't be an
23 elephant and an elephant can't be a mouse. You can't have an individual
24 being a group and a group being an individual. I don't know if you are
25 following my line of thought. I apologise if you weren't able to
1 understand me, but that's what I have to say.
2 Q. Did you become aware that at these meetings, which were attended
3 by the leadership of the police, among others, decisions were made in
4 respect to anti-terrorist operation in Kosovo? Very simple question.
5 A. I saw that talks were held, but anything specific with respect to
6 orders, no, I didn't see that. Maybe I didn't remember it, but I didn't
7 deal with things like that. I did not focus on them, and you will not
8 find it anywhere in my analysis.
9 Q. Very well. I think we could move on. You say at page 21 of your
10 report, or at page 21 in English, and that is by your numbering system
11 the first section of paragraph 2. You said that: "The relationship
12 between the higher and lower level officers in charge in the MUP were set
13 up in such a way that each lower level officer in charge had only one
14 immediate superior who could issue orders to him, the single authority
15 principle. The minister was the only immediate superior of the
16 department, chiefs, assistant ministers, and officers in charge of
17 organisational units that were not part of the departments and of no one
18 else. Consequently, the RJB chief was the only immediate superior of
19 administrative chiefs in the MUP headquarters and of SUP chiefs and of no
20 one else."
21 Weren't some of these administrations, that is the organisational
22 units at the ministry that are described as administrations, weren't they
23 headed by assistant ministers?
24 A. No, they weren't, for the simple reason that with the division of
25 labour and the principle of the singleness of command, it was determined
1 that according to territorial organisational units and the chains, for
2 example, the chief of a department had his superior only in the head of
3 the public security department. Similarly, the secretary of Internal
4 Affairs, his superior was the chief of the public security department,
5 the chief of the public security department had the minister above him.
6 So that was the upward chain. And except if there's a proposal from the
7 minister saying who would perform which function, there the assistant
8 ministers were equal because they covered different areas.
9 Q. Can I ask the question again?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And I see you have answered it. The question was, weren't some
12 of these administrations, that is the organisational units at the
13 ministry that are described as administrations, weren't they headed by
14 assistant ministers, and you say, no, they weren't. I just -- I'm going
15 to --
16 A. All they had was the assistant to the minister who covered down
17 the chain on assignment the minister of that administration. In that
18 case, yes, because the distribution of labour between the assistant
19 ministers was such that part of the public --
20 Q. Is it yes or no? Weren't some of these administrations at the
21 seat of the ministry headed by assistant ministers?
22 A. Yes. Only if --
23 Q. So when you say -- so please listen to my question because time
24 is limited. So in respect to those administrations at the seat of the
25 ministry that were headed by assistant ministers, these assistant
1 ministers would be the subordinates to Mr. Djordjevic, would they not?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Very well. You say, and I will read what you say in the report
4 again. "The RJB chief was the only immediate superior of administration
5 chiefs in the MUP headquarters." And you just agreed with me that some
6 of these administration chiefs were also assistant ministers. So come
8 A. No, I didn't mean administrations. I was referring to the scope
9 of activity within his competence. Now, chiefs of administrations were
10 linked to the chief of the public security department as far as the
11 public security department is concerned. Now, both the public security
12 and state security departments had as their superior only the minister.
13 In other words, assistants did not have superior subordinate relationship
14 in relation to the chiefs of administrations that were headquartered
15 where the headquarters of the department was, but the minister could
16 define certain powers for assistant ministers to perform certain tasks on
17 his order. I am stating something that is an assumption. However, the
18 prevailing principle governing such situation was that of singleness of
20 MR. STAMP: Let's look quickly at P263.
21 Q. I just want to ask you the question again because I don't, to be
22 honest, follow your answer. Weren't some of the administrations at the
23 seat of the ministry headed by assistant ministers? Your answer was
24 first no and it become yes, and I'm asking you a third time because it
25 now becomes quite confused on the basis of your last answer.
1 A. Please, they had the assistant minister as their superior in the
2 capacity of the chief of the public security department because the chief
3 of the public security department was an assistant minister. Am I making
4 myself clear now? Because when you say assistant minister, I'm
5 immediately thinking about the capacity that was also held by the chief
6 of the public security department.
7 Q. Okay. This is the order --
8 A. You see, an assistant minister can be Janko, Marko, and Dick, Tom
9 and Harry, but you have to tell me which assistant minister you are
10 referring to, or are you referring to all of the assistant ministers? So
11 we have to make sure that we are talking about an assistant minister or
12 ministers -- assistant ministers.
13 Q. The document in front of you, Mr. Milasinovic, is a directive of
14 the minister of the 4th of June, 1997, setting out the responsibilities
15 of his assistant ministers, of the assistant ministers. He begins by
16 indicating that the chief of the public security department is
17 Lieutenant-General Djordjevic and then he assigns various fields or
18 administrations to his several assistant ministers. I'll ask you the
19 question a fourth time. Were some of these administrations not headed by
20 assistant ministers?
21 A. This relates to assistant ministers who were empowered -- I'm not
22 sure which paragraph you are referring to. Can you direct me to it so I
23 can read it.
24 Q. Look at the screen, the screen in front of you.
25 A. Sorry.
1 Q. The question, were some of the administrations at the seat of the
2 ministry in Belgrade
3 A. All the organisational units were under minister's command, and
4 it was the minister who distributed the various tasks in the rules
5 governing the work of the ministry in relation to his assistants, that's
6 what I can tell you. So you can see that Major-General Petar Zekovic was
7 charged with the tasks falling within the remit of the administration for
8 general affairs board and lodging. He was responsible to the minister
9 for the tasks thus assigned to him.
10 Q. But it seems that now you agree that some of these
11 administrations were headed by assistant ministers, you agree?
12 A. No, I don't agree because of the fact that assistant ministers
13 assisted the minister in the performing of certain tasks, and it was the
14 minister who charged them with certain fields of activity. So it was
15 only the minister who was their superior and no one else. Where the
16 principle of singleness of command applies, this is the way matters are
17 defined and organised.
18 Q. Very well. We'll have to move on. Last question,
19 Mr. Milasinovic, do you know of the procedures that would be in place,
20 and I'd like to refer you to page 22 of your report where you deal with
21 illegal orders. And the question is, do you know of any procedure that
22 would be in place to guide the chief of the public security department if
23 he became aware of information indicating that the minister had committed
25 A. In the event that the minister had committed crimes, and I don't
1 know what these crimes specifically could be, but in the event that he
2 had committed crimes, the minister could not have -- well, what he could
3 have done was that if the minister issued him with such an order which
4 would have as a result the commission of the crime, he had to disobey it,
5 not to carry it out. And, again, if a crime was committed, it would
6 depend on conscience, just as it would be the case with any other
7 citizen. He could have refused to carry out such an order, and if a
8 crime was committed, he would be prosecuted in the usual way. He would
9 be -- his actions would be reported to the competent authority.
10 Q. Very well. Should be prosecuted in the usual way. But when we
11 are talking about the chief of the public security and the minister, I
12 suggest to you that if there is awareness that crimes are being
13 committed, it can't depend on anybody's conscience.
14 MR. STAMP: Very well, Your Honours, I thank the Court for the
15 additional time. I went a little bit overboard, and I'm grateful for the
16 time. That is the end of the cross-examination.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. We now adjourn, we will resume at ten
18 minutes past 1.00
19 [The witness stands down]
20 --- Recess taken at 12.41 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 1.11 p.m.
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Djurdjic.
24 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Re-examination by Mr. Djurdjic:
1 Q. Good afternoon, Professor.
2 A. Good afternoon, Professor Djurdjic.
3 Q. I'd like to start from the end, from where Mr. Stamp left off.
4 And for that, let us look at tab 26, which is Exhibit P263.
5 A. Could you repeat all that, please, all those numbers. I was just
6 changing my spectacles.
7 Q. Tab 26. P263 is the exhibit number. This is a dispatch from
8 minister Vlajko Stojiljkovic of the 4th of June, 1996 -- 1997. Have you
9 found that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Can you tell me -- well, we see here the assistant ministers will
12 be put in charge of the following areas of work or fields of work. Now,
13 could you tell us what that means?
14 A. That means that the individual ministers will perform the tasks
15 which are given to them or which the minister of the interior has ordered
16 them to carry out. And so they are then responsible for those tasks to
17 the minister of the interior who issued them in the first place.
18 Q. Thank you. Here it says the ministers will be responsible. Did
19 you mean the ministers or assistant ministers?
20 A. The assistant ministers will be responsible to the minister.
21 Q. Thank you. Further down we have the fields. Each person was
22 assigned his field of work?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And so, for example, Mr. Radomir Markovic was given an assignment
25 for crime police affairs and analysis and information technology?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, Mr. Markovic wasn't at the head of the crime prevention
3 police department, was he?
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. So these are just the fields of work, not the leaders of the
6 administrations within the public security department; is that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Thank you. Now, bearing in mind the field of work for which
9 these assistant ministers were responsible to the minister, how did that
10 affect the authority of the head of the public security department and
11 how he managed the department?
12 A. Well, the authority of the public, the head of the public
13 security department was shifted with respect to the work covered by the
14 assistant ministers.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] May we have called up on e-court
17 next, please, Exhibit P57, which is tab 11 in your binder.
18 Q. What I'd like to ask you is this: I'd like us to turn to page 3
19 in the Serbian and 2 in the English. So next page for the English,
20 please. And for you it's tab 11. Page 3 of tab 11. It's the last page.
21 And look at item 6, please.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. "With the coming into force of this decision," what is it that
24 the minister decided in this item 6?
25 A. All the decisions on the establishment of the operational staffs
1 such and such a number of the 21st of April, 1999 [as interpreted] shall
2 no longer be valid. The decision of the establishment of staff of the
3 minister of the -- for Kosovo and Metohija of the 15th of May, and the
4 decision on the appointment of the members of the staff, that is the head
5 and members of the staff of the Ministry of the Interior of the AP of
6 Kosovo and Metohija, strictly confidential, et cetera, et cetera, the
7 11th of June, 1998.
8 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Now, page 65, it
9 should read the 21st of April, 1998. 1999 was recorded.
10 Q. Now, Professor, did you come across any document which delegates
11 the minister on the establishment of the ministry for the suppression of
12 terrorism in 1998 and 1999?
13 A. No, I didn't come across any document of that kind refuting what
14 was previously stated on the establishment of the staff of the 16th of
15 June, 1998.
16 Q. Thank you. I'd like now to move on to your expert report, and
17 that portion of it which deals with reporting. And Mr. Stamp showed
18 you -- asked you to look at page 31 of the B/C/S version. In English
19 that would be 32. That's the page. Now, let me just ask you this. What
20 it says in those last two sentences or three sentences, or the whole
21 paragraph, does that represent your conclusion?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Thank you. Now turn to the previous page, please. And looking
24 at those footnotes there, was it on the basis of those documents listed
25 there, that you were able to make your conclusions?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Thank you. Now I'd like to ask you to turn to tab number, just
3 let me take a moment to find it. Tab number 15 in your binder.
4 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] It's D274. Exhibit D274, please.
5 Q. Have you found it?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. It's a dispatch from the SUP
8 staff of the ministry, to the leader on the 14th of January, 1999. And
9 now tell me, please, what under items 2 and 5 this dispatch contains?
10 A. Under point 2 it is "the following police operations were carried
11 out" and then it says that the following police operations had been
12 planned, and the times are stipulated as are the assignments.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Now, may we have tab 14 next,
15 please. It is P1041. P1041. And it's tab 14.
16 Q. This is a dispatch from the staff of the ministry dated the 21st
17 of October, 1998, sent to all the chiefs of the SUP in Kosovo and
18 Metohija. Now, on page 2, item B is the one I'm interested in. Let's
19 just take a moment to wait for the document to come up on our screens.
20 Let's take it slowly. We need the English version.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness kindly speak into the
22 microphones. Thank you.
23 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. We see B, where it says reporting. And could you speak into the
25 microphone, please, so that we can hear you better.
1 We have reporting and information. Now, with this order, is the
2 staff ordering the SUPs to provide more detailed information on the
3 following occurrences and events?
4 A. Yes. Daily information with respect to provocations, police
5 actions undertaken, police movements, the reason for their movements,
6 transfers and so on and so forth, a series of other information.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Now may we have D275, which is tab
9 16 in your set of documents.
10 Q. Let's just take a moment to have the document displayed and then
11 I'll come to my questions. We can focus on the English version. We just
12 need the English version because the witness has his hard copy. But this
13 is a dispatch from the SUP
14 centre of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia
15 the 15th of January, 1999.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. It's a daily report on criminal offences committed, events and
18 incidents in the area of Kosovska Mitrovica SUP for the 14th of January,
19 1999. And here we see, we have crime under one, public law and order
20 under two, border affairs, foreigners and other instances -- incidents
21 and occurrences. Now does it speak about any planned and undertaken
22 police actions?
23 A. No, not a single piece of information. There's nothing about
24 that at all.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] May we now have tab 17, which is
2 Exhibit D284. May we have that displayed next.
3 Q. This is a review of the security related and important -- well,
4 let's wait for the English to come up on our screens.
5 A summary of security related events, incidents, and information
6 recorded between 0600 hours on the 13th of March to 0600 hours on the
7 14th of March, 1999, which the MUP staff sent to the Ministry of the
8 Interior of the Republic of Serbia
9 report, in this summary, was anything observed about any planned or
10 undertaken anti-terrorist actions either on the part of the staff or the
11 SUPs on the territory of Kosovo
12 A. This document clearly shows what the events referred to,
13 terrorist provocations, serious crimes committed, provocations in
14 general, traffic accidents, and the like. But there's not a single piece
15 of information or nothing about any anti-terrorist actions that were
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] May we now have tab 18, which is
19 P1057. Exhibit P1057.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
21 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. We have before us a dispatch once again from the staff of the MUP
23 of the Republic of Serbia
24 secretariats in Kosovo and Metohija, and in item 1 of this dispatch, the
25 staff sets out what reporting and information they need from the SUP
1 Kosovo and Metohija; is that right?
2 A. Here the staff is -- it says that the staff shall inform the
3 secretariats of the interior of Pristina, Pec, Djakovica, Prizren,
4 Urosevac, and Gnjilane since the war began about the NATO bombing
5 terrorist attacks against the men and facilities of Serbia, any serious
6 crimes, persons who have absconded and so on and so forth, so those are
7 the main issue issues. It's the beginning of the war and a new set of
8 instructions is being issued about information reporting.
9 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] May we now have P701 displayed
10 next, please, which is tab 19 of your documents. For the transcript, the
11 previous document was the 1st of April, was it? Does it relate to
12 instructions to the SUPs how the staff should be informed?
13 A. Yes, that's all.
14 Q. Thank you. Now, we have before us a summary of the security
15 related events, incidents, and intelligence recorded between 0600 hours
16 on the 24th of April to 0600 hours on the 25th of April, 1999, the staff
17 of the republic of the MUP of Serbia dated the 25th of April, 1999
18 in this report, is there any mention in this summary of any planned or
19 implemented anti-terrorist activities, either on the part of the MUP
20 staff or the SUP
21 A. No.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 JUDGE PARKER: The exhibit number of this document, Mr. Djurdjic?
24 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it was Exhibit P701.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
1 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] May we now have displayed Exhibit
2 D408, please, which is tab 20 in your set.
3 Q. Just one moment, please. We are looking at the dispatch from the
4 department for analysis of the public security sector of the 24th of
5 April, 1999, sent to all the secretariats from 1 to 33 and the MUP staff
6 in Pristina. It's the daily review of current events and occurrences in
7 the public security area for the 23rd of April, 1999. I don't want to go
8 back to your expertise so that we don't lose time, please. On the basis
9 of information received at the headquarters of the MUP or the public
10 security department, is there any information in this report about
11 planned and carried out anti-terrorist activities?
12 A. No, there are none such pieces of information there.
13 Q. Thank you. Professor, there was a question about your part of
14 the expert report so I would like you to go back to the report. It's in
15 tab 2. And that was page 12 and page 13 in English and -- no, I'm sorry,
16 not page 12 and 13, but it was page 13 in English, yes. This question
17 about the RPOs where you noted that members in accordance with their
18 combat assignments were sent to the appropriate police or military units
19 in the event of mobilisation. According to the documents that you had,
20 were there persons in the RPO who were not in the reserve forces of the
21 military territorial detachments and the reserve forces of the police?
22 A. As far as I recall, there were none such members. These were ad
23 hoc forces. The RPO were predominantly consisting of members of the
24 police reserves, and the DTO.
25 Q. Were there any members there who were not members of the reserve
1 forces of either formation?
2 A. Well, these were just simply armed --
3 Q. Please, can you answer this question?
4 A. No, I don't know.
5 Q. In these detachments were there any members who were not members
6 of the military territorial or police forces up until the point in time
7 of the mobilisation who didn't have a war time assignment?
8 A. No, no.
9 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Your Honours, I have
10 no further questions. Professor, sir, thank you very much. Your
11 Honours, I have no further questions.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Djurdjic.
13 Questioned by the Court:
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I have only one question for you. On page 16 of
15 your report in the English version, it is just before paragraph 2. --
16 3.2, there's one sentence I'm interested on your comment. "Planned
17 anti-terrorist operations were implemented through joint planned
18 activities of the police and the army." Could you perhaps explain who
19 was in command of these joint planned activities of the police and the
20 army, which body and which person?
21 A. The implementation of these tasks manoeuvre units of the MUPs or
22 the PJP, SAJ
23 operations were under the charge of the special staff which was formed by
24 the minister on the 16th of June, 1998. He had the exclusive
25 jurisdiction over these units, over the Kosovo and Metohija staff which
1 was in charge of these operations.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Are you saying that the minister of interior was
3 also in charge for actions including the army of Serbia?
4 A. No, because in war time operations, the idea was to have the
5 police forces resubordinated to the military forces, however, this did
6 not happen in practice. But this does not mean in any way that the
7 minister or the chief of the staff were in command of the units which
8 were part of the military. In the event of resubordination, then this
9 would, of course, imply resubordination to the command which was actually
10 responsible and in charge of the war operations.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm very sorry, but I don't understand your
12 answer. I was asking you, what do you mean by that, planned
13 anti-terrorist operations were implemented, I'm not talking about law and
14 organisational orders, but implemented through joint planned activities
15 of the police and the army. Which body was responsible for that again?
16 A. The chief of the staff or the staff was responsible for the MUP
17 forces, and the military forces were under the jurisdiction of the
18 military command that was overseeing those actions. This would be the
19 joint action, but the Joint Command could only be actually taken up to
20 the supreme commander and the Supreme Defence Council.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter did not hear the rest of the answer
22 of the witness.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The commanders were actually
24 exercising the command in the territory who were responsible to the
25 staff, as far as the police special units were concerned, the SAJ and the
1 JSO. So the function was divided and the joint responsibility is
2 something that I did not encounter in any document. There being one
3 commander both for the police and for the military.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to stop you here, but I don't see --
5 but you were dealing with this problem of joint planned activities of the
6 police and the army in your report. What is the background, what is your
7 knowledge about, what are the sources for such a statement?
8 A. I had sources that related to the engagement of military and the
9 engagement of police units. In anti-terrorist activities, they
10 participated in the territorial and temporal co-action in the territory
11 and in the same time, but they did not have a joint commander. They were
12 not resubordinated. The police organs were not resubordinated to the
13 military organ, so there can be no question of being resubordinated to
14 one commander but to the commanders of the units that were carrying out
15 tasks and the units that were co-operating amongst themselves in the
16 implementation of these anti-terrorist activities. There was no
17 resubordination or at least I did not come across any document where the
18 police forces, the PJP, and the JSO units would be resubordinated to the
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Are you saying that there was no joint -- kind of
21 a joint planned activities if there was no Joint Command and similar
23 A. Probably while mutually agreeing on matters there was division of
24 tasks in joint actions while carrying out broader anti-terrorist actions
25 and planned anti-terrorist actions.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
2 JUDGE BAIRD: Mr. Milasinovic, you gave us a comprehensive
3 description of the structure and functions of the various units including
4 units that were not part of the department, didn't you?
5 A. That's correct, yes.
6 JUDGE BAIRD: Yes. And in answer to Mr. Djurdjic awhile ago, he
7 asked you, in these detachments were there any members who were not
8 members of the military, territorial, or police forces up until the point
9 in time of the mobilisation who did not have a war time assignment, and
10 you said no.
11 A. Very well.
12 JUDGE BAIRD: Now, tell me, did you hear at all of paramilitary
14 A. Yes, I heard of paramilitary units, but I did not come across any
15 document that would speak about formed paramilitary units and their
16 activities, except documents where attention is being drawn to the fact
17 that if such units appeared, they would be placed under control, and any
18 paramilitary unit should be prevented or any individual should be --
19 about whom any prior criminal records existed or criminal activity was
20 suspected should be placed under control in the sense that they should be
21 excluded from the anti-terrorist forces acting in Kosovo and Metohija.
22 There were many concrete questions that I did not really deal with, and
23 these are many questions that also have to do with the previous question
24 having to do with things evolving in the terrain. I didn't participate
25 in those actions myself, but based on the documents that I had at my
1 disposal, I was able to make the conclusions and the findings that I made
2 in my expert report.
3 JUDGE BAIRD: I see. So you cannot say whether any paramilitary
4 unit was actually employed or used?
5 A. I can say and I know that there were none there.
6 JUDGE BAIRD: Did you ever hear of a group called the White
8 A. Yes, I heard of the group White Eagles.
9 JUDGE BAIRD: And do you have any sort of --
10 A. Skorpions, White Eagles, and many other paramilitary
11 organisations, yes, but I never actually came across them, even in
12 conversations with people. All the organised forces or the command
13 leadership forces would avoid engaging such people. Later I found about
14 the terms White Eagles, Skorpions, and different other paramilitary
15 forces which were more known about from conflicts that happened outside
16 of Kosovo Metohija, rather than in Kosovo and Metohija, and the units in
17 Kosovo and Metohija did not have such forces in that kind of sense. The
18 departing point was to mobilise and engage individuals. If there was a
19 person who was outside of Serbia
20 checks would be made through the records that were available to the
21 judicial or the MUP organs in order to prevent people getting in who
22 could possibly commit something that was not in accordance with the ideas
23 and the concept of the command structure of the military or the police.
24 JUDGE BAIRD: I have just one last question. Did you ever hear
25 at all of the collegium? The collegium?
1 A. Yes.
2 JUDGE BAIRD: Can you say anything at all about it?
3 A. Since I frequently attended collegium sessions in republican SUPs
4 and at the federal Ministry of the Interior, I can say that the collegium
5 is a working informal body which was formed and which could discuss
6 different matters with the minister on a whole range of professional
7 lines that have to do with organisation, functioning, and the
8 implementation of specific tasks so the collegium could include people
9 such as inspectors, chiefs of administrations, and the like. Then also
10 persons from the analysis department who are monitoring a certain topic
11 analytically that had do with organised crime, terrorism or similar
12 matters. And simply these would be working meetings which would be held
13 at the initiative of the minister or the chief of the department in order
14 to discuss specific issues from their sphere of work.
15 JUDGE BAIRD: Thank you very much.
16 JUDGE PARKER: You'll be pleased to know that that concludes the
17 questions for you. The Chamber would thank you for your attendance here
18 in The Hague
19 thank you. You may now, of course, return to your normal activities and
20 the Court Officer will show you out. Thank you.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 [The witness withdrew]
23 JUDGE PARKER: I understand there's a matter that you wish to
24 raise, Mr. Stamp.
25 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honour. The matter that the Prosecution
1 wishes to raise with your leave could be addressed by Ms. D'Ascoli,
2 although there's a another matter in respect to the document from the
3 witness that probably could be dealt with.
4 JUDGE PARKER: That almost sounds like an answer of this last
5 witness. Is there something that you wish to deal with?
6 MR. STAMP: Ms. D'Ascoli will deal with that one.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. D'Ascoli knows all about it.
8 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you, Your Honours. Yes, very briefly. I
9 have a communication and two oral applications. The communication is in
10 regard to you last order of last Monday, the 17th of May at page
11 transcript 14179. The Prosecution was ordered to correct the e-court
12 version of five transcript tendered under Rule 92 ter, and namely, they
13 are P428, P495, P979, P1321, and P1416. So I just wanted to let the
14 Chamber know that this was done, and pursuant to the direction of the
15 Chamber's we uploaded the new transcript to replace those previously
16 admitted in e-court. So now the new versions are newly uploaded and are
17 the correct ones. They kept the same exhibit number, of course.
18 The first oral application is that in doing so we noticed that
19 the P428, which is the Milutinovic transcript of witness Bislim Zyrapi
20 did not have a redacted or confidential version, although it presented
21 two pages in private session, so what we did was to upload an unredacted
22 -- a confidential version of this transcript with the 65 ter number
23 05201.01. And, therefore, my oral application is to have this 65 ter
24 number assigned a separate exhibit number and to have it admitted into
25 evidence under seal.
1 JUDGE PARKER: First, thank you for your information concerning
2 the correct transcripts now for those exhibits. And, secondly, yes, the
3 further document will be received.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1603 under seal, Your Honours.
5 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you. The second and last oral application,
6 it concerns the witness statement of K73. We made further redactions to
7 the public version of K73 witness statement, which is currently admitted
8 as Exhibit P330-A. This newly redacted version of the statement has been
9 disclosed to Defence yesterday, 19 of May, therefore, I'm now seeking
10 leave to replace the version in e-court with this newly redacted public
11 version under the same exhibit number, P330-A.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, leave is granted.
13 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you very much. That was all from my side.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Is that all? Any other matter, Ms. D'Ascoli, for
15 the Prosecution?
16 MS. D'ASCOLI: Not that I am aware of.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic, any other matter for the Defence?
18 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Well, Ms. O'Leary has given me two
19 or three tasks to deal with. First of all D903, may we have the English
20 version D0115486, 011 -- the transcript seems to have stopped. Yes, the
21 number is correct. That's one point.
22 The second thing is this: I'd like to request of the Trial
23 Chamber that when the Defence case is completed, we can file a bar table
24 motion request for admission of exhibits, or if there is any other way
25 for us to do that.
1 And the third thing is that I should like to ask for your ruling
2 on the admission of the expert report into evidence.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Now, I understand with respect to Exhibit D903
4 that we now have the correct transcript, you say. Thank you for that.
5 You foreshadow a bar table motion for the exhibiting of documents that
6 you anticipate will be -- when will that be moved, when will that motion
7 be filed?
8 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Well, I would have preferred you
9 to give -- have given me a dead-line, but let's say seven days.
10 JUDGE PARKER: [Overlapping speakers] ... Mr. Djurdjic.
11 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Shall we say seven days starting
12 with next Tuesday?
13 JUDGE PARKER: And are you able to indicate the number of
14 documents that you have in mind?
15 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Well, I don't think there will be
16 more than 20 odd, but don't hold me to that, please. 20 to 30 at the
17 most. We did our best to tender the documents through witnesses.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE PARKER: Well, you may by no later than Thursday at noon of
20 next week file a motion in respect of the admission of further documents
21 from the the bar table. And the Chamber will give attention to that in
22 due course.
23 The third matter you raised was the report of the witness. The
24 Chamber will give consideration to the question, as I have already
25 indicated, and will issue a short written decision in the next few days
1 about whether the whole or part or perhaps none, but really the whole or
2 part of that document will be received as an exhibit.
3 Subject to the motion you foreshadowed for the admission of some
4 further documents, does that then conclude the Defence case,
5 Mr. Djurdjic?
6 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, but with an
7 explanation. D903 is the exact translation of the document, but it's not
8 the transcript. It's the correct translation. That's all I wanted to
10 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. I couldn't for the life of me remember
11 what document Exhibit D903 was, I thought it was a transcript. Very
12 well. We would thank then the Defence for the case it has presented, and
13 for the attention to ensuring that it was not unduly long so that we've
14 received evidence from less witnesses than originally contemplated by the
15 Defence. We are grateful for that.
16 Is there anything remaining or outstanding on the part of the
18 MR. STAMP: No, Your Honours.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE PARKER: That being so, then, the Chamber will now adjourn
21 this hearing. We have concluded the admission of evidence save for the
22 foreshadowed motion of the Defence and save for the deciding on the
23 question of the report of this last witness and those two matters will be
24 dealt with in due course. That having been done, we have procedural
25 orders in place for written submissions to be filed by both parties by
1 the 30th of June, and that the Chamber will sit to hear oral submissions
2 on the 13th and 14th of July, and that, we anticipate, will conclude the
3 hearings, and it's been an interesting, long progress until now, but
4 we've reached this point. I'm sure all parties are anxious to finish the
5 case and the Chamber is anxious to be able to enter into its full
6 deliberation and reach a decision.
7 We thank you all. We now adjourn and we expect next to see you
8 on the 13th of July in court.
9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.04 p.m.
10 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 13th day of July,