1 Thursday, 4 October 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.53 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon to
7 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-84-T, the Prosecutor
8 versus Ramush Haradinaj et al.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
10 Before I invite the Prosecution to call its next witness, the
11 Chamber would like to explain to the parties that it did its utmost best
12 to see whether we could give some guidance to the parties and so that they
13 would be better aware of what in the 92 ter statement we would consider to
14 admit and what not.
15 We started also going through all of the annexes. We couldn't
16 finish that, also because the Judges had quite a lot of other things on
17 their agenda as well which was urgent, both today and yesterday. But for
18 guidance, as far as matters stand now, the Prosecution is informed that -
19 and I am focusing on the 92 ter statement for the next witness - Mr. Re, I
20 do understand no protective measures? - Mr. Stijovic would be that
21 paragraph 21; 39; 40, the first five lines; 59, last six lines; and now I
22 jump a bit back again, 11 to and including 16; paragraph 17; and paragraph
23 26 are not suitable for being admitted under Rule 92 ter.
24 Then there is a second category where the Chamber indicates that
25 it sees no reason at this moment to deny admission of these paragraphs but
1 the put the Prosecution at notice that the level of sourcing is such that
2 in order to use this material in evidence as you likely will have it on
3 your mind, Mr. Re, it certainly needs further elaboration, which, of
4 course, can elicit it from the witness when he testifies.
5 That would be: Paragraphs 20; 23; 24; 25, first nine lines; 27;
6 32, first nine lines; 36; 37, first six lines; 41, first fifteen lines;
7 paragraph 50, lines 9 to 11; 54; and 58, first four lines.
8 Of course, in these paragraphs, often reference is made to annexes
9 where the Chamber indicates that further elaboration may be needed. This
10 might have an impact on the admission of annexes referred to in these
11 paragraphs. Sometimes where the witness mainly repeats or refers to what
12 we find in the annexes, it may be clear that the fate of the admission of
13 the annexes might be related to the level of elaboration that is achieved.
14 The Chamber will continue working on it. The Chamber not
15 realistically expects the testimony of this witness to be concluded today.
16 Therefore, tomorrow and over the weekend we might have more time to give
17 more detailed guidance to the parties.
18 I thought it would be wise to start with this. Any other
19 procedural issues at this moment to be raised?
20 Mr. Re.
21 MR. RE: Clarification, please, of the ruling in relation to
22 paragraph 20. Paragraph 20 starts on page 11 in the English and goes
23 right through to page 17. It's divided (a) to (t).
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, paragraph 20 -- of course, if you look at the--
25 some of the annexes are not objected to by the Defence, but then in the
1 limited sense, that the Defence says we -- whether authentic or not, we do
2 not oppose admission for very limited purposes. Therefore, I think the --
3 but let me just check.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I should have earlier discussed the matter. It
6 is mainly the indication that further elaboration is needed is primarily
7 applicable to the first paragraph, where the witness introduces his own
8 statistics and where I think the Defence argued that this was just copying
9 from other sources, rather than any personal knowledge of the witness.
10 So therefore sourcing of that material might need further
12 When I refer to the remainder of it, that is, the long list of
13 events described which are outside the time scope of the indictment, there
14 the Defence, although for limited purposes, does not object the admission
15 of the annexes.
16 Of course, the -- the relevance of that material is limited.
17 Mr. Re, any further questions?
18 MR. RE: No, but if I could just have a moment to highlight in
19 different colours the effect of the ruling --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. RE: -- so I can lead the witness appropriately.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. How much time would you need for that or --
23 MR. RE: A few minutes. If I could just go in --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Can we already invite Madam Usher to call the
25 witness in. That usually takes some time.
1 Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness into the
3 [The witness entered court]
4 MR. RE: Is it the first nine lines of 25 or the first nine lines
5 of 27? Could I ask that. And then it says first nine lines afterwards.
6 I'm just a bit unclear which the first nine lines are referring to in each
7 of those ones.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Paragraph 25, the first nine lines. Then paragraph
9 27 in its entirety. And then 32, again first nine lines.
10 MR. RE: Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Stijovic. My apologies for not
12 paying proper attention to you entering the courtroom.
13 Mr. Stijovic, before you give evidence, the Rules of Procedure and
14 Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration that you'll speak the
15 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
16 The text will now be handed out to you by Madam Usher. May I
17 invite you to make that solemn declaration.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
19 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Stijovic. Please be seated.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 WITNESS: ZORAN STIJOVIC
23 [Witness answered through interpreter]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stijovic, you'll first be examined by Mr. Re,
25 who's counsel for the Prosecution. But he needs one more second to write
1 a few things down.
2 Mr. Re, otherwise perhaps I can start.
3 Is your name Zoran Stijovic?
4 THE WITNESS: [No audible response]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Is your date of birth the 13th day of November, 1962?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: We didn't receive an answer to the first question,
8 but I take it that I -- I mentioned your correct name.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is correct.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Were you born in Podgorica, Montenegro?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I was.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 Mr. Re.
14 MR. RE: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Examination by Mr. Re:
16 Q. Mr. Stijovic, I'm going to show you a statement dated the 26th of
17 September, 2007. Do you have a -- I want to show it to you in hard copy.
18 That will be 65 ter 2006 -- I'm sorry, 2066.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, that --
20 MR. RE: If this could be perhaps shown to the witness in its
21 entirety in hard copy, it might be quicker.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I hear no objection by the Defence, so ...
23 Mr. Registrar.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes P931.
25 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber refrains at this moment from deciding
1 upon -- deciding the admission of this -- of this statement.
2 Mr. Re, please continue.
3 MR. RE:
4 Q. First, I have several questions to ask you in relation to that
5 statement. Firstly, is it accurate? Does it bear your declaration? That
6 is, the 37 pages in Serbian in front of you.
7 A. Yes, it does. Yes.
8 Q. And secondly, if I or the Judges or the Defence were to ask you
9 about the matters in there, is that the evidence you would give if we
10 asked you those questions?
11 A. Yes, I would.
12 Q. All right. I note that it's been given an exhibit number already,
13 but on that basis, may it be tendered into -- received into evidence
14 subject to --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Subject to later rulings about submission, yes.
16 Mr. Re --
17 MR. RE: Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you one question. The -- you were
19 talking about the statement of the 26th of September, I think you said.
20 Yes. Now, I see that the witness acknowledgment in the English language
21 is dated the 26th; however, the original seems to be the 27th.
22 MR. RE: It seems to have been signed on the 27th. That's my
24 Q. Can you please just go to the last page, Mr. Stijovic --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I think it's important that it's on the record.
1 And if I don't hear anything from the Defence, then I take it it's the
2 same statement and that there could be no confusion as far as the date is
4 Please proceed.
5 MR. RE: I've given the witness a copy of the 35 of the 75 annexes
6 in Serbian or Albanian which I intend to take him through during the
7 course of his evidence. I haven't got the complete binder there.
8 Q. Mr. Stijovic, before you came into court, the Court made some
9 rulings about some particular passages in your statement which will not be
10 received into evidence. I'm going to ask you some questions about some of
11 the matters, but others I -- I won't. I haven't had a chance to highlight
12 those which are in and which are out. We'll have to give you a copy later
13 during one of the breaks where we've actually highlighted the parts which
14 will -- will not be received into evidence.
15 Do you -- do you understand that?
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. Now, in your statement at paragraph 2, you refer to working in the
18 Serbian State Security and being the head of the analytical section in
19 Pristina in -- from 1995 onwards. How senior was that position within the
20 Serbian State Security at that particular time?
21 A. In terms of hierarchy, it was a very important position, given
22 that all internal data that was at the disposal of the State Security
23 Service was at my disposal; that is also because of my professional
24 position and it all gave me a fairly good view from which I could monitor
25 the events that were developing in Kosovo, particularly on the part of the
1 KLA, the Kosovo Liberation Army.
2 In terms of hierarchy, the department of analysis is a separate
3 unit receiving all data and information received by the State Security
4 Service through its operations.
5 Q. Can you say whereabouts you were in the hierarchy? One, two,
6 three, four, five, six, seven, eight, or wherever?
7 A. The fourth or the fifth person.
8 Q. What was your level or your security classification? How high was
10 A. Well, I've tried to explain. The State Security Service of Serbia
11 organised -- or rather, organises its operation in terms of territory and
12 professional distribution. In that system, the analysis department is a
13 separate unit, streamlining all of the data sent in by other operational
14 units. Everything that is done according to the territorial and
15 professional distribution, it all goes to the analysis department. It is
16 the only part of the State Security Service where one can find all
17 information concerning the State Security Service's operation.
18 Q. Can we take from that you had access to absolutely everything that
19 passed through the office, or were there things that were too secret for
20 even you to see?
21 A. [Previous translation continues] ... This department was something
22 that fell within the scope of my competence, and I was able to see it.
23 There may have been certain operational issues and things which remained
24 at the operational level at a certain point in time. But as time went by,
25 again such information would find its way in the course of operational
1 work to the analytical department.
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: If we might at this juncture just for purposes of
3 clarity of the record perhaps have some inquiry into what "operational
4 level" and "operational issues" means so that we know where we're
5 proceeding to.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, I -- I leave it up to you whether you want
8 MR. RE: Sure. It's a fair query.
9 Q. Mr. Guy-Smith wants to know what "operational level" and
10 "operational issues" mean. Can you explain to the Trial Chamber, please.
11 A. Operational situation" is a given situation within which the State
12 Security Service wants to secure the achievement of a certain goal. For
13 example, in this case, it was monitoring the operation of the KLA and
14 trying to hinder their operations as possible -- as much as possible, as
15 well as to try and prevent certain individual activities on their part.
16 Q. What I was after in my earlier question was the level of security
17 clearance you had. You know, in a -- a security system there are
18 different levels of clearance according to your seniority and what you're
19 allowed to see. Can you just briefly explain whether -- where you fitted
20 in in terms of what you had access to. I just wasn't quite clear from
21 your earlier answer.
22 A. My security clearance was equal to that of the inner circle, of
23 the very few people that had all of the data at their disposal. The
24 analytical department had more information, as a matter of fact, than
25 operational leaders.
1 Q. Well, how did your level of security clearance compare to, say,
2 the Minister of Interior or the Chief of Military Intelligence or the
3 President of the Republic?
4 A. Specifically, concerning the operations of the State Security
5 Service in Kosovo and Metohija, based on the information we had following
6 the State Security line, we would inform the leadership; in this specific
7 case, the President of the Republic and the Ministry of the Interior. We
8 also informed the top state leadership on the current issue, in keeping
9 with the procedure that was in place.
10 Q. What was the strength of the State Security in Kosovo in 1998? I
11 mean, how many people were employed by State Security approximately?
12 A. I don't know whether I can be specific, given the limitations
13 concerning the organisation and methodology of the service; however, I can
14 say that in terms of numbers concerning active-duty operatives within the
15 State Security Service, that figure was over 300.
16 Q. Are operatives employees of the service?
17 A. Yes. Operational officers are operatives of the Security Service,
18 but it also includes people of other profiles, like analysts, technicians,
19 and so on and so forth. But that's where I would stop describing the
20 individual activities conducted by the State Security. What I had in mind
21 were people in full employment, active-duty employees.
22 Q. What about people providing information to the State Security
23 Service? What sort of figures are we talking about there? Across Kosovo
24 in 1998?
25 A. The same applies. I believe I am limited as to the extent of my
1 answer to this question. However, I'll try to put it in a framework.
2 Given the amount of information we received and the type of it during
3 1998, the State Security Service in Kosovo identified over 200 insiders
4 within the structures where Albanian extremists moved. There were several
5 hundred people in Kosovo who were our human sources, so to say.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, may I interrupt for one second. Could you
7 and could the Defence please also look at page 9, line 3, 4, and 5, where
8 the testimony of the witness is not reflected in the transcript.
9 Now, I can imagine that the follow-up questions sufficiently cover
10 the matter, so therefore I'm asking the parties whether they would prefer
11 to have the witness to repeat that answer or whether we could just move on
12 and consider that what was asked is sufficiently dealt with in the
13 follow-up questions.
14 MR. EMMERSON: My understanding of the answers that precede and
15 follow the absent passage is that the witness has testified that all
16 information flowed through the analytical department at one time or
17 another. In other words, all information available within the RDB from an
18 operational level upwards at one time or another passed through the
19 analytical department. And it's on that basis that I've understood his
20 testimony. If that's wrong, then obviously a correction is required.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: Perhaps he could -- he could confirm that
23 representation and see whether that's an accurate one.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stijovic, you may not have noticed that there was
25 a small portion of your answer that was not received by the transcribers.
1 Mr. Emmerson now explained how I understood your testimony in this
2 respect. If you would agree with that. And please, could you say aloud
3 "yes" or "no," because nodding doesn't appear on the transcript.
4 You agree with that?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely, yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then there's no need to have the witness repeat those
8 Please proceed, Mr. Re.
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm also wondering with regard to the answer the
10 witness gave prior to this one, he indicated he was somewhat limited. And
11 I don't know whether or not that's because some directions had been
12 received or a failure of memory or information. I don't know what that
13 meant precisely. And perhaps Mr. Re could -- could inquire into that so
14 we keep a constant flow.
15 MR. RE: Well, I -- I can.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's -- if -- if Mr. Re is happy with the
17 answers of the witness -- now he said he can, and I take it that he will.
18 Next time perhaps if Mr. Re is happy with the answer, only if it
19 really leads to -- to total lack of understanding of the -- of the
20 testimony, that the Defence asks for clarification. Otherwise, seeks
21 clarification in cross-examination.
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: I appreciate that.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: The answer was in the context of the number of
25 individuals who were giving information to the RDB, so I thought it might
1 be something worthwhile to pursue.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 Please proceed, Mr. Re.
4 MR. RE:
5 Q. Mr. Stijovic, is there anything in your saying a moment ago "I
6 believe I am limited as to the extent of my answer." And if so, please
7 tell us what it is.
8 A. Well, nothing of importance, I believe. It may be important,
9 though, to know that I am free to address state and security secrets if
10 they fall within the scope of crimes committed in Kosovo and Metohija. As
11 for the organisation and methodology of the State Security Service, I
12 cannot discuss that area in detail.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stijovic, if at any moment you -- your answer, in
14 view of what you just said, would not reflect not only the truth but would
15 not reflect the whole truth, would you please tell us then that at that
16 moment that you are not giving the details because you feel not free to do
18 What the Chamber then will do is another matter, but that we are
19 at least aware where your answer is less complete than it would be without
20 these limitation you -- limitations you just mentioned.
21 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. And I wish to make it absolutely clear that
22 for the purposes of cross-examination that is the very area which I wish
23 to penetrate; in other words, the methodology of the RDB and associated
25 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand. We'll come to that, and then
1 Mr. Stijovic will tell us where he has difficulties in giving the full
2 answer to the questions, and then we'll see how to proceed.
3 Mr. Re.
4 MR. RE:
5 Q. Mr. Stijovic, of course in your statement you've actually referred
6 to what I think we may describe as the methodology of the way the State
7 Security Service operated. And bearing that in mind, I'll just take you
8 back to the last answer before that discussion, which was, to remind you,
9 you said: "Given the amount of information we received and the type of it
10 in -- during 1998, we identified over 200 insiders within the structures
11 where Albanian extremists moved. There were several hundred people in
12 Kosovo who were our human sources, so to say."
13 I just want to ask you about the definition of the structures
14 where Albanian extremists moved. Are you referring to the KLA or other
16 A. Since I also provided a statement about the activities of the KLA
17 and Albanian extremists, this is what I had in mind, that structure and
18 their activities.
19 JUDGE ORIE: One second.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, could you please slow down a bit, because the
22 interpreters have problems. I wasn't listening to the other channel, but
23 please proceed.
24 MR. RE: I will.
25 Q. Is another way of expressing that that you had 200 people within
1 the KLA who were providing the DB with information in 1998?
2 A. One could say so.
3 Q. And at what levels of the KLA were these people operating?
4 Referring to -- from top to bottom. Whereabouts were these people within
6 A. I can answer to that question this way: If we are talking about
7 the area of Metohija, we had our man in our headquarters. He worked for
8 the State Security Service. We also had our people in other areas, and we
9 were able to reach as high as the level of headquarters. Our insiders
10 would then notify us on the activities of the KLA.
11 Q. Headquarters?
12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's Correction: Line 24, "in their
14 MR. RE:
15 Q. Are you talking General Staff, at the top? Or are you talking
16 about headquarters at different levels? I want you to clarify that so we
17 know exactly where your informers were, at what level of the KLA.
18 A. At the highest level. What may be important is to say that we had
19 very good information on KLA activities in the staffs in the rural areas.
20 Q. Why do you say that?
21 A. Because I know what information passed through my hands. I
22 received reports from collaborators. Those people covertly worked and
23 they were working for the State Security Service in secret. Through the
24 reports I received, within the total amount of information, I could gather
25 that those people were highly positioned and that they were at the very
1 top of the organisation.
2 Q. How were you able to assess the reliability of the information
3 that these people were giving to the Serbian State Security?
4 A. In the Serbian State Security Service, just as in other similar
5 organisations, there is a methodology, a methodology on how to classify
6 and how to verify the source of information and the quality or veracity of
7 the information received. No information coming from one source was
8 considered to be fully relevant or accurate. Every information had to be
9 cross-checked from at least two sources or more than two, including the
10 use of technical equipment.
11 Q. Can you elaborate on the methodology used by the DB to do this
13 A. As for the KLA activities, yes, I can do that. Within the State
14 Security Service in Kosovo and Metohija, in the period of time when the
15 KLA started being active, a special operations action was organised, which
16 is a method of work of the State Security Service based on which plans
17 were drafted on how to penetrate that organisation and thus gain
18 information on their activities.
19 In that context, tasks were divided into tasks for regional
20 centres, tasks for subcentres, and tasks for operatives who worked on the
21 ground in the area where the KLA was active.
22 Q. What did you do - that is, the Service do - to corroborate or
23 cross-reference the information to make assessments as to reliability?
24 What sort of physical things did the Service do?
25 A. Specifically speaking, if we take just one event, we never used
1 just reports of our associates. That is the term that we used; associates
2 are people who covertly and in an organised way work for the State
3 Security Service. That's the definition. They would draw up their
4 report, reports of associates. Based on those reports, we would assess
5 the information and using other methodology, we would cross-reference and
6 verify that information. Based on that information, subcentres and
7 operatives received specific tasks as to what they had to verify either
8 because the information was incomplete or there was something else
9 missing, so that we could gain reliable information on the person that
10 provided this.
11 This included the use of technical equipment, supervision or
12 surveillance, and covert recording.
13 Q. In your statement and attached to it, you've referred to some KLA
14 communiques. Were they -- did you use those documents as -- as your
15 methodology to cross-reference to information you had received from
17 A. Absolutely. The basis for our work in that period of time in
18 Kosovo and Metohija were live sources, use of technical equipment, and the
19 Albanian media or media in Albanian language. The media in Albanian
20 language created something that you should know about, which is the
21 general atmosphere in the public opinion among Albanians.
22 Given that not a lot of people speak Albanian, we realised that
23 they published a lot of important information in Albanian language. It
24 was especially done by this organisation called LPK. Their newspaper
25 which was published in Switzerland was available to us one or two days
1 after publication. That's how long it took for that newspaper to reach
2 the analytics department where at which point in time we would start
3 reading it and cross-referencing it with other information that we had.
4 In addition to this, we also received information from the Public
5 Security Service, also from the military intelligence, and from the
6 Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We also exchanged information with foreign
7 security services.
8 Q. What about the system of grading the reliability of intelligence?
9 I mean from worthless -- or information as from worthless as to absolutely
10 accurate or reliable? What was the system that was used and what were the
11 gradations employed?
12 A. When it comes to grading the reliability of sources, we had three
13 categories: Source is reliable, source is partially reliable, and source
14 is unreliable. Those were our -- that was our classification.
15 We had a very similar grading of information pieces that we
16 received. Information pieces were considered either fully verified,
17 partially verified, or non-verified.
18 Q. What did it take to grade a source as "reliable" or "partially
19 reliable"? What sort of information did you need or -- or criteria did
20 you use to make the gradation?
21 A. Well, now that I've mentioned a report of associates which was one
22 of the key elements that we used in order to assess the importance of
23 information received needed to draw forecasts, we would start from the
24 very beginning.
25 First we would make a basis -- a basic assessment of the person
1 and that person's character when he was recruited to work for the Security
3 Then we followed that person, his development. And you have to
4 know that no service in the world trusts a source fully. Even if we used
5 a source for a long period of time, even if that source cooperated with --
6 with us for a long period of time - and we use the term "cooperate" in
7 Serbia - we would still verify the information received from that
9 Some associates were trusted more; some were trusted less. But I
10 would say that that's typical in our kind of work.
11 Q. How were sources or informers rewarded by the State Security?
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me. I hate to interrupt. We've --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: We've introduced a new concept, that's of
15 informers. And we've been dealing with associates. I don't know whether
16 that's a new category or not. I would like clarification on that.
17 MR. RE: If it assists.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
19 MR. RE:
20 Q. Is there a difference between associates and informers and
21 sources? If so, what is it? And then please tell us how anyone in those
22 categories were reward?
23 A. The question was put to me concerning a report of associates.
24 That's the terminology that we use. Various services use various terms.
25 The State Security Service used the term "associate" to refer to such
1 people who covertly and in an organised manner worked for the State
2 Security Service.
3 The other term that we used was "an operative connection," which
4 referred to people who worked for the State Security Service but not at
5 the level where they could be considered associates. That means that
6 those people were monitored and were sort of groomed to become associates.
7 As for the term "informer" or "informant," that's a typical kind
8 of word. Some people use terms such as "sources," "agents," "insiders."
9 People use different terms, depending on how they receive information from
10 a live source.
11 So in order to avoid any confusion, Your Honours, by your leave, I
12 propose to use a term "a live source," which means that it's a human being
13 providing information to us. I think that would avoid any further
14 miscommunication and help us avoid confusion in the future.
15 Q. 200 people you referred to in the KLA before, are they live
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And how were people in their category rewarded by the State
20 A. The motivation of these people in their work for the State
21 Security Service was diverse, just like anywhere else. The basic element
22 was money. The second possible motive was of political nature, where they
23 did not agree or they disapproved of -- of various activities. And the
24 third motive was to compromise somebody. If somebody -- if we had
25 information about somebody that was of compromising nature, then we would
1 resort to blackmailing. I'm using that term because this is what it
2 amounts to everywhere else in the world. And in this category, we are
3 mostly dealing with partially verified information, and these people
4 worked under a pseudonym. They would only be mentioned under a pseudonym
5 in various reports.
6 If you wish, we -- I can explain our methodology and tell you how
7 we made contact with such people.
8 Q. If it assists the Trial Chamber.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I leave it in your hands, Mr. Re.
10 MR. RE: I anticipate that the Defence will ask the question, so I
11 might as well get in first.
12 MR. EMMERSON: I'd certainly like to hear a little bit more about
13 the blackmail, if possible, in chief.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. RE: Said very innocently.
16 Q. But please go on, Mr. Stijovic, about -- can you please explain
17 the -- the methodology of making contact with such people.
18 A. We would create a compromising information -- or rather,
19 compromising documents on the activity of a certain person. If it related
20 to the cooperation with the KLA, then that was the information that we
21 gained about these persons directly participating in KLA activities, in
22 crimes, in criminal activities. And given the position that these people
23 had within the KLA -- they were quite at a high level and were able to
24 provide very important and relevant information to us. Then based on that,
25 we would recruit them and introduce them to the Service. We would
1 confront them with the information that we had about the incriminating
2 activities that they were involved in, and then we asked them to do
3 something for us in exchange for not being prosecuted, and they would do
4 these things under the supervision and under the control of the State
5 Security Service.
6 Q. And how did that, in your professional experience, affect the
7 assessment of the reliability of the information you received?
8 Just -- just hang on a moment. There's an objection, I think.
9 MR. EMMERSON: It's not an objection. It's simply that -- that
10 the witness indicated in lines 23 to 25 that once confronted, the
11 individuals would be asked to do things under the supervision and control
12 of the State Security Service, which is obviously a different concept from
13 the provision of information. I wonder if it might be clarified what
14 things it was they were asked to do.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Whether it is different or not. I mean,
16 providing information is also doing something. That's --
17 When you said that you then asked them to do something for us in
18 exchange for not being prosecuted and they would do these things, what did
19 you have in mind there? What kind of things?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Pursuant to our instructions, they
21 would gather, first of all, information about the KLA activities. They
22 would also obtain certain documents for us. They would inform us about
23 the upcoming meetings, about the contacts of the KLA members. They would
24 provide minutes or records from their meetings.
25 When I use the term "things," meaning things they did, I was
1 referring to gathering information about the KLA activities.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you: Could doing something, could that
3 include also changing reality? That is, forging documents, planting
4 evidence. Or was it just that what they would do is to obtain documents,
5 information as it existed?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They would obtain, gather
7 information, and nothing other than that. And I say this on the basis of
8 everything that I have seen.
9 They -- this involved no forging or no doctoring of anything.
10 Nothing of that nature was done in their cooperation with the State
11 Security Service. They worked under the control and supervision of the
12 Security Service and it all amounted to gathering, collecting, obtaining
13 information and documents.
14 JUDGE ORIE: One more question in this respect: You earlier said
15 when you had discovered compromising activities by these persons. Would
16 you ever induce a compromising situation? For example, if you would find
17 out that someone was active in the KLA, well, that could be considered
18 compromising to the extent known to your organisation and perhaps to the
19 police and then to prevent prosecution. That's -- that's what I
21 Could it also be that you would create a compromising situation
22 and then blackmail that person on the basis of such compromising
24 I mean, would you induce extramarital relations or something like
25 that and then blackmail the persons involved with this compromising
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mentioned a detail. Your
3 Honour, I hope you want -- won't mind me repeating this. This is a detail
4 that is being used in all security services. Immoral behaviour is one of
5 the elements and one of the means of compromising people, by confronting
6 people with the evidence of their behaviour and thus making them behave in
7 accordance to your instructions.
8 When speaking of Albanians, I have to tell you that these are
9 patriarchal families where the authority of the head of the family is very
10 high, and thus all of the human behaviour that has to do with immoral
11 activities, adultery, alcohol abuse, all this is very fertile ground for
12 having conversations with them in order to convince them to start working
13 for the Service.
14 JUDGE ORIE: My question was, as a matter of fact, focusing. But
15 perhaps I have not been clear enough on the following: Some people behave
16 immorally without being encouraged to do so by others. Some need a bit of
17 a push. Would the pushes be part of your instruments?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely not. Knowledge about
19 someone's immoral behaviour, the information that we gained on that
20 through our work was the only thing that we used. We never induced
21 anybody to act immorally and then use it against them.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
23 Please proceed, Mr. Re.
24 MR. RE:
25 Q. With that clarification, I just return to what I was asking you a
1 moment ago. When armed with that information of "immoral behaviour," how
2 did that in your professional experience affect the assessment of the
3 reliability of the information you received from those immoral-type
5 A. The quality of such information in such an atmosphere with
6 predominating patriarchal moral principles, when one finds out that there
7 is a case of adultery among relatives, that there is a situation which
8 could be of compromising nature, not only for the persons involved but
9 also for the entire family that could lead to some very typical
10 consequences, such as blood revenge, a blood feud which exists in Kosovo
11 and Metohija. Then this was a very good tool for recruiting a person.
12 And the higher the level, the greater the possibility to keep that person
13 under the control.
14 If somebody was drunk and had a traffic misdemeanour because of
15 that and if we proposed to that person not to go to gaol for 30 days as a
16 result of that but offered some benefits for them, that person could not
17 be fully trusted. And when you receive information from such a person,
18 then you would always treat that information with -- you would put it
19 under scrutiny.
20 Also, if somebody was involved in gambling and if somebody, you
21 know, suffered great consequences because of that, then that was a
23 Also, if somebody used drugs but not to the detrimental level, if
24 somebody was a drug dealer, then of course you would treat the information
25 gained from such a person with some -- you would treat it with a grain of
1 salt. You wouldn't take it for granted. You wouldn't take it as accurate
2 on the face of it but would rather cross-reference that information with
3 other sources in order to be sure that the story they told you was
4 accurate, sincere, and that information obtained through that person could
5 be used by the Service as relevant and reliable in order to analyse the
6 activities of that person, other persons of that organisation. You would
7 weigh it all very carefully.
8 Q. Well, which category of live sources gave you the most reliable
10 A. Definitely an associate. That was the highest level of a live
11 source providing information to the State Security Service. The level
12 below that was an operational connection, operative connection. And the
13 level below that was gathering information from the citizens. In
14 accordance with the Law on Criminal Procedure in my country, pursuant to
15 Article 155 -- 151, paragraph 2, the police was authorised to conduct an
16 interview with the person and thus obtain information that was important
17 for us.
18 This category was used quite a lot, and we received a lot of
19 information from this category, but all of this information, all of this
20 intelligence that we obtained in this way was cross-referenced with other
22 If you caught eight terrorists crossing the border illegally and
23 smuggling weapons, then all eight of them would be interviewed about the
24 circumstances of that event, and after gaining all of the information from
25 them, after assessing all of that, we would gain an idea about what was
1 going on, where the -- that activity had originated, and how it further
3 We use this category of live sources quite a lot. And based on
4 interviews with them, we would compile an official note on interview
5 conducted. That's what the document was officially called.
6 Q. Can I just go back to the category of associates. Can you just
7 elaborate, in case it's a little bit unclear, on exactly what an associate
8 was within the Service and whether they were paid and, if so, how.
9 A. I think that I have said that an associate was a person who
10 covertly, in an organised way, and systematically gathered information for
11 the State Security Service.
12 Q. Were they -- were they on the staff of the State Security or were
13 they being paid to work for them in another way?
14 A. No. They were not employed. They were not staff members of the
15 State Security Service. They were outside associates. And the service
16 rewarded them. I think that that's an appropriate term to use, "rewarded"
17 them for their work, depending on the significance of the information and
18 the kind of information they provided.
19 Sometimes those were regular monthly rewards and sometimes they
20 would be rewarded just for a report, a piece of information they provided.
21 MR. EMMERSON: I -- just for the sake of the record, for
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.
24 MR. EMMERSON: The witness has explained a number of different
25 motivations for individuals to be providing information: Money and
1 blackmail, for example. Now, I had understand -- understood his testimony
2 to -- to encompass both associates and those at the immediately -- the
3 level immediately beneath associates. If I've misunderstood that, it
4 would be extremely helpful to have that clarified.
5 And secondly, in respect of the last answer that the witness has
6 given, that the amount of a reward would depend on the significance of the
7 information, it would be extremely helpful, again, if it could be
8 clarified whether it follows from that that the more useful the
9 information was perceived to be, the higher the sum of money would be
11 I appreciate these are questions that could be pursued in
12 cross-examination, but just in order to understand the evidence in chief,
13 it would be helpful to have them clear at this stage.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 Perhaps, Mr. Re, we could immediately ask the witness: When you
16 are talking about people and the motives for which they cooperated with
17 you, associates and below, were you talking about those or were you also
18 talking about other categories or -- you were not talking about those
19 employed by your service, were you?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. No, that's a separate
21 category. Associates are people who are not employed by the State
22 Security Service. They do not receive a salary from the Service.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then the other question was, yes, if you paid
24 them for information they provided, would that payment be in accordance
25 with the importance of the information or would you pay more for vital
1 information than you'd pay for more ordinary information?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You are correct, Your Honour. It is
3 trading. If the infiltrator is a highly ranked person and if that
4 information is highly sensitive and valuable, then the monetary reward
5 should affect the value and it is up to the commission to determine the
6 exact amount. It can be several thousands of German marks of -- or Euro,
7 even, depending on the importance of information and the level of that
9 If we have a person who is within the inner circle, the inner-most
10 circle - this being the Main Staff - and if that person gathers and
11 forwards information to you once they return from abroad, you have to pay
12 for his expenses, you have to give him a reward. Therefore, it depends on
13 the level of infiltration and the value of information.
14 Certain people also received regular monthly installments in
15 addition to the irregular expenses.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Re, please proceed.
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: I apologise. I'm unclear about one point. The
18 gentleman said it's up to the commission to determine the exact amount. I
19 take it there's a body that makes a determination of the amount of money
20 to be paid to any individual who's given information?
21 JUDGE ORIE: Is that a correct understanding by Mr. Guy-Smith,
22 Mr. Stijovic?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I misspoke. A proposal for the --
24 for a reward is given by an operative with whom the associate is
25 cooperating, and the decision concerning the proposal is made by the chief
1 of the Centre of the Security Service. The operative in question was
2 allowed to give monetary rewards up to a certain amount, but anything
3 beyond that had to go in writing. A proposal had to be made, to which a
4 decision would be issued.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Re.
6 Mr. Re, it seems that you are thinking about your next question.
7 I'm thinking about having a break. Also because those assisting us might
8 have been here even before we started.
9 We'll have a break until half past 4.00.
10 --- Recess taken at 4.03 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 4.35 p.m.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Mr. Re, the Chamber was informed
13 that the Defence will not object to the request for an amendment of the
15 Now, in order to speed up things, I'd -- I do understand that you
16 do not make any application for adding witnesses to the witness list if
17 you do not know yet whether the -- whether the amendment of the indictment
18 will be approved. Nevertheless, the Chamber would not be opposed against
19 you making a provisional request to add -- I think three witnesses were
20 mentioned in the -- in the request for leave to amend the indictment. And
21 if you would inform the Defence perhaps about the times you would need for
22 that, and then if the Defence could respond.
23 Even such a request, the matter is, I would say, pretty obvious
24 that if you give more specifications that you need another type of
25 evidence. If you would make such a provisional request orally, the
1 Chamber would not mind. It would then be on the record. If the Defence
2 could respond to such a provisional request, that is, in case the
3 amendment -- the requested leave to amend the indictment would be granted,
4 then the Prosecution would like to add to the witness list the Witness A,
5 B, and C, and if the Defence could respond to that or tell the Chamber
6 whether it opposes such a request, then we can speed up matters and not
7 lose any time.
8 Mr. Re, you may proceed.
9 Mr. Stijovic, this had nothing to do with you, but it was a tiny
10 procedural issue I had to raise. But now we focus again, and we'll
11 carefully listen to your testimony.
12 Mr. Re.
13 MR. RE:
14 Q. Before the break, we were talking -- we were talking about the
15 categories of people who provided information to the DB. What I want to
16 find out is was there a way of working out from the documents, including
17 those which are annexed to your statement, which category of people have
18 given you the information in those documents? That is, associate, or
19 operative source, or whatever.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And what -- what's that?
22 A. In order to assess a document received through a live source --
23 THE INTERPRETER: Or rather, interpreter's correction, on the
24 basis of documents received through live sources.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And on the basis of reports that I
1 mentioned that are attached to the file.
2 MR. RE:
3 Q. More specifically, is there something on the face of the document
4 that will tell us instantly the category of source for that document?
5 That is, whether it's from an associate or a -- an operative or whatever.
6 A. There is such an indication at the top of the document, and also
7 one can gather that from the type of document.
8 Q. What is the indication at the top that tells us where -- the
9 source of the document?
10 A. When we are talking about the information received through
11 associates, the template and the form in which information is shared are
12 specified in the document under the heading "Associate report."
13 As regards operational connections and the persons that the
14 Service had conducted an interview with, based on Article 151,
15 subparagraph 2 of the Law on Criminal Procedure, that document is called
16 "Note on an interview conducted, official note."
17 There is a template which contains data on the source, and it is
18 clearly specified what kind of source that is and what is the degree of
20 Q. There are 78 documents in the binder in front of you. Would you
21 be able to find relatively easily something -- an example in the category
22 of associate report? And if you can, just refer to which annex the
23 document is and we'll take it from there.
24 A. That is not a problem. However, I may have some difficulty
25 finding it in the file. I will eventually come across an associate
2 There it is. It is binder -- just a second, please. 48. Tab 48.
3 Q. And that is 65 ter 2 --
4 A. 48, yes.
5 Q. 65 ter Exhibit 2034.
6 MR. RE: Can that document remain under seal at the moment, as it
7 contains the name of, I think, a live source, as it's been termed.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.
9 MR. EMMERSON: I may be wrong, but I think it's anonymised.
10 MR. RE:
11 Q. It's the document dated the 16th of April, 1998, and in English it
12 says "Report of a collaborator."
13 JUDGE ORIE: No. Mr. Emmerson, I do not see that it's anonymised.
14 I see the first line under 1 -- well, a number and a name which might be a
16 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. Well --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Even there I would be very careful with nicknames.
18 Often nicknames are related one way or another with real names.
19 MR. EMMERSON: Well, Your Honour will see there's quite a large
20 number of these reports which appear to contain code names.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, let's be -- let's stay on the safe side
22 at this moment. Yes, it should remain under seal.
23 Please proceed, Mr. Re.
24 MR. RE: [Microphone not activated]
25 Sorry, could that get a number before we move on?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Registrar.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will P932.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
4 Please proceed, Mr. Re.
5 MR. RE:
6 Q. Now, without mentioning the name of the person who's described as
7 a collaborator --
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: I apologise. Excuse me. Before we go any
9 further, since it is an annex, we have a standing objection to all
10 annexes. I don't know how the Chamber wishes to treat that at this time.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I think, as a matter of fact, that we'll not
12 determine the matter at this moment.
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: So it's marked for identification.
14 JUDGE ORIE: We need more time for that.
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: I understand.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Apart from that, I don't know at this moment what
17 type of questions will be. And since the Defence has made, on several
18 occasions, a distinction between the reason for admission. Whether the
19 Chamber could do so is another matter. But let's just wait and see. But
20 it's on the record that you oppose the admission.
21 MR. GUY-SMITH: And for purposes just of some guidance, would the
22 Chamber at this time like that each time we're dealing with an annex for
23 us to make a specific objection?
24 JUDGE ORIE: If you now object against all the annexes, then
25 that's on the record.
1 Mr. Emmerson.
2 MR. EMMERSON: Just one qualification to that, obviously: It is
3 objection to those annexes to which objection is taken in the motion.
4 There are some annexes which do not fall within that category.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm -- the response -- no, the motion. No, the
6 motion. The annexes to -- the annexes to the motion where you set out
7 exactly this one, paragraph so-and-so.
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: Precisely.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And I do see that you, Mr. --
10 MR. HARVEY: For the sake of the record, I wish it to be clear --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You list clearly in your motion --
12 MR. HARVEY: It's supplemental.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. HARVEY: Not alternative. So I join with Mr. Emmerson and
15 Mr. Guy-Smith.
16 JUDGE ORIE: There's objection, unless contradicted by the
17 presence or the absence, the presence of a non-objection or the absence of
18 an objection in your motions.
19 Yes, that's on the record.
20 MR. HARVEY: Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
22 MR. RE:
23 Q. Without mentioning the name of the collaborator, is that a
24 nickname or a name given to the person by the service for the purposes of
25 identifying them?
1 A. In the first part where there is data on the information source,
2 it says: "Associate Jaglic." Jaglic was a pseudonym used internally. It
3 was used in internal correspondence within the RDB.
4 Next to the number -- next to the pseudonym there is a number.
5 JUDGE ORIE: One second, Mr. Re. Out of an abundance of caution,
6 I said that it should be under seal, because of the mentioning of the
7 pseudonym. What's your position?
8 MR. RE: Well, maybe the witness can tell us. If it -- if it's
9 harmless and it's an internal thing which doesn't -- doesn't identify, I'm
10 comfortable. But if it's a name which could identify the person --
11 JUDGE ORIE: You have some concerns that the pseudonym could
12 identify the person? No. You say there's no risk. So we could use that
13 name without any further protection of that person.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can tell you this: Even the
15 person concerned does not know his pseudonym. It has nothing to do with
16 his name. It's a code name given to the person by the operative who
17 contacted him or her. This was simply a code name used internally. I
18 cannot tell you whether it can put the person in any danger. I can only
19 tell you there is no relation. The pseudonym has nothing to do with the
21 JUDGE ORIE: That's about the name.
22 Now, the content of the report could be of a nature which might
23 identify that person. I don't know. I haven't read it yet. If you have
24 any concerns in that respect, then we leave the document under seal. And
25 I leave it to Mr. Re to find the right moment to go into private session.
1 Mr. Emmerson.
2 MR. EMMERSON: Might we establish, please, simply "yes" or "no,"
3 not with a substantive answer, whether the witness himself knows the
4 identity of the person who is referred to by this pseudonym?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's ask the witness.
6 You've just named that person by his pseudonym. Do you personally
7 know that person for which a pseudonym is introduced here? Have you met
8 him? Do you know who he is? I'm not asking who -- who it is but I'm
9 asking whether you know who he is.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
12 Please proceed, Mr. Re.
13 MR. RE:
14 Q. Would publishing the information in this report, in your view,
15 lead to the danger of identifying who the person is? If the contents
16 became known, could that person's identity be exposed?
17 A. Yes, it could.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then perhaps out of caution, we should go into
19 private session as soon as you start asking questions of a character that
20 go to the content.
21 MR. RE:
22 Q. I'm only interested in the form of this document as one which you
23 can use to identify those provided by an operative. What is it about this
24 document which enables you to tell the Trial Chamber that this is
25 information provided by a -- I think you said "associate" before. Correct
1 me if I'm wrong.
2 A. That is correct.
3 In any serious analysis or having conducted such an analysis, one
4 could realise who the person is. In item 2, we have data on enemy
5 activity; meaning that that person addressed the structure, position, and
6 location of various people.
7 Q. Maybe I'm not making myself clear. All I want to know is:
8 Looking at the document, what enables you to work out from what's written
9 at the top, the -- the name for the collaborator, the number, things which
10 are written on it, "OO", "PO", et cetera, to tell you this is a report
11 made from an associate, as opposed to a different type of live source?
12 The question is just based on the format of the document and
13 what's on it.
14 A. Very well. This is an authentic document from the RDB. It was
15 drafted by an operative of the RDB who had contact with the associate.
16 The authenticity can easily be verified if one looks at the left
17 upper corner, where it clearly states whose document it is: "The Republic
18 of Serbia. Ministry of the Interior, State Security Service, Albanian
19 extremism and terrorism. RDB centre Prizren, RDB office Pec."
20 Below that is a code, and that is the operative's number. Below
21 there is the date of drafting, and in the right-hand corner one can read
22 that the data forwarded by the associate have to do with the operative
23 action Krug, "circle," and concerns various people that the RDB conducted
24 investigations into. And I mean by this that the acronyms "OO" and "PO"
25 reflect that.
1 Q. Your evidence earlier was the most reliable information came from
2 associates, as opposed to those lower down on the categories you
3 described, operatives, et cetera. What is it about looking at the
4 document that enables you to say -- that this relates to an operative --
5 sorry, an associate? What's the code or the -- or the template or the key
6 which says this is an associate's report?
7 A. I said that the first part of the document of an associate report
8 looks like this. The first item contains data on the source of
9 information. This is what we use when reporting.
10 Below that, we have a description of what it concerns. It says
11 here clearly: "Associate Jaglic."
12 This is the form, standard form, and all of the data mentioned
13 here has to be there in this type of document, and it should also describe
14 what the report of the associate has to do with and the time.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, there might be a translation issue. The word
16 used translated in English as "collaborator," the original being
17 "saradnika" we'd like to hear from our interpreters whether "saradnika"
18 is a collaborator or could also be translated or also translated as an
19 associate. I'm listening to the English channel at this moment.
20 THE INTERPRETER: The words are synonymous. However; as of the
21 beginning of the trial today, we used the term "associate," so we kept
22 using the same word so as to avoid any confusion.
23 JUDGE ORIE: So the word used by the witness earlier when he spoke
24 about an associate is the same word that we find here, that is
1 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, it is.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. This being clarified.
3 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry, may I take advantage of that pause to
4 ask whether Mr. Re can clarify with the witness again with a yes or no
5 rather an a content response whether in respect of this report and other
6 similar reports the witness himself knows what the operative's code - 0389
7 in this instance - indicates. In other words, whether he knows the
8 identity of the operative.
9 MR. RE: He just said he did. He said he knew the person.
10 JUDGE ORIE: No. No. No, Mr. Re. I think I asked him whether he
11 personally knew the person that was given a pseudonym in this report. I
12 think that Mr. Emmerson is now inquiring into the number of the operative,
13 that is 04845 just below "RDB Pec Detachment." I think that's where the
14 witness said the code of the employee -- that's -- looking at this
15 number -- I'm not asking you who it is. But this person by his number
16 04845, would you know who that is?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this case, concerning this
18 associate report, the answer is "yes."
19 JUDGE ORIE: Do I understand your answer correctly that you say
20 perhaps I would not know for others, but this one I know?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're absolutely correct. This was
22 one of the most important and it was a quality source for the surface.
23 Therefore, we valued his reports. And by the virtue of my position, I
24 know who the person is.
25 By your leave, Your Honour, I do not understand English, but I --
1 what I can see on the screen before me is "collaborator," and I believe it
2 is a translation matter. An associate is an associate. A collaborator in
3 our terminology has a different connotation, in Serbian at least.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that "collaboration" has a negative
5 connotation; whereas, you wanted to -- the matter has been --
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, that raises a --
7 MR. EMMERSON: I'm not entirely sure that the matter has been
8 clarified. I think that the witness's answer, as I understand it, is
9 repeating the answer that he gave before about personally knowing who
10 Jaglic is.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I understood. I gave him the number.
12 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. I --
13 JUDGE ORIE: The number on top.
14 MR. EMMERSON: I appreciate that. But the answer refers to the
15 source, rather than the operative.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just -- let me then go back to what the
17 witness said about this number. Let me just -- one second, please. I
18 have to ...
19 Mr. Emmerson, the witness explained the letterhead. I'm just
20 trying to find it.
21 Below that, Mr. Emmerson, I take you to page 38, line -- no, page
22 39, line 25. He first explains a few lines before that whose document it
23 is, Republic of Serbia, Ministry of the Interior, State Security Service,
24 Albanian extremist and terrorism, RDB centre Prizren, RDB office Pec.
25 And then below that is a code.
1 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And that is the operative's number.
3 I do understand, but let's --
4 MR. EMMERSON: There are, of course, two numbers below that.
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- seek for clarification the operative that, is not
6 the associate but that's the person who wrote this report - Is that
7 correctly understood? - wrote this report having received information from
8 the person whose pseudonym appears a bit further down? Is that correctly
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely correctly.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Do you also know the identity of the operative, not
12 only of the person mentioned by pseudonym?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this specific case, when it comes
14 to the report of associate Jaglic, the answer is "yes."
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Re.
16 MR. RE:
17 Q. You said a little earlier that "this was one of the most important
18 and was a quality source for the Service, therefore we valued his
19 reports." Are you referring to the operative or Jaglic?
20 A. I'm referring to the associate Jaglic, not the operative. The
22 Q. What was it about Jaglic's reports that gave them this high level
23 of quality?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, I don't know what the answer will be, but
25 wouldn't it be wise to go into private session at this moment?
1 MR. RE:
2 Q. Would -- would your answer say something that might endanger the
3 identity of Jaglic? If so, we'll move into private session.
4 A. As far as I'm concerned, no reason for that. I don't think I'll
5 make a mistake that would endanger him.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
7 MR. RE:
8 Q. On that basis, please answer very carefully.
9 A. The said person under pseudonym "Jaglic" is a person who over a
10 longer period of time provided information to the State Security Service
11 about the activities of the terrorist KLA both within the country and the
12 activities in the Albanian diaspora overseas related to the promotion of
13 the KLA.
14 I hope this is sufficient.
15 Q. What enabled you to assess his or her information as quality?
16 A. The information provided by this person initially helped us a
17 great deal establish who inspired and organised the KLA and who was
18 involved in their activities overseas. Overseas initially and later on in
19 the country as well.
20 Q. Is this person a member of the KLA?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. How was his information cross-checked?
23 A. We cross-checked them through other associates. We checked them
24 by exchanging information with foreign services. We also checked this by
25 using technical equipment, by using surveillance or monitoring in relation
1 to some persons whom we were able to put under surveillance covertly.
2 Q. When -- when you say that, are you giving evidence about things
3 you know from personal experience in relation to Jaglic, or are you
4 referring generally to what the service did in cross-checking?
5 A. Since right now we spoke about Jaglic, I spoke on the basis of my
6 personal experience and the experience that the State Security Service had
7 with him. And generally speaking, we cross-checked information we
8 received from anyone, including associates, regardless of how reliable
9 that person was considered or how -- what was the quality of the
10 cooperation with that person until that moment.
11 Q. Just going back to the format of the document. You've told us
12 that 04845 was the code for an operative. Handwritten on the document
13 underneath that is "0389" and also "02021" a bit to the right of that. To
14 what do those two handwritten numbers refer?
15 A. The first number is the registration number in the record books
16 kept by the Security Service. That means that it was registered under
17 this number.
18 The other number, 2021, is the number that the document was kept
19 under in the Prizren RDB. So the first number is the number of the
20 subcentre; whereas, 2021 is the number assigned by the regional centre in
21 Prizren in the registration books or record books.
22 Q. In your statement, you refer to what "OA Krug" means, and I'll
23 come to that in a moment.
24 Underneath that are the letters "OO" with inverted commas around
25 them, and under that the letters "PO" in inverted commas. It's on the
1 right-hand side of the front page. What do they refer to?
2 A. I -- both "OA," "OO," and "PO," are kinds of operations work of
3 the State Security Service during that period of time. Operations action
4 is a complex type of operative work that enables the Security Service to
5 use various measures and live sources in relation to a certain person or
6 an event that was of interest for us. There was a deadline for the
7 completion of that action envisaged.
8 As for "OO," that stands for "operativna obrada", which is a level
9 below operations action, and it means that certain persons were put under
10 operative measures. That's what it stands for.
11 It simply has to do with the kind of measures that are applied in
12 relation to a certain person, measures or different kinds of work of our
13 service in relation to that person.
14 Let me just add this: It also means that the information provided
15 by this person refers both to persons included in previous reports,
16 persons that are covered by operative measures, and persons that are
17 covered by operative actions. So these are all different kinds of work or
18 measures applied by the service.
19 Q. Let's just divide it in two: The first one "OO". Can you just
20 said the word slowly so we can get a translation of what it is into
22 A. "OO" stands for operativna obrada. As for "PO" --
23 MR. RE: Could the translators or the interpreters interpret for
24 us what --
25 JUDGE ORIE: It seems to be it didn't appear translated on the
1 transcript. Therefore Mr. Re is seeking the English for obrada.
2 THE INTERPRETER: Operations measure or operative measure.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
4 MR. RE:
5 Q. OP, just can you -- sorry, "PO," what's that?
6 A. "PO" stands for predhodna obrada, which is initial measure.
7 Let me describe an example. For example, the State Security
8 Service learns that there is hostile activity in a certain area. This is
9 the first piece of information. That means that something is going on
10 that is of interest to the service.
11 If the service receives several pieces of such information in a
12 short period of time indicating that there is a certain person or a
13 certain group dealing -- or rather, involved in this activity, then this
14 person or this group is covered by "PO," by initial measures. This is the
15 kind of measures that are applied in relation to that person or group.
16 As the time goes by, if the information about the activities of
17 that person or group escalates and becomes more relevant to the service,
18 then the initial measures are stepped up and become operative measures.
19 As for operative actions, that is a higher level of work including
20 measures that are more complex against the person or group that had been
21 initially put under initial measures.
22 Q. On the document, in the heading on the left, the fourth line, it
23 says: "III/AET." What does "III" mean and what does "AET" stand for.
24 And can you just say it slowly so we can interpret what "AET" means.
25 A. The State Security Service organised its work on the principle of
1 territorial and professional work. This "III" stands for third
2 professional work, which in our service dealt with extremists.
3 Under extremists, we had Albanian extremists and terrorists,
4 Serbian extremists and terrorists, and Muslim extremists and terrorists
5 and their activities.
6 To put it briefly, this line of work dealt with internal security.
7 We also had the first professional line of work and the second
8 professional line of work. If you're not interested in that, we don't
9 need to speak of it.
10 Q. "AET," what's that?
11 A. That's an acronym which stands for "Albanian extremism and
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, we find that already on page 39, line 24,
14 where the witness explained the letterhead.
15 Please proceed.
16 MR. RE:
17 Q. In relation to the five-digit code "04845", did every operative
18 have a five-digit code?
19 A. I personally had a five-digit code. This had to do with the
20 computer and technical service, in order to compress the information and
21 to protect operatives. I think that all officers who were authorised
22 operatives had a five-digit code that stood for their name and other
24 Q. Is there a master list somewhere matching the digits -- digit
25 codes to their names?
1 A. Absolutely, yes.
2 Q. A number of these -- a number of these documents bear five-digit
3 codes. Do you from memory know the -- know the identities of the people
4 whose digit code -- five-digit codes appear in these documents? I mean,
5 do you know them all or some of them, is what I'm getting at.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I think the witness has answered that question
8 MR. RE: Has he?
9 JUDGE ORIE: I asked him if he would know this one. He said,
10 "This one, I would know." Then I said, "Would I correctly understand you
11 that you don't know them all but this one you know?" And he said, "yes."
12 MR. RE: I'm referring to the documents he has, not -- not
13 everyone in the whole service. I'm just referring to the documents
14 annexed to his statement, whether he knows the identity of those in these
15 statements. It's a shortcut. I think Your Honour's question was
16 referring to the -- I understood it to be referring to the whole or
17 generally to --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, yes, so you're now talking about all the
19 five-digit numbers in all the documents attached? That was not clear to
21 MR. RE: Okay.
22 JUDGE ORIE: If that was your question, then that has not been
23 answered. I fully agree with you. But I didn't understand that to be the
25 But please proceed.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excuse me, could you please repeat
2 your question.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, could I try to -- to seek --
4 You've seen the annexes to your statement. Among them, a lot of
5 reports by operatives, all under a five-digit number. From those
6 documents, do you know all of these operatives? Do you recognise them on
7 the basis of their five-digit number? Or do you know only some of them?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, absolutely. Most of the
9 documents that were shown to me refer to operatives whom I know
10 personally. I, as head of the analysis department, talk to them
11 frequently in order to assess the veracity or reliability of information
12 and in order to prepare further activities for them.
13 MR. RE:
14 Q. I want to take you to paragraph 7 of your statement. And may that
15 be displayed in Sanction.
16 It refers to an operation called Krug, or circle, in the mid-1990s
17 onwards and which you say relied on all of the sources of information
18 described before, human intelligence, electronic surveillance, and media
20 What was the purpose of this Operation Krug and who authorised it?
21 A. I can say quite a lot about this, given that I personally drafted
22 a proposal to initiate the Operation Krug, defining the objectives and
23 tasks for the State Security Service.
24 The need for this operation arose once the extremist and terrorist
25 activity in Kosovo and Metohija was on the rise. That was in mid-1996.
1 Based on the information we had during that period of time, we learned
2 about some data which very reliably indicated that an organised work of an
3 illegal organisation stood behind these activities, and that organisation
4 was the LPK, People's Movement of Kosovo. Based on that, I drafted a
5 proposal to initiate this operative action, in order to locate, monitor,
6 and put an end to such type of activities. And this action was to be
7 conducted in -- in Pristina and it was to be monitored in all other
9 As for the decision to initiate this action, it was taken in
10 Belgrade by the Minister of the Interior. So we gave a proposal, and the
11 Minister of the Interior of Serbia passed the decision to initiate this
12 operative action, which was targeted -- or rather, which targeted the
13 activities of the LPK, People's Movement of Kosovo, and the KLA.
14 Q. Who was in charge of it in Kosovo?
15 A. This operative action -- rather, this operation fell under the
16 responsibility of the chief of the RDB in Kosovo and Metohija. At that
17 person -- at that time, that position was held by David Gajic. And after
18 him, in late '98, Milosav Vilotic was appointed to that position. The
19 immediate superior -- or rather, the person who stood between me and them
20 was Milan Lakovic, chief of the security centre in Pristina.
21 Q. Turning to paragraph 10 of your statement, which we'll also
22 display in -- in Sanction, you say that "Virtually every report and
23 written document concerning terrorist activities of the KLA in the
24 Dukagjin operational zone in 1998 contains mention of Ramush Haradinaj or
25 a member of his family, in particular, Daut or Nasim."
1 Was the information you're referring to there gathered as part of
2 Operation Krug? Yes? No? Maybe?
3 A. I didn't hear the interpretation. The interpreters are saying
4 that they could not hear the interpreter.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Re please come closer to the
7 MR. RE:
8 Q. Paragraph 10, the first line. Just read that.
9 A. The first ten --
10 Q. Just to yourself.
11 Was the information referred to there gathered as part of
12 Operation Krug?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You then refer to telephone conversations and electronic
15 surveillance of Ramush Haradinaj and Lahi Brahimaj and close associates.
16 What happened to the transcripts or tapes of these conversations?
17 A. I can't give you an answer to that question. I know that these
18 documents and transcripts were made, that there are recordings of these
19 conversations, and as to where they are located, I wouldn't be able to
20 say. I think you need to direct that question to the authorities in
21 Belgrade and ask them where this documentation is located.
22 Q. Do you believe them still to exist?
23 A. I am convinced that a large portion of these documents exists. I
24 know that that in the eve of the bombing we pulled out quite a lot of
25 documents from Kosovo and Metohija and we moved them to safe areas in
2 Q. Please move to paragraph 18 of your statement, which you refer to
3 an anthology of KLA documents in a book edited by Gafurr Elsani.
4 You refer to the foreword of the book being written by one
5 Emrush Dzemailji, who wrote that KLA was part of the LPK's project. Who
6 was Emrush Dzemailji?
7 A. Emrush Dzemailji at that point was the chairman of the People's
8 Movement for the Republic of Kosovo. He is one of the leading members of
9 these illegal organisations that were active in early 1980s in Kosovo and
11 After the last meeting that he had in March in Tirana, the meeting
12 with the Albanian immigration, where they promoted KLA, he moved to Kosovo
13 and Metohija and from that time until the end, he was in the staff of
14 Ramush Haradinaj in Glodjane. He had a pseudonym for his protection and
15 he also had people protecting him. Even nowadays he's a highly placed
16 official of that organisation, the People's Movement of -- for Kosovo.
17 Q. How well-placed was he, according to what you know about him and
18 his activities, to provide an assessment about the documents in that book?
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: I think the question as phrased calls for
20 speculation and is outside the knowledge of the witness.
21 MR. RE: I press the question. I'm asking the witness for his
22 information about Mr. Dzemailji, and based upon that, how well placed
23 Mr. Dzemailji would have been according to what the witness knows.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I think as you formulate it now, it starts at least
25 more factual than the previous formulation.
1 Please proceed on the basis of the second formulation.
2 MR. RE:
3 Q. Mr. Stijovic.
4 A. This is no speculation whatsoever. This is a book published by
5 the People's Movement for Kosovo, published in Switzerland in March of
7 In this book, they publish in the chronological order the
8 documentation of the KLA and the People's Movement for Kosovo, depicting
9 the development of that organisation and the terrorist KLA.
10 This man was the chairman of the People's Movement for Kosovo. He
11 was the most influential member of that party. And the KLA is their
12 military wing or military project. He arrived in Glodjane from Tirana,
13 where he attended a gathering promoting the KLA.
14 After arriving in Glodjane, he spent a long time in the staff of
15 Ramush Haradinaj under a pseudonym in Glodjane. He wasn't alone there.
16 There were many other members of that organisation. For example,
17 Hajdin Abazi, who was one of the key members of the NPOK. He had a
18 pseudonym under which he stayed near Djakovica.
19 As for Dzemailji, from the very beginning of his stay in Glodjane,
20 he had a lot of influence with Haradinaj and enabled Haradinaj to stay in
21 that area and to keep the position that he kept there.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that you'd like to know on what basis the
23 witness --
24 MR. EMMERSON: No -- yes, I think -- I think if I may say so, it's
25 extremely important to keep a clear distinction between factual
1 information and opinion evidence. And it is inevitable - and we see it in
2 the 92 ter statement in the passages that the Trial Chamber has already
3 directed to be removed from it - but it is inevitable that if open
4 questions are asked, we will find ourselves drifting, as we do there, into
5 a mixture of fact and opinion.
6 And really, with respect, the matter needs to be built up, if it
7 is going to be built up in stages.
8 I don't, at this particular stage, ask Mr. Re to go back over the
9 question that he's asked and retrace his steps. But --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. EMMERSON: In broad terms, if we are to avoid opinion evidence
12 from this witness, it needs to be simple questions with a factual basis.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, it would certainly prevent objections in the
14 near future if you'd take the witness step by step and focus as much as
15 possible on facts, to start with.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. RE:
18 Q. What was your information about Mr. Dzemailji's influence within
19 the LPK and KLA?
20 A. It is a fact that Emrush Dzemailji was the president of the
21 People's Movement for Kosovo, which was the organisation that founded the
22 KLA. It is a fact that after a meeting in Tirana chaired by him
23 personally he moved over to the territory of Kosovo.
24 It is a fact that Emrush Dzemailji --
25 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that your response to my request
1 to -- to have facts. But starting a sentence by says that it is a fact
2 doesn't make such a matter of fact.
3 I would say, first of all - and that's something you could tell us
4 from your own observation - is from whom you learned about these events.
5 Because that's what you experienced yourself. I take it that you were not
6 with this person when he came from Tirana.
7 So we'd like to -- first of all, to know about your source of
8 information on what you just told us.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, do you want me only to
10 mention the period as of which Emrush Dzemailji was at the headquarters in
11 Glodjane; that is, towards the end of March 1998? Or do you want me to
12 address the genesis of the movement and the role of Emrush Dzemailji in
13 all of that?
14 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not seeking that. I'm just referring to your
16 You said: "It is a fact that Emrush Dzemailji was the president
17 of the People's Movement for Kosovo." How did you learn that? Have you
18 seen documents he signed? Is it -- did he appear on television as such?
19 I mean, how do you know?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We knew because we were in
21 possession of certain documents which came from the meetings held by the
22 organisation in the preceding period.
23 We also learnt through our live sources that we had in Switzerland
24 and Germany that were in close contact with him. And we also learned from
25 some positions expressed by Emrush Dzemailji in public as well as about
1 the documents that were published in the Albanian media in Kosovo and
3 And when talking about the media, none of the things were ever
4 denied by either Emrush Dzemailji or anyone else at that time or nowadays,
5 for that matter.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
7 Perhaps, Mr. Re, the same for the next fact the witness presented,
8 that he moved to the territory of Kosovo after a meeting he chaired in
10 How did you know that?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Albanian television in Tirana
14 broadcast in the evening hours of that day that there was a meeting held
15 in Tirana where Emrush Dzemailji was and where he addressed those present.
16 There were several other members of the presidency as well,
17 including Iber Demaj [phoen], who was a person from the area of Pec.
18 At that meeting, they familiarised the media with the situation in
19 Kosovo and Metohija and the role that the NPK had and was supposed to play
20 in the period following that.
21 Through a person who was present at the press conference, we were
22 told that a significant portion of the leadership of that organisation
23 towards end March and early April illegally crossed into Kosovo and
24 Metohija and took part in KLA activities in the field directly.
25 I mentioned already Emrush Dzemailji, and I think I also mentioned
1 Hajdin Abazi. That person was one of the persons of the NPK that used a
2 fake name and a pseudonym. In Munich, he was Lym Haxhiu [phoen]. The
3 public knows about that person as the person who under that fake name and
4 pseudonym welcomed a high delegation from the United States, including
5 Mr. Holbrooke and so on and so forth.
6 Then some other people went further afield into the territory of
7 Kosovo; namely, Adem Grabovci who was also in the area --
8 JUDGE ORIE: I'm going to stop you there. I was mainly trying to
9 find out what the source of your knowledge was in relation to this person
10 that, after having chaired a meeting in Tirana to -- going to Kosovo,
11 rather than to have more details about that.
12 Mr. Emmerson.
13 MR. EMMERSON: Sorry to interrupt again. Very often - and we see
14 it in the last series of questions and answers - this witness will refer
15 to information from live sources.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. EMMERSON: Now, I'm assuming when he uses an expression of
18 that kind that it is a source that he is not willing to name, and
19 therefore I don't propose on each occasion to stand up and seek
20 identification of the source, because obviously an anonymous source of
21 information is a matter which is going inevitably to weigh in the Trial
22 Chamber's evaluation of what weight can be attached to any information
24 But -- but may I simply adopt the position that unless the witness
25 volunteers the name of his source, we are assuming it is a source that he
1 is unwilling to name for the purposes of these proceedings?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's -- let's ask the witness.
3 When you're saying that you learned something from a source which
4 you do not name, is that because you are not willing to give that name?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree with you. It had to do with
6 the journalist present. But even before that, Your Honour, I had said
7 that that news was broadcast on television.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But from now on, if you don't give the name of
9 a source as someone who gave the information, you are invited to either
10 spontaneously give the name of that person or, if you don't, we understand
11 that you have reasons to prefer not to give that name. That's how we'll
12 understand your testimony.
13 Please proceed, Mr. Re.
14 Well, I'm looking at the clock. Perhaps it would be the suitable
15 moment for the break.
16 May I invite the parties, also the Defence -- I do understand that
17 the interventions until now were not without reason. Nevertheless, I
18 would like to urge you to -- to keep them as limited as possible, because
19 it really interrupts the flow of evidence Mr. Re wanted to elicit.
20 And I'll try to improve as well, Mr. Re.
21 MR. RE: Your Honour, before you break.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. RE: In terms of the attachments to the statement.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. RE: Can we get -- can the registry allocate numbers to each
1 of these? They've all got 65 ter numbers. I obviously can't take the
2 witness through every one, and they're going to go out of sync, because we
3 want to argue at one point the admissibility of some of them. Some of
4 them aren't objected to.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest, as a matter of fact, that for the time
6 being that we work on the basis of the annexes as we find them here.
7 Because we soon will get at a point where you might argue that all of them
8 are admissible evidence and where the Defence might take a different
9 position. We'll then decide. If the Defence were to say, "No, Mr. Re,
10 we're fine with all of the documents." They have said they're not. Then
11 perhaps they change their mind. Then we could, perhaps, assign one
12 exhibit number, if we are making a selection or if you are making a
13 selection or the Chamber will make a selection, then we might assign
14 individual numbers to individual documents.
15 So for the time being, I would prefer to work on the basis of
16 these numbers, attachment number, because that's also easier to find.
17 MR. RE: No, I understand, but the difficulty is that I've already
18 referred to one -- I think I got a number P932 or something. So one's in.
19 It's already out of sync.
20 I want to refer to maybe 20 or 30 or so individually. But that
21 means they're going to get numbers out of order, which means it's going --
22 it's going to be difficult to --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I do understand that the order is not without
24 importance for you.
25 Mr. Registrar, whenever we -- whenever Mr. Re indicates that he
1 would like to have a document marked for identification, could you assign
2 it a number and then later on we'll decide on whether it will be tendered,
3 whether it will be admitted into evidence.
4 MR. RE: What I'm asking is can they all be given a -- a marked
5 number, maybe during the break, so they'll all be in sync and then we
6 could argue the admissibility afterwards. That way they would keep them
7 in the same order.
8 JUDGE ORIE: All the of the documents?
9 MR. RE: Yeah.
10 JUDGE ORIE: The whole series?
11 MR. RE: Yeah, one, two, three, four, five, whatever. 932, three,
12 four, five, six, et cetera, and then that we could argue whether they go
13 in or not afterwards, and that way they all remain in the same order
14 rather than going backwards and forwards, and I've referred to some but
15 not others and some have got numbers and some haven't. But that's all I'm
16 asking, just to keep it neat.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, would that be something you could do?
18 Then Mr. Registrar will provide you with the numbers, irrespective
19 of what will happen with the documents.
20 MR. EMMERSON: And, Your Honour, mindful of -- of Your Honours'
21 comments about interruptions, I obviously don't know which documents it is
22 that Mr. Re intends to take the witness to, but there's quite a lot of
24 I am entirely in the Trial Chamber's hands, but we object, as
25 Your Honour knows, not simply to the annexes but to the summary from the
1 witness of the contents of the annexes.
2 Now, I don't wish to take time every time Mr. Re moves to place on
3 the record, if that is what he's intending to do, the content of a
4 document through the witness in rising to my feet to object, but it does
5 seem to me, with respect, that insofar as the 92 ter statement and then
6 the oral testimony, is designed simply to bring together and summarise the
7 contents of annexes the admissibility of which is still in dispute, then
8 time might better be spent, rather than having that put on the oral record
9 and objections taken, time might better be spent in dealing with other
11 In other words, I'm anxious to avoid a situation where I'm bobbing
12 up and down to object to oral testimony, which is -- if you like, in lieu
13 of -- lieu of admitting documents, the admissibility of which is the
14 subject of firm objection and an outstanding ruling.
15 JUDGE ORIE: It, of course, very much depends on how the questions
16 are put.
17 MR. EMMERSON: Precisely so.
18 JUDGE ORIE: I mean, summarising a document could start with:
19 Have you seen this document? Have you drafted this document? Signed this
20 document? Do you know the author of this document? Which, of course,
21 adds already quite a bit to the annexes and -- and might change the
23 I think Mr. Re is perfectly aware of how he can avoid what he can
24 expect --
25 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- on the basis of what Mr. Emmerson just said.
2 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honours, entirely understandably, asked for
3 objections to be kept to a minimum, but that entirely depends upon the way
4 in which the evidence is elicited in chief.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Re is aware of that.
6 Mr. Guy-Smith.
7 MR. GUY-SMITH: Only and ever so briefly, there still remains, as
8 I'm sure Mr. Re is aware, the procedural issue with regard to the
9 admission of any of these documents as it relates to 65 ter requirements,
10 which have been raised in the motion.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: Mr. Re is -- so we don't lose sight of the
13 procedural issue. Also if while I'm on my feet, if I could quite
14 quickly -- I don't know whether the gentleman would be willing to, but if
15 so, we could get a copy of the proposal to initiate Krug, that would be
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if he has it.
18 Do you -- it's still -- is still the proposal to initiate the
19 Operation Krug in your possession?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. It is in the archives of the
21 RDB. However, I believe you can get both the proposal and the decision
22 from our authorities easily, both the proposal drafted by me and the
23 decision signed in Belgrade and that was forwarded to Kosovo permitting
24 further activities concerning Operation Krug. Therefore, the proposal and
25 the decision, I believe that is the title of the documents.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Re, I do not know whether it's already
2 somewhere in your documentation; yes or no?
3 MR. RE: No.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, we have the practical problem of the
5 witness supposed not to further discuss matters with you or with anyone
6 else. At the same time, if the parties could come up with a proposal on
7 how to obtain this document in a way acceptable to both parties and then
8 preferably, I take it, as soon as possible, the Chamber would consider to
9 follow such a suggestion.
10 We have a break and we'll resume at ten minutes past 6.00.
11 --- Recess taken at 5.48 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 6.12 p.m.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, please proceed..
14 But perhaps I'll first ask whether there are any suggestions on
15 how to obtain the -- the proposal and the decision. You haven't discussed
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: No, we'll try to work it out.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. And otherwise, perhaps a short written message
19 through VWS to the witness might -- that might be a way of resolving the
21 MR. RE: I think a request to the Republic of Serbia is the only
22 way and that we won't get the document in under a week.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Therefore, of course, I was seeking whether
24 there was any informal way. The witness said -- but let's -- if you'd
25 discuss that and whatever suggestion you make, we'll seriously consider
2 Please proceed.
3 MR. RE:
4 Q. Again at paragraph 18 of the statement you -- there's another
5 fellow there referred to, the author of the book, Gafurr Elsani. Do you
6 know who Gafurr Elsani is? Yes or no?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 Q. Who is he?
9 A. Gafurr Elsani is a member of the People's Movement of Kosovo.
10 Otherwise, he was the editor of Zeri i Kosoves, that was published in
11 Switzerland. It was a bulletin of the People's Movement for the Republic
12 of Kosovo, the acronym being the NPOK.
13 Q. What involvement did he have in the publication of the KLA
14 communiques which are in that book? And in answering the question, please
15 tell the Chamber how you know about it.
16 A. I cannot say that I know that he participated in the drafting and
17 the contents of the communiques. What I -- what I do know, though, is
18 that the communiques issued by the Kosovo Liberation Army were printed in
19 the newspaper whose editor-in-chief he was. This is Zeri i Kosoves.
20 Q. Earlier you referred to these documents appearing in a book in
21 1998. Paragraph 18 refers to this book published in March 2003, and
22 that's the one that's attached to your statement. Is the March 2003 the
23 same book, a different edition, or what?
24 A. It is the same book but another edition. The first edition was
25 published in March 1998 in Arau in Switzerland by the People's Movement of
1 Kosovo, and it was printed in the Zeri i Kosoves.
2 Later it saw several new editions, and the one that I see here is
3 from 2003. I think that there were about 10.000 copies printed in France
4 during 1999.
5 The first edition was printed in Switzerland, and it had 3.000
7 Q. Did you read it in its original edition in 1998?
8 A. Perhaps not in March 1998, but in early April certainly. As soon
9 as the book was published, we received it from abroad. I am quite good in
10 reading Albanian. I read it. And after a certain while, we also
11 translated the entire book and its contents.
12 Q. If you can turn to annex 2, which I hope we might have a number
13 for it by now.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours, that's 65 ter number 01988, and
16 it's been assigned Exhibit Number P934.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
18 MR. RE: Thank you. We'll just display in Sanction the part on
19 the second page.
20 Q. If you can turn to the page which has "7" at the bottom of it in
21 the copy you have, Mr. Stijovic. And it refers to KLA zones.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And if you just look at the paragraph where it says, "The KLA was
24 planned as an integral part of the occupied territories," and refers
25 specifically to communiques 40 and 41 and says: "The KLA was operating in
1 more than one zones, which were the zones ... " And then it explains the
2 zones: One, two, three, four, five.
3 Now, this is in the foreword to the book written by Mr. Dzemailji,
4 described as the chairman of the LPK.
5 My question is: How does the information in the foreword to the
6 book and, of course, the communiques you referred to accord with the
7 information your service had in 1998 or before about those five KLA
8 territorial zones?
9 A. There is something that I wanted to explain before giving an
10 answer to your question. I believe it is important. There is a history
11 to it.
12 Q. Well, it depends on the relevance to the -- the question. Is it a
13 long explanation?
14 A. Well, I'll try to limit my answer to what you asked me.
15 In 1993, we arrested a group, a larger group of NPK members.
16 Through the procedure they underwent, in terms of investigation and
17 proceedings, we gained information on the plans and activities of the
18 People's Movement of Kosovo. Later on, through various minutes of
19 meetings, we came to learn that the People's Movement of Kosovo, which was
20 still proclaiming its political goal as that of being an extremist goal,
21 trying to unite all Albanian territories in the Balkans, and based on all
22 that, we learned that they distributed -- or rather, divided the entire
23 area in the Balkans populated by Albanians in five zones.
24 The first one was in Kosovo, the second one in Macedonia, the
25 third was in Serbia proper, in southern Serbia in Presevo, Bujanovac, and
1 Medvedja. The fourth zone was in Montenegro, and the fifth was supposed to
2 encompass certain activities in the territory of Serbia.
3 Q. To assist you in where I'm going, I'm interesting in establishing
4 the accuracy or otherwise of the KLA communiques in that book and your
5 knowledge independently of the content of those communiques and the
6 accuracy of the information provided in the foreword by Mr. Dzemailji and
7 how he would have known to put the information about the five zones in the
8 book. That's where I'm going.
9 Does that assist you?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. All right. Now, based on what I just said to you, how accurate,
12 if you can answer that -- or how does what Mr. Dzemailji wrote about the
13 zones accord with your own information?
14 A. It is fully consistent. It fully accords with what we knew at
15 that point in time about the level of organisation and plans for
16 development of the NPK and KLA in the following period.
17 Q. The next paragraph is paragraph 19, where you refer to the KLA's
18 first claim of responsibility for a terrorist act in a communique
19 published on the 29th of November, 1994. Now, that's annex 3. And what I
20 want to ask you is: Did you see that at the time?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Before I go on, can that also be given whatever the next number
23 will be?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours, that's 65 ter number 01989, and
1 I understand been marked for identification as P935.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
3 MR. RE:
4 Q. Were you aware of the -- what you called terrorist attack on a DB
5 officer called Lutfi Ajazi at the time?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Based on your information, is what is recorded in that particular
8 publication, that is, of the 29th of November, 1994, accurate or not
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. Can you please turn to paragraph 20 of your statement in which you
12 refer to -- before you do, I'll just go back to that other issue.
13 Lutfi Ajazi, how did you know about -- did you know that person and how
14 did you know about the attack?
15 A. Lutfi Ajazi is a colleague of mine, an operative of the DB who
16 lived in Glogovac and worked in Pristina centre. We were together that
17 entire day. And in the late evening hours, he went home. And after he
18 spent some time in a bar in Glogovac, as he was driving back home in the
19 late evening hours, some 100 to 150 metres from his home three
20 unidentified persons attacked him, gravely wounding him. Two bullets hit
21 him, one in the back and one in his knee. I learned of the attack five
22 minutes after that, because his brother called me on the mobile and
23 informed me that an attack had been carried out, that the family members
24 returned fire - meaning his brother and his father opened fire from
25 rifles - police came, and an ambulance took Lutfi to the hospital in
1 Pristina. His relatives informed me about that. They wanted me to meet
2 up with Lutfi in the hospital to see what treatment he would receive, and
3 I did that.
4 After he was admitted --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Can I stop you there. I think Mr. Re was mainly
6 seeking what was the source of your personal knowledge on the matter, not
7 further details, because I see that there are a lot of other events.
8 If -- if we would go into details of all of them -- I mean, it's
9 mainly a matter of Mr. Re seeking to establish that it's not just that you
10 read something but that you have some personal knowledge which is in
11 accordance with what is in the document. That's what he's mainly seeking.
12 Please proceed, Mr. Re. And you are invited to -- to -- to
13 explain such things to the witness and to move on.
14 MR. RE:
15 Q. Moving to the next three years, 1995, 1996, and 1997, to which you
16 refer in paragraph 20 of your statement, which we'll display in Sanction
17 there, you refer to: "A dramatic increase in terrorist attacks against
18 police and against Albanians ... "
19 Now, you say you tracked the attack against the security forces
20 and the civilian population in Kosovo from 1992 until 1998, and you
21 subsequently reconstructed the figures. And the figures you've put there
22 state eight attacks in 1992; 75 attacks in 1997; and 1.486 attacks through
23 the 30th of November 1998.
24 In the third paragraph of your statement, you also refer to --
25 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Mr. Re, are you saying 1998, November. It was not
1 so clear in the transcript.
2 MR. RE: To make it clear, 1.486 attacks through the 30th of
4 Q. Paragraph 62, you also refer to a tabulation of those particular
6 Now, the Trial Chamber is interested in how you have calculated
7 those figures. And I'd like as brief an explanation as possible about the
8 source of your information and how you did it.
9 And I may have to -- please look at me, because I might stop you
10 at -- once you start.
11 A. Well, these -- this is internal information available to the RDB.
12 We, as the analysis department, analyse the events out in the field. And
13 one of the elements we followed related to the terrorist events. And it
14 was clearly registered that there was an escalation starting in late 1995.
15 They were militarising and stepping up terrorist activities. And you can
16 see that based on the figures.
17 This is the information that came to our office, to the RDB. It
18 was registered by the Ministry of the Interior, public security service,
19 and information reported by the media.
20 Later on, after 1999, I reconstructed these figures. I used some
21 documents. First of all, the publication of the Ministry of the Interior
22 of Serbia called Bezbednost, meaning "security," which published these
23 figures, and these figures were consistent with what was going on.
24 Q. What do you define in compiling these figures as an attack? I
25 mean, what constituted an attack to make it into this table?
1 A. There are several theories to explain a terrorist attack. A
2 terrorist attack, as defined by all services in the world --
3 Q. What -- what I mean -- what I'm really interested in: Are we
4 talking about assaults? Kidnappings? Murders? Hand-grenades?
5 Threatening letters? Whatever. Just -- if you could just tell us the
6 categories as defined by you in compiling these figures.
7 A. Attacks by firearms, hand-grenades and other explosives, attacks
8 against citizens, Albanians, Serbs, MUP members, and members of the VJ.
9 Q. So based on -- are they based on police reports or what?
10 A. Based on police reports, complaints, media reports, because these
11 events were covered by the media both in Serbian and in Albanian. And one
12 can easily establish this by looking at media reports from that period of
14 Q. In degrees of serious, I want you to explain to the Trial Chamber
15 what was the most -- what was the least serious which you included as an
16 attack and what was the most serious type of event.
17 A. The gravest attacks were those that were carried out with the use
18 of firearms, hand-grenades, by planting explosive devices. Those were the
19 most serious attacks or assaults, leading to murder and grave injury.
20 Also assaults where fire was opened on the police, citizens, and
21 the army without any consequences. I'm not dealing with the consequences
22 of these attacks but the most serious attacks were the ones where
23 firearms, hand-grenades, or explosives were used.
24 Q. What was the threshold to make it to an attack?
25 A. Terrorists.
1 Q. In your table, what was the -- what was the level of seriousness
2 that enabled you to classify it as a terrorist attack?
3 A. Active use of firearms, hand-grenades, explosive devices,
4 regardless of the consequences that ensued. Attacks against the
5 categories that I mentioned earlier: Citizens, MUP members, and members
6 of the army.
7 Q. All right. So from this table, can we exclude things such as
8 threatening letters or threatening telephone calls or assaults with fists,
9 those sorts of activities?
10 A. Yes, absolutely.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.
12 MR. EMMERSON: I'm very sorry, because I -- I'm obviously anxious
13 not to interrupt. But the witness refers to reconstructing figures based
14 on a statistical survey in a magazine. I wonder if -- if we could just
15 have clarification of what that process means. This is page 73, line 5.
16 It's also in both paragraphs of the witness statement.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, in view of, I would say, the explanation in
18 the motion on this point, could you please seek to clarify that.
19 MR. RE:
20 Q. Explain the process of and what you mean by "reconstruction."
21 A. "Reconstruction" means subsequent explanation of these events and
22 analysis of these events. Attacks took place and were registered
23 separately outside of the central records, if I can call them that. They
24 were registered by police, by the army who had been attacked, and also by
25 the media.
1 Based on these three categories of data that appeared and that I
2 managed to gather and also based on this magazine, which is a periodical
3 of the Ministry of the Interior, I made a survey of these attacks that had
4 been carried out during that period of time because we wanted to establish
5 when these activities had escalated and had become much more intense.
6 Essentially, there are no great differences. And if you were to
7 compare the data published by the media - and by media I'm referring both
8 to Albanian and Serbian media - you would see there's no difference
9 between them and those registered by the military. The military focused
10 on the attacks and illegal crossings of the border. The police focused
11 mostly on the attacks against citizens and other types of attacks. And
12 the media focused on all of these events. And by comparing them and
13 conducting a comparative analysis, you would see that this information is
15 Q. You've mentioned three sources: Police, army, and media. Dealing
16 with them one by one; police, just please tell us briefly what your
17 sources of information were within the police. I mean, was it criminal
18 records? Attacks? Reports? Or what? Then I'll come to the other two.
19 A. The Ministry of the Interior comprises public security and state
20 security. Public security deals with public law and order. They compile
21 daily reports of events in Kosovo and Metohija.
22 We would receive from the police on a daily basis this report on
23 daily events in the territory.
24 In addition to that, within the State Security Service, our
25 operatives in the field also reported about the events, providing
1 information on possible perpetrators of these events. This is as far as
2 the police is concerned.
3 As for the army --
4 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Now, were statistics kept
5 within the MUP of these terrorist attacks you've described?
6 A. Yes, absolutely. By analysing this data, one could draw important
8 Q. Were the statistics kept on a yearly, weekly, or monthly basis? On
9 what basis were they kept?
10 A. There were several kinds of different methods that we used,
11 statistical methods. At the regional level, based on the location of
12 attacks, we conducted analysis both in terms of territory and in terms of
13 time frame. Statistics also identified the kind of weapons and ammunition
14 most frequently used in the attacks. And this statistical data pointed
15 very clearly to the hot spots of activities of the KLA, places where their
16 activities were most important.
17 Q. Were these statistics published regularly?
18 A. Absolutely.
19 Q. Who -- who collected them?
20 A. They were collected by the public security sector of the Ministry
21 of the Interior of Serbia. They applied statistical methods, such as
22 graphs, in order to illustrate clearly these events and attacks, and in
23 addition to that, they also provided descriptions where they
24 chronologically informed about what had happened, where, and the
25 consequences of that. That was periodically published definitely every
1 three months, every six months, and annually.
2 Q. Is that in both public and security sectors, or did they do
3 them -- did they do it separately or together or what?
4 A. We worked separately. Public security sector was mostly
5 interested in data on that, and we used the public security data - that is
6 to say, their analyses, their reports - in order to give a descriptive
7 explanation of an event aimed at identifying the persons behind the attack
8 or the event. And you can see it with breakdown of various other types of
9 information which was announced at various press conferences of the MUP.
10 You can also see that there were numerous analyses carried out in 1998 and
11 1999, and they were all pointing to this increasing danger stemming from
12 the KLA.
13 Q. How did you distinguish these terrorist attacks from non-terrorist
14 attacks involving violence or extreme violence? And in saying that, I
15 mean in compiling your report or your statistics.
16 A. The message sent by terrorist attacks was a political one. The
17 objective of those attacks was clear. They were meant to spread fear and
18 insecurity among the public.
19 Further, what is also important is a method of -- used in these
20 terrorist acts. What is the key element here is that these attacks were
21 carried out in a covert way from an ambush, close to people's homes by
22 using firearms, hand-grenades, and explosive devices.
23 In addition to that, what is a specific feature of terrorist
24 attacks during this period of time is that they were not selective in the
25 targets of their attacks. They attacked not only police and the army but
1 also citizens, civilians, and they attacked them in the same way,
2 covertly, from an ambush, and so on.
3 Q. What I'm looking at -- what I'm interested in is how did you or
4 the police department or the MUP or whatever distinguish those terrorist
5 attacks from other murders or acts of violence for the purposes of
6 compiling these statistics? I mean, were statistics kept separately of
7 terrorist attacks? If so, how did they distinguish a terrorist attack
8 from a -- another type of murder?
9 A. Yes, absolutely. After these initial attacks in 1994 and 1995,
10 every other attack was followed by a communique of the KLA, who took
11 responsibility for the attack. And this was done in relation to each
12 attack. This data is reliable.
13 Q. Why was it reliable? I mean, was a comparison made between what
14 the KLA were saying and the information the police had? I mean, tell the
15 Trial Chamber why it was reliable.
16 A. I consider this information reliable because it is fully
17 consistent with events on the ground. The sources of this information are
18 mostly the media in the Albanian language. They would issue announcements
19 or communiques in which they took responsibility for the events that had
20 happened earlier on the ground; that is to say, murders, attacks, planting
21 of explosive devices, hand-grenades, and so on.
22 They published this in all types of media in the Albanian
23 language, and it was later carried by other media houses, and they would
24 invariably always announce these attacks subsequently and take
25 responsibility for them. In these attacks, people were killed.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, may I just interrupt for one second.
2 I -- I noticed that in the Defence motion that as far as these
3 kind of communiques are concerned, that it's often said that the Defence
4 doesn't oppose admission but, I suppose, not to admit to the authenticity
5 or to the content.
6 Now, if there would be any specific challenges to the authenticity
7 of these documents of any specific nature, of course, the Chamber would
8 very much like to hear such a --
9 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. We --
10 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not anticipating on what our decisions would be,
11 but it struck me that it's repeated again and again --
12 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- that not admitting to its authenticity. If there
14 are any specific authenticity concerns, the Chamber would like to know
15 about it.
16 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honour will recall that this is the second
17 witness who's given evidence with KLA communiques and in each --
18 JUDGE ORIE: No, at this moment, I'm not seeking to have any
19 further argument on the matter. Just to say that if you have any more
20 specifics, any positive challenge to the authenticity, that we'd like to
21 hear that at -- at a suitable moment.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: Just to make sure that -- that we're clear. Is
24 that authenticity to the document itself or authenticity to the
25 information contained therein?
1 JUDGE ORIE: No. There's a clear distinction made in the motion
2 filed by Mr. Emmerson between authenticity of the document and the --
3 the -- whether the events described in the document really took place. I
4 think I follow your language and -- which is just the document and nothing
5 else at this moment.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, there's -- but there's also, I think,
7 another -- a corollary issue, which is that the -- the document in which
8 the communique is expressed is oftentimes a newspaper publication.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: So that take us one step away from --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, whether you challenge whether it was
12 published in a newspaper or not or whether this was the communique as was
13 sent to the -- I mean, that's all about authenticity --
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: Correct.
15 JUDGE ORIE: -- of either the publication itself or predecessor,
16 it depends on how it was published. Sometimes it says, "We received this,
17 we now publish it." But if there are any specific concerns on that,
18 that's the -- then the Chamber would like to learn what the specific
19 concerns are, rather than a general challenge to --
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: Understood.
21 JUDGE ORIE: -- authenticity, yes.
22 Please proceed. I take this point, Mr. Re, because were now
23 dealing with this kind of document, so ...
24 MR. RE:
25 Q. You've dealt with the police. The second source was army. As
1 briefly as you possibly can, what were your sources within the military?
2 In -- in categories or statistics or whatever.
3 A. As regards the military in Kosovo and Metohija, we had their
4 information on the events first and foremost in the border belt towards
5 Albania, concerning attacks and contraband of weapons and equipment. They
6 forwarded that in written form as well as in the form of statistics.
7 In addition to that, there was a small number of attacks on the
8 members of the army and its facilities within the territory of Kosovo as
9 well. We used that information first and foremost to cross-reference that
10 information with what we know -- knew about the channels of introducing
11 terrorists and weapons in the area.
12 Q. How was the information collected? I mean, in what form was it
13 collected by the military? Was it in the form of reports or statistics
14 or -- or what?
15 A. Depending on the circumstances and the time period. As their
16 activities escalated, the army usually held press conferences through
17 their press officers and they made public the events at the border, and
18 then the state organs followed that up with diplomatic activities and
19 acquainting the International Community with what was going on at the
21 Q. Did the army keep statistics of what you've called "terrorist
22 attacks" in that period you've described, 1992 through 1998? Yes or no?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Thank you. Did you have access to those statistics?
25 A. Yes, I did.
1 Q. Did you use those statistics in compiling your report you refer to
2 in paragraph 20?
3 A. Yes, I did.
4 Q. Okay. Next question: Which section of the army compiled or
5 maintained their statistics?
6 A. It was done territorially by the brigades responsible for -- given
7 zones of responsibility -- of responsibilities. It all went to the
8 services of the corps and the military security service, which dealt with
9 that data in professional terms.
10 Q. Are you saying the military security service had a -- was a
11 central repository for these -- for this data?
12 A. Yes, absolutely.
13 Q. Okay. Is that where you got the information from?
14 A. First and foremost, about the events in the border belt and the
15 events in the territory of Kosovo that had to do with the military and its
17 Q. I'm sorry, is that "yes"?
18 A. Yes, it is.
19 Q. Thank you very much. Now, the third category was media. Before
20 you answer, is there anything you can tell us about media sources you used
21 in the report you referred to in paragraph 20 that you haven't already
22 told us?
23 MR. EMMERSON: I -- just before the witness answers, Mr. Re has
24 now made a number of references and questions to "the report you compiled
25 that you refer to in paragraph 20."
1 When I -- when I rose to my feet earlier on in relation to
2 clarification of "reconstruction"," the reason is because in paragraph 20
3 the witness says he reconstructed the figures based on a magazine article
4 in a MUP magazine and because in paragraph 62 he says "the statistical
5 summary is based on information published in an official MUP magazine."
6 Now, it may be that there is some separate report that this
7 witness produced, but we certainly haven't seen it and it's not referred
8 to, as Mr. Re suggests it is in terms, in paragraph 20 or in paragraph 62.
9 So the clarification I am seeking is whether the statistics that
10 are here put forward are the statistics that this witness has
11 reconstructed, whatever that means, from a magazine article that he's
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re.
14 MR. RE: Maybe I misspoke.
15 Q. When I said "report," did you do a report or are you only
16 referring to a -- your own reconstruction for whatever purpose?
17 A. While I was at the position of the head of analysis, we conducted
18 detailed analysis using statistical methods in order to monitor the number
19 of terrorist attacks. So as to respond specifically, I carried them over
20 from various -- from the magazine called "Security" issued by the Ministry
21 of the Interior. It -- it was the place that was the focus of -- the
22 gathering of all information from the police, the military, and the media,
23 and I believe that data was the most accurate.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- let's try to keep matters simple. Now, are
25 these data as we find them here, are these data mainly taken from this
1 publication or did you do all the work yourself and then at the end you
2 were surprised that these figures were exactly or almost exactly the same
3 as the statistics you compiled?
4 It's -- it's a rather simple question. I mean, how many
5 intellectual work was done by you and how much copying was done -- was
6 involved? And now, which of the two is it?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very little. I copied most of it
8 from what had already been printed, accessible to the public, and that is
9 what I based it on.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I understand. And we therefore -- reconstruction --
11 I mean, copying and reconstructing is not exactly the same. Did you --
12 while copying, did you look at it and adopt them as being reliable, or did
13 you do any further -- did you further elaborate on the -- or did you just
14 accept them as -- as reliable information?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I compared that to the reports
16 printed in the media, and the military had their reports. By using all
17 that, I arrived at the conclusion that the figure was as such. It did not
18 vary much in terms of percentage and it could be a sound basis to assess
19 the events in the field.
20 JUDGE ORIE: You say "it didn't differ much." Was it exactly the
21 same or was it almost the same or -- or was it exactly the same? I gave
22 you two options: Exactly or almost.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, practically the same,
24 since in those attacks many of them that took place in the border belt
25 were not shown. At a certain moment, certain bodies qualified those
1 attacks differently. Therefore, using -- if -- had I used all the data
2 that was available, this -- these figures would have been far greater.
3 But I tried to limit my answer, and in that regard, there is not much
4 variation. Therefore, I thought it was relevant.
5 JUDGE ORIE: These are many words, but -- but perhaps one simple
6 question: If we would have available the figures published in that
7 magazine, in that MUP magazine, would we find any difference or would it
8 be exactly the same?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Almost the same.
10 MR. EMMERSON: I do apologise --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Almost exactly the same.
12 MR. EMMERSON: I see the time. It may be that I've misunderstood,
13 but my understanding is that the figures we see in the 92 ter statement
14 have been taken from the magazine.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. --
16 MR. EMMERSON: If that's wrong --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, that's clear.
18 MR. EMMERSON: Okay.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I mean, from your motion, I think you use the
20 word "just copied from".
21 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And therefore, Mr. Re, you -- let's get to the core
23 of the case right away. Are we meeting very much a coincidence that the
24 intellectual work of two independently operating entities result in
25 exactly the same numbers, 1486, or is there any other explanation for
1 that? That is --
2 Mr. Harvey.
3 MR. HARVEY: Your Honour, the only reason I'm on my feet is that I
4 noticed that the witness when he came into court had a nice juicy fat
5 briefcase with him. It might be worth inquiring whether he actually
6 has the -- the magazine articles with him that could perhaps resolve this
7 one way or the other.
8 JUDGE ORIE: We'll ask him.
9 We were talking a lot about the publication of statistical data in
10 a MUP magazine. Would you happen to have a copy of that magazine with you
11 at this moment or not?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't bring it. I think it's in
13 my hotel. I -- where I have another issue of that magazine, and you can
14 see something similar there, how the information was published by the
15 Ministry of the Interior.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Would you be willing to bring that if we continue
17 your examination next week?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, absolutely.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much.
20 Then looking at the clock, Mr. Re, I think we have to adjourn for
21 the -- not only for the day but also for the week.
22 Mr. Stijovic, we have not finished yet, as you may have noticed.
23 We will adjourn until Monday, the 8th of October, at quarter past 2.00 in
24 Courtroom II, which is a different courtroom. But before I let you go,
25 I'd like to instruct you that you should not speak with anyone about the
1 testimony already given or still to be given. There might be one little
2 exception, that is, if you receive a written message - I say "if." I do
3 not know whether you will receive it - a written message to inquire into
4 the availability of the proposal and the decision on the operation - what
5 was it? - Circle, I think, Krug, then, of course, you're entitled. But
6 then limited to that subject only to get in touch with those who could
7 provide a -- copies of that material. But whether we will ask you or not
8 is still uncertain.
9 With apologies to interpreters and technicians, we adjourn until
10 the 8th of October, quarter past 2.00.
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.04 p.m.,
12 to be reconvened on Monday, the 8th day of
13 October, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.