Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 9257

1 Thursday, 11 October 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.10 a.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.

6 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to

8 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-84-T, the Prosecutor

9 versus Ramush Haradinaj et al.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

11 For the next witness to be called, there was an application for

12 protective measures: Pseudonym, face distortion, and voice distortion.

13 There were no objections against it. The Chamber grants the protective

14 measures. The standard the Chamber uses is that there should be an

15 objectively grounded risk to the security or the welfare of the witness or

16 the witness's family. It shouldn't become known that the witness has

17 given evidence before the Tribunal, and this standard can be satisfied by

18 showing that a threat was made against the witness or the witness's

19 family, or a combination of the following, and that would apply in this

20 case: That the witness testimony may antagonise persons who reside in the

21 specific territory; that the witness or his or her family live or work in

22 that territory, have property in that territory, or have concrete plans to

23 return to live in the territory; and that there exists an unstable

24 security situation in that territory, which is particularly unfavourable

25 to witnesses who appear before the Tribunal. Less, the last part to have

Page 9258

1 test, the parties agreed that this condition is fulfilled in Kosovo.

2 So, therefore, on the second grounds, the combination of the three

3 elements, the Chamber grants the protective measures. The witness will

4 testify under pseudonym 68. The witness will testify with face and voice

5 distortion.

6 The parties are invited to switch off their microphones when the

7 witness answers questions.

8 Mr. Guy-Smith.

9 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes. There is one -- one other matter, and that's

10 for the --


12 MR. GUY-SMITH: -- witness coming after this, the next witness.

13 With regard to the, I believe it's some, 90 annexes that have been

14 attached to -- I believe he's not a protected witness.

15 JUDGE ORIE: The next witness is not protected, as far as I know,

16 and that's Mr. Zivanovic.

17 MR. GUY-SMITH: Mr. Zivanovic.

18 With regard to the annexes that have been attached to

19 Mr. Zivanovic's statements, of which I believe there are 90, 25 of them do

20 not appear on the 65 ter list. No application has been made. No good

21 cause has been shown why there has been this addition or why this addition

22 is necessary, and we object to their admission at this time.

23 I can --


25 MR. GUY-SMITH: -- specify either right now on the record or

Page 9259

1 shortly send a filing in, so that you have the specific annex numbers.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think that it would be better not to read it

3 into the transcript.

4 MR. GUY-SMITH: All right.

5 JUDGE ORIE: That would be a burden for translators, transcribers.

6 Mr. Di Fazio, I don't know who is dealing with the witness next to

7 come.

8 MR. DI FAZIO: My colleague, Ms. Gustafson is taking the witness.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Gustafson, could you explain why 25

10 exhibits are used that are not on the exhibit list.

11 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honour, I think there's some confusion. The

12 witness after this next one --


14 MS. GUSTAFSON: -- is being taken by Mr. Re, and we'll communicate

15 the message.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You'll communicate the objections.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: I apologise. I misunderstood, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps I wasn't clear, as a matter of fact.

19 Yes. I said, "the witness next to come," which is not very clear

20 language. I apologise for that.

21 Then, Ms. Gustafson, are you ready to examine the witness?

22 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then could the witness be brought into the

24 courtroom and the curtains down.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 9260

1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, perhaps I'll already indicate the

2 following -- no, I'll wait until we are there.

3 Is there any summary of the 92 ter statement?

4 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, Your Honour. It was sent to the Defence last

5 night --


7 MS. GUSTAFSON: -- and I think to the Chamber this morning.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I have not looked at my e-mail this morning,

9 but I'll do it immediately.

10 Yes. If it has been --

11 [The witness entered court]

12 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning. Good morning. Can you hear me in a

13 language you understand?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

15 JUDGE ORIE: (redacted), before you give evidence in this

16 court, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require you to make solemn

17 declaration that you will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing

18 but the truth.

19 The text of this solemn declaration will be handed out to you now

20 by Madam Usher. May I invite you to make that solemn declaration.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

22 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Please be seated, (redacted)


25 [Witness answered through interpreter]

Page 9261

1 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

2 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning again. The Chamber has decided that we

3 will not use your name. We will call you Witness 68, and your face will

4 not be seen by those outside this courtroom.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Your own voice will not be heard by those outside

7 this courtroom; however, the content of your testimony is available to the

8 public.

9 Ms. Gustafson, who's counsel for the Prosecution, will now examine

10 you.

11 Ms. Gustafson, please proceed.

12 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you for granting my wish not

14 to have my name mentioned.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, could you switch off your microphone

16 whenever the witness speaks. But now you can switch it on again, because

17 it's you who will speak.

18 MS. GUSTAFSON: Could the witness please be shown 65 ter number

19 2082, to be -- to be tendered under seal.

20 JUDGE ORIE: And, Mr. Registrar, that would be number?

21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be P1015, under seal.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

23 Examination by Ms. Gustafson:

24 Q. Witness 68, could you please look at the screen and just please

25 confirm with a "yes" or a "no" whether those personal details are correct

Page 9262

1 and whether the person described in that sheet is you.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Thank you.

4 MS. GUSTAFSON: On that basis, could we admit the pseudonym sheet

5 into evidence.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Since there are no objections, it's admitted into

7 evidence.

8 Please proceed.

9 MS. GUSTAFSON: And could the witness please be shown 65 ter

10 number 2080, also under seal.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, that would be?

12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be P1016, under seal.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

14 MS. GUSTAFSON: Could we please go to the next page.

15 Q. Witness 68, do you recognise this document as a statement that you

16 signed on the 9th of October, 2007?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And is that statement that you made true and correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And if I asked you in court today the same questions that you were

21 asked when you gave that statement, would you give the Court the same

22 answers that are in your statement?

23 A. Yes.

24 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honours, we've prepared a redacted version of

25 this statement with paragraph 17 through 19 redacted. Could that be

Page 9263

1 admitted into evidence.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections?

3 No objections. Then it's admitted into evidence, the redacted

4 version of the statement.

5 MS. GUSTAFSON: At this time, I propose to read a brief summary of

6 the witness's statement onto the record.

7 JUDGE ORIE: But before we do so, that is not P1016, because P1016

8 was the full version, so therefore I take it that the redacted version --

9 or are you tendering both?

10 MS. GUSTAFSON: Just the redacted version.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Just the redacted version, and that's P1016?

12 MS. GUSTAFSON: It was 65 ter number 2080.


14 MS. GUSTAFSON: The one that the witness just saw.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So then that's clear.

16 Please proceed.

17 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.

18 In 1998, Witness 68 lived in the town of Pec with her husband and

19 their three children. Witness 68 is Serbian.

20 Witness 68 saw her husband for the last time on the morning of 16

21 July 1998, when he was leaving for work. He worked as a market inspector

22 for the municipality of Pec.

23 Witness 68's husband told Witness 68 that before going to work he

24 would visit some relatives in Djakovica and then see some relatives in the

25 village of Dobric on his way home. He wanted to see how his relatives in

Page 9264

1 Dobric were doing, because they had been attacked by the KLA a few days

2 earlier.

3 At around 1330 hours that day, Witness 68's husband called her to

4 tell her that he was leaving Djakovica for the village of Dobric. That

5 was the last time Witness 68 heard from her husband.

6 At approximately 2100 hours that evening, Witness 68 called the

7 SUP in Pec. The Pec SUP told Witness 68 that they had heard from their

8 colleagues at the Djakovica SUP that Witness 68's husband had been

9 kidnapped by KLA members in the village of Dujak.

10 In September 1998, Witness 68 was told by the Djakovica MUP that

11 they had arrested a group of KLA members and that two of the arrested KLA

12 members, Ljuan and Krist Perforci from Dujak, had kidnapped Witness 68's

13 husband.

14 Witness 68 left Kosovo with her three children on 14 June 1999,

15 together with the withdrawing VJ and MUP forces.

16 Q. Witness 68, your statement has been admitted as evidence, so I'm

17 only going to ask you a few questions, and these questions will all relate

18 to what you learned after your husband disappeared about what had happened

19 to him.

20 You've said in your statement that in September 1998, you got a

21 call from the MUP in Djakovica telling you that they had arrested a group

22 of KLA members responsible for your husband's kidnapping, and you've also

23 said that you went to the Djakovica MUP, where the MUP told you that two

24 individuals with the last name of Perforci had kidnapped your husband.

25 Now, my first question is: When was it that you went to the

Page 9265

1 Djakovica MUP? Was it the same day that they had called you or was it a

2 later day?

3 A. When I went for identification, that was the day I went there;

4 however, they didn't know anything. Several days later they called me

5 again and told me that there was a group of people who had attacked the

6 MUP building there, that they had arrested some, and that they believed

7 that among them were people who had kidnapped my husband. I believe it

8 was in late September.

9 Q. And how long after they called you did you actually go to the MUP

10 building in Djakovica?

11 A. I believe, I believe it was on the following day that I went there

12 or two or three days later. I can't recall exactly.

13 The first time I went to SUP, they weren't able to tell me

14 anything, and I believe that I -- the next time I went there was right

15 after they called me, and it was two or three days after the first visit.

16 Q. Thank you. And when you went to the MUP in Djakovica on this

17 occasion, after they had telephoned you about the arrests, it was then

18 that the MUP told you about these two individuals by the name of Perforci

19 who had been responsible for your husband's kidnapping; is that right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And did the MUP officials tell you how they had learned that it

22 was these two individuals by the name of Perforci who had kidnapped your

23 husband?

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.

25 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry, forgive me. We're obviously entering

Page 9266

1 territory now which raises the issue of this witness potentially having

2 seen documents. The documents themselves do not appear on the face of the

3 material we have to be available, and there is an objection, as Your

4 Honours know, to both the documents which are available and to the

5 tendering through a witness of her recollection of documents which are not

6 available. And, so, at this stage, I wish to place on the record our

7 objection to this aspect of the testimony.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it that --

9 MR. GUY-SMITH: That is --

10 JUDGE ORIE: -- all counsel share this.

11 MR. GUY-SMITH: That's correct.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, the objection is there. We'll see how

13 Ms. Gustafson proceeds.

14 Ms. Gustafson, you're aware of the objections against documents

15 that are available. I think, at this point in time, if we are talking

16 about documents, this will be about documents that are not available.

17 So please proceed for the time being, and we'll see where we go.

18 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.

19 Q. Witness 68, I'll repeat my last question to you. When you went to

20 the MUP in Djakovica, did the MUP officials tell you how they had learned

21 that it was these two Perforcis who had kidnapped your husband?

22 A. Since there had been an attack on the SUP and the group was

23 arrested, it must have been while they were giving a statement that they

24 said that they had taken my husband, because they did not tell me the

25 details of the story. They told me that it was brothers Perforci who had

Page 9267

1 done that.

2 Q. You said, "it must have been while they were giving a statement."

3 Did the MUP tell you whether they had statement -- a statement from these

4 individuals or not?

5 A. On that day, they only told me that it had been those persons who

6 had kidnapped them. They told me that what with the statement they had

7 given and -- or rather, in the statement they had given, after they were

8 arrested, they apparently, so they told me, had told them that they had

9 kidnapped them.

10 Q. I'd just like to clarify your last answer. Did the MUP officials

11 tell you about a statement that they had received from these individuals,

12 or did they just summarise what they had -- what had happened based on

13 their general knowledge?

14 A. They told me that those persons had kidnapped him, that they had

15 handed him over to their commander by the name of Vuk, and that he had

16 been taken over to Glodjane. I don't know what happened after that.

17 Q. Thank you. And, on this occasion, did the information you learned

18 about what happened to your husband, did it just come from what the MUP

19 told you had happened or did you see anything else that gave you further

20 information?

21 A. I didn't see anything. I wasn't there at the scene. I only knew

22 what they told me at the MUP.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, there might be some confusion as far

24 as the question is concerned.

25 When you said, "I didn't see anything," Ms. Gustafson asked you

Page 9268

1 whether you saw anything when you were at the MUP. Were you just told at

2 that moment --

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

4 JUDGE ORIE: -- about the arrest and what information they

5 received, or did you see anything at that specific moment?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. They only told me that they had

7 arrested them - a group of them, in fact - and that they were among the

8 group. The persons who had kidnapped him and who had handed him over to

9 their commander by the name of Vuk, and that he was taken to Glodjane. I

10 didn't see anything else apart from that.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Gustafson.

12 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.

13 Q. And you said that what they told you was that these two

14 individuals with the name of Perforci had handed your husband over to

15 their commander by the name of Vuk and that he had been taken to Glodjane.

16 Did they tell you on that occasion where he had been kidnapped?

17 A. Yes, in the place called Dujak.

18 Q. Thank you. And do you remember anything else they told you on

19 that occasion, any other details about what had happened to your husband?

20 A. No. No. In Djakovica, no, except that in this camp, if we can

21 call it that, that Ramush Haradinaj was in charge of that. I didn't

22 personally see him, nor do I know him.

23 Q. When you say "this camp," what exactly are you referring to?

24 A. I meant Glodjane. I was told that that was where my husband had

25 been taken.

Page 9269

1 Q. Thank you. Now, at any later stage, after this visit to the

2 Djakovica SUP, did you come to learn anything further about what had

3 happened to your husband?

4 A. Yes. In January, they called me from the MUP in Pec to tell me

5 that the two brothers were in Pec in prison at Istok Dubrava. I asked how

6 I could get hold of their statement to learn what had happened, because I

7 had never in fact come to know what happened. The employee at the MUP

8 there told me that they had stated that he had been killed and that he had

9 -- was done for, but they didn't tell me any details.

10 I know that in 1999 -- well, I'm not sure whether they were in

11 fact sentenced, whether they were found guilty, but I know that in 1999

12 they were in prison in Dubrava. That's what I know.

13 Q. You said in January they called you from the MUP in Pec. Was that

14 January of 1999?

15 A. 1999. Yes, 1999.

16 Q. And when they called you from Pec, what did you do?

17 A. I went over to the SUP and I gave a statement again about when he

18 had gone missing. Of course, before that, I had reported my husband going

19 missing on the 16th of July, 1998. I wasn't able to do anything because I

20 didn't know who or what they were. I -- nobody ever personally showed me

21 these persons, to see who they were. I only knew that they were in prison

22 in Dubrava.

23 Q. And you said that when they called you, in January, you asked if

24 you could get hold of their statement. Did you ever get hold of their

25 statement?

Page 9270

1 A. No. No. I was only able to learn what they told me, but I never

2 had it in my hand to be able to read what had happened.

3 Q. And when you went to the SUP in January, did you learn anything

4 else about what had happened to your husband, in addition to what you

5 already knew from your visit to the Djakovica MUP in September?

6 A. No. No. I went, I attended every identification whenever I was

7 called; but apart from that, no, nothing.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, your last question started with "and

9 when you went to the SUP in January." I understood the previous question

10 and answer to deal already with visiting the SUP in January, because your

11 previous questions was: "And you said that when they called you, in

12 January, you asked whether you could get hold of it," and then the witness

13 said: "I didn't have anything in my hands at this moment."

14 So the next question is a bit ignoring what the witness said

15 before, and looks as if you are seeking different information; whereas,

16 the question is about the same matter.

17 MS. GUSTAFSON: I apologise, Your Honour. She had said that she

18 didn't get ahold of the statement, but I thought that she may have been

19 given information in some other manner on that occasion. That was -- that

20 was all I was asking after.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But you suggested that it was a different

22 occasion, but perhaps I misunderstood your question. Perhaps you wanted

23 to say: "And when you went to the SUP in January," that the emphasis is

24 "when you went there," so subsequent to the previous answer but same

25 occasion. I might have misunderstood it under those circumstances.

Page 9271

1 I should not have asked you about it, but I was a bit confused;

2 the witness apparently not.

3 Please proceed.

4 [Prosecution counsel confer]


6 Q. Witness 68, I think there's a little confusion about what exactly

7 happened in January when you went to the SUP.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Gustafson, I think I was confused rather than

9 anyone else in this courtroom.

10 So I understood that when you went to the SUP, in January, you

11 never had any statement in your hands and you did not receive any

12 additional information, is that correctly understood, additional to what

13 you knew already?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. In 1999, I didn't get anything

15 or learn anything more than what I had previously known at Pec, save for

16 the fact that he had been killed and that he had ended up in Lake

17 Radonjic. I didn't learn anything more than that.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That was additional information, where he ended

19 up. And that also included that he was killed, which is was not certain

20 before.

21 Yes. Thank you, Ms. Gustafson.

22 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honour.

23 Q. So, in 1999, you learned that your husband had been killed and

24 that he ended up in Lake Radonjic. Can you please tell the Trial Chamber

25 exactly how you learned this information. Who did you speak to? What did

Page 9272

1 they tell you? What, if anything, did they show you?

2 A. At the identification, yes, but not at the SUP in Pec, except for

3 the fact that they told me that he had been killed.

4 In early September, everyone was able to identify their own dear

5 and near by their pieces of clothing; whereas, I was unable to identify

6 his remains because I didn't find any of his clothing there. Despite

7 that, they still had their doubts and they still thought that his remains

8 might be among the remains there. Perhaps it was down to me also.

9 Perhaps I was in denial.

10 I didn't want to accept that he may have been among them, and it

11 was not until the year 2004, when his remains were in fact identified and

12 when I was told that he was among them, that I accepted that at last.

13 Q. Thank you. Witness 68, I know this isn't very easy for you, but

14 if you could please try to focus on what happened in January when you went

15 to the SUP. And, on that occasion, you said you learned that your husband

16 had been killed and that he had ended up in Lake Radonjic.

17 In January, when you learned that information, please tell the

18 Trial Chamber how you learned it. Who did you speak to? What did they

19 tell you? And what, if anything, did they show you?

20 A. In January, save for the fact that they told me that the brothers

21 stated that he had been killed and dumped at Lake Radonjic, I wasn't shown

22 anything else and I wasn't told any other details. I went home and there

23 was nothing else that I could do. I didn't know who to turn to. I had

24 tried everything beforehand to find out more; but at the SUP, they did not

25 tell me anything but what I told you.

Page 9273

1 Q. Thank you, Witness 68. I just have one other question. It's just

2 a minor matter that isn't 100 per cent clear from your statement. Your

3 ethnicity is Serbian; and in your statement, you state that your husband

4 was visiting some relatives who were Montenegrin, and I'd just like to ask

5 you what exactly your husband's ethnicity was.

6 A. Yes. Montenegrin.

7 Q. Thank you, Witness.

8 MS. GUSTAFSON: Those are my questions.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.

10 MR. EMMERSON: I have no questions.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith.

12 MR. GUY-SMITH: No questions.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harvey.

14 MR. HARVEY: No questions.

15 [Trial Chamber confers]

16 Questioned by the Court:

17 JUDGE ORIE: I have one question for you, which is the following:

18 Did you ever in your life ever see a document containing statements or a

19 statement of one or the two brothers which you were told were involved in

20 the disappearance of your husband?

21 A. A document, no, except for the fact that they told me in Djakovica

22 that those were the ones who had kidnapped my husband.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Now, in your later conversations with the Office of

24 the Prosecution, did you never see any document? Was never any document

25 was shown to you where you were told that it could contain the statement

Page 9274

1 or statements of the two persons mentioned?

2 A. They read out a statement to me by Krist Perforci, or by his

3 brother, I can't remember, where they stated that they had kidnapped my

4 husband, that they had stopped him because he was in his own car. I

5 really can't recall the details. It's been a long time. That's why I

6 can't give you the exact details.

7 That was the statement that they gave in Djakovica.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, you said, "they read out a statement." My

9 question was about your conversations with the Office of the Prosecutor.

10 A. I mean not that they didn't read it to me. They told me. It

11 was -- I perhaps used a wrong term. They told me about him. They didn't

12 read it to me, nor did I have the document in my hands to be able to read

13 it. They conveyed what they had stated to them. They -- they conveyed

14 that to me.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, I understand your answer to refer to what

16 happened at the time, whether in Djakovica or whether in Pec. Now, my

17 question focused on your conversations with the Office of the Prosecution

18 of this Tribunal, so more recently. Were you ever shown any statement in

19 your conversations with the Office of the Prosecution of this Tribunal?

20 A. Here or in Belgrade?

21 JUDGE ORIE: Here --

22 A. Because --

23 JUDGE ORIE: -- either of them.

24 A. During proofing, it was shown to me and I read it to refresh my

25 memory. It's been a long time ago, and the names, of course, when I read

Page 9275

1 them were familiar to me, because they remained etched in my memory; but

2 before that occasion, I did not read the statements.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So that was the first time that you actually

4 could look at a document containing the statement, a document which, if I

5 understand you well, you had not seen before.

6 A. That's right, yes.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for those answers.

8 Do the questions of the Chamber trigger any need for further

9 questions?

10 Then, Witness 68, this concludes your testimony. You've been in

11 court only for a very limited time; but as you may have understood from

12 the summary, the Chamber has received your statement and that is

13 introduced into evidence. I'd like to thank you very much for coming to

14 The Hague, for answering questions, questions in relation to a matter, the

15 disappearance of your husband, where it may have been very difficult for

16 you to talk about it. Thank you very much, therefore, for coming and for

17 answering questions.

18 Madam Usher, could you --

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20 JUDGE ORIE: -- escort the witness out of the courtroom.

21 [The witness withdrew]

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, we are in open session, although the

23 curtains are down at this moment.


25 JUDGE ORIE: Could the curtains be drawn up again, perhaps with

Page 9276

1 the assistance of some unauthorised officials of this Tribunal.

2 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. I simply wanted to mention at this stage, in

3 relation to the evidence that we've just heard, the Prosecution has

4 disclosed certain documents about the prosecution of Leke Pervorfi, which

5 do not reflect any conviction or sentence in respect of the alleged

6 abduction, but merely in respect of the illegal possession of weapons. We

7 will, in due course, seek to have that material reduced into the form of a

8 stipulation for the Trial Chamber.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. These documents - I'm also looking at you,

10 Ms. Gustafson - do they contain any information about what happened in

11 court? I mean, a judgement is one thing. The transcript or any report of

12 the proceedings, of course, is another thing.

13 MR. EMMERSON: There -- there's very limited information.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Very limited information.

15 MR. EMMERSON: It reflects dates, conviction, appeal against

16 sentence, grounds of appeal against sentence, reduction of sentence.


18 MR. EMMERSON: But what is apparent from the documents that there

19 are is that he was not prosecuted, certainly not prosecuted to conviction

20 in respect of any involvement and alleged abduction.

21 Our understanding is that the other gentleman, Krist Perforci, who

22 in fact is a cousin and not a brother, died in prison in a incident which

23 is notorious and the subject of charges in other indictments.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, we'll look at that material. It's

25 important, I think, that the Chamber receives, in order to be in a

Page 9277

1 position to evaluate, the testimony of the witness and that the Chamber

2 receives as much evidence as possible; and even then it might not -- it

3 might not be easy to evaluate that.


5 JUDGE ORIE: Because in some systems, even if someone confesses to

6 a crime, sometimes that might not be sufficient to convict someone.

7 MR. EMMERSON: No, I'm not suggesting anything about it --


9 MR. EMMERSON: -- other than that you, the Trial Chamber, may

10 have been left with the impression that those proceedings would have

11 resulted in a conviction in respect of this matter, and that is an

12 impression that needed to be corrected.

13 JUDGE ORIE: If you would not have raised the matter, I would have

14 asked --


16 JUDGE ORIE: -- for further information in this respect.

17 MR. EMMERSON: Can I indicate that the nature of the material it's

18 best described as idiosyncratically presented, in the sense that different

19 cases with different accused are woven into single documents, and it would

20 be most straightforward, I suspect, for us to agree a stipulation which

21 sets out the core information for the Trial Chamber, but perhaps

22 Ms. Gustafson and I can discuss that.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You're encouraged to enter into such

24 discussions.

25 Ms. Gustafson, I more or less interpret your body language at this

Page 9278

1 moment that you're inclined to accept the invitation by Mr. Emmerson.

2 Yes.

3 MS. GUSTAFSON: Yes, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

5 Is the Prosecution ready to call its next witness?

6 MR. DI FAZIO: On that topic, can I ask that we take the morning

7 break now. There are a number of reasons for that. Firstly, there's the

8 issue that was raised by Defence counsel this morning, and it would be

9 nice to give Mr. Re a chance to organise himself to address those -- those

10 issues. And, so for that -- for those reasons, if we could take the break

11 now, I'm sure it would make the next witness's evidence a lot smoother.

12 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a break, and we'll resume at 10.30.

13 --- Recess taken at 10.01 a.m.

14 --- On resuming at 10.33 a.m.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, before we invite the Prosecutor to call --

16 the Prosecution to call its next witness, an issue was raised not for the

17 first time, as a matter of fact, because I think it was this week that I

18 referred to a decision in May. I think I read paragraph 6 of that

19 decision, which sets out the test for new exhibits not appearing on the 65

20 ter list, where I think we said that exhibits like pseudonym sheets, not

21 matters of great substance, of course, that we would be flexible on that.

22 Mr. Guy-Smith draws our attention to the fact that 25 exhibits on

23 the Zivanovic exhibit list do not appear on the 65 ter list. It's a bit

24 confusing that they receive 65 ter numbers. I do understand, let's take

25 the neutral approach, that you use these numbers in order to get them

Page 9279

1 uploaded in the system. At the same time, 65 ter, well, gives the

2 impression that it refers to a 65 ter list, where they do not appear.

3 MR. RE: Your Honour, good morning to the Trial Chamber. With me

4 this morning is Ms. Elena Martin Salgado, who has been assisting in

5 preparation of this particular witness.


7 MR. RE: I note, of course, Mr. Guy-Smith's motion, which was just

8 e-mailed to me a moment ago. We, of course, make an oral application and

9 we move to add these documents to the 65 ter list. Whether it's a matter

10 of substance is, of course, a matter of interpretation, and one would have

11 to go to each document and argue, so to speak, the toss in relation to

12 each one.

13 Our general response is we move to add them to the list.

14 Mr. Guy-Smith has pointed to no procedural or substantive prejudice in the

15 documents being added to the list, to a virtual list.

16 Your Honour is quite correct. With 65 ter numbers, it's the only

17 way to get them into e-court and to have them appear in the proceedings,

18 so to speak.

19 In respect of all of the documents, the statement is dated, I

20 think, it's the 7th, and we've disclosed the statement in August 2007, I

21 think on the 20th of August, 2007. The Defence has had all of the

22 documents since the latest the 24th of August, 2007. A large number -- a

23 number of these documents we received this year in responses to requests

24 for assistance.

25 If I say annex 1, 2, 3, 48, 49, and 50, we received on the 15th of

Page 9280

1 March after trial began from the Serbian authorities. It was posted to

2 the Defence on the Electronic Disclosure Suite on the 10th of April.

3 Annexes, 9, 11, 15, 16, 18, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, and 86 were

4 received on the 30th of March from the Serbian authorities and were placed

5 on the EDS and disclosed to the Defence on the 10th of April, 2007.

6 Annexes 52, 57, 58, 60, 62, 75, 81, 84 were actually received in

7 October last year, and it appears -- I was trying to work out when they

8 were disclosed. They were definitely disclosed by the very latest of

9 August of this year.

10 Annex 82, received on the 1st of March, 2007 [Realtime transcript

11 read in error "1997"], was posted on the EDS on the 24th of July, 2007.

12 Annex 56 was disclosed on the 10th of April, 2007.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, annex 82, it was received on the 1st of March

14 of --

15 MR. RE: This year.

16 JUDGE ORIE: -- this year? Yes, it reads "1997" on the

17 transcript, but that should be "2007."

18 MR. RE: And annex 59 is the same document as annex -- as 65 ter

19 492, so that was already on the list.


21 MR. RE: And there's one more, annex 88. We've had that since

22 1999. It's from the Milosevic investigation.

23 So, in broad terms, there is no procedural or substantive

24 prejudice to the Defence. They've had the documents for an -- a

25 sufficient time to prepare their investigations. They've been on notice

Page 9281

1 that we intended to use these particular military documents with this

2 particular witness for some months now; most of the documents since

3 January when we filed it, but the others since at least August.

4 Most of the documents, the great majority, 95, 99 per cent, are

5 just military documents, more military orders, combat reports, et cetera,

6 and it is certainly in the interest of justice, in our submission, for the

7 Trial Chamber to hear the evidence of what's in these documents as they're

8 referred to in General Zivanovic's 92 ter statement.


10 MR. RE: And to -- to understand the military case, one must see

11 these documents in their entirety.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do I understand that on the 24th of August - is

13 that what you said - is when the -- whether it should have been known by

14 the Defence that these documents would be used?

15 MR. RE: That's the date on which we disclosed the -- the

16 annexes --


18 MR. RE: -- in a bundle, and I think we gave them to the Trial

19 Chamber within a week of that.

20 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, on from that moment, you say they

21 should be aware of that, but then let me just say, it's -- it's use of

22 language, downplaying. Today it is the 11th of October?

23 MR. RE: Yes.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Now, to call the time period from the 24th of August

25 until the 11th of October "some months" might be illustrative. It might

Page 9282

1 be an illustration of downplaying what really happens.

2 MR. RE: That's the date when we gave them the annexes. We

3 disclosed the statement on the -- the 15th of August, and the statement

4 refers to each of those documents which were in the EDS, in which the

5 Defence has had access to.


7 MR. RE: That is a matter of months.

8 JUDGE ORIE: So that is less than two months. You call that "some

9 months," but the issue is that we are discussing in court this matter,

10 where only a few days ago the Chamber made it perfectly clear that

11 flexibility would be shown on minor matters; but, apart from that, as it

12 appears in our decision of May, a proper application shall be made to add

13 exhibits or to add documents to the 65 ter list, which, of course, has not

14 been done.

15 Now we are discussing these matters. It might be that the late --

16 that the time when these documents were received fully justify that. I'm

17 not saying it does or it does not. But we're now spending time on it in

18 court, where a proper application, if not earlier, at least then a couple

19 of days ago, when the Chamber has specifically drawn the attention to this

20 procedural requirement to the Prosecution.

21 But apart from that, Mr. Guy-Smith, you would like to respond, I

22 take it.

23 MR. GUY-SMITH: Very briefly, because I don't want to take much

24 court time.

25 We filed a motion seeking clarification on the issue of Rule 65

Page 9283

1 ter procedure months ago, which is why this Chamber issued its decision.

2 There is no following of the procedures that exist. We request that there

3 be such a following of the procedures so that we can intelligently deal

4 with the information that comes to us.

5 The fact of something being put in the EDS system - and I'm not

6 going to have an EDS conversation right now - is cold comfort at best. We

7 receive thousands upon thousands upon thousands of pages of documents,

8 which we have to plough through on the EDS system. There is decisional

9 law all throughout this building with regard to whether or not that's

10 adequate notice or not.

11 The real issue here is an issue of adequate notice and

12 justification for the admission of other substantive documents. The

13 Prosecution does not seem wish to follow this rule. We request that they

14 do so from now on, and we request that there be some form of sanction in

15 the event that they don't.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, we'll consider the matter. At the

17 same time, the Chamber can't give a --

18 MR. GUY-SMITH: I understand.

19 JUDGE ORIE: -- an answer right away, and I think I've

20 sufficiently emphasized the matter.

21 MR. GUY-SMITH: Part of what we've --


23 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you. Part of what we're trying to do is

24 we're trying to stop playing catchup, which is really what we've been

25 doing in the last couple of months. It's that we're constantly playing

Page 9284

1 catchup because we receive late disclosure, we receive late 92 ter

2 statements, and we are in a position where we are scrambling in order to

3 adequately deal with the Prosecution's case. We would like it to stop.

4 MR. RE: I mean, it's the 20th of August. I mean, the 15th of

5 August is late disclosure of this statement? The witness is testifying on

6 the 11th of October?

7 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm speaking about a general difficulty that I --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Let's not mix up matters. First of all, EDS

9 disclosure and giving a list of annexes is, of course, not the same. We

10 are not talking about thousands and thousands of documents in respect of

11 this, so, therefore, it's not just EDS disclosure.

12 Apart from that, the problems with providing 92 ter statements are

13 a bit different from the problem we are dealing with at this moment; that

14 is, adding documents to the 65 ter list.

15 Let's not mix up everything. Let's --

16 MR. GUY-SMITH: I don't wish to mix up everything. It's only when

17 we're doing an analysis of a 92 ter statement that rely on annexes, and we

18 have to -- we have to, in fact, meld the two together to figure out what

19 is an intelligent response so that we have objections for the Chamber to

20 review them. That's what I'm referring to.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes. That's clear.

22 MR. GUY-SMITH: I think the objection is noted. At this point. I

23 understand the Chamber is not in a position to deal with those specific

24 annexes right now --


Page 9285

1 MR. GUY-SMITH: -- which I think points out what the problem is.

2 JUDGE ORIE: I support that understanding.

3 Mr. Re, are you ready to call Mr. Zivanovic?

4 MR. RE: I certainly am, and I call retired Major-General Dragan

5 Zivanovic.


7 MR. RE: While he's coming in, can I just raise the issue of

8 dealing with the annexes and the tab documents attached to his statement.

9 There are some 90 documents which are annexed to his statement. I would

10 propose, if it's acceptable to the Court, dealing with it in the same way

11 we dealt with Mr. Stijovic's evidence; that is, allocating them numbering,

12 having them marked for identification in sequence.

13 Several of them have been -- several of them are already in

14 evidence and are Defence exhibits. Of course, we'd skip those, because

15 I'm obviously not going to take the witness to every document, and that

16 way we'll keep them in the same order.

17 JUDGE ORIE: We will invite Mr. Registrar to assign numbers to

18 them, which, of course, doesn't predict in any way what the Chamber will

19 decide in terms of admission, so for purely administrative reasons.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honour, may I -- may I just very briefly

22 indicate, we've obviously tried to have some discussions in terms of

23 timing. This is a witness whose cross-examination, I would anticipate,

24 will take a little time, and I think we're all proceeding on the basis

25 that there is no realistic prospect of him concluding his testimony today.

Page 9286

1 JUDGE ORIE: I think it was scheduled for two hours.

2 MR. EMMERSON: For evidence in chief.



5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I misunderstood. "Will take a little time"

6 means much time. Yes. Yes.

7 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry.

8 JUDGE ORIE: The word "little" stayed on my mind and I had to

9 reread it. Yes. "A little" is not the same "as little." Yes.

10 MR. RE: There's also a 92 ter summary, if I could read that onto

11 the record at the beginning. I didn't do that with Mr. Stijovic because

12 there was -- the matter was unresolved when we walked into court. But as

13 the Trial Chamber is aware, we resolved last night the issue of the

14 redactions.

15 [The witness entered court]

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, with some assistance of the Chamber, from what I

17 understand.

18 MR. RE: It goes without saying.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zivanovic, can you hear me in a language you

20 understand?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Before you give evidence, you have to give a

23 solemn declaration that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and

24 nothing but truth. The text is now handed out to you by Madam Usher, and

25 I'd like to invite you to make that solemn declaration.

Page 9287

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

2 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Zivanovic. Please be seated.

4 THE WITNESS: Thank you.


6 [Witness answered through interpreter]

7 JUDGE ORIE: You'll first be examined by Mr. Re, who is counsel

8 for the Prosecution.

9 Examination by Mr. Re:

10 Q. Good morning, Mr. Zivanovic.

11 A. Good morning.

12 Q. First things first, your name is Dragan Zivanovic and you were

13 born on the 8th of January, 1955 and you are a retired Major-General in

14 the Army of the Republic of Serbia; before that, the Army of the Federal

15 Republic of Yugoslavia; and before that, the JNA. Is that correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And you retired from the Army of Republic of Serbia on the 31st of

18 March, 2006.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. In front of you ...

21 MR. RE: And for the benefit of everyone here, the witness has a

22 copy of his 92 ter statement and a copy of the annexes in a folder from 1

23 through to 90 in English and B/C/S.

24 Q. ... I want you to look at your statement, which is signed and

25 dated the 9th of August, 2007. My first question to you is: Do you have

Page 9288

1 the statement there?

2 A. I do.

3 Q. Does it bear your signature and is it true and accurate?

4 A. Yes, it's my signature and it's accurate.

5 Q. And if we were to ask you about the matters in that statement,

6 would you give the same evidence as is contained in that statement?

7 A. The same.

8 Q. The Prosecution has agreed - of course, with the Chamber's

9 assistance - with the Defence to delete the last sentence of paragraph 42,

10 beginning with "we heard"; the entire paragraph of paragraph 47; the first

11 sentence of paragraph 48, which begins with "I also"; and the words in

12 line 5 of paragraph 94, in the English, "by the KLA."

13 And with those redactions, which we will make at a later point,

14 may it be received into evidence.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, are there any objections to admission of

16 the 92 ter statement?

17 Then, Mr. Registrar, I do not know - it's not yet uploaded - if

18 the amended version is not yet uploaded, whether you can already assign a

19 number to it. Yes.

20 Then, that would be number?

21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be Exhibit Number P1017.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. P1017 is then admitted into evidence.

23 Decisions on annexes to follow after they have been tendered.

24 Please proceed, Mr. Re.

25 [Prosecution counsel confer]

Page 9289

1 MR. RE:

2 Q. Mr. Zivanovic, I'm going to ask you to elaborate on some of the

3 matters which are in your statement, but first I'm going to read a summary

4 of your statement onto the record so that the public can follow the

5 contents of it.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Has a copy been given to the booth?

7 [Prosecution counsel confer]

8 MR. RE: Yes, the booth has a copy. I'm sorry, I had it a moment

9 ago.

10 This is the summary of the statement, the Rule 92 statement, of

11 Dragan Zivanovic: Dragan Zivanovic retired as a Major-General in the Army

12 of the Republic of Serbia in 2006. He served in Kosovo with the VJ -

13 that's Yugoslav Serbian army - from 1997 until its withdrawn in June 1999.

14 He was the Chief of Staff of the Pristina Corps' 125th Motorised

15 Brigade from the 1st of September 1997 until the 12th of June, 1998, when

16 he was appointed commander of the 125th Motorised Brigade. His area of

17 responsibility included the municipalities of Pec, Decani, Istok, and

18 Klina - I'm using the Serbian names because it's a Serbian witness - and

19 the villages of Glodjane and Jablanica and the north-western tip of Lake

20 Radonjic, including the Lake Radonjic canal area.

21 The 125th Motorised Brigade increased in strength over 1998 from

22 1400 in January 1998 to 2.500. On the 28th of February, 1998, several

23 policemen were killed in a military-style ambush on a MUP patrol in

24 Likosane. The ambush demonstrated that the KLA was organising militarily.

25 The MUP observed the KLA were training and building bunkers and

Page 9290

1 trenches. Border crossings carrying arms from Albania into Kosovo and

2 Metohija increased, and VJ border posts were reinforced to prevent these

3 incursions. From 28th of February onwards, the 125th Motorised Brigade

4 had standing orders for six hours combat readiness; but by May 1998,

5 combat readiness had been reduced to one hour.

6 As a direct result of KLA activity, the MUP set up check-points

7 along the main roads. The KLA was unrelenting in attacking these

8 check-points. After the Likosane attack of 28th of February, the Kosovska

9 Mitrovica-Pec road was under the control of the KLA, and the 125th

10 Motorised Brigade was forced to use the Kosovska Mitrovica- Pristina-Pec

11 road instead. In 1997, a soldier could have travelled the whole of the

12 Kosovska Mitrovica-Pec alone and unharmed.

13 Combat groups were formed in the 125th Motorised Brigade in April

14 1998 to insist the MUP in maintaining the control of the

15 Pec-Decani-Djakovica road. MUP units on this road were under constant KLA

16 attack.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, could you please slow down.

18 Yes.

19 MR. RE: In April 1998, the KLA attacked VJ positions at the Lake

20 Radonjic Filtration Plant. On 25th of April, Major-General Pavkovic

21 ordered that "captured terrorists" be treated in accordance with the

22 Geneva Conventions and laws of war. The VJ had no presence in the area

23 radiating eastward along the Pec-Decani-Djakovica road. The MUP entered

24 the area occasionally, but it was controlled by the KLA.

25 The chief of security of Zivanovic's brigade informed him that

Page 9291

1 Ramush Haradinaj's headquarters were in the area of Glodjane. Zivanovic

2 was informed that Haradinaj had between 500 to 1.000 armed trained men,

3 trained for terrorist action. Zivanovic was also informed that Jablanica,

4 a KLA stronghold, contained a prison where kidnapped Serbs, Roma, and

5 loyal Albanians were kept.

6 In May 1998, and as a result of the conflict with the KLA, the FRY

7 Assembly passed a special law giving the VJ control of a five-kilometre

8 strip of territory from the border. In May 1998, the VJ could no longer

9 use the Pristina-Klina-Pec, Pristina-Klina-Djakovica, Kosovska

10 Mitrovica-Pec, and Pec-Decani-Djakovica roads. The KLA realistically

11 controlled the roads radiating eastwards towards Glodjane and all roads

12 eastwards along the Pec-Djakovica road.

13 The 125th was spared from the KLA attacks in the very early part

14 of 1998. On 23rd of May, 1998, Zivanovic was taking 220 soldiers to the

15 border along the Djakovica-Ponosevac-Morina road, when they were attacked

16 by the KLA using mortars and hand-held rocket launchers. By mid-June

17 1998, his brigade was suffering three or four attacks per day.

18 In late July/early August 1998, the 125th assisted the MUP in an

19 operation to clear the Pec-Pristina road. In early August 1998, Combat

20 Group 3 of the 125th assisted the MUP in the Dukagjini area to disarm KLA

21 soldiers. It should say "an operation to disarm KLA soldiers."

22 MUP patrols were being attacked daily by the KLA. MUP and 125th

23 Brigade forces, numbering about 420, took Prilep after two days of

24 resistance from the KLA, which had an estimated 60 soldiers. They then

25 took Rznic. The MUP set up check-points which were attacked by the KLA,

Page 9292

1 which then gained control.

2 A large VJ-MUP combined operation took place against the KLA

3 between 6th and 8th of September, 1998. The 125th Brigade units went as

4 far as Zarki Pojas, and the MUP continued to Rznic and the Lake Radonjic

5 canal area. Units from the 549th Motorised Brigade assisted MUP forces in

6 taking Glodjane.

7 That completes the summary of the statement.

8 Q. Now, what I'm going to do, Mr. Zivanovic, is I'm going to ask you

9 about some questions about the things in the statement to elaborate and

10 clarify some matters and show you -- refer you to some of the documents

11 which are annexed to your statement.

12 The first thing I want to ask you about is, in general terms, the

13 border situation in early 1998, and in military terms, is significant of

14 what was happening on the Albanian Kosovo state border.

15 JUDGE ORIE: It may be unclear. You said "the first thing I want

16 to ask you about." Is that an invitation to explain to us what the

17 significance was?

18 MR. RE: The significance of what was happening.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No, but was it already a question? I noticed

20 that the witness --

21 MR. RE: I'm sorry.

22 JUDGE ORIE: -- might have been waiting for questions about these

23 matters, or whether you invited him to answer this already as your first

24 question.

25 MR. RE:

Page 9293

1 Q. That's my first question, Mr. Zivanovic, to explain the

2 significance of what was happening on the border in January, in early

3 1998.

4 A. Your Honours, the primary task of any member of the Army of

5 Yugoslavia in Kosovo and Metohija, and thereby the 125th Motorised Brigade

6 and border battalions, was to protect the state border. Under the

7 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the border was guarded

8 by the army; namely, the army guarded it in the 100-metre belt.

9 Everything else was within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the

10 Interior; that is, the units in depth, the protection.

11 In the beginning of 1998, the number of illegal crossings of the

12 state border increased in the area of responsibility of the 125th Brigade,

13 which was on the tripartite border of Montenegro, Serbia, and Albania, in

14 the area of Morina. That was a stretch of 45 kilometres. Illegal

15 crossings were particularly bad in the section between Morina village

16 until the watchtower of Kosare, or in Albanian, Raqe Kosares [phoen].

17 The groups that crossed the border numbered from one person up to

18 200 persons, as was the case in April. The purpose of these illegal

19 crossings was to go to the Republic of Albania, to purchase arms there,

20 and to take those arms and military equipment into Kosovo and Metohija in

21 order to arm the terrorists.

22 Q. Can I just stop and ask you to pause there for a moment.

23 Can Sanction be used for a moment. We wish to display paragraph

24 28 of your statement, in which you refer to the illegal bored crossings.

25 Now, you're referring there, and you've just given an answer,

Page 9294

1 about the illegal supply of weapons from Albania. Describe the magnitude

2 of the problem as seen by the Yugoslav state officials of the transport of

3 weapons across the Albanian border in early 1998.

4 A. It was a great problem for us for the following reasons: First,

5 with the break-up of the armed forces of Albania, there resulted a

6 situation in which the armed forces of Albania no longer guarded the

7 weapons or the military equipment in their military depots, so it became

8 accessible to civilians and potential smugglers of weapons.

9 With the occurrence of terrorism in Kosovo and Metohija, there

10 resulted a need for them to supply their own people with arms and to form

11 the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army. That was the problem with illegal

12 crossings for us, crossings from Kosovo and Metohija to Albania first, in

13 order to purchase weapons.

14 They purchased weapons by collecting funds at village level and

15 region level, from donations from abroad, from their own diaspora, and

16 donations from their own businessmen. They designated specific persons

17 who were required to go across the border; plus, they had trained guides

18 who knew the system of state border security very well, because they had

19 monitored it for a couple of years back, and they were easily able to

20 guide offenders across the border even in whole columns, whether they were

21 going on foot or on mules, and take them back once they were loaded with

22 cargo.

23 Q. Was there any estimate of -- was there any estimate of how many

24 weapons went across the border in the first three months of 1998?

25 A. In the estimate of the Ministry of the Interior in the beginning

Page 9295

1 of 1998, in Kosovo and Metohija, there was between 80.000 to 100.000

2 weapons. Official -- unofficial estimates went up to 200.000. At the end

3 of 1998, after the voluntary surrender of a certain amount of weapons by

4 certain villages, in September and October, we evaluated that there were

5 about 400.000 weapons.

6 Q. What about weapons coming across the border in the first few

7 months of 1998?

8 A. In the first half of that year, in that section of 40 kilometres

9 in my area, I reported that around 20.000 weapons had been carried across

10 the border.

11 Q. What sort of weapons were -- was the VJ intercepting?

12 A. Those were primarily weapons that later belonged to the army --

13 earlier belonged to the Army of Albania: Mainly Chinese-made weapons that

14 were in the arsenal of the Army of Albania; semi-automatic rifles;

15 automatic rifles of the Kalashnikov type; light machine guns; machine

16 guns; hand-held launchers, two or three types of them with a range of 150

17 to 400 metres; 60-millimetre and 82-millimetre mortars; and the

18 accompanying equipment, clips, accessories, and ammunition for all types

19 of weapons, beginning with the 7.62-millimetre round, 7.9, 12.5, 14.5,

20 12.7, 75-millimetres, 82-millimetres, and 120-millimetre shells for

21 hand-held launchers, anti-personnel mines, et cetera.

22 Q. What were the heaviest weapons that were intercepted in that

23 period?

24 A. In the month of April, the heaviest was the recoilless gun,

25 82-millimetre; mortars, 82-millimetres; a lot of ammunition for infantry

Page 9296

1 weapons; recoilless guns; hand-held launchers; and mortars.

2 Q. You referred a moment ago to columns going across the border, some

3 on foot, some on mules, and going back once they were loaded with cargo.

4 Can you describe in a little bit more detail these columns and how the

5 goods were transported across the border. When I say "goods," I mean

6 weapons.

7 A. Based on our observation of the border belt and based on

8 intelligence we received from state security, but primarily from observing

9 done by border authorities, it was noticed that a convoy or a group that

10 would go to purchase weapons and military equipment would gather at one

11 point close to the border. It was usually close to a larger settlement

12 called Tropoje. That's where the weapons and military equipment were

13 brought on lorries, as far as we could see. They were distributed during

14 the night or maybe sold from the lorries. I can't say which way it was

15 done, because I wasn't there.

16 And then, depending on their own estimates of how it was best to

17 cross the border back, in one column or in groups of five or ten persons,

18 they would go back. They mainly used areas that were not the choice

19 routes of movement either for the passage of pedestrians or the cattle

20 taken -- or rather, going across the border freely. They would choose

21 routes where they thought there would be no patrols or no ambushes by the

22 crew on the watchtower.

23 I have to say that those 40 kilometres were secured by around 150

24 men on three to five watchtowers, depending on whether it was summertime

25 or winter season. It is very difficult, indeed, to cover 40 kilometres

Page 9297

1 with one shift of men consisting of 30/40 men. So the place of the

2 ambushes changed, but they had obviously been very well prepared, because

3 they had observed the positioning of our border authorities and they would

4 use the gaps to cross.

5 Q. Were the crossings typically by day or by night?

6 A. Most of the crossings took place by night or in the early morning

7 hours; exceptionally, also during the day when the weather was bad, when

8 there was fog, rain spells, blustery weather.

9 Q. What were the crossing points used to get across the border?

10 A. If you mean legal crossings, there were no legal crossings. As

11 for the illegal crossings, there were -- they would cross along all the

12 directions. They would cross even Bogicevica Mount, which was more than

13 2500 metres above sea.

14 Q. Where did the weapons go to once they crossed from Albania into

15 Kosovo?

16 A. They would go to the staffs existing at village levels. These

17 staffs would then decide, depending on when the teams of people were sent,

18 to whom the weapons would be delivered to. They distributed the weapons

19 to volunteers who wanted to join the ranks of terrorists.

20 Later on, it was done through mandatory mobilisation, to use the

21 military term of "mobilisation," but what they did was to compel the

22 population, mostly the young ones, to take weapons and to become members

23 of terrorist groups and armed formations, which in their mind had specific

24 tasks.

25 Q. When you describe the border posts which are in paragraph 28, you

Page 9298

1 say: "The border posts were reinforced to try to prevent these

2 incursions." Can you describe to the Trial Chamber what a border post

3 comprised of?

4 A. Let's take the example of the Morina border post. It's at the

5 saddle of Morina, the village of Ponosevac, and the villages of Gornja and

6 Donja Morina, Tropolja. The area of responsibility of this border post is

7 13 kilometres wide from Boka or Kamen. Across the village of Prevoj, you

8 reach the border post of Kosare. It had between 30 to 40 men, including

9 the commander and the deputy who were professional officers.

10 Now, how did they provide for the security? The very watchtower,

11 the border post was some 20 metres from the border as the crow flies.

12 There existed a plan which changed daily based on the decision of the

13 commander of the company or the commander of the battalion stationed in

14 Djakovica.

15 A certain number of patrols, let's take an example: On a given

16 day, two patrols would be organised and two ambushes. The patrols would

17 normally comprise three, five, or eight men. At times, if information was

18 received about certain problems detected, then the strengths of the

19 patrols would increase. The patrols would be sent at different times to

20 different directions, but predominantly within that 100-metre border belt.

21 The patrols would be moving overtly, because they were in their own

22 territory securing their own country.

23 Exceptionally, as late -- as problems emerged and as terrorists

24 started attacking border authorities occasionally, the patrols would be

25 moving through their territory or through open spaces covertly. They

Page 9299

1 would either skirt, as such, clearings or scurry through them.

2 As for ambushes, they were also set at specific times. There

3 would be two- to three-hour ambushes and, exceptionally, six-hour ambushes

4 that were set along an axis where it was expected that offenders might

5 appear, attempting to cross the border illegally. This could be in both

6 ways or only in one way. Ambushes would be set on such locations at a

7 specific time. They had to maintain the regime of discipline and keep

8 quiet and unnoticeable.

9 If they do manage to maintain that regime, then they remained

10 undetected and were able to do their job; otherwise, they would be noticed

11 by the offenders trying to cross the border illegally.

12 Q. You just referred to ambushes and patrols. What was the frequency

13 of the ambushes and patrols in the first four months of 1998?

14 A. By -- or rather, until the month of April, the situation was

15 practically as per normal, and two ambushes could be set on a 24-hour

16 basis, and this was, of course, quite a burden for the men.

17 From the month of April, with the increased number of illegal

18 crossings, the Pristina Corps stepped up certain border posts and

19 replenished them with additional men, particularly those charged with

20 reconnaissance in order to timely detect any problems.

21 Even these reinforcements could not go on for long. If you had

22 some 30 to 40 men who were at the border post and if they were further

23 reinforced with 20 men, this meant that their strengths could go up by 50

24 per cent. The reinforcements were not charged with patrolling the areas;

25 rather, they were charged mostly with reconnoitering and observing from

Page 9300

1 the watchtowers.

2 Q. Just to clarify your answer where you said "the situation was

3 practically as per normal and two ambushes could be set up on a 24-hour

4 basis." What was normal about two ambushes in a 24-hour basis?

5 A. It is only normal for one to take place at night and the other one

6 by day. The people had to be engaged because that was the tactics of the

7 border service according to the rules governing the border service. There

8 could be no slacking along the border belt. The discipline had to be

9 maintained.

10 Q. Are you saying that on a quiet day there were two ambushes set

11 upper day but on a busy day there were more, or are you saying something

12 else?

13 A. I'm saying precisely that. On a quiet day, there were two

14 ambushes, and the two ambushes could not take place at the same time. One

15 had to take place during the night and the other one during the day.

16 If we had one ambush during the day that was supposed to be on

17 duty for two hours, the remaining ten hours would pass by without any

18 ambushes in that particular area of a given border post. I don't know if

19 you understand what I'm saying.

20 And if we don't have a patrol, then this area of 13 kilometres

21 would only be observed as much as could be observed from a watchtower.

22 Q. A few moments ago you talked about reinforcing -- orders for

23 reinforcement. In paragraph 28, you refer to a particular order of

24 General Pavkovic on the 18th of March, 1998.

25 MR. RE: That's at tab 3 or annex 3, if that could be displayed in

Page 9301

1 e-court, please, and the number of it read out.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, have you already assigned numbers to

3 the list?

4 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. That's 65 ter number 01930,

5 and it will be marked for identification as P1021.

6 MR. RE:

7 Q. Do you have the -- Mr. Zivanovic, do you have tab 3 open in front

8 of you? Could you go to the document at tab 3 there. It's an order of

9 the 18th of March, 1998 signed by General Pavkovic, Major-General

10 Pavkovic, commander of the Pristina Corps, headed: "Increased DG - that's

11 sabotage group - and Order."

12 It says: "Due to the worsening security situation in the corps

13 zones of responsibility and the border area, in order to prevent violation

14 of the border regime in the Pristina Corps zone of responsibility, I issue

15 the following order," and he orders an increase in security.

16 Was that one of the types of orders that you were referring to?

17 A. Yes, precisely so. This is an order relating to the subordinate

18 units of the corps command, asking them to send reinforcements to certain

19 areas to assist border battalions and border posts.

20 Specifically, this order provides for the following: That out of

21 the 125th Motorised Brigade, 20 men were to be deployed to the Kosare

22 border post and re-subordinated to the border post commander for providing

23 further border security. These men were sent out of the Pec garrison.

24 Q. What is the significance of that particular order, in relation to

25 the incursions and the security situation at the time?

Page 9302

1 A. The significance lies in the following: We felt the need to try

2 and prevent, as the Army of Yugoslavia, these illegal crossings and to

3 prevent arms trafficking ending up in the terrorists being armed. By "the

4 terrorists," I mean the so-called KLA, which caused a great problem for

5 us.

6 The corps command had the authority to do this because these

7 border battalions and our brigades were subordinated to him. By sending

8 these reinforcements, he tried to step up border security and prevent

9 illegal crossings. If border -- illegal border crossings could not be

10 prevented, at least attempts should be made to seize the cargo, the

11 weapons being smuggled at the border.

12 Q. You just used the word "terrorists," and said "I mean the

13 so-called KLA."

14 If you can go to paragraph 21 ...

15 MR. RE: Can we just display that in Sanction for a moment.

16 Q. ... in your statement, you said: "The VJ documents I refer to in

17 this statement refer to 'terrorists,' 'terrorist and sabotage groups

18 (DTG),' and terrorist and sabotage forces (DTS),' These terms were used

19 to refer primarily to the Kosovo Liberation Army."

20 That's in your statement.

21 I wish to refer you also to MFI P955 [Realtime transcript read in

22 error "P9555"], which is an order -- sorry, it's some information from the

23 Deputy Federal Minister of Yugoslavia, dated the 16th of March, 1998. You

24 won't find it in your bundle, but it will come up on the screen in a

25 moment.

Page 9303

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, you said P955?

2 MR. RE: Yes.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, yes, that's clear now.

4 Please proceed.

5 MR. RE:

6 Q. I want you to explain why the word "terrorist" or "DTG" or "DTS"

7 was used in many of the communications at that time rather than "KLA" or

8 "UCK."

9 A. In the official documents we received from the highest levels of

10 the VJ, they used this terminology; and, in reality, that is what was the

11 case. A terrorist group could have between three to five, ten, fifteen,

12 or twenty men.

13 Why was it referred to as "the sabotage terrorist group"? Well, I

14 believe this is the same worldwide, that this is a group attacking the

15 official bodies, the official authorities, and endangers the persons and

16 properties both of individuals and the institutions of a country.

17 If there were several sabotage and terrorist groups, we referred

18 to them as "sabotage and terrorist forces." The term "KLA" was always

19 written in inverted commas. It meant the Kosovo Liberation Army.

20 Why did we put it into inverted commas? Because we did not wish

21 to recognise that force, since in the country there was one regular army

22 and that was the Yugoslavia Army; that is, the Army of the Federal

23 Republic of Yugoslavia. Had we accepted and recognised the term "Kosovo

24 Liberation Army," it would have meant that we accepted them as the enemy

25 but as our partner.

Page 9304

1 There were tendencies that went several years back to establish

2 the Kosovo Liberation Army with the final goal of accelerating the

3 secession of Kosovo and Metohija and the proclamation of their

4 independence from the then-Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. That's why

5 this term was very important to us. Besides, we didn't have the

6 information to the effect who was in charge on the other side and who

7 could be the person to negotiate with, and so on.

8 Q. If you can look on the screen in front of you, there's the

9 document I referred to a moment ago, which is the information from March

10 1998 from the Foreign Ministry.

11 MR. RE: Now, maybe if it could be scrolled down or the next page

12 could be shown, and the next one if that could be made bigger.

13 Q. Now, Mr. Zivanovic, do you recall seeing this particular document

14 as of the date of its dissemination, that's in March 1998?

15 A. Your Honours, I was not in a position to see this before. This is

16 the first -- the first time I see this.

17 At that time, I was the Chief of Staff of the 125th Motorised

18 Brigade stationed in Kosovska Mitrovica; whereas, this is the level of the

19 Foreign Ministry, which was far above my head --

20 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's Correction: The witness said

21 "Ministry of the Interior."

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But I make -- I can comment now that

23 you've asked me about it.

24 MR. RE:

25 Q. My question is simply this: Whether what you see there, and

Page 9305

1 where it says, "We believe that the operations by organs of the MUP cannot

2 be described as an internal armed conflict, in the sense of Article 3 of

3 the Geneva Conventions and the Law on of Armed Conflict.

4 "This concerns a police action of preventing crimes, acts of

5 terrorism. This is an important distinction, to describe the

6 aforementioned instances, where internal armed conflict could be

7 interpreted as an implicit recognition of the so-called 'Kosovo Liberation

8 Army' as a warring side, which would have certain international legal

9 implications."

10 Then it goes on to say: "Bearing this in mind, we propose that

11 the competent organs should not use the term 'armed conflict' in public

12 announcement and in formal communications but to speak about the

13 operations of the organs of the Ministry of the Interior to prevent

14 crimes."

15 That's the English translation.

16 MR. RE: I apologise for not speaking slowly enough.

17 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

18 JUDGE ORIE: I wasn't looking at the transcript. But if you would

19 look, Mr. Re, you would see "kindly slow down for purposes of the record";

20 that is, transcribers can't speak.

21 I was looking at the document so I missed that, but would you

22 please, you, but also the witness, try to avoid to speak too quickly.

23 Mr. Emmerson, I just wonder what was lost. I see some ten

24 seconds.

25 MR. EMMERSON: I'm not sure what question Mr. Re intends to pose

Page 9306

1 on the basis of this; but I notice that as he was reading it, he omitted

2 the final sentence in the first full paragraph and jumped to a conclusion,

3 which appears for the document to be based on two considerations.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps Mr. Re could --

5 MR. RE: It's just time. The witness has the document in front of

6 him. It's already in -- it's already been marked. I mean, the witness

7 can see it. Everyone can see it. But if you want me to, I can read that

8 line onto the record.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps, once you start reading --

10 MR. RE: Okay.

11 JUDGE ORIE: -- then, of course, your selection of what you read

12 might not be without relevance.

13 So I would agree with you that if you'd invite the witness to read

14 the whole of the document, fine. But if you read, then read all portions.

15 MR. RE: Okay.

16 The parts which didn't make it onto the transcript because I was

17 speaking too quickly and then jumped are: "To describe the aforementioned

18 incidents as an internal armed conflict could be interpreted as an

19 implicit recognition of the so-called 'Kosovo Liberation Army' as a

20 warring side, which would then have certain international legal

21 implications.

22 "This is also significant in order to determine any possible

23 jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal of The Hague, which is

24 responsible exclusively for the crimes committed in," it says,

25 "'international /as printed/' and internal conflicts, with the exception

Page 9307

1 of the crime of genocide."

2 Q. Is what you read there, Mr. Zivanovic, consistent with the

3 practice of official organs of the state, such as the army, Ministry of

4 the Interior, State Security, and higher organs; and consistent, indeed,

5 with your own practice in what you wrote in orders, reports, and documents

6 at the time?

7 A. Yes, precisely so. This document by the Foreign Ministry goes

8 along these lines, and this is being interpreted precisely in that way

9 through the embassies worldwide. Terrorists and sabotage groups are

10 treated in one way by a given country, and that country can ask for

11 assistance of other countries if need be. Our country, on the other hand,

12 believed that it could deal with the sabotage and terrorist forces in

13 Kosovo on its own. That was the case.

14 Q. The next topic I want to take you to is that of combat groups and

15 what they are, their task, and their importance.

16 MR. RE: And if Sanction could be used for the moment.

17 Q. We're going to take you to paragraph 17 of your statement, in

18 which you say that Combat Group 3 of your motorised brigade was

19 established in April 1998, and it was based in the Pec barracks: "The

20 purpose of establish this unit was to try and maintain control of the

21 roads around Pec."

22 What is a "combat group" in military terms and what is its -- and

23 what was the significance of establishing these combat groups at that

24 particular time?

25 A. Your Honours, in order to answer this question properly and

Page 9308

1 fairly, I would need a bit more time. The Army of Yugoslavia and all

2 armies of the world exist in order to be trained for certain activities.

3 Specifically, the brigade in which I was the Chief of Staff at the time

4 received recruits and conscripts who were doing their regular military

5 service in March, June, September, and December. The number of recruits

6 varied from 200 or 300 up to 500 in a batch.

7 The strength of the brigade, including professional officers,

8 civilians on a contract, non-commissioned officers, and conscripts doing

9 their military service, varied from 900 in certain months of 1997 up to

10 1880 in the end of 1998.

11 In order to train the soldiers - and there was a training of three

12 to six months - we had three-month training for individuals, groups,

13 sections, up to platoon, and that was the basic training.

14 The next three months would be joint training, where they learned

15 advanced skills that are used in emergency situations and extraordinary

16 situations; namely, combat.

17 The group that had completed training - conditionally speaking,

18 that's half of the brigade - may be used in those specific purpose tasks,

19 and the specific purpose tasks of the brigade were as follows: First, to

20 engage part of forces for in-depth security of the state border.

21 Why do I underline the word "in-depth"? Because line security - I

22 apologise if I'm speaking too fast. I probably am - line security in the

23 100-metre belt was already performed by a unit directly subordinated to

24 the corps commander; whereas, the area of responsibility of the 125th

25 Brigade, looking at Metohija, was a section of 40 kilometres, and our task

Page 9309

1 was, first of all, to help out with the in-depth security of the state

2 border.

3 Number two, to secure the military installations where we were

4 deployed, plus to secure the personnel and the assets in those military

5 installations, and to provide our own security details for us personally

6 in movement, in drills, in training, or any other movements during natural

7 disasters, humanitarian assistance, et cetera.

8 This half of the brigade that was eligible for specific purpose

9 tasks should be engaged as follows: The brigade was required to secure 11

10 installations; three barracks, in Kosovska Mitrovica, Vucitrn, and Pec;

11 then detached installations, beginning with Baja, the old stations,

12 Svinjare, Doljane, Belo Polje, Crnjosa [phoen]. I can't remember them all

13 myself.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Is this the information you are really seeking and

15 which you consider to be of great assistance to the Chamber? I mean, the

16 lengthy answer, very lengthy, very detailed about matters, where less

17 detail might well do.

18 MR. RE: Well, clearly, clearly it's not. It's obvious it's not.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, then please, please do something about it.

20 MR. RE: Okay. I will.

21 Q. Mr. Zivanovic, please. Combat groups, why did you form one -- why

22 was one formed in April 1998? The short version, please, if you can.

23 A. Well, I was explaining the previous order issued by the corps

24 commander in March. With the purpose of strengthening the security on the

25 state border, the commander decided, in view of our available forces, that

Page 9310

1 we can barely form this Combat Group 3 and keep it in the Pec barracks for

2 possible intervention on the border. That's the shortest version.

3 Q. What's the difference between a combat group and other units

4 within the 125th?

5 A. Until April, Combat Groups 1 and 2 existed in the 125th Brigade.

6 They had existed since 1985. It's just the personnel that rotated within

7 those combat groups, but there is no particular difference. Combat Group

8 2, that was located in Pec, also had the primary purpose of strengthening

9 the security on the state border and protecting the facilities and

10 installations in the area of Pec.

11 Q. The third one was formed in April. Why?

12 A. I just explained that a moment ago, because at that moment Combat

13 Group 2 was in the area of Djakovica, in the area of a settlement called

14 Bec. It was in training and it hadn't completed training at that time.

15 At that point, the commander decided to form the Combat Group 3 in

16 Pec. That was more easily mobile and could reach, for instance, the

17 border post of Morina quicker than could Combat Group 2.

18 Q. In your statement, at paragraph 11, you say the strength of the

19 brigade varied between about 1400 men in January 1998 and 2.500 towards

20 the end of the year. What was the reason for that large increase in

21 brigade strength over the year?

22 A. The reason for that increase in the strength of the brigade were

23 disruptions on the border, security violations. These combat groups were

24 established in order to protect ourselves, to provide in-depth security

25 for the state border, and possibly, at a later stage, to combat terrorism.

Page 9311

1 Q. The next thing I ask you about is in paragraph 13, and that is the

2 concept of combat readiness.

3 MR. EMMERSON: Sorry.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.

5 MR. EMMERSON: There's a certain ambiguity in the last answer

6 where the witness has indicated that combat groups were initially

7 established for border, security, and in order to protect ourselves, "and

8 possibly, at a later stage, to combat terrorism."

9 I wonder if it might be clear at what stage the witness is

10 referring to, since Mr. Re is asking questions about time.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And, possibly, if the witness has knowledge,

12 then the word "possibly" comes as a surprise.

13 Could you explain what you meant by "later" and what you meant by

14 "possibly" when you were talking about "combat terrorism."

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in the Army of

16 Yugoslavia, every unit, including my unit that I headed, had the task to

17 evaluate and make assessments. That's why we have the training and such

18 groups. It was our estimate that, if the state authorities of the Federal

19 Yugoslavia decide to introduce a state of emergency in Kosovo, our units

20 would automatically go into anti-terrorism mode.

21 That's what I meant by "possibly."

22 JUDGE ORIE: Did that ever happen? Was a state of emergency

23 introduced; and if so, when, so that we know whether the units went

24 automatically into anti-terrorism mode?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The state of emergency was not

Page 9312

1 introduced in the Federal State of Yugoslavia; however, the Supreme

2 Defence Council of Yugoslavia decided in June 1998 that the units of the

3 Army of Yugoslavia in the territory of Kosovo and Metohija may be used to

4 support MUP forces in anti-terrorism struggle.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that answer.

6 Mr. Re.

7 MR. RE:

8 Q. Combat readiness, and paragraph 13 of your statement, where you

9 say: "From February 281998 onwards, we had standing orders requiring a

10 minimum of six hours of combat readiness."

11 Two lines, second line down: "However, ordered by 6th of January,

12 the brigades had to be prepared to switch combat readiness from six hours

13 to one hour."

14 And then: "On the 1st of March, Colonel Zdravkovic, then the

15 commander of the brigade, ordered that intervention units would be kept at

16 instant readiness."

17 I just want you to very briefly explain to the Trial Chamber

18 the -- the concept of combat readiness and what it meant in the context of

19 those orders; that is, combat ready at one hour, six hours, or instant

20 readiness, but, please, a brief explanation.

21 A. Combat readiness is a state of readiness, training, organisation,

22 and interlinkage inside the whole unit; readiness for specific purpose

23 tasks. In our terminology we had standing combat readiness, increased

24 combat readiness, and occasional.

25 The constant standing readiness is in a quiet situation -- sorry,

Page 9313

1 occasional readiness is in a quiet situation; increased combat readiness

2 is introduced in case of specific problems, such as terrorist incidents;

3 and complete combat readiness means putting the entire personnel into a

4 state of alert and readiness for combat actions.

5 We also have the state of air reconnoitering and alert

6 reconnoitering aviation, and Navy engaged during the standard readiness.

7 MR. RE: Mr. Zivanovic, it is very hard --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue there, I do understand that the

9 speed by which the units would be ready to engage in combat actions is

10 what you're talking about, I take it that's what the words already say,

11 but --

12 MR. RE: Your Honour, the trouble is I can't get -- the witness is

13 looking at you. I can't signal to the witness.

14 JUDGE ORIE: If you --

15 MR. RE: I can't interrupt because, of course, it interferes with

16 the translation. That's the difficulty.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, there are ways --

18 MR. RE: I am trying to wave. I'm trying to wave.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'll assist you. If you wave at me, I'll take

20 proper action.

21 We have to have to have a break at this moment. We'll resume at

22 twenty minutes past 12.00.

23 --- Recess taken at 12.00 p.m.

24 --- On resuming at 12.28 p.m.

25 JUDGE ORIE: There were compelling reasons for the Chamber not to

Page 9314

1 start at the time indicated, since we are quite past that time.

2 Mr. Zivanovic, if you answer questions, would you, first of all,

3 very much focus on what is asked to you; and, second, I think that most of

4 the questions Mr. Re seems to be interested more in the conditions and

5 circumstances that caused the changes or certain decisions, rather than

6 the technical way in which these decisions were finally executed.

7 So would you please focus especially on circumstances that caused

8 certain events, rather than how they technically were dealt with. And if

9 you look at Mr. Re standing there, then he'll give you a signal if details

10 are not that important any more.

11 Please proceed.

12 MR. RE:

13 Q. Mr. Zivanovic, back to Combat Readiness. Now, I just want you to

14 see that this is my signal very "brief," with fingers like this.

15 Explain the significance of combat readiness being reduced from

16 six hours to one hour, as you referred to in paragraph 13 of your

17 statement. Why was it reduced from six hours to one hour?

18 A. Specifically, in this document, it refers to the strength of one

19 garrison platoon, and it's very important in order to be able to intervene

20 at military installations.

21 Q. Also in that paragraph is the one I referred to earlier: 1st of

22 March, 1998, Zdravkovic ordered intervention units would be kept at

23 instant readiness. Why did Colonel Zdravkovic then the commander, your

24 predecessor, of the 125th, order instant combat readiness of intervention

25 units?

Page 9315

1 A. Because of the actions of the Siptar terrorist group against a MUP

2 patrol in the area of Likosane village on 28th February, where four

3 policemen were killed and two were wounded. To prevent something like

4 that from happening again to our own columns and people in installations,

5 we needed to be ready to intervene at such installations.

6 Q. As of that date, how many within your brigade had instant combat

7 readiness? That's the 1st of March, 1998.

8 A. Two combat groups, 120 men each; and two platoons, 35 men each.

9 That's 510 in total.

10 Q. In paragraph 18 of your statement, you refer to Colonel Zdravkovic

11 establishing a forward command post. The abbreviation is "IKM" ...

12 MR. RE: Can that be displayed in Sanction.

13 Q. ... in April 1998, and you were deployed as its commander.

14 Now, my question to you about forward command posts is: When are

15 forward command posts established - that's just generally, but very, very

16 briefly - and why was one established then?

17 A. Forward command posts are established in those situations when the

18 security of units, personnel, or installations is in jeopardy, to

19 influence -- to exert influence from the highest level of command on

20 further developments.

21 In this case, because the Kosovo part and the Metohija part of

22 deployed units of the 125th Brigade were separated, it was necessary for

23 the Chief of Staff of the brigade and the commander to be in Pec, because

24 of terrorist incidents and possible defence of our units against terrorist

25 attacks.

Page 9316

1 Q. What was the particular jeopardy in April 1998 facing the 125th

2 Motorised Brigade leading to the establishment of those forward command

3 posts in Pec?

4 A. It is very difficult to give a short answer to that question, but

5 I'll try. For the units in Pec, that's one motorised battalion and one

6 armoured battalion. In the armoured battalion, the crews were not

7 supposed to go far away from tanks, so there were few men. Terrorist

8 groups were developing in an increasing number of villages. These

9 terrorist groups were attacking MUP controls. They were kidnapping and

10 murdering Serbs and Romas and those Albanians who were loyal to the state

11 of Serbia. That is why this forward command post was set up, to exert

12 influence on the further developments and the run of ordinary life in Pec.

13 Q. What was the military strength of that forward command post in

14 Pec?

15 A. Well, depending on the period, around 400 men.

16 Q. April 1998 and May 1998, please.

17 A. 400, around 400 men.

18 Q. What was their state of combat readiness from establishment in

19 April and May 1998?

20 A. The combat group was on a six-hour readiness. The intervention

21 platoon was in one-hour readiness. The others were under stress, no town

22 leaves or home leaves were allowed, and there was a constant menace that

23 the peace might be disrupted.

24 Q. Your last answer was in relation to the forward command post you

25 commanded in Pec until the 12th of June, 1998. The last line in paragraph

Page 9317

1 18 says, "the Pristina Corps also established one in Djakovica." Are you

2 able to tell the Trial Chamber about the strength of that particular

3 forward command post and its state of combat readiness; and, also, was it

4 established for the same reason as the Pec forward command post?

5 A. Yes. The forward command post of the Pristina Corps command was

6 set up on the 21st of April with the base in Djakovica, in the Djakovica

7 barracks. It was necessary to set it up because Kosovo and Metohija is

8 divided between Kosovo and Metohija and the Pristina Corps covers parts of

9 both. So the Pristina Corps needed a presence there in the Metohija part

10 to control the life of units there.

11 The post itself was just ten to 15 men, a small group that had the

12 right of decision-making. It had the right to pass on decisions and to

13 exert control.

14 Q. Could you please turn to paragraph 26.

15 JUDGE ORIE: May I have just one clarification.

16 MR. RE: Of course.

17 JUDGE ORIE: You earlier asked about the strength of a forward

18 command post. You said a couple of hundred or I think you said 400 men.

19 Here you say ten to 15 men at the post itself. Now, there seems to be a

20 distinction between those in the command post and those commanded by that

21 post.

22 May I understand your first answer of 400 people to be that those

23 were the units under the command of that forward command post; and could

24 you for the Djakovica command post tell us that, apart from the ten to 15

25 men in that command post itself, how many troops there were commanded by

Page 9318

1 these 10 to 15 men, or did I misunderstand your testimony?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You understood me quite well. That's

3 my understanding. There were 400 men under my command in Pec.

4 Under the command of the forward command post in Djakovica, that

5 is, that group of ten to 15 men, I can give you a rough figure only. All

6 the units that were in the Metohija section - that's Pec, Prizren,

7 Djakovica, and the border battalions - that's three to four thousand. I

8 cannot give you the exact figure now, because I haven't prepared.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

10 Please proceed, Mr. Re.

11 MR. RE: .

12 Q. In paragraph 26 of your statement, after the attack on the MUP in

13 Likosane, you then say, "the MUP were observed that KLA were obtaining

14 uniform, receiving more training, including training with firearms,

15 constructing fortifications, bunkers and trenches, conducting training for

16 providing health care for the wounded," and so on.

17 I just want you to elaborate and I'll ask you separate -- about

18 separate things about the information you received.

19 What was the information you received about the KLA training that

20 was occurring after the -- in the beginning of 1998 and the attack on the

21 Likosane patrol on the 28th of February?

22 A. I received information from the superior command, that is the

23 Pristina Corps Command; also from subordinate commands, in this case the

24 command in Pec and the command in Vucitrn; as well as the commands of the

25 battalions and artillery battalions in Mitrovica.

Page 9319

1 There was also information received from MUP or whatever they pass

2 on to the commands. Also, there was intelligence from the State Security,

3 whatever I heard of it. At that time, the military did not have its own

4 professionals to gather information.

5 Q. What was -- what were you told about the training the KLA was

6 undertaking at that time?

7 A. That in the Metohija part from Pec -- east of the Pec-Djakovica

8 route, training is being conducted in villages from Papracane, Istinici,

9 towards Dasinovac, Gornja Luka, Glodjane; and real military training at

10 that, because MUP patrols ran into meadows, fields, clearings, or sections

11 of the road where they found bullet casings, the fragments that remain

12 after a hand-held launcher is fired, some quartermaster's equipment, some

13 bandages, et cetera.

14 Q. Okay. Now, what about fortifications? What was the information

15 about the construction of fortification, bunkers, and trenches? Like,

16 where were they and of what quality?

17 A. We also received information about the engineering work, which

18 implied initially the designation of positions for trenches and the

19 digging up of trenches along the perimeter of the houses lying on the edge

20 of a village; then the digging up of trenches in the yards separating

21 households in the roads in front of the houses, and along any canals, if

22 there were; as well as trenches on higher ground along the road which we

23 saw as the preparation of terrorists for an attack on patrols either by

24 the MUP or the VJ passing along that road.

25 Of course, the right to control the area was only on the part of

Page 9320

1 MUP and that was on the eastern part of the Decani-Djakovica road.

2 Q. Where were these trenches and when?

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.

4 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry. The witness has referred, at pages 65,

5 lines 1 to 8, to materials discovered by MUP patrols; and at page 65, line

6 20, to the exclusive responsibility of the MUP as against the VJ for the

7 area to the east of the main road.

8 Could he please be asked to specify what period of time he's

9 referring to regarding where the discovery of these casings and so forth

10 took place.

11 MR. RE: I think I just did. My follow-up question was: Where

12 were the trenches and when?

13 Q. Which period are you talking about?

14 A. I'm talking about the first half of 1998, from the 28th of

15 February onwards. In most of the inhabited places east of the

16 Decani-Djakovica road, we found the material that I'd spoke about.

17 Q. You've told us about trenches. What about fortifications?

18 A. At a later stage, from June onwards, the fortifications were made,

19 and we called them bunkers or groups of bunkers. They are normally built

20 on the roadside on higher ground next to the roads, and they are easily

21 visible in inhabited places, because the houses in the villages in Kosovo

22 are surrounded by stone walls with small apertures or without any

23 apertures. Whenever there is an aperture, it can easily be seen and it's

24 used for firing with firearms through. Wherever these stonewalls could be

25 enhanced, they were enhanced by placing sandbags along the walls.

Page 9321

1 Q. What was the military significance of the KLA constructing these

2 fortifications, bunkers, and digging trenches?

3 A. The fortifications on the roadside posed a threat to the state

4 bodies of Serbia, primarily SUP. Later on, if I tried to conduct training

5 on these local, secondary roads, then there was the danger of possible

6 fire from these fortifications upon the MUP and VJ units.

7 Q. Which time period are you referring to?

8 A. I am referring to the first half of 1998, starting from February

9 or early March through to June.

10 Q. Also in that paragraph 26, you referred to the MUP giving you

11 information that they were conducting -- the KLA was conducting training

12 for providing health care for the wounded, and so on. Now, what was the

13 information you had about that?

14 A. We received information from MUP and from security organs that

15 complex training was being conducted by persons who had taken and

16 completed such courses abroad and by people who had been trained in that

17 field in the former JNA, in the VJ, and in the Serbian MUP; therefore,

18 these people were professionals.

19 The event at Likosane village confirmed to us that during that

20 action and following the MUP intervention, which aimed at tracking these

21 perpetrators down, that these forces were well-organised. There was an

22 assault group among them, then there was a group which was supposed to

23 protect them from the flanks and from the direction from which the attack

24 took place, which was from Obilic and Pristina, and there was a group for

25 the pullout and logistics.

Page 9322

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zivanovic, now, the question was about training

2 for providing health care. In your answer now, you tell us that there was

3 an assault group, et cetera, et cetera. That was not what the question

4 was focusing on, and it also leaves some doubt in the rather general first

5 part of your answer, whether the complex training was being conducted by

6 persons who had taken -- whether you are focusing on, well, medical side.

7 Of course, that's what the question was about. Could you confirm

8 that your first part of the answer was about medical training; and, the

9 second part, if you were about to say that a group for the pullout and

10 logistics included medically trained persons, then you could have told us

11 right away without going through all the other aspects of what happened

12 there.

13 Would you please very much focus. We are limited in time. Could

14 you please focus very much on the questions put to you by Mr. Re.

15 Mr. Re, please proceed.

16 MR. RE:

17 Q. When you said, "complex training was being conducted by persons

18 abroad who had taken -- completed such courses abroad," were you referring

19 to medical courses or something else?

20 A. I was primarily referring to military training, part of which is

21 medical training, too.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes. That's for sure.

23 Could you tell us what information you received specifically about

24 the medical training.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't tell you specifically

Page 9323

1 whether they were trained in immobilising wounds and so on and so forth.

2 We found traces of bandages indicating that this was the level of the

3 first aid being administered to injured persons.

4 If you find, out in the field, parts of bandages, part of a sling,

5 or parts of material used to create a tourniquet, then, to our mind, as

6 military men, this meant that there had been some sort of medical

7 training.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

9 MR. RE:

10 Q. Did you have any information about the quality of the medical

11 training and the medical material which was found?

12 A. The quality of the material retrieved was somewhat poorer than

13 what we had in the Yugoslav Army. At a later stage, we -- or rather, MUP

14 came across some medical equipment necessary for less complex operations

15 or surgical interventions.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Could you tell us what that means, "at a later

17 stage"?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This means that when the MUP forces,

19 whilst conducting searches or tracking down terrorists, were going around

20 the different villages. They would be finding that sort of material, and

21 that was starting from the month of June.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Re.

23 MR. RE:

24 Q. I want to take you to paragraphs 30 and 31 of your statement in

25 relation to control of the roads. And in paragraph 31, the first sentence

Page 9324

1 said, "the MUP set up," in reference to paragraph 30: "The MUP set up

2 control points."

3 And paragraph 31 said: "This occurred in the first half of

4 1999 -- 1998," sorry, "as a direct result of increased KLA activity," and

5 then: "KLA attacks on these control points increased in the months before

6 June 1998. A number of MUP officers were killed or injured in clashes

7 with the KLA."

8 There's a particular document I wish to show you. It's the one

9 which is on the 27th of April, 1998, which is your report from the forward

10 command post in Pec, reporting the Klina-Srbica road was not under MUP

11 control.

12 MR. RE: Now, that's MFI D168. Can that please be displayed in

13 e-court. I just note that's one of the document which is Mr. Guy-Smith

14 was objecting to being admitted into evidence here.

15 Q. Mr. Zivanovic, can you please look at the document behind tab 9,

16 your regular combat report. It's -- the text of it, it's in the hard copy

17 there, if it may assist you.

18 It's described as a regular combat report. Can you in a sentence

19 just tell the Trial Chamber what a regular combat report was in the

20 context of what was going on then.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zivanovic --

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With the formation --

23 JUDGE ORIE: -- unless there is anything very special with a

24 regular combat report, this Chamber is aware of what a regular combat

25 report is. So unless it distinguishes itself from other regular combat

Page 9325

1 reports, the Chamber is not interested in further.

2 Please proceed.

3 MR. RE: Okay.

4 Q. The paragraph I want to refer you to is at paragraph 5 of the

5 report, which is on the second page in the Serbian. It says: "During the

6 day, a sabotage and terrorist detachment of the MUP of Serbia, including

7 all their equipment and two MI-24 helicopters, the so-called Frenkijevci

8 arrived to the area of Decane and Istok. We have personally got in touch

9 with Stamatovic - Frenki."

10 MR. RE: Now, I also that it's also spelled "Stamatovic" in the

11 English and Serbian.

12 Q. Now, I want you to tell the Trial Chamber about the involvement of

13 your units with the sabotage and detachment -- terrorist detachment of the

14 MUP referred to in that paragraph.

15 A. This detachment reached the area of the hotel complexes of Visoki

16 Decani, which is in the area of the 125th Brigade. I received orders that

17 he should be -- we should get in touch with him through an officer I

18 designate, and we did that. We followed up on that and we got in touch

19 with him, and that's it.

20 Q. Did you personally speak to Frenki Simatovic.

21 A. No. I don't know the man. It was only later that I learned who

22 he was and saw him on TV, so my answer is "no."

23 Q. Who contacted him from your brigade? Do you recall?

24 A. The security organ from Pec, who was Staff Sergeant Ikonic.

25 Q. Are you able to describe what that particular unit referred to in

Page 9326

1 that paragraph was?

2 A. I learnt this subsequently and I saw elements of that unit. This

3 was a unit for Special Operations, JSO, of the State Security of the

4 Republic of Serbia. Their task at the time, which was late April, May,

5 and June, was to find out exactly where the illegal border crossings were

6 taking place, in order for all the other forces to be engaged in

7 preventing these crossings.

8 Q. Who was that group subordinated to?

9 A. This is a very difficult question for me. I didn't know who it

10 was subordinated to. They weren't reporting to us, to the military. I

11 suppose that they were subordinate to the Chief of State Security of the

12 Republic of Serbia, or they reported to the Minister of the Interior.

13 Q. When was it you learned who Frenki Simatovic was?

14 A. After the arrest of Milosevic, when that footage was aired on the

15 TV where he was touring the units at Kula, that was when I learnt that he

16 was the commander of the units for Special Operations, or rather, one of

17 the commanders.

18 Q. And in the combat report, you've spelled his name "Stamatovic,"

19 instead than Simatovic. Can you give a reason for the misspelling of his

20 name?

21 A. I didn't pay attention to that word. Probably, the family name

22 was misspelled.

23 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry. I see that, t page 71, Line 21, the

24 witness refers to having seen elements of this unit. He says, in relation

25 to this unit, "I learnt this subsequently and I saw elements of that

Page 9327

1 unit."

2 I wonder if the witness could explain when and in what

3 circumstances he saw them.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, that is suggested, and of course, I'm

5 thinking about whether Mr. Emmerson should introduce new areas for further

6 exploration, because you could say you could leave that for

7 cross-examination. At the same time, it may enable the Chamber and the

8 Defence -- that's how I understand this, that it may enable to Chamber and

9 the Defence to better understand.

10 MR. RE: It's fine. It's okay. I'm very happy for the witness to

11 elaborate on that.

12 Q. If you can recall what Mr. Emmerson just said, or do you want me

13 to repeat it?

14 A. Later on, in the anti-terrorist activities in the months of July

15 and August, I had occasion to see, out in the field, parts of this unit,

16 primarily within the area of responsibility or in the so-called Drenica

17 operations zone.

18 JUDGE ORIE: And could you tell us, apart from seeing the units,

19 what were they engaged in or what did you observe in that respect?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Classic anti-terrorist activity

21 along the designated axis; active combat. That's it.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Did you see that once or more times? So active

23 combat.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Three times. I saw them three

25 occasions, each time just one day. So, in total, it was three days.

Page 9328

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.

2 Please proceed, Mr. Re.

3 MR. RE: Can Sanction please be used to show a display of a

4 paragraph of his statement.

5 Q. I want to take you to paragraph 63 of your statement, which says

6 that: "On the 25th of April, 1998," it says, "Petkovic," but it should

7 say "Pavkovic," "ordered subordinate units, including the 125th, to treat

8 captured terrorists ..." - I'm sorry; it is Petkovic - "... in accordance

9 with the provisions of the..." - Pavkovic. It's translated wrongly.

10 Pavkovic - "... in coordination with the provisions of the rules

11 regulating the treatment of the prisoners of war and in the spirit of the

12 Geneva Conventions and International Law of War."

13 MR. RE: And if the document behind annex 6 could be displayed in

14 e-court and given a number.

15 Q. And if you could please turn to the document which is behind tab

16 6, the relevant passage in English is paragraph 6 on page 2. Now, if you

17 could push to paragraph 6, please, Mr. Zivanovic.

18 What did this order mean that you were to do, in practical terms?

19 A. Here, the corps commander cautions us that, in the event of

20 capture of terrorists, we should treat them in accordance with these

21 provisions: No torture, no physical mistreatment, and so on and so

22 forth. At the time, in the first half and later on, it was regulated that

23 all the prisoners should be handed over to the jurisdiction of MUP.

24 If we look at the earlier passage of paragraph 6, we can see that

25 this refers to prisoners, members of terrorist forces who are engaged in

Page 9329

1 direct attacks against the police or who violate the border regime, so

2 this is without prejudice to the general combat against terrorists.


4 MR. RE: Your Honour.

5 JUDGE ORIE: I take it you would like to have a number assigned to

6 this document?

7 MR. RE: Yes, I would.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this is 65 ter number 392, and it

10 will be marked for identification as P1024.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

12 Please proceed.

13 MR. RE:

14 Q. How does -- I just want you to explain. I showed you a document

15 earlier which was from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, saying that they

16 didn't want to refer to the terrorists -- or the conflict as an internal

17 armed conflict, because the Geneva Conventions would apply, but this order

18 from Pavkovic is telling you that Geneva Conventions do apply.

19 Are you able to explain the apparent contradiction between those

20 two particular documents?

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, you are including something in your question

22 that the conventions do apply. I can't read this in that portion. "They

23 have to be treated in accordance with the provisions and in the spirit of

24 the Geneva Conventions," which I read, the witness can correct me when I'm

25 wrong, as that the earlier document was there an order to avoid whatever

Page 9330

1 the impact may have been of classifying the conflict as an internal armed

2 conflict, because that would have all kind of implications, which one

3 apparently wanted to avoid.

4 Here, I read paragraph 6 as saying follow the rules and the

5 provisions, although they do not directly apply. That's how I understand

6 this just from reading. If the witness could tell me whether my reading

7 corresponds with his view on these two documents, the first one of which

8 he has not seen before, from what I understand.

9 Could you comment on whether I well understood these two documents

10 in its relationship.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, precisely so. In case

12 of capture of prisoners, follow these instructions, so your understanding

13 is correct.

14 As for the earlier part of the question, concerning the

15 intervention of the Foreign Ministry, this was an attempt to prevent the

16 internationalisation of these activities in Kosovo and Metohija.

17 JUDGE ORIE: What I'd specially like to seek your confirmation on

18 is that, although one should follow the rules, that they, these

19 conventions mentioned there, would not directly apply, although you would

20 observe the content of what is in those conventions. Is that correctly

21 understood what paragraph 6 says?

22 Do you understand my question?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We would adhere to the provisions of

24 the conventions.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Did they directly apply, in your view? I mean, if

Page 9331

1 you say there's no internal armed conflict, you might have a difficulty in

2 accepting that some rules which would apply in internal armed conflict

3 would directly apply.

4 Do you understand what my problem is and what I'm seeking? I can

5 say I'm not bound by the road traffic rules; nevertheless, although not

6 bound, I will observe them. Do you understand what I mean?

7 For example, if I have a private terrain where the road traffic

8 law would not directly apply, I could still decide that if someone comes

9 from the right, then I'll let him pass.

10 Do you understand what my question is about? Observing rules

11 which are not binding, which are not directly applicable. That's what my

12 question is about. How do I have to read paragraph 6?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, rest assured that we

14 were trained to adhere to those rules. We believed them to be binding.

15 JUDGE ORIE: In respect of whom? In respect of terrorists or in

16 respect of prisoners of war?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In respect of prisoners, whoever he

18 may be; a terrorist, a combatant terrorist. I don't know what other

19 categories are possible, prisoners.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Re, please proceed.

21 MR. RE:

22 Q. Were they viewed as combatant terrorists, those KLA members who

23 were captured?

24 A. I had no occasion to capture anyone in my unit, but the terrorists

25 were viewed as the best trained and the most incorrigible fighters. But

Page 9332

1 in case of their capture, they were to be treated in the spirit of the

2 Geneva Conventions.

3 Q. Was that even before General Pavkovic issued the order on the 25th

4 of April, 1998?

5 A. Yes. That's a tacit rule, not written one.

6 Q. I want to take you to an operation to unblock the road -- some

7 roads in May 1998, which is in paragraphs 81, 82, 83, and 84, and 85 of

8 your statement.

9 MR. RE: If that could be displayed in Sanction.

10 Q. The one in paragraph 81 refers to the successful operation to

11 unblock the Korenica-Ponosevac-Morina route on the 23rd of May, 1998, and

12 five KLA soldiers being captured, and firing positions in bunkers and

13 fortified buildings neutralised.

14 Those five KLA soldier, were they treated in accordance with the

15 Geneva Conventions, especially those regulating the treatment of prisoners

16 of war?

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.

18 MR. EMMERSON: We've had some difficulty with leading questions in

19 the past, but I think we probably will all agree that that is a leading

20 question.

21 More specifically, if one looks at the paragraph and the sentence

22 in context, this appears to have been a joint operation. It's not at all

23 clear whether these prisoners were prisoners of the VJ or the MUP or,

24 indeed, whether this witness was involved in their capture.

25 MR. RE: The witness can answer that, if he was there.

Page 9333

1 JUDGE ORIE: Let's hear from the witness.

2 Were you there?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the 22nd of May? No, I wasn't

4 there, and those were not prisoners of my unit.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Re.

6 MR. RE:

7 Q. In paragraph 82, there's an order of General Pavkovic...

8 MR. RE: That's at annex 34, if that could be displayed in

9 e-court.

10 Q. ... of the 24th of May, 1998. The order says: "Very urgent due to

11 the activity of terrorist gangs in the general area of Decani, Erec, and

12 Prilep," et cetera. "Order: Until further notice, movement of all

13 material vehicles along the Djakovica-Erec-Decani road is forbidden." It

14 was sent to your brigade and other subordinates units of the Pristina

15 Corps.

16 The question simply is what was the significance of that

17 particular order forbidding military movement along that road on the 24th

18 of May, 1998?

19 A. The situation was very, very difficult. The terrorist forces were

20 in control of the road, occasionally attacking MUP patrols, so it was not

21 safe to use it, as far as we, the army, were concerned. We did need to

22 get supplies for our border posts.

23 By those roads, we needed to transport people in training to rifle

24 ranges or for medical treatment to Pristina or to Nis, and, therefore, we

25 were ordered to use our own vehicles for such transports or to use the

Page 9334

1 Pec-Rozaj road.

2 Q. What was the danger to military traffic on that road?

3 A. The danger was great, even back in April. The part of the unit

4 that was deployed in the area of Radonjic Lake was subject to terrorist

5 attack. In my own unit, on the 23rd of May - and that's the date of this

6 document - it was attacked in the area of Smonica, and my first soldier

7 was hurt in the area of Morina. That was an indication that, if we

8 continued to use these roads in future, we would inevitably suffer losses.

9 MR. RE: Can Sanction please be used for the next paragraph, which

10 is paragraph 86 of your statement.

11 Q. You refer to an order on the 30th of May and the 1st of June,

12 1998, the Pristina Corps Command and the Pristina Corps command post

13 issuing continuation orders, and a tank platoon of the 125th Motorised

14 Brigade was ordered to provide assistance to the MUP forces along the Crni

15 Breg-Prilep road due to the strong resistance encountered.

16 The question is this: What is the significance of a tank platoon

17 being ordered to provide assistance to the MUP forces?

18 A. It was the critical period when terrorist forces were endangering

19 the security of MUP patrols to a very great degree, so that the MUP patrol

20 was not able to patrol along the main route from Decani to Djakovica.

21 If they were not able to do that, then the road is practically cut

22 off and there was no alternative road for either the MUP or the army to

23 use. That's why it was very important to help those forces of the MUP, so

24 that they would be able to accomplish their mission and reach Crni Breg.

25 That's not far. That's two or two kilometres, if I remember well.

Page 9335

1 Q. Why tanks and how many tanks?

2 A. There was a tank platoon, three tanks in all. It was

3 psychological support to the MUP forces, because they were still not

4 prepared and ready to efficiently combat terrorism. It was purely for

5 psychological support.

6 Q. I want to turn to an offensive in August. And if you can go to

7 paragraph 112 of your statement, which is page 22 of the English, the

8 particular part I wish to take you to is: "On the 8th of August, I

9 reported to the Pristina Corps Command on the engagement of Combat Groups

10 1 and 3 supporting MUP PJP detachments in operations conducted between 25

11 and 26 July and 6th of August, 1998."

12 You refer to a document, which is tab 56, and that is in fact

13 Exhibit -- MFI D165.

14 MR. RE: If that could be displayed in e-court, please, D165,

15 It's at tab 56.

16 JUDGE ORIE: You'd like to have a number for that? It's already

17 numbered, yes.

18 MR. RE:

19 Q. Now, that document refers to the use of a group called the Brazil

20 Group carrying out deep wedging and burning operations on all axes.

21 I have two questions: Firstly, what was the Brazil Group? Do you

22 know?

23 A. No, no, no. That was later.

24 Q. What do you mean it was later?

25 A. Brazil? That was a special unit of the MUP.

Page 9336

1 Q. What do you know about it?

2 A. Around 100 men armed with special equipment, that means special

3 sights, with elite training, better trained than even some units of the

4 Army of Yugoslavia.

5 Q. Wedging and burning. Please give the Trial Chamber a complete

6 description of what wedging and burning involves in military terms.

7 A. This is a report sent to the corps command, because the corps

8 command wanted to be informed about the progress and method of action.

9 "Wedging" is a military term. "Burning" is more a freely used

10 expression than military terminology. It means that the part that is

11 subject to wedging is subjected to firing from all assets, available

12 machine-guns, mortar guns, et cetera, so that the infantry could then

13 proceed. It was usually done on the flank against a dominating feature of

14 the Siptar defence, Siptar terrorist defence, and it was almost never or

15 very rarely done in populated areas.

16 Wedging and burning is absolutely lethal to the party who is

17 performing it.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, let me just --

19 MR. RE: I was going to ask the witness to draw a typical military

20 formation involving wedging and burning, which may assist the Trial

21 Chamber.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed. No, I was trying to find my

23 way through the documents.

24 No, it's fine. Please proceed.

25 MR. RE: .

Page 9337

1 Q. Okay. I ask you, can you draw on the screen - the court officer

2 will provide you with a pen for the purpose - a classic wedging and

3 burning operation.

4 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm wonder also if we could get some clarification

5 in the last answer, inasmuch as it says, "it's absolutely lethal to the

6 party who is performing it."

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, yes, that --

8 MR. RE: I will. I will.

9 JUDGE ORIE: -- came into our mind as well.

10 MR. RE:

11 Q. If you can do the drawing, I'll get the clarification in a moment.

12 Can you just draw on the screen where the enemy is and where the

13 soldiers doing the wedging and burning would be and what they would do.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, you're inviting the witness to make such a

15 drawing on an empty screen?

16 Yes, fine, but then the empty screen needs a number.

17 Mr. Registrar.

18 THE REGISTRAR: Yes. Your Honours, after assignment of the

19 numbers for the annexes, the next exhibit number will be P1101.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, P1101.

21 Could you make the sketch or the drawing, as asked by Mr. Re, a

22 visual explanation of what you just said.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'll do my best, and I

24 believe that the material in evidence will depend on my skill.

25 Let's see the layout. This is one Siptar terrorist group, the

Page 9338

1 second, the third, within one theatre that they are controlling and from

2 which they are endangering our forces.

3 This is a unit searching the terrain and the unit that should

4 capture this facility, this feature, in the police way or a military way.

5 MR. RE:

6 Q. We just need to distinguish when you leave the courtroom which

7 group you're referring to. They're both in red. Maybe if you marked an

8 "A" next to the - what did you call it? - the Siptar terrorist group and

9 a "B" next to your force.

10 A. [Marks]

11 Q. Okay.

12 A. Sorry, I had already started. I'll finish what I started. "STS,"

13 Siptar terrorist forces; and "B" for the MUP forces.

14 In this case, the commander of Brazil Group decides to break out

15 in the middle. So, from all weapons, they fire primarily at the central

16 part, and only part of the forces available to MUP are used to tie up the

17 flanks of the enemy. Now, when the flanks are under control, these units

18 in the middle pass through, and that's so-called wedging.

19 As they pass through the terrorist lines, they leave behind part

20 of their units to protect their own flanks. This part, and fire on this

21 section, is what I called in the document "burning." That's fire from

22 infantry weapon, mortars, hand-held launchers, recoilless guns, and

23 hand-grenades.

24 This is the section for Brazil Group, which numbers 100 men. The

25 width is ten to 50 metres. It can't be greater than that, because 100 men

Page 9339

1 would otherwise not be able to keep it under control. That is the

2 briefest possible explanation.

3 As for what I meant by "lethal to the attacker,"" if we have in

4 the vicinity a populated area, including buildings and dominant features,

5 and we don't know what the situation is like therein, it is very dangerous

6 for the attacker to perform a wedging in such an environment.

7 MR. RE: I'm satisfied with the map. Does it assist the Court in

8 that form?

9 JUDGE ORIE: I'm asking myself whether the Appeals Chamber would

10 understand the map.

11 We see that the arrows -- well, first of all, the right-hand upper

12 part of the drawing is explained by the last portion of the witness's

13 answer, that is, what happens in a populated built-up area.

14 Now, as far as the drawing is concerned, where the witness

15 explained how firing would focus on the centre, that is, illustrated by

16 the arrows which arise from the bottom of the drawing; whereas, the

17 breakthrough of forces through the centre was illustrated by the witness

18 by the arrow he has drawn in a contour where he added "ten to 50 metres."

19 That may be of some guidance for those who look at this.

20 MR. GUY-SMITH: I was thinking there was perhaps one other -- one

21 other thing that might be done to be of assistance.

22 I'm not sure whether or not the pen can go to another colour. But

23 if the pen can go to another colour, the area where the firing that he

24 described could be outlined in that other colour, there would be --


Page 9340

1 MR. GUY-SMITH: -- a focus point for that, for purposes of anybody

2 looking at it at another point in time.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If that's to be done, not at this moment in

4 court, I think I have sufficiently explained.

5 I should add to that that the units "STS" are the three slightly

6 bended horizontal mines moving a bit up to the right in the centre of the

7 drawing; whereas, the Brazil unit of 100 people is presented by five

8 straight short lines at the bottom of the drawing, the one most at the

9 right going up.

10 Mr. Re, I leave it to you whether you want this piece of art to be

11 in evidence or whether we would invite the witness to make perhaps

12 overnight a similar drawing then with different colours, which might

13 assist. I leave it to you. It's your evidence.

14 MR. RE: It may not be a bad idea for the witness to go away with

15 some pens and to do it again.


17 MR. EMMERSON: Could we save this for the time being, please.

18 JUDGE ORIE: I beg your pardon?

19 MR. EMMERSON: Could we save this document for time being.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so that we know what he has drawn, but, I think,

21 as a matter of fact, it has been assigned a number already. That's 1101.

22 Could that be stored and marked for identification.

23 It's marked for identification, isn't it? Yes.

24 MR. RE: Could I indicate where I need to go with the witness. I

25 haven't got that much longer to go. I want to show the witness P10.

Page 9341


2 MR. RE: I want to him to -- I'm just indicating the amount of

3 time I need. It's not long. I need to show the witness this map and get

4 him to mark the offensive in August and September by the VJ and MUP, and

5 also the overhead satellite map, and describe the terrain of these

6 opposing forces. I don't think I can do that in five minutes, given the

7 time it takes someone to mark something. That's where I want to go.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Neither do I.

9 Perhaps the witness could already think about it and perhaps he

10 could be provided with copies of the maps that will be presented to him,

11 in order to mark them later in court, so that he can prepare.

12 Mr. Re, so you're going to invite the witness, not now but when

13 we'll continue, you're going to invite him to mark exactly what are on

14 these maps?

15 MR. RE:

16 Q. Mr. Zivanovic, I'm going invite you to mark on one of those maps

17 the August offensive in which you participated, which is referred to, I

18 think, at paragraphs 98, 99, 100, through to 109 - that's in August -

19 based upon the documents in the binder where your units went to. And if

20 you could mark those in --

21 JUDGE ORIE: Not now, but what will be done.

22 And the other?

23 MR. RE: And the other one is the September one, which is referred

24 to from paragraph 130 to -- it's 135 onwards, 135, 136; 130 through to

25 136.

Page 9342

1 Q. If you could mark on the other map the September offensive based

2 upon your recollection and the military orders you have in that binder of

3 orders and so on, and have that ready for Monday.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you want him to mark it on the hard copies?

5 MR. RE: Well, I mean --

6 JUDGE ORIE: There are two possibilities. The fist one is that we

7 invite the witness to do this as homework, and the other possibility is

8 that we ask him to prepare himself for markings to be done in court.

9 You prefer him, the witness, to do it as homework, from what I

10 understand.

11 MR. RE: I'm more of the view of let's see how it goes, see what

12 the finished product looks like.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.

14 MR. RE: If it looks good, we can tender that. If not, we'll do

15 it on the screen.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we should then give the witness a few spare

17 copies, because marking is --

18 Would you be willing to mark -- first of all, do you have pens in

19 different colours so that you could use all your skills to mark these

20 maps? Would you be willing to prepare such markings, the one for August,

21 the other one for September?

22 Yes. Now, there's another matter, that is the availability of the

23 binders to the witness. You said recollection supported by the

24 documents. Does that meet any objection by the Defence?

25 I take it that, otherwise, that we'll do the same in court, so

Page 9343

1 therefore under those circumstances.

2 I see, from the nodding, I understand that there's no objection

3 from the Defence to this procedure.

4 Therefore, you are invited to prepare those markings at home. If

5 you need any pens or colours, Victims and Witness Section will provide

6 them to you, because I instruct you that you should not speak to anyone

7 about your testimony, the testimony you gave already or the testimony

8 you're still about to give early next week. Therefore, if you are in need

9 of anything, you should ask the Victims and Witness Section and not the

10 Office of the Prosecution, who is expected not to further communicate with

11 you.

12 Mr. Re, could you give us any indication on how much time you

13 would need?

14 MR. RE: I think probably about 15 minutes, I think.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, because you are already well over the two hours

16 you indicated.

17 MR. RE: I am?

18 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, yes, yes, you are, but 15 minutes on Monday.

19 Mr. Emmerson.

20 MR. EMMERSON: I just wanted to indicate, because of the way in

21 which the evidence is presented, which is entirely efficient, plainly, as

22 far as court time is concerned, namely, a 92 ter statement with a large

23 number of exhibits, cross-examination will take, as I think I indicated

24 earlier, quite some time.


Page 9344

1 MR. EMMERSON: And, again, I wouldn't necessarily expect that the

2 cross-examination would entirely conclude on Monday.


4 Mr. Re.

5 MR. RE: Just in relation to witnesses next week, Professor

6 Aleksandric is returning on Thursday, and we have a lay witness who was

7 under subpoena who has indicated she is -- she is appearing on Wednesday.

8 So we have a full week, I think, for witnesses as we're going at the

9 moment.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Nevertheless, I think we, the Chamber, will

11 consider how much time will be available to the Defence. It's indicated

12 that quite some time was used -- is needed due to the way in which the

13 evidence in chief is presented.

14 We'll consider that.

15 Yes.

16 MR. RE: I'm sorry, Professor Aleksandric is Wednesday. I

17 apologise for that.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Wednesday. Okay.

19 We'll have a look. If there's any change in the programme, apart

20 from what you just said, you said -- and let me just check. One second,

21 please.

22 Yes. Now we have you said on Wednesday it will be Professor

23 Aleksandric. Now, the lay witness, where is that?

24 MR. RE: It's also Wednesday, but we can fit them both in. She'll

25 be shorter.

Page 9345

1 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, if I do understand you well, there

2 should be no major problem if the cross-examination of Mr. Zivanovic would

3 not be concluded on Monday, because Tuesday is --

4 MR. RE: Not in terms of witness scheduling, no.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes. I do understand that. There may be other

6 considerations.

7 Mr. Zivanovic, we'd like to see you back Monday, the 15th of

8 October, at quarter past 2.00 in this same courtroom.

9 We start adjourned until then.

10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.,

11 to be reconvened on Monday, the 15th day of October,

12 2007, at 2.15 p.m.