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
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
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 --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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 --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: -- specify either right now on the record or
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
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 --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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]
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 --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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)
24 WITNESS: WITNESS SST7/68
25 [Witness answered through interpreter]
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
9 Ms. Gustafson, who's counsel for the Prosecution, will now examine
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
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
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
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.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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
1 Dobric were doing, because they had been attacked by the KLA a few days
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
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
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
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.
25 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry, forgive me. We're obviously entering
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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]
5 MS. GUSTAFSON:
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
24 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could the curtains be drawn up again, perhaps with
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.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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
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.
4 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
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 --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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 --
15 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
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
25 Ms. Gustafson, I more or less interpret your body language at this
1 moment that you're inclined to accept the invitation by Mr. Emmerson.
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
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.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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
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.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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
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.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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 --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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
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.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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
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 --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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
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 --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I think it was scheduled for two hours.
2 MR. EMMERSON: For evidence in chief.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
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
15 [The witness entered court]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, with some assistance of the Chamber, from what I
18 MR. RE: It goes without saying.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Zivanovic, can you hear me in a language you
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.
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.
5 WITNESS: DRAGAN ZIVANOVIC
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
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]
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
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
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
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, could you please slow down.
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
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,
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
25 MR. RE:
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
25 Q. When you describe the border posts which are in paragraph 28, you
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
25 MR. EMMERSON: I'm not sure what question Mr. Re intends to pose
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
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
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
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
1 was, first of all, to help out with the in-depth security of the state
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
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
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.
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Three times. I saw them three
25 occasions, each time just one day. So, in total, it was three days.
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
1 direct attacks against the police or who violate the border regime, so
2 this is without prejudice to the general combat against terrorists.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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: .
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
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
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
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 --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
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
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
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
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
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.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. EMMERSON: And, again, I wouldn't necessarily expect that the
2 cross-examination would entirely conclude on Monday.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
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
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.
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,
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.
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
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.