1 Friday, 19 January, 2007
2 [Open Session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, everyone. There are a couple of
6 administrative matters before we start. There's been an application made
7 for protective measures. The name of the witness is confidential. The
8 suggested pseudonym is K90.
9 Mr. O'Sullivan, it would help the Chamber if someone could later
10 today make submissions in response to this so that we can do something at
11 the weekend, if necessary. I suggest right at the end of the day today
12 because there's no trial in the afternoon, and if we run on for five
13 minutes it won't matter.
14 The other matter is the documents which were the subject of
15 objection yesterday, and the Trial Chamber has a comment to make to
16 supplement what was said yesterday about these. Two of the documents have
17 already been admitted, and these are P1960 and P1427. There was some
18 confusion over the numbers of the two referred to by Mr. Ivetic at the
19 end, but ultimately I've noted these as P1249 and P1996, and if these are
20 the accurate numbers then neither of these has already been admitted.
21 So far as the rest are concerned, I draw the attention of parties,
22 but particularly the Prosecution, to first of all the terms of the
23 decision dealing with the motion to admit stand-alone documents. That
24 decision was the 10th of October last year, and in particular paragraphs
25 37 and 39, which make it clear how the exercise should be approached. And
1 it's surprising to us that greater use of this suggested approach has not
2 been made so far.
3 Parties will also remember that on the 14th of December various
4 things were said in a similar context, and I think it worthwhile repeating
5 what I said ultimately then, and this is referring to the motion that was
6 dealt with on the 10th of October. The motion to which you've referred
7 was a motion inviting us to admit material without really seeing how it
8 would fit into the case, and we admitted what was obvious to us as
9 relevant material and also authentic material. In making any further
10 submissions for the admitting of documents standing alone, you should be
11 directing the Trial Chamber's attention to the passages that are relevant
12 to the case and to the question how they are relevant to the case.
13 Now, it's for you in making that submission to judge in your own
14 mind whether the whole of the document also needs to be admitted to enable
15 a full understanding of the situation given to the Trial Chamber, but
16 please bear in mind that we - I don't know whether it's been the practice
17 in the past or not - but we are not prepared to accept large volumes of
18 material that might later feature in an argument that has been put
20 This case has been on the go for so long that parties ought to
21 know what their case is and where documents fit into it, and we expect to
22 be assisted in that way. Now, that's the best guidance I can give you.
23 If you take the view that you throw material at us because it might be
24 relevant in view of the heading, then you're making a big mistake and we
25 will reject it, and we may as a result of that miss the nuggets that are
1 in it.
2 There was also a footnote on the -- one of the decisions which,
3 again, it would be helpful to repeat. The Trial Chamber's notes the
4 Prosecution's concern about the fact that many of the authors of the
5 documents are unavailable to testify; however, should these documents be
6 offered for admission during trial the witness need not necessarily be the
7 author of the document in question. The witness need only be capable of
8 testifying to the contents of the documents.
9 We thought it useful to remind parties of these earlier comments.
10 It may be that as we proceed with the evidence of this witness, we will
11 have to address individual documents. So far as the one that arose
12 yesterday was concerned, that was P1000 I think, there is on the face of
13 it no reason at the moment why that should be admitted. The position may
15 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, P1000 was Milosevic Exhibit 387, tab 37,
16 and it relates to his testimony that was offered in this case. And for
17 the purposes of helping you understand his testimony in that case, it
18 relates to transcript page 15961 at line 6. I believe it has been our
19 practice in the past when we offer transcripts that we offer the related
21 JUDGE BONOMY: That's correct, Mr. Hannis, and it may be that
22 that's the context at which you have to look at it, but so far as it arose
23 yesterday it wouldn't have been admitted in these circumstances. I accept
24 that we'll have to address later the ones that feature as exhibits in the
25 Milosevic transcript. But it may be that submissions have to be made by
1 the Defence on that before we decide how we're going to deal with them.
2 It's one thing to let in the odd document here and there and a
3 transcript for the sake of understanding; it's quite a number when there's
4 quite a large volume of documents referred to as a witness. And we as the
5 Trial Chamber don't really see the relevance of them. So we'll
6 address that later.
7 I think we can now return to the witness; can we have him, please.
8 [The witness entered court]
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, Mr. Vasiljevic. We're now ready to
10 continue with your evidence. Mr. Hannis will continue. I remind you that
11 the solemn declaration that you gave at the beginning to speak the truth
12 will continue to apply to your evidence all the way through it, no matter
13 how long you're here. I don't intend to remind you of that again, but
14 it's a normal to remind you at least on the first occasion you return to
16 Mr. Hannis.
17 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 WITNESS: ALEKSANDAR VASILJEVIC [Resumed]
19 [Witness answered through interpreter]
20 Examination by Mr. Hannis: [Continued]
21 Q. Good morning, General. Yesterday we had begun to talk about the
22 MUP and some of the special units associated with it. You discuss this in
23 your statement beginning with paragraph 28. In paragraph 29, you talk
24 about the OPGs or the Operational Sweep Groups. And in paragraph 29, you
25 mention that according to reports from the security organs, the OPGs had
1 expelled people in Kosovo, Mitrovica, and you mentioned some other crimes.
2 With regard to the OPGs, was your source of information anyone
3 else other than the security organs of the VJ?
4 A. Just the security organs in Kosovo.
5 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, if we could at this moment go into
6 private session to cover one matter in -- relating to paragraph 30.
7 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, we went into private session a couple
8 times yesterday, and I think I know the reasons for at least one of them,
9 but there's been no application by the OTP specifying why we need to go
10 into private session and why certain testimony is not to be done in
11 public. And I may even agree if a reason is stated, but I would -- not
12 knowing the reason I find it very hard to take a position on the matter
13 and I would have to, therefore, object on principle.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: To explore this, do we need to be in private
15 session -- I mean to explore whether we should go into private session do
16 we also need to be in private session, Mr. Hannis, or can it be done
17 without doing that?
18 MR. HANNIS: Perhaps to be on the safe side.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we'll go into private session to explore the
20 basis for this; and before we proceed with the evidence, we will
21 undoubtedly return to public session to make our position clear.
22 [Private session]
11 Pages 8693 to 8696 redacted. Private session
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Having reviewed the position, the Trial Chamber is
10 satisfied that it is appropriate that the evidence that we are now dealing
11 with should be heard in private session. It's a fairly short passage of
12 evidence. We're also satisfied in relation to two later incidents --
13 instances of evidence that have been addressed while we've been in private
14 session, that evidence in relation to them should be in private session,
15 but we'll deal with them individually when we reach them.
16 We'll now return to private session for the current evidence.
17 [Private session]
11 Pages 8698-8699 redacted. Private session
16 [Open session]
17 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
18 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
19 Q. General, we're back in open session.
20 In paragraph 31 of your statement, you mention that at the later
21 17 May meeting with Milosevic, which we'll talk about in more detail in a
22 while, that you told them who their superior was. I want to be clear, do
23 you mean at that meeting you advised Milosevic and the others who the
24 superior or the commander was for these OPGs?
25 A. Yes. Right now, at the previous session, the name was mentioned.
1 Q. Yes, the name you mentioned in closed session?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Thank you. Now I want to move on to paragraphs 32 through 36 of
4 your statement, where you talk about the JSO or the Special Operations
5 Unit. I understand that the JSO was under the RDB or the state security
6 side of the MUP. Is that correct?
7 A. No. The correct name is the department of state security or the
8 sector of state security. In the organisation of the MUP, there are two
9 sectors; the sectors of state security and the sector of public security.
10 The head of the state security sector in 1999 was Rade Markovic. Within
11 the state security sector, there is a unit for special operations, JSO,
12 that was established sometime in 1996, and the precursor of that unit were
13 the so-called Red Berets. They also had other names such as Grey Wolves.
14 The beginning of their establishment dates back to 1991, which we
15 see from their emblem, on which 1999 [as interpreted] is indicated as the
16 year of establishment. That unit, according to our knowledge, was made up
17 mostly of men who had been in other theatres of war previously across
18 Yugoslavia; primarily in Croatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. If I may,
19 give a narrative of all I know about it.
20 Q. I just want to clarify something in the transcript. Maybe it's a
21 mistranslation. Yes, Mr. Zecevic?
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Me, too. Please carry on.
23 MR. HANNIS:
24 Q. On line 14, it says we see from their emblem on which 1999 is
25 indicated as the year of establishment. Did you mean 1999? Is that what
1 you said?
2 A. No, no, no.
3 Q. What year?
4 A. 1991, I said.
5 Q. Thank you. Now, I'm sorry I interrupted you. Did you want to add
6 something about the Red Berets?
7 A. They were recognisable by their good weapons, weapons that
8 actually exceeds the quality needed by a special operations unit. They
9 had, for instance, the MiG 124 helicopter that even the army didn't have.
10 They had Hummer vehicles. They had all sort of special ordnance. They
11 wore the latest NATO-style uniforms in green colour. And wherever they
12 appeared, it was obvious to which unit they belonged.
13 Q. You mentioned Bosnia and Croatia. Were you aware that the Red
14 Berets had engaged in action during the war in Croatia and Bosnia in the
15 early 1990s?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And were you aware that at least certain members of the Red Berets
18 were alleged to have committed a number of crimes during those conflicts?
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ivetic.
20 MR. IVETIC: This is bordering on becoming a leading question, so
21 I would have to object at this point, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: It does look like a leading question, Mr. Hannis.
23 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, there certainly is plenty of
24 public evidence that Red Berets have been alleged to be involved in crimes
25 in Bosnia and Croatia. I'm just asking if he's aware of that.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: So you're relying on the use of the word "alleged"?
2 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Yes, I think I don't see a problem with
4 that, Mr. Ivetic.
5 Carry on.
6 MR. HANNIS:
7 Q. General, do you need me to repeat the question?
8 A. That's not necessary. During the war in Bosnia, I was,
9 objectively speaking, retired; however, through the mass media and some
10 trials that had taken place and through communications with people from
11 the service who were working then, I had knowledge that these units -- it
12 was known that these units had been in Bosnia and that they were involved
13 in some crimes. There was a trail of crimes behind them.
14 Let me explain who the men making up the unit were. Some of them
15 were drawn from Arkan's units, and one of them was the commander of the
16 JSO, Ulemek, known as Legija. We had information that we were checking in
17 1991 concerning the 1st Corps of Arkan's men, and there were 19 men and
18 102 years of imprisonment between them. So with such a problematic unit,
19 some of the men from that unit were admitted into the JSO, and one of them
20 became commander of the JSO. So I don't think there's anything disputable
21 about that.
22 Q. And with --
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, the witness has confined his answer to
25 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour.
1 Q. General, were you aware of allegations that the Red Berets engaged
2 in any criminal activity during the conflict in Croatia?
3 A. Yes. I know about the beginning of the training of those units
4 that were called Red Berets, and many paramilitary groups that were active
5 at the time held themselves out to be Red Berets. And their role began
6 sometime in the spring 1991 in Golubic, and there were also active around
7 Skabrnja and other places in Croatia.
8 So I cannot really enumerate them by the place and say that this
9 and that unit committed a crime in such and such a place, but I know that
10 a video was shown in this courtroom that was made at the anniversary
11 celebration of that unit in Kula. And it was shown there where they had
12 been across Yugoslavia, and you can see that war had taken them almost
14 Q. Were you aware whether there were similar allegations about
15 Arkan's Tigers having committed crimes in Bosnia and/or Croatia in the
16 early 1990s?
17 MR. HANNIS: I see --
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Zecevic.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Sorry for the interruption. But at 17, 13, I
20 believe the witness said that their war path had taken them almost through
21 the whole Croatia and not everywhere. Maybe this can be clarified with
22 the witness.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Vasiljevic, at the end of that last answer, you
24 were referring to the video that was shown in the Milosevic trial. And
25 you said "that they had been across," now what area were you referring to?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was talking about the area of
2 Croatia because the question was about the -- the involvement of those
3 units in Croatia. So I mentioned specifically they had been across
4 Croatia, not everywhere.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: For full clarity, are you aware of allegations that
6 the Red Berets engaged in criminal activity during the conflict in
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.
10 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
11 Q. And I'm not sure if -- I don't think we got to the answer of my
12 last question. Were you aware that there were similar allegations about
13 Arkan's Tigers having committed crimes in Bosnia and Croatia in the early
15 A. Yes, I was. It's this whole complex that was called Conglomerate,
16 that was called paramilitary units and Red Berets. Arkan's group was not
17 called the Red Berets at the time. They were called either Tigers or
18 Arkan's men, and all who were around Arkan called themselves that way.
19 They didn't call themselves Red Berets, but there was information about
20 their activities around Prnjavor and other places.
21 Q. You mentioned Milorad "Legija" Ulemek as a commander of the JSO in
22 1998 and 1999 and that he had been a Tiger with Arkan. Do you know where
23 he is now?
24 A. Now, when I just left Belgrade, he was still in detention on
25 suspicion that he had organised the attempt at Prime Minister Djindjic's
2 Q. And his boss in 1998 and 1999, who was his immediate superior in
3 the MUP, if you know?
4 A. I did say that he was part of the state security sector, and the
5 head of that sector was Rade Markovic. But the immediate direct
6 communication with that unit and control of that unit, as far as I know,
7 was in the hands of Franko Simatovic, and that is why those units were
8 called on the ground Frenki's men.
9 Q. And you're aware that Mr. Simatovic is currently under indictment
10 and pending trial before this Tribunal?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Before Rade Markovic became head of that sector, who was the head
13 of the RDB?
14 A. Jovica Stanisic.
15 Q. Do you recall when he was replaced, approximately?
16 A. In October 1998.
17 Q. You're aware that he's also pending indictment -- under indictment
18 and pending trial in this Tribunal, Mr. Stanisic?
19 A. I am.
20 Q. And do you know where Rade Markovic is now?
21 A. Rade Markovic is in prison on suspicion that he had -- he was
22 involved in the organisation of the attempt on Vuk Draskovic's life.
23 Q. Now, in paragraph 34 and 35, you speak about an encounter that you
24 and Colonel Antic had with the JSO in Trstenik. Where is Trstenik? Is it
25 in Serbia or Kosovo? Where is it located?
1 A. Trstenik is located in central Serbia, halfway between the towns
2 of Kraljevo and Krusevac.
3 Q. And remind us again who Colonel Antic was. What was his position
4 at the time?
5 A. Colonel Antic was head of the security division in the 3rd Army.
6 Q. Why had you and Colonel Antic gone to that location?
7 A. I have to give you some background. After the meeting of the 17th
8 of May, I and General Gajic were given the assignment by General Ojdanic
9 to go to Kosovo and gather more detailed information about what was going
10 on concerning crimes, looting, and the other problems that were reported
11 at the meeting of the 17th of May. However, instead of going directly to
12 Kosovo, we had to go to Krusevac because there had been a problem with the
13 7th Infantry Brigade, most of which had left its positions and with all of
14 their equipment and weapons had returned to Krusevac.
15 So we stayed in Krusevac until the 30th of May. As we were
16 fulfilling our -- those duties in Krusevac, General Pavkovic contacted us,
17 contacted the team, and I think Colonel Antic took the call, saying that
18 there was a problem with the military department in Trstenik. The
19 military department in Trstenik employed four reserve officers and some
20 more personnel. When a group of armed JSO members burst in, they disarmed
21 the two military policemen at the entrance. They turned upside down the
22 whole archive, the files of the military department. They disarmed one
23 officer, and they seriously injured one officer who resisted, and that
24 officer had to be hospitalised.
25 So I got orders to go to Trstenik and see what it was all about.
1 When we arrived at the military department, I verified the situation that
2 had been described to me before. And I also found out that the head of
3 the security centre from Kraljevo had also been there and that I should
4 meet with him, but he had gone already to the JSO unit, which was based in
5 a nursery building. So with Colonel Antic and Colonel Gligorijevic, who
6 was head of security in the military district of Nis, and Major Ganic, who
7 was head of security at the military department of Krusevac, I went to
8 that nursery building where we were told the unit was located. That
9 entire part of town, that entire neighbourhood, was blocked by those men
10 on Hummer vehicles. And when I introduced myself and said I was looking
11 for the commander, five or six armed men with rifles in their hands
12 accompanied us into the building.
13 I knocked the door of the office where I was told the commander
14 was, but somebody from inside yelled, "Yes?" And I said, entering, "I am
15 General Vasiljevic," and he commanded me to sit down. I don't really know
16 whether to go into all those details. But the seven men who were armed
17 and who were behind us, they were standing against the wall behind me, and
18 I had a heated exchange with that commander. He tried to fell he to the
19 ground, and he didn't succeed; then his body-guard approached and tried to
20 separate me from his commander.
21 And when he did not succeed, the commander said, "Take that thing
22 down there." And then he took the Hechler -- he took a Hechler and
23 pointed it at my ribs. It was a critical situation. Colonel Gligorijevic
24 tried to pull out his pistol, but those men behind him knocked the pistol
25 out of his hand. The commander said twice, "Shoot," and this lieutenant
1 said, "Please don't, it's my patron saint's day. Today I have blood up to
2 my shoulders." And, eventually, the commander released me and said,"You
3 are a dangerous man. Sit down."
4 And when we sat down again, he asked Antic, "How many throats have
5 you slit?" Antic said, "I don't know, a few." And he insisted, "How
6 many?" And the answer was, "About ten." And the other said, "Give me
7 your word of honour." The response was, "Word of honour." And then the
8 man said, "You are a real man." And then this security man from Kraljevo
9 came in, asked me what I was doing there, took me out of that room. And
10 he told me that he didn't know who those men were either, but he had been
11 told from Belgrade that he should extend them all his assistance and that
12 Legija, who was their commander, would come later and clear up that whole
13 situation. When we took off towards Krusevac --
14 Q. Let me interrupt you there. We have some other details about that
15 in your statement and I want to follow up. You say you made a recording
16 of that incident during the time. Is that correct?
17 A. Yes. I took out a tape recorder that I had in my pocket during
18 the conflict with my -- with their commander, so the whole conversation
19 was recorded. They saw that this was recorded. That tape, as far as I
20 know, was later on sent both to the President Milosevic and others,
21 because Milosevic apparently didn't believe that something like that could
22 have happened.
23 Before I left Krusevac to go to Trstenik, I spoke with Frenki
24 Simatovic on the phone. He told me that I shouldn't go to Trstenik
25 because they would deal with the problems themselves. I told him that I
1 had an order from General Pavkovic to go there. And he told me, "Don't go
2 there. These people are mad men." I told him, "That's your problem if
3 you have mad men on your composition," and that's how I interrupted that
4 conversation and I left to Trstenik after all.
5 Q. You mentioned that in, I think, paragraph 36 that there were
6 military court proceedings started, but they were never completed. So as
7 far as you know, there were no successful prosecutions of anyone for that
9 A. I know that there weren't. When the military judiciary system was
10 disbanded, the then-president of the military court, General Vukosav, told
11 me that the case was still recorded as an attack by an unknown perpetrator
12 against a state official, although everybody knew who that person was. It
13 is still being considered that it was done by an unknown perpetrator.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Is there any way of linking this group and their
15 activities to events in Kosovo, bearing in mind that what you're talking
16 about just now is something that happened in central Serbia?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that that unit had arrived
18 from Kosovo and that they were located in Trstenik because the airport is
19 there in Trstenik, and I know that they had been in Kosovo.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
21 Mr. Hannis.
22 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
23 Q. General, I now want to move on to the issue of MUP reservist and
24 volunteers. You mentioned in paragraph 37 of your statement that people
25 with experience in Bosnia and Croatia and some with criminal backgrounds
1 were integrated, sometimes as a group, in contravention of procedures.
2 Now, you told us earlier about in the VJ in 1998/1999, there were
3 prohibitions against incorporating volunteers as a unit. Do you know,
4 were there -- was there any similar provision with regard to the MUP? Did
5 they have any limitations on incorporating groups as volunteers?
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Don't answer for the moment.
7 Mr. Ivetic.
8 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, again, we have heard no foundational
9 evidence from this witness of having knowledge of being in the MUP, of
10 having studied the MUP, had any training in the MUP, so asking him this
11 line of questioning I believe is improper because it's basically asking
12 him to speculate. He has to provide a foundation for the fact that this
13 witness would have knowledge of the rules and procedures in the MUP and
14 the types of units in the MUP and the "official" chain of command, which
15 I've not heard yet.
16 And I would, you know, have to keep objecting to this point
17 throughout because essentially, again, we have a witness who is in the
18 army and yesterday couldn't tell us who is the Supreme Command in the army
19 and who is a member of that Supreme Command. I mean, it baffles the mind
20 that he can talk about an organisation he was never a part of without
21 giving details as to foundation which I think are required.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.
23 MR. HANNIS: My question was does he know, yes or no. If he the
24 answer is no, then that's the end of it. If the answer is yes, he does
25 know, then my next question is: How does he know.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, let's -- I'll allow you to ask these
2 questions on the basis that you control the answers.
3 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
4 Q. General, my question is, first of all, just a simple yes or no.
5 Do you know whether or not there were any similar restrictions with regard
6 to volunteers joining the MUP; that is, was there any limitation or any
7 bar on groups joining the MUP, yes or no? Do you know?
8 A. I could answer by saying yes.
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. But if you don't link my answer only to volunteers but also to the
11 way the reserve ranks were replenished, not only volunteers. I know the
12 criteria --
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Please stop. You've answered yes. Mr. Hannis now
14 has to explore something before we can go any further.
15 MR. HANNIS: Yeah.
16 Q. Let me ask you the next question then, General. How do you know
17 about that?
18 A. Because there were rules pertaining to the times when I was in
19 active service, providing for the criteria for selection of both the
20 active and the reserve troops in the MUP. Some of the criteria, for
21 example, are that these people are not under investigation, that they had
22 not committed crimes, and so on and so forth. In any case, the reservists
23 of the MUP for the most part were --
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Stop again. Did you have access yourself to these
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was aware of the provisions that
2 were in place for the people who applied to be members of the reserve
3 composition of the MUP.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: And how were you aware of that?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because a similar situation existed
6 in the army when it came to replenishing special units. The first
7 category of recruits were soldiers who had been recruited in the --
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Please, the question is very specific. How were
9 you aware of the specific provisions that applied to the MUP?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because those competition
11 announcements were published. They were made public, they were public
12 knowledge, and they were publicised in newspapers.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't understand that answer. What do you mean
14 these competition announcements were published?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When there was a number of vacancies
16 and when candidates were called to apply for education, either for the MUP
17 or the military schools, then these vacancies were made public and they
18 were accompanied by the criteria that people had to meet in order to
19 apply. I did not have any specific criteria for the MUP, but these
20 criteria were public knowledge and we knew what criteria people had to
21 meet in order to become reserve policemen or members of the army.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: In that case, Mr. Hannis, you must have access to
23 documents that make the position clear.
24 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I'm not personally aware off the top of
25 my head that we have those.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we'll consider the matter.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE BONOMY: We're not prepared to exclude this evidence, but we
4 make it clear that it may have very difficult to give any significant
5 weight to it, in view of the source and the vagueness so far of the
6 witness's account of how he was aware of these general requirements.
7 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. General, just one question on your -- on your last answer. You're
9 saying when there were vacancies available for people to go to the police
10 school and join the MUP, those announcements also contained the
11 prerequisites for someone to become a policeman, which included things
12 like not having any prior criminal record. Is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Were you aware of any particular provision that said only
15 individuals can apply, no groups permitted?
16 A. There was no such provision. The law regulated the ways
17 reservists were recruited, both for the police and the army. That's why
18 there were military territorial bodies, such as military districts and
19 military departments in various municipalities. People could become MUP
20 reservists if they met the criteria of age. They could not be older than
21 35. They should have had their military service completed in a certain
23 And what usually happened was that young men who served in the
24 first category of the JNA, that is the military police, the sabotage
25 units, were transferred from the MUP reserve forces [as interpreted] to
1 the police reserve forces. And when their records were transferred from
2 the military to the MUP, then they were assigned duties according to the
3 MUP criteria. And
4 people could not be recruited by anybody else but those who were
5 officially in charge of that. And as for the groups, I don't know. There
6 was this guy Boca of whom I will speak later, but in any case this
7 procedure was well-regulated and there were no exceptions, either in the
8 MUP or in the military. There were set rules as to how to replenish the
9 reserve forces of both the MUP and the military.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: There is a problem with the transcript again.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: At 27, 25, I believe the witness said were
13 transferred from the VJ reserve force to the police reserve force, not the
14 MUP reserve force.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: That makes sense. The last part of the evidence
16 isn't easy to -- of the answer isn't easy to follow, Mr. Hannis.
17 Just a matter of interest for us, you had a witness here not so
18 long ago, Mr. Cvetic.
19 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour, Mr. Ljubinko Cvetic.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Was he not the sort of person who would have told
21 us that with a proper foundation?
22 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I'm not sure everything -- of everything
23 that was discussed with him when he was here, but I take your point.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: We've had some evidence I think about this, but not
25 from him. Anyway.
1 MR. HANNIS: I'm going to move on now.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
3 MR. HANNIS:
4 Q. General, you mentioned a man named Boca. I want to ask you about
5 his group, and in paragraph 38 you talk about the Skorpions. In 1999,
6 were you aware of the Skorpions as a unit that had participated in the
7 conflicts in Croatia and Bosnia in the early 1990s?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And what did you know about them? What information did you have
10 about their activities in those conflicts?
11 A. I was not aware of many details with regard to the activities of
12 this unit. I only know that they appeared as a paramilitary unit
13 primarily in Slavonia and Baranja. We checked this unit and we received
14 information on the 12th of May, 1999.
15 Q. And in your statement, you tell us that they were commanded by
16 Boca, the nickname for Slobodan Medic, who was subordinate to Asaj,
17 A-s-a-j, deputy commander, Zoran, Tutinac, Simovic who himself was
18 subordinate to Zivko Trajkovic. Were you aware -- the information you
19 received in May 1999 [Realtime transcript read in error "1998"], what did
20 that involve? What information was that?
21 A. You said 1998, I believe you referred to 1999?
22 Q. Yeah, I meant 1999.
23 A. On the 8th of May, the deputy chief of the Pristina Corps for
24 security came and wanted to deal with some problems, and Jugoslav
25 Petrisic's group had arrived in Kosovo bypassing the procedure that
1 involved the centre in Kocka. That was the problem. On that occasion, he
2 told us the outlines of some events that had taken place in Kosovo.
3 He told us that there were killings, looting, certain cases of
4 rape, that they had investigated some of these cases. And more
5 specifically at the moment he mentioned in addition to the information
6 about the army, he mentioned the existence of Slobodan Medic's unit under
7 the name of Skorpions. He told me more specifically that that unit in
8 Podujevo sometime around the 28th of March or towards the end of March had
9 committed a crime. They had stormed an Albanian house and they killed ten
10 children and two elderly people who minded them at the time, and then they
11 were moved to Prolom Banja.
12 But that unit re-appeared in Kosovo again. This is the
13 information we received on the 8th of May, and Djurovic arrived on the 7th
14 of May. Based on this information, we asked from the counter-intelligence
15 group, our counter-intelligence group in Novi Sad, to check the
16 information and to check who Medic Slobodan was, what this unit, Skorpion
17 was, and where they were at the moment.
18 On the 12th of May, we receive an official note from the
19 counter-intelligence group in Novi Sad, in which it was stated that
20 Slobodan Medic and his unit had between 120 and 130 men who were gathered
21 whenever the MUP had to send them out to perform an activity, that those
22 men mostly had criminal pasts. They had been through the previous
23 theatres of war in Croatia, and that the unit called Skorpions a few days
24 before that, before the 12th of May, had returned from Kosovo but that two
25 groups were again being prepared to go back to Kosovo.
1 One group would be led by Dalibor Novakovic and the other group
2 would be led by Zivan Sokolavacki or Zivan Cetnik and that Goran Hadzic
3 was behind the rallying of these two groups. This is the information that
4 we received about that group when we asked for information from the
6 Q. I'm going to talk about them again later on. At the beginning of
7 your answer, you mentioned the deputy chief of the Pristina Corps for
8 security. What was his name?
9 A. Lieutenant-Colonel Djurovic at the time.
10 Q. In your answer, you mentioned that the information you got back on
11 the 12th of May indicated that some of these Skorpion members had criminal
12 pasts and had been through previous theatres of war in Croatia. Did you
13 know or did you have information that some of the Skorpions had also been
14 engaged in Bosnia?
15 A. No. We did not have that information.
16 Q. Now, in paragraphs 40 through 42 of your statement, you talk
17 briefly about Arkan's Tigers and the presence of some of them in Kosovo,
18 and I'll ask you more about that when we get to the 17th of May meeting.
19 But it's not clear to me when you mention that Arkan had official
20 identification of the Yugoslav MUP, that he carried a Serbian RDB
21 identification card, as did members of his reserve, and that they wore MUP
22 uniforms. Did -- would you classify them as a volunteer unit, or a MUP
23 reserve, or what?
24 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ivetic.
1 MR. IVETIC: I think that the question, particularly the way it's
2 asked, is objectionable, particularly, because when I objected to
3 foundation previously, the witness based his knowledge on documents that
4 he said he saw in public newspapers relating to reserve and active. He
5 did not give any foundation for any knowledge as to volunteers.
6 So insofar as this question asks for volunteer units, I think that
7 we at least have to have some foundation laid as to what knowledge and
8 upon what that knowledge is based of volunteers within the MUP this
9 witness has. Since even in the rather vague information previously, there
10 was no mention of any -- any source for knowledge as to volunteers.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.
12 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I'll withdraw the question. I'm
13 satisfied with what's in his statement.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
15 MR. HANNIS:
16 Q. General, now I want to talk a little bit about paragraphs 43
17 through 46 of your statement, where you talk a little bit about the MUP
18 chain of command. And in paragraph 45 of your statement you say:
19 "Pursuant to the law, during a state of war, the MUP was engaged in
20 combat activities -- when engaged in combat activities was to be
21 subordinated to the VJ ..."
22 And: "In 1999, the VJ sought to subordinate the MUP in line with
23 that law. Ojdanic asked Milosevic to issue a subordination order."
24 I would now like to show you Exhibit P1460 in connection with
25 that. Now, this is dated the 19th of April, 1999, before you were
1 re-activated, but I think I can ask you to comment on some aspects of this
3 A. Could the document be blown up a little.
4 Q. Yes, we will do that. As a matter of fact, General, I have a hard
5 copy I could have the usher hand you that it may be easier for you that
6 way. General, you'll see in the upper left-hand corner this refers to the
7 3rd Army command, but immediately below that it refers to the Supreme
8 Command Staff and has a document that has General Ojdanic's name below it.
9 Is this -- does this refer to what you were talking about in
10 connection with the VJ attempt to subordinate the MUP according to the Law
11 on Defence?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Can you explain what this is. The original appears to be some
14 sort of telegraph or fax.
15 A. This is an order that was sent by fax, and it had previously been
16 encoded. It was sent to the command stated herein.
17 Q. Thank you. Now I would like to show you next Exhibit 1459, and
18 again I think I can hand you a hard copy with the help of the usher. Now,
19 this document is dated the 25th of May, 1999. It appears to be from the
20 command of the 3rd Army to the Supreme Command Staff to the Chief of Staff
21 in person, and that would have been General Ojdanic; correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And the document comes from the commander of the 3rd Army at the
24 time, General Pavkovic. It appears to be stamped and signed at the end.
25 A. Yes. There's nothing in dispute here. This is a document issued
1 by the command of the 3rd Army sent to the Supreme Command Staff on the
2 25th of May, 1999, but I don't see the stamp of the Supreme Command Staff,
3 which would prove that that document was indeed received by them,
4 something that is visible an other documents.
5 I can see here that it was sent, but I don't know whether it was
6 received. I don't know whether there was something behind the last page.
7 Maybe this was faxed through, and in that case there would be a stamp
8 showing that the document was encoded. This is a document by the command
9 of the 3rd Army. There is nothing in dispute there.
10 Q. And in the first paragraph, it makes reference to your order of 18
11 April and it refers to a number 01/2024. Could you look back at Exhibit
12 1460 and tell us if that is the reference number on that exhibit from
13 General Ojdanic. If you'll look under the heading Supreme Command Staff,
14 there is a --
15 A. Yes, yes.
16 Q. So --
17 A. Yes. This is the basis of the order issued on the 8th of April.
18 Q. Have you seen this before?
19 A. No, I didn't.
20 Q. It's time for our break, General. I would like you to read it
21 because I want you to understand what the nature of the content is, and
22 then I have some questions for you after the break?
23 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, may he take the document and read it
24 during the break.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. Just for the record,
3 I believe that the General was asked whether he had seen this document
4 before. He said he didn't and it is not clear on the transcript, and I'm
5 talking about the -- okay, now this has been corrected. I'm sorry.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
7 Yes, it will be in order for him to have a hard copy before
8 returning to give evidence, Mr. Hannis.
9 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour. And may we break now.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: It's time for us to break, Mr. Vasiljevic. If
11 you'll go with the usher we'll resume in 20 minutes at 10 minutes to
13 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
14 --- On resuming at 10.53 a.m.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.
16 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
17 Q. General, did you have a chance to read that document during the
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. Before I ask you some more questions about it, I want to refer for
21 a moment to your statement paragraph 45. As we said before, you say
22 Ojdanic had asked Milosevic to issue a subordination order; then you say
23 the order was issued but was disregarded, and Pavkovic complained in
24 writing to Ojdanic that subordination had not occurred as such -- as such
25 an order from the MUP had not reached subordinate units.
1 You go on then to say Ojdanic went to Milosevic, who told him that
2 the MUP would be confronted about it, but in any event, he - meaning
3 apparently Ojdanic - should not be too concerned as to the subordination
4 order had not been issued as a result of problems in cooperation between
5 the MUP and the army in Kosovo, but rather because of problems with the
6 MUP in Montenegro. And you tell us you're aware of that exchange because
7 General Ojdanic showed you his personal notes in the matter.
8 Now, having read Exhibit 1459, can you tell us if this appears to
9 be the written complaint that you told us Ojdanic had told you about
10 receiving from Pavkovic?
11 A. As far as I remember, General Pavkovic, back on the 16th of May,
12 1999, when we were preparing for the meeting next day at Milosevic's
13 office, presented some problems with the cooperation with the MUP, that
14 MUP was accusing the army of not taking certain actions, and that the
15 resubordination was not going well. So back on the 16th of May, as early
16 as on the 16th of May, he reported to Ojdanic about that, and this is all
17 concentrated in one document of the 18th.
18 Q. Then in paragraph 46 of your statement, you mention that:
19 "Although the MUP was not practically subordinated to the army in Kosovo,
20 the two groups were coordinated." And you mention the Joint Command as
21 filling this void and, in effecting de facto cooperation and
23 And as a matter of fact, in Exhibit 1459, that's what General
24 Pavkovic says in the very last sentence of that -- of that communication;
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Thank you. Now, that takes us to topic of the Joint Command. In
3 paragraphs 47 --
4 JUDGE BONOMY: So --
5 MR. HANNIS: Yes.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm not clear where that is, Mr. Hannis, in the
8 MR. HANNIS: In Exhibit 1459, Your Honour, the last sentence where
9 he suggests that the Supreme Command should take urgent measures to
10 resubordinate the units --
11 JUDGE BONOMY: I think we may have 1460 on the screen.
12 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour, that's 1460 on the screen.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: So can I see 1459, please.
14 MR. HANNIS: And if we could go to page 2 of the English when we
15 get it up. Suggests annulling the order on resubordination and leaving
16 command of the forces of the MUP in the hands of the Ministry of the
17 Interior staff of the MUP through the Joint Command, as has so far been
18 the case.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry. It's taking a little time for me to
20 understand this. Thank you.
21 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
22 Q. General, now in paragraphs 47 to 49 you talk a bit about Joint
23 Command --
24 MR. FILA: Please.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry, Mr. Fila.
1 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Before you move on to that - and I
2 don't object to that, I wanted to say something else - this witness was
3 proposed in part as viva voce. As far as I can see, though, he's going
4 paragraph through paragraph. So I'm wondering when Mr. Hannis intends to
5 move on to viva voce testimony, and I think this might be the right
6 moment. That's what would suit me at least. It doesn't mean that it's
7 necessarily correct.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila, viva voce simply means he's going to be
9 asked some questions, and I think that --
10 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Yes, but through leading questions,
11 that's what I mean.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, indeed. This is an example of a witness who
13 really is being asked to repeat most of what's in his statement anyway,
14 and the statement's not -- it's a form of note for me, rather than in the
15 end for shortening the evidence. But the -- as long as the Rules are not
16 being broken, Mr. Fila, we can't stop it. If you feel that the statement
17 is being used in an inappropriate way, then if you formulate such an
18 objection we'll consider it.
19 But what Mr. Hannis is doing is using the statement to focus the
20 issues and then seeking expansion of the evidence about these various
21 matters from the witness, and I agree with you that that very often leads
22 to the witness repeating what is in the statement as well as adding a
23 little more. But I don't think it breaks the rules, so let's continue.
24 And if there is a particular matter concerning you, please raise it with
25 me again.
1 Mr. Hannis.
2 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. General, as I said, in paragraphs 47 through 49, you talk about
4 Joint Command, and you tell us that you were told by Colonel Stojanovic
5 that the Joint Command came into existence in 1998. You also make
6 reference to that information in paragraph 84, that this apparently
7 occurred after your attendance at a Joint Command meeting in June of 1999.
8 Did Colonel Stojanovic tell you who had been on the Joint Command
9 in 1998?
10 A. Well, he mentioned it superficially. It was not a particular
11 topic that we reviewed at the time, but it was mainly mentioned that those
12 were representatives of the army with occasional involvement of General
13 Samardzic, commander of the 3rd Army; most of the time, Colonel Pavkovic,
14 commander of the Pristina Corps; and from the MUP, the generals, Obrad
15 Stevanovic, Lukic, Djordjevic; and Mr. Matkovic from the police; Sainovic,
16 and Minic -- and from the politicians, Sainovic, Minic, and Matkovic.
17 Q. Did he tell you anything about how often the Joint Command met in
19 A. He didn't say that specifically, nor did I ask how many times they
20 had met. He just told me that he did not participate in those meetings,
21 he had not been invited, and he had an idea why, possibly because there
22 were top people from Belgrade. It was a very high level, where he is a
23 security officer in the corps was not invited to take part in the work.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: In that list that you've given, you say: "It was
25 mainly mentioned that those were representatives of the army with
1 occasional involvement of Samardzic ... most of the time Pavkovic." Now,
2 these are the two -- the only two army personnel you mention. Were no
3 other army names given to you?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He didn't tell me about it. It was
5 on our way from this building where the security division to the building
6 where the meeting was held; that's what he managed to tell me on the way.
7 And as far as I remember, those names were referred to. And at the
8 meeting, there were other people I will name.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: So for 1998, which is what we're discussing here,
10 should we take it that General Ojdanic was not involved?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He didn't mention General Ojdanic to
12 me as participating in the work of the Joint Command.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
14 Mr. Hannis.
15 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
16 Q. And in paragraph 83 of your statement, you mention that the
17 colonel also told you that Stanisic was involved in work of the command
18 for several months. Do you recall that?
19 A. Yes. That relates to the organs from the State Security Sector.
20 He stayed on for longer spells in Kosovo, Jovica Stanisic I mean. And
21 from the State Security Sector in Pristina, there was also an employee of
22 the RDB, the State Security Sector, Lukic -- in fact, not Lukic, rather
24 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I want to alert, I guess, Defence
25 counsel and the Court that at the end of this witness's testimony, I
1 propose to tender an exhibit P1468, which we describe -- this is a
2 handwritten document which we describe as minutes of the Joint Command for
3 Kosovo and Metohija in 1998. And we will ask you to take some of this
4 witness's evidence about the participants into consideration in deciding
5 whether or not it's authentic and reliable.
6 And for further consideration of that issue, we ask you to
7 actually take a look at the document itself and see who the participants
8 are and the matters they are discussing, because we think in some regards
9 the document is self-authenticating. Thank you. So the Defence will have
10 an opportunity to cross-examine about that if they want to.
11 Q. Now, next, General, I want to show you a document; this is P2166.
12 And if I could have the assistance of the usher, I'll give you a hard copy
13 of this one.
14 MR. HANNIS: And if I could have the hard copy of those other two
15 documents back from you.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, this is a document Mr. O'Sullivan has
17 challenged the authenticity of.
18 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour, I understand that was his position,
19 and I only have a couple of questions for this witness about this
21 Q. General, this is --
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I think you should ask him to assist us to
23 authenticate it.
24 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, I don't think this witness can
25 help us very far in that direction, other than identifying the
1 participants, but they're identified by name in the document itself as to
2 who they are. As I said, this was a Defence exhibit in Milosevic and it
3 appears to be authentic. It is signed by the note-taker, and the content
4 itself, Your Honour, we would suggest is further self-authenticating,
5 given the dates and the referral to other events. And we would ask you to
6 take all those factors into consideration.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: But it does also have a seal and the witness has
8 assisted us already with that sort of thing.
9 MR. HANNIS: I can ask him a question about that as well, Your
11 Q. General Vasiljevic, do you see a seal on that document?
12 A. I see that it was filed and recorded in the military office of the
13 president of the republic as a military secret with a number, and the date
14 of the 2nd November 1998, which means that it was introduced in some
15 register of the military office. It was entered in it. And the second
16 thing about the military secret stamp, the round stamp, I'm not clear
17 about that.
18 Q. Okay. Can you tell us anything about the military office of the
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Zecevic.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, the witness said: I don't know which --
22 to whom this stamp belongs, and it's not reflected in the transcript.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it's close enough I think, so we can accept
24 what you say. Mr. Hannis is trying to clarify something of that.
25 Mr. Hannis.
1 MR. HANNIS:
2 Q. General, did -- can you tell us anything about what the military
3 office of the president was, if you know?
4 A. That's the office of the president. That is made up of certain
5 division dealing with military issues that are within the jurisdiction of
6 the president of the republic, since he's supreme commander in wartime.
7 And in peacetime, he controls and commands the army, and the military
8 office takes minutes from the sessions of the Supreme Command.
9 And this is a record from a meeting of the operations
10 inter-departmental staff, and I don't know whether he attended meetings of
11 that body. So the Military Council of Defence had this military office at
12 its disposal, in fact the president of the republic has.
13 Q. We see at the end of the document that it indicates the minutes
14 were compiled by Lieutenant-General Susic. Did you know him?
15 A. Yes, and I know he was head of the military office.
16 Q. Of the president?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Thank you. And with regard to the list of the persons attending,
19 it appears that almost everyone is either a VJ member, a member of the
20 MUP, or a government official, with one exception, Mr. Matkovic, who's
21 listed as vice-president of the Socialist Party of Serbia, SPS. Do you
22 know why a political party member would be involved in this
23 inter-departmental staff meeting?
24 A. I don't know why he was involved in his capacity as a party member
25 or a representative.
1 Q. And I believe you indicated, in an answer a short while ago about
2 the Joint Command in 1998, that Mr. Matkovic was a participant, according
3 to your source, Colonel Stojanovic. Is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I'm going to move on to another document
7 at this point in time if you have no questions.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. O'Sullivan, do you have any specific submission
9 to make about this?
10 MR. O'SULLIVAN: No. We object to its admissibility.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE BONOMY: This document looks authentic, it refers to the
13 attendance of personnel consistent with the earlier evidence of the
14 witness about what he was told about who attended these meetings. We
15 think there are sufficient indicia of authenticity to admit this document,
16 and the real question is what weight, if any, ought to be given to it in
17 due course, depending on developments in the evidence as we proceed.
18 Mr. Hannis.
19 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour. I would comment at this
20 point, too, that I think there was some testimony from Mr. Tanic about a
21 body that met in Belgrade that may refer to this, as well as I think
22 there's some internal indicators of reliability within the document
23 itself. Thank you.
24 Now I want to show the witness Exhibit P2014; 2014, this is from
25 the 25th of May.
1 Q. And with the usher's help, General, I'll give you a hard copy, if
2 I can have the other one back. Now, this was after you had been
3 resubordinated -- or reinstated that the VJ, and this appears to be an
4 order from General -- General Lazarevic. Have you had a chance to see
5 that? Do you need some time to look through it?
6 A. If I can just look through.
7 Q. Please. Take your time.
8 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, while the general is looking at it,
9 perhaps we could go to the last page of both the original and the B/C/S to
10 see the signature and the seal.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I've seen the document. I've
12 looked through the document.
13 MR. HANNIS:
14 Q. And, General, in your 30 years' experience in the VJ, did you have
15 occasion to see orders directing combat, and can you tell us whether or
16 not this order is generally consistent with that type of VJ order?
17 A. Yes. It's a classical document, professionally drafted, precise,
18 made by the command of the Pristina Corps. I don't see to whom it was
19 submitted, that's the only thing, but at the top from this heading in the
20 corner, it says "copy number 1." And it says that it was delivered to the
21 command of the MUP, which means that there were more addressees, a number
22 of commands it was delivered to; and then in this empty space, they would
23 fill in to which command it was being submitted, and that's why perhaps at
24 the bottom it is not indicated to whom the document was addressed, not all
25 of them are indicated.
1 Q. Okay. I'd like to take a little time to go through this, because
2 you describe this as a classic military order, I believe. The order is to
3 break-up and crush STS, or Siptar Terrorist Forces, in the Mount Drenica
4 sector, and immediately below that there is a reference to a map. Is that
5 typical for this type of order to have a map reference; and if so, why is
7 A. Yes. There's always an indication of a map and the section
8 thereof, in order for the subordinate who received the document to be able
9 to find the bearings and to be able to locate the sectors that are
10 mentioned in the order.
11 Q. And item number 1 regards the enemy. Is this typical to start out
12 by describing the enemy forces?
13 A. Item 1 in any order always refers to the enemy side.
14 MR. HANNIS: Could we go to page 2 of both the B/C/S and the
16 Q. Item number 2, General, refers to the tasks of the Pristina Corps.
17 A. With reinforcement.
18 Q. Okay. And is that typically what would be contained within this
19 type of order?
20 A. Yes. Item 2 always contains the task of our forces, item 3 is
21 always neighbouring forces, and item 4 is always a decision.
22 Q. Thank you. Then if we could go to page 8 -- I'm sorry, page 5 of
23 the English, item 5. Tasks of the unit. That would seem to be a standard
24 entry in such an order as well.
25 A. Yes. After item 4, which is the general decision by the commander
1 on the use of the unit, items 5, 6, and so on specify concrete tasks for
2 particular subordinated units. In this case, it is the corps with its
4 Q. And in that connection, item 5.1, in this particular order, lists
5 for the 252nd Armoured Brigade with the PJP, Special Police Unit
6 detachment, and JSO, special operations unit, shall attack along the
7 Malisevo village, Klecka village, and the Lapusnik village, Javor village
8 axis. Is that a typical description in a impart order action?
9 A. Yes, it is. First the general axis and then the particular axis
10 of attack for the unit and its particular tasks.
11 Q. Page 8 of the English, item number 6 is entitled "Fire Support."
12 Would that be a common heading for this type of order?
13 A. I have already told you that this order is not just customary, but
14 it is of high quality. It was drafted professionally. Every order has
15 also part referring to fire support, security support, intelligence
16 support, combat security, psychological support. This is a very classical
17 order, and it is similar to any other high-quality order that is drafted.
18 And such orders are drafted based on the task that was received by
19 the superior command, and this is task number 2, the task of the Pristina
20 Corps. This was not defined by the commander of the Pristina Corps. He
21 received it from his superior command, and it's up to him to break down
22 the task and issue the task through his own order, where all the elements
23 will be defined.
24 Q. In some cases, would an order not contain all of those specific
25 paragraphs, depending on whether they were appropriate or necessary?
1 Would there always be a reference to morale and psychology, for example?--
2 Morale and psychological support?
3 A. All of these items are found in any order.
4 Q. Let me show you then a document number 1966, and I will give you a
5 hard copy of this one if I can exchange with you.
6 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
7 Q. Now, General, I think you have seen this one before because you
8 have referred to in your statement, but if you want to take a minute to
9 double-check and be sure you are familiar with it. Let me know when
10 you're ready.
11 A. Yes, I'm ready.
12 Q. Thank you. This one is apparently coming from the Joint Command
13 for Kosovo and Metohija. It's an order described as to route and destroy
14 the Siptar forces in the Malo Kosovo area dated the 22nd March 1999.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, this contains at least some of the classical elements you
17 described for us. If we go through them, we have the map, we have the
18 enemy forces; and number 2 on page 2, we have Pristina Corps task; page 3,
19 we have neighbours and a decision; page 4 of the English, we have tasks
20 for the units; and those other elements that you described.
21 However, this does not -- on the last page, it simply appears to
22 have the typed name "Joint Command for KiM," Kosovo and Metohija, and
23 there is no signature. Do you have that comment about that? This is
24 different from a classical military order, which normally would have a
25 commander's name and signature.
1 A. Hmm. Here in the left top corner on page 1, there is a number
2 under which this document was registered as having been received. If I'm
3 not mistaken, the previous document showed the same three first digits,
4 44 -- 455. I can draw my conclusion based on that --
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila.
6 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I believe that the witness should
7 proceed because these three digits are really crucial. They indicate the
8 Pristina Corps and that's why the Prosecutor has interrupted the witness,
9 although I think that the witness should be allowed to proceed, Your
10 Honour. Let me provide additional explanation. We have contested the
12 And if you're talking about the lack of signatures, lack of
13 protocols, the documents that never existed and that have been obtained,
14 God know's how, and the witness has never seen because he was not in
15 service at the time, you should let him proceed because, Your Honour, you
16 are listening to him as somebody who understands documents, as he were an
17 expert witness not just a base witness.
18 You can't take things for granted. You can't just see a document
19 and take it for granted as being authentic, as being okay. The witness
20 should be allowed to proceed and explain.
21 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I was not trying to prevent him from
22 proceeding. I was going to ask him if he could take the pen and point to
23 us on the screen where he was talking about the three-digit number. And
24 with the usher's assistance that's what I was going to do.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we can all see the three-digit number.
1 Mr. Fila, this document, 1966 [Realtime transcript read in error
2 "1996"], was not one of those listed yesterday as challenged.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you'll allow me to
4 explain. This document has never been announced among the documents that
5 would be used. If you look at the notification dated 11 January, this
6 document is not contained therein; that is why we never measured this
7 document. It was only subsequently, yesterday morning while I was
8 explaining my objection, my learned friend came and told us that this
9 document would be used. This document was not contained originally in the
10 notification dated 11 January, hence the confusion.
11 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.
13 MR. HANNIS: This document, ERN K052-0028 through 32 and the
14 companion document right after are it, are referred to in paragraph 85 of
15 the witness's statement and described with particularity, the first one
16 bearing the number 455-56 and the other one containing 455-56/1; and then
17 I did tell them yesterday or the evening before that I specifically
18 intended to include it.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we now know that the authenticity is
20 challenged, so proceed, Mr. Hannis.
21 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
22 Q. General, you were referring to the three-digit number in the upper
23 left under Joint Command. Could you tell us about that. What is that
24 number; first of all, the three-digit number and then the two-digit number
25 that follows the dash.
1 A. The three-digit number denotes the number in the protocol of the
2 command that is in charge of that protocol and refers to a certain problem
3 that is being treated to -- through some documents. This is the number
4 under which the first document is filed; and if this is the first document
5 that was created, then the number is 455-1.
6 The second group of digits after the dash, this is the order of
7 the documents that arrive and are registered under the numbers and the
8 dates when they are received and when they are recorded in the protocol.
9 As far as I could see on the previous order by the command of the Pristina
10 Corps, the number 455 was the same, and I can drew a conclusion from that
11 that this is the number that was entered in the protocol of the Pristina
13 Q. So do you associate the number 455 with the Pristina Corps?
14 A. I only established a link between the document and the protocol of
15 the Pristina Corps. This means that this problem was registered in the
16 records of the Pristina Corps under this number, 455 dash something. And
17 this particular order that I have before me now, this is the 56th document
18 in the records that deals with problem number 455.
19 And as far as I can conclude, problem number 455 is Siptar
20 terrorism in Kosovo. If this is a document that was received on the 22nd
21 of March, 1999, this means that this document, number 56, was preceded by
22 55 other documents relative to the use of the forces in Kosovo.
23 Q. And the document that we looked at first, the joint -- the
24 Pristina Corps order for combat signed by General Lazarevic and sent to
25 the MUP, we can go back to confirm, but my notes indicate that that number
1 was 455-262. So that would have been the 262nd document relating to
2 number 455, you say to that problem or topic; the 262nd document in the
3 year 1999, because these sequential numbers start at the beginning of the
4 year. Is that correct?
5 A. I believe that this particular protocol or log-book was opened at
6 the beginning of the year, but I'm not sure. Most commonly, if that
7 problem continues in the following period, in order to avoid losing
8 documents, then the same number is taken over to the next book, to the
9 next protocol book, once the first book has been completed. This
10 facilitates locating documents relative to a certain problem.
11 Q. Okay. Now, the one we looked at before, Exhibit P2014, and it had
12 the number 455-262, was dated the 25th of May, 1999. So if I understand
13 what you're saying correctly, during the approximate two month period
14 between the 22nd of March, which we have on Exhibit P1966, and the 25th of
15 May, which is on Exhibit P2014, it appears that there have been
16 approximately 206 other documents generated during that two-month period.
17 Is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. Now, before we leave this one, item number 13 on the last
20 page of both the English and B/C/S, the last sentence before the signature
21 line, which is just typed "Joint Command for KiM," it says: "The Joint
22 Command for KiM shall command and direct all forces for combat operations
23 for the Pristina area."
24 Now, I want to show you P1967 and see if we can make a connection
25 between those documents, and why don't you keep that hard copy and let me
1 hand you now a hard copy of P1967. Now, General, this document is also
2 dated the 22nd of March. It's entitled, "Joint Command for Kosovo and
3 Metohija," and its number is 455-56/1. Now, how would you interpret that
4 numbering system? We've already got the 56th document related to this
5 problem. What does 56/1 indicate?
6 A. This means that this document is directly connected to the
7 previous one, which was 56, and that is why it is called "amendment to the
8 decision." The previous document contained a decision of the command of
9 the Pristina Corps -- I'm sorry, the Joint Command actually. So this is
10 just a supplement, an amendment, to that previous order.
11 Q. And indeed that is the title of this document. It says:
12 "Amendment to the decision on supporting the MUP in breaking up and
13 destroying the Siptar terrorist forces in the area of Malo Kosovo," which
14 is what document 1966 was, an order to route and destroy Siptar terrorist
15 forces in the Malo Kosovo area.
16 I note, however, that this one doesn't have the standard classical
17 items of: One, the enemy; number two, the Pristina Corps tasks; and
18 number three, adjacent or neighbouring parties. And why would that be, if
19 you know or can tell us.
20 A. Because this is just a supplement of the previous document. Now
21 the order is complete. Now that you have the amendment, the order is
22 complete. Whatever is contained in this order is relative to the previous
23 order, i.e., the previous order should include the amendment in order to
24 make it complete.
25 This is just one problem. The first document was not signed. It
1 was stamped by Joint Command or Joint Command was indicated, but here we
2 can see the signature of the commander of the Pristina Corps, General
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. And this amendment is sent by courier to the 15th Armoured Brigade
6 and the 125th Motorised Brigade and that's why the amendment was drafted.
7 It was not sent to either the MUP or to the other forces. This is just
8 the supplement of the task of the two units, and this is who it was sent
10 Q. So this one -- this amendment only contains the relevant changes
11 in number 4, the decision, and number 5, the task of the units. And it
12 should be read together with the original order, where paragraphs 1
13 through 3 and 6 through 13 would apply. Am I understanding correctly?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And this one, as you said, contains the signature and stamp of
16 General Lazarevic and appears to be relating directly to that Joint
17 Command order of the same day with the number 455-56; correct?
18 A. Yes, and the round stamp belongs to the military archives. I'm
19 referring to the round stamp on the front page.
20 Q. Okay. Thank you. Yes.
21 MR. HANNIS: This is a document we received from the Government of
22 Serbia, Your Honour, in response to a request for assistance. May I have
23 a moment.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And this supplement, since it
25 contains the stamp, was sent from the command of the Pristina Corps, which
1 means that the protocol or the record book belonged to the Pristina Corps.
2 MR. HANNIS:
3 Q. Thank you. All right.
4 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I also have on my list Exhibit P1503,
5 which is an order from the Pristina Corps, General Lazarevic, dated the
6 27th of May, 1999. It's of the same nature. I'll tender that at the end.
7 I don't have any questions for the general relating to it.
8 Q. I do want to show you now, General, Exhibit P1252 I believe. I
9 may have erroneously numbered this as Exhibit P1052 on the original
10 notification, but I think Mr. Ivetic pointed out my misnumbering earlier.
11 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
12 Q. General, I'll hand you a hard copy of that as well. General, this
13 is a document described as a communications station work-plan. We don't
14 have a date on it, but we have a list of participants. Can you see that
15 numbered 1 through 13? I'm sorry, did you hear my question. Do you --
16 A. I have received the English version, I'm afraid.
17 Q. Okay. I'm sorry. I'll have to ask you to look at the screen once
18 we get that up. I'm sorry, I don't have the B/C/S with me. I guess I had
19 two copies of the English.
20 MR. HANNIS: If we could go to page 2 of the document, I think, of
21 the B/C/S. Yes.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can the document be blown up just a
23 little. Thank you.
24 MR. HANNIS:
25 Q. And can you read what -- can you read the document now as far as
1 the list of participants?
2 A. Yes. On page 1, I can see everything. The second page is
3 somewhat -- well, that's in English. Yes, I can see it.
4 Q. Thank you. Have you seen this type of document before during your
5 military career?
6 A. I have. This is the work-plan of communications station or plan
7 of communications. The stations are indicated as well as their coded
8 names: Pastrik, Sara, Koritnik. These are their call-signals and so on
9 and so forth.
10 Q. And would you expect in a document of this nature that the
11 participants are participants together in a communications network?
12 A. Well, I don't know whether all these participants are here. I
13 believe that this is just a plan for maintaining communications that would
14 support a certain operations on the ground, and this is where combat
15 groups are indicated, MUP detachments. But I don't know whether this is
16 the complete strength.
17 It is my impression that this is a specific operation in which
18 these units were engaged, and that's why a plan of the communications and
19 maintenance thereof has been drafted.
20 Q. Do you recognise among these participants the various VJ and MUP
21 groups as being units that were in Kosovo in 1999, if you know?
22 A. Well, from this and from the previous order, I see that these
23 units were mentioned. But specifically when I was in Kosovo, I did not
24 inquire about that. I know that some of these units were there. Security
25 organs reported to me in the 125th Motorised Brigade, for instance,
1 because I visited that brigade.
2 Q. Thank you, General. Now I want to move on to another topic and go
3 to paragraphs 50 through 52 of your statement, where you talk about the
4 jurisdiction and reporting obligation for crimes. And in paragraph 52,
5 General - maybe we talked about this before - would crimes involving units
6 of the VJ be the type of item that would be reported as an extraordinary
7 event in the daily combat reports?
8 A. Well, such developments should have been part of daily reports,
9 regular reports, but they could be reported not only as part of daily
10 reports. They could become part of an interim report if information about
11 something like that was received.
12 Q. Okay. And were you aware were there military courts, prosecutors,
13 and investigative judges established at the time of the conflict in Kosovo
14 in 1999?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. We've heard from other witnesses that if a VJ soldier were
17 suspected of being involved in a crime, that such a case would be
18 investigated and prosecuted by a military judge, military court; correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What about MUP members or reservist, if they were suspected of a
21 crime, were they subject to military court?
22 A. Well, if they had been resubordinated, if the order about the
23 resubordination of the MUP had been translated into practice, then they
24 would have subject to military courts; however, in our situation it was
25 the civilian courts in Kosovo that prosecuted such individuals.
1 And if you mention reservists, I suppose you mean reservists of
2 the Army of Yugoslavia. They were subject to the military prosecuting
3 authorities as long as wartime lasted. After the state of war ended, if
4 the cases were not finalised, then these cases would have been transferred
5 to the civilian justice system, as far as the reserve force of the Army of
6 Yugoslavia was concerned.
7 Q. I think we've heard this before, but I still want to be clear
8 about this. If a VJ soldier or a VJ reservist is suspected of having
9 committed a crime during the war, his case would start out, at least, in
10 the military court and would be investigated by the military investigating
11 judge and prosecuted by the military prosecutor; correct?
12 A. Yes, that's correct.
13 Q. But if the case is not resolved by the time the war ends, does the
14 case continue on in the military court or does it get transferred? Is the
15 military court only active during the wartime conflict as far as
16 investigating and prosecuting crimes during the conflict?
17 A. It is -- it has under its jurisdiction only military personnel,
18 both in peacetime and in wartime, as far as active-duty servicemen are
19 concerned; and I have already explained about the reservists of the army.
20 As long as the state of war lasts, the military court has jurisdiction.
21 After the state of war ends, the cases that are not finalised are
22 transferred to the civilian judiciary, both cases and the persons are
23 placed under the jurisdiction of the civilian justice system. And I know
24 that some trials took place under the military court in Nis, even after
25 the state of war ended and the trials involved a number of officers.
1 Q. Let me draw a distinction between the professional VJ soldier or
2 officer and the reservist. Is -- in the case of the reservist, is that
3 because when the war ends he's demobilised, he's no longer in the army,
4 and, therefore, the case gets transferred to civilian court? Am I
5 understanding correctly?
6 A. Yes, that's the reason.
7 Q. Okay. And would the case against a professional VJ soldier or
8 officer continue to remain in military court, even though the conflict is
9 over, because he's still in the military?
10 A. Right, that's correct.
11 Q. Then my last question or two on this subject relates to MUP. If
12 the MUP unit and the individual and his unit had been resubordinated to
13 the VJ under the Law on Defence and pursuant to combat operations, if the
14 alleged crime occurred during that time when he was resubordinated, his
15 case would be investigated and prosecuted by the military investigators,
16 prosecutors, and judges in a military court?
17 A. Yes. I think that's how it was, but I'm saying, again, legal
18 bodies are more familiar with those affairs and issues. I just described
19 it as I knew it, because everything that was under the command of the army
20 falls under the jurisdiction of the military court during the war. Here
21 we have a very particular situation, where it depends on whether the MUP
22 was really resubordinated to the army or not. As far as I can see from
23 the documents, there were problems involved in that.
24 Q. And a question I have relates to that because once the conflict
25 ended and combat is over, then any MUP unit or individual who might have
1 been resubordinated to the army no longer would be because it only applies
2 during a state of war, as I understand it. So at that point in time,
3 would his case then transfer to civilian court or do you know? This may
4 be a better question for a later witness.
5 A. I don't know. Those are finer points that a legal person could
7 Q. Okay. Fair enough. Thank you.
8 Now I want to move to your duties and activities in May and June
9 of 1999, beginning at paragraph 53, and specifically let me go first to
10 paragraph 55. You mentioned that crimes should be reported up the chain
11 of command; however, the VJ General Staff did not receive information
12 about some crimes from the army command in Pristina. First of all, the
13 army command in Pristina, you're referring to the 3rd Army; correct?
14 A. Yes, because that's the immediately subordinated command to the
15 staff of the Joint Command --
16 Q. And can you tell us --
17 A. -- staff of the Supreme Command.
18 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's Correction.
19 MR. HANNIS: Okay.
20 Q. Can you tell us how this first came to your attention that there
21 were certain crimes that had not come to the attention of the VJ General
22 Staff or the Supreme Command Staff, as it was at the time. When and how
23 did you find out about that?
24 A. I have already mentioned that case of the 8th of May when
25 Lieutenant-Colonel Djurovic came to report on other problems in the
1 security department. That's when we received the first information. We
2 verified it through our offices in Novi Sad. I've spoken about that, too.
3 And we received the feedback on the 12th.
4 On the 13th of May, there was a modest celebration of the day of
5 establishment of security services and the representatives of the security
6 department were received by General Ojdanic, and the delegation included
7 General Geza, General Gajic, and myself. And on that occasion, General
8 Geza acquainted General Ojdanic with the first information that we had
9 received on the 9th of May and verified on the 12th of May.
10 And I saw that General Ojdanic was very taken aback by what he was
11 told. And while we were still there, he called up on the telephone
12 President Milosevic. And from his end of the conversation, the end of the
13 conversation of General Ojdanic, he seemed to have informed him that all
14 sorts of things were being done in Kosovo and that he had just received
15 information from security organs that they -- that there were rapes,
16 killings, and that that information had just come in.
17 After that, General Ojdanic told us that President Milosevic had
18 said that we should come to meet with him with that information on the
19 17th of May. And after that, General Ojdanic invited the commander of the
20 3rd Army, General Pavkovic; in fact, he called him on the telephone. And
21 he asked him, "Commander, what is going on down there in your area?" I
22 don't know what Pavkovic replied, but General Ojdanic told him that he
23 should prepare all that information and on the 16th of May, he should come
24 to report to the staff of the staff of the Supreme Command, directly to
25 General Ojdanic.
1 And he also stressed to him - but to us also - that nothing should
2 be concealed or covered up and that everything that had happened had to be
3 put forward and that it has to be seen whether any measures and what
4 measures had been taken to deal with such developments.
5 Q. Let me stop you there for a second and ask you a question about
6 that. When you say: "He stressed to him - but to us also," are you
7 referring to General Ojdanic stressing it to Pavkovic and you?
8 A. Yes. Not me personally. There was General Geza there as well, my
9 superior, and General Gajic as well. So he gave us the task in the
10 security department to collect all that information, and it was decided
11 that I should make the report at that meeting. And with a team from the
12 security administration I prepared a report. It was typed up --
13 Q. Let me interrupt you for a minute, because you're coming to the
14 16th meeting and I want to talk about that. But let me do a few
15 preliminary matters still on paragraph 56 of your statement, you asked the
16 question: So who was not reporting? You said that: "I found that in the
17 field these cases were being investigated and dealt with, that is, there
18 were -- there were no cases that were not processed by the organs that
19 were supposed to process the cases, but it appears" -- well, you say: "I
20 have the impression that there was an obstruction of the army command
21 towards the General Staff."
22 The next-to-the-last sentence in that paragraph, General, if you
23 could look at your copy of the statement. I am not sure about the
24 meaning of this. It says: "They thought that it was necessary that they
25 had taken steps." That may be bad grammar on the part of the English
1 typist. Can you tell us what you meant there.
2 A. Well, we did not follow the chronology strictly. But when I say
3 that I established that those cases that were discovered had already been
4 processed, it is something that I established after touring some of the
5 security organs in Kosovo. That's what I meant --
6 Q. That was --
7 A. -- in those check-ups. Then I asked the chief of security in
8 Pristina Corps whether he had sent that information to the security
9 section of the 3rd Army. And since Colonel Antic was there also who was
10 chief of security in the army, the other men applied that he had not
11 received any documents and the chief of security of the Pristina Corps
12 said that he had not reported because all those cases had been processed
14 And that's what I told him, that it was just a pretext, an attempt
15 at self-justification, that he should have made the report along the line
16 of security organs, if not otherwise, and that he should have also
17 reported to the security section of the 3rd Army in Nis. But I must say
18 that those cases were not covered up or concealed; that was my impression.
19 They didn't report it the way I suggested because the cases had already
20 been prosecuted and processed. They simply thought that the problem had
21 been resolved, the perpetrators had been arrested, and that's why they
22 committed this omission in reporting.
23 And I think I've already mentioned somewhere that it's not only
24 the security organs that report crimes. In any case, along the chain of
25 command, as we've stressed before, the same information should have been
1 passed along. And I believe the military prosecutor did submit that
2 information to the military court, as it should have. But on the 16th of
3 May when we reported about that, General Ojdanic was not aware of those
4 things, which must mean that there was some shortcoming, some interruption
5 in the communications.
6 Q. I take it that with regard to paragraph 56, when you said you
7 found out in the field, that was your subsequent investigation you did
8 after the 17th of May meeting. So when you and Gajic went to Kosovo the
9 first week in June, is that when you would have found this out?
10 A. Yes, yes. And that's when I had this conversation as to why they
11 failed to report it.
12 Q. And as I understand your answer then, I think paragraph 56 then
13 should read: "They thought it was not necessary, as they had taken the
14 steps." That is, the people from the 3rd Army thought it was not
15 necessary to report up because they thought they'd done everything
16 necessary. Is that your statement?
17 A. Precisely, and I think the word "obstruction" is too strong.
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. I don't know what the translation into English was in that
20 sentence that reads: "My impression was that there was an attempt to
21 obstruct or an obstruction," but the gist is as I just told you.
22 Q. All right. Now, before we come to the 16th meeting, I want to ask
23 you one thing. In paragraph 58, you mention some alleged crimes by the
24 JSO or Frenki's men in the area of Rozaje. I think this is in Montenegro.
25 As far as you know, were the JSO or Frenki's men ever prosecuted for that?
1 MR. HANNIS: I see Mr. Ivetic on his feet, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ivetic.
3 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour, this is another item that in the
4 previous disclosures had not been linked to the JSO at all and, therefore,
5 is now linked for the first time to the JSO. So this is what I might have
6 to seek more time to find out about. I haven't heard back from anyone
8 But I have a separate objection in respect to this one insofar as
9 this is not listed in the indictment, and indeed the learned colleague
10 from the other side is correct, this is Montenegro and not Kosovo. So I
11 don't think it's proper to be bringing this evidence in, as I suspect
12 they've tried to do in the past to have us form inferences based on this
13 material that is not relevant to form inferences on the temporal and
14 geographic areas that are relevant to the indictment.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, what's the relevance of this?
16 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I think it is relevant because we're
17 trying to show that particular units were used and treated in a certain
18 way, that there was a climate of impunity with regard to certain
19 individuals and units that applied not only in Kosovo but in other areas,
20 and that's the only purpose of asking this question.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, the events that are referred to in
23 paragraph 58 occur outwith the physical area of our indictment. They are
24 committed by allegedly by a body that might be seen to be subject to the
25 jurisdiction of the particular republic rather than the federal
1 jurisdiction depending on the impact or effect of subordination.
2 There is no notice in the indictment that this is to be criminal
3 conduct relied upon to show a propensity to behave in a particular way by
4 this group. And for these various reasons, we do not consider this to be
5 relevant to our indictment and, therefore, we will not allow you to
6 proceed further in relation to paragraph 58, and we will in fact exclude
7 paragraph 58 from the evidence in this case.
8 MR. HANNIS: May I ask one additional question --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
10 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry. May I ask one additional question of the
11 witness, Your Honour?
12 JUDGE BONOMY: About what?
13 MR. HANNIS: Related to this event and the Albanian population.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: No, because the decision we've made relates to the
15 question whether the population of that area were Albanian. Our principal
16 ground for excluding this is the lack of any notice in the indictment that
17 you would rely on this as evidence of similar conduct that might be used
18 to support the allegations that are material in the indictment.
19 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, may I make offer of proof?
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Of what?
21 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I guess I need the answer to at a
22 question, but I had some understanding of who some of these Albanians were
23 and where they were from that would have a connection with our indictment.
24 And it's not to prove the crime, it's to prove the absence of punishment
25 of alleged perpetrators of certain kinds of crimes in Kosovo related to
1 crimes by Serbian forces against Kosovo Albanians.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, but what's the relevance of the absence of
3 punishment in Montenegro?
4 MR. HANNIS: If -- Your Honour, I perhaps shouldn't pursue this in
5 front of the witness.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: The matter's been determined, Mr. Hannis, and we'll
7 move on to something else. And it's time now for a break in any event.
8 Again we have to break, Mr. Vasiljevic, so please go with the
9 usher while we do so and we'll resume in half an hour at 10 minutes to
11 [The witness stands down]
12 --- Recess taken at 12.20 p.m.
13 --- On resuming at 12.52 p.m.
14 [The witness takes the stand]
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.
16 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
17 Q. General, I want to move on to the 16th of May meeting now; and in
18 paragraph 61 of your statement, you tell us about that. Was there anyone
19 else present at the meeting, other than the five of you: General Ojdanic,
20 Pavkovic, Farkas, Branko Gajic, and yourself? Was it just the five of
22 A. Just the five of us.
23 Q. And you said the findings on the criminal activities were
24 discussed. Was General Pavkovic aware of any of these findings before the
1 A. He reported about his own findings that he got from the command of
2 the Pristina Corps. This is what he spoke about, and he presented some
3 information about some crimes that had taken place. I can't tell you
4 precisely what this was because the text was typewritten and I did not
5 make any notes. I just remember in general terms what he discussed.
6 I know that he spoke about crimes and that also the MUP was being
7 blamed for some of the crimes -- that the MUP actually blamed the army for
8 some of the crimes that the army didn't have anything to do with. I can
9 provide you some more detail about the meeting if you wish me to do so.
10 Q. Let me ask you some specific questions about that and we will. In
11 paragraph 62, you say that General Ojdanic was briefed on details about
12 the volunteer groups. Was he told about any groups other than the
14 A. The groups and volunteers were not reported about specifically.
15 Primarily, we spoke about the group of volunteers gathered around Jugoslav
16 Petrisic and Slobodan Orasanin. There were 25 people with them who went
17 to Kosovo by passing the prescribed procedure but they were returned.
18 Primarily the information referred to that group, that was the
19 jurisdiction of the army, and also we had informed him what we had spoke
20 about on the 13th of May relative to the Skorpion group.
21 On our part, on the part of the administration for security, we
22 just repeated the information that we reported to General Ojdanic on the
23 13th of May with some small additions to that original information.
24 Q. In paragraph 62, you say that Pavkovic mentioned having seen a
25 group of Skorpions and Boca, Slobodan Medic, in Prolom Banja. Did he say
1 how he happened to be whether when he saw them?
2 A. No. These circumstances were not described. It was not said how
3 come he had found himself in Prolom Banja. However, when I provided
4 information about the crimes that were committed by the Skorpions and that
5 they were sent to Prolom Banja, then he mentioned that he had mentioned
6 Slobodan Medic, Boca, that he had a brief conversation with him, that
7 Medic told him that they had not been to Kosovo yet, but rather that they
8 were staying in Prolom Banja.
9 There was nothing said about the crime in Podujevo. Later on he
10 learned that another general who was with General Pavkovic was told by
11 Slobodan Medic that they had returned to Prolom Banja from Kosovo, where
12 they had already been, and that they had been sent to Kosovo by
13 Djordjevic, who was a MUP general, and that it was the MUP who rallied
14 them and sent them to the places where the danger is the greatest and
15 where the situation is the gravest.
16 On the 16th of May, General Pavkovic said that he had informed
17 Mr. Sainovic about the fact that he had encountered those Skorpions, that
18 they were wearing some new NATO uniforms, that they wore the insignia of
19 the SAJ, and that it was very difficult for him to control the moving of
20 that group and similar groups because in practical terms they were not
21 under his command.
22 Another thing that I remember from that meeting, there were some
23 mutual accusations between the MUP and the army with regard to their
24 respective responsibilities. He had set up a military commission that
25 questioned the responsibility of the MUP and of the army with respect to
1 certain events, but this was obstructed by General Lukic, who would not
2 give him his men into such a commission; then he continued to carry out
3 some investigations with his own bodies.
4 Q. Let me ask you some specific questions about parts of that.
5 MR. HANNIS: If we could show the witness Exhibit P1992, please,
6 and I'll hand him a hard copy.
7 Q. General, this is an undated document addressed to General
9 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry. I see Mr. Ivetic on his feet.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ivetic.
11 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour, we do have to object to this
12 document. It is indeed undated. There is no letterhead or title and
13 there is no accompanying stamp for this document that ought to be there if
14 in fact it is an authentic and proper document from the Ministry of
15 Foreign Affairs. From the information contained in here, the witness is
16 neither the author, nor the recipient of the document, so I believe it
17 should be excluded from -- he cannot be the person to introduce this
18 document into evidence.
19 The author, purported author, Mr. Trajkovic should have been
20 called by the Prosecution if they intended to use this document and in
21 fact rely upon it to prove their case.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.
23 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, your contention is that it is not
24 necessary absolutely for the author of a document to sponsor it into
25 evidence. In this case, we have heard some evidence from Goran Stoparic
1 about the events in Podujevo and the persons involved. This witness can
2 make some comments on the contents of this document and whether it's
3 consistent with his investigations into this.
4 As far as the date is written, it is not dated, but it appears it
5 must have been written after the 9th of May because it makes references in
6 the last paragraph to events that had occurred up until the 9th of May.
7 There are other circumstantial indicators of reliability that the Court
8 can rely on, and I would contend that the Defence objections go to weight
9 rather than admissibility.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Where did you get the document, Mr. Hannis?
11 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, we received -- perhaps I should go into
12 private session for this, actually.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: There is something particularly about the source?
14 MR. HANNIS: The ultimate source may be sensitive.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well. We'll hear you in private session.
16 [Private session]
1 [Open session]
2 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
4 Mr. Hannis, you've given us insufficient to indicate that this is
5 an authentic document. The witness obviously can be asked his knowledge
6 of matters without reference to the document; and if you can establish its
7 authenticity at a later stage by leading perhaps one of the witnesses or
8 persons you've referred to later, then it can come in at that stage. But
9 at this point in time there's an insufficient basis for admitting this.
10 MR. HANNIS: All right, Your Honour. I will move on.
11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
12 MR. HANNIS: I will ask the general a couple more questions
13 regarding the Skorpions.
14 Q. You say that General Pavkovic told you and the others at this 16th
15 May meeting that he had told Nikola Sainovic about seeing the Skorpions in
16 Prolom Banja. Did he say when he had told Sainovic about that?
17 A. No, he didn't -- or I can't remember, but I don't think so.
18 Q. Did he indicate whether Mr. Sainovic had made any response or
19 remark about that information?
20 A. No, he didn't indicate that.
21 Q. Now, in your statement you tell us - and I think you started to
22 comment on it - that General Pavkovic said that the MUP was trying to
23 blame the JNA for some approximate 800 bodies that had been found in
24 Kosovo. Did he say who in particular from the MUP was making this
25 accusation or was it just the MUP in general?
1 A. No specific names were mentioned. It was generally referred to
2 the MUP. I suppose it was referred to the staff administration in
4 Q. Did he say in what form these allegations were being made? Was
5 it a written allegation or were these just oral allegations?
6 A. I believe that some information was delivered to him in writing.
7 Q. Did you yourself ever see those writings?
8 A. No. But Colonel Stojanovic told me that when he was reporting
9 about the situation in Kosovo, he told me that this information was
10 delivered to the -- to the army in Pristina.
11 Q. Do you know where this number 800 came from? Who had come up with
12 that number and how?
13 A. I don't know how they came up with that particular figure, but I
14 know two persons who, according to what Colonel Stojanovic had told me,
15 had handed that information over to the army. But that was in a closed
17 Q. General Pavkovic said he had asked General Lukic to form some kind
18 of Joint Commission in connection with this matter. Did he tell you when
19 he had asked Lukic to do that?
20 A. No.
21 Q. And after the refusal by General Lukic, you told us General
22 Pavkovic ordered his military organs to start the process of checking into
23 it. When had that taken place? When had General Pavkovic started the
24 army doing its own investigation?
25 A. It was not a formal investigation that was ordered by Pavkovic.
1 An investigation is usually carried out by judiciary on their own. This
2 was just verifying information about the number of bodies that were found.
3 It was designed to find out whether the army was active in that sector or
4 not. This was the main activity.
5 It was checking into possible responsibility for these bodies, and
6 I would like to say that the figure that was originally proffered of 800
7 and later on of 600 that were identified later on was not just for that
8 crime. It was the overall number of all the victims, some of them who
9 were victims of crime.
10 But he didn't say specifically when this was done. He didn't
11 specify the period. However, since I received the initial information
12 about that on the 8th and the 9th of May from Lieutenant-Colonel Djurovic,
13 I suppose that the whole thing applies to the month of April 1999.
14 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I see Mr. Visnjic on his feet.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.
16 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, an objection to the
17 transcript. Page 73, line 20, I believe that the witness mentioned the
18 verification of key data, if I heard the witness well. Maybe Mr. Hannis
19 could verify that, but I believe that this is the key word in this part of
20 the witness's testimony.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Vasiljevic, the transcript records you as
22 saying: "It wasn't a formal investigation that Pavkovic ordered. This
23 was just verifying information about the number of bodies that were found.
24 It was designed to find out whether the army was active in the sector or
1 Now, is that what you said or did you say something different, as
2 indicated by Mr. Visnjic?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know what Mr. Visnjic is
4 saying. This is the gist of it. He wanted to verify where the bodies
5 were, whether the army or the MUP were active in that sector, and to draw
6 a conclusion based on that who was to blame for those bodies. No formal
7 military investigation was ordered. An investigation had already been
8 taking place.
9 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may explain. I
10 heard the witness to say, "Ki," k-i, data.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't understand what Mr. Visnjic
12 is saying, what is Ki data?
13 MR. VISNJIC: I apologise, then, I misheard the witness.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: That's okay. If you want to, you can deal with it
15 in cross-examination.
16 Mr. Hannis.
17 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Your Honour, I
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Bakrac.
21 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] We have another problem in the
22 transcript. On page 74, line 1, the witness said when he spoke about the
23 victims and he mentioned the figure of 800 and 600, he said this was a
24 total number of victims that were due to war activities and NATO bombing.
25 The only thing that is recorded is a total number of victims, some of who
1 were victims of crime. And I believe that by nodding his head the witness
2 is confirming what I've just said, but you can verify it further with him.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: What is sought here, Mr. Vasiljevic, is
4 clarification of how the 800 and then 600 bodies were made up.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can clarify based on what General
6 Pavkovic knew and to the extent I remember, and I believe that I remember
7 this precisely. He said that by this investigation that the military
8 organs carried out in the locations that were stated as containing the
9 bodies, he verified that the army was active in the territory where a
10 total of 271 bodies were found.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Wait, wait. We're not exploring that at the
12 moment. The suggestion is that the 800 included not just victims of
13 conflict but victims of crime and victims of NATO bombing. Is that what
14 you're saying?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did say that, but as I -- as
16 far as I understand, this has not been recorded.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. Well, that clarifies it.
18 Mr. Hannis.
19 MR. HANNIS:
20 Q. General, I'm still on paragraph 62 and talking about General
21 Pavkovic asking Lukic to form a Joint Commission and then forming or
22 starting an investigation of his own through the military when that was
23 refused. In your statement, you say that Pavkovic told Mr. Sainovic about
24 this -- or informed Sainovic of this. Did he say when he had informed
25 Mr. Sainovic about this?
1 A. No, no such details were discussed.
2 Q. And so prior to the 16th of May at this meeting, do you know
3 whether General Pavkovic had advised General Ojdanic that he was doing
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila.
6 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I waited for the witness
7 to complete his testimony on Sainovic. 92 ter rule does not imply that
8 the Prosecutor would be asking leading questions on every paragraph; and
9 then when his leading questions are answered, he will go on putting
10 further questions. And this is what he had done on two occasions only on
11 paragraph 62.
12 The meaning of the 92 ter rule is not for the Prosecutor to put
13 leading questions and then you call his witness a viva voce witness. This
14 is the abuse of -- and I withdraw the term "abuse." This is a travesty of
15 Rule 92 ter. Every paragraph is tackled by putting a leading question to
16 the witness and then putting further questions to the witness. I've never
17 seen this in the rules of evidence.
18 You said at the beginning that you will allow it to the
19 Prosecutor, when they have 92 ter witnesses, to put him a few questions,
20 and then the witness will be cross-examined. Now this has been going on
21 for two days. I have to say that because I believe that things are not
22 done in the way they should be done. Maybe on this paragraph only the
23 Prosecutor has put two leading questions to start with, and I object to
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Tell me what these two leading questions are.
1 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Every time Sainovic was mentioned, the
2 Prosecutor asked, "Did Pavkovic tell you that he had informed Sainovic?"
3 The question wasn't, "Did Pavkovic tell you that he had informed somebody
4 else?" That would have been a good question, but it is leading when he
5 said --
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila -- well, it's now --
7 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I believe that the spirit of Rule 92
8 ter is being disrespected, and this is what I'm trying to convey to you
9 because the Prosecution goes from one paragraph to another to examine the
11 92 ter rule has been designed to speed up the proceedings. We
12 have lost two days and we're going to lose another day on Monday, and this
13 is not the spirit of 92 ter rule and this is the gist of my objection.
14 Thank you very much.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm trying to see the particular questions that
16 you're complaining about; and if you look at page 76, line 15, the
17 question is: "In your, statement you say that Pavkovic told Sainovic or
18 informed Sainovic of this," and then the question follows: "Did he say
19 when he had informed?"
20 MR. FILA: Yes.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, what's wrong with that?
22 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Yes, I agree, that's the same thing I'm
23 saying. If you have proffered a statement under 92 ter, then you just
24 state something briefly and then the statement goes in; no questions.
25 What the Prosecution is doing is they're asking leading questions.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I'm trying to identify that. You show me the
2 leading question and I'll deal with your objection. The one you're
3 referring to is not a leading question.
4 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] The problem is this: The witness is
5 introduced under 92 ter, and what I'm asking is: What is the spirit of 92
6 ter here? Look at the provisions of 92 ter. A statement is introduced
7 and then we proceed to cross-examine. This is not 92 ter at all. That's
8 what I'm trying to say.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Well --
10 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] This is going --
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila --
12 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] -- beyond the spirit of the Rules.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila, I don't like way in which this has been
14 done either, but I don't think that it infringes the rule because
15 witnesses don't fall into categories, in spite of the way the Prosecution
16 intimate these things to you. There isn't such a thing as a 92 ter
17 witness. What the rule says is that: "A Trial Chamber may admit, in
18 whole or in part, the evidence of a witness in the form of a written
19 statement or transcript."
20 So the witness is a witness and he can be asked any number of
21 questions as long as they're relevant, and the Prosecution can say, But
22 please also take account of what he has sworn to be true that's in
23 writing. And it can be the whole of his evidence, it can be a small part
24 of it, it can be half of it, it can be anything. That's what the rule
25 allows. It's a very, perhaps in your view, unfortunate, but very flexible
1 rule which has been adopted since this trial began -- or at least it was
2 adopted perhaps just before it began. I can't remember exactly.
3 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Yes, but the Defence is prejudiced,
4 because in this way you are allowing the Prosecution to put leading
6 JUDGE BONOMY: No, I will not allow them to put -- if you can show
7 me the leading question, I'll stop them asking it. But you're not showing
9 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] All right. I will react in the future.
10 When he says, In your statement you say this and that, that's a leading
11 question to me. He doesn't ask, What do you state in your statement? In
12 by book, that's the way it is. A good question is: Do you say anything?
13 Or what do you say? As opposed to, In your statement, you say this and
14 this. That's what I had in mind.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila, when a counsel refers to what a witness
16 has already said, that's simply an introduction leading to a question;
17 it's not a leading question. It's already there in his evidence that he
18 said that, and the question is, When did he tell you that. There's
19 nothing leading about that question.
20 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] You have said your word. I stick to my
21 opinion, but I respect your decision.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Please continue, Mr. Hannis.
24 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
25 Q. General, in your statement, you say that Pavkovic ordered that the
1 military organs begin their investigation after he had gotten a refusal or
2 a -- a refusal from General Lukic to do it jointly. He informed Sainovic
3 of this. Did he tell you -- did he say at the meeting on the 16th when he
4 had told Sainovic about that?
5 A. No.
6 Q. And do you know if he had ever told General Ojdanic about it
7 before that 16th May meeting?
8 A. I don't know. But based on the reaction of General Pavkovic on
9 the 13th of May, I drew the conclusion that until -- before the 13th of
10 May, he had no such knowledge, no such information.
11 Q. General Pavkovic or General Ojdanic?
12 A. General Ojdanic did not have such information.
13 Q. Thank you. Now, with regard to the 800 bodies, in your statement,
14 you say Pavkovic and the army had carried out their own investigation; and
15 based on that, they established that only 271 of that total number had
16 died in areas covered by the VJ.
17 Do you know from where or by what mechanism Pavkovic and the 3rd
18 Army had gathered that information? Was there a special group that did
19 that or was it just reporting from individual units? Do you know how it
20 was done?
21 A. I don't know the details of how that was done. All I know is that
22 some security organs were involved in collecting that information, but I
23 don't know which methodology they used.
24 Q. Okay. And Pavkovic said that the investigations established that
25 326 persons were killed in the territory where the MUP was active. So I
1 assume the answer is the same for that -- for that group. Those two
2 numbers total 597. What about the approximate 200 additional bodies, if
3 the total number was 800? Was there any accounting for those? If they
4 were not MUP or VJ, were they in areas where neither the MUP or VJ had
5 operated or what?
6 A. No. It was not explained how the difference came about. It was
7 just a way of saying that the MUP made a blanket accusation of the army,
8 accusing them of crimes that the army did not commit.
9 Q. Who tasked you to brief Mr. Milosevic the next day on the 17th?
10 A. General Ojdanic.
11 Q. And do you know why it was decided to have two presentations, that
12 is, one by you and one by General Pavkovic, instead of one joint
14 A. Prior to that, I think it was on the 15th of May, in the process
15 of agreeing about that meeting, our meeting of the 16th, it was envisaged
16 that I would present all the information to President Milosevic. However,
17 when General Pavkovic arrived at the meeting on the 16th and when he had
18 full information, including a lot more specific details than I had, I
19 thought it was not advisable for me to report on the data that General
20 Pavkovic had.
21 That's how it was decided, that we should make separate reports;
22 that I should make my report and present information from the security
23 administration and General Pavkovic would present the information that he
24 received along the chain of command from the 3rd Army.
25 Q. Did General Pavkovic at that 16th May meeting have a written
1 summary or a written report concerning the information he was briefing
2 General Ojdanic about?
3 A. Yes, he had a written report.
4 Q. Did you receive a copy of that report?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Now, at paragraph 63, you talk about the 17th May meeting the next
7 day with Mr. Milosevic; and in paragraph 63, you tell us that Mr.
8 Sainovic, General Ojdanic, Rade Markovic, General Farkas, General
9 Pavkovic, Colonel Branko Gajic, and yourself were at that meeting. And
10 you say this took place at the command post of the Supreme Command --
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, we don't need this. I can understand
12 Mr. Fila's frustration, which I think I've tried to convey as shared by
13 me, about this slow reading out of the words of paragraph 63. It's as if
14 you're filling time in. The witness can read it and we can get on to the
16 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I was just trying to focus him in on
17 where my question was.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
19 MR. HANNIS:
20 Q. Who had scheduled this meeting? Who set up the meeting?
21 A. I said earlier that the meeting was scheduled by the President
23 Q. And who decided, if you know, on who was supposed to attend this
25 A. I know that General Ojdanic designated the persons who should be
1 present on behalf of the Army of Yugoslavia. As to who else was supposed
2 to be present on behalf of the MUP, I don't know; that was not in the
3 jurisdiction of General Ojdanic. It was in the jurisdiction -- it was the
4 privilege of the president, who scheduled the meeting in the first place.
5 Q. And who arrived first at the meeting?
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Does that matter?
7 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, it depends. If this is the command post
8 where Mr. Milosevic is staying during the bombing, then it may have some
9 bearing on the Supreme Command and its members. It may have some bearing
10 on the meeting that we say happened later that day; if it's at his place,
11 if it's at the MUP's place, if it's at the army's place.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: If it's that important, why is it not in the
13 statement, the document that was prepared for the purpose of leading this
14 evidence and prepared as recently as October and this month?
15 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, you may recall earlier in this
16 discussion with the witness about the Supreme Command and the Supreme
17 Command Staff that there was some confusion about whether he was referring
18 to the Supreme Command, which we say is a different body than the VJ
19 Supreme Command Staff. And because of that earlier confusion, I'm trying
20 to find out which this one is.
21 Q. General, did you understand my question? Where did this meeting
22 take place? Who arrived first?
23 A. I understood. The meeting was held at the command post of the
24 Supreme Command Staff. We, from the Army of Yugoslavia, arrived
25 altogether as a team to the room where the meeting was to be held, and
1 President Milosevic was already there, together with Mr. Sainovic and Mr.
2 Rade Markovic from the state security administration -- from the State
3 Security Sector.
4 Q. Now, did you take your own notes in this meeting?
5 A. I took notes at the meeting reflecting the course of the meeting
6 from the moment when first Rade Markovic took the floor, but I did not
7 note down what General Pavkovic was saying because he had a written report
8 before him and I didn't think it necessary to take notes.
9 I was taking my own personal notes, and I think other generals --
10 some other generals did, too. And I have those notes reflecting the
11 meeting from Rade Markovic's presentation to the end, to the extent that I
12 was able to take it down.
13 MR. HANNIS: If we could show the witness Exhibit P2592, Your
14 Honour, and I have a hard copy that we can hand him.
15 Q. General, do you recognise that copy that's on the table in front
16 of you?
17 A. That's a photocopy of the notes that I took at the meeting of the
18 17th of May.
19 Q. With regard to General Pavkovic's report on the 17th of May, did
20 you get a copy of his written report on that date?
21 A. No. We did not receive any copies. He read out the report.
22 Q. Now, you've described in meeting in some detail in your statement
23 in paragraphs 63 through 74, but I want to ask you about some of your
24 notes. If you can see the entry regarding Boca. You said: "Radja
25 reports about who Boca is."
1 Is that referring to Rade Markovic?
2 A. No. It's not Radja, it's Rodja. General Djordjevic, according to
3 Rade Markovic's report, had informed him who Slobodan Medic, a.k.a. Boca,
4 was, and it was decided that he and his unit should be withdrawn from
5 Kosovo. So it's not Radja, it's Rodja.
6 Q. But Rodja, that is General Djordjevic, was not present at the
7 meeting, was he?
8 A. He was not.
9 Q. And in response to that, your next entry SM, I take stands for
10 Slobodan Milosevic. It says: "Sit down with Vlajko," which would be
11 Mr. Stojiljkovic.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And Rodja would be Mr. Djordjevic, "and clear up with them that
14 their heads won't be chopped off but Boca must answer."
15 To your knowledge, was there any criminal procedure brought
16 against Boca for the conduct of the Skorpions in Kosovo?
17 A. I don't know. But if I understood the interpretation correctly
18 you said Radja. Again, it's not Radja. He said to Rade Markovic: Rade
19 talked to Vlajkovic and Djordjevic. They have no reason to protect Boca.
20 Boca should be held accountable, and their heads won't roll because of
21 that. That was the point. Milosevic was saying to Rade Markovic to
22 convey to General Djordjevic and the Minister of the Interior, Vlajko
24 Q. Okay. And in the next entry, Mr. Sainovic is noted as saying: "It
25 is obvious that SAJ has its habits when it comes to forming the reserve."
1 Do you recall what he meant when he said that? What was he
2 referring to?
3 A. It's not the habit and establishment of reserve; it's the habits
4 of the SAJ in establishing their own reserve force. And what I meant was
5 that they were used to gathering groups and bringing them as units into
6 Kosovo, which was the case with Skorpions. Because in my presentation
7 before that, I spoke about Skorpions as a unit that had been brought there
8 as a group without, however, fulfilling the requirements for serving on
9 the MUP.
10 Q. The next entry attributed to SM, Mr. Milosevic: "I support the
11 work of the RDB and of the security organs to have all the cases of 'big
12 Serbs' resolved."
13 Can you tell us what he was referring to or who he was referring
14 to as to "cases of 'big Serbs'?
15 A. He did not put a heading to that, but the topic was Slobodan
16 Medic, Boca, and the crimes in Podujevo. I was saying that all those
17 cases concerning "great Serbs" were doing a great damage to the Federal
18 Republic of Yugoslavia, currently, that we have put up resistance to NATO.
19 It was the previous discussion that dealt with the Skorpions.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, is this a document referred to also in
21 the transcript from the previous trial?
22 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I'd have to check my notes. I don't
23 recall if this was an exhibit in the trial. Perhaps the witness can help
24 us with that. I don't believe it was.
25 Q. General Vasiljevic, do you know if this excerpt from your diary
1 was used as an exhibit in the Milosevic trial?
2 A. I was examined a bit differently there. There were less
3 questions. It was more of a narrative on my part and I based my testimony
4 on those notes, but whether they were exhibited I don't remember.
5 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I do not have a cross-reference to it as
6 an exhibit in Milosevic's trial. Thank you.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: If you could now find a suitable place to
8 interrupt, Mr. Hannis.
9 MR. HANNIS: I'll ask one last question before we break.
10 Q. Down below there's a mention of Saja. Who is that?
11 A. Mr. Sainovic.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, may we stop for the week.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Hannis.
15 Mr. Vasiljevic, that brings the evidence for this week to an end,
16 but it will continue on Monday. And on Monday we sit at 9.00 and we have
17 a longer session -- is it longer on Monday? The breaks will be placed
18 differently, but you'll be required to be in the court from 9.00 to 3.30
19 on Monday. So we'll see you again at 9.00 on Monday morning; meanwhile,
20 would you please leave the courtroom with the usher. Thank you.
21 [The witness stands down]
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, Mr. O'Sullivan, on the question of the
24 protective measures for the witness for whom the pseudonym K90 is sought.
25 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Yes, Your Honour. Counsel have consulted and we
1 do not oppose this request. For clarity, it's K90 with image and voice
2 distortion, whose testimony will be in open session.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well. The application made by the Prosecution
4 will be granted.
5 That concludes our business for the week. We will resume again at
6 9.00 on Monday.
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.44 p.m.,
8 to be reconvened on Monday, the 22nd day of
9 January, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.