1 Friday, 21 September 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Sepenuk, I gather you wish to raise something
6 before we continue with the witness.
7 MR. SEPENUK: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you very much. It concerns
8 the testimony yesterday of Colonel Milovan Vlajkovic, and specifically
9 matters that came up in the cross-examination by Mr. Ackerman and concerns
10 what we regard as the improper use of Exhibit P1696 which was the RTS
11 television report of a meeting of May 4th, 1999, attended by Mr. Milosevic
12 and a number of other officials, some unnamed, but General Ojdanic,
13 General Pavkovic, General Lukic, and Mr. Milutinovic, and we're moving to
14 strike that portion of the testimony, Your Honours, and I will now mention
16 Mr. Ackerman quoted extensively from this television --
17 JUDGE BONOMY: [Microphone not activated].
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
19 MR. SEPENUK: So starts on page 69, line 9 --
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we already have it updated so --
21 MR. SEPENUK: Oh.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: When roughly was it in the course of the day,
23 two-thirds of the way through or --
24 MR. SEPENUK: Yeah, roughly, I would say that would be about
25 right, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: 3D, sorry --
2 MR. SEPENUK: The exhibit is P1696, and that's the R -- the RTS
3 television report.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Do you know if it was in the last session, 16.080.
5 Please continue.
6 MR. SEPENUK: Thank you, Your Honour. And Mr. Ackerman quoted
7 extensively from this P1696 and he said, among other things, the security
8 forces dealt with numerous cases of violence, I'm going to paraphrase
9 here, killings, pillage and other crimes. The state authorities legally
10 and in an unbiased manner carried out their duties, it was concluded that
11 these measures had made such actions impossible and it went on to say
12 military courts acting in accordance with the proceedings envisaged in war
13 conditions have already passed a large number of sentences ranging from
14 five to 20 years' imprisonment for the crimes committed.
15 Now, Mr. Ackerman apparently assumed the truth of what was
16 contained in this article and said to the witness on cross-examination why
17 didn't General Ojdanic pass this on to the collegium. We say this was
18 improper for several reasons.
19 First, P1696 at that point in the case had not been admitted into
20 evidence as an exhibit. It's ironic to note that Mr. Ackerman in his
21 Pavkovic response to the OTP's second request for admission of exhibits
22 from the bar table objected to a proposed OTP exhibit which was a
23 newspaper article, and in his objection noted: "OTP P1010 is an
24 inadmissible newspaper article. The Trial Chamber has held that newspaper
25 articles are inadmissible and unreliable."
1 And Mr. Ackerman in making that statement correctly referred to
2 transcript 8561, 8562 of the record. And at that time, Your Honour, this
3 was on January 17th, 2007, Mr. Cepic --
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Sepenuk, there's a difference between what
5 Mr. Ackerman may assert as a question and what the evidence in this case
6 is. Now, this witness yesterday made it clear that he knew nothing about
7 any of this, and it doesn't amount to any evidence in this case at this
8 stage. We have a rather different approach from perhaps what has always
9 been traditional in this institution of seeing that there can be value in
10 a document to understand the answer to the question without necessarily
11 treating the document as having any probative value in itself. This is
12 one of these examples. We've made it clear what we think of reports of
13 newspaper or television or radio but it doesn't mean it can't be a
14 foundation for a question.
15 MR. SEPENUK: But the document, Your Honour, has no relevance
16 unless we assume the truth of what was in it because he asked the witness,
17 Mr. Ackerman asked the witness why didn't General Ojdanic pass this
18 information on to the collegium, and we're going to show by evidence in
19 this case that the reason he didn't pass this on to the collegium is that
20 most of those evidence in -- most of those statements in that report were
21 false --
22 JUDGE BONOMY: The answer to the question was --
23 MR. SEPENUK: -- and misleading.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: But the answer to the question is do you know why it
25 was? No, I don't. End of story.
1 MR. SEPENUK: But it assumes the truth of what is in the article
2 as if General Ojdanic did something improper and we shouldn't have to
3 rebut that, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: It's not part of the evidence in this case unless
5 someone has agreed with it. On what basis -- bearing in mind all we've
6 said so far, could you regard that as positive evidence of the facts set
7 out in the article?
8 MR. SEPENUK: Well, I certainly don't.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you can't if you follow the rules we've been
11 MR. SEPENUK: So is it my understanding, Your Honour -- maybe I've
12 misunderstood. Is it my understanding that this exhibit will have no
13 weight whatsoever in your consideration of this case?
14 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm about to ask Mr. Ackerman for his comment, but
15 on the face of it unless -- you've told me it hasn't been admitted, it's
16 been used only for this purpose, the answer to the question was no, I
17 don't and therefore there appears to be no positive evidence emanating
18 from the use of this article at this stage in the case.
19 MR. SEPENUK: Nor do I think that Your Honour should give any
20 weight whatsoever to the answer of Colonel Vlajkovic that this was not --
21 that General Ojdanic didn't somehow turn over this information which we
22 regard as false to the collegium. That should also be stricken.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I don't think that's what he said. He said
24 that there were no reports at -- referred to in the minutes and briefings
25 until early June.
1 MR. SEPENUK: The question was, Your Honour: "And you know,
2 didn't you," this is Mr. Ackerman. "And you knew, didn't you, that there
3 was an important issue that was being discussed in the western press and
4 an issue was being made about it. My question to you that you didn't
5 answer is: Do you know why General Ojdanic failed to take steps to deal
6 with that," in other words, assuming the truth of what was in the article,
7 do you know why he failed to take steps to deal with that and failed to
8 report it to the collegium, a grossly unfair question.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, two things: The witness's answer does not
10 assume the truth of the question -- the events referred to in the
11 question; and secondly, you should have objected at the time if that was
12 your position.
13 MR. SEPENUK: That was my position -- let me tell you why I didn't
14 object, Your Honour. I didn't object for a few reasons. One is --
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, do we need to --
16 MR. SEPENUK: I want to explain that for the record. You asked
17 me, Your Honour, and I want to explain for the record why I didn't object.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: You know you're using your own valuable time here.
19 MR. SEPENUK: I think it's important, Your Honour. We'll take our
20 chances on that. And I didn't object because for one thing, I didn't even
21 know about this article until Mr. Ackerman brought it pup. And the second
22 thing, I just assumed -- Mr. Ackerman is a respected colleague and I don't
23 like to interfere with a respected colleague if he regards this as
24 essential for his case. Frankly, we should have objected, but I go on the
25 theory, Your Honour, it's never too late to do the right thing and I'm
1 objecting now while Mr. -- while Colonel Vlajkovic is still here.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: The respected ones, Mr. Sepenuk, are usually -- are
3 the ones most likely to be pushing the boundaries. They know that their
4 job is to push the boundaries as far as they can.
5 MR. SEPENUK: I don't like to assume that about my fellow counsel,
6 Your Honour.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Some would say --
8 MR. SEPENUK: And in any event --
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Some might say they aren't doing their duty unless
10 they do it.
11 MR. SEPENUK: Well, we could probably spend a long time talking
12 about that, Your Honour. Anyway, that's my position. I think the exhibit
13 should be given no weight whatsoever. I think that Colonel Vlajkovic's
14 testimony regarding this exhibit should be stricken and not considered by
15 the Court for anything. We don't know who gave the information in this
16 statement, by the way, the only one quoted in this article is President
17 Milosevic toward the end. We got this article -- this source from the
18 government. It says: "Government control station under tight control of
19 the Milosevic regime."
20 This might have been a bit of wartime propaganda here and there's
21 been no evidence whatsoever tying General Ojdanic or, for that matter, any
22 of these other defendants who are mentioned to the specifics of that
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ackerman, do you wish to comment on this?
25 MR. ACKERMAN: Just very briefly, Your Honour. The proposition
1 that it wasn't known about until I brought it up is not exactly --
2 shouldn't be exactly correct since it was sent to everybody at the
3 beginning of the direct examination of this witness that I was going to
4 use it during cross-examination. So if they didn't know, they should have
6 The second thing is that the content of that particular document
7 is also repeated in Politika and in a video V0001824/1A, both of which
8 could be made available if necessary. And there may be additional
9 evidence. The other thing that I think is very important to consider is
10 that this document was used simply as a foundational document for a -- the
11 basis for asking the question in the first place, and that was its only
12 use at that point. Now, it may be that there is evidence that could be
13 put on to actually prove that meeting and its contents but that remains to
14 be seen.
15 The other thing is that it was a double-headed question, as you
16 might recall. I wasn't talking just about the May 4th meeting, but also
17 talking about the meetings of the 16th and 17th of May, and I think those
18 are proven without any doubt in this case now that General Ojdanic became
19 aware by the 16th or the 17th of May. So my question about why it wasn't
20 brought up in the collegium, those issues brought up in the collegium
21 until some time in early June I think still may have some validity,
22 although I didn't ever see that as a major part of my cross-examination in
23 the first place. There may be a very good reason why it wasn't brought
25 But in any event, I think -- I strongly oppose the motion of
1 Mr. Sepenuk that that testimony be stricken from the record. I don't
2 think it should be. I don't think it was improper or anything I did was
3 improper. So that's my position.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE BONOMY: We appreciate that the way we've treated exhibits
7 can give rise to misunderstandings and we regret that, but for the
8 avoidance of doubt, let me repeat that this is an entirely procedural
9 issue. It has no bearing on the evaluation of the probative value of
10 documents. We believe that to fully understand the evidence you need to
11 have available to you as part of the record the material that was used for
12 the purpose of posing the questions. However, as I've just explained,
13 that does not make this document, P1696, evidence of the truth of its
14 contents in this context because the witness denied any knowledge of it,
15 as we read his answers.
16 It doesn't follow that newspaper articles may have absolutely no
17 probative value at all. For example, we found assistance from newspaper
18 articles in deciding whether or not to admit press statements sought by
19 the first accused. Now, you can understand why trying to find out whether
20 or not it appeared in the press is relevant to determining whether we
21 should admit it. It's quite another matter, however, to decide what is
22 the probative value of the press statement. These are complex issues that
23 the Trial Chamber will have to deal with when it comes to deliberate on
24 all the evidence in the case.
25 So the normal rules that you understand, Mr. Sepenuk, about
1 relevance and probative value do apply here, but you should not assume
2 that because a document gets on to our record to reflect the questions put
3 that we will give it a weight that will not be appropriate on the basis of
4 the normal rules of relevancy and probative value. So we actually welcome
5 the intervention to try to give clarification to this, but we do not think
6 the appropriate course is to strike it from the record. It may be that
7 other evidence will materialise in due course on which this does have a
8 bearing, and we would have to look at the evidence in its entirety to
9 decide what to do and you will have -- clearly have an opportunity to
10 address us on that in your final submissions.
11 MR. SEPENUK: Thank you very much, Your Honour. And just for the
12 sake of the record, I want to stress that I don't think this exhibit
13 should be given any weight whatsoever and there will be testimony in the
14 case to show that a good portion of what is in this article is false.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: I understand that. But let's assume we hear from
16 the editor of RTS about the way in which this article was compiled and
17 presented and bearing in mind the rules of hearsay evidence, the position
18 would change and the record should be there to reflect what happened
19 earlier in the case. So we hear what you say, we hear your position, we
20 note it, we think it hasn't been prejudiced at this stage by the evidence
21 that has been given so far by this witness. And therefore, you need not
22 fear that we will be holding against you the truth of the contents of this
23 article -- or these articles at this stage.
24 MR. SEPENUK: Thank you, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.
1 We can proceed now, Mr. Visnjic --
2 MR. VISNJIC: Yes, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: -- can we.
4 Let's have the witness. You'll see why I like to get witnesses
5 finished the day they first appear here.
6 [The witness entered court]
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, Mr. Vlajkovic.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Your re-examination by Mr. Visnjic will continue in
10 a moment. It is important for you to bear in mind that the solemn
11 declaration you made at the beginning of your evidence to speak the truth
12 continues to apply to that evidence today.
13 Mr. Visnjic.
14 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
15 WITNESS: MILOVAN VLAJKOVIC [Resumed]
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 Re-examination by Mr. Visnjic:
18 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Colonel.
19 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
20 Defence Exhibit 3D1109, pages 2 and 3 at the same time on the monitor,
22 Q. Colonel, yesterday Mr. Ackerman suggested a few things to you in
23 respect of which he said that they could have led to a mistake when making
24 entries in the register. I will go through each and everything that
25 Mr. Ackerman suggested to you, so we will have a look as to what this
1 really was like.
2 The first thing that Mr. Ackerman suggested to you was that
3 perhaps the document on the resubordination of the command of the 3rd
4 Army, that is under entry 248, was supposed to be attached to the document
5 in 247, another document of the 3rd Army that was registered under number
7 Now I would like to ask you to look at column 7 on page 3 of this
8 document; and if possible, could you please read out for us what the
9 content of this order is, the one registered in 247.
10 A. The content of the order is: "Report on rejecting order by
11 soldier from the 3rd Company or the 3rd Battalion of the 125th Motorised
12 Brigade in the zone of responsibility of the Pristina Corps."
13 Q. In view of the heading of this document - we don't have the
14 document before us right now - in this document 3D1106, on resubordination
15 on the basis of your knowledge, should these two documents have been
16 entered in the same rubric 247?
17 A. From the content of the document, it can be concluded that they
18 are not directly related, one did not produce the other and therefore they
19 cannot be registered under the same number, they are not registered under
20 the same number.
21 Q. Thank you. The next thing that -- the next suggestion that
22 Mr. Ackerman made to you was that numbers 247 and 248 should be in the
23 same archive list; that is to say, 3D1108, that is the archive list,
24 rather, number 21606. Yesterday you went together with him through
25 archive list 21606, that which is 3D1108, and you established that this
1 number, 247, is not on that archive list. I would like to ask you to have
2 a look at this. You still have page 3 --
3 MR. VISNJIC: Just leave third page of D1109, 3D.
4 [Interpretation] Could we also enlarge column 10, that is to say the upper
5 left-hand corner, a bit more, further down, please. Thank you. Thank
7 Q. Colonel, now I would like to ask you to tell us in which archive
8 list is the document from column 247?
9 A. This document is in archive list number 1548 dash, if I see this
11 Q. And the document from column 248, in which archive list is that?
12 A. It is in archive list 21606.
13 Q. Colonel, does that mean that these two documents cannot be in the
14 same archive list by any means, 21606, 3D1108, as was suggested to you
15 yesterday by Mr. Ackerman?
16 A. On the basis of this, it is obvious that these are two archive
17 lists where these documents were registered.
18 Q. So there wasn't any need for us to look for it in 3D1108?
19 A. No, there wasn't any need for that.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
23 Q. Colonel, if you remember, yesterday Mr. Ackerman also suggested to
24 you that numbers 72 that are in the upper right-hand corner and 81/3 in
25 the middle of this document are in actual fact proof of this document
1 having been registered in one of the registers or log-books; do you
2 remember that?
3 A. I remember that.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could we now display on e-court
6 Defence Exhibit 6D1130, page 1 of this document.
7 Q. That is a survey of the archive material of the Army of Yugoslavia
8 1998/1999, and on this first page there is an entry that says 2001.
9 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have page 49 of this
10 document. Thank you.
11 Q. Colonel, do you see column 72?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. And the document referred to in this column, is that the document
14 that you saw a few moments ago, P1459, the document of the 3rd Army on
16 A. The filing number and column 7 where the content of the document
17 is registered, well. That is that document..
18 Q. Thank you. Would you please look at column 10.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. In column 10 there is number 81/3, that is precisely the same
21 document that we saw on P1459.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Thank you. Now let us have a look at page 2. Who actually
24 produced this document?
25 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see page 2.
1 Q. Colonel, could you please say what it says in the upper left-hand
3 A. The General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia chief, strictly
4 confidential, number 1737-4, the 31st of October, 2001.
5 Q. Thank you. Colonel, who was the Chief of General Staff of the
6 Army of Yugoslavia in that period of time?
7 A. In 2001 the Chief of General Staff was General Pavkovic.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, and this information
10 is for the OTP, this is a list of documents that General Pavkovic handed
11 over to the Office of the Prosecutor in July 2002. This list is
12 practically, or rather, the -- these numbers are practically from the list
13 of documents that were handed over to the OTP.
14 Q. Now I would like to ask you to look at page 53 of this same
15 document, column 102.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. If you look at this document under number 102, it is a report of
18 the 3rd Army, strictly confidential, number 872-137/1, and this is in
19 actual fact the document that we saw a few moments ago in 3D1109 in column
20 247. Colonel, what we have here is a rather more detailed description of
21 the content of this document.
22 A. Extraordinary report to the Supreme Command Staff on the fact that
23 the 3rd Company of the 3rd/125th Motorised Brigade, about 80 soldiers,
24 refused obedience in the broader area of Kosare, detailed report on two
25 pages compiled by the commander of the 3rd Army personally.
1 Q. Colonel, now I'm asking you again on the basis of this more
2 detailed description of the document in column 102 which I would like to
3 note is in column 247 of 3D1109. Would the document on the
4 resubordination of the 3rd Army have to be registered in the same column
5 as the document that you quoted just now?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
9 Exhibit 3D145. While we're still at this exhibit, Your Honour, I would
10 just like to draw your attention to something.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
12 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Several hundred, or rather, several
13 hundred documents that are referred to in document 3D1106, not a single
14 document was registered, for example, as 872 and then, say, number 24, and
15 then slash and then, say, number 3. There is no document of this kind
16 except for this document, 1459, that has also -1, 2, or 3, as is the case
17 with this document, P1459 --
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Just hold on a minute. Your question on the last
19 exhibit was translated: "Now I'm asking you again on the basis of this
20 more detailed description of the document in column 102 ... would the
21 document on the resubordination of the 3rd Army have to be registered in
22 the same column as the document that you quoted just now?"
23 Now, is that the question you wanted to ask?
24 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, and the witness said no, as far
25 as I can remember.
1 No, no, it's the document on resubordination from the 3rd Army,
2 produced by the 3rd Army, not resubordination of the 3rd Army.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't think you're understanding me clearly, and
4 it may be a translation question. Let me read the question again: "Would
5 the document have to be registered in the same column?"
6 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes. The question should be:
7 Should the document be registered in the same column if they have a common
9 JUDGE BONOMY: That's as far as you want to go, is it?
10 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, would you like to ask that question, please.
12 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. So, Colonel, you had before you two documents of the 3rd Army, one
14 is the document that you quoted from column 102 and that is the special
15 report to the Supreme Command Staff on the refusal of obedience of a
16 particular soldier and so on and so forth; and the second document was one
17 that pertained to a report of the commander of the 3rd Army on the
18 non-execution of an order of commands and units of the MUP for
19 resubordination. On the basis of what you know, could these two documents
20 be registered in the same column or should they be registered in the same
22 A. According to the rules on office work, they could not and should
23 not be registered in the same column because in terms of their content
24 they are not directly related to one another. One did not stem from the
1 Q. Thank you.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Please continue.
3 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could I have 4D135 brought up on the
4 screen, please.
5 Q. Now, Colonel, you are familiar with this document. You were
6 examined on it yesterday by Mr. Ackerman and Mr. Stamp, too. Mr. Ackerman
7 put it to you that there is no basis for a document on the
8 resubordination, that's P1459, to be part of this analysis; and on the
9 other hand, Mr. Stamp put it to you that on the last page of this document
10 there are reasons why this document should be part of this analysis. And
11 in the final answer you said that, in fact, the team leader working on
12 this report would be the one to make the final decision as to why this
13 document was not made part of this analysis. Could you please tell us, on
14 the basis of this document that you see in front of you, could you
15 identify the team leader or where this analysis was done at all?
16 A. On the basis of what we can see from the document, the analysis
17 was done in the operations and staff affairs sector, to be quite specific
18 as to the team leader who did this analysis, I couldn't really tell you
19 that because this is not seen from this document, I mean the person.
20 Q. Thank you. Colonel, let me ask you something. Do you rule out
21 the possibility that the reason why this document was not made part of
22 this analysis is precisely the fact that this document never reached the
23 Supreme Command Staff?
24 A. If it never reached it, then it could not be subject of an
1 Q. Thank you very much.
2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] This completes my examination of
3 this witness, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Visnjic.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Vlajkovic, that completes your evidence. Thank
7 you for coming to the Tribunal to assist us. You're now free to leave.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 [The witness withdrew]
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic, can you indicate what your plans are
11 for the rest of today.
12 MR. VISNJIC: [Microphone not activated].
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for the counsel.
14 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Witness Radoicic should take between
15 half an hour and 45 minutes; witness Uzelac 20 minutes; witness Pantelic,
16 well, let's say up to half an hour, not more, I'm being optimistic now.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: What about Gojovic?
18 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] We've already sent Gojovic home.
19 There was no way we could have examined him. We will bring him back after
20 the adjournment.
21 [Defence counsel confer]
22 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I mean before the adjournment. I
23 said "after," but I meant his break, Gojovic.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well.
25 Let's have Mr. Radoicic.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 [The witness entered court]
3 JUDGE BONOMY: [Microphone not activated]
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: [Microphone not activated].
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Would you please make the solemn declaration to
9 speak the truth by reading aloud the document which will now be shown to
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
12 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Please be seated.
14 You will now be examined by Mr. Visnjic on behalf of Mr. Ojdanic.
15 Mr. Visnjic.
16 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
17 WITNESS: MILAN RADOICIC
18 [Witness answered through interpreter]
19 Examination by Mr. Visnjic:
20 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Colonel.
21 A. Good morning.
22 Q. Could you please state your full name for the record, please.
23 A. My name is Milan Radoicic.
24 Q. Colonel, did you on the 17th of August, 2007, give a statement to
25 the investigators of the Defence team of General Ojdanic and did you sign
1 this statement?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. When you came to The Hague were you able to go through this
4 statement; and if you were to give evidence before this Court, would you
5 have given the same answers to the questions that you did in that
7 A. Yes, entirely.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is Defence
10 Exhibit 3D1108 -- no, I'm sorry.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: 1111 perhaps?
12 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, 1111.
13 Could the witness please be shown Defence Exhibit 3D1108.
14 Q. Colonel, do you recognise this document in front of you?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. What is this document? Who produced it?
17 A. This document was produced immediately after the end of the
18 aggression on the orders of the chief of the Supreme Command Staff. It
19 quite specifically regulates the procedure for the archiving of all of the
20 documents produced in the period from the beginning until the end of the
21 aggression, and this order regulates the procedure to be applied by all
22 the organizational units of the Supreme Command Staff as it was at the
23 time, including all the elements that pertained to the chef de cabinet of
24 the chief of the Supreme Command Staff. This list that is here in front
25 of me, or rather, this page is part of this procedure that was carried out
1 in the office of the chief of the Supreme Command Staff.
2 Q. Thank you. If I understood it correctly from previous evidence,
3 such lists were then taken to the military archive together with all the
4 documents, relevant documents?
5 A. Yes. Pursuant to the order that I mentioned, the procedure that
6 was to be followed by all the organizational units of the Supreme Command
7 Staff was regulated in great detail, gathering of the documents,
8 processing of the documents in the manner that is prescribed by the
9 regulations in force at the time on the work of the military archive and
10 of all those who had the obligation to submit or to take out certain
11 documents from the military archive.
12 Q. Thank you. Could you please tell us where was this form filled
13 in, because I can see that some items were typed in.
14 A. Well, it was not only the organizational units of the Supreme
15 Command Staff that were under the obligation to comply with the procedure
16 relating to the documents. The military archive itself was under the
17 obligation to carry out certain procedures. They had certain forms and
18 certain procedures that were binding on all of the parties handing in
19 documents, and this list is one such document. It stipulates what and how
20 is to be handed over to the military archive. It was impossible to hand
21 over a single document outside of this procedure because the responsible
22 officials from the military archive were not allowed and did not want to
23 receive any documents if they did not comply with the procedure for the
24 archiving of documents.
25 Q. I asked you where those forms were filled in.
1 A. The military archive filled it in, and they were submitted by
2 those who submitted documents. The office of the Supreme Command Staff
3 chief was under the obligation to fill in this empty form in the
4 prescribed manner.
5 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could we please look at the last
6 page of this document.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: There are two answers there, Mr. Visnjic. It says
8 the military archive filled it in, and then it says the office of the
9 Supreme Command Staff chief was under the obligation to fill in this empty
10 form. So who did it? I don't know at the moment.
11 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Colonel, let us clear this up. Who filled in the empty form?
13 A. Well, in this specific case it was the office of the chief of the
14 Supreme Command Staff.
15 Q. Thank you. Now, once a form that has been filled in comes into
16 the archive with the documents, do you know what the procedure was?
17 A. The responsible person from the military archive received the
18 documents in the same order as listed here one document after the other.
19 So the responsible person handed in the document, in this case it was the
20 responsible person from the office, and on the other hand it was taken
21 receipt of by the responsible person from the military archive. And if
22 the document had everything it had to contain, then it could be received.
23 If it didn't meet those requirements, it was not received.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Now, could we scroll down this last
1 page a little bit.
2 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel and witness please make pauses
3 between questions and answers.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: I hope you got that message, Mr. Visnjic, to pause
5 between question and answer.
6 MR. VISNJIC: I'm sorry.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Please continue.
8 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation].
9 Q. Colonel, who signed this document on the right-hand side, the
10 signature there?
11 A. At the very outset I said that the procedure of preparing and
12 handing over the entire documentation --
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Simple question. Please listen carefully to the
14 question, which is: "Who signed the document on the right side?" That's
15 a very easy one to answer if you can read the signature.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just had the intention of
17 explaining this here, the first name and the last name --
18 JUDGE BONOMY: If Mr. Visnjic wants an explanation, he'll ask for
19 it. Just tell us who signed the document.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well. I signed the document,
21 as authorised.
22 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Thank you. Tell me, on the right-hand side, the handwritten text
24 and the signature, who signed that?
25 A. I don't know what you mean on the right-hand side.
1 Q. Column 7, towards the bottom, vertically written text and there is
2 a signature.
3 A. Could it please be turned around and zoomed in because, quite
4 simply, I cannot see who wrote that and signed that. This is the first
5 time I see it this way. It says: "Received for the military archives by
6 warrant officer first class Dusan Mladenovic." And it's probably the
7 signature of the authorised official from the military archives.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to move
10 on to another exhibit now, 3D1078.
11 Q. Colonel, General Ojdanic in March 2002 sent you a letter. At that
12 time you were working in the Ministry of Defence, the Federal Ministry of
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. At that time you and General Ojdanic were not on the best of terms
16 personally; I see that from the content of the letter.
17 A. Well, I wouldn't put it that way, that we weren't on the best of
18 terms; quite simply, there wasn't a quality communication, which does not
19 mean that we were not on the best of terms.
20 Q. Thank you. Now I'm going to read out paragraph 3 to you.
21 Paragraph 3 of this letter that says: "To my astonishment on the 21st of
22 February, 2002, in the newspaper Vojska," army, "on pages 8 and 9 a text
23 appeared 'problems with resubordination of MUP forces.' One of the
24 documents under the subheading the 'summarization of report results' is
25 something I'm seeing for the first time a report of the command of the 3rd
1 Army, strictly confidential number 872-94/1-2 about the resubordination of
2 units and organs of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia."
3 Colonel, can you tell me what it was that General Ojdanic asked
4 you to do in relation to this document.
5 A. He asked me through this letter to provide an answer as to whether
6 I'm aware of such a document; and if so, whether such a document ever
7 reached the office, the cabinet, of the chief of the Supreme Command
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have page 2 of this
11 document, also paragraph 3.
12 Q. In this paragraph General Ojdanic writes to you and says: "As
13 Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command, I want my conscience to be
14 perfectly clear from every point of view. You know full well -- you know
15 full well what my conscience and responsibility are in carrying out my
16 functional duty. Can you imagine that had I received such a report I
17 would have silently passed over it without having directly informed my
18 collegium and Supreme Command about it, examined the proposed measures,
19 and notified the command of the 3rd Army of all this as per the
20 methodology of work which was applied by the Supreme Command Staff?"
21 Colonel, you worked with General Ojdanic for a long time. How
23 A. From the end of 1993 when he was appointed commander of the 1st
24 Army up until the end of 1996/beginning of 1997, when General Ojdanic was
25 transferred to become deputy Chief of General Staff. It was the end of
1 1998 when he was appointed Chief of General Staff. I was asked to assume
2 the duty of the deputy chef de cabinet to the Chief of General Staff.
3 Q. All right.
4 A. Do I respond to this and does it suit me to assume that duty --
5 Q. All right. Let's not deal with it so extensively. You've known
6 him for quite a while.
7 A. Almost ten years.
8 Q. On the basis of everything that you know about General Ojdanic,
9 what General Ojdanic wrote here, is that correct? Is that the way he
10 reacts when he receives a report that has the kind of content that this
11 document to the 3rd Army had?
12 A. I fully accept --
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, Mr. Visnjic, what kind of a question is
14 that? If you've got a particular incident to put to the witness that he
15 can help us with or ask him about specific occasions, fine, but to put a
16 question about a similar set of circumstances to this in general is not
17 going to help us.
18 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I'm going
19 to move on to the next exhibit, 3D1077.
20 Q. Colonel, a few days later you replied to General Ojdanic by way of
21 this letter. In paragraph 3 of this document that is going to appear
22 before you right now, what did you actually establish in relation to this
23 document of the 3rd Army that General Ojdanic asked you about?
24 A. Well, precisely this, what I wrote here; that is to say that I did
25 not have any knowledge about that report and since at that time I was
1 already working at the Ministry of Defence, it's -- it was almost two
2 years from that period, if I can put it that way. I checked with my
3 colleagues who had stayed at the office of the Chief of General Staff, and
4 I was given this kind of return information, as I wrote here.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further
7 questions for this witness.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
9 Mr. Ackerman.
10 Mr. Hannis.
11 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
12 Cross-examination by Mr. Hannis:
13 Q. Good morning, Colonel. I'd like to ask you a few questions. Let
14 me follow up with that letter, Exhibit 3D1078. It's my understanding that
15 this is a letter from General Ojdanic to you; is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And at the bottom --
18 A. If it's the letter that I do not find here, it's not visible on my
19 screen -- ah, yes. If it's this letter, then yes.
20 Q. And at the bottom of page 1 of the English and I believe it may be
21 the very top of page 2 in the B/C/S he indicates that he's asked you to
22 help him locate this document. And he says: "Unfortunately you turned a
23 deaf ear to my request for reasons and intentions known to you."
24 Did you respond to this letter, Colonel?
25 A. I don't understand, what question are you referring to?
1 Q. Well, he seems to be indicating that he had made an earlier
2 request for the archive list and the combat documentation. And he
3 says: "Unfortunately you turned a deaf ear to my request for reasons and
4 intentions known to you."
5 And then he goes on to say: "It is hypocritical, to say the
6 least, to refer to the decisions of the Supreme Defence Council which
7 allegedly prevents you from fulfilling my request because I am seeking a
8 strictly confidential combat document which was published publicly in the
9 Vojska magazine."
10 So is that correct, had he previously asked you for this document
11 or information about the archive list concerning this document and you had
12 turned him down?
13 A. The overall communication between General Ojdanic and me
14 personally was not regulated by way of particular correspondence. This is
15 the only correspondence we had, which means that before that and after
16 that, our communication was regulated, as was fitting in terms of the
17 relationship that he and I had. He made a request, either orally or on a
18 little piece of paper through one of his associates. Now, why I did not
19 answer, I cannot say now quite precisely. The only thing I can do is
20 assume that in this period in between, a decision had been made by the
21 Supreme Defence Council that had given a certain number of protective
22 measures in terms of treating documents that are marked as a state secret,
23 military secret, strictly confidential, and so on. So with these
24 documents one had to behave only in the prescribed way. If it is
25 necessary for me to describe this prescribed way to you, I stand ready to
1 do that.
2 Q. Well, let me ask you this: I'm not clear about your answer.
3 Are -- did you reply to this request from General Ojdanic; and if so, was
4 that by a written communication or by letter or by telephone call or in
6 A. Well, I think -- well, that is to say that I cannot remember with
7 certainty now, but as for one of the persons who had direct cooperation
8 with him, I gave a response orally that I could not seek that document
9 except in the prescribed manner, but I did reply. And I assume that this
10 letter is precisely a response indicating his justified dissatisfaction.
11 Q. His justified dissatisfaction with your first reply, correct?
12 A. Yes. Yes.
13 Q. But I also have a question, then did you respond to this letter
14 from I think it's the 2nd of March, did you respond to this letter?
15 A. Well, precisely. The letter I have before me now on the monitor
16 caused the official written response, the one that was displayed on the
17 screen previously.
18 Q. All right. Let me then go back to your -- your statement which is
19 Exhibit 3D1111. If I understand it correctly, your job during 1999 and
20 during the NATO air-strikes, did you work for Colonel Vlajkovic? Was he
21 your immediate superior?
22 A. I worked with Colonel Vlajkovic. I did not work for him. I
23 worked for the cabinet of the chief of the Supreme Command Staff, or
24 rather, the Supreme Command Staff. I was officially his deputy.
25 Q. You were officially Colonel Vlajkovic's deputy, correct?
1 A. Yes, yes.
2 Q. Can you tell us which meetings you attended. Did you attend the
3 meetings that we've been referring to here as the daily evening briefings
4 during -- during the war?
5 A. During the war at all sessions of the collegium of the Supreme
6 Command Staff, Colonel Vlajkovic was present. I think that once or twice
7 in a period of time while he was absent - this was justified absence - I
8 attended these sessions once or twice, not more than that. As for all the
9 other 70 days out of the total of 72, Colonel Vlajkovic was present.
10 Q. I need some clarification about this. We have some minutes from
11 meetings that were referred to as the VJ collegium, and some witnesses
12 have referred to these daily evening briefings as collegium meetings and I
13 think sometimes as meetings of the Supreme Command Staff. Is there any
14 difference between all that? Can you explain? Because the only document
15 that I've seen that's described as a meeting of the VJ collegium during
16 the 78 days of the NATO air-strikes is from the 9th of April.
17 A. I cannot judge about somebody's precise or imprecise wording,
18 whether somebody called it meetings or sessions, but the official
19 terminology that is recorded in all the written and unwritten documents,
20 this body is called the collegium and its meetings are called sessions of
21 the collegium of the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command. They were
22 held every day in the evening, as I assume you have known for a while now.
23 Q. Okay. Is there any difference then in the personnel who are
24 members of what's called the Supreme Command Staff and what you referred
25 to just now as the collegium? Are we talking about the same people?
1 A. The regular composition of the collegium meant that body, and
2 perhaps sometimes there was a need for the part of that composition to
3 attend for a meeting to be held in a broader or a narrower composition,
4 but officially that was the collegium of the Chief of Staff of the Supreme
6 Q. And if someone talks about the Supreme Command Staff, does that
7 mean the same thing as the collegium or are there some additional people
8 on the Supreme Command Staff?
9 A. Well, in the regular conceptual formulation of this body, that was
10 the staff or the collegium of the staff of the Supreme Command, that would
11 be more or less the same thing. But based on the assessment of the
12 superior commander, that would be the chief of the Supreme Command Staff,
13 that body could in the formal number that was -- that there could be more
14 people or less people, and in some cases the collegium session would be
15 held in the extended composition. That was up to the assessment of the
16 chief of the Supreme Command, both at the time when it was the Supreme
17 Command and in the period immediately before the aggression and after the
18 aggression. So it depended on the actual need and the assessment of the
19 Chief of the General Staff or of the chief of the Supreme Command Staff.
20 That body could either have the composition as provided for in the
21 organizational chart or could be narrower or extended.
22 Q. And was it General Ojdanic as the chief who made that decision
23 about whether it was narrower or extended?
24 A. Precisely.
25 Q. Now, in your statement where you describe the duties of your
1 office, in paragraph 3 you mentioned that it included preparing all or
2 almost all documents being sent to the military office of the president of
3 the FRY. Is that correct?
4 A. Paragraph 3, yes.
5 Q. And is that correct, it was the duty of the office you worked in
6 to prepare all or almost all documents being sent to the military office
7 of Mr. Milosevic, the president of the FRY? It's not the only thing you
8 did, but that was one of the duties of your office, correct?
9 A. Yes, precisely so, but the stress is here on the preparation of
10 all or almost all. This doesn't mean that the cabinet was the only body
11 that prepared all of the documents, but it was responsible for preparing
12 all documents, either processed in the cabinet or in the organizational
13 elements of the supreme -- of the staff or of subordinate commands, but it
14 was responsible for preparing and processing all the documents in the
15 manner that I described in my previous answers.
16 Q. Colonel, can you help us. Can you tell us what exactly was the
17 military office of President Milosevic? How many people were in that?
18 What did they do? Were they civilians or military persons? What do you
19 know about that?
20 A. I was never in a position to see the organizational chart and the
21 establishment of the structure of the cabinet of the military office of
22 the president, in other words, but my communication with the military
23 office of the president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia went through
24 the chef de cabinet of the military office of the president of the FRY or
25 his deputy or any responsible person that was in charge of a task or the
1 kind of job that we were supposed to do together that I was in contact
2 with, including the secretary of the chief of the military office of the
3 president of the FRY. I had no reason to make this communication broader
4 or deeper, so I have no knowledge apart from what I just told you.
5 Q. One of the exhibits we have in this case is P2166, which is about
6 a meeting of the Inter-Departmental Staff for Suppression of Terrorism,
7 and the person listed as taking the minutes in that meeting is
8 Lieutenant-General Slavoljub Susic. Did you know him?
9 A. I knew him to the extent that allowed -- that our official
10 relationship allowed, not more, not less.
11 Q. And was he a member of the military department of President
12 Milosevic or the military office of President Milosevic?
13 A. Well, his function was chief of the military office of the
14 president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. He was not part of it.
15 He was, quite literally, the most responsible person and the
16 highest-ranking officer in the military office of the president of the
18 Q. Do you know the name of his deputy?
19 A. Well, it depends on the actual period. In the period when the
20 Supreme Command Staff operated, I had no opportunity to find out or to see
21 any other person apart from his secretary, who was also his deputy. But
22 in the period before the aggression, and I can't really now tell you
23 whether it was also after the aggression, but before the aggression I was
24 communicating with his deputy, at that time it was Colonel Nedjo
1 Q. Thank you. Now I'd like to talk about the -- the archive list
2 that Mr. Visnjic asked you about. I think that's Exhibit P -- or 3D1108.
3 And if first we could go to page 1 of that document in both languages.
4 Colonel, in the upper left-hand corner there's a stamp which is
5 translated in English as "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Supreme Command
6 Staff, cabinet of the chief." It has a number and is dated the 10th of
7 August, 1999. Now, do I understand correctly, did you in your office
8 prepare this list, this typewritten list?
9 A. I don't know if we're looking at the same document, but the date
10 is not here, the date as far as I can see it, it's not really all that
11 legible, it's the 16th of June, 1999. I don't know if we're talking about
12 the same document, and if we're talking about the upper left-hand corner
13 there, there was the stamp of the relevant organizational unit of the
14 Supreme Command Staff, in this case it was the cabinet of the chief of the
15 Supreme Command Staff and the right and the obligation to use this stamp
16 and to apply to the documents as prescribed, that all the elements of the
17 Army of Yugoslavia were under the obligation to apply their stamps. I can
18 see this document here, it is hardly legible, but I think it is a
19 confidential document. I can't see the number, it's -- it says
20 here "confidential." But I think that the date is the 16th of June, 1999,
21 if we're talking about the same document, it's not 1992.
22 Q. Well, if I -- you heard "1992" I misspoke or was mistranslated.
23 MR. HANNIS: Can we zoom in on that seal.
24 Q. In the English it's been translated as being 10 August 1999. It
25 may not be very legible. We've tried to make it a little bigger. I don't
1 know if that helps you.
2 A. Yes, yes, it is the case, indeed. Yes, it's the 10th, although
3 again I can't really see it here, whether it's the 10th or the 16th zoomed
4 in as it is. It is number 8 and the -- it is 1999.
5 Q. Okay. Thank you --
6 A. So it's a copy.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 MR. HANNIS: If we could zoom out.
9 Q. I'm not sure if I got the answer to my original question. Was
10 this list prepared by you?
11 A. Well, in -- by reply to a question by the Defence counsel, I spoke
12 about that and I will repeat the same answer to you. The form was
13 obtained from the military archive, it was an empty form --
14 JUDGE BONOMY: We got --
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- with all the --
16 JUDGE BONOMY: We got all that. We know there were spaces and
17 they had to be filled in. The question is: Did you fill them in, yes or
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean I personally or we as the
21 MR. HANNIS:
22 Q. First of all, you personally.
23 A. I personally didn't do that job, but I was responsible to the chef
24 de cabinet and to the chief of the Supreme Command for the proper
25 performance of this job, but the technical preparation and the actual
1 typing in of all this information into this form, this was done by the
2 responsible persons, including the chief of the office of the cabinet of
3 the Supreme Command Staff. So that was an organizational unit within the
4 cabinet of the Supreme Command Staff or chief of the Supreme Command Staff
5 or the General Staff chief, they had to treat all the documents in
6 accordance with the relevant regulations in force in a proper and
7 responsible manner, including in the period of time when the Supreme
8 Command Staff was activated.
9 Q. So the actual filling in of the blank form was done by personnel
10 in your office. Was that people under either your control or the control
11 of Colonel Vlajkovic; is that fair?
12 A. Yes, precisely.
13 Q. Okay. The stamp in the upper left-hand corner where we decided
14 the date was from August 1999, who put that stamp on this document? Was
15 that done in your office?
16 A. Yes, precisely. The stamp and all the other -- this stamp and all
17 the other stamps were kept and used in that room in that organizational
18 unit which was called the office of the cabinet, so they had a right to
19 use it and also the responsibility for the proper use of the stamps and
20 seals of the cabinet of the chief of the Supreme Command Staff and the
21 chief of the General Staff and the chief of the Supreme Command Staff and
22 the Chief of the General Staff, so both the cabinet and the person.
23 Q. Okay. When you say "they," isn't this your office? Shouldn't you
24 be saying "we"? Didn't you also have authority to use that stamp?
25 A. Well, I just gave you a quite specific answer to your question
1 when you asked me who did that, and I can just as well say "we."
2 Q. Okay. Do you know in particular whose job it would have been to
3 put the stamp and the dates and the number on this particular document?
4 Was there one person whose job it was to do that kind of thing or did that
5 duty rotate depending on the kind of situation?
6 A. Well, on some occasions it changed according to the planned
7 schedule, but to be quite specific it was the chief of the office of the
8 chief of the cabinet of the chief of the Supreme Command Staff, at that
9 time it was the warrant officer first class Milorad Jankovic. And from
10 the handwriting used for the numbers and the designation of the degree of
11 classification, I can recognise his handwriting.
12 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, on the right side of this document at the
13 top there's another stamp which has an inventory number and a date of 24
14 September 1999 and a number of documents and a number of pages. Now, am I
15 correct in understanding that's a stamp that must have been put on in the
16 archives -- or at least not in your office; is that right?
17 A. Well, I don't know whether you've encountered anything of the sort
18 before, but this is not a stamp. These are all the same rubrics that are
19 usually present here in the upper right-hand corner, this is not a stamp,
20 this is not a seal. This is simply a box in the form where you could put
21 in the register number, the date, and everything else that is in here. So
22 the inventory number was not put in in the cabinet, it was put in in the
23 archive during the handover procedure. So on the left-hand side you have
24 the stamp of the party handing the document over, and in the right-hand
25 side there was a space for the responsible person in the military archive
1 to supply the proper inventory number to indicate the date when this was
2 done, and also to indicate the number of documents that were handed over.
3 So this is not a stamp.
4 Q. Okay. Thank you. I -- I understand now that this is part of the
5 blank form, correct?
6 A. Yes, yes.
7 Q. And the number of documents and number of pages that are filled in
8 in handwriting there, where would that have been done? Would that have
9 been done in your office before the documents were shipped out or would it
10 have been done at the archives when they received it, if you know?
11 A. Yes, of course. Right at the beginning in the order of the chief
12 of the Supreme Command, as I stressed, everything was regulated in
13 greatest detail. The military archive did not have the personnel, the
14 material or other capabilities to send its staff from one organizational
15 unit to the other so that -- there were several reasons why they couldn't
16 do that. It was the obligation on the part of us who were handing in the
17 documents to take it to the military archive and to carry out this
18 handover of the documents, the take-over of documents, whatever you like
19 to call it, in the premises of the military archive, that's where it was
20 done, in the military archive, the handover between the official in the
21 relevant organizational unit of the General Staff and the responsible
22 person representing the military archive of the Army of Yugoslavia.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I need a little more time. Can we take
25 the break?
1 JUDGE BONOMY: We can, yeah.
2 Mr. Radoicic, we have to have a break at this stage, that will be
3 for 20 minutes. Could you leave the courtroom with the usher and we'll
4 see you again at ten minutes to 11.00.
5 [The witness stands down]
6 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
7 --- On resuming at 10.51 a.m.
8 [The witness takes the stand]
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.
10 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
11 Q. Colonel, if you can just be patient with me a little longer, I
12 want to walk through the process to the end. So once this form is filled
13 out in your office, I take it that these documents that are going into the
14 archives are placed in some kind of box or container to physically be
15 delivered to the archives, correct?
16 A. We, quite literally, had courier bags, that is what they were
17 called. In terms of their size they're very big bags, documentation could
18 fit into it to the extent which it was needed at the time for several
19 reasons. These bags even had a special place for a padlock in order to
20 secure everything that was contained in the bag until it was handed over.
21 On that occasion it is precisely these courier bags that were used.
22 Q. And do you know how the courier bags then are taken from your
23 office and delivered to archives? Who does that or who did that at the
25 A. That is to say that in this concrete case this was done by the
1 head of the office together with his deputy. I don't know to what extent
2 you understand the idea of an office. It is not an office in the sense of
3 a physical room, it is simply a word that is used. So this office had
4 log-books and personnel and technical facilities, including operators.
5 Specifically, this was done by the head of office and his deputy. By
6 taking this bag, including its content, leaving the premises of the
7 cabinet, going to the vehicle involved, because at that point in time the
8 military archives were at a location that was a few kilometres away from
9 the location where the cabinet of the Chief of General Staff was of the
10 Army of Yugoslavia, specifically from the street of Neznanog Junaka to
11 Bircaninova where the premises of the Ministry of Defence are now. In the
12 basement even before the aggression, the military archives were located
13 there; that is to say from the cabinet premises to the vehicle, from the
14 vehicle to the location where the military archives were, and then from
15 the vehicle entering the military archives and in -- on the premises of
16 the military archives there was this procedure of handover that took
17 several days in terms of time because this is a very delicate and
18 responsible job to look at each and every document.
19 That would be it in the briefest possible terms. If there's
20 anything else in connection with the procedure and everything that has to
21 be done or was envisaged in that procedure or that was to be expected, I
22 can speak about it in greater detail, too.
23 Q. Okay. Thank you. I do have a couple more questions. From your
24 answer then, so it's delivered in the courier bags by personnel from your
25 office, and at the archives you told me the procedure sometimes could take
1 days to actually get those documents logged in at the archives; is that
2 correct? Because you're going through the list and pulling out each
3 document one by one and making sure that the number of documents and the
4 number of pages as listed are correct. Is that how it worked?
5 A. Precisely. The procedure of the handover in terms of the people
6 who did not have occasion to work on this or see this seems simply;
7 however, as you said this now this is exceptionally responsible and very
8 complex because the responsible person from the military archives was
9 duty-bound to carry out a full examination, not a partial one, a full
10 examination of everything that he was receiving.
11 These documents had to be either originals or, if so prescribed,
12 there had to be a second and a third copy, also originals. There were few
13 occasions when only copies of documents would be received. As you said a
14 few moments ago, in particular, the number of pages, whether the first
15 page is one that matches all the attachments and so on. It's a very
16 delicate job. And finally, if the document contains several pages,
17 several attachments, was it complete, was it properly filed, was it
18 properly bound.
19 Q. And I think -- I think I heard it from Colonel Vlajkovic that at
20 the archives there was -- there was one person who would be responsible
21 for receiving all the documents that were on this list; in other words,
22 the job wasn't divided up among several persons. There was just a single
23 individual who would be responsible in this case for dealing with this
24 list of some 110 archive units or archive items. Is that right?
25 A. Well, I cannot be quite sure that that is the way it was, as my
1 colleague Mr. Vlajkovic said to you. But I know in terms of this entire
2 work on behalf of the cabinet of the Chief of Staff of the Supreme
3 Command, the General Staff, on behalf of the archives, the head of the
4 archives, they would have to assess in terms of the number of the
5 documents, the complexity of these documents whether it was necessary to
6 engage one or two persons.
7 On specific occasions, I did not attend the handover, I just got a
8 feedback, or rather, a report from the person who carried this out, and
9 then I informed the chef de cabinet about that. I did not -- I do not
10 recall having informed him of the number of persons who took part in this
11 from the military archives. Was it the chief of the military archives who
12 assessed that the documents coming from the Chief of Staff of the Supreme
13 Command or from some other organic entity of the Supreme Command Staff
14 required two or three or more persons? I really could not have that
15 particular information.
16 But at any rate, the procedure involving the signing and the
17 receipt, or rather, the handover, all this was signed by one person, one
18 person on behalf of the cabinet of the Chief of Staff of the Supreme
19 Command and the authorised official of the military archives. And I think
20 that you can see this from the document itself here. I told you before
21 the break, it was --
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Radoicic, you've answered the question I
23 think. If Mr. Hannis wants more information, he'll ask for it.
24 Mr. Hannis.
25 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
1 Q. Colonel, then, so in the actual process of the physical handover
2 at the archives someone from your office from the cabinet of the chief
3 would have been present during the process when it was being checked by
4 the person receiving these materials at the archive. Is that how it
6 A. Absolutely. That is compulsory, otherwise the handover could not
7 take place.
8 Q. And we've seen on this document that the typewritten entries with
9 the number of documents and the number of pages for each separate item,
10 we've seen instances where there have been handwritten changes. Now, when
11 and where would those have been made? Was that at the archives during the
12 handover process when each document is being looked at one by one?
13 A. In the technology involved as far as I knew, and I think that I
14 managed to deal with all of that because I was responsible and I had to
15 ascertain all of this, when this came back, that is to say the responsible
16 person at the cabinet of the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command, I did
17 not see that these corrections were there. However, I know that the
18 responsible person from the military archives, when receiving
19 documentation, could either receive this documentation or refuse to
20 receive this documentation. Or if it would happen, perhaps there were one
21 or two cases, that it was incomplete with a certain degree of confidence
22 he could agree to have the documentation supplemented at a later date;
23 otherwise he would not sign that, or rather, he would not sign that he
24 received such documents and with such numbers. This is the first time I
25 see these corrections. Probably there is some reason in some -- on some
1 occasion, I don't know when, I cannot say whether it was during the
2 handover, probably it -- this correction was entered and it was
3 initialled. And as I said to you when you showed me this page, 2, yes,
4 yes, it is the list on page 2 where you can see the signature of that
5 person from the military archives, then that is the responsibility of that
6 person to receive it in that way.
7 MR. HANNIS: Could we go to pages 2 and 3 of the B/C/S and put
8 them up side by side for the witness.
9 Q. Yes, Colonel, and I think we determined that the signature on the
10 right-hand -- far right-hand column of the last page appears to be that of
11 warrant officer first class Dusan Mladenovski?
12 A. I can just make an assumption, like you. I do not appear as an
13 expert. I did not have occasion to see the signature of this person, but
14 in terms of what we see here and the signature we see here, it is not my
15 signature and it is not the signature of anyone from the office of the
16 Chief of General Staff. So as for how meritorious all of this is ...
17 Q. Well, let me ask you this: The corrections -- the handwritten
18 corrections that are made sometimes in the -- in column 4, which has the
19 log number and date of the documents, and sometimes in columns 5 and 6,
20 which list the number of documents or the number of pages, those changes,
21 would they have been made by someone from your office or by the archivist
22 receiving the documents, if you know?
23 A. The only person who had the right to carry out corrections was the
24 responsible person from the military archives. Our corrections would not
25 be accepted. Our list had to be made very precisely, very pedantically,
1 so that it could be prepared for handover. With such corrections -- well,
2 that was one's attitude towards this kind of responsible job. One would
3 not dare to go to start the procedure of handover with such corrections,
4 let alone to have it completed that way. So the procedure had to be very
5 precise, correct, and also it had to be very legible without a single
7 Q. This archive list, do you know how many copies of it would have
8 been made and how they would have been distributed? Do you know that?
9 A. I just know that one copy had to be, if I can put it that way,
10 with the party that was delivering the document and another copy with the
11 party that was receiving the document. I don't know whether the receiving
12 party needed to have it copied further. We as the handing-over party
13 needed just one copy.
14 Q. So the copy you got back --
15 A. -- that was the original.
16 Q. You got the original back or did the archives keep the original or
17 do you know?
18 A. The list itself was made in two copies, and these two copies were
19 equal to the original. So it was a second original, it was not a carbon
20 copy, so we cannot say that it was the second carbon copy. The other copy
21 had to be identical to the first one, so both copies; that is to say for
22 the receiving party and for the handing-over copy, they had to be
24 Q. So you're talking about what I would refer to as duplicate
25 originals, two copies of the same thing both intended to be treated as
1 originals, correct?
2 A. Precisely.
3 Q. And so in this situation where we have handwritten changes made on
4 the document, you're saying there would be a second document with those
5 same handwritten changes made on it?
6 A. That's the way it should be. When I say "should be," I can
7 clarify, if necessary. I don't want to be more extensive than necessary.
8 Q. Well, I'm running over my time so I'm going to try to finish
9 quickly. Could you explain why you mean -- should be, do you mean that's
10 the way it should be but you don't know if that happened in this
11 particular instance?
12 A. If the corrections were made in the proper way, and judging by the
13 signature, that's what's probably happened, then both the first duplicate
14 original and the other duplicate original had to have been corrected in
15 the same manner. If that was not the case, then the whole procedure was
16 improper, but I cannot now tell you more. Only the officials who actually
17 did that would be in a position to tell you more if they were, in fact, in
18 charge of that, if that was their responsibility.
19 Q. Okay. And the copy, the duplicate original that you as the
20 sending party of these materials would have gotten, where would that be
21 kept in your office, basically your receipt, I would call it, where would
22 that be kept in your office?
23 A. Well, you used the right term, "receipt." By signing this, you
24 confirm that you took receipt of those documents. After the handover
25 procedure was over, that list was supposed to be kept in metal boxes, in
1 metal filing cabinets, in the premises of the office -- of the head of the
2 office of the cabinet of the chief of the Supreme Command Staff or the
3 General Staff.
4 Q. And, Colonel, do you know, could you help us out if today we
5 wanted to go to Belgrade and try to find your office's copy of this
6 document, where would we look for it? Where in the archives would we have
7 to ask? What description would we give so that the Serbian authorities
8 could help us find it?
9 A. Well, if I were now to locate this document for you, the first
10 thing I would do, I would go to the military archives. In the premises of
11 the military archive, you submit a request and in this request you specify
12 the document that you're looking for. You put in a brief written
13 explanation, and the authorised official, the head of the military
14 archives then deems whether this request is justified or not. If it is
15 justified, then he meets the request in the proper manner. He shows me
16 the document for me to see whether this is the document in question. If I
17 am authorised to take receipt of this document for some further action,
18 for a time-period that may be limited or not, I would then go with this
19 document to the office of the chief of the cabinet of the Chief of the
20 General Staff, and I would ask them to tell me what happened with this
21 document, whether this document was retained.
22 It would depend on the instruction that existed in the Army of
23 Yugoslavia that envisaged to the greatest detail how documents are to be
24 treated. It is a book that specifies how documents are to be treated,
25 official documents, internal documents, state secret, and so on. If this
1 list was to be kept in this metal filing cabinet permanently, then this
2 document is supposed to be there, and if the authorised officer in charge
3 of an organizational unit, the chef de cabinet or the Chief of General
4 Staff, indeed, deemed that this document is to be kept permanently, then
5 that is what it was done. But the retention time was set, one year, five
6 years, ten years, and if this time-period has not expired, the document is
7 there. And then with the document and the document that was taken out
8 from the military archives, then you can simply compare the two, to see
9 whether the -- both copies are identical. I think that I was quite ...
10 Q. Thank you, Colonel. I had phrased my question a certain way
11 because I have some familiarity with the process because over the years
12 we've been on several occasions trying to obtain documents from the
13 archives. And sometimes our problem from the view of the archivist seems
14 to be that we aren't describing the document correctly or accurately
15 enough for them to be able to find it, and I was just wondering if you
16 could help us with what language we should use to describe this particular
17 document, meaning your copy that you would have gotten back after these
18 materials were delivered to the archive. So should we make reference to
19 the office of the chef de cabinet of the Chief of Staff?
20 A. Well, perhaps I could think of that a bit more for the following
21 reason. Every organizational unit --
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a moment.
23 You're carrying out your investigation process here, Mr. Hannis.
24 You've already had an answer that says the copy would be in the office of
25 the chef de cabinet of the Chief of the General Staff, depending on what
1 the arrangements were for keeping it. I imagine there's not an unending
2 circle whereby that document would also be trailed along to the archives
3 and a receipt received for it. But if there is, I don't think you're
4 going to get clarification here today.
5 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I'll stop now.
6 Q. Thank you, Colonel.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
8 I wonder if we could have back on the screen 3D1078. Can I have
9 it on the right-hand screen, please, on the LiveNote screen so I can
10 magnify it on this screen. And the next page. That page in B/C/S also,
12 Questioned by the Court:
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Radoicic, could you go to the second-last
14 paragraph that you see now on the screen where Mr. Ojdanic talks about you
15 being self-conceited and having a high opinion of your grandure. And if
16 you go to the sixth-last paragraph, which means going back to I think the
17 previous page unless you scroll down and we can see it - yeah, it's on
18 this page - where he refers to it being hypocritical to refer to the
19 decisions of the Supreme Defence Council. That led to Mr. Visnjic
20 suggesting to you in his initial questioning that you and Mr. Ojdanic were
21 not on the best of terms. What caused him to refer to you in this way?
22 A. Well, I have to tell you now with full responsibility and with
23 full sincerity vis-a-vis Mr. Ojdanic that in this procedure the level of
24 responsibility for the speed of my action was not sufficiently determined,
25 and I think that I should apologise now because my powers of assessment
1 were far less than those that he had, his assessment was broader, but on
2 the other hand for formal and legal reasons I was prevented, I was
3 hindered. I could not start searching for this document because pursuant
4 to this decision of the Supreme Defence Council that I cannot now refer to
5 precisely, but I do know that this decision prohibited the use of
6 documents - I think that I did not add that at the beginning - documents
7 that were classified as strictly confidential, state secret, and so on.
8 Except in those cases where approval was obtained. At that time I was at
9 the cabinet of the defence minister and I did not get, I did not ask, for
10 that approval. And that is where I made this big mistake. And this is
11 what I am responsible for. I did not ask officially for the approval to
12 go and look for this document.
13 And thirdly, this document was no longer within my purview because
14 at that time it was already either at the military archives or at the
15 cabinet of the Chief of General Staff. If you allow me, let me just
16 finish. So the military archives in that period of time were under the
17 administration for the information of the General Staff of the Army of
18 Yugoslavia, and I had no right to issue any orders asking to get this
20 JUDGE BONOMY: What changed then after you received the letter
21 which is now on the screen?
22 A. Well, I don't know what you mean. Nothing changed. I got the
23 official -- I got an official letter from him, from army General Dragoljub
24 Ojdanic, and I replied to that letter.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: And are you saying his original request wasn't
2 A. In that period, procedure on those requests was not something that
3 was regulated as far as I was concerned. I was not under any obligation
4 to do that, but I had to treat his initial request with a much higher
5 degree of responsibility than I did, and I feel that I'm personally
6 responsible in this case. And this is how he painted this failure on my
7 part, and he was fully right. Whether this was my conceit, my delusion of
8 grandure, this is not something that I manifested because my personal and
9 my professional treatment of General Ojdanic was always the same. But at
10 that time I was not at the level. And if you can say that I have moral
11 responsibility for not being up to scratch, then I admit that it is the
12 case. In the time that passed, I came to be convinced that the least that
13 I can be charged with is moral responsibility.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: When the question was originally put to you by
15 Mr. Visnjic your answer was: "There was not a quality communication."
16 What did that mean?
17 A. Well, at that time when this correspondence occurred, I think that
18 the relations between -- the relations were not regulated in a proper
19 manner, or rather, the relations were in accordance with the regulations,
20 but in light of the situation and in light of the needs, I think that this
21 level of regulation was such that it did not allow me to evince a greater
22 degree of responsibility such as I should have. The chef de cabinet of
23 the federal defence minister did not -- was not superior to the Chief of
24 General Staff, which was at that time fully autonomous, that is different
25 to the current situation where the defence minister is in some aspects
1 superior to the Chief of General Staff. It was not so at the time, and I
2 couldn't evince this higher degree of responsibility, and that is why I
3 considered that I did not deal with this in a proper way.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
5 Mr. Visnjic.
6 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have no questions in
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Radoicic, that completes your evidence; thank
10 you for coming here to give it. You're now free to leave the courtroom.
11 [The witness withdrew]
12 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm reminded that I should have made it clear at
13 the outset today that Judge Nosworthy's absence is on account of urgent
14 personal business and that we did consider the position again this morning
15 and decided to continue in her absence in the interests of justice.
16 Your next witness, Mr. Visnjic?
17 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, our next witness is
18 General Milan Uzelac.
19 Your Honour, while we're waiting for the witness I can tell you
20 that this will be a viva voce witness and we anticipated his testimony
21 would take about 20 minutes, and it will mostly be about parts of evidence
22 of witness Djorovic, Prosecution witness Lakic Djorovic.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
24 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
25 [The witness entered court]
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, Mr. Uzelac.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Could you please make the solemn declaration to
4 speak the truth by reading aloud the document which will now be shown to
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
7 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Please be seated.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: You'll now be examined by Mr. Visnjic on behalf of
11 Mr. Ojdanic.
12 Mr. Visnjic.
13 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 WITNESS: MILAN UZELAC
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 Examination by Mr. Visnjic:
17 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, General.
18 A. Good day.
19 Q. General, can you please tell the Trial Chamber briefly about your
20 military career, which duties you performed.
21 A. I began my career just like the majority of officers in the units
22 of the Army of Yugoslavia. The last three functions that I carried out in
23 the General Staff were the independent desk officer, expert desk officer,
24 for analysis or planning of movement; deputy chief of the transport
25 administration; and then the chief of the transport administration until
1 the end of my career.
2 Q. General, which duties were you performing in the course of 1999?
3 A. In the course of 1999, I was the chief of the administration --
4 transport administration of the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia.
5 Q. In the second half of 1999, was the General Staff of the Army of
6 Yugoslavia resolving the problem of vehicles that were in the possession
7 of the Army of Yugoslavia and were not from the establishment?
8 A. Yes, that is correct.
9 Q. Can you please tell us what it means when the vehicles are not
10 from the establishment.
11 A. When the vehicles are not from the establishment, it means that
12 they are not entered in the military central register and that they come
13 from other sources.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please look at the
16 table Exhibit P2752, this is a Prosecution exhibit.
17 Q. General, you are aware of this document and the document is
18 titled: "Overview of confiscated and seized motor vehicles."
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Who drafted this document?
21 A. The document was drafted by the transport administration in the
22 second half of 1999.
23 Q. In terms of structure, General, where did these vehicles come
24 from, General? And before that let me ask you what was the purpose of
25 this overview?
1 A. The overview was drafted in order to resolve the issue of vehicles
2 that were in the units of the army and were not in the establishment
4 Q. And now you can tell me, we have a table here where it is clearly
5 stated where -- which units the vehicles are from, the type or model of
6 the vehicles, their number. Where did these vehicles come from, how did
7 they end up in the units of the Army of Yugoslavia?
8 A. The precise answer how individual vehicles ended up in the units
9 is something that we are not able to answer. We were not able to give an
10 answer to that at that time either.
11 Q. But do you have a broader idea, a broader picture?
12 A. Yes. According to information, the vehicles came from customs,
13 where they were seized and given to the army for temporary use. A certain
14 number of vehicles were given from -- by the judiciary organs which had
15 been seized during the commission of crimes, and a number came from the
16 areas where combat activities were carried out. There is a certain number
17 of vehicles among the total number that were mobilised but were not
18 returned in time because the addresses of those who had provided them were
19 unknown and did not have the required documents that are necessary in
20 order to do this.
21 Q. For purposes of the transcript, page 55, line 2, you said that a
22 number of vehicles were given to the army by customs. Am I correct? Did
23 I hear you correctly?
24 A. Yes, you are correct.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: That's line 49 [sic] of page 54. Customs,
1 judiciary, and combat areas are the three sources that he's given.
2 MR. VISNJIC: Yes. I'm sorry, Your Honour.
3 Q. [Interpretation] You say here that a number of the vehicles was
4 mobilised. How did you come to that conclusion? What does it mean?
5 A. The conclusion comes from the number of freight vehicles and
6 buses, and the figure given for those vehicles here is a total of 450.
7 Q. All right. Very well. Now --
8 JUDGE BONOMY: The expression "mobilised but were not returned in
9 time," what do you mean by "in time"? Do you simply mean after the war?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
12 Mr. Visnjic.
13 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. And now, General, do you have some rough idea perhaps of how many
15 of the vehicles out of the total number or in percentages came from the
16 territory of Kosovo and Metohija and how many came from other sources that
17 you mentioned a little bit earlier?
18 A. In my rough estimate and according to my best recollection, it
19 would be from 60 to 65 per cent of vehicles that came from Kosovo and
20 Metohija and the others were from other areas or from customs.
21 Q. Thank you. General, we said here before that the General Staff
22 was trying to resolve the issue of these vehicles. What was the problem
23 that you actually had with these vehicles? Can you please explain that to
24 the Trial Chamber.
25 A. The problem of these vehicles the General Staff began to deal with
1 right after the beginning of the war when these vehicles remained in the
2 units and were not returned to their owners, the resolution of the problem
3 was something that was initiated by the units because they needed to be
4 removed from the units as soon as possible because they were creating
5 costs, there was a problem of how to maintain them and protect them from
6 being taken away or spare parts being taken away. So also there was the
7 problem of the engagement of the units on a daily basis on their
9 Q. In the second half of 1999, were there any meetings held in order
10 to resolve that problem and can you please explain the procedure that was
11 adopted in order to resolve this problem.
12 A. In the beginning the problem was supposed to be resolved at the
13 level of the expert service transport administration at whose head --
14 which I headed later. Then we had some problems relating to the legal
15 nature of this matter and we asked the legal structures from the army and
16 the ministry to assist us to find a legal solution in order to resolve
17 this problem.
18 Q. General, I see that you said that you tried to resolve this at the
19 level of your service, the transport administration?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. How did you try to resolve this problem, what was the initial
22 position, what was the initial proposal?
23 A. The initial proposal was to settle this in the way that vehicles
24 after being used in the army which are not part of the army are actually
25 returned to the owners, and this procedure is very precisely laid down.
1 And according to the procedure, vehicles returned from -- are returned to
2 known owners and there would be a commission report made as well as
3 accompanying documents in the process. These vehicles did not have proper
4 documents, and then there was the problem of how to return the vehicles in
5 their original state.
6 Q. And you said that for that purpose you sought the opinion of
7 specific legal services?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. How --
10 JUDGE BONOMY: I take it this problem relates to the ones which
11 were taken in areas of combat, that the problem doesn't relate to customs
12 or the judiciary as sources of these vehicles?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The problem had to do with all the
14 vehicles mentioned here regardless of whether they came from areas where
15 there was combat or whether they came from customs, for the simple reason
16 that anything used in the army, any item, has to have the appropriate
17 documents regulating the use of that item. The vehicles in question did
18 not have proper documents because they were issued for use with
19 decisions. And then there was a problem for all the vehicles to find a
20 uniform solution and to adjust that to the needs. This was the reason why
21 the -- some of the vehicles in question were received from customs.
22 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. General, you said one thing. You said that the vehicles from
24 customs were issued with documents that were actually just for temporary
25 use, and I see that is not in the transcript, the documents were for the
1 temporary use. Is that what you said?
2 A. Yes, yes, yes, exactly.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: I think it is in the transcript.
4 Was there a problem then with the documents relating to vehicles
5 which came from courts?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Vehicles that came from the courts
7 that -- did not present a problem because there was the proper procedure.
8 When a decision is made during proceedings that a vehicle is being seized
9 or confiscated, that was used in the commission of a crime --
10 JUDGE BONOMY: You've answered the question I asked you.
11 Please continue, Mr. Visnjic.
12 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation].
13 Q. General, can you tell us something about meetings that were held
14 in order to resolve this matter, when these meetings were held, who
15 attended them, and ultimately what was the final result of such meetings.
16 A. The first meeting after the usual consultations and an attempt to
17 get a solution at the level of legal services, a meeting was held - I
18 cannot give the exact date - sometime in July or August of 1999 which was
19 attended by invited representatives of the legal administration of the
20 ministry, the General Staff, the security service, these were all legal
21 experts, and there were also people from the judiciary, representatives of
22 the court attended the meetings, and of course expert organs of the
23 transport administration in an attempt to find a joint solution and to
24 receive expert assistance in the resolution of this problem.
25 At that meeting the opinion prevailed that this was regulated in
1 the regulations, transport organs were of the view that this procedure was
2 quite slow and that this was not the best solution, at least in our
3 opinion. However, as the discussion continued, the conclusion was reached
4 that there was no other way other than to go through the regular procedure
5 which was valid at that time, it's probably still valid now, for all items
6 that are in that particular situation.
7 Q. A person called Dasic, did that person chair any one of those
8 meetings and do you know who that might be?
9 A. I chaired the meeting that I referred to. As for a person by the
10 name of Dasic, at that time this person did not work at the General Staff
11 and therefore could not attend such a meeting, let alone chair such a
13 Q. Otherwise you know who Dasic is?
14 A. Yes, I do. That's a general who came to work at the General
15 Staff, as far as I can remember, towards the end of 2002. All of this was
16 happening in the second half of 1999.
17 Q. Thank you. General, did General Ojdanic ever bring any pressure
18 to bear upon you for having this resolved?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Do you know whether General Ojdanic exerted pressure upon any one
21 of your associates or persons who participated in these meetings in order
22 to have this question resolved?
23 A. I have no such knowledge.
24 Q. Did General Ojdanic directly or indirectly communicate with you in
25 order to try to resolve this matter?
1 A. General Ojdanic did not communicate with me, either directly or
2 indirectly, because he was my second superior officer. One's assignments
3 are received from one's immediate superior officer and over those years I
4 did not receive any assignments directly from the Chief of General Staff,
5 not only in relation to this but generally speaking.
6 Q. Was there any mention at any one of these meetings that Ojdanic
7 and Pavkovic were furious because the vehicles had not been allocated?
8 A. No. These meetings, these two meetings that were organized, the
9 first one that I spoke about and the second one that was attended by a
10 larger number of people and where this table was presented at a later
11 point. There was no reference to that, especially because General
12 Pavkovic at that time was not in the General Staff at all.
13 Q. You mentioned a table now, General. This table was compiled by
14 you, or rather, your service, not Generals Gojkovic and Obrencevic; am I
16 A. Yes, you are right. This table could not have been compiled by
17 anyone but the professional organs because they have all the records of
18 vehicles, both those that are in the central register and those that were
19 not in that register.
20 Q. Thank you, General.
21 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further
22 questions of this witness.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.
24 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Cross-examination by Mr. Hannis:
1 Q. General, who was your direct superior, the one that was between
2 you and General Ojdanic in 1999?
3 A. The person who was assistant Chief of General Staff, that was
4 Lieutenant-Colonel-General Vidoje Pantelic.
5 Q. Okay. And in your position as chief of the transport
6 administration, what -- what is that exactly? What was your job in 1999?
7 Can you briefly describe your duties?
8 A. In the General Staff every administration has its precisely
9 prescribed powers and responsibilities in terms of military
10 establishment. As for the transportation administration, it was in charge
11 of planning movement, training personnel for the transport service; that
12 is to say drivers and others, and obtaining motor vehicles and registering
13 them. Those are the basic, most important tasks that were there, also
14 regulating the safety of traffic, may I add that too, that is the most
15 important work that was done.
16 Q. And can you tell us approximately how many people worked under
17 you? How many people worked in the transportation administration of the
18 VJ in 1999?
19 A. To the best of my recollection, it was between 13 and 14 persons,
20 engineers who worked in this administration.
21 Q. [Microphone not activated].
22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
23 MR. HANNIS:
24 Q. With the onset of the NATO bombing, was there a change in your
25 duties or did they remain basically the same?
1 A. The duties remained basically the same, except that during the
2 bombing two or three other men were brought in to help because we worked
3 round the clock, 24 hours a day, so it was necessary in order to be able
4 to take it physically.
5 Q. All right. You mentioned that the problem with these vehicles
6 that we were talking about is that they were not entered in the military
7 central register. Can you explain for me, please, what is the military
8 central register?
9 A. In the army there is a central register where every vehicle that
10 is in the possession of the army is registered, and one knows exactly in
11 what unit it is, when it was manufactured, and everything else that is
12 required. Vehicles that were obtained in three ways can become part of
13 this central register and that have full and regular documentation.
14 Q. What are those three ways?
15 A. First way is buying from the market or from the manufacturer,
16 where contracts are made, payments are made, and the vehicle is brought
17 into the records. The second way is that when judiciary organs complete a
18 procedure and seize a vehicle in accordance with regulations, then the
19 transportation administration is the tactical mainstay to which this is
20 reported and then they allocate the vehicle as necessary.
21 And thirdly, the third possible way is if a physical person or a
22 legal person wishes to make a gift to the military, then appropriate
23 documentation is drafted and that is how a vehicle is received. That is
24 how all the vehicles were obtained, all of those that are in the central
25 register of the army.
1 Q. For vehicles that were obtained either through a gift, as you just
2 described, or that came as a result of a judicial forfeiture proceeding of
3 some sort, who decided where those vehicles would be allocated?
4 A. Such a decision as well as for vehicles that are obtained in the
5 other two ways is made by the transportation administration.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: What happens to vehicle -- or about vehicles which
7 are requisitioned during wartime?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, these are the
9 vehicles that we have been describing so far. They were supposed to be
10 returned to their previous owners. They were supposed to go through a
11 certain procedure and to be returned to those who owned them.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: The word "requisition" means seized, if necessary,
13 against the will of the owner. Such vehicles would not appear to fall
14 into any of the three categories you've given us.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All of these vehicles that are
16 portrayed in this table do not belong to those three categories. That is
17 the source of the problem that we tried to resolve during the course of
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
20 Mr. Hannis.
21 MR. HANNIS:
22 Q. So requisitioned for the use of the army for military purposes,
23 say during the state of war, that's a fourth way that the VJ might
24 physically obtain vehicles, correct?
25 A. This concept of requisitioning is not something that we had, as
1 far as I know. I mean, I don't know how to explain this now, but this
2 requisitioning was never used as a concept.
3 Q. Well, I -- I thought we had had some evidence earlier in this case
4 that there was a process whereby during wartime the army, for necessary
5 purposes, for military purposes, could requisition vehicles from private
6 citizens or from private companies. Wasn't there such a process in the
8 A. That was supposed to be called mobilised vehicles that are given
9 along with a certificate, and you know who gives it and then a
10 compensation is provided, too, as well as for vehicles that were on lists
11 before the war started, on lists of units, for use in the case of war or
12 some other necessity.
13 Q. Okay, General. It may be a language thing. I think we're talking
14 about the same thing.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we may be, but they would not appear in the
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you please repeat your
18 question. I'm not quite sure that I understood it properly.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: These questions that Mr. Hannis is asking are about
20 the -- what you described as the military central register, and you've
21 told us the three categories of vehicle which do go into the register.
22 Can we take it that those which are mobilised vehicles do not go into the
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.
1 MR. HANNIS:
2 Q. The evidence I was thinking of, General, actually came from
3 Colonel Pesic, who testified on the 23rd of November last year. And at
4 page 7222, line 5, now he's talking about the military district, but I'm
5 curious as to whether or not the same procedure doesn't apply to the VJ.
6 He said that during a state of war there was authorisation to requisition
7 or appropriate civilian vehicles or private properties. He said: "It's a
8 planned activity to provide sufficient number of vehicles for the units.
9 That planned activity is implemented by military sectors in order to meet
10 the needs," in this case of the Pristina Corps, "and the needs of the
11 military territorial detachments."
12 Were you familiar with that procedure?
13 A. Yes, but that is not called requisitioning, at least not in our
14 terminology, and it does not mean violent seizing of vehicles. It means
15 that military territorial organs that are in charge of providing the
16 required number of vehicles can, along with a certificate, take an
17 additional number of vehicles that before the war, or rather, in
18 preparation for carrying out tasks had not been earmarked for use by the
20 I have to point out here that these vehicles that are mobilised
21 involve a certain procedure. Every year they are checked by a commission
22 and their owners know that, if necessary, they should bring their vehicles
23 in to a particular place and a record is made. One knows when the vehicle
24 was brought in and what the payments made would be for every day that was
25 used by the military, so that is unequivocal. However, if vehicles were
1 destroyed during the bombing or if there was a need for increasing
2 capacities, it is possible to do something additional about this, but
3 again a certificate has to be issued and these vehicles are treated the
4 same way as those other vehicles, except that there is not a record that
5 is compiled by the commission. Quite simply, a certificate is issued, and
6 then on the basis of that all the rights are regulated.
7 I think that it is the word "requisitioning" that caused this
8 confusion. No one requisitioned vehicles, at least not legally, the
9 military territorial organs did not do that, they did not take vehicles in
10 that way and they did not evade making the payments that were due to the
12 Q. I didn't mean to suggest that they were, General. But that seems
13 to be now a fifth way that the army might obtain vehicles, and the
14 vehicles that were obtained by the military territorial organs under this
15 procedure that Colonel Pesic described, would those have been entered in
16 the central register of the VJ?
17 A. No. Let me clarify once again. As for the central register, it
18 lists only vehicles that are owned by the military. They don't have to
19 pay any compensation for that and they don't have to return these vehicles
20 to anyone. These are vehicles that are in the permanent possession of the
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, I don't have a group four and five I
23 don't think. My impression is that all of this is about the same
24 methodology of acquiring vehicles which the witness describes as mobilised
1 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, I guess I saw a distinction
2 between what Colonel Pesic has described with the military district sort
3 of pre-planning the need for vehicles and having a list of vehicles to be
4 mobilised when needed, as opposed to sort of the ad hoc what I would call
5 requisition of vehicles, for example, during or after the onset of combat
6 by military units in the field and requisitioning civilian vehicles from
7 people on the spot, which we've had some testimony about. I think
8 Mr. Bucaliu who talked about that in his testimony.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. It may be that you can divine more than four
10 categories from all the evidence, but I wonder if this witness is
11 describing five categories. Perhaps --
12 MR. HANNIS: As long as you understand the distinction I was
13 trying to draw, Your Honour, that's all I need to do with that.
14 Q. Colonel, you mentioned -- I mean General, sorry, you mentioned
15 that one of the problems or concerns you had about these vehicles in late
16 1999 was how to protect them from being taken away or parts being taken
17 away from them. From whom did the army have to protect these vehicles?
18 A. During the air-strikes, I have to tell you now, more -- many of
19 the barracks, the garrisons, and the hangars --
20 Q. I'm talking about after the war. I understood you had been
21 talking about in late 1999, after July 1999; is that not correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. So after July 1999, who were you trying to protect these
24 vehicles from being taken away?
25 A. Well, I tried to explain that. The vehicles were in their units.
1 The vehicles were not all gathered in one place, they were in their
2 units. And because during the air-strikes the barracks had been
3 destroyed, defences had been destroyed and the enclosed areas where those
4 vehicles could be kept in a safe manner were also destroyed both from the
5 weather and theft. This was protected against civilians, all kinds of
6 thieves that could get into those areas that had not been repaired yet,
7 and definitely this was a potential risk. There was this risk of theft,
8 and that is why I mentioned that this problem had to be resolved and to
9 have those vehicles returned to their vehicles [as interpreted] as soon as
10 possible. We were not supposed to keep them for such a long time in the
11 units and in the barracks.
12 Q. You mentioned meetings that you attended in late 1999 to talk
13 about this problem with these vehicles that weren't listed in the central
14 register. I think you said there were two meetings. Is that the total
15 number of meetings you remember attending to discuss this issue?
16 A. I mentioned at the beginning of my evidence that at the level of
17 the professional service there was several consultations and meetings
18 within the transportation administration in an effort to find a solution.
19 When we were no longer -- when we exhausted all our possibilities for
20 solving this problem, we organized the first meeting I think with the five
21 or six lawyers from all the legal services in the army and the ministry,
22 and some progress was made in order to achieve a legal solution for this
23 issue, that was based on the regulations in force and legal practice.
24 The second meeting was organized sometime in November, and a
25 larger number of people was invited to that meeting, and the seriousness
1 of this whole problem was discussed and possible costs for the army unless
2 this problem is resolved was also discussed. There were representatives
3 of the ministry, of the General Staff, and primarily from the legal and
4 transport service, transportation service, they were present there.
5 So those were the two main meetings where these issues were
6 addressed. There were no other meetings of this nature because the
7 position was taken at those meetings as to how this should be resolved
8 within the legal framework.
9 Q. You described those as the two main meetings. Can you tell us
10 approximately when the first one was?
11 A. Well, I can't now recall the exact date, but I think it was
12 sometime in late July or early August of that year, 1999, and the second
13 meeting was sometime in November of the same year.
14 Q. Do you recall where each of those meetings were, the first one in
15 July or August?
16 A. Yes, yes, I do. The first meeting was in my office and I chaired
17 the meeting, and the second meeting was held in the -- in a hall in the
18 General Staff building and it was attended by substantially larger number
19 of people.
20 Q. Approximately how many people attended that second meeting in
22 A. Well, between 25 and 30 people.
23 Q. And the first meeting in your office, how many at that one?
24 A. Well, there may have been seven or eight people there.
25 Q. Did Obrencevic attend either of those meetings?
1 A. No. I don't know for the second one, but he did not attend the
2 first one.
3 Q. Finally I want to ask you about Exhibit P2572 which is this table
4 of confiscated and seized motor vehicles.
5 MR. HANNIS: Can we put that on the e-court for you.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic, is that the table that was being
7 referred to at the very end of the examination-in-chief?
8 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] You mean the document that's now in
9 front of us, the war log?
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes -- no, sorry --
11 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, I gave the wrong information. It should
12 be 2752, I think I transposed my digits.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: At the end of your examination-in-chief you asked
14 the witness if a table was compiled and he said it was compiled by his
15 staff. Is that the same as the document you had put on the screen, which
16 is P2752?
17 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
19 Mr. Hannis.
20 MR. HANNIS:
21 Q. General, is this the document that was prepared by your
22 transportation administration?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Was this used in connection with that November meeting? I see the
25 date on it is the 23rd of November, 1999.
1 A. I presented this overview because I also took part in that meeting
2 in an effort to find a solution and I took part in the debate. This
3 overview was presented at that meeting, and it was made quite some time
4 before because we knew what problem we were supposed to deal with and we
5 knew about the number of vehicles we had to have some foundation.
6 Q. Okay. Now, I take it none of these vehicles, these 1.913 total
7 are vehicles that were purchased or were the subject of judicial
8 forfeitures or gifts to the army. These are all vehicles that were not in
9 the central register, correct?
10 A. Precisely.
11 Q. Of the 1.333 listed in connection with the 3rd Army in the third
12 row there, how many of those, if you know, came to the army during combat
14 A. A long time has passed since then. I could not really give you a
15 definite answer, because even before 1999 we would get vehicles from the
16 customs for temporary use and they were then assigned to units. At this
17 point in time I don't have the exact figures for the number of such
18 vehicles that reached the 3rd Army before the bombing started so I really
19 couldn't give you any reliable information as to that.
20 Q. So you can't tell us out of this number, 1.333, how many came to
21 the army before the bombing started and how many came after?
22 A. I couldn't tell you because a long time has passed, but I know
23 that quite a few vehicles had come from the customs in 1997 and 1998.
24 Q. So how long had these 1.333 vehicles been in the possession of the
25 army without being returned or without being listed on the central
1 register? Is this a problem that's been going back for a couple of years
2 before 1999?
3 A. I'm not sure whether I understand your question correctly. Could
4 you please repeat it.
5 Q. Well, I'll withdraw it and ask you something else. Was there
6 detailed information kept somewhere in the army or in the transportation
7 administration about the sources of each of these 1.333 vehicles, or did
8 that simply not exist?
9 A. We did not have such unified records. We only kept records as to
10 the number and kind of vehicles in each unit, and on the basis of the
11 reports from the units we were able to produce this overview.
12 Q. It seems -- it seems likely to me that a certain number of these
13 vehicles must have been seized from private individuals and companies in
14 Kosovo during 1998 and 1999. Would you agree with that?
15 A. I would.
16 Q. And after the end of the war, after June 1999, what efforts did
17 you, the transportation administration in the army, make to try and
18 identify the rightful owners and return the vehicles to them?
19 A. The transportation administration and the General Staff made
20 efforts immediately after the end of the war to have those vehicles
21 returned to their owners as soon as possible, but in that period it was
22 quite difficult for a very simple reason. It was, in fact, impossible to
23 locate all the owners simply because many people from Kosovo had left, had
24 come to Serbia, to central Serbia, or went abroad, changed their
25 addresses, and we didn't know where they were.
1 Secondly, as regards the population or Kosovo and Metohija, the
2 communication or the possibility to reach the legal owners were low and it
3 was difficult to do so, and for some vehicles the owners were not known.
4 The owners were supposed to report themselves, they were supposed to file
5 a request for their vehicle to be returned to them. Some efforts were
6 made, in other words, but it was quite obvious that at that time it was
7 not such a simple -- not such an easy task, and that is why this meeting
8 was set up in order to see ways in which this could be done.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, we're well past the time for the
10 break. Have you got a lot to go?
11 MR. HANNIS: Two more questions.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Please continue.
13 MR. HANNIS:
14 Q. Did or the army make any efforts to make a public notification
15 calling upon owners of vehicles that had been taken by the army to come
16 forward and identify themselves and provide information about their
17 vehicles? You didn't do that, did you?
18 A. We didn't make any such public calls, but there were some owners
19 who knew, owners knew that they could seek their vehicles, the return of
20 their vehicles, through legal offices or in some other ways.
21 Q. Thank you, General.
22 MR. HANNIS: I have no more questions, Your Honour. Thank you.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
24 Mr. Visnjic, do you have re-examination?
25 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Just one question, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well.
2 Re-examination by Mr. Visnjic:
3 Q. [Interpretation] General, you just told us that the owners came.
4 My question to you is whether you know that even after those meetings the
5 owners from Kosovo and Metohija had their vehicles returned to them.
6 A. The owners who had documents, who had proof of the ownership of
7 the vehicles, the vehicles were returned to them.
8 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have no
9 further questions.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Uzelac, that completes your evidence. Thank
12 you for coming to give evidence. You're now free to leave the courtroom.
13 Mr. Visnjic, remind me of the estimate for Mr. Pantelic.
14 [The witness withdrew]
15 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in view of the fact
16 that it's Friday, I'll do my best to complete his evidence within 15 to 20
17 minutes max. He's testifying under Rule 92 bis, so there will be just
18 some quick additional examination -- 92 ter, I'm sorry.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm -- simply ask because there is the potential
20 of -- we're not under the extreme pressure of finishing exactly at quarter
21 to. So I think we should do our level best together to complete his
22 evidence today.
23 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours -- well, the very fact
24 that it's Friday today is pressure enough, but we will do all we can.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we shall adjourn now and resume at 1.00.
2 --- Recess taken at 12.28 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 12.59 p.m.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: I think it happens to each team in turn,
5 Mr. Visnjic, so Mr. Ackerman will be next.
6 [The witness entered court]
7 MR. SEPENUK: Mr. Visnjic is going to blame me for that, Your
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Good afternoon, Mr. Pantelic.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Would you please make the solemn declaration to
12 speak the truth by reading aloud the document which will now be shown to
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
15 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Please be seated.
17 You'll now be examined by Mr. Visnjic on behalf of Mr. Ojdanic.
18 WITNESS: VIDOJE PANTELIC
19 [Witness answered through interpreter]
20 Examination by Mr. Visnjic:
21 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, General.
22 A. Good afternoon.
23 Q. General, could you please give us your name for the record.
24 A. My name is Vidoje Pantelic.
25 Q. Before you start your testimony, I wish to ask you whether it is
1 correct that on the 16th of September, 2007, you gave a statement to the
2 Defence team of General Ojdanic and that you signed it?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Is it correct that during the proofing for your testimony here you
5 had a look at this statement?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. As for the questions that were put to you while your statement was
8 being taken, would you give the same answers if you were to testify live
9 before this court?
10 A. Yes, absolutely.
11 Q. General, tell us what were the duties that we --
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Just before we --
13 MR. VISNJIC: I'm sorry. [Interpretation] 3D1113.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
15 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. General, could you please tell me what duties you had in 1998.
17 A. In 1998 I was chief of the operative logistics administration in
18 the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia, and at the same time I was
19 deputy assistant Chief of General Staff for logistics. And in 1999 from
20 the 18th of January, or rather, on the 18th of January I became chief --
21 assistant Chief of General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia for logistics.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 A. You're welcome.
24 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, before I continue the
25 examination of this witness, I wish to inform you that we intend to tender
1 the following documents: 3D1075, that is the collegium on the 12th of
2 December, 1997, that is referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 of his
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
5 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I don't want to go into any detail
6 regarding this document. We can give the exact references in writing what
7 paragraphs of this document we are relying upon, if that is convenient for
9 JUDGE BONOMY: It would be very helpful, Mr. Visnjic, if you were
10 to do that.
11 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: So we'll admit it subject to clarification of the
13 paragraphs that you -- the parts of it that you rely upon. Can we expect
14 that to be done before the end of next week?
15 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we're probably going to
16 do that already today. We'll send an e-mail and probably we will submit
17 this on Monday.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we'll mark it for identification until we see
19 your e-mail. Thank you.
20 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 Also documents 3D743, 3D744, 3D745, and 3D746. These documents
22 are relevant for paragraphs 30, 31, and 32 of the witness's statement, and
23 it has to do with the relationship between the MUP and the Army of
24 Yugoslavia in terms of logistics. With the witness I just want to go
25 through two more documents here live.
1 Could the witness please be shown 3D1097.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: You're referring to these other four exhibits on
3 the basis that the witness doesn't say in his statement he's been shown
4 these and say anything about them, but you say that they're relevant to
5 the issues which arise in paragraphs 30, 31, and 32?
6 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Precisely, Your Honour. He does not
7 rely on them, but it is obvious from the documents that they actually
8 confirm what the witness is testifying about. These are very brief
9 documents, they are not too extensive.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: I see no objection being taken to you presenting
11 them in this way so these will be admitted -- oh, sorry, Mr. Stamp.
12 MR. STAMP: I didn't know he was asking for them to be admitted.
13 I heard him telling the Court what they were.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: So --
15 MR. STAMP: The policy has been --
16 JUDGE BONOMY: You're opposing this, are you?
17 MR. STAMP: Well, the documents have not been identified.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: You don't know what they are?
19 MR. STAMP: Well, I see the documents here and I can go on the
20 face of them but I think the documents should be identified.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Are you objecting to them being admitted?
22 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: What is the reason?
24 MR. STAMP: No foundation has been laid as to what they --
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I'm afraid you're going to have to go through
1 them, Mr. Visnjic.
2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Then let's
3 show the witness --
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Your alternative is to make a bar table filing, but
5 this may be quicker.
6 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I accept the alternative, Your
7 Honour, and in our request we are going to say exactly what the paragraphs
8 are that the witness is referring to.
9 Could the witness please be shown 3D1097.
10 Q. General, can you tell us what kind of a document this is, when it
11 was created?
12 A. This is an order of the Chief of General Staff of the Army of
13 Yugoslavia for a tour and control of commands and units in the area of
14 responsibility of the Pristina Corps. It was created on the 2nd of March,
15 1999, and the tour was planned for the 3rd and 4th of March the same
16 year. This order defines the tasks that the control, or rather, the tour
17 would involve in the Pristina Corps.
18 Q. Thank you, General. As far as I can see here from paragraph 2 of
19 this order, this group shall headed by General Ojdanic personally, Chief
20 of Staff?
21 A. Absolutely. General Dragoljub Ojdanic personally headed this
23 Q. General, could you please tell us who was on the control group, if
24 you remember?
25 A. As for the control group, there were a few of us there, his
1 immediate assistant chiefs; in addition to General Ojdanic there was the
2 chief of sector of operations and staff affairs, General Obradovic; then
3 there was me; then from security I think it was General Gajic. I cannot
4 recall all the names right now that were ...
5 Q. Well, at any rate, if I understand you correctly, you were there?
6 A. Yes, I was there.
7 Q. How many days did this take?
8 A. This tour took two days, the 3rd and 4th of March.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
11 document 1098, 3D1098.
12 Q. General, what does this document represent?
13 A. This document is a plan for touring commands and units in the area
14 of responsibility of the Pristina Corps of the 3rd Army. For every task
15 that is planned, a plan is made and one acts within a given period of time
16 in accordance with the plan made.
17 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could we see page 3, please, in
18 B/C/S and page 2 in English, please, or rather, page 3, I'm sorry.
19 Q. Now, General, it is my understanding that this activity, or
20 rather, this trip was planned in detail.
21 A. Absolutely, in detail from the departure from the General Staff to
22 the arrival at the airport, and then from Batajnica airport we flew to
23 Zlatan airport in Pristina --
24 Q. General, General, you don't have to go into all this detail. The
25 Judges can read this for themselves. What I wanted to ask you is the
1 following: To the best of your recollection throughout this two-day
2 activity were you with General Ojdanic all the time?
3 A. Absolutely, I was with him all the time.
4 Q. From this itinerary here --
5 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] And, Your Honours, it is on pages 3,
6 4, and 5 in B/C/S, I assume that it's similar in the English text.
7 Q. -- you had many intensive meetings in various units, and also - I
8 see that here from a particular column - you had a meeting with the organs
9 of local government and the state authorities in Kosovo?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Tell me, as for all of these meetings involving the military and
12 the civilian authorities and the units that you toured, were there any
13 discussions at any one of these meetings concerning expulsions of the
14 Albanian population from Kosovo?
15 A. No, not at a single meeting, including during this tour, was there
16 any such discussion.
17 Q. Were there any discussions about any activities that could
18 resemble population movements, movements of the civilian population from
19 Kosovo, from one territory to another or -- or having them transferred
20 across the border?
21 A. No, there were no such discussions. There were no such plans. As
22 a matter of fact, we flew by helicopter, we took a car, we took cars in
23 the territory. The population was involved in its normal spring
24 activities, agricultural activities, and from the helicopters you could
25 see their houses and their yards and their fields. And there was no
1 indication whatsoever of that nature, no mention of any such thing in
2 discussions with the authorities, nothing like that.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, no further questions
5 of this witness.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Visnjic.
7 Mr. Stamp.
8 MR. STAMP: Your Honours, can I start by indicating that I
9 withdraw the objection in respect to 3D743 to 746. I don't think it's
10 necessary to file the paperwork.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: That's very helpful. Thank you.
12 So we'll regard these as admitted in conjunction with the
14 Cross-examination by Mr. Stamp:
15 Q. You maintained high-level contacts with the minister of interior,
16 particularly Mr. Stojiljkovic, in respect to the delivery of armaments and
17 ammunition to the MUP for MUP activities, didn't you? And when I
18 say "you," I mean the command of the VJ.
19 A. No. To the best of my knowledge, the command of the army, or
20 rather, the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia or the Supreme Command
21 Staff during the course of the war did not hold any special links, did not
22 have any special links with Minister Stojiljkovic, minister of the
23 interior. As for this subject which is of interest, generally speaking
24 when the MUP needed something they would address the Army of Yugoslavia in
25 the prescribed way, in writing, through a written document that would be
1 signed by Minister Stojiljkovic and that the army would examine. And
2 within the scope of its possibilities, it would meet their needs or could
3 not. Minister Stojiljkovic --
4 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the end of the
5 answer. Could all microphones please be switched off except for the
6 speaker's. Thank you.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: I wonder if you could repeat the end of your answer
8 there since the interpreter was unable to pick it up. You were saying:
9 "And within the scope of its possibilities," that's the VJ, "it would
10 meet their needs or could not." You said: "Minister Stojiljkovic," and
11 the rest was lost.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Minister Stojiljkovic did not appear
13 in person or in some other way, except that he signed documents that would
14 come in written form to the General Staff or, possibly, to the Federal
15 Ministry of Defence and then that would be forwarded to the General Staff
16 for having it ultimately resolved.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
18 Mr. Stamp.
19 MR. STAMP: Thank you.
20 If we could look quickly at P1910, if that could be brought up on
21 e-court. And if we could move to page 2 in the English and remain on
22 the -- on page 1 in the B/C/S.
23 Q. Paragraph 6, in the middle of paragraph 6, sir, you will see an
24 indication of arrangements being made for take-over of equipment from the
25 Army of the Republika Srpska. Do you see that? Are you able to read
2 A. Yes, that's in the last paragraph.
3 Q. Were -- were your supplies of armoured vehicles and tanks
4 augmented by supplies from Republika Srpska in 1999?
5 A. No, Mr. Prosecutor. Not a single tank was received from the Army
6 of Republika Srpska. It is clear here, stated here, that the overhaul
7 institution, the technical facility in the Army of Yugoslavia that
8 overhauled some of the equipment of Republika Srpska, agreement was
9 received that some of the equipment that was being overhauled could be
10 given to the Army of Yugoslavia for its use. We always said what it was.
11 It was some types of infantry weapons, motors for the T-55 tank, I don't
12 know exactly how many tank engines were involved, but it certainly could
13 not have been more. Then one power generator and 537G, that's it. There
14 were no tanks that the Army of Yugoslavia got from the Army of Republika
15 Srpska or from anyone else in the world.
16 Q. So you don't know of any tank units or tank formations being
17 transferred from Republika Srpska to the VJ in 1999?
18 A. No. I can say with full certainty that there weren't any such
19 situations. There were no tank units from the Army of Republika Srpska
20 that would come to the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
21 Q. Can we now move to your statement at paragraphs 13 and 14 and 15.
22 Do you have it there, your statement, paragraphs 13 and 14?
23 A. No, I don't see that.
24 Q. I'll just read it to you then. Paragraph 13 says that: "The VJ
25 was financed from the FRY budget. The 1999 budget did not contain any
1 increase in the funds for the event of a war so that the whole 1999 war
2 was financed from the peacetime budget adopted by the federal government
3 in December 1999."
4 Paragraph 14 says: "The VJ budget was about 10 million dinars,
5 but due to the outstanding payments from 1999 amounting to about 2 billion
6 dinars, it was actually lower for this amount. Moreover, the budget did
7 not contain any funds in foreign currency for equipping the army with
8 imported goods."
9 The part I wish to focus on is the budget did not contain any
10 funds in foreign currency for equipping the army with foreign goods.
11 Were there international sanctions against Yugoslavia which
12 prevented it from importing weaponry for the VJ or some types of weaponry
13 for the VJ? And I should give you a date. Were these sanctions in place
14 in 1999?
15 A. Well, first of all I would like to correct you. We're not talking
16 about 10 million, we're talking about 10 billion dinars. At that time the
17 equivalent would be about $1 billion. It is correct that at that time
18 sanctions were in place. We did not have any foreign currency to import
19 anything from abroad, and we couldn't import anything because the wall of
20 the sanctions was really very firm. So the import of any materiel or
21 anything from abroad into the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the
22 war was completely impossible, and we were very desperately short of some
23 items at that time.
24 Q. Do you know that during the time when these sanctions were in
25 place a financial structure was designed and implemented by President
1 Milosevic for the funding, equipping, and supplying of the VJ by diverting
2 funds from customs duties that were collected to foreign bank accounts and
3 to foreign arms suppliers, do you know that?
4 A. No, I don't know about that. Nobody's ever told me about that and
5 there was no discussion of that. I didn't know what kind of items were
6 supposed to be obtained in this way.
7 Q. Very well. You were assistant chief for logistics, so I'll ask
8 you this then. Do you know that the VJ was supplied with helicopter --
9 helicopter parts and high technology spare parts from abroad through sums
10 of money diverted by Slobodan Milosevic to foreign bank accounts for that
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.
13 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like Mr. Stamp
14 to show some foundation for these questions. I let him ask the first one,
15 but now I would really like him to give us some kind of a foundation where
16 does this come from.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp.
18 MR. STAMP: I'm merely asking the witness if he knows these
19 things, but if it is necessary and if it is helpful, these are the
20 results -- or these are the findings of -- in an expert report that was
21 used in the Milosevic case and that was disclosed to the Defence a long
22 time ago.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
24 Mr. Visnjic.
25 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Does Mr. Stamp mean that this report
1 is among the millions of pages that were disclosed to us?
2 MR. STAMP: Oh, I wasn't sure I was expected to answer. This was
3 disclosed to Defence.
4 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] It was among the millions of pages;
5 if that is so, Your Honour, this was not exhibited in the proceedings so
6 far and I would like Mr. Stamp to provide us with the foundation for the
7 questions he's asking of the witness.
8 Well, it doesn't matter.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: The last words you uttered are translated: "It
10 doesn't matter."
11 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] No, I'm sorry, that was an aside
12 that was meant for Mr. Ivetic. I apologise. And I'm still waiting for
13 Mr. Stamp's answer.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't think it's for Mr. Stamp to answer. It's
15 obvious that he's claiming that these were disclosed to you but not
16 exhibited as yet in the trial. Give us one moment.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE BONOMY: We're happy to rely on Mr. Stamp's assurance about
19 his foundation and we'll allow the witness to answer the question. If it
20 emerges in due course that some prejudice has been caused to you,
21 Mr. Visnjic, then you know that you can apply to us for relief from that.
22 Mr. Stamp.
23 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honours.
24 Q. I'm merely asking you, sir, what you know. And am I to understand
25 from your evidence you do not know of the VJ being supplied in 1997, 1998,
1 and 1999 with armaments and spare parts for armaments from overseas?
2 A. As for 1997 and 1998, I cannot give you an answer; and as for
3 1999, I can say with absolute certainty that there were no purchases, no
4 spare parts, weapons, or anything was obtained from abroad in the period
5 of time from the 18th of January when I took over until the end of the war
6 in May -- or in June, rather.
7 The procedure for the procurement of weapons and equipment in the
8 Army of Yugoslavia is quite strictly regulated. It is carried out through
9 the administration for procurement, which was at the Ministry of Defence,
10 physically at the Ministry of Defence, and it was under the jurisdiction
11 of the federal defence minister. The procurement could be carried out
12 only if the assistant to the Chief of General Staff for air force and air
13 defence in this case obtains funds, in this case that would need to be
14 foreign exchange, dollars, pounds, marks, whatever, foreign currency of
15 some sort.
16 And if this assistant submits a report to the administration for
17 procurement and then a tender goes out or the administration finds the
18 dealer, and then the parts come in. In this period no such thing
19 happened. I don't know anything about any such instances that you just
21 Q. And the period that you can speak about is the period beginning
22 January 18th, 1999?
23 A. No, no, it was simply not possible. It was simply not possible at
24 all. Nobody in the world --
25 Q. [Previous translation continues]... understand, sir.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.
2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I want Mr. Stamp to
3 tell me, because now I remember this report quite clearly, this was
4 disclosed to us, it comes from the Milosevic report, not because he
5 disclosed it to us but because it was in Milosevic case. I want Mr. Stamp
6 to tell us where he got the idea that the helicopters were actually
7 obtained for the Army of Yugoslavia, because I don't think that that
8 report says anything about those helicopters being bought for the Army of
10 JUDGE BONOMY: We don't think it's necessary for Mr. Stamp to
11 demonstrate anything of the sort in relation to these questions. He's
12 simply asking for this witness's knowledge of these matters.
13 Mr. Stamp.
14 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honours.
15 Q. You started out your last answer or the one before that by saying
16 you can't speak for 1997 and 1998. What I want to understand from you is
17 that because you were appointed to your position as chief of logistics in
18 January 1999 ...
19 A. I don't know where the question is. I replied that there had been
20 no imports. The Yugoslav air force did not fly at all from April on.
21 There was no sense --
22 Q. That's not what I'm asking you, sir.
23 A. -- for any parts to be obtained in this period.
24 Q. What I'm asking you: Is your knowledge about the source of parts
25 for the VJ limited to the period after you were appointed to the position
1 of chief of logistics in January 1999?
2 A. Yes, yes, I understand now. No, no. I'm absolutely certain about
3 what I say for the previous period, too. I was the assistant Chief of
4 General Staff for logistics, but the air force technical service was not
5 part of the logistics sector --
6 Q. That was not my question.
7 A. -- it was subordinated to --
8 MR. STAMP: I have nothing further to ask this witness. Thank you
9 very much, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Stamp.
11 Mr. Visnjic.
12 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
14 Re-examination by Mr. Visnjic:
15 Q. [Interpretation] Last paragraph on page 1, General, Mr. Stamp put
16 it to you that some tanks or whatever it may be on this list were actually
17 taken over from the Republika Srpska army. It says here that equipment
18 and materiel was overhauled that was offered by the Cacak Repairs
19 Institute. Could you please tell us what Cacak TRZ is?
20 A. The Cacak Technical Repairs Institute is a place where the highest
21 level of repairs were carried out in the Army of Yugoslavia.
22 Q. General, just one more question. Where is Cacak?
23 A. Cacak is 150 kilometres away from Belgrade in Serbia, in the
24 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Pantelic, that completes your evidence; thank
5 you for coming to give it. You're now free to leave the courtroom.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
7 [The witness withdrew]
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.
9 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm waiting for you to
10 ask me if we have any further witnesses for the rest of today so that I
11 can tell you we don't.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. I think you're better keeping quiet.
13 I think we resume in the afternoon on Monday, so we shall adjourn
14 now and resume at 2.15 on Monday.
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.39 p.m.,
16 to be reconvened on Monday, the 24th day of
17 September, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.