1 Friday, 15 February 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The Accused Milutinovic and Sainovic not present]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, everyone. I note the absence of
7 Mr. Milutinovic and Mr. Sainovic this morning.
8 Mr. O'Sullivan, before the proceedings started yesterday there was
9 a waiver from Mr. Milutinovic for his absence. I understand one will be
10 produced for today. Thank you.
11 And, Mr. Fila, do I take it that Mr. Sainovic is content that the
12 proceedings continue in his absence?
13 [The witness entered court]
14 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Everything's fine, yes.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
16 Good morning again, Mr. Mijatovic.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Cross-examination will continue from Mr. Hannis
19 probably for the next session till the break, and then there will be
20 re-examination by Mr. Lukic.
21 Mr. Hannis.
22 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 WITNESS: MIROSLAV MIJATOVIC [Resumed]
24 [Witness answered through interpreter]
25 Cross-examination by Mr. Hannis: [Continued]
1 Q. Good morning, Colonel.
2 A. Good morning.
3 Q. You told us on Tuesday I think it was about after this global plan
4 or the plan for combatting terrorism came out in July of 1998 that around
5 the 22nd or 23rd of July there was a meeting in Pristina and at page
6 22197, you told us that officers of the Army of Yugoslavia and police
7 chiefs of the secretariats and maybe commanders lower-level were present
8 at the meeting to discuss how that was going to be carried out. Do you
9 recall that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And where was that meeting held?
12 A. In the offices of the Pristina SUP.
13 Q. Did you personally attend that meeting?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And what was your role at the meeting? Did you speak or
17 A. As far as I remember, I didn't.
18 Q. Do you recall who led the meeting?
19 A. If you're referring to this preparatory meeting for the activities
20 to be carried out with the officers of the VJ were present, I think it was
21 Generals Lazarevic and Pavkovic who spoke and who explained either
22 something regarding the plan or something of the sort; and then they gave
23 guide-lines for implementation of that plan, what activities had to be
24 carried out in the future, and that in relation to that first action that
25 was to be carried out documents were distributed to officers who were to
1 participate in that action and that's how it concluded. That was the
2 preparation for that first action and for future activities.
3 Q. Did General Lukic attend the meeting?
4 A. As far as I remember, yes.
5 Q. Did he speak to the group?
6 A. To tell you the truth, I wouldn't be able to claim anything with
7 certainty. It was quite a long time ago, so I don't remember who spoke,
8 what they said. I don't remember the details, but you can probably find
9 it in the minutes.
10 Q. Have you seen minutes of that particular meeting?
11 A. I've seen a lot of minutes, a lot of documents. To tell you the
12 truth, there is quite a lot of facts in them and it's difficult for me to
13 remember all the details.
14 Q. Now, in --
15 JUDGE BONOMY: This is happening at more or less the same time as
16 the meeting in 6D798?
17 MR. HANNIS: Yes. I don't know if it's the same day or shortly
18 thereafter. General or then-Colonel Delic testified, Your Honour, and at
19 page 19501 and 19574 he made mention of a meeting which I believe is the
20 same meeting based on the description.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: You remember, Mr. Mijatovic, looking yesterday at
22 the incomplete minute in which there's reference to something called the
23 global plan. We also looked at it earlier in the case.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I remember the document.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: And the meeting that you're now talking about is
1 around the same time; is that correct?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Whether that was that specific
3 meeting or a day before, a day later, whether there was another meeting in
4 relation to that action, to tell you the truth I'm not sure any longer.
5 But I know quite certainly that preparations were made with officers for
6 that first action.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.
8 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. Now, in discussing this on the 12th of February during your
10 testimony you mentioned that the MUP staff didn't exert any influence nor
11 could it affect course of anti-terrorist activities because the units
12 acted on the basis of a plan that had been prepared for a particular
13 action and officers who were in charge of those units were responsible for
14 implementation of the plan. Activities were carried out in the field.
15 The units were controlled by radio equipment that the MUP staff could not
16 monitor because we used different frequencies.
17 I want to ask you a question about that and I'd like to show you
18 Exhibit P1434, and I can hand you a hard copy with help from the usher.
19 Just to have a quick look at the first page so you can see this is an
20 order from the Pristina Corps command dated the 19th of September, 1998,
21 to support MUP forces in breaking up Siptar terrorists in the general
22 Cicavica sector. By the way, did you ever see that document before today?
23 A. I think I saw it during proofing.
24 Q. And what I'd like you to look at is item number 8 which I think is
25 at page 8 in the B/C/S, near the bottom.
1 MR. HANNIS: And in the English, Your Honours, it's at page 18.
2 Q. It's the section on command and communications, and --
3 MR. LUKIC: I, if I may, for a second, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
5 MR. LUKIC: I can't see this document on the list, so if my
6 colleague could help me.
7 MR. HANNIS: Well, I usually don't put it on my binder unless it's
8 on a list, but maybe I missed it. I'll have my case manager check and
10 MR. LUKIC: Excuse me, it's checked, it's on our list.
11 MR. HANNIS: Oh, okay.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
13 Carry on, Mr. Hannis.
14 MR. HANNIS:
15 Q. Colonel, do you see that, item number 8, and in the second
16 paragraph it says: "Arrange communications according to the
17 communications plan to be drawn up by the chief of communications Pristina
18 Corps and the MUP"?
19 A. Yes, I can see that.
20 Q. And do you know who in the MUP would be responsible for helping
21 draw up a communications plan for this kind of joint action?
22 A. As far as I can see, a chief of communications in the Pristina SUP
23 was involved in this because these technical matters concerning the staff
24 and communications was done by him -- were done by him. And in the staff
25 we also had Milan Cankovic, who was also dealing with signals and
1 communications. When I spoke about that, I was not referring to the plan,
2 I was referring to the technical capabilities, because the units out on
3 the field were using different frequencies and the staff was not able to
4 follow the course of, say, an action.
5 Q. And how about Mr. Deretic from the staff, did he have any
6 involvement in communications?
7 A. There was no Djuretic in the staff, as far as I know.
8 Q. I may have mispronounced, Deretic?
9 A. It was precisely Deretic who was chief of communications section
10 in the secretariat, and as far as I know, he was in charge of
11 communications in the entire region of Kosovo and Metohija and he provided
12 support to other secretariats as well in addition to doing his job in
13 Pristina. And I think he is going to come here as a witness and perhaps
14 he would be better-placed to explain that.
15 Q. And now if we could look at Exhibit P1993 also connected to this
16 issue of communication. I'll trade you documents with the help of the
17 usher. We've looked at this one before, Colonel. This one is from the
18 meeting held in the MUP staff on the 11th of May, and I want to look at
19 page 12 in the English, Your Honours, and for you, Colonel, I think it's
20 page 5 of the B/C/S and it's under item 12 where Commander Colic is
21 speaking, and I think it's the fifth bullet point under him. He says:
22 "I gave three USW radio stations to VJ commander Jelic [Realtime
23 transcript read in error "Delic"] to use a month ago and as this is PJP
24 equipment I requested them back but they have not returned the radio
25 stations to date."
1 Was the MUP sharing some of their radios with the VJ so that they
2 could communicate with each other or do you know?
3 A. As I have said earlier, I did not go out in the field. I don't
4 know what they did out in the field, but quite definitely they had
5 cooperation between them and they coordinated their activities. And in
6 order for them to be able to do that, they had to have appropriate radio
7 stations. I guess it was done on purpose in this way so that commanders
8 from the police and the army could communicate between themselves during
9 those actions.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: On page 6, line 23 I think the reference should be
11 to Jelic rather than Delic.
12 MR. HANNIS: That's correct, Your Honour.
13 Q. Okay, Colonel. And in further discussion about those early joint
14 actions, a question came up to my mind about what happened in the field if
15 there were a disagreement between the VJ commander and the MUP commander
16 on the ground about how the action should be carried out. Who resolved
17 that? Was there a higher authority or did each one go up their own chain
18 and those two higher commanders got together? Do you know how that
20 A. As far as I'm aware, there were no particular problems between the
21 units participating in anti-terrorist activities and actions. There were
22 no problems and there was no need for anything to be resolved. Somehow
23 they always managed to understand each other and resolve any problems, if
24 there were any.
25 Q. And to your knowledge that was true throughout the war during
1 these joint actions, right? Even though there wasn't formal subordination
2 ever accomplished, the coordination on the ground between the VJ and the
3 MUP worked pretty well, didn't it?
4 A. As far as I know, yes.
5 Q. Thank you. Now, I want to show you Exhibit P1693. I'll hand you
6 a hard copy of this one as well. Colonel, this is a summary or a survey
7 of events and information bearing on the security situation for the 30th
8 of April and the 1st of May, 1999. Have you seen this document before?
9 A. I did see some. Now, whether I saw this particular one, I
10 wouldn't know.
11 Q. And this is a-- it appears to be a daily report that comes from
12 the MUP staff to the Ministry of the Interior, right?
13 A. Yes. This is a report produced by the staff on the basis of daily
14 reports of the secretariats of the interior in Kosovo and Metohija which
15 was then forwarded to the Ministry of the Interior to certain people, and
16 you can see to whom it was sent.
17 Q. Now, you told us that because the NATO bombing you had some
18 problems about being in communication with your units out in the field.
19 But how did you get the information that went in --
20 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the answer.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said yes, there were difficulties.
22 MR. HANNIS:
23 Q. But the information in this particular report seems to include
24 information from out in the field, how were you obtaining that information
25 to put in these reports?
1 A. In such situations, we were forced to solve this via couriers,
2 which is to say that a courier from the secretariat would come to Pristina
3 bringing these daily reports; and we used the same principle as in the
4 previous period. We would put it all together and send it to the
5 ministry. Sometimes it would happen, depending on the situation on the
6 ground, depending on activities and where they were carried out, that some
7 reports were late. There was a two or three-day delay in these reports
8 arriving and then once they would arrive we would put it in our report
9 even though it wasn't exactly timely.
10 Q. If you would look at I think it's the last page item number 4 has
11 information about persons who fled the territory of Kosovo. Do you
12 recall, was that information that was generally placed in these reports?
13 A. Well, when we had such information, then yes.
14 Q. And you'll see in the third paragraph under that item it says:
15 "Between 24 April and 30 April a total of 715.158 persons
16 belonging to the Siptar national minority left the territory."
18 A. Yes, yes, I can see that.
19 Q. And I don't know if you'll recall, I think yesterday we looked at
20 Exhibit P2166, wherein it contained information about the actions that had
21 been carried out pursuant to the plan between the 22nd of July and the end
22 of September 1998, and it made reference to the total -- to the percentage
23 of the total population in Kosovo that had been involved in connection
24 with that. And you may recall, I don't have the exact number, but the
25 total population was about 1.500.000. Would you agree with me, this
1 number's about half the total population of Kosovo leaving in one week in
2 April; is that right?
3 A. That's how it looks.
4 MR. LUKIC: If I may, if this is the position of the Prosecution,
5 then we would like to know it because their expert witness showed us
6 completely different numbers.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: This is you -- oh, I'm sorry, no, it is a
8 Prosecution exhibit, which has been available throughout.
9 MR. HANNIS: But I have another question.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: I want to try to understand what Mr. Lukic's point
12 MR. LUKIC: Because the Prosecution at that time claimed that
13 there were 2.200.000 people in Kosovo; now we see the number of 15 and
14 claiming that half of the population left.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah. This, though, is a document of the MUP and
16 when you're building a case as a Prosecutor, you're free to rely on any
17 material you have which taken together might establish a point that you
18 seek to make. How to interpret this in the overall context of all the
19 material bearing on the numbers leaving Kosovo or on the total population
20 of Kosovo is a matter for us at the end of the day once parties have
21 addressed us. But at the moment leading evidence of this nature seems
22 entirely appropriate.
23 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 MR. HANNIS:
25 Q. And just to be precise, Colonel, I will indicate that the number
1 mentioned at that inter-departmental staff meeting on the 29th of October
2 was 1.561.585 residents as being the total residents in Kosovo and
3 Metohija according to, I think, it was General Pavkovic speaking at that
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Just going back to the transcript, line 21 there of
6 page 10 it's at the end of the day after parties have addressed us.
7 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
8 Q. Now, I have another question about this document. When we were
9 looking at some other document on the 12th of February, you at page 22218
10 explained that every internal organizational unit of the ministry had its
11 own initial number for the documents that it sent out, and you went on to
12 say, since the staff in Pristina, the MUP staff, didn't have its own
13 number, this registration number it was assigned this number and that's
14 why the A was added in order to make a distinction.
15 But in this report from the MUP staff to the Ministry of the
16 Interior, if you can look at the first page, you'll see the number is
17 10-121/2, there's no A attached here. Doesn't that mean that the MUP
18 staff is an organizational unit and it has its own numbering system?
19 A. I see number 10-121/2, the 1st of May, 1999. I can't really tell
20 you where this number comes from, but I know for a fact that the MUP staff
21 was never an organizational unit either before or in 1999, nor was it able
22 to have its own number because according to the regulations as far as I
23 know only an official organizational unit could have been issued with a
24 number according to the rule book of the ministry. Where this number
25 comes from, I don't know, I don't know whether something has been changed
1 within the ministry and then, for example, the police administration had
2 numbers beginning with 10. I don't see the prefix here, so I wouldn't be
3 able to comment, but I know for a fact that the staff was not an
4 organizational unit of the ministry.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, can I take you back to the first line
6 of page 11 where you say: "Just to be precise, Colonel, I mention that
7 that number mentioned was 1 and a half million residents," was that a
8 reference to something said at the inter-departmental staff meeting.
9 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour, it's in P2166.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
11 MR. HANNIS:
12 Q. Colonel, help me with this. I know you've said that several times
13 that the MUP staff was not an organizational unit, but can you explain to
14 me, where do we find the definition of organizational units? Can you give
15 me a precise reference to a document or a rule?
16 A. I speak on the basis of my recollections. I'm not a lawyer, I
17 didn't draft these documents, and I'm sure that there are other people,
18 the experts, who would be able to tell you more, who would be interpreting
19 regulations and so on. Whether this was some rule book on organization or
20 some other things, I really don't know. But I know for a fact that the
21 staff was not an organizational unit of the ministry and it was not
22 something like administrations within the ministry or the organizational
23 units which had certain territory within Serbia that they cover, such as
24 secretariats and so on. But I know certainly that the staff was not an
25 organizational unit. It was a provisional ad hoc body that was
1 established by way of decisions and existed for a year or so. We saw some
2 of the decisions. Had it been a permanent organizational unit, there
3 would have been no need to issue a decision establishing the staff.
4 Q. Well, let me follow-up on that. You at page 22216, line 15, said:
5 "The staff does not belong to that group that I mentioned a while
6 ago, it's not an organizational unit. The staff was a temporary, an
7 auxiliary, body of the ministry."
8 But didn't you tell us that the staff had first been created in
9 approximately 1992?
10 A. No. I think I said it was established in 1990.
11 Q. 1990, 9-0?
12 A. Yes, 1990, that's when the first staff was established, after the
13 break-up of the SFRY started and when the other republics withdrew their
14 forces, then Serbia, the Republic of Serbia, took over this obligation and
15 established this first staff. I don't know exactly what its name was, but
16 I know that it does date back to then.
17 Q. Okay. So how many years does it take before it changes from a
18 temporary body to a permanent one?
19 A. This temporary body was never transformed into a permanent one in
20 terms of being an organizational unit of the ministry. That never
22 Q. You -- I think you've told us before, you're not a lawyer and you
23 would agree you're not an expert on the law on state administration or the
24 rules, right?
25 A. Yes, yes.
1 Q. But this non-organizational unit of the MUP was given task in
2 connection with organizational units like the SAJ and the JSO, correct?
3 A. Are you referring to the staff?
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. I did not quite understand your question. In what sense do you
6 mean this? What kind of tasks in connection with the SAJ and the rest?
7 Could you please repeat that.
8 Q. Well, in the exhibit that created -- the decision that created the
9 staff in June of 1998, we saw the task of the MUP staff, and although you
10 told us that apparently none of those were implemented, although you and I
11 have a disagreement about that, those envisioned tasks that the MUP staff
12 would have in connection with non -- with organizational units. So I
13 guess my question is: The non-organizational unit, the MUP staff, had
14 some authority over the organizational units, right?
15 A. Well, that's the way it was resolved or envisaged, but it doesn't
16 mean that the staff is an organizational unit. Of course as for the
17 implementation of these tasks, that never happened within the staff and
18 we've already said why.
19 Q. Okay. Could we next look at Exhibit 1D680. I can hand you a copy
20 of that and trade you, Colonel. This is a document from the minister of
21 the interior, Mr. Stojiljkovic. It's dated the 11th of May, 1999. The
22 first page listed as a draft decree on promotion of General Lukic, and if
23 you could turn to the second page, the second text of that document, it's
24 the minister writing to President Milutinovic in the first paragraph he
1 "I hereby propose you issue a decree promoting Sreten Lukic to the
2 rank of lieutenant-general."
3 But I'm interested in the last paragraph where the minister says:
4 "In the past year Lukic had excelled in successful command and
5 control of the MUP units engaged in the prevention of terrorism in
7 Now, can you explain to me how you fit that in with your view that
8 the MUP staff didn't have any ability and actually didn't exercise any
9 kind of control over the units engaged in preventing terrorism in Kosovo?
10 Was the minister misinformed?
11 A. I have explained, or rather, I have given evidence as to what
12 happened and how on the ground. One thing was written in the decision,
13 that is a fact, but things happened differently. It is correct that the
14 minister of the interior proposes this promotion, and that is also done in
15 case of decorations. And actually, in these proposals, there is always
16 some kind of an explanation. The minister of course signs that document,
17 which is then sent to the person who makes the actual decision, but the
18 minister certainly doesn't write that document himself. One of his
19 co-workers does that, or rather, one of his clerks, if I can put it that
20 way, or someone who prepares documents for him. I don't know who it was
21 that did that and whether that person knows at all this individual,
22 rather, whether this individual knows what was done and how in Kosovo and
23 Metohija. In the decision on the establishment of the staff there is that
24 item number 2, as it stands, and it is possible that the author of this
25 explanation, on the basis of this, provided that explanation because there
1 has to be some explanation in order to have a proposal accepted.
2 Q. Are you suggesting that this explanation was made up and it's not
4 A. I'm not saying that the author of this text intentionally invented
5 that. I'm assuming that the man didn't know what the situation was really
6 like in Kosovo and Metohija and when looking at this decision, that is the
7 explanation that he provided.
8 Q. I suggest, Colonel, an alternative explanation may be that the
9 minister and whoever authored this actually did know and they were correct
10 because General Lukic was attending Joint Command meetings through 1998
11 and 1999, as he's told us in his own interview with the OTP; and you
12 didn't know about that because you didn't know even about the existence of
13 Joint Command. So isn't that a possible alternative explanation?
14 A. I've already said that I was aware of this term but that I never
15 learned -- and actually I'm still convinced that this Joint Command did
16 not exist because I did not perceive in any way its existence. I did not
17 hear of any tasks coming from it, I didn't feel its existence quite
19 Q. So now are you saying that General Lukic is mistaken or not
20 telling the truth when he told OTP in his interview that there was a Joint
21 Command and he went to the meetings in 1998 and 1999? Is that what you're
22 saying now?
23 A. No, no. I don't know. I said that I briefly looked at this
24 statement and I saw this place where he says the so-called Joint Command,
25 which means -- well, if he says "so-called," it was my understanding that
1 it was some kind of a self-styled body. But if he stated in that
2 statement that a Joint Command did exist, I don't know about those
3 motives, but I know how I felt this and whether I felt the existence of
4 this command at all. He never mentioned that he was going to Joint
5 Command meetings or that he come with tasks or assignments from the Joint
6 Command or did he order us to make some kind of reports for the Joint
7 Command or to inform this Joint Command about how it was that we acted in
8 accordance with some order coming from that Joint Command, "naredjenje," I
9 mean, really, I do not remember any such case. I don't know how it could
10 have existed without myself and other members of the staff being aware of
11 its existence. I simply cannot explain that.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila.
13 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I waited for the answer to finish
14 because I believe that is courteous, Your Honour. You said that documents
15 should not be shown while the Prosecutor is quoting, but when the
16 Prosecutor is misquoting then the documents should be shown. Yesterday I
17 kept silent, although I did want to get up. You cannot consider it to be
18 a quotation if not everything is said, but Mr. Lukic's interview says the
19 so-called Joint Command. So please, could the witness be shown exactly
20 where it is that the Prosecutor found General Lukic admitting to the
21 existence of a Joint Command, as the Prosecutor had phrased his question,
22 and let me see that too. Because I -- as Aristotle says, I am fond of
23 Plato, but I'm even more fond of the truth. I really appreciate and have
24 high regard for Mr. Hannis, but even more for the truth. Thank you.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Can you give us your best quote on this,
1 Mr. Hannis?
2 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, he does refer to it as the so-called
3 Joint Command at page 48 of his interview, but he answers other questions
4 and he calls it "Joint Command." And I gave -- I listed to all those page
5 numbers yesterday. I don't have the list to hand at the moment. Pages 84
6 to 85, 97 to --
7 JUDGE BONOMY: It starts at 48 to 50 I think.
8 MR. HANNIS: Yes. 84 to 85, 97 to 105 --
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, we have the list, but is there an example you
10 could perhaps put up that the witness can see of a clear statement of the
11 term Joint Command?
12 MR. HANNIS: Okay. At page 98 -- well, let's start on 97 --
13 JUDGE BONOMY: We need the exhibit number first.
14 MR. HANNIS: It's Exhibit Number 948.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: And you're talking about 97 in the English, are
17 MR. HANNIS: Page 97 -- it's one document now, it's merged.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Oh, of course. Sorry.
19 MR. HANNIS: I'm starting with a question from Kevin Curtis, OTP
20 investigator. And they've been talking about the meeting in July 1998
21 with Mr. Milosevic where the plan that we've been talking about came up.
22 And if I may, Your Honour, I'll start from there.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
24 MR. HANNIS: Mr. Curtis says:
25 "That conversation when you brought up about the meeting in
1 Belgrade was prompted by me asking you Sainovic's role in the Joint
2 Command in Kosovo. Was the Joint Command discussed at that meeting in
3 Belgrade at the end of June, beginning of July, let me put it a different
4 way. Was the Joint Command encompassed in part of the plan that was
5 presented by General Pavkovic?"
6 And there's the B/C/S translation of the question, and Mr. Lukic's
7 answer, which in English is page 98.
8 "It's not known to me who took part in composing this plan but
9 Mr. Minic, Sainovic, Matkovic, and Andjelkovic were present at this
10 meeting that I already mentioned."
11 Your Honour, I don't want to read the rest unless you tell me I
12 need to. But Mr. Lukic says at the top of page 99: "As far as I remember
13 the details, it was said that Mr. Minic, Sainovic, Matkovic, and
14 Andjelkovic would be in Kosovo, but wasn't specified that there would be
15 special structure which would implement the plan."
16 Kevin Curtis then asks: "How did the formation of the Joint
17 Command come about?"
18 And then Mr. Lukic said: "In effect, the composition that I have
19 mentioned was the command, the Joint Command."
20 MR. LUKIC: Objection, it doesn't say "Joint Command." It says
21 "zdruzenu komandu," which is a different term so he's not clear about the
22 term and it's "fakticku."
23 JUDGE BONOMY: So you're challenging this translation, are you?
24 MR. LUKIC: It wasn't the translation I think, it's taped, so it's
25 the word -- those are words of Mr. Lukic.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Indeed, but you're challenging the English
3 MR. LUKIC: Yes, the translation into English is wrong.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you can understand why Mr. -- following
5 what's in English here, you can understand the questions that have been
6 put and there's nothing wrong with the questions based on the translation.
7 The issue seems to be one of the translation, which will need to be
9 What do you say would be the translation of that expression?
10 MR. LUKIC: Whatever translation is, it's -- the words used are
11 different from "zajednicka komanda," which is allegedly the term used for
12 this command.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: But you don't have a translation for this that
14 could help us at the moment? I don't fault you for that, I just want to
15 know if you can assist us.
16 MR. LUKIC: No, Your Honour, no I don't. The meaning is the same,
17 the word is different, and I think it's also substantial.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: But of course at the end of the day it's meaning
19 that matters, isn't it?
20 MR. LUKIC: Mr. Lukic never made mistake when he mentioned MUP
21 staff because it was a body in which he was, but he obviously made mistake
22 naming this body or if it -- if there is any.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Can I ask the interpreter whether there is another
24 ready translation of this expression.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Both can be translated
1 as "joint," but indeed it is two different words so it would have to be a
2 synonym in English for joint, whether we could resort to combined again
3 but I guess not because combined has already been used for "objedinjena
4 komanda," so it's different synonyms, different words.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well, we shall ask CLSS to reflect on this and
6 see if further assistance can be given to the Chamber that all parties
7 will have access to.
8 Yes, Mr. Fila.
9 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] The Prosecutor said in his question
10 that Mr. Lukic admitted to the existence of a Joint Command. I see what
11 Curtis is trying to do here. He tried that with Sainovic, and that is to
12 say to put his own words into somebody else's mouth. Find me a quotation
13 where General Lukic says there is a Joint Command, and I attended its
14 meetings, and in 1990 at that, because this is 1998. We haven't been
15 accused, at least not yet, for 1998, although in this court we're using 80
16 per cent of our time for 1998. So you said Joint Command and that Lukic
17 admitted that. I don't see 1999 and I don't see any admission. I don't
18 see that in the statement, so I'm not satisfied with what the Prosecutor
19 has said.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, if I may ...
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE BONOMY: The best way for us to deal with this is to reserve
24 the question of determining this particular objection because there is no
25 rapid way of resolving an issue over the nuances of interpretation of
1 language where a number of words mean joint or combined or unified, and no
2 doubt there are other synonyms that may express a similar but perhaps
3 slightly different idea. So in the rough and tumble of this trial today
4 we can't resolve it. We will reserve that question until we see the final
5 position, including further thoughts of CLSS on how this ought to be
6 translated and comments of the parties on that.
7 Standing the translation that we do have, Mr. Hannis, we see
8 nothing wrong with the approach you took and the question you asked, and
9 we're not persuaded by Mr. Fila's argument that just because Mr. -- or the
10 investigator -- who was the investigator?
11 MR. HANNIS: Kevin Curtis, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Just because he puts words into the witness's
13 mouth, that disables you from asking a question. It's all a question of
14 weight at the end of the day, there will be very substantial arguments to
15 be made by the Defence that because he put words in his mouth, we should
16 give little weight to the response. But that's a matter for assessment in
17 the context of all the evidence bearing on the point.
18 Mr. Fila, I appreciate -- we all appreciate your anxiety where
19 something appears to you to be misleading, but at the end of the day, rest
20 assured, we'll be looking at everything together to see if, in fact, it
21 amounts to the establishment of an active Joint Command and that's very
22 much a live issue for us that has to be viewed in the context of
23 everything we hear.
24 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] There is just this last point. I
25 accept that and of course I indeed trust you that you will look into this,
1 but my concern is something different that they insist on something all
2 the time, like those notes and minutes and whatever else. I was just
3 asking the Prosecutor to read out portions that have to do with 1998 or
4 perhaps he should have the indictment include 1998 then rather than 1999
5 only. Just analyse things, and you will see that we're only dealing with
6 1998 and that is another part of the story. Let him give me a quotation
7 on 1999. Maybe he will -- well, maybe it's an oversight on my part.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Again, Mr. Fila, there may be other evidence that
10 leads us to the conclusion that what was going on in 1998 was also
11 happening in 1999, although not specifically mentioned in such detail as
12 in 1998. It again is a matter of the appropriate inferences to be drawn
13 from all the evidence.
14 Mr. Lukic.
15 MR. LUKIC: I'm sorry for taking more time, but I just -- while we
16 have this on the screen the next paragraph, the translation one of the
17 lines starts with: "Yes" and there is no yes in Serbian version. So I
18 think this translation has to be revised anyways completely.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: These are things, though, we would expect you to
20 draw our attention to. If you're --
21 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, we don't have time to go through every
22 and each document and check translations; trust me, we don't have time.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, we are sympathetic to the point that's
24 made that there is a limit to human resource in dealing with the material
25 in this case. What we don't accept for one minute is that you have not
1 had time to minutely analyse the interview record of your own client which
2 extends to only 200 and odd pages unlike others in this case. This must
3 be a crucial document that it's inconceivable for you not to have looked
4 at carefully.
5 MR. LUKIC: I hope that you're not objecting that we are not
6 working diligently on this case, Your Honour. I think that you cannot --
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Are you telling me, Mr. Lukic, that you have not
8 analysed this document?
9 MR. LUKIC: Not translation, I didn't find time --
10 JUDGE BONOMY: I find that incomprehensible, Mr. Lukic,
12 Let's proceed, Mr. Hannis. Have you have a better example that
13 you can put that may not give rise to this controversy.
14 MR. LUKIC: Just one point, Your Honour, we got the translation a
15 few days ago and at the moment when our case started.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Why did -- has this just been made available,
17 Mr. Hannis?
18 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, that is correct. This was the same
19 situation as General Lazarevic. The translation, only the English had
20 been put into the transcript. The video -- the videotape of the interview
21 was provided to the Defence before the trial started. That exhibit was
22 admitted on the 10th of October, 2006.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: But you're saying that the English translation has
24 always been available?
25 MR. HANNIS: Correct.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
2 Please proceed.
3 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, all that can have been supplemented is a
5 B/C/S transcript, surely. You must always have had the English.
6 MR. LUKIC: That's right, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: You've just told me the English became available --
8 MR. LUKIC: No, the combined transcript became available. How
9 could we compare something that's not combined?
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you've had the videotape. I'm surprised that
11 you have not --
12 MR. LUKIC: But still my objection to this translation stands,
13 Your Honour.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: I understand that, and we will treat it as an
16 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: But if you have other objections to the translation
18 of documents of the significance of this, then these have to be notified.
19 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, what was the order we made about the
22 provision of a combined transcript in this case?
23 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I don't know that you made an order
24 regarding this, but because it came up with General Lazarevic's interview
25 we decided that we should do it for General Lukic too because he's been
1 noticed as a witness who may testify, and anticipating using that
2 transcript with him we thought we should follow the same procedure that
3 was done with General Lazarevic.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, Mr. Lukic, these cases, as you know, are
5 conducted in English. I understand there can be many criticisms of that
6 aspect of international criminal procedure, but that's the reality of the
7 situation, and it's the English that counts in the end of the day. And in
8 a document as crucial as this, it's vital that if there are challenges to
9 the English that they are intimated. And the English version has been
10 available for a very long time.
11 However, let's proceed with the evidence.
12 Mr. Hannis, can you find us a clearer example that will not give
13 rise to controversy?
14 MR. HANNIS: I can I think, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
16 MR. HANNIS: On page 49 we have in the answer of Mr. Lukic to a
17 question about the Joint Command he says:
18 "The people who were there were federal deputy
19 Minister Nikola Sainovic and chairman of the -- chairman of citizens Mr.
20 Minic; there was also Djoko Matkovic, who was either deputy prime minister
21 of the Serbian government or just minister; Zoran Andjelkovic," and if I
22 can skip a couple of lines: "But I must say that these people mentioned
23 before would sometimes meet with military and ministry members and
24 officials with the commander of the Pristina Corps, et cetera, and they
25 would have joint meetings which is why it was referred to sometimes as the
1 Joint Command."
2 And the Serbian term there is "zajednicka komanda."
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Now do we have an objection to that translation?
4 None is taken.
5 So there is an example, Mr. Mijatovic, of what Mr. Hannis is
6 putting to you. Do you want to comment on that or have you commented as
7 far as you think you can?
8 MR. LUKIC: Actually, I do have an objection, Your Honour, to this
9 translation as well. Sorry, I had to -- I didn't have time at that moment
10 to compare. First of all, it's obvious that there was a pause which was
11 not recorded in English and when we have this smooth reference like
12 referred, but in Serbian it's not "referred," it's more likely that
13 something is -- I beg the translators to translate "poistovecivanje."
14 THE INTERPRETER: Something that is identified with something
16 MR. LUKIC: Exactly, not referred, but identified, so something
17 identified with something else, not as is in English, referred to.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Mijatovic, you're able to read the Serbian
19 version of this. Just look at the end of the passage which is
20 highlighted, the darker passage. Do you want to comment any further on
21 the issue of the Joint Command in light of the comments that you're seeing
22 made by Mr. Lukic?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I think I have said enough
24 about what I know about the Joint Command. I really don't know what else
25 to say.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
2 Mr. Lukic, someone is going to have to look at this closely and it
3 has to be done soon because similar questions may yet arise as we go along
4 and it would be helpful to us if we had a clear idea of the areas in which
5 you think the translation requires revisal.
6 MR. LUKIC: This translation, I don't know if it's made by the
7 Prosecutor's office or by CLSS.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I think the one before was done by the
9 Prosecutor's office and this one also.
10 MR. HANNIS: Correct.
11 MR. LUKIC: It's obviously the Prosecutor's translation, Your
12 Honour. There are -- there are wishes in this text, not the reality.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, Mr. --
14 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour --
15 JUDGE BONOMY: -- Lukic, I'm not prepared to allow you to say that
16 openly in court. I think you should withdraw that remark.
17 MR. LUKIC: I withdraw this remark.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
19 The situation will be considered by us a little further, and if we
20 have to take steps, we'll take them; if we require you or Mr. Hannis to
21 take steps, then we'll tell you what these are.
22 Mr. Fila.
23 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] When you read the whole translation
24 into English and the Serbian version, does the Prosecutor consider this to
25 be General Lukic's admission that there was, in fact, a Joint Command?
1 That's my question. Because one cannot draw that conclusion from this
2 text, whatever language you read it in. It's about 1998, Your Honour. In
3 1998 --
4 JUDGE BONOMY: This is for later and it's not for Mr. Hannis to
5 answer any questions.
6 Let's get on with the evidence. Move along, please, Mr. Hannis.
7 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
8 Q. Before we leave this I want to address one issue raised by
9 Mr. Fila. If we could look at page 111, in the middle of the page
10 Mr. Curtis asked a question and he said:
11 "One thing I didn't ask you is, this Joint Command, where were the
12 meetings held?"
13 Mr. Lukic's answer is translated in English as:
14 "At different places, because the joint commander did not have a
15 building location of its own particular. The meetings, especially at the
16 very beginning, were most often held at the Pristina Corps command. Later
17 on, they were mostly held at the premises of the transitional Executive
19 Colonel, were you aware that General Lukic was attending meetings
20 at the Pristina Corps command and at the temporary or provisional
21 Executive Council office?
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila.
23 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Even with the most meager knowledge of
24 English, I don't know if there's anyone who speaks English worse than I
25 do, you can see nowhere does it say "zajednicka komandant," joint
1 commander, I can see that, and you know how poor my English is. Where did
2 he get this joint commander from, I have no idea. So this is why
3 documents have to be shown.
4 MR. LUKIC: We object to this translation at this point as well.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: I read that as a misprint for Joint Command, I must
6 say. Is that a mistake --
7 MR. HANNIS: Now that I see the B/C/S I think it is Joint Command
8 and not commander --
9 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] But again, it is not "zajednicka" but
10 "zdruzena" there is no word "zajednicka."
11 JUDGE BONOMY: We're back to the same word as we had a moment ago,
12 which may be command or -- combined or unified or whatever. We understand
13 that, so let's -- and this is --
14 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Let Mr. Hannis find another translation
15 which would be correct.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: For the moment, proceed on the basis of what's
17 here, Mr. Hannis.
18 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
19 Q. And on page 112, if we could, my last couple of questions from
20 this document for this witness --
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a moment.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, it appears to us to be pretty pointless
24 to continue with the cross-examination. The witness has made it
25 abundantly clear that he's not going to accept that there was an
1 organization known as the Joint Command that did anything. So is there
2 any point in any more questions other than to do a bit of grand-standing?
3 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour --
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, there's no jury here, and we're getting into
5 a very confused situation because of translation difficulties, and we're
6 really not making any progress in the time that we're spending on this.
7 MR. HANNIS: I understand. A point was raised by Mr. Fila in his
8 intervention about nothing in this says that General Lukic went to
9 meetings in 1999. That's the last point I'm trying to address on page 112
10 about when meetings occurred.
11 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Just a minor point, I didn't say that
12 Lukic said that he didn't go. I said that you did not show that. Now
13 you're showing it and that's okay and I have no objection. That's what I
15 MR. HANNIS: I would ask that we go back and look at the record
16 because I think he said it does not appear anywhere in this document that
17 Mr. Lukic went to meetings in 1999.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: I think that may be right, Mr. Fila, but let's
19 proceed then and deal with that issue, Mr. Hannis, and then let's move on
20 to other material.
21 MR. HANNIS: I will, Your Honour. Thank you.
22 Q. Colonel, page 112, and now this is Philip Coo asking a question.
23 "So during the time of the bombing where would the Joint Command
24 be most often?"
25 General Lukic answered: "Due to the specific situation in this
1 period, the changes in the locations of the army command as well as the
2 MUP staff or headquarters, the meetings were held at whichever location we
4 And then he went on to say: "I'm sorry to interrupt, but now it's
5 all coming back to me, speaking of the places where the meetings were
6 held. They were usually held in basements, but most often they were held
7 in the shelter of Grand Hotel."
8 Now, does that help you remember that General Lukic was also
9 attending meetings in the basement of the Grand Hotel during the bombing?
10 A. I couldn't say anything about the time when the air-strikes were
11 ongoing. The situation was chaotic and who met whom where I really can't
12 say. I can't go into details because I don't remember that.
13 Q. Colonel, yesterday or I guess on Wednesday, you were shown a
14 document Exhibit P1996 which are the minutes of the 7 May 1999 meeting
15 where General Dragan Ilic was present and addressed the meeting. Do you
16 remember that meeting? I can get the document for you if you need to, but
17 right now my question is: Do you remember him coming and speaking at that
19 A. I think I've seen those minutes.
20 Q. And you are listed as attending that meeting. Do you remember
21 being present?
22 A. Yes, but could we please zoom in a little bit because it's
23 difficult to read. I think it's all right now.
24 Q. I can hand you a hard copy that will make it easier to go through.
25 It's several pages. And if you want to go through to page 8 of the
1 B/C/S --
2 MR. HANNIS: And, Your Honours, we're beginning at the bottom of
3 page 9 and going on to page 10 in the English.
4 Q. -- where it talks about the remarks of Dragan Ilic, he mentions a
5 meeting that was held on the 5th of May at the staff of the ministry in
6 Pristina with the chiefs of the SUP and the SUP crime investigation
7 department -- or no, with the crime investigation department. Did you
8 know about that meeting? Did you attend it?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And wasn't one of the purposes of that meeting and this meeting
11 here because Ilic, General Ilic, had concerns about what was being done
12 and not being done regarding the investigation of crimes, right?
13 A. Well, I don't know the whole contents. I've read parts of the
14 minutes, but there's an abundance of facts here, I can't remember each and
15 every one, but I did say --
16 Q. Okay. Let me ask you then to look at bullet point number 4 under
17 Ilic. He talks about: "A meeting was held with VJ top officials at which
18 it was agreed that measures were being applied but they are not sufficient
19 at the moment."
20 That sounds like there were shortcomings in connection with this
21 issue of investigating crimes. Would you agree?
22 A. Well, I can't comment on this because at that meeting he's
23 referring to -- well, I wasn't there and I really don't know what they
24 said there.
25 Q. Okay.
1 A. I assume that he had a meeting with representatives of the army.
2 Q. Okay. If you would continue on down to where we see General Lukic
3 contributing to the discussion, do you see that?
4 MR. HANNIS: And, Your Honours, we're on the bottom half of page
5 10 in the English.
6 Q. Do you find that, Colonel?
7 A. Yes, yes, it's near the bottom of the page.
8 Q. And I'm not sure if you find it on that page or the next page, but
9 the second bullet point under General Lukic says:
10 "The number of 27 crimes of murder is not realistic as we have
11 information that a greater number of on-site investigations has been
12 conducted and that the number of criminal reports for this crime is
14 Do you know what that was about?
15 A. It doesn't say here it's about crimes. It says it's about 27
16 crimes of murder and that there is information that more on-site
17 investigations had been carried out and that there were more criminal
18 reports about these crimes. I don't know if this refers to one particular
19 secretariat or is it the overall figure, but certainly the figure
20 transpired from the discussions, and that's why General Lukic drew
21 attention to the fact that when one compares the data this piece of
22 information is incorrect because --
23 Q. Colonel --
24 A. -- from the reports it was evident that there had been more
25 murders committed --
1 Q. If you can't add anything to what is written down there, then
2 please just tell me that and I will move on. If you will go to
3 General Stevanovic who speaks next, I don't know if that's on that page or
4 that may go over to the following page. Do you see where he's speaking?
5 A. Yes, that's underneath.
6 Q. Okay. And he says: "I want you to concentrate on four
7 assignments in the forthcoming period. "
8 And number 2: "Anti-terrorist actions," the last sentence under
9 that says: "The plan must be approved by the staff and will be carried
10 out together with manoeuvre detachments."
11 Isn't it correct that each SUP was supposed to work on a plan and
12 those plans were to be approved by the MUP staff?
13 A. I apologise, I can't find this. Can you help me locate this.
14 Q. It should be under General Stevanovic speaking and the second
16 A. Yes, yes, I see that now.
17 Q. And you see the last sentence under that item, it says: "The plan
18 must be approved by the staff," right?
19 A. Let me just see what plan this is about. Excuse me. Yes,
20 General Stevanovic said that here.
21 Q. And I know he said that, I can read that, but is it true?
22 A. I can't remember now. I don't remember having seen any plan drawn
23 up by the secretariat and submitted for approval. I'm not saying that
24 there was no such plan, but it's quite normal for a plan to be looked at
25 to see that there are no omissions, no faults in it, but the secretariats
1 planned those things on their own, organized them and implemented them.
2 In view of the fact that it was General Stevanovic saying this, I
3 assume -- well, I don't know how precisely the person taking the minutes
4 formulated this, but General Stevanovic don't have another address to
5 which such plans could be sent, so I really don't know whether it was he
6 or General Lukic who approved those plans. As I said, I never saw any
7 such plan, but I don't deny that such plans were submitted.
8 Q. Okay. I want to move to another topic now. At page 22264, on
9 Wednesday you were talking about in 1999 --
10 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, sorry, I have to intervene regarding the
11 transcript because the witness said: "I really don't know ..." And we
12 don't have it.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: There is an answer: "So I really don't know
14 whether it was or General Lukic who approved those plans." The word
15 missing is "Stevanovic." Is there some other inaccuracy?
16 MR. LUKIC: But he concluded -- but he concluded his answer
17 with:"I really don't know."
18 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Well, that's simply a question of twice
19 he said it. Thank you.
20 MR. HANNIS:
21 Q. In 1999 you told us about these anti-terrorist activities, and
22 once the order on subordination came out, police units then started
23 receiving not only the maps but also the orders, or the "zapovesti,"
24 correct, after late April?
25 A. Yes, I did say that, and I saw that in the course of preparations,
1 I saw that the order was addressed to the MUP staff.
2 Q. Okay. And did you see that? Did that have a heading coming from
3 the Pristina Corps command?
4 A. Yes, but we're referring to the time when the war started and when
5 resubordination started.
6 Q. Yes. And did you also see the signature block on those orders?
7 A. Well, to the best of my recollection, on every document of the
8 Pristina Corps it said commander of the Pristina Corps and there was a
9 signature to the best of my recollection.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cepic.
11 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your leave, I think
12 the witness said quite clearly on page 36, in line 23, that he saw those
13 documents when he was being proofed, page 36, line 23.
14 MR. LUKIC: He never said that it's for the first time. Please, I
15 ask -- kindly ask my colleague to point where this witness said it was for
16 the first time. He did say that he saw them during the preparation.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, this needs to be clarified. Will you
18 deal with that.
19 MR. HANNIS: I will.
20 Q. Colonel, you heard that discussion. In addition to seeing these
21 documents during your preparation, did you see them at some earlier point
22 in time, and in particular did you see them in 1999 during the war?
23 A. As far as I can remember, I also saw the orders, but I didn't go
24 into detail. It wasn't I who dealt with that; it was others. But along
25 with the maps I did see the orders as well at the time when there was
2 Q. Okay. Thank you. You mentioned, regarding the issue of
3 resubordination or subordination, that there were problems you said at I
4 think 22273 that problems arose initially because certain VJ officers
5 believed that anything that belonged to the MUP and that happened to be
6 within their area of responsibility should be resubordinated to the VJ.
7 And on Wednesday, you were asked several questions about this. I
8 understand that you personally can't give us the names of who you referred
9 to when you say "certain VJ officers" who had the misunderstanding, but
10 can you give us the names of some of your MUP people who told you about
11 certain VJ officers who had a misunderstanding? Who told you about this?
12 A. To the best of my recollection, it was General Obrad Stevanovic
13 who told me this, and that's how I know how there came to be different
14 interpretations and disagreements.
15 Q. Okay. Thank you. You at page 22275 were asked if you had any
16 information about paramilitary formations in Kosovo or volunteers, and you
17 said as far as you know there weren't any paramilitaries and within the
18 police there weren't any volunteers and that's something that the law does
19 not allow for. But you -- I think you told us you were aware of this
20 incident in -- regarding a killing in Kosovo Polje of some civilians by
21 Skorpions under Slobodan, Boca, Medic. Did you know about that? It
22 happened early during the war, in the late days of March 1999?
23 A. I said that I heard about such an incident, such an event, but not
24 in Kosovo Polje, it was in Podujevo, so I don't know if we're referring to
25 the same thing.
1 Q. I may have misspoken, but your understanding was that that
2 included some Skorpions?
3 A. No, I heard about the Skorpions only later on when they were
4 tried, when they were put on trial for certain crimes.
5 Q. So when you first heard about this event in Podujevo, who did you
6 hear had been involved in it? Was it members of the SAJ reserve force?
7 A. Yes, that's what I heard, that it had been done by members of the
8 reserve force of the SAJ, the S-A-J, and that immediately after that
9 incident they were sent back from Kosovo and Metohija and that later on
10 criminal reports were filed against them and that they were prosecuted,
11 but I can't tell you what happened next and how it all ended.
12 Q. Okay. Did you ever talk about or hear about that from
13 Colonel Zivko Trajkovic?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Didn't he have responsibility for the SAJ?
16 A. Zivko Trajkovic was the commander of the SAJ. I don't know if
17 he's still there or if he's retired.
18 Q. But he was the commander in 1999 during the war, right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. Thank you. Were you aware that Rade Markovic had reported
21 in mid-May 1999 that some Arkan's were present in Kosovo?
22 A. No. Rade Markovic was a chief of the state security at the time,
23 so I don't know what information he had.
24 Q. I want to move to another topic. There was a discussion about
25 armbands that were used by the MUP at different times. You mentioned the
1 Perovic incident of this poor man from the Pec SUP. When did that happen?
2 When was he kidnapped and killed, approximately?
3 A. From what I can recall, before the terrorist activities started in
4 1998, this is what I recall but it's hard to be precise, it's been a long
5 time since then and I'm not able to remember.
6 Q. Okay. Thank you. One more meeting I wanted to ask you about is
7 Exhibit P1990, this is 17 February 1999 meeting. I can hand you a hard
8 copy of this one. It's shorter than most. I don't see your name on the
9 list of attendees for the meeting, but it does say all members of the
10 Pristina MUP staff. So does that mean you were present at this meeting?
11 A. Probably yes.
12 Q. Did you look at this document before you came to court to testify?
13 Was it shown to you during your preparation?
14 A. I probably did. Like I said, I looked a large -- I looked at a
15 large number of documents and I cannot remember everything.
16 Q. If you could look, I think it's -- if we could scroll toward the
17 bottom of page 1 in the B/C/S. General Lukic opened a meeting and is
18 talking about things, and you'll see a reference to the RPO, do you see
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. After there there's a sentence that says: "The service has
22 increased its activities in towns," and, Your Honours, I'm in the middle
23 of page 2 of the English.
24 "The service has increased its activities in towns. The annual
25 meetings attended by the head of staff and the deputy head of staff were
1 devoted to last year's work and engagement and determined further tasks
2 and activities of the service."
3 The deputy head of staff, that means you, right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And what were these annual meetings? Are these annual meetings in
6 the towns involving local defence preparations?
7 A. No. These were working meetings that were held every year at
8 the -- at all secretariats for internal affairs, not just in Kosovo and
9 Metohija, but also in Vojvodina and Serbia proper, where the annual work
10 analysis was conducted.
11 Q. And the plan for the forthcoming period as well?
12 A. From what I can recall, there are no plans for the forthcoming
13 period in these annual reports because the plans for next year are done
15 Q. Well, this sentence says that they were devoted to last year's
16 work and engagement and determined further tasks and activities of the
17 service. Doesn't that mean you're talking about what you're going to do
18 in the coming period?
19 A. If we're talking about these annual meetings at the secretariats,
20 this is something that I cannot really talk about because the work is
21 planned by the secretariat.
22 Q. But it says these meetings were attended by you and Mr. Lukic and
23 they were devoted to last year's working engagement and determine further
24 tasks and activities. You went to these meetings, right, that's what it
1 A. Yes, but this is something that is set down by the secretariats
2 generally speaking, detailed annual plans of work are made, and the
3 practice is that the headquarters of the ministry for internal affairs
4 from Belgrade sends someone to attend those working meetings of the
5 secretariats for internal affairs throughout the entire territory of the
6 Republic of Serbia, and General Lukic and myself attended those meetings
7 pursuant to instructions from the ministry because we were already in
8 Pristina so that people would not have to be sent separately from Belgrade
9 for those meetings. That is the only reason that we took part in those
11 Q. If you could go down to about the third or fourth line from the
12 bottom of the page you see above the number 4.000 policemen, that sentence
13 begins -- my translation says:
14 "The staff plans to carry out three mopping-up operations in the
15 Podujevo, Dragobilje, and Drenica areas and has allotted around 4.000
16 policemen, around 70 policemen of the OPG, and around 900 police
18 Do you recall what that was about?
19 A. I remember, and I think I talked about that over the previous
20 days, this was an action that was planned by the Pristina Corps to be
21 carried out at those three locations, and in view of this number of
22 members that is stated here, this is probably something that was given by
23 Lieutenant Dusko Jovanovic to the corps so that they could plan. But I
24 don't recall if the action was actually carried out. I don't think that
25 it was, but I cannot be certain.
1 Q. And you may have to go on to the next page of the B/C/S, but the
2 next sentence says:
3 "On Saturday, 20 February 1999 a meeting of the staff will be held
4 with all police unit detachment commanders for further consultations about
5 their engagement."
6 Reading those two things together, Colonel, this seems to me this
7 is an example of the MUP staff carrying out one of its tasks under that
8 decision of 16 June 1998 to organize and manage the engagement of
9 organizational units in complicated security actions or otherwise. Isn't
10 that correct?
11 A. No, no.
12 Q. Okay. You disagree; let me move on to something else.
13 I want to try and finish before the break, if I can. Okay. Let
14 me just do this to finish up. We talked about the Joint Command a couple
15 of times before, and we showed you that page from the notes of meetings of
16 the Joint Command and you went to a meeting on the 22nd of October, 1998.
17 My question was: How did you come to attend that meeting? Who told
18 you -- well, did somebody tell you to go to the meeting?
19 A. Evidently, General Lukic was not at that meeting because then I
20 wouldn't have been there. I was probably invited at the meeting by
21 somebody, I cannot remember who it was, but Stevanovic was probably there
22 so he said, Let's go to the meeting. This is probably the reason why I
23 attended the meeting.
24 Q. Okay. Well, the minutes -- the meeting notes reflect maybe ten
25 other occasions where General Lukic was not present, but as best you
1 recall this is the only one time, the single time, that you attended,
3 A. Yes, from what I recall, it was just that one time.
4 Q. And let me ask you with some trepidation two more questions that
5 may require me to refer to P978. Were you aware, did you receive any
6 bulletins or reports from the so-called Joint Command regarding the
7 security situation in October or November 1998?
8 A. I don't remember seeing that.
9 Q. Okay. Let me show you Exhibit P1197, and there is a second one,
10 Your Honours, in P1203 but to save time I'm going to try and just use this
11 first one.
12 Colonel, I'll hand you a hard copy. I think if you'll go to the
13 second page of the document you have there -- yeah. You see in the upper
14 left it says Joint Command for Kosovo and Metohija. It has a strictly
15 confidential number 1142-134 dated 20 November 1998. It's entitled
16 operations report, and it has intelligence and security situation, and
17 then I will tell you it goes on and talks about activities of the
18 terrorist forces against the army, against the MUP, against the
19 population, and it also talks about the engagement of units of the army
20 and the MUP in some detail. Did you ever see this document or any of
21 these kind of operations reports in either 1998 or 1999?
22 A. I don't recall seeing this.
23 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I will refer to Exhibit P948 at page
25 Q. Phil Coo near the bottom of the page asked:
1 "Do you know if they were putting out Joint Command daily
3 And on the next page General Lukic's answer:
4 "There was, as I said yesterday, a daily newsletter or bulletin of
5 the Joint Command which was compiled by the Pristina Corps based on
6 features submitted by the state security department, the public security
7 department, military security, that was more or less the content of this
8 daily newsletter, bulletin."
9 Mr. Coo asked: "Was there a distribution on that? Who did it go
11 Mr. -- General Lukic's answer: "Apart from all these users, the
12 same people who also provided the features for the bulletin, which would
13 include the public security department."
14 Does that refresh your memory, did you not see such a bulletin in
15 the MUP staff in late 1998?
16 A. I don't recall seeing this bulletin, but the fact is that it
17 contains all the data that you mentioned is true, but I don't know who the
18 reports were sent to, also who drafted them. I assume it was the Pristina
19 Corps, but I don't know who the bulletins were done for.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, may we take the break now? I may have
22 no more questions, but if I can review during the break I'll limit myself
23 to five minutes or so after.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, Mr. Hannis.
25 Mr. Mijatovic, you may have answered this already, but from July
1 1998 until June 1999, how often were you away from Kosovo?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From what I remember, it was
3 generally once a month for a couple of days.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE BONOMY: This is addressed to Mr. Hannis and particularly
6 Mr. Lukic, but as you know the Appeals Chamber has made a decision about
7 the impact of things said in statements by one accused in relation to the
8 case against other accused, and therefore the point applies to everyone.
9 We're inclined to think that this document P948 requires to be translated
10 by CLSS, if that can be arranged. Now, it's not the longest of
11 interviews, as was pointed out, but it would also be helpful if we didn't
12 translate the bits that don't matter. Is there room for parties
13 identifying parts of this that they're entirely satisfied with in its
14 present state because they're really of no particular significance in the
15 trial and identifying the bits that really need to be reviewed and
16 translated again; or is that just out of the question and something we
17 shouldn't even contemplate?
18 MR. HANNIS: Well, one part that comes immediately to mind is the
19 beginning of the interview and every time after there's a break in the
20 recording Mr. Curtis goes through the litany of advising Mr. Lukic of his
21 rights, et cetera, sometimes that takes two pages each time. So if the
22 Defence are satisfied with that, I don't think that needs to be translated
24 JUDGE BONOMY: I wonder if you would consider this over the
25 weekend and on Monday -- well, let's say Tuesday let us know the extent to
1 which it is clear that we need to have this retranslated, and try to avoid
2 unnecessary work.
3 Mr. Fila, if it can be done that way, by positively identifying
4 the bits that need to be rather than negatively excluding the bits that
5 are okay, fine, that would be better.
6 Mr. Mijatovic, we have to break again for half an hour. Would you
7 leave the courtroom with the usher. We'll resume at 20 past 11.00.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 [The witness stands down]
10 --- Recess taken at 10.52 a.m.
11 --- On resuming at 11.21 a.m.
12 MR. HANNIS: I reviewed my notes, Your Honour, and I am finished.
13 No more questions. Thank you.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Hannis.
15 [The witness takes the stand]
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Aleksic.
17 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I know
18 that this is not customary --
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, well what is it you want to raise?
20 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I wished to ask you, in view of the
21 fact that the witness has been testifying now for four or five days in a
22 row and during his cross-examination by Mr. Hannis, he provided some new
23 information about the role of certain individuals and the relationship
24 between the police and the army. I would kindly ask the Trial Chamber to
25 give me an opportunity to put some additional questions to him in relation
1 to what was raised this morning and yesterday during the cross-examination
2 by Mr. Hannis.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Can you give me an example?
4 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. An example is the
5 role of Mr. Adamovic, an example is what General Djordjevic said at that
6 meeting on the 22nd of July; an example is the beginning of today's
7 transcript, that certain documents were handed out at this meeting of the
8 army and the police on the 22nd of July, and we first -- and that was the
9 first time we heard about that, and then these plans from 1998 that were
10 valid in 1999 as well. So it would be along those lines.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.
12 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, I did talk about Mr. Adamovic a
13 little bit. As far as the documents being handed out at the first
14 meeting, I think there was some evidence of that from Colonel Delic when
15 he testified, so it's -- I don't know, it's not such a new topic. And as
16 far as General Djordjevic, I don't remember me raising that issue about
17 General Djordjevic saying something at the meeting on the 22nd of July. I
18 don't recall what that was.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Was that raised by Mr. Hannis?
20 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] No, not Mr. Hannis, but it was an
21 answer to his question. Mr. Hannis's question was that there was a task
22 that was set out in the decision on the establishment of the staff, and
23 the answer was that all of that had been stopped and -- well, there is no
24 point in me going into that now because otherwise there's no point in
25 asking the witness anything.
1 As for General Delic in his testimony, I checked during the break
2 carefully, he did talk about meetings with the MUP but at a lower level
3 where coordination was carried out. General Delic did not mention that
4 specific meeting on the 22nd or the 23rd of July in Pristina where
5 everybody was present, the assistant ministers, and Generals Pavkovic and
6 Lazarevic. He did not specifically speak about that, whereas this witness
7 said this morning --
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
9 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, if I may.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, Mr. Lukic.
11 MR. LUKIC: Regarding Adamovic and Djordjevic, we discussed --
12 JUDGE BONOMY: What's your position. Are you opposing this?
13 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: You are going to have a chance to re-examine.
15 What's your problem?
16 MR. LUKIC: Everything was raised during the direct examination.
17 We mentioned Djordjevic and Obrad Stevanovic coming to the meeting on the
18 22nd of July, 1998, explaining why the plan should be implemented by the
19 police. It was during the direct, and we raised the role of Mr. Adamovic
20 in his -- but the witness said as much as he could and said that
21 Mr. Adamovic could be able to explain more on his role. So I'm sure that
22 it's in direct examination of this witness.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: It's difficult to see, though, that this can
24 prejudice you because you get the chance of the last word in any event.
25 MR. LUKIC: Okay. I'll leave it to Your Honours then. Thank you.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. But is it only these two matters that you
2 oppose? What about the rest of the meeting on the 22nd of July and the
3 question of the level of representation that we didn't have discussed
5 MR. LUKIC: Are you asking me?
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. Are you opposed to that as well?
7 MR. LUKIC: I think that I tried at least to cover these topics in
8 my direct examination.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Thank you.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Very difficult to adjudicate on this kind of thing.
12 What we'll do is we'll allow you to commence this further
13 cross-examination, Mr. Aleksic, but please ensure that the matters you're
14 addressing are ones which directly arise from something said in answer to
15 questions by Mr. Hannis and not from the examination-in-chief. This isn't
16 a second opportunity to deal with that.
17 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I will
18 follow your instructions, and I will try to act accordingly.
19 Further cross-examination by Mr. Aleksic:
20 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Colonel.
21 A. Good day.
22 Q. I just have a few questions for you. Today at the beginning of
23 the transcript on 2, line 19, until page 3, line 2, you responded to the
24 Prosecutor's questions related to a meeting held on the 22nd and 23rd of
25 July between the leadership of the Army of Yugoslavia and the police and
1 you said that at that meeting documents were handed out to officers. Am I
3 A. I think that what I said was that on the eve of this activity, on
4 the 25th of July, a meeting was held, that's what I said during the course
5 of these past few days, officers of the police and the army attended that
6 meeting, and people were given guide-lines from this plan. And what was
7 handed out were action documents, and people who did not know each other
8 met there, officers from the army and the police. I cannot tell you what
9 the exact date was because indeed it has been nine years and I cannot
10 recall all of that, but it is certain that a meeting like that was held
11 and I cannot say specifically when it was. Perhaps I made a mistake in
12 saying the 22nd, maybe it was the 21st or the 23rd, and perhaps it wasn't
13 even that same meeting, perhaps it was a different meeting, but anyway
14 that would be about it.
15 Q. Colonel, I'm not challenging that. There was a meeting. Yes.
16 I'm just telling you, during these previous four days in response to
17 different questions, and Judge Bonomy asked you about this yesterday and
18 you gave an explicit answer, until subordination took place, you only got
19 map extracts and this morning you said something different. That's the
20 point of my question.
21 A. Then I didn't understand. I'm saying now that up until
22 subordination only map extracts were received and after subordination maps
23 and, order, "zapovesti," perhaps it was a slip of the tongue, perhaps I
24 wasn't clear enough, but the fact is, that's what it was.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: What do you mean by action documents were handed
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I'm saying until subordination
3 map extracts were given for the police units that were taking part; and
4 after that --
5 JUDGE BONOMY: You've told us that at this meeting whenever it was
6 towards the end of July, in the second half of July, 1998, that action
7 documents were handed out. What were these action documents is what
8 Mr. Aleksic wants to know.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand. I don't know what the
10 interpretation of this was, but it actually has to do with these map
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Aleksic.
13 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. In relation to this, Colonel, the Prosecutor showed you P1434 this
16 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Could that please be called up
17 again, it is page 8 in Serbian and 18 in English. I'm just interested in
18 the last sentence in 18.
19 Q. If you could please read it out, the last sentence, 8.
20 A. "For secret command over units, elaborate a single coded map which
21 should be handed over to all unit commanders in extract form."
22 Q. Colonel, am I right that what you, or rather, the MUP staff
23 received and then sent further on to PJP units were extracts from this
24 kind of coded, single, unified map that is used for coordination of
25 activities and providing information on positions reached?
1 A. No, no. I'm not denying that this kind of map existed in order
2 not to have positions revealed, because it was radio transmitters that
3 were probably not encrypted, so probably a code is used so that the other
4 side would not find out in an unauthorised way what was going on. And I'm
5 not denying that a map existed, but I'm talking about map extracts for
6 police action in anti-terrorist activities.
7 Q. And that kind of extract can be found somewhere in some MUP
8 archives, a map extract of this kind that was sent to the MUP staff?
9 A. Are you talking about activities or codes?
10 Q. No, no, what you're talking about?
11 A. The coded map.
12 Q. No, no --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers not overlap.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think that it was -- well,
15 it was in the units. Now, whether somebody actually stored that at the
16 ministry as well, I really don't know.
17 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I do apologise to the interpreters.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MR. LUKIC: Regarding the transcript, I apologise to my colleague
20 Aleksic. The witness said that we cannot find it in the MUP staff because
21 it was distributed further, and that part is missing completely.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Did you say that, Mr. Mijatovic?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I wasn't following this
24 very attentively, the question, I'm sorry. Could you please repeat it
25 once again.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic says that you said you cannot find it,
2 which I think is a map extract, in the MUP staff because it was
3 distributed further, that part is missing completely -- sorry, did you say
4 that you cannot find the map extract in the MUP staff because it was
5 distributed further?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understood the question. Yes,
7 yes, it cannot be found for the following reason --
8 JUDGE BONOMY: That's all we need to know at the moment. If
9 anyone wants to explore it further, they will.
10 Mr. Aleksic.
11 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. Colonel, yesterday on page 79 while responding to the Prosecutor's
13 question -- well, actually what he put to you was that none of the tasks
14 that were prescribed in that decision on the establishment of the staff
15 was not carried out by you -- or not you, the staff. But then you said
16 that the reason for that was the fact that the plan had been adopted, the
17 minister and his assistants were present, and after that
18 Generals Stevanovic and Djordjevic came to Pristina and that Djordjevic
19 informed the police officers about that plan and that police units should
20 take part in these activities. And you said practically this was approval
21 and at the same time his order, "naredjenje," that units start
22 anti-terrorist actions together with the units of the Army of Yugoslavia.
23 Am I right? Is that what you said roughly?
24 A. Well, I cannot repeat each and every word that I said.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please not overlap.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Just stop. Where you're both speaking the same
2 language, there has to be a gap between the question and the answer to
3 allow the interpretation to catch up.
4 Secondly, Mr. Aleksic, what is your question? You know, this is
5 the sort of repetition that's unnecessary, I imagine, for the purpose.
6 What -- just ask the question that you want to ask. After all, it's a
7 privilege that you're being allowed to have this further
9 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you, Your Honour.
10 I have understood this.
11 Q. Colonel, could General Djordjevic command the JSO unit?
12 A. I have said that as far as I know that never happened. Now,
13 whether he had some kind of special authorisation from the minister
14 because the minister was the superior of both sectors, state security and
15 public security, well I don't know. He was chief of the public security
16 sector. I cannot put questions like that to him --
17 JUDGE BONOMY: That's enough. We don't want speculation. You
18 can't answer it. Let's move on.
19 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Just one more question, Your Honour.
20 Q. Colonel, yesterday on page 78 of the transcript you said, in
21 response to the Prosecutor's questions, that orders with the heading Joint
22 Command March and April 1999 were based on a plan that you talked about
23 earlier on in 1998.
24 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have once again
25 P2166, page 2 in Serbian and in English.
1 Q. And could you just read out this one sentence for me.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Don't read it.
3 Just ask your question, please.
4 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Am I right if I say that this plan of -- this anti-terrorist plan,
6 whatever it was called, and no matter how many stages it involved, that
7 action according to this plan was carried out from the end of July until
8 the end of September and that that was stated, that the plan was over, the
9 actions were over. Is this stated in this document dated the 29th of
11 JUDGE BONOMY: That's a quite unnecessary question. If the
12 document says it, it says it; and it doesn't matter whether the witness
13 says it says it or not. If there's a question about his own personal
14 knowledge, then put that question to him, but don't ask him to state the
16 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have no
17 further questions for this witness. Thank you.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cepic.
19 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. By your
20 leave, a few questions were raised, first of all, the presence of my
21 client at this meeting on the 22nd of July, 1999 [as interpreted], and the
22 second question has to do in part to what Mr. Aleksic asked about and it
23 has to do with this significance -- significant difference in the
24 witness's statements in terms of planning from the corps and the answers
25 that I got in cross-examination and the response that the Prosecutor [as
1 interpreted] gave you and the Prosecutor, Mr. Hannis.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: We'll allow you to deal with the first matter but
3 not the second. That's been explored by both of you already.
4 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] By your leave, Your Honour, just one
5 document which I feel is both in the interests of justice and in the
6 interests of what happened in late July 1998 in the MUP staff and I think
7 many things will become clearer, both for the Chamber and for the parties.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Why didn't you show him the document when you were
9 dealing with the matter?
10 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Because I was satisfied with his
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I repeat, we will allow you to deal with the
13 first and not with the second. You can tell us what the document is in
14 the second matter, but that's all. We are -- there's got to be proper
15 control over these proceedings. You have to think ahead in your
16 cross-examination to what you need to deal with, Mr. Cepic.
17 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I am doing my
18 best to be as efficient as possible. The second document is the minutes
19 of the staff of the 29th of July, 1998, only seven days after the meeting
20 of the 22nd of July.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: [Microphone not activated]
22 MR. CEPIC: I apologise, Your Honour --
23 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm sorry, is there a passage in it you wish to
24 draw your attention to?
25 MR. CEPIC: Yes, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Which passage?
2 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Page 1, the words of
3 General Sreten Lukic. The document is marked.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Now you may proceed with your questions
5 about the attendance of Mr. Lazarevic at the meeting.
6 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Further cross-examination by Mr. Cepic:
8 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mijatovic, it's me again. You mentioned that
9 on the 22nd of July most probably Pavkovic and Lazarevic attended the
11 A. I said "probably" because I didn't have the minutes before me. I
12 really cannot remember so many facts and so much data, who was where at
13 what time, what they said precisely. I'm not a computer. That's why I
14 said "probably." I'm not sure.
15 Q. Are you aware that at that period General Lazarevic was in
16 Djakovica at the forward command post of the Pristina Corps?
17 A. That's possible, but I really can't remember --
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cepic, how on earth could you expect him to
19 answer that? This is a situation where if a point has to be put then it
20 should be, but this is not a general reopening of cross-examination even
21 on this point. Now, if you have a question that this witness can answer
22 that will resolve this, ask him it; but bear in mind that he appears not
23 to know.
24 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] I'm satisfied with his responses, Your
25 Honour, and I have no further questions about my first topic. However, I
1 ask for leave to show the document I mentioned because many things would
2 be clarified to all sides in these proceedings.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cepic, was he present at the meeting on the
4 29th of July?
5 MR. CEPIC: Yes, Your Honour.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE BONOMY: No, that -- we're satisfied that we can read the
8 document and deal with it, what Mr. Lukic says in the document, Mr. Cepic.
9 Mr. Lukic, re-examination?
10 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Re-examination by Mr. Lukic:
12 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Mijatovic.
13 A. Good day.
14 Q. Here I am again. We have made you work very hard, both during the
15 proofing and now, but there's still something we have to clarify at the
16 end. So I'll start with what we did today.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we have on e-court P1693,
19 Q. Do you still have those files?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Those binders, that is. P1693, please.
22 A. I can't find 1693 here.
23 Q. Well, in that case, we'll look at it on the monitor. I wanted to
24 speed things up, but obviously it's not helping. So this is an overview
25 of events of significance for security. It's for the Kosovo and Metohija
1 staff, so first of all, Mr. Hannis asked you about this number. He asked
2 you about the number of 12A, so in the case of this document I'll only ask
3 you the following: For the sake of the record, is it correct that in
4 front of the word "number" there's no number here?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. And the number following the word "number," is that the number of
7 the document?
8 A. Yes, that's the number of the document.
9 Q. Thank you. As I need to deal with something else from this
10 document, we'll come back to the issue of numbers afterwards. Could we
11 now look at the last page of this document, item 4, please. Here we see
12 that it was established that from the 24th of April to the 30th of April,
13 that is, in a space of seven days, a total of 715.158 persons left the
14 territory of the FRY?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Is this possible or is it a typographical error? Could this refer
17 to some other period, do you know this?
18 A. Well, I can't say with certainty, but here we can see that there
19 is information about the 30th, that's the last day of summary for a
20 previous period, but it would be impossible for this number to have left
21 within a space of five days. This must be from the beginning of the
22 air-strikes. I'm sure this must be some kind of technical error, and in
23 some other document there must be a different date because this looks
25 Q. What date should be here instead of the first one?
1 A. Maybe from the 4th or from the 20 -- no, no, sorry, from the 24th
2 of March when the air-strikes began, so there must be a typographical
3 error in the month. It must have been the 24th of March, not April.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Tell us -- I mean, I could work out that
6 possibility, anybody could. Tell us your basis for saying that that's
7 what that refers to.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, because you can see that there
9 is a figure only for the 30th and then there's a summary, and it would be
10 logical to have a summary from only the past five days not the entire
11 period from the beginning of the air-strikes to the 30th of April. So
12 this must have referred to all the days when there were movements of
13 civilians. That's why I assume it must be an error, but it can probably
14 be checked by looking at other documents.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Well, it says here, Your Honours, "in
17 total," but we leave this and clarify it on some other occasion.
18 Q. However, I'd like to ask you the following in connection with this
19 information. Was there ever an attempt to conceal the number of people
20 leaving Kosovo and Metohija?
21 A. No, nor was there any reason to conceal it.
22 Q. In the regular daily reports, were the figures received from the
23 organizational units on the ground included?
24 A. Yes, we had no other sources, so it only came from the daily
25 reports of the secretariat.
1 Q. And was this forwarded to the Ministry of the Interior in
3 A. Yes. These reports were put together, collated, and then
4 forwarded to the ministry in Belgrade. But as I said previously, the
5 secretariats sent these reports in parallel, both to the ministry and the
6 staff. So the ministry would have received these reports from another
7 source also.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now have in e-court Exhibit
10 Q. When it shows up on the screen, I am not interested in the
11 contents of the document, Mr. Mijatovic. I only want to concentrate on
12 the number. So this document is just an example on which we can see
13 something about the number. Does this document after the word "number"
14 also contain a figure?
15 A. Yes, it's 223-90, that is the number of the document.
16 Q. And to the left of the word "number" we have 12A?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Is that the number you were referring to when you said that that
19 was the number of the MUP staff on -- in Kosovo?
20 A. Yes, I said that 12 was the number referring to the police
21 administration and the headquarters of the ministry and that A had been
22 added to indicate that it was a staff document because the staff did not
23 have its own number in the system. I don't know what it was called.
24 Q. Thank you. Today on page 13, line 18, my learned friend
25 Mr. Hannis asked you how many years had elapsed from the point in time
1 when the staff was established to the point of time when it was
2 transformed from a temporary to a permanent body. And your reply was that
3 this never happened. After that my learned friend asked you, as evidently
4 he had not received the response he had wished for, he asked you whether
5 you were a legal expert and you said you were not.
6 My question is the following. Does the fact that you are not a
7 legal expert prevent you, in view of the position you held, from knowing
8 that this was not an organizational unit of the Ministry of the Interior?
9 A. No, it's quite clear that the staff was never an organizational
10 unit of the MUP, and one of the proofs of that is that each time a new
11 staff was formed, a document would have to be issued, a decision; and had
12 it been a permanent body this would not have been necessary. According to
13 the rules, it did not exist as a permanent organizational unit.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see in e-court Exhibit
17 Q. You have that document. It's a staff minutes of the 7th of May,
18 1999, and my learned friend asked you about this document today. I would
19 only like to see in e-court page 8. We see here on the top third of the
20 page that it was Major-General Ilic Dragan's turn to speak. Can you
21 please tell us, if you remember, why Major-General Dragan Ilic submitted a
22 report at this meeting.
23 A. From what I can remember, in view of the chiefs of the
24 secretariats being present there, he informed them why he came to
25 Pristina, what was his assignment, what was he doing, and I cannot read
1 all of this, but as far as I know, he reported on a meeting held with the
2 chiefs of the criminal police departments of the SUP, secretariats of
3 Kosovska Mitrovica, about what needed to be done to improve the efficacy
4 of the work; and he also stated that a plan was made to clear the terrain
5 and that the plan was distributed to the OKP chiefs.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please now put Exhibit 5D1417
8 on e-court. The document has not been translated, but it was used by my
9 colleague Mr. Cepic in his cross-examination. It's a document titled:
10 "The deployment of the PJP in the theatre on the 17th of April,
12 Q. You cannot see from this document what its source is and you
13 cannot see who actually drafted the document, so I'm not going to ask you
14 to speculate on that.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cepic.
16 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that this was a
17 leading question and the witness already provided relevant information in
18 relation to this document. Thank you.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: No question's been asked, so there's nothing to
20 adjudicate on.
21 MR. LUKIC: May I continue?
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
23 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cepic.
25 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] If you allow me, I apologise, Your
1 Honour. Not a question -- the question as such, but the witness has been
2 provided with arguments or argumentation. Thank you.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: It's impossible to determine that until we know
4 what the question is, so let's hear the question.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Well, I was not aware that the witness
6 mentioned the source of the document at all or that he said who signed it,
7 but if he did, I apologise.
8 Q. In any case, there were quite a lot of problems when you were
9 asked who was the commander of the unit who decided who would substitute
10 for the commander if the commander was not in the field. I think these
11 questions will be resolved during the proceedings, but I would like to ask
12 you this. Under 1 it actually says in the Cyrillic I, if it was the Latin
13 alphabet it would be an E, it says the 36th Detachment and then under --
14 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat his question.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: You'll need to repeat the question for the
16 interpreter, Mr. Lukic.
17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. [Interpretation] I will repeat my question, Mr. Mijatovic. I
19 think that I spoke too quickly. At the top of the page below the heading
20 it says "I" in the Cyrillic, a capital "I" in the Cyrillic?
21 A. I see that.
22 Q. The secretariat in Pristina?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And then under this heading, in the third group, the line begins
25 with the number 3, and it says: "The 122nd Intervention Brigade." Do you
1 see that?
2 A. Yes, I see that.
3 Q. We can see this on the screen so we don't have to move anything.
4 At the bottom we see three letters I in the Cyrillic. If it was in the
5 Roman alphabet we would have the Roman III, and it says secretariat in
6 Pec. Do you see that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Under number 1 we also see where it says 122nd Intervention
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Can we conclude from this document, if the document is correct,
12 that the 122nd Intervention Brigade, whenever this document was drafted,
13 and this is allegedly the 17th of April, 1999, that the 122nd Brigade was
14 divided in two sections or two parts --
15 A. That is evident --
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Don't answer that.
17 That is an utterly leading question. It's rather obvious the
18 answer, in which case the whole question has been unnecessary. There's no
19 point at telling the witness the answer at this stage in the proceedings.
20 MR. LUKIC: I apologise.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Move to something else.
22 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. [Interpretation] Hypothetical question: If the brigade were to be
24 divided in two parts, would each part have its own commander?
25 A. Yes, it would. Somebody would have to lead those people.
1 Q. Are you aware if in practice it ever happened that one detachment
2 was divided into several parts or into two parts, and are you aware if
3 each of those parts then had to have its own commander?
4 A. Yes, for example, if the detachment has six companies and is
5 divided into two parts --
6 JUDGE BONOMY: No, no, no, give us a specific example. That's
7 what you're being asked. You've been asked about your personal knowledge;
8 give us an example of where that happened. Name the detachment and, if
9 you can, the commanders.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, at this point I couldn't tell
11 you about any specific examples, but I know that the dispatch on
12 deployment, it would happen that three companies would send -- be sent to
13 an assignment, the other three would be resting. So one section would be
14 on assignment, the others would be resting. Also, those heading those
15 companies would also need to rest. The commander was unable to go all the
16 time. We would either be substituted by his deputy or by some assistant
17 or somebody from the company command so that the commander could rest, but
18 somebody had to lead or head each of those parts whenever it was out on an
20 MR. LUKIC: Can I continue, Your Honour? I'll move on.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. But your question hasn't been answered.
22 MR. LUKIC: If the witness doesn't know, he doesn't know. I
23 tried. Thank you.
24 Q. [Interpretation] I would now like to see on the ELMO -- on the
25 e-court Exhibit 4D406, please. This is a text from the Politika daily.
1 Can we please look at the two middle shorter columns at the top of the
2 page. Can we zoom in on that part.
3 Do you have 4D406 in your binder, please, but maybe it might be
4 too -- the print might be too small?
5 A. Yes, I don't know whether I have it, but perhaps we can zoom in on
7 Q. Can you read it now?
8 A. Yes, yes. Maybe if we can move it to the left. It's too large
9 now so I don't see the entire part. Maybe we can reduce it a little bit.
10 Q. We see it now.
11 A. Yes, I see this part, but I don't know which part you will be
12 putting your question from.
13 Q. The middle column beginning with the words: "Concurrently with or
14 along with ..."
15 Can you please read, it's not a long text, can you please read
16 both paragraphs in this middle --
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Have we not have this read already?
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Or you can read it to yourself just to see what it's about and
20 then I will put questions to you?
21 JUDGE BONOMY: But did we not have this already in your
23 MR. LUKIC: No, Mr. Aleksic asked.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. What's your question. The witness must
25 know what it says if he's been asked about it already.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. This article mentions the number of arrested persons and it says
3 that several hundred are in question, from what I can remember, and then
4 in the lower paragraph it says that the state organs are acting in
5 accordance with the law and impartially, although the military courts had
6 already passed down a large number of punishments or sentences.
7 I would like to ask you if you can tell us, to which structures do
8 these persons belong, the persons that are being referred to, thus
9 criminals who have already been discovered?
10 A. Well, this was --
11 Q. In the first and the second paragraph, please.
12 A. Well, this was mentioned during the reports at -- at the meetings
13 with the chief of the secretariat, and also the reports said that the
14 perpetrators of crimes were practically from all structures, both from the
15 active and reserve forces of both the army and the police and from among
16 the ranks of the civilians. So I cannot speak about the percentages or
17 any specific number, but I know that the perpetrators from all structures.
18 Q. Thank you. I'm going to ask you something now that was also the
19 subject of some questioning. Sometimes we lawyers put strange questions,
20 if I may say so. Did the MUP headquarters ever command or lead the
21 military territorial detachments or units of the civilian defence?
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cepic.
23 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you permit me, this
24 question does not arise from the cross-examination because nobody actually
25 touched upon the military territorial units or composition. Thank you.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.
2 MR. LUKIC: But there was a document I think introduced.
3 [Defence counsel confer]
4 MR. LUKIC: I'll move on.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. I would now like to go back again to the participation of some
8 units of the PJP, so again I'm going to put a hypothetical question to
9 you. If a company, for example, from the composition of the 124th Brigade
10 were to take part in an anti-terrorist action with the Army of Yugoslavia,
11 would that also unit get the same extract from the map just as the PJP
12 units got that, if you know?
13 A. You mean if it participated independently?
14 Q. No. If it participated not as a detachment but as a company from
15 the detachment or the brigade, if it participated in a joint
16 anti-terrorist action with the military of Yugoslavia?
17 A. If it was participating independently, it would need to get the
18 map because that would be the most basic document on the basis of which it
19 would be acting.
20 Q. The next topic you were asked --
21 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't understand. I didn't understand the
22 question. It may be a translation problem, but is the 124th Brigade
23 you're referring to a MUP brigade?
24 MR. LUKIC: Yes, sir.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: It says: "Would that unit also get the same
1 extract from the map just as the PJP units got?"
2 MR. LUKIC: PJP detachments it should be in the transcript.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: So you're asking whether the 124th Brigade would
4 get the same sort of documentation as the PJP unit.
5 MR. LUKIC: No.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Because they had a PJP unit.
7 MR. LUKIC: That's right. I asked about the smaller units, if the
8 smaller units, for example, on the level of the company is included into
9 the plan separately, not with the whole detachment or brigade, would that
10 company receive the same documents as the brigade or detachment receives.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: What do you understand the answer to be? The
12 question becomes clear, I see that, but what does the answer mean?
13 MR. LUKIC: I think that the answer is affirmative.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: They would get the same map? Because the answer
15 was originally no. If you're content then you can move on, but I find it
16 difficult to understand.
17 Mr. Cepic.
18 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, I keep standing up, but I
19 understood the answer as the witness's assumption not as something
21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We understood that the
22 witness said yes to this question.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry, the no is part of the question, I see that.
24 MR. LUKIC: The question.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: So you understand the answer to be it's the same
2 MR. LUKIC: I can -- can you clarify. I don't want to be -- to
3 lead this witness.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: No, just carry on. I'm now -- the explanation's
5 sufficient for me. Thank you.
6 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. [Interpretation] During cross-examination you were asked about the
8 RPO or the reserve police sectors. I am going to ask you this: Do you
9 know when they were founded; and if you do, these RPOs, reserve police
10 stations, and when they stopped existing as such?
11 A. I don't know exactly when they were established, I don't know the
12 date, but as far as I know these RPOs were established before I arrived at
13 Pristina, and they stopped functioning when the mobilisation began just
14 before the war broke out when members of those stations went to their war
15 units because they were all from the reserve forces of the police and the
16 army. Maybe someone stayed in the villages, I don't know for what
17 reasons, but the stations as such were dismantled.
18 Q. The next topic. Did the Ministry of Internal Affairs in any of
19 its documents provide that the MUP staff in Pristina, the staff -- the MUP
20 staff in Pristina from it establishment onwards in 1990 had to have its
21 own war plan?
22 A. No, no, that, no.
23 Q. Thank you. The Prosecutor asked you about the KVM reporting back
24 on actions and this was on the basis of your written statement. Was it
25 enough for the KVM to be informed about an action at the local level, an
1 anti-terrorist or any other type of action?
2 A. It was quite sufficient since they had their own organized centres
3 in that area. Activities were conducted in that area, they had MUP
4 officer and somebody from the communications centre. So they were able to
5 follow on the basis of these officers, including the liaison officer.
6 Q. In that case, do you have to inform them specifically personally
7 if they had already been informed at local level?
8 A. Well, there's no need for that, although very often I did that
9 too, but now I cannot claim that I did that in each and every situation,
10 but often I did that so there was this double-track information. They
11 were informed at the highest level in Kosovo and Metohija and also at
12 local level.
13 Q. Was there a segment about which you personally had to inform the
15 A. Well, about movements of units or some activities, if they involve
16 a larger area, two or three secretariats namely, then I'd have to, two or
17 three secretariats within the province, then it was my duty to inform the
18 KVM in Pristina about that.
19 Q. My colleague Mr. Hannis asked you about the Jaskevo action --
20 Jeskovo, sorry, did you personally inform the members of the OSCE about
21 this and were they informed at all about this action of the army and the
22 police? At that moment you could not remember the specific occurrence,
23 and now I'm going to show you Exhibit 5D112; and could it please be called
24 up in e-court.
25 It's obvious that the document is only in English. This is a
1 report of the Kosovo Verification Mission for the 11th of March, 1999.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have page 2 on the
3 screen, paragraph 4 is at the very top of that page.
4 Q. Since this is a document in English, I'm going to read out this
5 paragraph in English so that you would get the right translation of that,
6 and it is important in order to clarify Mr. Hannis's question.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: What is going to be your question at the end of
9 MR. LUKIC: My question would be that this witness particularly
10 informed OSCE about that action.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: And he said --
12 MR. LUKIC: -- remember at that time because I didn't show him this
13 document. It was in English, and we skipped this one.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.
15 MR. LUKIC: Or maybe it's better idea if the translators read this
16 in B/C/S.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: No, no, he -- you read it in English --
18 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: -- and they will translate it.
20 MR. LUKIC: Okay. Thank you very much.
21 Q. Number 4: "Security situation.
22 "Security forces conducted a joint operation against the KLA in
23 Jeskovo (south-west of Prizren). The VJ deployed in Hoca Zagradska,
24 Blusa, and Bijac. Approximately eight tanks with armoured personnel
25 carriers, artillery, and" --
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Can I interrupt you.
2 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: There is a sentence about the deputy chief of
4 police in Kosovo.
5 MR. LUKIC: Yes. Oh, you want me to read just --
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Do we need to even ask him the question. The KVM
7 have reported that he -- and you've clarified the point and you've dealt
8 with Mr. Hannis's matter. Do we need to spend time reading the document
9 when it plainly says what you want to clarify?
10 MR. LUKIC: I just want him then to clarify the term used here.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.
12 MR. LUKIC:
13 Q. Mr. Mijatovic, in this document it says: "The deputy chief of
14 police in Kosovo informed OSCE liaison officers that two members of the VJ
15 were also killed," and so on and so forth.
16 [Interpretation] This clumsy term, deputy chief of police in
17 Kosovo --
18 A. This term, the deputy chief of police in Kosovo, and also the term
19 the chief of police in Kosovo, was obviously used by the verification
20 mission. There is no such position. I personally believe that this is a
21 technical error, or rather, their translation. I believe that what they
22 meant was the head of staff or the deputy head of staff, that is the only
23 thing I can say to that.
24 Q. Do you remember now that you informed about this or not?
25 A. Well, often I said that I could not recall all details, dates,
1 names of places, locations, and so on. This shows that they, themselves,
2 say that I informed them, so I see that from here; but I really cannot
3 recall each and every event myself.
4 Q. Thank you. Now I would --
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Let's get the answer a bit clearer on this, if
6 you're making something of the description which is not clumsy in English.
7 It's a very clear and simple statement of a post that would be
8 recognisable in English.
9 Do you remember reporting this now?
10 MR. LUKIC: Then we have to read the event. How can he read
11 something I didn't even read?
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Have you not heard enough about it to know whether
13 you reported it? Do you want the whole thing read to you to clarify the
14 position or have you heard enough to tell us whether you remember this
15 incident or not and reported it.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I cannot remember each and
17 every incident. I think that Mr. Hannis asked me yesterday about this and
18 I did not remember, and I don't remember even now where this place is; and
19 I do not remember whether I informed the KVM about this or whether this
20 was done at local level. I am not asserting even now, I mean I cannot
21 remember all these details, but from here I see that I did inform them,
22 from this KVM document I see that.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: So you accept that the deputy chief of police must
24 be you?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, there would be no one else to
1 inform them from that level because I was deputy head of staff in charge
2 of coordination and cooperation with them. It is me, yes, but this is a
3 clumsy formulation, this is unfortunate wording, but there is no deputy
4 chief of police in Kosovo or is there a chief of police in Kosovo.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.
6 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 [Interpretation] Now I would like to call up in e-court
8 Prosecution Exhibit P1993.
9 Q. As you can see, these are minutes from a meeting of the MUP staff
10 held on the 11th of May, 1999, and I would like to have page 3 on e-court.
11 Number 3, can we see number 3 on the screen.
12 MR. LUKIC: Sorry, it should be number 6. Can you scroll down,
14 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mijatovic, you were asked about the 86th PJP
15 Detachment and Dragan Obradovic, and what was read out to you was the
16 second bullet point which says:
17 "With the Army of Yugoslavia we did not have any problems but we
18 don't have a particularly good cooperation with them either. We currently
19 do not know where they are or what they are doing."
20 Do you know whether the 86th Detachment of the PJP is a manoeuvre
21 unit or a territorial unit, if you know?
22 A. According to the designation of this unit, it is a territorial
23 unit, a territorial detachment.
24 Q. Territorial units of the PJP, do they take part in combat
1 A. Territorial detachments of the PJP are not trained and
2 sufficiently equipped to take part in such activities because these are
3 highly complex activities and highly risky ones from the point of view of
4 safety and security and they were not prepared for that at that time. I
5 don't know if something was done about that later, but at that point in
6 time no.
7 Q. What is their primary task?
8 A. Their task was after they carry out anti-terrorist activities,
9 because manoeuvre units went to another assignment or on leave, then it
10 was their task to cover this area that had been cleared of terrorists.
11 That was their basic task, that the terrorists do not return there.
12 Q. Thank you. Now I would like to have page 6, paragraph 5 of this
13 document. In paragraph 5 we look at bullet point number 1, and what we
14 see is: "Police units are subordinated to the chief of SUP. PJP
15 detachment leaders and police leaders must attend every collegium meeting
16 of the SUP."
17 I would be interested in the following: "Police units are
18 subordinated to the chief of SUP."
19 I'm going to ask you the following now and later on --
20 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, your microphone is on, do you want to
21 ask --
22 JUDGE BONOMY: I was curious to know if this is the correct page
23 we have now on the screen. Is it?
24 MR. LUKIC: Yes, that's the first line on the top of the screen.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
1 MR. LUKIC: "Police units are subordinated to the chief of SUP
2 and ... that's it.
3 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mijatovic, chiefs of SUPs, or rather, do
4 chiefs of SUPs command PJP units in combat activities?
5 A. No, no. They are commanded by their commanders.
6 Q. Thank you. Now I would like to ask for 5D1418 to be placed on
7 e-court. Later on we're going to go through these pages, but for the
8 record, I first need to refer to certain sections. On the 12th of
9 February, 2008, on page -- transcript page 22198, line 15, I asked you
10 about the reporting of PJP detachments to the staff. However, in that
11 question I highlighted, lest I misinterpret this myself, [In English]
12 "The commanders of the PJP detachments, did they submit reports
13 to you after the actions were completed?"
14 And your answer was at the line 19: "No."
15 [Interpretation] My colleague Mr. Cepic asked you on the 13th of
16 February, 2008, that is to say the day after this, on page 22324, what he
17 asked you was: [In English]
18 "Of course you were receiving reports from all the detachments of
19 the secretariat of the interior, right?"
20 [Interpretation] You answered him as follows inter alia on the
21 next page, that's where the answer starts and the part that we are
22 interested in starts on line 9.
23 [In English] "It was sometimes the case that the detachment
24 commanders would inform the MUP staff as well about the individual
25 developments or if they had come up against the problem. For example,
1 they suffered losses, an action was aborted for some reason, an action was
2 never even launched, there were people who were wounded, they needed help
3 getting them to the hospital, they needed beds to be made available at a
4 hospital, perhaps some other kind of problem, and so on and so forth."
5 [Interpretation] On the 14th of February, 2008, my colleague
6 Mr. Cepic --
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, what's your question? Because all this
8 looks like is a build-up to a very leading question. So can we not have
9 the question and then see if any more is necessary? What you really
10 should be asking, I suspect, is a straightforward, plain, open question to
11 clarify something that you think has been confused by the answers given.
12 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 [Interpretation] Could we put on e-court page 3 of this document,
14 please. The document has not been translated, and we used it
16 Q. Mr. Mijatovic, before this document was shown to you, did you say
17 to this chamber that the PJP detachment commanders informed you of the
18 wounded, killed, police fighters and other matters?
19 A. Yes.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: That is a leading question; the answer's valueless
21 in re-examination. You could have pointed that out to us where it occurs
22 in the transcript. It's a complete waste of time, but it's your time.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Mr. Mijatovic, I wish to ask you the following: Are you aware
25 what is meant by one in this document, one in brackets and then lightly
1 and then in brackets grey zero, if you recall?
2 A. Well, to the best of my recollection and according to my logic, 1
3 would mean that one member of the police had been slightly wounded, and
4 then it says grey zero.
5 Q. So is it correct that the detachment commanders, or rather, did
6 the detachment commanders record to you when a policeman was wounded? Did
7 they also report to you concerning other problems?
8 A. Yes, but as this man was only slightly wounded it wouldn't happen
9 every time. Only if one was seriously wounded and had to be taken to
10 hospital. I think here it deals more with another problem having to do
11 with the movement of the civilian population and what to do with them, how
12 to accommodate them. That's why he sent this -- in fact, it's a plea for
14 Q. To ask you something else in this connection, this is a dispatch,
15 isn't it?
16 A. Well, it says "communique." It's brief, usually we refer to these
17 things as dispatches.
18 Q. Was it sent from the ground or from the town; and if town, from
19 what town?
20 A. Well, it says here it was sent from Podujevo. I assume that in
21 the field an officer would not have the technical possibilities of sending
22 something like this, so he would probably have done it in Podujevo.
23 Q. Why did the detachment commander inform you of this by dispatch?
24 Why didn't he use radio connection?
25 A. Well, we said that after the bombing and the destruction of the
1 repeaters the lines or the connections were paralyzed, so he was unable to
2 do that.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now -- [In English] I don't
5 have too much questions left, Your Honour, but I think --
6 JUDGE BONOMY: How long do you reckon -- in fact, it is better if
7 we break at this stage because one matter has come to my attention that I
8 wasn't aware of.
9 Mr. Cepic, when you sought to ask questions about a document, a
10 minute, of the 29th of July, it wasn't -- it wasn't clear to me that the
11 document has not, in fact, been admitted or even marked for
12 identification. Am I right that that is the position?
13 MR. CEPIC: Correct, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: And this is 5D1432.
15 MR. CEPIC: Correct.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, in view of that, my understanding at the
17 time was the document was a production, and the relevant part could be
18 read and that therefore you would be in a position to deal with anything
19 arising in re-examination if you wished. However, it's not part of the
20 record at the moment, so it will be necessary if it is to become part to
21 allow Mr. Cepic to ask the question he wanted to ask.
22 So when we come back, we'll hear what you have to say about that
23 and then see if he is to be allowed to ask a question about this document.
24 MR. LUKIC: Only, Your Honour, if I may, one second.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
1 MR. LUKIC: It has been uploaded only today.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
3 MR. LUKIC: I think it's too late to introduce documents today.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we'll hear what you have to say on that when
5 we return.
6 We'll break now for lunch, Mr. Mijatovic. Could you again leave
7 the courtroom with the usher. We'll resume again at quarter to 2.00.
8 [The witness stands down]
9 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.47 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 1.46 p.m.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, we do not need to hear from you on this
13 Mr. Cepic, we do not allow any further examination on that
14 document for two reasons, one, for the reason that it was so recently
15 intimated but also because it is not translated.
16 [The witness takes the stand]
17 JUDGE BONOMY: However, if you wish to found on it or seek to
18 found on it to any extent, you should include it in the motion for the
19 admission of documents from the bar table which you intend to submit
20 today, and that will give everybody an opportunity to comment on the
21 document before we decide what to do with it. Mr. Lukic can take note of
22 that and if he decides to re-examine on it at this stage then we would
23 probably allow him to do so.
24 MR. LUKIC: No, I won't, Your Honours. Thank you.
25 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mijatovic, we're getting close to the end.
1 We have had on e-court 5D1418. Could we please have it called up again.
2 Page 2 of this document, please. Do you have the document on your screen,
3 Mr. Mijatovic?
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 Q. Could you please read this out for me. This is a dispatch of the
6 staff, and who is it sent to?
7 A. It is sent to commander Zivaljevic, commander of the 122nd
8 Intervention Brigade.
9 Q. Does it have to do with the previous dispatch? Can we see that or
10 do you need to look at the next page?
11 A. Well, I can see that it is related to that dispatch because I saw
12 that his main problem was the civilian population.
13 Q. Since it hasn't been translated, could you please read out the
14 first sentence of this text.
15 A. "Civilian persons should be returned to their villages."
16 Q. Very well. Very well. In these situations was an attempt always
17 made to have civilians returned to their place of residence whenever
19 A. Well, that was the intention coming from the very top, as one
20 would say, from the state leadership, the minister. So the point was that
21 people, civilians, should have as little problems as possible and their
22 main problem was if they were removed from their homes. So an effort was
23 made to have them returned to their homes whenever and wherever possible.
24 Q. Thank you. Could you please read out the next sentence.
25 A. "If that is not feasible, we agree that they be relocated in the
1 positions that you had proposed."
2 Q. All right. Now, why would that happen? Why would people
3 nevertheless be put up at other positions?
4 A. Well, an alternative it was given here. First of all, if they can
5 return, let them return; but if this could not happen, then people would
6 have to be relocated, put up somewhere, accommodated, provided with food,
7 water, and everything else they needed.
8 Q. And the last sentence, could you please read that one out. It
9 says thereby --
10 A. "Therein, ensure action of the police fully in accordance with the
12 Q. Why is this being cautioned?
13 A. We can see that from other documents too, the ministry and the
14 staff. What was always pointed out was such questions. For preventive
15 reasons and we also saw that there were various crimes out there and an
16 effort was made not to have this done and that is why we always pointed
17 this out whenever possible to highlight that one should act in accordance
18 with the law and protect the citizens.
19 Q. Thank you. Now I would like to show you one more document in
20 re-direct and that is P1991.
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could it please be called up in
23 Q. Do you see this? In order to make it as brief as possible, these
24 are minutes from the MUP staff meeting held on the 21st of December, 1998.
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please just have it enlarged
1 a bit.
2 Q. And I would like page 4 to be placed in e-court in the Serbian
3 version and page 7 in English. The bottom of the page in Serbian.
4 You were asked in relation to this paragraph, you see where it
5 says Colonel Miroslav Mijatovic?
6 A. Yes, it's towards the end.
7 Q. That's you, right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, what is recorded here is what you said. Can you remember
10 this point in time, what it was that you were saying?
11 A. Well, as I told you, I cannot remember, but when I read this I can
12 see what it is that I said. It's been a very long time, it's hard for me
13 to remember my own words let alone someone else's words.
14 Q. Thank you very much. Could you read out the middle of the
15 paragraph that starts with the words: "Reports should be ..."
16 A. Yes, I have found that sentence.
17 "Reports should be more detailed and contain correct information
18 because based on them we write other reports to the OSCE and the
20 Q. Now I'm going to ask you the following, did you always insist on
21 detailed and accurate information to be provided to the OSCE and the
23 A. Well, yes, we did and we wanted these reports to include as many
24 facts and possible and as much detail as possible so that we could have
25 what we are writing about confirmed.
1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Mijatovic. Thank you for your time. Thank you for
2 having testified. No further questions for you. Thank you.
3 A. Thank you, too.
4 Questioned by the Court:
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Mijatovic, this may sound a naive question, but
6 please treat it as seriously as you possibly can. In three sentences
7 could you tell us what the purpose of the MUP staff for Kosovo being
8 founded was.
9 A. As can be seen from this decision, the staff was supposed to do
10 what the decision says; however, when the plan was adopted this decision
11 was derogated, so as we said the staff did not carry out that work.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: I understand that. So what was the point in having
13 it after that? Can you tell me?
14 A. Well, the staff was an auxiliary body of a temporary nature that
15 the minister established for those tasks, as stated in the decision.
16 However, since that was not done then the staff followed the state of
17 security in Kosovo and Metohija and informed the leadership of the
18 ministry about that, provided assistance to organizational units in Kosovo
19 and Metohija when necessary, provided assistance to the units that had
20 been sent out, primarily from a logistical point of view, provided
21 assistance to all the entire police in Kosovo and Metohija when necessary
22 and conveyed the orders of the leadership of the ministry, followed up on
23 the implementation of these tasks and the staff in accordance with the
24 law, and as we have said every authorised official acts in accordance with
25 the law not waiting for any specific orders, "naredjenje," when they
1 thought it was necessary to improve something or to intensify a certain
2 effort we have already said, well, there are orders, "naredjenje,"
3 updating the obligations of the members of the police on the ground. And
4 in essence that would be about it.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: And what do you mean by providing assistance to
6 organizational units?
7 A. Well, for example, when they have a problem, as we saw a few
8 moments ago, the man called and he didn't know what to do with the
9 civilians. He asked for help, assistance, suggestions, and then we said
10 what should be done. When we talked about those plans of combatting
11 terrorism that the secretariats were supposed to work on inter alia, they
12 submitted that to the staff as stated there, well General Stevanovic was
13 there out there too, so from a professional point of view assistance
14 should be provided to them in order to add something on to that if they
15 had left something out, something important, that hadn't been done, so it
16 was along those lines. And also as far as foreigners were concerned, if
17 they had some problems, because we had a man on this staff in relation to
18 these problems because there were quite a number of humanitarian
19 organizations down there and KDOM and KVM and so on and so forth; so if it
20 was necessary to resolve a problem from a professional point of view and
21 others as well.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Can you give me an example of assistance which I
23 think you described as logistical assistance.
24 A. Well, that's part of the assistance. Over these past few days I
25 was saying --
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Give me an example of logistical assistance.
2 A. Yes, well that's exactly what I wanted to do. For example, a PJP
3 detachment would come out on a task and take a certain amount of
4 ammunition and it would happen that they would spend that ammunition
5 before completing their mission in Kosovo and Metohija, they have nowhere
6 to turn to for supplies, then they ask for assistance through the staff,
7 and then the staff through the ministry submits these requests; and then
8 it is sent down to the unit, that is an example of this kind of logistical
10 And secondly if they received some problems in relation to
11 food-supplies, for instance. In Pristina there was a department from the
12 ministry, directly related to the ministry, that had to do with food and
13 accommodation, and through its various points in different secretariats
14 they took care of food-supplies, and then if there were problems with that
15 then we would help through that department to have these things defined
16 properly, or rather, regulated properly so that people would not have a
17 lack of food and water and other things they needed.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: So were you simply a postbox for communications to
19 pass through?
20 A. Well, yes. They had contact with us and this was all put together
21 for all units and sent further up to the ministry so it didn't go
22 individually. Usually several of them would have a problem and then the
23 staff would put all of this together and send it further up to the
24 ministry in order to have this taken care of and to have this assistance
25 provided to the units in terms of what they were lacking.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: I mean, you had some awfully high-powered people
2 for a postbox.
3 A. Well, we didn't have any other people except for those who were
4 there. It's not that we had other people who could do that, I mean
5 lower-ranking ones that is.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
7 Mr. Lukic, is there anything arising from that that you wish to
8 take up?
9 MR. LUKIC: Only that you asked Mr. Mijatovic regarding the
10 logistical support.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
12 MR. LUKIC: So there might be, but if you want to explore
13 further --
14 JUDGE BONOMY: No, you may do so -- if you think something arises
15 that you want to take up, then please do.
16 MR. LUKIC: Okay. Thanks a lot.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: I should have asked these questions earlier.
18 MR. LUKIC: Thanks.
19 Further examination by Mr. Lukic:
20 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mijatovic, was there other work for which you
21 were not a mere postbox. Can you explain to us what it is the staff did
22 apart from distributing maps and bringing together the requests of the
23 PJPs vis-a-vis Belgrade and also in terms of the KVM?
24 A. Well, yes, I didn't say that. When the KVM was there, we
25 intensively had cooperation and contacts every day, and we collected
1 information in relation to what happened and then the KVM was resolving
2 problems and we were resolving problems in relation to that, so that's
3 what I omitted to say.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
5 Does that complete it or is there something else?
6 MR. LUKIC: That completed, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: I simply observe that the KVM was established
8 sometime after the establishment of this body. Anyway.
9 Mr. Sepenuk.
10 MR. SEPENUK: Yes, Your Honour, before the witness leaves I'd like
11 to make just one point, if I could, almost as an amicus curiae, almost as
12 a friend of the Court, and that pertains to this article in Politika, the
13 article of 5 May 1999, 4D406. And, Your Honour, the Trial Chamber had
14 actually ruled on the inadmissibility of this document on 28 November 2007
15 on the usual -- the well-known ground that it's a newspaper article, not
16 reliable, cannot be admitted for truth of its contents.
17 Now, during this witness's testimony there was reference to it,
18 and I think perfectly properly P2159 was a secretariat -- a Ministry of
19 the Interior report which sent out a copy of the article to the various
20 police units and I think it's legitimate on the question of notice. And
21 then Mr. Fila also brought it up, I think quite legitimately on the
22 question of notice. The only reason I raise it is that Mr. Lukic asked
23 certain questions about the article to the witness, and I don't quarrel
24 with that. I think he's entitled to clarify that area, except he pegged
25 it for the article -- I'd hate to think that this article, a few points of
1 which I say without arguing the point are erroneous, that if it's -- if it
2 goes unchallenged that somehow the Court will accept it as true. I just
3 want to make sure that that's still the law of the case, that 4D406 was
4 rejected as an exhibit on the grounds that it was a newspaper article,
5 could not be introduced for the truth of its contents, but was
6 legitimately introduced for this witness or commented on to the issue of
7 notice to the various police units.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
9 Mr. Lukic.
10 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
11 MR. LUKIC: We have no objections on the proposal of Mr. --
12 JUDGE BONOMY: I think it was Mr. Lukic that actually --
13 Mr. Aleksic who used it.
14 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
15 MR. SEPENUK: Yes, and as I repeat, I think used properly on the
16 question of --
17 JUDGE BONOMY: No, indeed, but I take it you have no other comment
18 to make on that, Mr. Aleksic, do you?
19 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I do have a comment, of course I do.
20 First of all, Mr. Fila used the document.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
22 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Secondly, in your decision dated the
23 28 of November that my colleague Mr. Sepenuk mentioned, you did say indeed
24 on page 3, or rather, page 4 of this decision that this document was not
25 offered through the witness or are there any indications in our motion
1 that it will be introduced through the witness and, generally speaking,
2 concerning the knowledge and what is stated in this news article.
3 During the examination yesterday -- no, the day before yesterday,
4 Mr. Fila on page 44 of the transcript --
5 JUDGE BONOMY: So that I can understand this, what is your
6 position on it and then we'll hear your submissions in support of it?
7 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I am opposed to the objection, and I
8 think that I have a basis for this not being admitted. Mr. Sepenuk is
9 against having this admitted, if I understood it correctly.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: No, Mr. Sepenuk is simply pointing out that it's
11 now admitted, but it's admitted simply as an indicator of knowledge or
12 notice being given and that it will not be used, he contends, to establish
13 the truth of the statements in the article. Now, do you take a different
15 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I would just like to add in relation
16 to that, the witness was asked today on page 69, lines 11 through 17,
17 whether he knew what persons these were and who they belonged to.
18 Mr. Lukic said, were they only from the army or from the police and he
19 said, Yes, yes, I know these people who committed crimes were from
20 different structures, the army, the police, and some third quarters. So
21 he did not confine himself only to not knowing anything about this. That
22 was my point. And then I'm opposed to what my colleague Mr. Sepenuk said,
23 but I wanted to add this that the witness did have something to say in
24 relation to the content of this.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, I follow that, but that really doesn't take
1 the matter any further. What is your objection to Mr. Sepenuk's position?
2 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I withdraw the objection. I
3 misunderstood Mr. Sepenuk, if that is -- well, it was my understanding
4 that he was against having this document admitted into evidence. I
5 misunderstood Mr. Sepenuk.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: What the witness was saying in the quotation that
7 you've given us is that from his personal knowledge crimes were being
8 committed by people from different structures, and that's his evidence and
9 the newspaper article takes that matter no further as far as we are
10 concerned as a matter of fact.
11 Now, Mr. Fila, do you have anything to say on this or are you
12 content with Mr. Sepenuk's position?
13 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Oh, I am content, but I don't
14 understand what this is all about. This accompanying document was written
15 by this gentleman and that's the only thing I asked about, and I really
16 don't understand why all this confusion, I don't understand. Thank you.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Mijatovic, that completes your marathon. Thank
19 you for coming to give evidence here. You may now leave the court with
20 the usher and you do not require to return.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I wish you
22 success in your work.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
24 [The witness withdrew]
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ivetic, your next witness?
1 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour, our next witness is
2 Mr. Milos Deretic.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Good afternoon, Mr. Deretic.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Would you please make the solemn declaration to
8 speak the truth by reading aloud the document which will now be shown to
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
11 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Please be seated.
13 You will now be examined by Mr. Ivetic on behalf of Mr. Lukic.
14 Mr. Ivetic.
15 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
16 WITNESS: MILOS DERETIC
17 [Witness answered though interpreter]
18 Examination by Mr. Ivetic:
19 Q. Good day, Mr. Deretic. For purposes of the record I would first
20 ask you to introduce yourself to the members of the panel.
21 A. Good afternoon to you. My name is Milos Deretic. I was born on
22 the 18th of July, 1954, in Podujevo. From 1955 onwards, I was living in
23 Pristina, where I completed my elementary school, high school, and the
24 electro-technical faculty. And after graduation I became an electronics
25 and telecommunications engineer. In Kosovo, or rather, in Pristina, I was
1 living until the second half of June when for well-known reasons I had to
2 leave the territory of Kosovo and Metohija and relocated with my family to
4 Q. Thank you. You've already given us an overview of your
5 educational background. Could you also briefly highlight for us your
6 employment within the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia,
7 including some of the positions that you held during the course of that
9 A. On the 1st of February, 1982, I began working in the
10 then-provincial SUP in the communications department of the provincial
11 SUP, and I was a systems engineer. In 1993 I was appointed chief of the
12 communications sector of the Pristina SUP, and I remained at that post
13 until June 1999. My other duties, once I moved to Belgrade, were at the
14 administration for communication of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia,
15 where in 2001 I was appointed as chief of the communications
16 administration at the seat of the ministry. I remained at that post until
17 the 31st of December, 2006, when I was able to retire.
18 Q. Thank you, sir. For the purposes of the next few questions I
19 would ask you to focus on the time-period of the years 1998 to the -- to
20 1999, and specifically with respect to 1998 through the 31st of May, 1999.
21 What was your specific position and function within the Serbian MUP during
22 that period of time?
23 A. As I said, in 1998/1999 I was chief of the communications section
24 of the Pristina SUP, and then from the time I was appointed as chief of
25 the section we provided logistical and technical support in communications
1 to the MUP staff in Pristina. All of this -- well, briefly from the 1st
2 of June, 1999, I was a member of the MUP staff along the communications
3 line. Of course, if I may add, this task in the communications section of
4 the SUP Pristina was pursuant to the instructions of the MUP
5 communications service.
6 Q. Thank you, sir. For purposes of the transcript, Your Honours, at
7 page 97, lines 11 and 12, I believe the witness said he provided support
8 along the communication line of service to the MUP staff. Perhaps that
9 could be clarified by re-listening to the tape and having CLSS --
10 JUDGE BONOMY: No, I think you could clarify it now by asking a
11 little more.
12 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Because obviously this is important what he was
14 doing in relation to the MUP staff.
15 MR. IVETIC: All right.
16 Q. Let me -- let me ask the question this way, sir. Within your
17 function in 1998 and 1999 within the Pristina SUP, to which organizational
18 unit or structure of the RJB did you report to and who managed your work?
19 A. According to the rules of internal organization of the MUP of the
20 Republic of Serbia, at the seat of each secretariat, or rather,
21 secretariats were formed as territorial organizations of the MUP of the
22 Republic of Serbia. Each secretariat at its seat had an organizational
23 unit of -- for communications. The Pristina SUP had a communication
24 section of the SUP, and I belonged to the secretariat of internal affairs
25 in Pristina. In view of this vertical-horizontal principle of
1 organization and the way assignments in the ministry were carried out, I,
2 in order to realize daily work assignments, was responsible to the chief
3 of the Pristina SUP and of course along the line of work also to the
4 authorised administration at the seat of the ministry.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: When you first dealt with this matter, you're
6 translated into English on two occasions as referring to the MUP staff.
7 Now, what were your comments about your relationship with the MUP staff in
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From 1993, when I was appointed as
10 chief of the department for the Pristina SUP communications, among other
11 things, that communications section, the staff of the section, were
12 duty-bound to provide this logistical support, amongst other things, also
13 to the staff because if we look at the rule on internal organization of
14 the MUP the SUP Pristina communications department, according to that rule
15 of internal organizations, also carries out assignments from the sphere of
16 communications for the needs of other secretariats in the area of Kosovo
17 and Metohija so that it was quite logical and normal to have the duty that
18 the communications department, since it was responsible for the
19 functioning of the system of communications in the area of Kosovo and
20 Metohija, for the main communications systems to according to the
21 instructions of the administration for communications to take over this
22 eventually stuff for the needs of the staff or the communications sections
23 to carry out some of these things if required.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: It will help us greatly if you can be as brief as
25 possible in your answers.
1 You also said that from the 1st of June, 1999, you were actually a
2 member of the MUP staff; is that correct?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From the 1st of June, 19 -- yes.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
5 Mr. Ivetic.
6 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 And for the information of the Court and for the record, what the
8 witness talked about the SUP Pristina having responsibility for
9 communications issues relating across the whole of the secretariats of
10 Kosovo and Metohija, that is contained in Article 45 of the rule book that
11 he specified, which is 6D1305 that we will be tendering into evidence. I
12 don't believe it has yet a full translation of the same.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
14 MR. IVETIC: But that will be submitted by us at some point in
16 Q. Now, Mr. Deretic, you mentioned a few times here various sections
17 within the SUP and at the ministry seat and lines of work. Could you
18 explain for us a little bit more the various organizational sections or
19 lines of work that existed within the Serbian MUP in 1998 and 1999?
20 A. I apologise, Your Honours, but I will have to explain this in a
21 longer story because according to the rule of internal organization of the
22 ministry --
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Why is this witness dealing with it? Is there some
24 sort of diagram that can display it or are we going to need him, being a
25 communications man, to deal with all the organizational sections of the
2 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, we're going to explain the functioning
3 of the SUP of Pristina that he was a part of for over -- almost a decade
4 and discussing how the MUP functions.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.
6 MR. IVETIC: We're at the beginning of our case showing how the
7 various structures of the MUP worked and how information and reporting
8 goes up, communications, et cetera, and in particular he started talking
9 about his section; and I think it does need to be stressed because the
10 translation of what he says comes up differently each time. Sometimes
11 he's helping staff, sometimes he's helping the line of work, and sometimes
12 he's helping the section; so I think we need to understand what he means
13 when he refers to sections and lines of work so that it's clear to this
14 Trial Chamber how the MUP functions because all too often we've had
15 witnesses here claiming the MUP is functioning the same as the army, which
16 is not the case.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ivetic, I may have misunderstood, the question
18 is a general one that he is going to tell us about all organizational
19 sections rather than how communications worked throughout the Serbian MUP.
20 And it is quite difficult to understand why we need to go beyond Kosovo,
21 but if there's a good reason for that, fine.
22 MR. IVETIC: There is, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well.
24 MR. IVETIC:
25 Q. Mr. Deretic, I have lost the reference to the page in your answer,
1 but could you please explain for us how the line of work or line of
2 information and line of management relating to the communications sector
3 worked in the SUP Pristina from your department upwards.
4 A. I said that as part of the RJB of the Republic of Serbia of MUP
5 there is a communications administration. It manages the work of the
6 organizational units of communication. Its duties include to plan and
7 organize the system of communications for the needs of the entire
8 ministry. As part of these duties, they actually plan the development,
9 organization, and the maintenance of the communications systems, the
10 equipment and the functioning of the communications. They also control
11 and monitor the work within the -- of the communications systems within
12 the secretariats. On the other hand, the section where I was chief, one
13 of the territorial organizations, according to that line of work, was part
14 of the Pristina SUP.
15 Q. And were there likewise parallel lines of management among the
16 other sections and lines of work that existed within the Pristina SUP
17 which you made reference to earlier?
18 A. I don't know. All I can reliably say for the section that I was
19 chief of is that it functioned in such a way in order to carry out its
20 daily assignments I submitted reports and I was responsible to the SUP
21 chief of Pristina. According to the line of work, it was my duty also to
22 inform the communications department at the ministry. I assume that other
23 sections operated in the same way, the other sections that existed in the
24 Pristina SUP.
25 Q. How many other sections existed within the Pristina secretariat of
2 A. Well, I can mention the criminal police section, the police
3 section, fire-fighting police section, the section of border police for
4 aliens and administrative affairs. The section for communications, the
5 section for analysis and records and information technology and also the
6 section for common affairs.
7 Q. Now, during this time-period of 1998 to 1999, do you have
8 knowledge of whether the Pristina secretariat of interior, whether they
9 had any employees within the police who were non-Serbs, and specifically
10 who were ethnic Albanians?
11 A. Well, I could mention some names correctly, of employees in my
12 section. I will try. Ahmetaj Skender was the telephone systems engineer
13 in the section; then Ali Hashani, Ilijaz Ahmeti, they were technicians on
14 the telephone system; Abagjik Nexhmedin [phoen] and Selatin Betulahu
15 [phoen] were technicians of the radio systems. Fatmir Kopriva and
16 Hazbija Thaqi [phoen] were operating the telephone exchange; they were
17 telephone exchange operators. That is my section. I could also just say
18 that the communications section of the Pristina SUP numbered about 35
20 As for the other employees of non-Serb ethnicity at the Pristina
21 SUP, I know that Musuf Sadiki [phoen] was the head of the section in the
22 fire-fighting police department. Ismet Hajziri [phoen] was working in the
23 police section at the ministry seat, he was an inspector, but I don't know
24 exactly which tasks he was in charge of.
25 Q. Now, and you --
1 A. Just, I apologise, I see on the transcript that these names of
2 these Albanian colleagues are not correctly written, it's not Musuf but
3 Musa Sadiku, not Sadiki.
4 Q. We can deal with that.
5 A. Ismet Haziri. It's not Hajziri but Haziri --
6 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Court reporter's after your
7 testimony, sir. What I wanted to ask you is -- strike that.
8 With respect to these ethnic Albanian colleagues that you have
9 named, am I to understand that they remained employed within the SUP
10 throughout the period of the NATO war?
11 A. This is hard to say. Individuals did, but some did not. I know
12 that Hazbija Thaqi, a colleague, asked me to be allowed to be relieved of
13 her duties so that she could spend time with her under-aged children. Of
14 course I did that for her and for other colleagues who worked in the
15 communications section because it was quite normal for people to feel
16 afraid for their children, and then we allowed mothers to be evacuated
17 with their children, to be with their families. This is also what I did
18 with my family, I transferred my sons from the Kosmet area also because it
19 was exceptionally risky for them to remain there.
20 Q. Now, getting back for a moment to the role or the duties of the
21 communications section within the Pristina secretariat that you described
22 and which we saw -- which I indicated was pursuant to Article 45 of the
23 rule book on internal organizations. Did this additional function of the
24 Pristina SUP exist even before 1998, that is before the ministerial staff
25 in Pristina under Sreten Lukic was established?
1 A. Yes, this obligation of the SUP Pristina communications section
2 existed also in the prior period, and this can be seen in the then-valid
3 rules on internal organization of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia. I
4 just want to clarify, it's not just the SUP Pristina communications
5 section that had this duty. The Novi Sad SUP also had the same
6 obligation, the SUP in Nis, the Kraljevo SUP communications sections all
7 had these obligations. Everything was done so that the cost of work and
8 maintenance would be used in the best possible way. The Novi Sad SUP
9 communications section carried out the same jobs for the secretariats in
10 the territory of Vojvodina. The Nis SUP communications section did that
11 for the secretariats in Zajecar, Bor, Pirot, Nis, the one in Kraljevo
12 worked on this for Cacak, Kraljevo SUPs, I think. All of this is actually
13 stated in the rules.
14 Q. Thank you, sir. I'm just waiting for the transcript and the
15 translation to catch up with us. Now, I wanted to ask you with respect to
16 the work of the various sections and departments and the lines of
17 management with respect to the same within the SUP heading upwards towards
18 the MUP in Belgrade, were those establishments altered in any way by the
19 formation of the MUP staff in June of 1998 with Sreten Lukic as the
20 manager or "rukovodilac" of the same?
21 A. As far as the communications section department, no, everything
22 remained just as it was. I cannot say that for sure about the other
23 organizational units, though, but I think that the principle of work
24 stayed in force in the next period, the staff of the MUP could not change
25 something that was defined in the rules. This horizontal and vertical
1 principle was something that had to be respected. The rules were valid at
2 the level of the ministry. It was a basic document that laid down the
3 organization of the ministry and how certain organizational units in the
4 ministry were supposed to work.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Did the document actually refer to the MUP staff
6 for Kosovo?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. As far as I know, only the
8 possibilities mentioned for the minister of the interior in accordance
9 with the requirements of the service can form a staff, but the staff does
10 not exist as such as an organizational unit.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ivetic.
12 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
13 Q. Can you please tell us, sir, where the ministry staff was located
14 prior to the commencement of the NATO air-strikes?
15 A. The MUP staff was located in the so-called administrative building
16 of the Pristina SUP. I think it was on the third floor in that building
17 where the other organizational units were located that belonged to the
18 Pristina SUP.
19 Q. Did the MUP staff in Pristina have an independent or stand-alone
20 system of communications?
21 A. This option does not exist. All communications systems of the MUP
22 are built on a single, unified basis for the entire territory of Serbia,
23 and the staff could not get anything else that could have a better
24 function. What existed in Kosovo and Metohija were integral parts of a
25 unified communications system of the ministry. The MUP staff, I know this
1 and I can confirm that, for example, used the SUP Pristina telephone
2 exchange switches, and they used units in the radio network that was used
3 in the Kosovo and Metohija. They used public telephone networks that were
4 operating in Pristina. Dispatches were convoyed via the authorised
5 services of the Pristina SUP.
6 Q. Thank you. We'll get to each one of those in time. I would first
7 like to show you, since it came up in questions from the honourable Trial
8 Chamber, Exhibit P1811. And as we wait for this to come up, sir, I think
9 you'll see this to be a decision on the composition of the ministry staff
10 for prevention of terrorism from the 31st of May, 1999, and on page 2 of
11 the Serb and page 1 of the English we see you mentioned and it lists your
12 position. When you testified that you became a member of the MUP staff,
13 is this the date that you became an effective member and the duties that
14 you accepted as a member of the MUP staff?
15 A. Yes. Senior advisor Milos Deretic, that's me, and this is the
16 decision handed to me I think on the 1st of June, 1999.
17 Q. And this document states that SUP chiefs and CRDB had -- are to be
18 part of the composition of the MUP staff. To your knowledge were any
19 employees of the RDB sector ever actually members of the ministry staff in
20 Pristina in 1998 or 1999?
21 A. In all these assignments, according to the communications line,
22 the department or section for communications and I myself operated; but I
23 really have no knowledge that there were representatives of the RDB in the
24 MUP staff. I simply don't know about that.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: I should probably have remembered this, but who was
1 your predecessor as chief of signals at the MUP staff?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Milan Cankovic in the MUP staff.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
4 Mr. Ivetic.
5 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
6 Q. And just to be clear, sir, who were the head or manager of the MUP
7 staff and his deputy in 1998 up until the date of this decision that we
8 have before us?
9 A. I know that the manager was Sreten Lukic and his deputy was
10 Miroslav Mijatovic. Until the 1st of June, 1999, I think.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ivetic, Judge Kamenova is asking me how is it
13 possible to be asking a question like this at this stage? This trial is
14 never going to end. That seems to you to have to be asked yet again.
15 MR. IVETIC: Well, Your Honours, the Office of the Prosecution
16 confronts witness after witness with documents stating that someone else
17 was the deputy head of the MUP staff, so until that question is satisfied
18 and until my client is released from custody a free man, I think I am
19 allowed to ask questions and present -- confront the evidence that the
20 Office of the Prosecution time and time again is presenting before us.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, we can live without the drama.
22 Who is the other deputy suggested?
23 MR. IVETIC: David Gajic, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. And he's the one actually named in the order;
25 is that right, the order in 1998?
1 MR. IVETIC: In one of the orders in 1998. We're about to go into
2 another order from 19 --
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you very much.
4 MR. IVETIC:
5 Q. And if we could move to that other order I want to talk about
6 P1252. This was a document that I believe was utilised by the Prosecution
7 and by other Defence counsel in these proceedings dated the 11th of May,
8 1998, and I would direct your attention to the second page in the Serb
9 original and the English translation as well. And once we see this, sir,
10 we'll see I think your name as the assistant manager for communications.
11 And the question I have for you is very simple: Did you, in fact, ever
12 receive such a decision and were you tasked as a member of the ministry
13 staff in 1998, as this Prosecution document would suggest?
14 A. No. I saw this document for the first time when it was shown to
15 me during my proofing session before this testimony. I assert with full
16 responsibility that I never saw it before and that such a document was
17 never handed to me.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Do we see the name on this page?
19 MR. IVETIC: It's the second page in Serbian and in English, Your
21 JUDGE BONOMY: So can we go over the page.
22 MR. IVETIC: In item number 10, I believe.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Does the document look genuine to you?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I'm really no expert
25 for the analysis and assessment of documents.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: But you've never seen a document like this before?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have seen documents of the
3 ministry, they have a seal and a stamp and a signature.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Have you seen Djordjevic's signature before?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, I haven't.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ivetic.
7 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
8 Q. Mr. Deretic, could we move now to your speciality and technical
9 issues relating to that speciality. What types of communications systems
10 existed within and were used within the Serbian Ministry of the Interior
11 in 1998 and 1999 in Pristina and in Kosovo and Metohija?
12 A. These systems can be divided in two main groups: Telephone
13 systems and radio systems.
14 Q. All right. If we could first focus on the telephony systems. Can
15 you tell us, please, what specific telephone systems were within use
16 within the MUP of Serbia, including the organizational and other units in
17 1998 and 1999 in Kosovo and Metohija?
18 A. The MUP of the Republic of Serbia is building a telephone network
19 for this special purpose on the entire territory of the Republic of
20 Serbia, and this telephone system is organized in such a way that it
21 consists of telephone switchboards located in the headquarters of the
22 secretariats and they are owned by the MUP of the Republic of Serbia.
23 Q. And for what type of communications was this telephone system
24 utilised and how did it differ from ordinary civilian use telephone
1 A. This telephone system was used to transmit speech messages, oral
2 messages, which have a slightly higher degree of priority or
3 confidentiality. Quite simply because this system was felt to be more
4 reliable than the public system only because it was under the constant
5 supervision of expert teams of the ministry and appropriate protection
6 measures were taken. To put it more clearly, it's an ordinary telephone
7 network, in fact, of the same sort that is used by public telephone
8 companies, such as telecom or city authorities. The only difference is
9 that the switchboards are located in secretariat buildings, in secretariat
10 facilities. They are popularly referred to as a special telephone
11 network. Policemen like using these expressions, but, in fact, it's just
12 an ordinary telephone connection, as in any other telephone network. They
13 call each radio station a Motorola, for example, even though it's not,
14 there are differences.
15 Q. All right. Were there any other organizations using the same
16 telephonic network, apart from the MUP of the Republic of Serbia?
17 A. Yes. Telephone connections or hook-ups from this ministry
18 telephone network were used, for example, by representatives of the
19 government in Belgrade, presidents of municipalities or mayors,
20 representatives of the Army of Yugoslavia.
21 Q. Thank you. Could you pleased explain for us the method by which
22 written messages or telegrams or dispatches would be sent within the MUP
23 of Serbia on the territory of Kosovo and Metohija?
24 A. I have to start once more from this singleness of the MUP
25 communications system. On the territory of Kosovo-Metohija, the MUP did
1 not have its own separate system, these were all parts of a single system
2 built to cover the entire territory of Serbia. So to transmit written
3 messages the so-called telegraph system was organized. The configuration
4 of that network resembles very closely the configuration of the telephone
5 network. The difference is that the telegraph switchboards are used which
6 use special codes or encryptions to transmit written messages.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: If a member of the public telephoned the SUP in
8 Pristina, was there some complicated arrangement to get through or was the
9 system linked automatically to the public telephone system?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Incoming calls from the town, for
11 example, when a party is calling the ministry, it first comes to the
12 mediator -- the exchange; that is, a citizen could not get through to a
13 representative of the ministry directly. They would first have to come --
14 call the exchange and then at the exchange switchboard the telephone
15 operator would ask who they wanted to speak to and they would say, I want
16 Milos Deretic or I want extension such and such and then the operator
17 would put them through. So members of the public could not call up a
18 member of the ministry directly, on a direct line.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: That's not unusual in any system. What if you
20 wanted to telephone your wife to say you're coming home for your dinner,
21 do you just lift the phone and you can phone directly out to your own
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, we spoke about incoming calls
24 to the Pristina SUP. Outgoing calls, when I was calling from the SUP,
25 would work differently. I would dial 0 and then I would dial my number.
1 So I would not have to go through the operator. I could call directly,
2 whereas incoming calls would take place the way I've described.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: That all sounds like what happens in any other
4 telephone system, but -- anyway, Mr. Ivetic.
5 MR. IVETIC: You'll see --
6 JUDGE CHOWHAN: Sorry, your own telephone will be special numbers,
7 will it not be at your house, numbers linked with the exchange directly
8 even though you dial 0, but these will be special numbers, not the public
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have to clarify. We were speaking
11 about the special-purpose telephone network. It's a network of the closed
12 type. You do not use it to communicate with the public. To communicate
13 with the public, there is an in-house switchboard, a PRBX local
14 switchboard for both incoming and outgoing phone calls where members of
15 the SUP or the ministry could communicate with the public. So these would
16 be two quite separate switchboards. One would be local and not connected
17 to the secretariat network, whereas the other one was connected to the
18 special-purpose MUP network.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ivetic, I hope you can clarify it all if it's
20 important. It will become clear once we get to the period of the war what
21 all this means.
22 Q. Right now I would like to focus on the other aspect that you
23 mentioned, the mobile or radio systems of communication, and I would ask
24 you to explain for us what mobile or radio systems of communication
25 existed within the MUP of the Republic of Serbia in 1998 and 1999.
1 A. First I have to say that these radio networks and radio systems
2 are organized in compliance with the territorial organization of the
3 ministry and in accordance with the domain of work of the ministry. The
4 frequencies used to organize these radio networks are used based on the
5 plan for the purpose and distribution of frequencies, which is proposed in
6 every state by the appropriate ministry, in Serbia it's the ministry for
7 telecommunications, and it's adopted by the government. Frequency
8 resources are defined for every user of the radio system in a state. This
9 plan also includes separate frequency ranges for the needs of the army, of
10 the MUP -- or the MUP which we used to organize such radio networks.
11 Q. And was the use of these radio frequencies and systems further
12 regulated within the MUP internally?
13 A. Yes. The manner of use of radio communications in the ministry is
14 defined in the instructions on the use of radio and telephone
15 communications systems. I think it was published in 1987.
16 Q. I'm sorry, continue.
17 A. I just wanted to say that an integral part of these instructions
18 is the directory of users of the telecommunications system and radio
19 system where the signals are listed, the numerical structure of these
20 signals, and so on.
21 Q. Can you please take a moment to explain for us the use of
22 call-signs in radio communications of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia
23 from the time-period 1998 to 1999?
24 A. For radio communications to function normally, it's quite normal
25 for every participant in radio communications when establishing a
1 connection to introduce himself with his call-sign. Every organizational
2 unit of the ministry had its general call-sign. On the territory of
3 Kosovo, for example, the Pristina SUP had Sitnica as its call-sign. The
4 SUP of Kosovska Mitrovica was Ibar; the SUP of Pec was Bistrica; the SUP
5 of Djakovica was Drim; the SUP of Urosevac was Sara; the SUP of Gnjilane
6 was Cer.
7 Q. If we can ask you to please then tell us also about the use of
8 code words in the course of radio communications, and in regard to that
9 please advise us whether these radio communications were, in fact, secure.
10 A. Well, one should know that the radio systems that the MUP of the
11 Republic of Serbia organized on its entire territory, including Kosovo and
12 Metohija, were analog in technology. Such equipment and such radio
13 communications can be listened in to or jammed very easily. For an
14 information -- a piece of information which is confidential to be
15 transmitted by a radio communication without it being made available to
16 undesired listeners, the police often used encrypted or coded messages.
17 Q. And without belabouring the point, can you tell us some examples
18 of such code words. For instance, we've had reference to Sivo.
19 A. Usually -- yes, I remember detachments of the PJP units usually
20 used a combination of colours and numbers to transmit a message without it
21 being available to everyone. For example, there was grey zero, which
22 meant there are injured; grey five meant there are dead; red two meant we
23 are expecting an attack. These were the codes used from the code books.
24 Green also meant something, and then green with a number following would
25 describe a situation in which the unit currently found itself, whether
1 they were under fire or had a damaged vehicle or whatever.
2 Q. Thank you. Now, was there any law governing the misuse of radio
3 frequencies? Was that codified in any way?
4 A. Well, every state regulates its frequency resources in its penal
5 code. I'm no lawyer, but I think that in the penal code of the Republic
6 of Serbia there are legal sanctions against anyone who owns or uses a
7 radio station without authorisation. And abuses of the system, or rather,
8 problems arising between users of various radio systems are dealt with by
9 the ministry. So my answer is yes, penal code.
10 Q. Okay. Do you have knowledge of any illegal transmissions or
11 misuse of radio frequencies in 1999 whereby messages were sent in Albanian
12 for Albanians to leave Kosovo and Metohija and the measures taken by the
13 Serb authorities in response to this?
14 A. Well, I know that representatives of the ministry of
15 telecommunications used to come and see me in Pristina asking me to help
16 them implement their assignment, which was to locate the radio station
17 called "free Kosovo," which somewhere from the territory of Metohija
18 broadcast its radio programme. This radio station was conducting an
19 aggressive propaganda campaign, introducing fear among the Albanian
20 population and clearly calling on Albanians to move out of Kosovo and
21 Metohija. My knowledge of this follows from my conversations with the
22 representatives of the ministry of telecommunications. I want to make
23 that clear. I personally did not listen to those broadcasts of that radio
24 station because we couldn't hear it in Pristina. It was broadcast from
25 the territory of Metohija, and the radio station constantly changed its
1 location. It was mounted on a vehicle, so the team from the measurement
2 centre was unable to locate it.
3 Q. Do you have knowledge or information as to the source of the
4 propaganda from this Free Kosovo radio station? Was it the work of an
5 officially licenced radio operator or not?
6 A. Had the radio station had a licence, the members of the
7 telecommunication ministry would not have been hunting after it because
8 they have to deal with these things. The station did not have an
9 operating permit. It was an illegal station, most probably of Albanian
10 separatists of their liberation army of Kosovo.
11 Q. Now --
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Are there documents about this, Mr. Ivetic?
13 MR. IVETIC: No, Your Honours, I don't have a document at hand
14 about this. We have -- we can ask for the Government of Serbia to send
15 more documents if you like about that --
16 JUDGE BONOMY: It's a matter for you. Do we have a time-scale as
18 MR. IVETIC: I believe I had said 1999 before the NATO strikes,
19 but we can ask the witness to clarify that if need be.
20 Q. Sir, could you clarify the time-period when you have personal
21 knowledge of this activity that you've just described?
22 A. It was probably in the period before the bombing because I know
23 that at the time I was in my office in the Pristina SUP building. After
24 the bombardment I couldn't return there anymore, so it must have been
1 Q. Now, would you tell us a little bit about the official -- the
2 specific radio networks of the MUP, that is to say how they were used
3 within the various organizational structures, the various SUPs, on the
4 territory of Kosovo and Metohija and what coverage or range these networks
6 A. The plan of distribution and use of radio frequencies, the MUP had
7 two ranges for the organization of its radio communications. One was on
8 the VHF and the other was on the UHF waves. I could provide more detail,
9 but I believe that it is not important. The needs of each secretariat
10 called for the formation of a VHF radio network, as a part of which the
11 secretariat seat had communications with its sectors of internal affairs
12 and police stations in their area. So when we were drafting or making
13 these radio networks, we asked for the traffic to be possible at least by
14 fixed stations. Also each secretariat in the area of Kosovo and Metohija
15 had an organized network on the UHF system. This is a system from 450 to
16 456 megahertz, which is much more favourable for covering urban areas.
17 And in this UHF network you had policemen working who were carrying out
18 their assignments in urban areas, in the town areas. So this UHF
19 communication could not be used for longer distances because it was
20 intended only for the city, for urban areas.
21 So each secretariat in the Kosovo area had its network organized
22 in this particular way. Of course until the bombing, these more powerful
23 radio stations, fixed radio stations, were able to establish radio
24 connections with the services on duty of the secretariat seats, not their
25 outlying branches or belonging organizational units.
1 Q. What about hand-held radios or I think you had used the term
2 Motorolas, what was their position within this radio system of
3 communications and what was their coverage or range?
4 A. I said that in these radio networks, the users of the ministry
5 radio network system could not be guaranteed a secure line with hand-held
6 radios. Each user was told that a fixed stationary station was all right,
7 but a hand-held station was possible to use up to a certain range but not
8 for other ranges, it depended on the range and the frequencies. If I may
9 add, they go along the line of optical vision. So any obstacle of a
10 geographical nature, a hill or anything of that nature, interferes for --
11 with these radio waves.
12 Q. Allow me to ask a very specific question about these hand-held
13 radio units. Based on the factual and technological circumstances you've
14 described for us, was it possible by means of a hand-held radio for police
15 forces involved in an action outside of Pristina to engage in real-time
16 communication with the MUP staff located in Pristina or for someone in
17 Pristina to follow the radio chatter on these hand-held radios in the
18 course of an action?
19 A. If we're talking about the period before the bombing, then I must
20 first explain that the police units while they were carrying out an action
21 always worked using hand-held radios in the so-called simplex way of
22 operation, meaning direct communication, station to station, locally.
23 These simplex communications were good to use in micro locations, and the
24 range of these connections would be up to 2 kilometres, depending again on
25 the configuration of the terrain. This means that from Pristina such
1 communications could not be monitored. Pristina could perhaps receive
2 information if the detachment commander possibly from some location used a
3 call station to call a radio user in Pristina, with the assumption that at
4 that location it was possible to hear that working channel that was
5 possibly monitored in Pristina.
6 We're talking about the period until the bombing. After the
7 bombing, it was a whole other story.
8 Q. Before we get to the bombardment I'd like to ask you one further
9 question. Did the MUP, either on the territory of Kosovo-Metohija or the
10 rest of Serbia, have any alternative or special planned means of
11 communication, either telephony or radio, to be used or implemented in the
12 event of a state of war, which would -- which disrupted the regular means
13 of communication?
14 A. No. According to its formation, the MUP is not intended for war
15 situations at least I believe that it should perform its work in peacetime
16 conditions, work conditions and for that reason the concept of our system
17 of communication was such that the equipment was intended for stationary
18 conditions of work; and this implied, for example, if we wanted some
19 equipment of the systems communication to begin working, first we had to
20 ensure and technically prepare room to install the equipment and then we
21 needed to provide reliable energy supplies and reserve energy supplies to
22 run this equipment, cables. Also the appropriate antenna installations.
23 So looking at it in that way, the MUP did not have equipment that was
24 intended for wartime action or operation.
25 Q. Now if we could focus on the time-frame of the NATO bombings. Can
1 you tell us if during that time-period there were instances of blocking or
2 jamming of MUP radio communications by enemy forces?
3 A. It was a daily occurrence at all radio channels used by the MUP.
4 I said -- I talked about analog technology of our radio systems.
5 Practically anyone who had a radio station for that range could monitor
6 our radio channels and jam them. Of course this was done even by
7 representatives of the international organizations. I'm familiar with a
8 case when an international organization or the international organization
9 of the Red Cross had radio stations with our working channels. Of course
10 there were many colleagues, Albanians, who had left the ranks of the MUP
11 of Serbia and at least those who were technically trained knew the
12 frequencies that the MUP was using for its radio communications. And once
13 you knew that, it's not a problem, it's not a technical problem, to
14 programme the radio station with these radio channels.
15 Also, I know that a lot of radio stations were seized from killed
16 or wounded police members so that the KLA used the stations to eavesdrop
17 and jam our radio communications on a permanent basis.
18 Q. Now, you've mentioned the jamming of radio communications. How
19 could that be accomplished? I think you said even that it was not a
20 technical problem. How could that jamming of the Serbian MUP's radio
21 communications be most effectively undertaken?
22 A. I don't know how familiar you are with the organization of these
23 radio systems. In analog technology practically one frequency is one
24 working channel. So if we had, as we had, for example, 58 channels or --
25 used by the Pristina MUP members, it would be enough for one user with bad
1 intentions to place that station on receive mode and hold the receive mode
2 for a while, then that channel would automatically be blocked. Because
3 according to the radio networks, the radio channels, it was possible only
4 to have one radio connection at the time. So you have alternative
5 regime -- evidently I am talking too fast, and I am being warned and this
6 is why I stopped. So the jamming could be done very simply. I hope that
7 you understood me, in what way this could be done. The jamming was
8 possible only -- it was possible by non-professionals as well. Of course
9 if somebody wished to disrupt this intentionally or deliberately, then the
10 possibilities were very wide, then you could block the whole frequency
11 range used by the MUP and then all the connections would be cut.
12 Q. Now, we've had evidence here, sir, about the bombing of the SUP
13 building in Pristina, specifically at the beginning of the war on March
14 29th, 1999. Could you please tell us what the consequences of the NATO
15 strike on the SUP Pristina building were with respect to the telephonic
16 and radio communication capabilities of the SUP or the MUP staff that had
17 been housed in that same building.
18 A. The Pristina SUP facility was where this special telephone
19 exchange was located. In the transmissions system organizations, the
20 switchboards from other secretariats in the area of Kosovo and Metohija
21 were linked to this switchboard or exchange. So if somebody from
22 Djakovica wanted to get in touch with Nis via telephone, first of all,
23 they reached Pristina and that connection was transferred towards the rest
24 of Serbia. In other words, when the building was knocked down, the
25 telephone exchange in the Pristina SUP building was destroyed, which meant
1 that the lines in this special telephone network were disrupted. So the
2 speech communications, the telephone connections from the SUPs in the area
3 of Kosovo and Metohija to Pristina and the other parts of Serbia were
4 disrupted, and then you just had the public telephone connections
5 remaining, while the SUP telephone connections were cut.
6 As for the radio system, the Pristina SUP building had an antenna
7 pole 60 metres high with accompanying antenna systems, and this was also
8 destroyed during the bombing of the SUP building in Pristina, which means
9 that those connections that we could use from Pristina to the duty
10 services of the secretariat in the Kosovo and Metohija area were no longer
12 Q. And could you describe for us whether there were any radio relay
13 stations located on the territory of Kosovo and Metohija that made up part
14 of the MUP radio communication network and how they were affected by the
15 NATO bombing campaign and how the MUP communications would likewise have a
16 resultant effect?
17 A. After the bombing of the Pristina SUP building and even before
18 that, the transmission location of Goles was bombed. At the time, the
19 system transmission node was damaged that the telecom had at that
20 facility. Telecom, as the public and sole operator of fixed telephones in
21 the state of Serbia had organized systems in the Metohija area, radio
22 relay systems, that were used for public telephone communications. In
23 this way, connections were realized, I'm talking about telecom
24 connections, via the radio relay area in Kosovsko Pomoravlje, I'm talking
25 about Gnjilane. So these Telecom communication nodes were at Goles once
1 that transmission facility was destroyed, it was practically -- we had the
2 places of Pec, Djakovica, Prizren, and Gnjilane with their environs, they
3 were left without public telephone and all other forms of communication.
4 Of course, at the same time the MUP could not have any communication, I'm
5 talking about dispatch communications, the telegraph system, which was
6 also affected by the telecom broadcast or transmissions system.
7 Q. You mentioned the Goles location. Were there other relays and
8 when, if at all, were they attacked by NATO, if you know?
9 A. I can mention some of the key emission locations that the MUP used
10 to locate its radio equipment. Burovacki Breg, that was Grmija near
11 Pristina, Goles, we know where that is. At some 30 kilometres from
12 Pristina, that's where the transmission location was, then the location
13 Stari Trg near Kosovska Mitrovica on the Mokra Gora mountain there was
14 another transmission location, then Bukova Glava on Sar Planina Mountain,
15 then Kursumlijska Banja, Zeleni Vrh near Gnjilane. All of these were key
16 broadcast locations used by the MUP to location its radio equipment via
17 which it organized its radio network.
18 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I see we're at the half-hour mark.
19 Would now be a good time to pause? I have approximately 15 minutes or so
20 left of direct.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: I think we should pause there, Mr. Ivetic. I've
22 had a chance just to review some of the evidence there on the leadership
23 of the MUP staff, and you're quite right it is a significant issue who is
24 the deputy chief of the MUP staff.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE BONOMY: But of course not apparently who was the chief of
2 the -- anyway.
3 Mr. Deretic, that brings our proceedings for today to an end. We
4 have to rise now and resume on Monday, that will be at 9.00 on Monday
5 morning in this courtroom. Over the weekend it's a strict rule that you
6 should have no communication with anyone about the evidence in this case,
7 that's any of the evidence, evidence you have given, will give, and
8 evidence that anyone else has given or might give. You can talk about
9 anything else to whoever you like, but no communication about the evidence
10 in this case whatsoever.
11 Now could you please leave the courtroom with the usher and we'll
12 see you at 9.00 on Monday morning.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 [The witness stands down]
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.32 p.m.,
16 to be reconvened on Monday, the 18th day of
17 February, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.