Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 8116

1 Friday, 8 December 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.

5 [The witness entered court]

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Good afternoon, Mr. Cvetic.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: You'll now be cross-examined by counsel for the

9 various accused, and before starting I'll just check the order in which

10 they will do that.

11 Mr. O'Sullivan.

12 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, we will follow the indictment, with

13 one change, counsel for General Pavkovic will go last.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well.

15 Well, the first counsel to cross-examine you, Mr. Cvetic,

16 Mr. O'Sullivan.

17 Mr. O'Sullivan.

18 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I have no questions, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila.

20 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have questions.


22 [Witness answered through interpreter]

23 Cross-examination by Mr. Fila:

24 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Cvetic.

25 A. Good afternoon.

Page 8117

1 Q. My name is Toma Fila; I appear on behalf of Mr. Sainovic. I will

2 have a few questions for you, and I hope we can deal with them quickly?

3 A. I'll do my best.

4 Q. The first thing that interests me is how come you gave your

5 statement in 2004? Were you summoned, called to give it, or did it happen

6 in some other way?

7 A. On the 22nd of January, 2004, members of the Ministry of the

8 Interior from Belgrade, I don't know from which administration they came,

9 came to my house in Kragujevac. They issued me with a summons and with

10 two decisions, or rather, waivers by which I was relieved of keeping state

11 and official secrets.

12 Q. Thank you. And when you attended the interview, you were

13 interviewed by two persons, as far as I can see, a man and a woman,

14 Annette Murtagh and Philip Coo. My question is this: How did they

15 introduce themselves?

16 A. They introduced themselves as investigators of The Hague Tribunal,

17 and they said that they wanted to speak with me on certain topics which

18 had been given to me by the MUP inspectors.

19 Q. Thank you. We are speaking the same language, so I need to pause.

20 Therefore, I can conclude that you spoke with both, yes or no?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Another thing that I'd like to know is this: At a certain point

23 in time, you decided to testify using your full first and last name

24 without any protective measures. When did you make that decision?

25 A. I had a long internal dialogue. I was unsure whether I should

Page 8118

1 make use of protective measures or to testify in open session. It was a

2 great dilemma for me because at that point in time I was in serious and

3 grave situation. The decision was a hard one, and I made it at the last

4 moment when I came here just before testifying.

5 Q. Thank you. In your statement and in your examination-in-chief,

6 you described the way the MUP was organised and functioned. I will have a

7 few questions on that topic pertaining to 1998. I will clarify further.

8 In your statement, there is a mention of 1996 and then 1999 and then 1998.

9 We know our way about it since we are from the same area, but this is an

10 international tribunal; therefore, I wanted to be quite clear as to what

11 year I will be referring to.

12 The question is this: First of all, in 1998 can you confirm to us

13 that the chain of command, as envisaged by the law on internal affairs,

14 was operational throughout 1998, it was in place?

15 A. You mean the chain of command within the MUP?

16 Q. Yes, of course, you were a policeman.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. The next question may appear strange, but some people testified

19 here about it; therefore, it is not something I invented. The report that

20 you -- or the reports you sent to Belgrade as the head of the SUP, and you

21 also copied those reports for the MUP staff, did I understand it

22 correctly?

23 A. It was the same report. It would be the same report sent to the

24 MUP staff and to Belgrade. It included the most important events of

25 security interest in the past 24 hours. Such reports were forwarded to

Page 8119

1 the MUP staff and to the duty operations centre of the MUP in Belgrade.

2 Q. Thank you. Did anyone work on your reports additionally once you

3 drafted them in order to show the situation in a different manner, to make

4 the worse more plausible?

5 A. No one meddled with my reports.

6 Q. Did Nikola Sainovic meddle with your reports?

7 A. No.

8 Q. I have a question about the way the VJ was organised. Of course

9 you're not familiar with it as well as with the MUP, but according to your

10 knowledge, do you know whether the VJ in 1998 also followed its chain

11 command as envisaged by the law?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Did you know that the 3rd Army, the part of which was the Pristina

14 Corps, had a forward command post in Pristina and General Samardzic was

15 there in 1998? It's still 1998.

16 A. I have no knowledge of that. I know that the command of the

17 3rd Army was in Nis.

18 Q. Fine. Let us move on. I wanted to ask you something of

19 importance for us, so as to be able to establish the background to the

20 events from the indictment. The Prosecutor did not find it necessary to

21 ask you this, hence I'm asking you. In 1996 and 1997, you as the head of

22 SUP, you noticed there was a certain person by the name of Jashari. For

23 that person, you said that he was a commander of a terrorist group. You

24 also said that they interrupted road communication in Drenica, and that

25 you spoke about that with Minister Stojiljkovic. I just wanted to remind

Page 8120

1 you, although I know you remember it quite well.

2 I'm interested in this: What was the reaction on the part of the

3 people, the people from that area, as Jashari's actions were concerned and

4 the terrorism being introduced into the area?

5 A. On the 16th of December, 1996, when I was sent to Kosovska

6 Mitrovica to be the head of SUP, I learned from my chiefs of OUP and

7 commanders of police stations as to what the situation was and what the

8 problems were in their area. The basic problem they all mentioned was the

9 issue of terrorism, especially in Srbica. The head of OUP in Srbica and

10 the commander of the police station there stressed that issue.

11 So that I could gain more detail and insight, I was sent by the

12 head of the public security department to see a person by the name of

13 Jovic. I can't recall his first name. He was the chief of the operations

14 group tasked with identifying people engaging in terrorist activities in

15 Kosovo. He forwarded the list of such people, and the list comprised 21

16 persons. The group was headed by Adem Jashari.

17 I went through the entire file that was at the disposal of the

18 Kosovska Mitrovica SUP. On that occasion, I learned that that specific

19 group, as of 1991, conducted a number of activities in that area, and that

20 on the 30th of December, 1991, the police from the Kosovska Mitrovica SUP

21 and the MUP staff from Pristina attempted to arrest Adem Jashari. There

22 was quite a resistance put up --

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cvetic, I have to interrupt you. We don't have

24 time for 1991 in this trial.

25 The question you were asked was about the reaction on the part of

Page 8121

1 people, the people from the area, as far as Jashari's actions were

2 concerned and the terrorism being introduced into the area. Now, could

3 you bring it much nearer to the time of the conflict, please, the reaction

4 at the time you went rather than what was happening in 1991.

5 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]

6 Q. In 1996 and 1997, the road communication was interrupted and you

7 mentioned it.

8 A. I am not receiving any interpretation.

9 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it seems the witness is

10 not receiving interpretation.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Okay.

12 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]

13 Q. A road was blocked, and you mentioned that.

14 A. In 1996 and in 1997, a road was blocked, the main road between

15 Kosovska Mitrovica and Pec, which went via Klina and Rudnik as well as

16 Rakos. That road at the time could not be used, as barricades were put

17 up. The police at the police station in Srbica and the citizens employed

18 with the municipal authorities could not go to work using buses, because

19 they were afraid that the terrorist groups from that area may conduct an

20 operation, and the group was headed by Jashari.

21 There was a great reaction on the part of the people from Srbica,

22 and particularly from the two Serb villages of Suvo Grlo and Banje. They

23 couldn't use the road to go to Kosovska Mitrovica; they had to go the

24 round about way via Zubin Potok to reach Kosovska Mitrovica. There was a

25 reaction on the part of the people and the municipal authorities.

Page 8122

1 Q. Did the Albanian citizens react against the abductions and theft

2 conducted by those people?

3 A. Yes, the loyal Albanians did react.

4 Q. Let us move on.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Could you clarify, who principally were the people

6 who reacted to the roadblock?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The people employed with the

8 municipal state authorities as well as those employed at the police

9 station. In Srbica, the only thing that was functioning at the time was

10 the municipality. Other companies were not operational at the time.

11 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Because --

13 JUDGE BONOMY: You said that there was a great reaction on the

14 part of the people from Srbica, and you said particularly from the two

15 Serb villages of Suvo Grlo and Banje and there's something missing. Now,

16 are you essentially saying that the reaction against the roadblock was by

17 the Serb population?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. -- thank you.

20 Mr. Fila.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But not only on their part. The

22 loyal Albanians joined in too.

23 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Let us move on. I apologise for

24 possibly having interrupted Your Honour. Let us move on to more specific

25 issues.

Page 8123

1 Q. During your examination-in-chief, you described the meeting in

2 July 1998 when you were advised on the formation of the Joint Command.

3 You said that their role was to coordinate activities between the VJ and

4 the MUP. Am I correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: If I could also ask you, you've given evidence

7 already that the normal chain of command, according to the law of the

8 interior, was in place for both the MUP and the VJ throughout 1998. Now,

9 the Joint Command you've told us earlier had been established by July

10 1998. Are you saying that with it in place, the normal chains of command

11 continued to operate?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

14 Mr. Fila.

15 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]

16 Q. I wanted to ask you something of great importance. Your memory

17 seems to be excellent. Can you mention -- can you remember whether Obrad,

18 the general, told you about the establishment of the Joint Command?

19 A. On the 10th of July, 1998, I cannot recall whether I was told that

20 by Obrad Stevanovic or Rodja Djordjevic. However, on the 22nd of July -

21 and I remember this well - that Rodja Djordjevic conveyed to us that the

22 command had been established at the highest level.

23 Q. I'm sorry I cannot jog your memory any further.

24 Can you recall who told you about the composition of this

25 coordination body, as I would call it, and you are calling it the Joint

Page 8124

1 Command. Who told you about its composition? I have in mind Milomir

2 Minic and Sainovic and so on and so forth.

3 A. On the 22nd of July at the MUP staff meeting, this was conveyed by

4 Rodja Djordjevic.

5 Q. Earlier you told us that coordination was needed between the Army

6 of Yugoslavia and the MUP. Earlier, yesterday during the

7 examination-in-chief you said that certain civilians had some assignments,

8 such as Matkovic for the economy and so on and so forth.

9 What I would like to find out from you is the following: If

10 coordination was required between the army and the MUP, what was Dusan

11 Matkovic doing there with the economy? Was this a little bit broader than

12 just military and police coordination? Was there a political aspect to

13 this?

14 A. The Joint Command had certain persons who were charged with

15 certain things. Just like in any military command, there were assignments

16 for certain sectors. Matkovic was entrusted with the economy and economic

17 activities, whereas Mr. Nikola Sainovic was entrusted with the

18 coordination between the military and the police.

19 Q. What about Andjelkovic?

20 A. At the time Andjelkovic was acting president of the temporary

21 Executive Council, and then after the 28th of September Assembly session,

22 he became the president of the TEC.

23 Q. What were his duties at the command, though? If you don't know,

24 fine.

25 A. I don't know.

Page 8125

1 Q. What I would like to get from you, if possible, is: This Joint

2 Command, I'm still going to refer to it as coordination, but it's Joint

3 Command, there is the military aspect, the police aspect, but there is

4 some other matters also; for example, the economy and so on. Would you

5 agree with me?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. You mentioned Milomir Minic. You said that he had an important

8 function in the SPS and was an important political figure.

9 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] We need to have in the transcript

10 besides the military, the police aspect, and the economic aspect, the

11 political aspect as well. That is what the witness said.

12 Q. Could you please say yes.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. You mentioned Milomir Minic. You said that he was a high MUP

15 official, high-ranking SPS official, and that he was something in the

16 Federal Assembly. If I were to tell you that he was the president of the

17 Federal Assembly, would you take my word for it?

18 A. I remember that he was the president of one of the chambers of the

19 Federal Assembly but which one --

20 Q. All right, all right, very well, all right.

21 A. I don't know if I am wrong. I think that he was the chairman of

22 one of the chambers of the Federal Assembly, because at the time the

23 Assembly had the chamber of the citizens and the chamber of the republic,

24 so I don't know which one it was.

25 Q. Very well. You also said that Matkovic -- the chamber of

Page 8126

1 citizens. You said that Matkovic was one of the vice-presidents. I think

2 that there were five of them. Sorry, not Matkovic, Sainovic. I'm

3 beginning to suffer from age. I don't get younger every year; I get

4 older.

5 So Sainovic was one of the deputy prime ministers in the federal

6 government. Since we know that the president of the chamber of citizens

7 in the Federal Assembly is person number two, he becomes the person in

8 charge if something should happen to the president. So who had higher

9 rank, according to you, Milos Minic or Nikola Sainovic?

10 A. We're talking about two branches of government, the legislative

11 and the executive government. The legislative government or branch is

12 higher than the executive government, because the legislative branch

13 enacts laws and the executive branch implements those laws.

14 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat his question.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila, could you repeat that question, please,

16 because you were talking over the translation of the witness's answer.

17 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]

18 Q. The question is: According to the Yugoslav constitution, which

19 was in force until a few days ago, the president of the Assembly has a

20 higher rank than a deputy prime minister. Isn't that so? He can stand in

21 for the president of the republic, for example.

22 A. The Assembly --

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp.

24 MR. STAMP: Maybe the witness can offer an opinion but isn't that

25 really a legal question, a question of legal interpretation of the

Page 8127

1 constitution at the time?

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, let's -- I think this witness can answer that

3 question, if he feels he has the knowledge. It's a matter of fact.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Federal Assembly had its

5 president, the president of the Federal Assembly, and there were two

6 president of the chambers of the Federal Assembly, as far as I can recall.

7 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Very well. We'll move on. Do you believe that --

9 JUDGE BONOMY: You've also to remember the concept that existed in

10 Yugoslavia, that it wasn't so much rank that mattered, it was the office

11 that you held. You'll remember the evidence in relation to some of the

12 positions that the ranks that people have held. I think in relation to

13 the investigation into Batajnica and the refrigerated lorry we learned

14 that. So perhaps it's not quite simply a matter of rank in the political

15 arena either, Mr. Fila.

16 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] We're talking about (redacted), because

17 rank in our MUP is also linked to the level of education. Doctorate -- a

18 person with a doctorate could have been a minister, if they wanted to.

19 Q. Do you think that because of that, perhaps it would be more

20 logical that Milomir Minic would have a higher rank than Sainovic in this

21 coordination, especially because you saw some reports presented to you by

22 the Prosecutor, who opens the meetings, who makes the conclusions, and so

23 on. Wouldn't that be more logical in your view?

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

25 (redacted)

Page 8128

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Is your answer yes or ...

8 A. The president of the Federal Assembly, the Assembly that includes

9 both chambers, in order for the Assembly, in order for the decisions of

10 the Federal Assembly to be important and to be adopted, both chambers had

11 to adopt those decisions. If they were adopted only at the session of one

12 chamber, they could not be applied.

13 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat his question.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: We've got the same problem, Mr. Fila. You're going

15 to have to repeat all that because you've been talking over the

16 translation.

17 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]

18 Q. The president of the Federal Chamber chairs the Assembly when laws

19 are being enacted that have to be passed by both chambers. That's how it

20 is.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: I think, Mr. Fila, we've exhausted the potential

22 knowledge of the witness on this. Let's move to something else.

23 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]

24 Q. You told us that you did not attend any meetings of this Joint

25 Command, and now what I'm interested in is the following. Did you find

Page 8129

1 out anywhere how it was holding its meetings, where were they convened,

2 who was chairing the meetings, and so on?

3 A. I don't have any information about that. I don't know where they

4 were physically located.

5 Q. Thank you. You said -- you spoke --

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Stop a moment. Wasn't the evidence yesterday that

7 the witness did not attend any meetings of the Joint Command? You may be

8 right. Sorry. Please carry on, yes.

9 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Something wasn't articulated, so perhaps you will correct me if I

11 misunderstood. Speaking about this you said that in 1999 you saw several

12 orders by the Joint Command, and based on that I understood that in 1998

13 you didn't see any such orders. If I understood you correctly. Is that

14 what you meant?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Thank you. Now we will move to 1999, these are the meetings of

17 the MUP staff where you were, and you said that the army did not

18 participate in these meetings from the 24th of March until the 16th of

19 September, 1999.

20 A. The MUP staff meetings in the period from the 24th of March to the

21 16th of April, military representatives were not attending these meetings.

22 Q. When they were present in 1999, you said that there were maps on

23 the desks, and that Lukic and Pavkovic spoke, if I understood you

24 correctly --

25 MR. STAMP: Objection.

Page 8130

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp.

2 MR. STAMP: I suspect that there might be a problem, at least for

3 the record, if counsel doesn't indicate that when he refers to what the

4 witness said, I think it is something he said in his statement, not in

5 evidence.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I certainly don't remember this evidence, so

7 it can't be in the evidence from yesterday.

8 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Yes, that is correct, in the statement.

9 All right. Then we will ask him like this:

10 Q. The meetings before this period that we mentioned just a little

11 bit before, the meetings that were attended by representatives of the Army

12 of Yugoslavia, were there any maps at those meetings?

13 A. In 1998, before the anti-terrorist activities began to be

14 implemented, and this was on the 25th of July, 1998, so this was before

15 the 25th of July, at a meeting in the MUP headquarters there were

16 representatives of the military and there were topographical military maps

17 1:50.000 ratio, and in those maps the forces and the equipment were drawn

18 in and also the axes were established at which the military and police

19 units were to operate. And as for when the action was going to start --

20 Q. All right. Very well. I just wanted to indicate the difference

21 between 1998 and 1999. Now we will move to the 4th of April, 1999; that's

22 the meeting you mentioned that Sainovic appeared at.

23 From the minutes it can be seen -- this is an exhibit by the

24 Defence, so, if necessary, we are going to bring it up. At the end of the

25 minutes it's mentioned -- or Sainovic appears. He's not in the earlier

Page 8131

1 part when the -- those present are being noted and so on. So can I

2 conclude on the basis of that that he wasn't at the meeting from the

3 beginning but that he joined the meeting towards the end, or should I show

4 you those minutes?

5 A. Yes, I remember it very well. How could I not? That meeting was

6 attended from the beginning by Nikola Sainovic.

7 Q. The minutes seem to indicate something else, but never mind. Do

8 you know why he came? He's not -- he's not in the minutes. Let's look at

9 the minutes.

10 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] That is Exhibit number 1998 -- P1989.

11 Please look at it.

12 Q. Do you see page 1, first of all, and you can see who is mentioned

13 as being in attendance. It doesn't mention Nikola Sainovic anywhere.

14 Now, please look at page 2.

15 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Page 2, please. I'm sorry, can we look

16 at page 4. Can we look at page 4 on the ELMO, please.

17 Q. And based on what it says, it says that he joined the work and

18 that he wasn't there right from the beginning, so perhaps your

19 recollection of this meeting is not quite correct --

20 MR. STAMP: There is a translation issue. The English translation

21 we have is just he joined the work --


23 MR. STAMP: -- not that he was not there from the beginning.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Indeed. This is a matter of interpretation.

25 Mr. Cvetic, there is a paragraph of five lines after the bullet

Page 8132

1 points, the first paragraph after these bullet points. Could you read the

2 first line of that paragraph to us aloud, please.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "The federal deputy prime minister,

4 Mr. Nikola Sainovic, joined the work."

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

6 Mr. Fila.

7 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]

8 Q. But you see that he's not mentioned in the list of those

9 attending, but that he joined --

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Where is the list of those attending? It gives a

11 list of people reporting or what they did, but is there a list of people

12 attending?

13 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Please, can we look at page 1 of this

14 same document.

15 Q. Would you please kindly read the sentence beginning: "The meeting

16 was held," and then read it till the end.

17 A. "The meeting was held by Lieutenant-General Obrad Stevanovic and

18 Major-General Sreten Lukic, and it was attended by the chiefs of all the

19 secretariats, commands, detachments of the PJP, commander of the SAJ, and

20 commander JSO, RDB."

21 The name Nikola Sainovic is not referred to here, but I remember

22 that Nikola Sainovic did attend the meeting and joined the discussion

23 after all of the prior discussions.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Just -- again, just a moment. Is General Lukic or

25 General Stevanovic referred to in the first page of this?

Page 8133

1 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Yes.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [No interpretation].

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, they don't appear in the English.

4 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Maybe the translation is incorrect.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it's a heck of a mistake to make in the

6 translation. That's one that will definitely need to be invested.

7 MR. STAMP: It seems now that the translation, the official

8 translation, is erroneous and that is one I worked at. But I now have

9 been told that there is a draft translation which has that in it,

10 strangely enough.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Could we have the first page in the English,

12 please, on the screen. Thank you.

13 Now, what are you saying, Mr. Stamp? This is said to be an

14 English translation. It doesn't say it's a draft.

15 MR. STAMP: No, no. The -- strangely, as it would sound, the

16 formal official translation has made an error, I now realise, and that is

17 what I was working from. However, I have also just discovered that there

18 was a draft translation which contains the quotation that was just --

19 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm quite -- I'm quite concerned about it, because

20 I can see three numbers, 1, 2, and 3 on the Serb version, and they don't

21 appear in the English translation either. This requires investigation.

22 Please carry on, Mr. Fila, and I will take the matter up with

23 CLSS.

24 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Mr. Cvetic, it is not in dispute that Mr. Sainovic was there.

Page 8134

1 What is in question is the moment he arrived, and another thing that is

2 not in dispute is the words ascribed to him in the minutes. I'm just

3 stating that he joined the meeting later. As you can see from the fourth

4 page -- maybe I can read it out to you --

5 JUDGE BONOMY: You've dealt with this, Mr. Fila. The witness has

6 given you as definite an answer as anyone could ever give about anything,

7 and he's clear that Mr. Sainovic was there at the beginning, so let's move

8 on to something else.

9 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Would you allow for a possibility that on that day some officers

11 were promoted and that he had been invited to attend and address those

12 present?

13 A. At that meeting?

14 Q. The last sentence says: "Those promoted were handed out

15 certificates." Please have a look at page 4.

16 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Page 4 of the document, please.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have it.

18 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Wait a few seconds. The last sentence, "the extraordinarily

20 promoted," please read it out.

21 A. "The extraordinarily promoted commanding officers have been issued

22 decisions on their appointments to higher ranks."

23 Q. Could it have been that he was invited to attend to address those

24 present, as Mr. Sainovic claims was the reason?

25 A. I don't know what the reason was, but I know what Mr. Sainovic

Page 8135

1 said at the meeting and I mentioned it specifically yesterday. I can

2 repeat if you wish.

3 Q. That is not in dispute. Let us conclude with this document. Do

4 you think it was a speech of a high political official who came there to

5 boost morale, it was just prior to the NATO attacks, and he came to see a

6 group of people who were patriots fighting for their country and trying to

7 boost their morale. Can we say that?

8 A. The arrival of all those politicians who attended, and inviting

9 certain military officers to attend a political meeting, well, if we put

10 that in that context, then, yes, we could see it as such.

11 Q. Thank you. The other meeting you mentioned where you said he

12 didn't participate but he only followed agency reports, I -- it must have

13 been quite a large meeting room for you to be able to convene your meeting

14 at one end and for him to be able to watch the TV at the other?

15 A. It was in the basement of the Grand Hotel, we were a bit further

16 away, separated from him, and in another part he was following agency

17 reports, foreign agencies' reports, about the NATO bombing in Yugoslavia

18 and the reactions it caused.

19 Q. Therefore, he wasn't present at the meeting?

20 A. I said he was there but that he did not participate in the meeting

21 itself.

22 Q. Thank you, Mr. Cvetic. Let us move on.

23 You spoke about the period of the so-called fight against

24 terrorism. Did you know that in Belgrade there was an interministerial

25 staff that was organised to counter terrorism?

Page 8136

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Who headed that staff, what can you tell us about it?

3 A. As for the formation of this interministerial staff, I can tell

4 you the following: In March or April 1998, I think in April 1998, the

5 interministerial staff to fight terrorism was established.

6 What does it mean, "interministerial"? It meant that the

7 functions of the state and the public security department were brought

8 together. The head of the staff was Mr. Jovica Stanisic, who was at the

9 time the head of the state security department. His deputy was Rodja

10 Djordjevic, who was the head of the public security department. In that

11 staff, apart from the head and his deputy, there were also David Gajic,

12 Obrad Stevanovic, Loncar from the state security department, and Radomir

13 Markovic, as well as Franko Simatovic.

14 Q. Did they issue any orders for operations in Kosovo while the staff

15 was in existence until October 1998?

16 A. Interministerial staff drafted an action plan for the units of

17 both state and public security in fighting terrorism, and the plan was in

18 existence at the time in Kosovo.

19 Q. Thank you. Let us move on.

20 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Could we please see P1968. I believe

21 we saw it yesterday. It has to do with the Joint Command.

22 Q. I would kindly ask for brief answers. I'm having less and less

23 time, both in this cross-examination and in my life in general.

24 A. Well, I can't sum it up in one sentence.

25 Q. In this document before you, would you agree with me that it is a

Page 8137

1 military document, not a police one, but a military one. It says: "Order

2 to provide support to MUP." Is it so?

3 A. Can you please repeat the question.

4 Q. Is this a military document?

5 A. Or?

6 Q. Or a police one?

7 A. This is a military document.

8 Q. Thank you. Let us move on to the next page, item 4. Item 4. It

9 says: "Decision." Can you see it?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Please read out the first two words or the first line.

12 A. "I have decided to support MUP forces in the attack by engaging

13 main forces on the following axis."

14 Q. Who decided? The commander of the Pristina Corps. Does it come

15 from the Pristina Corps?

16 A. Let me see the whole document.

17 Q. This is it.

18 A. No, what about the signature block?

19 Q. That's the problem, there isn't one.

20 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Let's go to page 3.

21 Q. If you go on reading it, you'll see for yourself. And then the

22 next page.

23 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] One more page, all the way to the end.

24 More. Just leaf through. One more page. One more. Yes. Here's the

25 end.

Page 8138

1 Q. No signature, as you can see.

2 A. Yes, but it says "Joint Command."

3 Q. Is this a document from the Pristina Corps or not, or you don't

4 know?

5 A. No. Judging by this, it seems that the Pristina Corps drafted

6 this document and it was verified at the Joint Command meeting.

7 Q. As a matter of fact, this document comes from the Pristina Corps.

8 A. Can I see page 1, please.

9 Q. It also says: "Joint Command."

10 A. Nevertheless, I want to see it.

11 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Let us please see it.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it states "Joint Command."

13 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]

14 Q. The person who decided was not the Joint Command, but a commander,

15 the commander of the Pristina Corps, I guess?

16 A. Within the body of the Joint Command, as in any other military

17 command, there are certain methods of work. A command representative, in

18 this specific case the commander of the Pristina Corps, can draft

19 something and submit it to the Joint Command for verification.

20 Q. Now I understand, and this was by way of introduction.

21 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Could we please see --

22 Q. Well, you saw that document already. It is a Prosecution exhibit

23 with the call signals, I believe. 1052.

24 Mr. Cvetic, it says here "Joint Command" in the left-hand corner,

25 upper left-hand corner. Do you see it?

Page 8139

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. To the right it says "call signal Pastrik."

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Is it possible that throughout your career you haven't heard of

5 this call signal, Pastrik, as being the call signal for the

6 Pristina Corps?

7 A. Well, no, I haven't.

8 Q. Thank you. This concludes my cross-examination. You don't know.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Fila.

10 Mr. Visnjic.

11 MR. VISNJIC: No questions, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

13 Mr. Bakrac.

14 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will be brief.

15 Cross-examination by Mr. Bakrac:

16 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Cvetic, my name is Mihajlo Bakrac; I appear

17 for General Lazarevic. I will have a few questions.

18 A. Please go ahead.

19 Q. I wanted to clarify some things. Yesterday you were examined by

20 my learned friend Mr. Stamp. He asked you about the work of the military

21 war courts and military prosecutors. You mentioned the 4th of April as

22 the date when they were meant to start functioning. Would I be able to

23 jog your memory that by a decree of the 21st of March -- of the 27th of

24 March, the decree by the president of the republic, the military war

25 courts and military prosecutors were being established?

Page 8140

1 A. Are you talking about the regular courts or about the wartime

2 military courts?

3 Q. I mean the wartime military courts and wartime military

4 prosecutors.

5 A. I have no knowledge of that. We haven't received a single

6 document about it, no notification. The meeting discussed the beginning

7 of the work of such bodies, and until that point in time all reports were

8 to be sent to the regular courts.

9 Q. Thank you. During your examination-in-chief, when asked by

10 Mr. Stamp, you spoke about reserve police squads, the RPOs. You said that

11 some units from the military departments, when not engaged otherwise,

12 could be made part of these RPOs. Would you agree with me that it would

13 be more correct to say that individual recruits with the war assignment in

14 the VJ, upon MUP's request, could have been deployed elsewhere. Their war

15 assignment could have been changed, provided they were made part of the

16 civilian protection or the RPOs?

17 A. No. Their war assignment was not changed whatsoever. That's how

18 they were introduced into RPOs.

19 Q. Thank you.

20 A. Of course, some people had their war assignments changed.

21 Q. I have only one more question. Would you agree with me if I said

22 that it is correct that the police was never resubordinated to the army?

23 A. While I was in Kosovo until the 16th, the units and bodies of the

24 Ministry of the Interior were not subordinated to the Army of Yugoslavia.

25 Q. Thank you, Mr. Cvetic.

Page 8141

1 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further

2 questions.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Bakrac.

4 Mr. Lukic.

5 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

6 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic:

7 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Cvetic.

8 A. Good afternoon.

9 Q. My name is Branko Lukic, and unfortunately I will have a bit more

10 questions for you than my learned friends. I kindly ask for your

11 assistance so as to be able to clarify some things from the domain of your

12 testimony and work. I will start with a general question.

13 You told us that you being sent to Kosovo was something you saw as

14 a demotion. What about other cases of people being sent to Kosovo, was

15 that also demotion, a demotion when it comes to policemen and police

16 officials?

17 A. No. I don't know about other cases. I just stated my view of

18 that transfer, or rather, that was based on the method of my superiors,

19 the method they used against me. It was inhumane and unprofessional.

20 Q. Could a policeman refuse to go to Kosovo, and what would happen in

21 that case?

22 A. There were such cases as well. The policemen who refused to go to

23 Kosovo were fired, but after the 5th of October, 2001, all those policemen

24 who had been removed or fired for refusing to go to Kosovo were

25 reinstated.

Page 8142

1 Q. Very well. Thank you. Is it correct that the Kosovska Mitrovica

2 SUP, which you headed, could not ensure the freedom of movement and the

3 protection of citizens and property with their own resources, so you asked

4 from Minister Stojiljkovic, General Djordjevic and Ilic for the MUP to

5 enable freedom of movement, especially in the Srbica-Pec direction?

6 A. [No interpretation].

7 Q. You said that there were attacks, kidnappings, roads were blocked,

8 police patrols were attacked and so on?

9 A. Which year was this?

10 Q. You said that this was in 1997. Did the same apply to early 1998?

11 A. Yes, of course.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Just stop a moment. Line 1 of page 27, the answer

13 given was "yes" and should be reflected. Thank you.

14 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Please carry on now.

16 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

17 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Cvetic, I am going to make pauses, not

18 because I'm dissatisfied with your replies but because we are speaking the

19 same language. I would also like to tell you if there is something you

20 don't know, feel free to say so. That is also a legitimate response.

21 Please don't feel that you have to tell me whatever I am asking you.

22 The Kosovska Mitrovica SUP, did it have information and have

23 sufficient indications pointing to the perpetrators of criminal acts that

24 were committed by the members of the KLA at the time? Do you recall that?

25 A. You mean terrorist crimes?

Page 8143

1 Q. Yes. Is it true that you didn't have the strength to prevent

2 these things being committed or to arrest the perpetrators, you and the

3 Kosovska Mitrovica SUP?

4 A. No. At the time we were not allowed to take steps unless there

5 was agreement from a higher level to take part in these actions.

6 Specifically, I am referring to this question that you put when I -- when

7 Minister Vlajko Stojiljkovic and Vlajkovic [as interpreted] when they were

8 at the meeting at the MUP headquarters on the 27th of May, 1997, and when

9 I made this request to them this was not allowed at the time, and what was

10 said was that no local police members, because there was a reaction by the

11 local police, they wanted to take these measures by themselves, that they

12 should not take any measures on their own until they received instructions

13 to do that.

14 Later, there was another meeting with Mr. Stojiljkovic and he said

15 that this problem is something that the leadership of the country was

16 informed about and that no one is to take any steps unless this was first

17 decided upon by the top leadership.

18 Q. In early 1991 --

19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Early 1999 --

20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. -- you, as the Kosovska Mitrovica SUP, did you have enough

22 resources to combat terrorism?

23 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please pause between question

24 and answer.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No activity could have been carried

Page 8144

1 out without the approval of the headquarters and their agreement.

2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. All right. Very well.

4 Could you please tell us what the powers and the duties of the SUP

5 are for the territory where they are established.

6 A. The SUP work is regulated by the Law on Internal Affairs.

7 Q. Could you please briefly tell us the main points of that.

8 A. Briefly said, it's the protection of personal property and

9 security and combatting all forms of crime.

10 Q. As the SUP chief, who were you responsible to for the security

11 situation as well as for the work and the functioning of the SUP and its

12 units?

13 A. I was responsible to the minister in any event, to the chief of

14 the department, the headquarters chief, and also to the chiefs of

15 individual administrations within the ministry entrusted with certain

16 sectors; for example, for police matters to the police chief, for the

17 crimes, I was responsible to the crimes chief, and so on and so forth.

18 Q. Very well. Thank you. You said that on the 11th of June, 1998,

19 Minister Vlajko Stojiljkovic appointed General-Major Sreten Lukic to head

20 the headquarters in Pristina?

21 A. No, I didn't say that. I didn't say that Minister Vlajko

22 Stojiljkovic appointed him. I said that the -- that Lukic was appointed

23 to this position according to an order by the sector chief.

24 Q. Was that a regular substitute for the previous person who was

25 carrying out that assignment for a year?

Page 8145

1 A. [No interpretation].

2 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat his question.

3 He's reading too fast.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, you're not pausing and you're going too

5 quickly, say the interpreters.

6 MR. LUKIC: I apologise. I'll repeat my questions.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. You see, we've missed another answer,

8 and I think the answer was "yes" again.

9 MR. LUKIC: In line 22, yes.


11 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

12 Q. [Interpretation] By appointing Sreten Lukic as the chief of the

13 staff, were there any changes in the organisation of work to date and the

14 authorities and the powers of the SUPs, compared to the previous period?

15 A. Are you thinking of the organisation of the work of the SUPs?

16 Q. Yes, yes, the SUPs.

17 A. No.

18 Q. Thank you. Also, none of the regulations guiding the work of MUP

19 was not changed. Is that correct?

20 A. No. The regulations of the MUP were the same other than this

21 decision. Nowhere was it mentioned -- nowhere was the Pristina MUP staff

22 mentioned, other than the decision on its establishment. I never

23 encountered that in any other regulations.

24 Q. Could you please tell us who comprised the headquarters before the

25 start of the NATO bombing.

Page 8146

1 A. The MUP staff, you mean?

2 Q. Yes. Who do you remember being there.

3 A. Before the starting of the bombing? How long before? A day? Two

4 days? Three days?

5 Q. In March 1999.

6 A. In March 1999, the staff included Mr. Sreten Lukic, who was the

7 Chief of Staff; Mijatovic was the deputy Chief of Staff; Dusko Adamovic;

8 Goran Radosavljevic; Mr. Novica Zdravkovic; Vukovic; Zarko Brakovic.

9 Q. Very well. Thank you. I didn't expect so many names, that you

10 would recall all those names after so much time has passed. Thank you.

11 And now a question that might be strange to you, but we found it

12 in the papers. You as a member of the -- or you as the chief of the

13 Kosovska Mitrovica SUP, were you a member of the MUP Pristina staff also?

14 A. I personally, by first and last name, no; but in the decision on

15 the establishment of the staff, it is stated that the chiefs of the SUPs

16 are part of the broader composition of the staff.

17 Q. So even though it is stated in the decision, you were not a member

18 of the staff?

19 A. No. You asked me whether I, Ljubinko Cvetic, was a member of the

20 staff, no.

21 Q. All right. Very well. Thank you.

22 Is it correct that all SUPs, including those in Kosovo and

23 Metohija were obliged to send a report every day to the MUP on the

24 security situation in the territory, and that this was in force before

25 1998 also. Is that correct?

Page 8147

1 A. No. The security situation, no, but about the events and

2 incidents, yes. There is a big difference between those two terms.

3 Q. I'm sorry, there are laymen here who do not understand all the

4 fine distinctions of your profession, but thank you in any case.

5 Is it correct that in extraordinary situations, the first report

6 would be submitted by telephone?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Is it true that after that there would be a dispatch?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Thank you. Is it correct that the communication within the MUP in

11 the territory of the entire republic, a special telephone network

12 called "specijal" was used, you mentioned that yesterday?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Do you recall how many "specijals" there were in your SUP staff

15 and who had this kind of line available?

16 A. Are you thinking of the SUP in Kosovska Mitrovica?

17 Q. Yes.

18 A. The chief of the SUP, the deputy chief of SUP, the chief of the

19 police sector, the OUP, the crime-fighting department chief, the chief of

20 the department for general and joint affairs. This would be at the seat

21 of the secretariat.

22 Out of the secretariat seat, there was such a line in Leposavic,

23 in Srbica, these are the OUP chiefs, and also the OUP chief in Vucitrn.

24 Q. And also the emergency duty service had that as well?

25 A. Yes, of course.

Page 8148

1 Q. Can we assume, then, that this was not some super secret kind of

2 telephone line, that these were regular telephone lines that were used

3 within the SUP. Is that correct?

4 A. No. Those lines were part of the PTT system but they were more

5 protected or more secure than the regular lines in the PTT. They did not

6 provide 100 per cent security, however.

7 Q. Yes, precisely. Thank you.

8 During bombing, did you use the "specijal" lines, and what were

9 the connections like, let's say, after the 24th or the 25th of March when

10 the bombing started?

11 A. When the bombing started, we were using the special lines. For as

12 long as we used them until the PTT building in Pristina was destroyed by

13 NATO bombing. Then again, special connections were organised, but once

14 again these were communications at certain locations.

15 Q. Can we confirm that the PTT building in Pristina was bombed on the

16 27th of March, 1999?

17 A. I cannot remember when the PTT building in Pristina was bombed,

18 but I do recall that the MUP building where the staff was located was

19 bombarded on the 28th of March.

20 Q. Very well. Thank you.

21 A. It was in that period. I cannot remember whether it was precisely

22 on the 27th, though.

23 Q. Can we agree -- I have an exhibit here but perhaps there is no

24 need to show it. It's about reports being sent to Belgrade first. It was

25 always sent to the Ministry of Internal Affairs Belgrade, as you said

Page 8149

1 today, using a professional term DOC; that would be the emergency

2 operation centre in Belgrade. And parallel to that, reports were also

3 sent to the ministry staff. Is that correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at Exhibit 6D129 on

6 the e-court.

7 Q. Just one moment, please, Mr. Cvetic, while the document is brought

8 up.

9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at the heading of the

10 document.

11 Q. What I would like to ask you is whether it happened, as we can see

12 on the basis of this document, that the MUP of Republic of Serbia informs

13 and issues directions to the SUPs, all 33 of the secretariats, without

14 informing the MUP staff in Kosovo first?

15 A. Of course this happened.

16 Q. Thank you. We see that from this document, this is 6D129. Is

17 that correct?

18 A. I don't have that number.

19 Q. All right. Very well.

20 A. I have the number dispatch.

21 Q. No, this is the number of this document.

22 A. This is the dispatch of the crime police administration, and it's

23 marked DD, which means very urgent.

24 Q. Thank you very much.

25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at the bottom of the

Page 8150

1 document so that we can see who actually signed this dispatch.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The chief of administration,

3 Major-General Dragan Ilic. At the time, he was the chief of the

4 administration.

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Thank you.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now bring up document P1090

8 on the e-court system, please.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Before that happens, this is an intimation of a

10 crime and a request for assistance in detaining suspects. Is that right?

11 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. All we wanted to show is --

12 JUDGE BONOMY: It's hardly an order from the Ministry of the

13 Interior in Belgrade for action by the SUPs. It's what you would expect

14 any police force might issue worldwide, never mind to the area of Kosovo.

15 MR. LUKIC: That's what we found in haste, trying to show this

16 point, but the witness also confirmed that this situation happened.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Indeed --

18 MR. LUKIC: Thanks.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: But certainly this document wouldn't be much

20 foundation for drawing from that that the orders for serious action on the

21 part of the SUPs in Kosovo would come from Belgrade bypassing the MUP

22 staff in Pristina.

23 MR. LUKIC: We'll have more time --

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you've got the chance to ask the witness if

25 you want, but that's a matter for you.

Page 8151

1 MR. LUKIC: One moment, Your Honour.

2 [Defence counsel confer]

3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Mr. Cvetic, I wanted to ask you this --

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have Exhibit P1092 put

6 up on e-court.

7 [In English] I think that we have a wrong document on the e-court.

8 We need 1092. Actually, we'll skip that one. Can we see --

9 JUDGE BONOMY: You've got it now.

10 MR. LUKIC: Can we see -- we have more documents. Obviously we

11 have some problem with this one. Can we see 6D130, please.

12 Q. [Interpretation] We have this document now, Mr. Cvetic. My next

13 question is -- and it seems His Honour, Mr. Bonomy, is also interested in

14 this aspect of the issue.

15 It happened frequently that the public security department in

16 sending their dispatches sent them to all the SUPs, all 33 of them, and at

17 the same time to the MUP staff in Pristina. Is that so?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And in the signature block we see?

20 A. We see General Misic.

21 Q. Thank you. Does this document show - and it is also the position

22 of our Defence - that the staff was not a body which was to be found

23 between the ministry and the SUPs, in the sense that the SUPs had to

24 report to the staff and then the staff would decide who to report further.

25 Is it correct that when SUPs were notified, they were notified on the same

Page 8152

1 occasion or at the same time as the staff?

2 A. Generally speaking, one cannot say that. Sometimes we received

3 information without the knowledge of the staff. On other occasions, both

4 instances were informed, and yet on some other ones only the staff would

5 receive some information. What was your question actually?

6 Q. Thank you. That would be it.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have 6D134 on e-court.

8 While we're waiting for it to appear on the screen, I wanted to

9 tell you that -- yes, here it is. It is a document dealing with

10 disciplinary proceedings. We see here as well that the Ministry of the

11 Interior and the SUP in Pristina -- well, it says the Ministry of the

12 Interior of the Republic of Serbia to the police administration, and it

13 can be seen there that consent is sought to initiate disciplinary

14 proceedings and adopt decisions on the removal of four employees of the

15 given SUP. Is it correct that this document was not copied to the MUP

16 staff in Kosovo?

17 A. It is correct, and I believe in my opinion that the MUP staff did

18 not have to be informed of this.

19 Q. Precisely so, Mr. Cvetic. Thank you. And what was the reason for

20 that?

21 A. I can explain it in detail. No problem.

22 Q. Well, so as to move more quickly, is it correct that the MUP staff

23 in Kosovo was not authorised to participate in any disciplinary

24 proceedings undertaken against workers of the various SUPs in Kosovo?

25 A. No. It was done by the secretariats, but the secretariats could

Page 8153

1 not do anything on their own until they had received a consent of their

2 superior administration within the MUP. They were the only ones who could

3 give consent to a SUP for the SUP to be able to institute a proceedings,

4 disciplinary proceedings against one of their workers.

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I believe it is a good time.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it is a good time, and we will break --

7 MR. LUKIC: I can continue with this --

8 JUDGE BONOMY: -- in a second, but that answer didn't deal with

9 the point very well, I don't think. It's not clear.

10 MR. LUKIC: Because it's, again, language problem. It's possible

11 in our language to say no and continue with this kind of answer but --

12 JUDGE BONOMY: No, I -- it's not that that's the problem. It's

13 they couldn't do it until they received a consent of their superior

14 administration within the MUP. That doesn't answer the question where

15 that superior administration was.

16 MR. LUKIC: The witness can explain that and then we can go to the

17 break, if you want.


19 Could you explain that, please, Mr. Cvetic.

20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. When discussing the ministry giving approval to institute

22 proceedings, where is the seat of that ministry? Can you tell the Court.

23 A. In Belgrade.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

25 Well, we have to break, Mr. Cvetic. Could you again go with the

Page 8154

1 usher, and we will see you again in 20 minutes.

2 [The witness stands down]

3 JUDGE BONOMY: In fact, it will be half an hour in this case. It

4 will be a longer break, so it will be at 4.15.

5 --- Recess taken at 3.46 p.m.

6 --- On resuming at 4.18 p.m.

7 [The witness takes the stand]

8 MR. STAMP: Before --


10 Now, Mr. Stamp, I gather you can deal with the translation

11 problem.

12 MR. STAMP: If I may briefly with your leave, Mr. President. And

13 particularly because I said something earlier which might indicate that

14 the erroneous translation was the work of the CLSS. It was not.

15 There was an error in the uploading, and the draft OTP internal

16 translation was, in fact, the one uploaded, and that had been shown. We

17 have corrected it and we have now placed instead the correct CLSS

18 translation, which appears to be a correct translation.

19 Thank you.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you for clarifying that. It's a great

21 relief. And thank you for doing it timeously so that if anyone wishes to

22 cross-examine on it, that can be done.

23 Mr. Lukic.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

25 Q. [Interpretation] May we continue, Mr. Cvetic?

Page 8155

1 A. Yes.

2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have 6D133 put on

3 e-court.

4 Q. Mr. Cvetic, we are having here a document concerning disciplinary

5 proceedings. We will go back to the time of the war. We have here a

6 dispatch drafted by the chief of the public security department,

7 Mr. Radoljub Djordjevic, dated the 9th of April, 1999. Is it correct,

8 first of all, that this document, inter alia, was sent to all the SUPs,

9 then to the organisational units at the seat of the ministry, to the

10 police college, as well as to the police high school, to the disciplinary

11 court, and to the higher disciplinary court? Is it correct, as you had

12 stated, that the staff had nothing to do with disciplinary proceedings and

13 that it was not one of the addressees of this document?

14 A. Yes, and it shouldn't be there.

15 Q. Thank you. Concerning this - and it may strike you as strange but

16 I have to ask you this question because of the nature of proceedings

17 here - I wanted to ask you whether the chief of the staff could institute

18 a disciplinary proceedings against any member of the MUP in Kosovo?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Thank you.

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have Exhibit P1251.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Is this on the same subject?

23 MR. LUKIC: No, Your Honour, it's not. If you have any questions

24 regarding disciplinary proceedings, you can --

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, I have one question, Mr. Cvetic.

Page 8156

1 Assuming the chief of the MUP staff were to learn of conduct by

2 MUP officers which amounted to murder, what action would you expect him to

3 take in relation to these officers?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The chief of SUP, or a chief of SUP,

5 once notified that any of the SUP members committed any crime, sends out a

6 dispatch immediately to the ministry and the minister of the interior. He

7 sends it to the competent administration within the ministry. This is

8 what I'm trying to say.

9 If this was a regular policeman, he addresses the police

10 administration. If it was an operative, he forwards it to the crime

11 administration, and he notifies the public security department chief, as

12 well as seeks leave to take measures pursuant to the law.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: It may be that my question was not properly

14 translated to you. The question was: Assuming the chief of the MUP staff

15 in Pristina, that's Mr. Lukic, were to learn of conduct by MUP officers

16 which amounted to murder, what action would you expect him to take in

17 relation to these officers?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He is to notify immediately the head

19 of his organisational unit, that is the chief of the SUP, from which the

20 policeman comes from. He is also to notify the chief of the public

21 security department.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

23 Mr. Lukic.

24 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, I had the whole set of questions

25 regarding different levels of SUP, but I thought that it's much faster to

Page 8157

1 inquire whether a head of staff could process any police officer. So I

2 think that this is consistent with my previous questions.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, it is, thank you.

4 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Cvetic, before us is P1251, although you

6 cannot see that number on your screen. It is a decision on the formation

7 of a staff of the ministry in Pristina. The last paragraph on this page,

8 it is difficult to see --

9 A. I cannot see it.

10 Q. I will do my utmost to try and read it, and we have the

11 translation so the Bench and the OTP can try and follow.

12 In item E it says -- first of all, under 1 at the top we

13 have: "Notification on the formation of a staff." In item 2 the tasks

14 are defined. And then the few or last words under item 2, which state

15 that involved or that pertained to. In the last subitem, it involves

16 training organised units to perform successfully special security

17 assignments, and especially to maintain the readiness of secretariats and

18 their organisational units. The PJP, the SAJ, the mechanised brigades of

19 the police to implement the Kolubara 1 plan.

20 Were these the -- or was this the authority given to the staff

21 concerning the JSO, the SAJ, and the PJP?

22 A. I don't see --

23 Q. No, just the SAJ and the PJP, not the JSO.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Thank you. We're not talking about command here but about

Page 8158

1 training and exercising. Is that correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Thank you.

4 A. But when the unit is engaged, then the procedure is different.

5 Q. All right. We will come to that. Thank you. This is just in

6 order to clarify. I don't know if it's a question of interpretation

7 because yesterday something was in the transcript that I think was not

8 said, so this is why I was seeking this clarification from you. Thank

9 you.

10 When we're dealing with the -- with the special police units,

11 yesterday you said something, and is it true that these units had their

12 own chain of command?

13 A. The question is not clear to me. I don't know which special units

14 of the police you mean.

15 Q. Well, let's see first. Yesterday we were talking about PJPs, that

16 they are not special police units. Is that correct?

17 A. Right. They are not special police units.

18 Q. Is it true that the PJP had their own chain of command?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Did you ever take part in 1999 in any action by the PJP?

21 A. 1999?

22 Q. Yes, 1999.

23 A. No.

24 Q. All right. Thank you.

25 How many PJP detachments did you have added to you during the

Page 8159

1 state of war? I think that this did not go down in the transcript, so I

2 would like you to now tell us the number of such units.

3 A. Two detachments, the 35th and the 85th.

4 Q. Other than these detachments, you also had a PJP company made up

5 of the employees of your SUP. Is that correct?

6 A. Yes. But the PJP company of the Kosovska Mitrovica SUP was part

7 of the 124th Intervention Brigade. It was just actually the staff from

8 the Kosovska Mitrovica SUP, but it was actually part of the forces of the

9 124th Intervention Brigade.

10 Q. Thank you for that explanation.

11 Is it correct that any other officers and members of the PJP had

12 their own post and occasionally carried out assignments in the PJP when

13 the unit was engaged?

14 A. Generally speaking, yes, but I cannot really say that for each

15 individual.

16 Q. Absolutely. Thank you.

17 And what was the post of the commander of your PJP company in your

18 SUP?

19 A. He was in the police department. He was an inspector in the

20 police department.

21 Q. Thank you. Now I would like to move to the topic of the Joint

22 Command. My learned friend Mr. Fila already put some questions to you

23 about that, and I am also going to have a number of questions.

24 First -- again, I would like to begin at your level, the SUP of

25 Kosovska Mitrovica chief. Did anything change at the SUP level in

Page 8160

1 relation to your work and reporting with the forming of this body that we

2 termed here the Joint Command?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Thank you. Could you now please concentrate on the meeting of the

5 22nd of July, 1998. Do you recall - of course, if you recall - what the

6 agenda of this meeting was?

7 A. I cannot give you the precise words of the agenda, but the

8 discussion at the meeting was on preparations to execute anti-terrorist

9 actions, and I think it was one of the phases to bring, or rather, to have

10 certain forces of the PJP brought in and deciding which of those forces

11 should be brought to the area of Kosovo. That was one topic. The other

12 topic were plans, when the action would begin, with which forces, which

13 means would be utilised, and what the assignments would be of the units in

14 that action.

15 Q. Thank you. So the plans were already prepared when they were

16 dealt with at that meeting. You had finished plans at that meeting?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And the action began?

19 A. On the 25th of July, on a Saturday.

20 Q. So it was just covered, then, at that meeting?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Just for the transcript I would like to confirm the following:

23 You were never duty-bound to report to the Joint Command on anything?

24 A. You mean the chief of the secretariat, the SUP?

25 Q. Yes.

Page 8161

1 A. No. And there was no need for that. I can explain, if necessary.

2 Q. If necessary, we will ask. Thank you.

3 A. You're welcome.

4 Q. Just one moment, please.

5 [Defence counsel confer]

6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. I would now like to go through the documents that the Prosecution

8 showed you.

9 MR. LUKIC: I would like to have document P1044 on e-court,

10 please.

11 Q. This document, if you see under Roman I, the rules on the internal

12 organisation of the Ministry of the Interior adopted on the 5th of April,

13 1996, is mentioned, and I think yesterday you testified on that, didn't

14 you?

15 A. Yes, yes.

16 Q. The rules shown to you by the Prosecution were adopted in 1994.

17 Can we agree that the document shown to you -- but now, if we agree that

18 it was brought in 1994, we can agree that this wasn't in force at the

19 time.

20 A. Well, I really cannot answer that. I really don't know.

21 Q. Well, that is not your fault. It was a question by the

22 Prosecution.

23 A. Well, it's a fact that all the ministries had to have rules of

24 internal organisation; that is a fact. The rules are adopted by the

25 minister, with the agreement of the government.

Page 8162

1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at page 3 of the document

2 on e-court, please.

3 Q. I'm trying to shorten the questions because we've already covered

4 some topics.

5 We see under number 4: "The SMs in charge of border crossing

6 control send information directly to the authorised department in the

7 ministry and the secretariat on whose territory they are located."

8 Can it be seen from these rules that the police stations in charge

9 of state border controls, according to these rules were not duty-bound to

10 inform the MUP staff which existed at the time?

11 A. That is what is written in the rules, but in practice it was not

12 like that.

13 Q. Did you ever work in a SUP that was on -- a border SUP?

14 A. No. But there was a person in the staff charged with these

15 matters.

16 Q. All right. Very well. Thank you.

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at Exhibit P1052 on

18 e-court, please.

19 Q. Again, we have before us a work-plan of the communications

20 station, and my learned friend Mr. Fila put questions to you about that.

21 He asked you about this name "Joint Command" and the Pastrik code. You

22 said you did not know who that indicated.

23 A. No.

24 Q. You said that there were Ibar-40 and Osa-1 codes as well.

25 A. Yes.

Page 8163

1 Q. Are these actually units that are all from the Kosovska Mitrovica

2 territory?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Which unit is not from the Kosovska Mitrovica area?

5 A. The MUP 3rd and 4th Detachment were not from the

6 Kosovska Mitrovica area.

7 Q. But did they stay in that area?

8 A. Yes, because that is where they were billeted, in the area of

9 Kosovska Mitrovica. I was saying yesterday that this facility was built

10 inside the barracks compound, and that is where there were members of the

11 PJP there, too, who were engaged on special assignments.

12 Q. All right. Very well. We don't see a date on this document or

13 the place where the actual station was. Is that correct?

14 A. Yes. You cannot see that based on this document.

15 Q. And you cannot tell what the task was for which this strength was

16 formed?

17 A. No, not here. But these names - and I said that yesterday during

18 my examination-in-chief - they were used during 1998 and 1999.

19 Q. All right. Thank you. We do have to part of your testimony.

20 In actions for a certain specific area, was a Joint Command formed

21 that would conduct smaller operations and that these would be ad hoc Joint

22 Commands, do you know anything about that, and that this would be the

23 case, such a case here in this document?

24 A. No, it's something that I really have no knowledge about.

25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at Exhibit P1072 on

Page 8164

1 e-court, please. Can we now look at the bottom of page 2. This is the

2 rules establishing the internal organisation of the Ministry of the

3 Interior of SUP Pristina.

4 Q. We see here that this is from January 1994, when this document was

5 enacted. Is that correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Because there is a translation, I'm going to use the Prosecution

8 exhibit. During the proceedings, we are going to provide the version in

9 force, but now I'm going to ask you to tell me what you can. The rules

10 has no number on the first page. It just says "January 1994." And on the

11 last page, even though you cannot see it, it says "/92," as if it were

12 published in 1992.

13 A. I can't see that.

14 Q. That's right, you can't see it, but it doesn't really matter. Is

15 it usual for such a document to bear a stamp and signature of the minister

16 if it is an act that is in effect?

17 A. Well, I couldn't say until I saw it.

18 Q. Well, this particular document does not contain those things, and

19 you -- did you usually receive copies for use that were uncertified?

20 A. The last page of each such act should have a number registered,

21 and also it should have a signature and a stamp.

22 Q. Thank you.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, what is the purpose of using this

24 document?

25 MR. LUKIC: It is similar to one which is in force -- which was in

Page 8165

1 force at that time. Because I don't have translated the right one, I have

2 to use this one.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, this one wasn't used in examination-in-chief,

4 was it?

5 MR. LUKIC: It was.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: It was used. And what was the issue drawn from it?

7 MR. LUKIC: It was just introduced. I don't know what the -- my

8 learned colleague didn't dwell too long on it.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: So why don't you wait until the Defence case and

10 use the one in force at the time at that stage? Is there any particular

11 purpose to be achieved by cross-examining on this document?

12 MR. LUKIC: I can -- yeah, I can wait for the Defence case, Your

13 Honour, that's right.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: You know, obviously if it needs to be done with

15 this one, fine, but it sounds to me as though it's going to be a waste of

16 time. If you disagree, please say.

17 MR. LUKIC: We'll skip it, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

19 MR. LUKIC: Now I would like for P1100 to be placed on the

20 e-court, please.

21 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Cvetic, yesterday you testified about -- or

22 on this exhibit by the Prosecution. I will make use of that opportunity

23 and your knowledge, so as to ask you something pertaining to the document.

24 We can see that a lot of information was entered in this report,

25 which covered only 24 hours. This was information received by the MUP

Page 8166

1 staff from one of the secretariats in Kosovo. Is that correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Therefore, the MUP staff in Kosovo did not have its own personnel

4 to collect information in the field, but they relied exclusively on the

5 information gained from the SUPs. Is that so?

6 A. The MUP staff in Kosovo received information exclusively from the

7 SUPs, but also from its own staff members who were tasked with specific

8 areas as part of their staff work.

9 Q. Yes, but this is all staff personnel?

10 A. Yes. And every assistant of the head of staff was tasked with a

11 specific area, and he followed information from that area and he had his

12 own structure of gaining information. He would address the appropriate

13 person within the SUPs so as to be given information. And the other way

14 around.

15 Q. Therefore, this is informing, if I may call it, pursuant to the

16 lines of work, the established lines?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. From this Prosecution exhibit we can see that during the 24 hours

19 in question there were 24 people killed by terrorists, and there were 31

20 people injured. It is precisely what you had mentioned, that at the

21 beginning of that year the KLA stepped up its activities. Is it correct

22 that the KLA increased them further come the start of the bombing?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Thank you.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Can we see on the document the reference to

Page 8167

1 these --

2 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, under number 2, Arabic number 2.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Which page?

4 MR. LUKIC: First page, 1, 2, terrorist attacks --

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Oh, yeah, yeah. Because I recollect yesterday that

6 there were references in this document to dates earlier than the 27th of

7 March. But these were all attacks in that 24-hour period, were they?

8 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, that's how these reports were

9 composed.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, I understand that. But -- can we go to the

11 next page of the document, please. You see the references to all these

12 attacks on earlier days?

13 MR. LUKIC: I can clarify it with the witness, if he knows.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that would help. But that's why I'm asking

15 whether in fact these figures do relate to a limited period of 24 hours.

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Mr. Cvetic, His Honour Judge Bonomy noticed that this report

18 contains data for a period over 24 hours. Is it correct that this report

19 included information gained in those 24 hours, although it doesn't mean

20 that the incidents mentioned had to take place within the designated time?

21 A. I see some events here dated the 26th.

22 Q. There is one concerning the 25th. Perhaps you don't see it at the

23 bottom of the page, an attack by NATO forces on the 25th of March.

24 A. Now I can see it. Yes, the 25th of March.

25 Q. Did this take place within your SUP as well, that you included

Page 8168

1 events in certain reports which had taken place previously?

2 A. If they were not made part of the previous report, then they were

3 included in the following report.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, can we go to the next page, please.

5 MR. LUKIC: The next one is almost invisible, the first part at

6 least in B/C/S.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: And the next page, thanks. In fact, just before

8 you -- hold on, hold on -- yeah, that's okay now.

9 And the next one. Yeah. Thank you.

10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. The Prosecutor asked you why in the chapter serious crimes

12 committed in this document there is no mention of the murders of civilians

13 in Suva Reka and Podujevo. I wanted to ask you this: Of course you

14 cannot recall the date, but if we know that, for example, the event in

15 Podujevo took place on the 28th of March, 1999, of course it couldn't have

16 been included in the report of the 27th of March, 1999. Is that correct?

17 A. Yes, it is.

18 Q. Thank you. The explanation as for why there is no mention of the

19 incident in Suva Reka, could that be because the MUP staff had not been

20 advised on the part of the SUP of Prizren about the event in Suva Reka?

21 A. That could be one of the assumptions, that they had not been

22 informed, but I don't know.

23 Q. Thank you. Let us move on.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have P1114 put

25 on e-court.

Page 8169

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To add something, if they were not

2 notified on that day and if it was not included in the report of that day,

3 then they should have included it in the report once notified.

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. I agree, but if they were not notified at all, it wouldn't appear

6 in any of the reports.

7 A. That is correct.

8 Q. I believe you have this before you on the screen as well. This is

9 P1114. There is a mention of the reserve police squads, and you've given

10 abundant information on that topic so far. However, I will try to abuse

11 of you further and to gain even more, if possible.

12 Yesterday you said exactly what the number was of the RPO members;

13 it was 1.999.

14 A. No.

15 Q. In the Kosovska Mitrovica territory.

16 A. No. I said that in the territory of Kosovska Mitrovica, the

17 police force, both the active and reserve officers, amounted to 1999

18 members.

19 Q. It seems I misunderstood. I apologise.

20 What people did the RPOs comprise, which formations?

21 A. I don't understand the question. The reserve police squads, or

22 rather, the concept of their formation existed solely for the purpose of

23 defending villages. In plain terms, in lay terms, one could see that as

24 the arming of villages, but that is not so. It reads reserve police

25 squads to defend villages. Someone even -- some people even used it to

Page 8170

1 show that the Serbs were being armed, but that is incorrect. These are

2 RPOs prescribed by the direction on the performing of tasks, of workers

3 employed in internal affairs issued by the minister of the interior in

4 June 1998 when such RPOs were being formed.

5 Q. Thank you.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: You said yesterday that in reserve police

7 detachments or squads in Kosovska Mitrovica there were a total of 2.000

8 men. Is that correct?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the reserve police squads, yes.

10 But there were more men in the RPOs if we include the people from other

11 structures in the given village. A total in the area of

12 Kosovska Mitrovica was 6.034 plus the 1.999 members of both the active and

13 reserve force. Therefore, the total was 8.033.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

15 Mr. Lukic.

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

17 Q. As you said, this was the situation in 1998 and in early 1999.

18 A. Which one, this one?

19 Q. Yes, the manning strength.

20 A. The figures I mentioned or the ones we see on the screen?

21 Q. The figures you mentioned.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. What happened with the RPOs come the beginning of the war? What

24 happened with the people who were within the RPOs?

25 A. Those who had their war assignments were deployed to the units;

Page 8171

1 those who did not remained in the village.

2 Q. Can you assist us in the following: Which units could these

3 people have had war assignments in?

4 A. The units of the military territorial organs.

5 Q. Would these be the civilian protection, the civil defence?

6 A. The units of the civilian protection, according to the Geneva

7 Conventions, were unarmed. However, the units of the civil defence

8 carried light weapons, infantry weapons.

9 Q. And some had?

10 A. Some had their war assignments with the VJ, because the VJ also

11 comprised its peacetime nucleus and the reserve force. Once a

12 mobilisation is carried out so as to bring up to strength the VJ units

13 according to the establishment, they had to draw on the reserve force as

14 well, unless we are discussing the A-type units which are fully manned in

15 peacetime as well. If these units were the B-type units, they drew from

16 the reserves. It all depended on the given unit, its place and role

17 within the plan of use of that unit.

18 Q. Thank you for your explanation.

19 Yesterday we mentioned the village of Bukos. At page 9 of this

20 document in the B/C/S under number 12 we find -- just a moment until we

21 have that on the screen.

22 In item 12 there is a reserve police squad in the village

23 of Bukos.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. This RPO comprised a total of six members. Is that correct?

Page 8172

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Then --

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cvetic, I've noted yesterday that the figures

4 you were giving were actually for March 1999, following the reduction of

5 forces after the Milosevic-Holbrooke agreement.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the data I specified

7 now refer to 1998. In the whole of territory of Kosovo and Metohija in

8 1998, there were 14.576 policemen.

9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 14.571 policemen.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Once the Milosevic-Holbrooke

11 agreement was signed, there was a reduction down to 10.021. That was the

12 situation until the beginning of March 1999. At that time there was a

13 mobilisation which brought the figure back to 14.571.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Does that mean that the starting figure for the

15 complement of regular police including PJP in Kosovska Mitrovica of 1.999

16 applied in October rather than in March?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't understand the

18 question.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you gave us a figure for the --

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The figure I mentioned was 1999 in

21 Kosovska Mitrovica.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: And do you say --

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In 1998. That figure, once the

24 Holbrooke-Milosevic agreement was signed, was reduced by 600 in

25 Kosovska Mitrovica itself. Then in March the figure was back to the old

Page 8173

1 number, 1.999.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: That's what I'm asking you. I have noted yesterday

3 that that figure of 1.999 applied as of the declaration of an imminent

4 state of war on the 17th of March.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: So the figure of 6.034 for the reserve police

7 squads and other groupings of men, does that figure relate to March 1999

8 as well?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Out of those 6.034, some of

10 those men went off to other units where they had their war assignment.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Thank you.

12 Mr. Lukic.

13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

14 Q. Mr. Cvetic, now we are going to look at the next page on e-court,

15 numbers 14, 15, and 16. We're talking about the municipality of Vucitrn.

16 I'm going to ask you about the police squads of Samodreza; that's under

17 number 14. It has five members. Is that correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Under number 15, the Mijalic reserve police had five?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And the reserve police department of Miroce has four members. Is

22 that correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Would we agree that all of these villages are in the municipality

25 of Vucitrn. Is that correct?

Page 8174

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Would we agree that the population of these villages could not

3 defend themselves from the KLA and never mind going into any kind of

4 action?

5 A. Yes, that is correct.

6 Q. Yesterday you were asked about weaponry and a light machine-gun.

7 Because this is a domestically made weapon, people don't know what it

8 looks like. Is it true that the machine-gun is the same as an automatic

9 rifle, it uses the same kind of ammunition, of the same calibre, but only

10 has a tripod where you can rest it?

11 A. Well, it depends on which one it is, an E-53 or M-72.

12 Q. M-72.

13 A. Yes, that is correct.

14 Q. I would also like to ask you this, and this is a question that His

15 Honour Judge Bonomy was also interested in at page 1222, and that was did

16 the police reserve units receive any specific assignments from the SUPs,

17 for example, or were they just guarding villages?

18 A. They were mostly meant for the defence of villages. They were

19 defending and guarding the villages. That was their purpose. In a

20 certain zone, however, where these RPOs were and units of the Army of

21 Yugoslavia were engaged or the PJPs in carrying out certain assignments,

22 then the commanders of those units could engage those units for

23 assignments in that particular sector.

24 Q. All right. Thank you very much. With the declaration of the

25 state of war, the organisation of the defence is completely different.

Page 8175

1 They are now headed by a staff, at whose head is the president of the

2 municipality. Is that correct?

3 A. I don't know which staffs you are thinking of and which plans. In

4 the defence system, there are other plans. Are you thinking of plans of

5 defence of municipalities?

6 Q. Yes, yes. It would be the municipal operative staffs or whatever

7 they are called.

8 A. All right. Of course.

9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at --

10 Q. I just have one more thing here. No, no, it's all right. Thank

11 you.

12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at Exhibit P1115 on

13 the e-court, please.

14 Q. This has nothing to do with this document but with the previous

15 one. Do you know if members of the RPOs at the beginning of the war,

16 those who did not go to their units in accordance with their war

17 assignment, at that time after the 24th of March, 1999, did they have full

18 uniforms, insignia, and all of that. You said they didn't have that in

19 1998. Did everybody have them in 1999?

20 A. Well, I couldn't tell you definitely. Some did and some didn't.

21 But they did [Realtime transcript read in error "didn't"] have their basic

22 military or soldier's insignia.

23 Q. All right. Thank you.

24 I apologise for losing time, and I'm actually trying to cut my

25 cross-examination short.

Page 8176

1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at Exhibit P1968 on

2 the e-court monitor.

3 Q. You already talked about this order with my colleagues. At the

4 top it states "Joint Command for KiM." If you would look at this document

5 more closely, and you can do that if you wish, but I am actually telling

6 you that the police are not instructed to do anything in this document.

7 The police units are not cited, police assignments are not referred to,

8 and you yourself said that this was a military document.

9 Is it then a Joint Command at some military level or a Joint

10 Command that was supposed to unify the activities of the army and the

11 police or some third kind of Joint Command, but is it correct that in this

12 document the police is not referred to in the sense that I mentioned

13 before?

14 A. I would like to look at the document, please.

15 Q. Go ahead. Go ahead.

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at page 2 --

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me look at the heading of the

18 document first, please. I can't see it.

19 MR. LUKIC: Can we scroll up, please, up. Yeah.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the heading it says: "Joint

21 Command for KiM." It does not say: "Joint Military Command."

22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Yes, that is true, but if you need to you will have time to read

24 through the whole document and then you will see that units and tasks and

25 locations of the police are not mentioned in this document. All that is

Page 8177

1 mentioned are the units, tasks, and locations of the military units.

2 A. Well, now it's a question of perhaps the police already being at

3 those locations.

4 MR. LUKIC: Can we see the second page, please.

5 Q. [Interpretation] As you can see, the Pristina Corps is being

6 issued an assignment. It also refers to neighbours, but it doesn't say

7 anywhere that ...

8 A. Can I look at the next page, please?

9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at page 3 so that the

10 witness can see it, please.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, but in order to get a real

12 proper answer we need to see whether the MUP staff didn't receive a

13 similar order or command for the actions of its units in this section --

14 sector.

15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Thank you. Did you ever see this document before, the one that

17 we're discussing now, which relates to your zone, Drenica?

18 A. May I look at the first page, please?

19 No.

20 Q. Thank you.

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at Exhibit P1989.

22 Q. The meeting that you attended was held on the 4th of April, 1999,

23 at the ministry headquarters. On the first page we also see your name.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. In the middle of the page. Mr. Stamp put questions to you about

Page 8178

1 this document. On page 3 --

2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at page 3, please.

3 I'm sorry, it's page 4 actually. Can we zoom in a little bit?

4 Q. You will see the seventh asterisk from the top. It says Obrad

5 Stevanovic speaks, deputy minister. And it says: "The command and

6 control of units in the area of a secretariat is done by the chiefs."

7 A. Yes, that is what is stated in the document.

8 Q. Is it correct what Mr. Stevanovic is saying?

9 A. No. Can I explain?

10 Q. Which units did he mean? Can you tell us.

11 A. First of all, let me explain the terms "command and control."

12 First of all, there was no need for that. You could only use control

13 because control implies command. When you say "command," that implies

14 planning and organising and commanding and coordination in joint actions

15 and control of the function. There is no control without all of those

16 links in the chain. If one of them is missing, you don't have any

17 control.

18 Q. And the chiefs?

19 A. The chiefs were not in a command position, they didn't command the

20 units.

21 Q. Who commanded the units?

22 A. The commanders of the units.

23 Q. Thank you.

24 A. You're welcome.

25 Q. Can we move on now, please. Sometimes we say that something is

Page 8179

1 not correct, but what we actually would like is for you to confirm it. So

2 now we're going to move to the next document. Just one moment, please.

3 I would like to ask you about civilians. Is it correct that a few

4 days before the aggression - and especially during the first days of the

5 war - it was evident that people were leaving Kosovska Mitrovica out of

6 fear of the actual conflict?

7 A. Yes, that is correct, but not only because they were afraid of the

8 war.

9 Q. Why else?

10 A. People, first of all, were leaving because they were afraid of the

11 NATO pact, because of the bombing; second, they were leaving not only

12 Kosovska Mitrovica. The situation was the same in the entire Kosovo

13 territory. When larger police or military forces would appear, the

14 population would leave their places of residence. Citizens were also

15 leaving their places of residence under the pressure of the KLA. If

16 offensive actions were being undertaken by the military and the police in

17 order for the KLA members to pull out of that area, they would use the

18 population to pull out. There were also individuals who -- who would

19 enter apartments and houses and who were actually forcing the population

20 to leave their homes.

21 Q. One more thing about this. Is it correct that you didn't know

22 that there was a policy and a plan according to which people were supposed

23 to be transferred from a specific area to another area or were to be

24 expelled?

25 A. I don't understand the question. You mean did a plan exist like a

Page 8180

1 plan?

2 Q. Is it true that there was no such plan?

3 A. No, such a plan as a plan did not exist.

4 Q. Thank you very much.

5 MR. LUKIC: Is it a good time for a break and we could maybe go

6 through our questions and see maybe we won't have too many.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well. Just a couple of matters, though,

8 arising out of what you've just said, Mr. Cvetic.

9 When you say there were people who entered apartments and houses,

10 actually forcing the population to leave their homes, who were these

11 people?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Those were policemen, members of the

13 reserve force, and of the RPO. It depended on the situation and where it

14 took place. Otherwise, these were individual cases. It was only in the

15 initial stage of the aggression, at this critical moment when bombs

16 started falling until the situation was stabilised.

17 The critical period was approximately between the 24th of March

18 until late March or up to the 4th of April when the situation began

19 stabilising.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: My second question relates to the situation you

21 describe where larger police or military forces appeared and you tried to

22 explain what the KLA did. Now, I didn't follow how that affected the

23 population. Could you explain that again.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The population left their homes.


Page 8181

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the territory of

2 Kosovska Mitrovica, there was a lot -- well, in the territory of

3 Kosovska Mitrovica, between the 24th of March and until the 16th of April,

4 there were 90 people killed, the bodies of whom we found and we registered

5 those cases. They were murdered.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Indeed. But what I'm trying to establish is what

7 the relationship between the appearance of larger forces of police and

8 military was and people leaving. What was it --

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was an exchange of fire

10 between the KLA and the army and the police on the other side, and then

11 people would abandon that area. However, the population tended to leave

12 the area as soon as a larger number of troops of the military and the

13 police would appear, because they presumed what might ensue would be a

14 conflict in exchange of fire or a skirmish. And then they left the area.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we shall break again. Could you please go

16 with the usher, and we'll be resuming again in this instance at five

17 minutes to 6.00.

18 [The witness stands down]

19 --- Recess taken at 5.34 p.m.

20 --- On resuming at 5.55 p.m.

21 [The witness takes the stand]

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

23 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I have only one

24 administrative matter and I wanted the witness to be present. In the

25 transcript, page 60, line 14, it is entered "didn't" and should be

Page 8182

1 entered "did." And the witness was talking about reserve police

2 detachments, that they did have basic uniforms and insignia, and in the

3 transcript it says "didn't." So if necessary, it can be clarified with

4 the witness.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: No, I agree that that's what -- well, sorry,

6 perhaps you should ask him to clarify.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Mr. Cvetic, these things happen sometimes. Sometimes things are

9 not quite correctly recorded in the transcript.

10 Did you say that in 1999 members of reserve police sections, who

11 were not engaged in their wartime units, had their military uniform and

12 insignia?

13 A. Not only military, they had their police uniforms and insignia,

14 their basic insignia.

15 Q. That's what I wanted corrected, they did.

16 You spoke and Judge Bonomy asked you about the criminal conduct of

17 individuals. Is it the case that those were really individuals, as you

18 said, criminals, and that there was several orders to intervene, to

19 apprehend them, to detain them, and punish them, the people who entered

20 homes, looted, robbed?

21 A. Yes, there were.

22 Q. Thank you. Another thing. You were speaking about the 17th of

23 March, 1999, about the meeting when the head of staff, Sreten Lukic, made

24 mention of volunteers. Do you remember who else attended that meeting?

25 A. The 17th of March? All chiefs of secretariats from Kosovo.

Page 8183

1 Q. So it was a regular meeting?

2 A. Of course, it was a regular meeting of the staff of the MUP in

3 Pristina.

4 Q. All right. Yesterday my learned friend Mr. Stamp asked you about

5 unofficially armed persons. He actually meant paramilitaries; namely, the

6 group that was active on the Kosovska Mitrovica-Ribarice road.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. You said those people were expelled from your area and you never

9 saw them again?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. Did those people enter the territory of Kosovo somewhere from

12 Serbia or Montenegro and operated in the border area?

13 A. I have no information of that kind.

14 Q. Did that area -- was that area close to the border with Serbia or

15 Montenegro or both?

16 A. Both.

17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Cvetic. I have no further questions for you.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Lukic.

19 Mr. Aleksic.

20 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

21 Cross-examination by Mr. Aleksic:

22 Q. [Interpretation] Good evening, Mr. Cvetic, my name is Aleksander

23 Aleksic, attorney-at-law. I have just a few questions for you.

24 You told us that from 1990 to 1996 you were head of the SUP of

25 Kragujevac. Can you tell me about the period before that. What was your

Page 8184

1 occupation, where were you employed?

2 A. Do you want my entire career or just the period immediately before

3 that?

4 Q. No, just from 1982 until 1990.

5 A. I was head of SUP in Kragujevac -- I was head of the SNO in

6 Kragujevac, secretariat for national defence.

7 Q. So you were secretary of the secretariat for national defence for

8 eight years?

9 A. No, six years.

10 Q. All right. Six years. In connection with that, I wanted to ask

11 you something about the system of territorial defence, if you have

12 knowledge about that. Would I be right in saying that the system of

13 territorial defence was organised at the republic and provincial level?

14 A. I don't understand the question. What system are you talking

15 about?

16 Q. Territorial defence.

17 A. In which period?

18 Q. From 1982 to 1990, when you were in that position.

19 A. The TO system was organised at the republic and province levels.

20 There was a republic TO staff and the province TO staff.

21 Q. Thank you. Would I be right in saying that the arming and

22 equipping of TO units was the responsibility of the republics and

23 provinces of the then-SFRY?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Would I be right in saying that the republics and provinces were

Page 8185

1 owners of the entire assets, both materiel and the weaponry, that belonged

2 to TO units?

3 A. You have to distinguish between various TO units, whether they

4 belonged to the manoeuvreing structure or the zonal structure.

5 Q. I'll move to something else. I wanted to ask you in this

6 connection, would I be right in saying that the republic staff and the

7 province staffs of the TO were subordinated to civilian authorities,

8 unlike the system of the JNA?

9 A. Right. Right.

10 Q. Thank you. Just one more question on this topic. After the

11 break-up of the SFRY, did the TO system collapse as well and was replaced

12 by another system?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Can we conclude that after the dissolution of that system which

15 resulted from the dissolution of the state, the new resulting states

16 became owners of the -- those weapons and equipment that existed at the

17 local republic level?

18 A. Again, we have to distinguish between manoeuvreing units and zonal

19 units because some TO units did hand over, return, their weaponry.

20 Q. But the part of it was retained?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Just one more question about this. During examination-in-chief,

23 and in cross-examination as well, your evidence was that you did not

24 attend a single meeting of the Joint Command, you did not take part in any

25 anti-terrorist actions in 1999, and you didn't see the document that was

Page 8186

1 shown you yesterday and today relating to your territory and concerning

2 the conduct of anti-terrorist actions.

3 My question is: How then do you know that the Joint Command

4 adopted and verified plans?

5 A. Well, based on what is written in the documents.

6 Q. But at the time when this document was generated, you said that

7 you did not see it in responding to a question by Mr. Lukic.

8 A. Not this one, but I saw similar documents with the same heading,

9 with the same signature of the Joint Command.

10 Q. Just one more question. During examination-in-chief yesterday,

11 you said that the Joint Command was set up to coordinate activities

12 between the army and the police in view of anti-terrorist actions that

13 took place between the 25th of July and the 29th of September, 1998.

14 A. No, it was set up just before the operations.

15 Q. But those anti-terrorist operations were conducted between the

16 25th of July and the 29th of September, 1998?

17 A. That's correct.

18 Q. Thank you.

19 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Aleksic.

21 Mr. Stamp.

22 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours.

23 Re-examination by Mr. Stamp:

24 Q. Just a couple quick questions, I hope.

25 You said that the MUP staff meetings were held in the Grand Hotel.

Page 8187

1 Where was this Grand Hotel?

2 A. In the centre of Pristina.

3 Q. Thank you. You said that members of the Joint Command included

4 one Mr. Matkovic and another Mr. Minic, and you were asked questions about

5 who -- about seniority, I think. Can I just ask you one thing. Can you

6 recall the period when these persons -- well, let's take them one by one.

7 Can you recall the period when Mr. Matkovic was a member of the Joint

8 Command; in particular, was he a member after November of 1998?

9 A. After November, I did not see Mr. Matkovic on the territory

10 covered by Kosovska Mitrovica SUP, but I saw him in the beginning of July

11 1998. And he was at a meeting that was held in the offices of the

12 director of the Trepca mining complex to deal with problems in the

13 functioning of one system within the mining complex, which was a bit

14 further removed from Trepca itself. It was under the control of a

15 terrorist group. The process of control was made very difficult, and the

16 question was how to deal with it. And he was at that meeting. But after

17 November, I didn't see him; I don't know.

18 Q. I'm not sure if I follow your answer. Do you know whether or not

19 he remained a member of the Joint Command?

20 A. At that meeting at the staff of MUP of Pristina held on the 5th of

21 November, 1998, that meeting was also attended by the president of the

22 Republic of Serbia, Mr. Milutinovic. And, among other things, he reported

23 then that the Joint Command would remain in the same composition as when

24 it was set up.

25 Q. Um --

Page 8188

1 A. At that meeting, if you let me say just one more thing, there was

2 also the minister of the interior, who introduced Mr. Radomir Markovic,

3 the new chief of the administration of state security.

4 Q. Okay.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Who was it said that the Joint Command would remain

6 in the same composition as when it was set up?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Milutinovic.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp.


10 Q. Apart from that, did Mr. Milutinovic play any other role at that

11 meeting?

12 A. No. Mr. Milutinovic had a prior meeting with political and

13 business figures and leaders of Kosovo and Metohija. And after that

14 meeting, he attended the meeting attended by all chiefs of secretariats,

15 commanders of units, and heads of the departments of internal affairs and

16 the State Security Service.

17 On that occasion, Mr. Milutinovic spoke about Milosevic-Holbrooke

18 agreement which had 11 points, and he gave a detailed explanation of each

19 of the 11 points. On that occasion he also said that the OSCE mission had

20 representatives from 53 countries, that there were 2.000 monitors in

21 Kosovo, and that those monitors had to be given everything that we have so

22 that they can gain an insight into the real state of affairs. That was

23 the gist of his contribution.

24 He spoke, of course, about political and economic issues, saying

25 that the Republic of Serbia would invest maximum efforts to help Kosovo

Page 8189

1 and to help the situation in Kosovo to be dealt with peacefully, using

2 political means.

3 Q. Can you say if Mr. Milutinovic attended any -- or let me put it

4 this way. Was this the only meeting of the MUP staff that you attended in

5 which Mr. Milutinovic was present or were there others?

6 A. There were. On the 23rd September, Mr. Milutinovic attended the

7 same kind of meeting with approximately the same attendees, including

8 chiefs of secretariats, all chiefs of secretariats.

9 Q. What was his role there or how did he participate in that meeting,

10 if at all?

11 A. Well, on that occasion he said that terrorism in Kosovo was

12 defeated, terrorist groups were destroyed, and that all the necessary

13 premises had been created for the problems in Kosovo to be resolved by

14 peaceful means. Only small, minor terrorist groups remained that did not

15 constitute a major security problem, that all the premises existed for the

16 security situation to improve, and that everybody will work in their line

17 of work to help resolve the problems.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cvetic, was Mr. Lukic present at either of

19 these meetings?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Both.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

22 Mr. Stamp.


24 Q. If I could get back to what I was asking before. I take it from

25 your answers that you are not quite sure about the period when

Page 8190

1 Mr. Matkovic was a member of the Joint Command. Is that understanding

2 correct? In which case we could move on to Mr. Minic.

3 A. Well, I emphasised that Mr. Matkovic was there in July, that I saw

4 him personally. I didn't see him after November. But Mr. Milutinovic at

5 that meeting of the 5th of November said that the Joint Command would

6 remain in the same composition as when it was set up.

7 Q. Very well. You were shown Exhibit P1044 and I'd like to show it

8 to you again. And it was suggested to you that the MUP of Serbia could

9 and would inform and give directions to the SUPs without referring to the

10 MUP staff Pristina.

11 A. I don't understand the question --

12 Q. I'll get to the question --

13 A. -- the MUP in Pristina or the MUP staff?

14 Q. The MUP staff. I'm getting to the question.

15 MR. STAMP: Could we have a look at section 2 of that document;

16 that is on page 3 of the English version and page 3 of the B/C/S version.

17 Q. Do you see at paragraph 5 it is indicated that the secretariats of

18 the interior in Pristina, Kosovska Mitrovica, Urosevac, Gnjilane,

19 Djakovica, Pec, and Prizren sent dispatches both to the ministry and to

20 the ministry staff in Pristina. Do you see that there?

21 A. Yes.

22 MR. STAMP: And if we could move on to the last page, and that is

23 the item numbered 5 on the last page. In -- it says there: "When an

24 organisational unit from the ministry main office sends dispatches, it

25 addresses them as follows: (1) SUP to all 1 to 33 staff of the ministry

Page 8191

1 Pristina."

2 Q. So having regard to that and your own knowledge of the --

3 MR. LUKIC: Sorry, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

5 MR. LUKIC: Maybe translation mistake but here it says under 5, in

6 B/C/S at least: "In one of following ways." "In one of following ways."

7 [Interpretation] "In one of the following ways." [In English] [Previous

8 translation continues] ... all of them, at least according to B/C/S

9 version.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

11 Mr. Cvetic, could you read the first two lines of the paragraph

12 number 5, please.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "When an organisational unit from

14 the main office of the ministry sends dispatches, it shall be addressed in

15 one of the following ways." I don't understand what this means. "When an

16 organisational unit from the base of the ministry," and then no see any

17 more text.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp.

19 MR. LUKIC: I think that the witness cannot see the whole text;

20 that's why he is confused.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It needs to be moved a little.

22 "It shall address them in one of the following ways."

23 First: "SUP to all 1 to 33 ministry staff Pristina.

24 "2: SUP in (indicate name of secretariat).

25 "3. SM to border control post to all.

Page 8192

1 "4. SM to border control post (indicate name of the police

2 station)."

3 Yes this is written here. It's dated 25th May 1992.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp.


6 Q. Now having regard to that particular item 1 of section 5 which you

7 just read, that one of the ways in which a dispatch could be sent is to

8 all the SUPs and staff of the ministry in Pristina, and also the previous

9 item indicating that the secretariats for the -- for Kosovo and Metohija

10 should send both to the ministry and the ministry staff in Pristina, and

11 having regard to your own knowledge of what the practice was while you

12 were there when dispatches and reports were sent by the SUP staff, would

13 the ministry staff in Pristina, that is the Pristina staff, also be

14 copied?

15 A. Depending on what is contained in the dispatch received by the

16 secretariat. If the secretariat received a dispatch from one of the

17 police administrations of the MUP on which they had to act and if it is

18 stated inside the dispatch that they are responsible directly to the

19 administration sending out the dispatch, then it was so. This example

20 concerns an aggravated theft and a pursuit of a fugitive.

21 Q. Could I put the question this way then: In dispatches or reports

22 sent by the SUPs in Kosovo and Metohija to the ministry relating to --

23 that is the ministry in Belgrade, relating to combat manoeuvres in Kosovo

24 and Metohija, would the ministry staff in Pristina normally be copied on

25 those dispatches and reports?

Page 8193

1 A. You see, there is the sign of equation between the term "dispatch"

2 and the term "daily report." The difference is great, though. As for

3 daily reports on current events interesting for security matters in the

4 past 24 hours, such reports were supposed to be sent by the SUPs to the

5 staff in Pristina and the duty office. They were only duty-bound to

6 respond to a dispatch by way of communicating directly with the organ

7 which sent the dispatch in the first place.

8 Q. Very well. Thanks.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I don't know if that answers the other part

10 of the question.

11 In the case of a dispatch sent by a SUP in Kosovo to the ministry

12 in Belgrade relating to combat manoeuvres in Kosovo, would the ministry

13 staff in Pristina normally be copied that dispatch?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That would be a regular occurrence,

15 yes.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

17 Mr. Stamp.


19 Q. You said that when the various units of the MUP were engaged in

20 operations in the field, the procedure for controlling them and commanding

21 them would be different. Can you explain that? When the various units of

22 the MUP were engaged in operations in Kosovo, how were they commanded and

23 what part did the MUP staff for Pristina have in respect to those

24 engagements?

25 A. The MUP staff forwarded orders to unit commanders, to the

Page 8194

1 commanders of those units participating in certain operations. Such unit

2 commanders directly commanded their units and reported to the MUP staff on

3 the activities undertaken.

4 Q. Thank you. The -- you said that the chain of command of both the

5 MUP organisation and the VJ did not change after the Joint Command had

6 been established, and further you said that the SUP chiefs were not

7 duty-bound to report to the Joint Command. Can you explain why?

8 A. It was prescribed by the law, and the command responsibility is

9 defined in both military and police. The Joint Command was formed to

10 coordinate activities between the army and the police and to verify and

11 approve certain plans which involved both the units of the police and the

12 army. But the chain of command in place was following the law, strictly

13 speaking. That's why the chiefs of secretariats did not inform the

14 command, but chiefs of secretariats informed the member of the MUP staff

15 who was included in the joint chain of command.

16 The Joint Command was not an extraordinary body in the sense that

17 it existed outside the system that was in place for the army and the

18 police. In the Joint Command, one could find the most responsible people

19 from the police and the army in the area of Kosovo, that is

20 Messrs. Pavkovic and Lukic. They were at the Joint Command, they were

21 part of it, members of it.

22 Q. Very well. Thank you. You say that the MUP staff in Kosovo

23 received information - I think you used the word "exclusively" - from the

24 MUP organs in Kosovo, but from -- also from its own staff members.

25 I'll get to the question in a moment, in a moment, Mr. Cvetic, I'm

Page 8195

1 just trying to find precisely what you said.

2 Right. You said the MUP staff in Kosovo did not have its own

3 personnel to collect information -- withdrawn.

4 I'll quote you directly.

5 You said the MUP staff in Kosovo received information exclusively

6 from the SUPs but also from its own staff members who were tasked in

7 specific areas as part of their staff work.

8 Do you know if the MUP staff in Kosovo would have received

9 information also from the manoeuvre or combat units in the field?

10 A. Certainly. There was the obligation of those units to inform the

11 head of the MUP staff.

12 Q. And you also said that each of the assistants to the chief of the

13 MUP staff had specific areas of responsibility. Can you remember

14 generally what these areas of responsibility were, if you could remember

15 the various assignments of the assistants to the MUP Pristina chief?

16 A. The head of the MUP staff in Pristina had his assistants for

17 specific spheres of work. For example, for the police he had one

18 assistant; for crime, he had another; and he had people from -- for

19 general crime and for serious crime. For interventions, there was another

20 assistant. For security, another person. For the mechanised units, yet

21 another, and so on and so forth.

22 Q. Very well. Thank you. Now, for security, what was the security

23 department about? What was the role of the security department?

24 A. I don't understand your question. What department?

25 Q. What was the role of the security department or the -- what was

Page 8196

1 the role of the person responsible for security affairs in the ministry

2 staff Pristina?

3 A. The security assistant with the staff did not exist as far as I

4 know. There were 14 people headed by the Chief of Staff --

5 MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... problem.

6 "Obezbedjenje," "bezbednost". The witness said "obezbedjenje," and it

7 was probably translated into English to "bezbednost," and when it was

8 translated back that's why there is a confusion now.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: The answer we're concerned about is line 1 on

10 page 80?

11 MR. STAMP: Yes.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, Mr. Lukic, the word that was used at that

13 stage should have been translated in what do you say?

14 MR. LUKIC: It's hard. In English can be translated both terms

15 with one word, but in Serbian it means completely different "obezbedjenje"

16 means something like a guard; and "bezbednost" means security. So guard

17 and protection is "obezbedjenje," as I understand, so that's -- that's--

18 maybe --

19 JUDGE BONOMY: And you're concerned about "bezbednost," I think,

20 Mr. Stamp.

21 MR. LUKIC: And there is no such thing; that's why the witness is

22 confused.

23 MR. STAMP: I'll get the thing precisely.

24 Q. Was there an assistant responsible for information gathering --

25 intelligence and information gathering?

Page 8197

1 A. You mean an analyst?

2 Q. Something is wrong with the -- no, not an analyst. Gathering

3 information from the field of operation in Kosovo.

4 A. Yes, but that person was not in charge of security. He was an

5 analyst or an administrator.

6 Q. What was the role of this analyst or administrator in respect to

7 gathering information?

8 A. To gather information, to process them, and forward them to the

9 ministry, and to the chief of the staff. If that's what you mean.

10 Q. Very well. Let's move on from there. You said that the -- the

11 police personnel had been -- by March you had 14.571 police personnel

12 present in Kosovo?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, did you manage to muster this number before or after the

15 23rd of March, 1999?

16 A. Before.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, let's be clear about this figure because

18 that's not my note. I've noted the figure of 14.571 as being the figure

19 before reduction following the Milosevic-Holbrooke agreement. The figure

20 then went down to 10.021, and yesterday the witness said that by the 20th

21 of March it had risen again to between 14.500 and 15.000. Now, I know

22 that 14.571 falls into that range, but to avoid confusion let me check

23 whether what I just said is the witness's evidence.

24 THE WITNESS: [No verbal response].

25 JUDGE BONOMY: We can't get into the transcript --

Page 8198

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 14.571, that was the number of

2 police officers in Kosovo before the Milosevic-Holbrooke agreement. Once

3 it was signed, what remained was 10.021. Once a mobilisation was

4 proclaimed in March, the figure went up again to between 14.500 and

5 15.000. However, the figure of 14.571 existed at the time of signing and

6 that's the information I have.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.


9 Q. What's the M-53 light machine-gun?

10 A. It's an infantry weapon, an infantry weapon that uses

11 7.9-millimetre ammunition. This is the M-53. The M-72 uses

12 7.62-millimetre ammunition.

13 Q. Very well.

14 MR. STAMP: I have nothing further, Mr. President, Your Honours.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Stamp.

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, Mr. Cvetic, that completes your evidence to

18 the Tribunal. Thank you for coming here to give evidence. You are now

19 free to leave us. Thank you.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21 [The witness withdrew]

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Who will be the next witness, Mr. Stamp?

23 MR. STAMP: The next witness would be Mr. Sterenberg, who is

24 scheduled for Monday.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. And he's scheduled to -- yeah, so

Page 8199

1 you've got him scheduled for two hours on Monday. Then what?

2 MR. STAMP: The next witness -- we're going to have a problem. I

3 should advise the Court. We are trying to get back-up witnesses, and we

4 have done, I think, everything possible, and we are still trying to get

5 some back-up witnesses. The problem being that the -- shall I say the

6 relatively uncomplicated witnesses, most of them have already testified

7 and almost anybody that can be identified now would present a problem for

8 the Defence. But there will be problems next week which the Prosecution

9 will encounter.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, speaking for myself, I'm not readily

11 persuaded that with a witness list the length of your witness list it

12 should be impossible to arrange matters so that there is some evidence to

13 fill next week, which was a week we specifically provided for slightly

14 extended hours and gave notice, I think, three weeks or more ago about

15 that. So I hope that these efforts continue and that the position

16 improves, because I think there is only one other witness provided in your

17 list for next week.

18 MR. STAMP: Yes.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: For sure. Is that right?

20 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honour. There was --

21 JUDGE BONOMY: And you want us to change arrangements for him as

22 well, do you?

23 MR. STAMP: I think it would be convenient to bring him forward,

24 convenient not just to him but to -- also to the Court since there --

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, the informal information I have is that he

Page 8200

1 wouldn't be arriving here until midday on Wednesday. Is that -- has that

2 changed?

3 MR. STAMP: No, not to my knowledge.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, are you going to try to change it though?

5 MR. STAMP: We -- we will try to change it. We will try to bring

6 some witness to fill the time that is available.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: But you see, on Wednesday we are programmed to sit

8 from 9.00 until 3.30. Now, we won't get much of his evidence on Wednesday

9 if that arrangement remains in place. So do you wish us to change that?

10 MR. STAMP: May I just ...

11 [Prosecution counsel confer]

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, do you have a proposal?

13 MR. STAMP: Yes, the answer to the question is that we've done

14 everything we could to try to bring him earlier and he cannot be here

15 before noon on Wednesday.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah. But you anticipate that he'll go straight

17 into giving evidence when he arrives? This is not a witness who has to be

18 proofed or delayed in any way?

19 MR. STAMP: He was one of the witnesses that we managed to proof

20 earlier, before.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: And is 12.00 the time for his arrival in The Hague?

22 MR. STAMP: I think he arrives in the country at 12.00, and we

23 will make efforts to bring him straight to court.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I suppose if that remains the situation, we

25 would be willing to sit in the afternoon on Wednesday instead of the

Page 8201

1 morning, but it would be very helpful if he could arrive earlier and we

2 could get the same length of sitting but adjust the time of it. He's not

3 coming from very far away, is he? Or is he?

4 MR. STAMP: Yes, he's coming from -- I understand not from his

5 home country but from some distance away.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we'd be grateful if counsel would have in

7 mind the possibility that on Wednesday the sitting time might go back to

8 the afternoon, finishing at 7.00. But hopefully we'll have a clearer

9 picture of when it is anticipated he can get to the Tribunal, either on

10 Monday or Tuesday, to make the appropriate announcement -- in fact, it

11 will have to be Monday the way things stand at the moment if you don't

12 have another witness to fill in on Tuesday.

13 MR. STAMP: The --

14 JUDGE BONOMY: So we shall now adjourn until Monday morning

15 at 9.00.

16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.48 p.m.,

17 to be reconvened on Monday, the 11th day of

18 December, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.