Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 8760

1 Friday, 1 February 2008

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. It is ominous that the witness is

6 not here.

7 Mr. Saxon, there's something that you wish to raise.

8 MR. SAXON: I hope it's not too ominous, Your Honour; it's simply

9 a procedural matter.

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted) who, as Your Honours

13 know, is obviously a very important witness in this case, and that

14 evidence is obviously relevant to the credibility of that witness.

15 Your Honour, there have been discussions --

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 JUDGE PARKER: It's being suggested that we may need a closed

18 session.

19 MR. SAXON: I apologise, Your Honour, you're absolutely right.

20 It's my lapse.

21 JUDGE PARKER: I'm not right, a more alert Judge than me is right.

22 I'm afraid we need a redaction, and to be in closed session for

23 the moment.

24 [Private session]

25 (redacted)

Page 8761











11 Pages 8761-8763 redacted. Private session.















Page 8764

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 [Open session]

Page 8765

1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.

3 MR. METTRAUX: We would have a short application to make, but

4 we're mindful of the time as well. We're wondering whether it may be the

5 best use of time if we were to try to finish the witness first perhaps,

6 and then to make the application later. And while the witness is coming,

7 I would simply bring to your attention the fact that we have also

8 disclosed the provisions which we understand to be relevant to the

9 evidence of (redacted). We would simply indicate that those are the

10 provisions which we, the Defence, understand to be relevant, since

11 Ms. Residovic has indicated we have been unable to communicate with

12 (redacted) because of her travel.

13 We will communicate with (redacted) to verify whether those are,

14 indeed, the provisions which are relevant to her testimony when she

15 arrives in Skopje, and I'm being told that we are not yet in open session.

16 JUDGE PARKER: We are now in open session. The blind may be put

17 up.

18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] If you allow me, Your Honours, to

19 redact the name of the witness. Thank you.

20 JUDGE PARKER: I don't think that witness is the subject of any

21 protection order, unless I'm mistaken.

22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we go to closed session,

23 Your Honours.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Private.

25 [Private session]

Page 8766

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 [Open session]

23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.

24 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]


Page 8767

1 [Witness answered through interpreter]

2 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Saxon.

3 [Trial Chamber confers]

4 Cross-examination by Mr. Saxon:

5 Q. Good morning, Mrs. Galeva. My name is Dan Saxon. I'm a

6 attorney. I'm originally from the city of Boston in the United States,

7 and I respect the Office of the Prosecutor in this case. I have some

8 questions for you.

9 First of all, you started working for the Ministry of Interior in

10 April of 2002, is that right, that's correct?

11 A. Officially as of the 1st of April, 2002.

12 Q. And prior to that, you worked as a lawyer for a private company,

13 and, as well as, you also had your own law office in the town of Strumica.

14 That's right?

15 A. Yes. This is the period from 1996 to 1998, when the law office

16 was opened, up until 2002, when I went to the Ministry of Interior.

17 Q. And Strumica is a town in the south-eastern corner of Macedonia

18 relatively close to the borders of Bulgaria and Greece?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And what kind of cases did you handle in your private law practice

21 in Strumica?

22 A. Mostly civil cases and economic cases.

23 Q. Prior to formally beginning your work in the Ministry of Interior

24 in April of 2002, had you ever worked as a police officer?

25 A. Could you please repeat your question? What is the period you're

Page 8768

1 referring to?

2 Q. Prior to your employment in the Ministry of Interior, prior to the

3 start of your employment, had you ever worked as a police officer?

4 A. Up until my official employment of 1st of April, 2002, from the

5 period from closing my law firm, I carried out -- I came to Skopje to the

6 ministry on occasion, in view of the fact that as of the end of December,

7 2001, the procedure began for my employment.

8 This was a formal procedure for approval and securing financial

9 means for that workplace. This is why my official beginning started when

10 the financial resources were secured in April of 2002.

11 Q. Yes. I understand that. That's very clear. I'm sorry, perhaps

12 my question wasn't clear. I'll ask it another way.

13 Prior to even beginning your contacts with the Ministry of

14 Interior in December 2001, had you ever worked as a police officer at any

15 point in your life?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Had you ever worked as some sort of a crime inspector?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Had you ever received any specialised forensic training?

20 A. In this period of time, no; the period prior to my coming to

21 Skopje.

22 Q. Had you ever been trained as a prosecutor prior to the time you

23 came to Skopje?

24 A. There was no specific training, but the exam which was a condition

25 for opening a law firm which was at the same time a condition to work as a

Page 8769

1 judge, and a prosecutor was in -- was in that context relevant, but there

2 was no particular training.

3 Q. And, similarly, up until the time you came to Skopje, you had not

4 received any particular training as an investigating judge?

5 A. No special training, no.

6 Q. I'd like to ask you a few questions about your apprenticeship in

7 the Ministry of Interior.

8 It's my understanding you worked as an apprentice in the sector

9 for Interpol for about two months, in April and May 2002. That's right?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And as an apprentice in the Interpol sector, you were given an

12 introduction to different jobs and areas of work in that sector?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. So, for example, you learned about the process of issuing warrants

15 on persons; you learned about the procedures for examining the origin of

16 cars that were imported in Macedonia from abroad; as well as some other

17 areas of work of the Interpol sector. Is that right?

18 A. Yes, this is correct.

19 Q. But -- and then later on, a bit later on, in mid-April, you also

20 accepted the proposal of Spasen Sofevski, the head of the crime police

21 department, to follow the exhumation procedures in Ljuboten. Have I got

22 that straight?

23 A. Yes. The first call was made by the head of the criminal police,

24 Spasen Sofevski.

25 Q. You mentioned that after that first conversation with Mr. Sofevski

Page 8770

1 that you -- you had several conversations with Mr. Uslinkovski from the

2 sector for forensics at that time, because around that time the

3 exhumations in Ljuboten village were going on. Is that right?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. But just so that we understand you, did you ever personally

6 observe the exhumations as they occurred in Ljuboten? Did you go to the

7 cemetery and observe the work?

8 A. No. I was never personally present there. This was following the

9 process of exhumation, which meant conversations, not going to the place

10 of exhumation.

11 Q. Okay. And after the exhumations, there were certain autopsies

12 carried out in the Forensic Institute. Did you personally observe any of

13 these autopsies?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Okay. And then, on the 1st of June, 2002, you took up the

16 position of state advisor within the cabinet of the minister. That's

17 correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And that was quite a large promotion from the position of

20 apprentice, wasn't it?

21 A. The status apprentice was a phase I had to go through, because

22 this is a formal procedure. It is regulated by legal and internal acts of

23 the ministry. But in view of my previous work experience, this was the

24 condition for obtaining that particular work position.

25 Q. Okay. Well, would it be fair to say that during your two months

Page 8771

1 of work as an apprentice in the sector for Interpol, you made a very

2 favourable impression on your colleagues?

3 A. Most probably this is so. If it had been differently, surely

4 the -- there would not have been an evaluation or proposal for direct

5 superiors in this sector and the unit which was part of the sector where I

6 was to be called to do work in addition to the one I was doing.

7 Q. I'm sure during that time you demonstrated then strong

8 professional qualities during your apprenticeship?

9 A. I presume this is so. This is what I was told.

10 Q. You demonstrated that you were a diligent and dedicated

11 professional?

12 A. This is what my superiors said.

13 Q. That you're organised and meticulous?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. You're good at making and keeping records?

16 A. Yes, among other things.

17 Q. And, of course, you needed all these skills and qualities

18 previously to run your own successful law practice in Strumica, right?

19 A. Of course.

20 Q. Moving on to a different topic, you mentioned, yesterday, you

21 explained that after the elections in Autumn of 2002, a new Minister of

22 the Interior came in. That was Mr. Hari Kostov, wasn't it?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And he, Mr. Kostov, replaced Ljube Boskoski?

25 A. Yes.

Page 8772

1 Q. Yesterday, you explained that with the coming of a new minister --

2 or of that new minister, Mr. Kostov, many transfers were made in the

3 Ministry of Interior and many employees were deployed to different

4 positions. And you also testified that other colleagues like Goran

5 Mitevski, who had been the head of the public security bureau, left the

6 ministry altogether. And you explained that at that point you left your

7 position as state advisor in the minister's cabinet on the 1st of

8 November, 2002, and you took annual leave then for several months.

9 Have I got that correct?

10 A. Yes. With the coming of the new government, there was a -- there

11 were many transfers, many employees were redeployed. This was also with

12 the director for the -- the bureau for public security, Mr. Mitevski. He

13 voluntarily left the ministry. I was allowed to stay for a while, for a

14 new workplace to be found for me, with the explanation and excuse that an

15 adequate workplace for me has not been found yet; and, therefore, it would

16 be well advised that I wait for a while or take a holiday and that I would

17 be called in.

18 Q. Okay. Well, at that time, in November of 2002, and even before

19 that time, when a new minister entered office in Macedonia, that new

20 minister tended to prefer to fill posts in the ministry, if possible, with

21 members of his own political party or other trusted political colleagues.

22 Would that be a fair statement?

23 A. Well, if I can be concrete about talking about this period, with

24 the coming of the new minister, the office of the minister was completely

25 changed. Also, decisions were issued about numerous redeployment of

Page 8773

1 workers from their current to other work positions.

2 However, it is not to be excluded that some people remain because

3 of their professional qualifications but surely not at that moment, after

4 a certain period of time; and once this mistake, if I'm allowed to say, is

5 seen and was then remedied. But it was after a certain period of time and

6 not at that given moment.

7 Q. That's fine. I understand that. But the underlying reason for

8 these many transfers and deployments, isn't it, is that the new minister

9 tends to prefer to fill his or her important positions with persons who

10 belong to his or her own political party. Isn't that right?

11 A. Most frequently and most often, yes.

12 Q. What was Hari Kostov's political party? Do you recall?

13 A. Social Democratic Unit of Macedonia.

14 Q. Ljube Boskoski, at that time, he was a member of VRMO-DPMNE. Is

15 that right?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. You mention that you were allowed to stay for a while. Were you

18 also a member of VRMO-DPMNE?

19 A. Yes. On 1st of November, 2002 - I already mentioned this - I was

20 told to leave the office and to wait a certain period of time until I was

21 called in again and until an adequate work position was found for me where

22 I could be deployed. On a number of occasions, I did this by myself. I

23 made an attempt to meet with these people, I wrote to them; and, at the

24 end of March, 2003, I succeeded in having such a meeting. It was with the

25 then state secretary in the ministry and the director for public security.

Page 8774

1 I was given a new contract.

2 Q. Would it be fair to say, Mrs. Galeva, that one of the reasons why

3 you were selected to be a state advisor to the minister in 2002 was

4 because you were also a member of -- of his political party. Do you think

5 that played a role in the minister's decision?

6 A. I think that it had a role but not the decisive role. This was

7 not the decisive issue.

8 Q. If we can, can we return to the events of April 2002. Yesterday,

9 you described a meeting that you had with the director for public

10 security, Goran Mitevski, and Minister Boskoski in late April 2002. And

11 you explained that at that meeting you and Mr. Mitevski and Mr. Boskoski

12 discussed your work to date regarding the Ljuboten case.

13 Do you recall that testimony that you gave yesterday?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And you explained to the Trial Chamber that at that meeting,

16 Minister Boskoski told you that he wanted you to become fully engaged on

17 the Ljuboten case and take a new work position in the office of the

18 minister. Is that right?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And, eventually, a woman named Katica Jovanovska, who was an

21 analyst working in the sector for analysis and research in the Ministry of

22 Interior, was called into that meeting. Is that correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And Ms. Jovanovska, you understood at that time, had been

25 compiling information about the events in Ljuboten?

Page 8775

1 A. Those information were primarily of an analytical nature because

2 she used to work as an analyst in the sector for analysis and research

3 within the ministry, and she was in charge in collecting all those

4 analytical information that were produced within that sector. And she was

5 charged to produce a comprehensive information that would deal with the

6 Ljuboten case exclusively, but she failed to complete that task. She

7 started with it, but there was no ending to the task, until she left the

8 ministry.

9 Q. Okay. Well, you have just explained that. So Ms. Jovanovska left

10 the Ministry of Interior, took up her new post as a judge, without

11 providing you with the final version of the information and analysis that

12 she had compiled?

13 A. Yes. Yes. Regarding the information, well, I did receive some

14 notes and other working materials. I'm now speaking specifically about

15 the information. She was tasked with producing that, and I had not

16 received that information, while I had received some notes and other

17 materials continuously, all up to the day when she left the ministry.

18 Q. When you spoke with Ms. Jovanovska's superior in the sector for

19 analytics and research, the woman named Vasilka, Ms. Vasilka explained to

20 you that Ms. Jovanovska had not handed over this final version of the

21 information prior to leaving the Ministry of Interior. That's right?

22 A. Yes, that's correct.

23 Q. So, effectively then, you were unable to acquire that final

24 information?

25 A. Yes. I made efforts; however, nobody knew where that information

Page 8776

1 was, and it was not included in the handing over of cases, which means

2 that there was never a finalisation to it.

3 Q. Mrs. Galeva, did you call Katica Jovanovska in her new workplace

4 as a judge and ask her for these materials?

5 A. Yes. Immediately after she left, I asked her what happens in the

6 future, whether she left anything that she had intended to give to me.

7 She said that she simply left. "I gave you everything I had," she said,

8 "and if there's something else, my colleagues from the same sector will

9 continue working on it. If there's anything, they will continue

10 forwarding materials to you." And I also thought that this information

11 would be comprised by this.

12 Q. So Ms. Jovanovska declined to give you any additional information

13 or any final version. Is that correct?

14 A. I'm speaking about the final version; otherwise, the

15 information -- I had seen the initial version of it, but that was a text

16 written on computer heavily edited in handwriting. There were many

17 corrections on the initial text, and it was an information that was

18 finished halfway. I had seen it. I had an insight into it, but I had not

19 received the final version; although, I, of course, received other

20 information other than this one.

21 Q. Do you think Mrs. Jovanovska is responsible for losing the final

22 version?

23 A. I can't speak about it. I don't know whether she had lost it or

24 what is the reason why she failed to hand it over or complete it. She

25 herself would be the best witness to that.

Page 8777

1 Q. Are you suggesting at all that Ms. Jovanovska took some material

2 with her when she left the Ministry of Interior?

3 A. I heard about it, but I haven't seen anything of the sort, so I

4 could not make such assertions with certainty.

5 Q. You say you heard about it. What did you hear about this?

6 A. Specifically about that information?

7 Q. About the possibility that Ms. Jovanovska took some of these

8 materials with her when she left the Ministry of Interior.

9 A. As I told you already, I had just heard rumours regarding this.

10 Q. Okay.

11 A. She did not admit anything of the sort. There were no reliable

12 assertions about this. These were only rumours that certain files were

13 missing, certain documents were missing, and that there was a guess that

14 that information was among those.

15 Q. Can you tell us who told those rumours to you, or whom?

16 A. Those rumours were heard. I can't say precisely names of persons.

17 I have heard it from several persons. My only official interview was with

18 Vasilka who was one of the heads of the sector for analysis and research,

19 and I asked her to provide me some information or some data related to

20 that document and the preparation. And I told you also what was the

21 answer that I received from her. All the rest were rumours that were in

22 circulation among the colleagues.

23 Q. And, of course, you're aware that the woman known as Vasilka, one

24 of the heads of the analytical sector, you're aware that she passed away

25 last year, aren't you?

Page 8778

1 A. Yes. Unfortunately, yes.

2 Q. Yesterday, you mentioned, moving a little bit further in time, you

3 mention that several days after your initial meeting with Minister

4 Boskoski, you met with Director Goran Mitevski "because he was tasked with

5 giving" a copy of all the materials that his investigative committee had

6 gathered to you.

7 Do you remember that testimony?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Just so that the record is clear, it was Minister Boskoski who had

10 tasked Mr. Mitevski to give you a copy of all the materials collected by

11 Mr. Mitevski's 2001 committee. Isn't that right?

12 A. Yes, it was like that.

13 Q. Okay. I'd like to move to a new topic, the scope of your job

14 with respect to the Ljuboten case.

15 Yesterday, my colleague, Ms. Residovic, asked you to explain what

16 was your principle task with respect to the Ljuboten case. And you

17 explained that your job was to - and I'm going to break it down into two

18 bites - first of all, collect the comprehensive material, which the

19 Ministry of Interior had pertaining to the Ljuboten case without going

20 into detailed analysis or preparing any kinds of reports; and then,

21 secondly, you said strictly collection of material in one place, that is,

22 to place these materials that you collected in a chronological order in

23 one place, and then to hand these materials to the directors of public

24 security, the sector for counter-intelligence, and to Minister Boskoski.

25 Have I paraphrased your testimony correctly?

Page 8779

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Okay. First of all, I'd like to ask you if you can help us

3 understand, please. What did you understand at that time by the term

4 "Ljuboten case"? What was the Ljuboten case?

5 A. I knew about the Ljuboten case previously only through the media,

6 because I came to work in the Ministry of Interior much later, after the

7 end of that case. So the only thing I could learn was what the media

8 offered.

9 Once I was invited for the conversation with the head of the crime

10 police in the MOI, and he presented his thinking and at the same time the

11 proposal that I would tackle monitoring this case. He elaborated broadly

12 on the case and, of course, the exhumation was going on, so that every day

13 that event was present in the media and in the TV details about the case.

14 Actually, only that the procedure was going on without presenting any

15 details.

16 Q. Well, let me perhaps ask a more specific question.

17 By the "Ljuboten case," did you understand that to mean the events

18 inside the village of Ljuboten on the 12th of August, 2001?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And the fact that certain persons died inside the village of

21 Ljuboten on 12 August 2001. Was that, for you, the Ljuboten case?

22 A. Yes. Specifically, that it was an event where some individuals

23 have lost their lives. That was all of the initial information until I

24 started collecting the materials.

25 Q. Okay. And during the course of your work, during that spring and

Page 8780

1 summer of 2002, did your understanding of what the phrase "the Ljuboten

2 case" meant, did that change at all?

3 A. What I knew before was a lot less. I had very meager information

4 before that. Of course, when I started collecting the materials, I

5 arrived at numerous information, numerous acts; and when I studied them,

6 when I collected them, of course I learned much more.

7 Q. But is it true to say that the work that you did during that

8 summer of 2002, it focussed on the events inside Ljuboten from 12th of

9 August, 2001?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. So then your work did not include, for example, gathering

12 information about the treatment of persons who had been detained at

13 check-points near Ljuboten?

14 A. The bulk of the material -- materials I gathered, of course,

15 contained other information, other acts. But I will emphasise again, they

16 pertained exclusively to event. Of course, there were materials dealing

17 with a broader period of time, but, still, the purpose, the intention was

18 to arrive at that event. So they started within a time-period before the

19 12th of August, but only with the intention to arrive at the 12th, to see

20 what were the preparatory activities, what took place before that, and

21 what finally took place on that critical date.

22 Q. And, again, just so that our record is clear, when you use the

23 phrase "that event," you're referring to the event or events that took

24 place inside the village of Ljuboten on the 12th of August. Is that

25 right?

Page 8781

1 A. I'm speaking about an "event" since that was the notion, the term

2 used, the event. And this is why I'm using it.

3 Q. I understand that, but I'm just trying to be clear that the

4 definition that I gave you accurately describes what you mean by that

5 event. That's all.

6 I'm sorry. I don't think we could hear your response.

7 A. Could you please repeat the question.

8 Q. When you use the phrase "that event," you are simply referring to

9 what happened in Ljuboten on the 12th of August, 2001. Is that right?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. So your work, in 2002, did not include gathering information about

12 the treatment of persons, for example, in police stations around the

13 Skopje area, persons who had been detained in or near the village of

14 Ljuboten?

15 A. I will say, again, I worked on that event only, but in the

16 materials that I received, that I gathered, a period before and after the

17 event was comprised as well. So there were some other material there as

18 well, apart from this.

19 Q. All right. Just to simplify the matter a bit. Your task, if I

20 understand it, was to collect materials or information that the Ministry

21 of Interior already had in some form and put it in one place, one

22 location, in chronological order. Is that right?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And a large part of your work about the Ljuboten event involved

25 having discussions with persons who you described yesterday as persons in

Page 8782

1 leading positions who might be able to answer questions related to the

2 Ljuboten event. Is that right?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. I'd like to show you a document, if I can.

5 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I believe we have some binders with some

6 documents that might make it easier for the parties to follow along, if

7 they could be distributed, and we have a copy for the witness as well.

8 Q. Mrs. Galeva, if you could please turn to tab number 2 in that

9 binder, you'll see there's some numbers with gray tabs. And if you could

10 turn to tab number 2.

11 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, this is Exhibit P73. It is the decision

12 to establish a commission to consider the circumstances and analyse the

13 activities undertaken by the security forces of the Ministry of Internal

14 Affairs to repel the armed attacks by terrorist groups on the 12th of

15 August, 2001 in the village of Ljuboten.

16 Q. Are you with me, Mrs. Galeva?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And you'll see this is a decision dated 13th of August, 2001. I

19 think you're familiar with it, and signed by then Minister Boskoski. And

20 further down in the page, paragraph 2, it says that the commission has the

21 task to review the circumstances and analyse the activities undertaken by

22 the security forces of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to repel the armed

23 attacks of terrorist groups on 12 August 2001 in the village of

24 Ljuboten-Skopje.

25 Have you seen that?

Page 8783

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. If you could turn to what is tab 3, Mrs. Galeva.

3 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, this will be Exhibit P378.

4 Q. And, Mrs. Galeva, you'll see, when you get to the Macedonian

5 version, that this is the report of the commission that Minister Boskoski

6 had established on the 13th of August, 2001. The report is dated

7 4 September 2001.

8 And we see on the first page, again, the subject is, "An

9 examination of the circumstances and an analysis of the activities

10 undertaken by the security forces for the Ministry of Interior to repulse

11 armed attacks by terrorist groups on 12 August 2001."

12 Are you with me?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. If you could take a look, please, at what is, in the English

15 version, the last paragraph of page 1. I believe it is it on page two of

16 the Macedonian version, Mrs. Galeva.

17 If you turn to page 2, you'll see a paragraph starting with: "In

18 order to carry out ..."

19 Do you see that paragraph?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And that paragraph reads: "In order to carry out an inclusive

22 analysis of all aspects of the circumstances in which the events took

23 place, as well as an expert evaluation of the manner in which the

24 activities that particular day were implemented, a comprehensive review of

25 the chronology of the events was carried out with a professional review of

Page 8784

1 the regulative stability of this type of activity, on the basis of which

2 the Commission affirms the following."

3 Have you followed me in that paragraph?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. It would be fair to say, wouldn't it, that, really, your task in

6 2002 and the task of the 2001 committee headed by Goran Mitevski were

7 actually quite similar, weren't they?

8 A. Similar. However, my task was to gather materials, and his task

9 was to analyse the gathered materials. There is a difference here.

10 Q. Well, would it be fair to say that before you can analyse

11 materials, you have to gather them first? Would you agree with that?

12 A. Of course. You need to gather them, yes.

13 Q. And then, of course, when you gather them, you'd want to review

14 the chronology of the events, right?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Okay. If we can turn, please, to the bottom of page 4 in the

17 English version; and, Mrs. Galeva, this will be the bottom of page 5 in

18 the Macedonian version, please.

19 If you see at the bottom of page 5, you see auto paragraph with

20 the word "opinion" over it, do you see that, one page back? Do you see a

21 paragraph at the bottom, and it has the word "opinion" over it?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Then maybe I can ask the usher assistance to help you.

24 MR. SAXON: If I can show the usher this. Mr. Usher, I think I

25 could show you. It's here.

Page 8785

1 We are still on tab 3, the report of the 2001 commission.

2 Q. The first paragraph of this opinion reads the following: "The

3 activities which were carried out by the security forces of the Ministry

4 of Interior to repulse the armed attacks of the terrorist groups on

5 12 August 2001, in the village of Ljuboten-Skopje, were well-founded,

6 justified, and properly undertaken, yet there is evidently a slight

7 tolerable degree of individual overstepping of the boundaries of the

8 prescribed powers, carried out by a small number of members of the

9 Ministry of Interior, who actively participated in the event."

10 Were you able to follow with me?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Now, you had received a copy of this report from Goran Mitevski

13 when you began your work on the Ljuboten event. Isn't that right?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. When you spoke with the persons in leading positions from the

16 Ministry of Interior who might be able to answer questions about the

17 Ljuboten event, did you ask any of them to give you a list of the names of

18 the members of the Ministry of Interior who participated in the events in

19 Ljuboten?

20 A. Yes, I requested that. However, there was no such list, despite

21 the fact that the information produced by the commission noted this, and

22 there were some conjectures that the MOI members had participated in the

23 event. However, despite the efforts to obtain data on any such persons,

24 such data was not received.

25 So it was never ascertained, it was never proven that specific

Page 8786

1 persons had participated on that date.

2 Q. Well, but this report, signed by three very high-ranking members

3 of the Ministry of Interior, referred to a small number of members of the

4 Ministry of Interior who overstepped, if we can say, the boundaries of

5 their powers on the 12th of August in Ljuboten.

6 How could such an opinion be written without knowing who those

7 persons are and what they did?

8 A. There were very many accusations, speculations in the public that

9 was ever present in the media. It was rumoured that the members of the

10 MOI of the police forces had participated in that event and that they

11 perpetrated that overstepping of boundaries of power. And for that

12 reason, when preparing the information, the committee had included such

13 paragraph. However, all the way until the end, nothing of that was

14 proven, nothing was ascertained.

15 Such efforts were constantly made to find the participants in

16 order to hold them responsible, if that was needed; but despite the huge

17 efforts on the part of the crime police department, on the part of the

18 sector for internal affairs under the command of which they were under the

19 competence of which they were, still no names were given.

20 Q. So if I understand your evidence correctly, then this opinion, at

21 least in part, is based on rumours. Is that what you're saying?

22 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.

23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that this

24 is not a question that can be asked of the witness because she did not

25 prepare this report. We can ask her what she later could find out. But

Page 8787

1 the basis on which the commission prepared the report, we had here witness

2 Galevski and these were questions that could be put to him.

3 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I asked the witness how or whether she

4 had tried to find the members of the Ministry of Interior who were

5 described in general terms in the opinion of this report. And the

6 witness -- and I asked the witness, well, without speaking to such persons

7 or identifying them, how could this opinion be written, and the witness

8 responded, well, there were rumours about this participation.

9 So I think my -- I think my question, then, is a correct follow-up

10 question. I want to know if the witness believes that rumours, the use of

11 rumours then played an effect in this report.

12 [Trial Chamber confers]

13 JUDGE PARKER: Please continue, Mr. Saxon.


15 Q. I'll repeat my question, Mrs. Galeva. Is it your evidence that

16 this report of the 2001 committee headed by Goran Mitevski was based

17 partly on rumours?

18 A. Because in view of the fact that nothing is proved and there were

19 many accusations about the participation of security forces in this event,

20 there was no time to prove all this, and it was inevitable that this

21 information need to be prepared. This is the reason why this clause was

22 introduced, that it was possible to exist.

23 Therefore, this is a conditional phrase. It exists as a

24 possibility, which means that it leaves room for further investigation and

25 proof that this is indeed what happened.

Page 8788

1 Q. I want to read you a part of this paragraph, again, Mrs. Galeva.

2 It says this: "Yet there is evidently a slight tolerable degree of

3 individual overstepping of the boundaries of the prescribed powers carried

4 out by a small number of members of the Ministry of Interior who actively

5 participated in the event."

6 Tell us, please, where do you see a conditional phrase in what

7 I've just read to you?

8 A. As I said, there were rumours. It was being said that members of

9 security forces had taken part in this event. We must not forget the fact

10 that there were security forces check-points there and in a -- and

11 understand conditions of intensive armed attacks by members of the

12 National Liberation Army.

13 If there have been a direct attack of those check-points, reaction

14 would say have been necessary. This is what leaves room to be further

15 investigated which was impossible due to time restrictions. It was

16 impossible to establish all of this in such a limited time-frame, so that

17 with certainty one can claim whether something happened or not.

18 This is -- I believe that this is a phrase based on this, what

19 might or might not have happened. I do not exclude -- it does not exclude

20 the possibility of either one or the other happening; however, this is a

21 given statement without confirmation.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.

23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm very carefully

24 listening to the questions of my learned colleague and the answers, and I

25 think there is a misunderstanding between them. I'm looking at the

Page 8789

1 Macedonian text and the English translation, because the word in the

2 Macedonian text is what the witness is talking about. In the English, it

3 is the one which my learned colleague is talking about.

4 I would ask, if possible, to read in the Macedonian this segment

5 in particular, so that the interpreters can interpret it because the

6 report states -- it was: "The occurrence of presence was note," while the

7 translation says: "It is evident that something is established," while

8 the Macedonian version says to the contrary.

9 Perhaps the witness can now read this text in the Macedonian

10 language, so that the interpreters can interpret it directly, because this

11 is something completely different whether something is recorded or made --

12 or made evident.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

14 It seems that there is a possibility of some difference in

15 Ms. Residovic's view between what is in the Macedonian text and the

16 English translation. I take it it's in the opinion. Perhaps the witness

17 might be read the Macedonian text, and we can follow the interpretation

18 that comes.


20 Q. Mrs. Galeva, could you please read the first paragraph of the

21 opinion in your language, please.

22 A. "The activities undertaken on behalf of the security forces of the

23 Ministry of Interior for repelling the armed attacks of terrorist groups

24 on day 12 August 2001 in the village of Ljuboten-Skopje are based,

25 justified, and rightly undertaken whereby the presence of tolerant

Page 8790

1 level -- negligible tolerable level of individuals swaying from the

2 borders of regulated authorisations had been noted, carried out by a small

3 number of members of the Ministry of Interior which actively took part in

4 the event and case."

5 Q. Thank you.

6 [Trial Chamber confers]

7 JUDGE PARKER: What is the difference to which you were drawing

8 attention, Ms. Residovic?

9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, these words "whereby

10 the occurrence is noted."

11 These are now translated "as noted." While the English

12 translation of the text, it reads: [In English] "There is evidently a

13 slight ..."

14 [Interpretation] I do not know whether this has been checked or

15 not by what the witness is explaining to the Prosecutor, or is the

16 Prosecutor said that this is evident. If something is evident, the

17 presumption of the Prosecution is, and this is something he always

18 reiterate, is that this is being established. This is where the

19 misunderstanding is occurring.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Ms. Residovic.

21 I'm trying to grasp the point you were making. You identified the

22 particular passage. I think we must leave it to Mr. Saxon and the witness

23 to pursue that if they choose or if Mr. Saxon chooses to.

24 Thank you.

25 MR. SAXON: I would simply like -- in the English translation that

Page 8791

1 we have of the document, the word "is" is used. And that is, in the

2 Prosecution's submission, the significant point here.

3 I will move on.

4 Q. Mrs. Galeva, did you speak with Goran Mitevski about who these

5 persons from the Ministry of Interior who actively participated in the

6 Ljuboten event were?

7 A. I have had discussions with Mr. Goran Mitevski. However, he told

8 me that, as of the first moment, it is being taken into account and an

9 investigation is being made as to who these persons were who -- and this

10 was done by the operative services, the intelligence services who were in

11 charge of carrying this out and doing this. Mostly information was being

12 sought by -- from Mr. Petre Stojanovski, head and assistant of crime

13 police in the sector for internal affairs of the city of Skopje, and

14 through OVR, unit of internal affairs, Cair.

15 Also, information were requested from the sector of internal

16 control at the ministry, where in any event in the case of such deviation

17 or overstepping, a report had to be made against a concrete person so as

18 to enable the procedure, necessary procedure to be taken, which can be led

19 in the ministry.

20 Q. Mrs. Galeva, would it be fair to summarize your last response by

21 saying that Mr. Mitevski was not able to provide you with the names of the

22 members of the Ministry of Interior who participated in the Ljuboten

23 event? He did not have those names.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Do you think if you had spoke to the members of the Ministry of

Page 8792

1 Internal Affairs who were present in Ljuboten on the 12th of August, 2001

2 those individuals would have been able to clarify whether the persons who

3 died at Ljuboten were civilians or not?

4 A. I would ask you to repeat the question, please.

5 Q. If you had the opportunity to speak with the members of the

6 Ministry of Internal Affairs who took part in the Ljuboten event on the

7 12th of August, 2001, those persons would have been able to clarify

8 whether the persons who died at Ljuboten were civilians. Isn't that

9 right?

10 A. In this regard, I had exclusively and for the most part contacts

11 with the forensics unit at the ministry because this body was exclusively

12 in charge to follow this process; and, of course, the best information

13 could be obtained from there. Throughout there whole period of time, I

14 was in contact with them, I had meetings with them; and, of course, I

15 gathered some information.

16 Q. Mrs. Galeva, that's all fine but I need you to answer the question

17 that I asked you. I asked you a very different question.

18 If you had the opportunity to speak with the members of the

19 Ministry of Internal Affairs who participated in the Ljuboten event, do

20 you think those persons would have been able to clarify the circumstances

21 in which people died at Ljuboten, or whether they were civilians or not?

22 A. I had discussions with many persons who, at that time, were in

23 senior positions at the ministry; in particular, I will go back to

24 Mr. Petre Stojanovski, with whom I spoke at length, because, as the first

25 person of crime police in the internal affairs unit at the city of Skopje,

Page 8793

1 he was in the best position to provide me with information about this.

2 From what he was able to learn, true facts about persons who took

3 part in this event could not be established. Major efforts were put in to

4 establish who these persons might be. This was done through the unit of

5 internal affairs, Cair, through police stations, persons who went at the

6 site, but it was not possible to get accurate information.

7 Q. Mrs. Galeva, didn't the 2001 commission that was led by Goran

8 Mitevski compile the same materials that were tasked to compile?

9 A. The commission was set up immediately after the event. It was set

10 up by a decision of the minister of the 13th of August, 2001. It was

11 tasked to collect everything that pertained to that event with a

12 chronological overview line given that should have been part of this

13 information to be submitted to the minister. It was tasked to gather

14 material in support of the information that was to be prepared for the

15 minister, but it was not only this commission.

16 There were other commissions, working groups, that dealt with this

17 case also and including the commission which I was a part of, and we were

18 all tasked with our own tasks to gather material that can assist in giving

19 answers to some issues which, at that time, created major dilemmas.

20 Q. Well, I'm going to come back to that. But part of the materials

21 that you put in chronological order for review by the minister in the

22 summer of 2002 were the same materials that had been collected by the 2001

23 commission. Isn't that right?

24 A. One part, yes; but not all of it. Only a part.

25 Q. All right. A moment ago you told us that the 2001 commission was

Page 8794

1 not the only commission, and you said "there were other commissions,

2 working groups that dealt with this case also, including the commission

3 which I was a part of."

4 Can you tell us, please, what were these other commissions and

5 working groups that addressed the Ljuboten event?

6 A. This was the commission which I already mentioned set up with the

7 decision of the minister immediately after the event. It was presided by

8 Mr. Goran Mitevski; then a commission on war crimes chaired by Mr. Apostol

9 Stojanovski that worked on basis of complaint by injured parties; then the

10 commission on accusations made by the Albanians as to their attitude of

11 police forces towards them.

12 There was unofficial working group without a decision that

13 included Katica Jovanovska prior to my coming, and there was Jordan Arsov,

14 a former judge, as an outside associate. So there were many such

15 commissions, working groups. In addition, there were concrete tasks,

16 concrete authorisations to gather material. It was not left strictly to

17 these commissions to deal with these issues. Rather, a large group of

18 people was engaged that should also deal with this case, so as to gather

19 material that could be of significance of establishing the facts.

20 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I'm conscious of the time. Would this be

21 the appropriate moment to take the break?

22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Saxon.

23 We will have the first break now and resume at five past.

24 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.

25 --- On resuming at 11.06 a.m.

Page 8795

1 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.


3 Q. Mrs. Galeva, before we took the break, in your last response, you

4 mentioned that there was what you referred to as an unofficial working

5 group without a decision that included Katica Jovanovska that was working

6 on the Ljuboten event. Then you mentioned there was a former judge as an

7 outside associate."

8 Can you help us understand, please, what was this unofficial

9 working group that included Ms. Jovanovska and who created this unofficial

10 working group and what was it tasked to do?

11 A. In addition to the commissions that were involved, working with

12 the decision of the minister, there were also other working groups that

13 were working without a written decision about their tasks. They were

14 simply told by their direct superiors that they should deal with this

15 matter. Specifically, Mrs. Katica Jovanovska, in view of the fact that

16 she was then working as an analyst at the sector of analysis and research

17 at the MOI, was tasked to obtain, follow, and put in one file all

18 materials that pertained to the conflict as a whole and, in particular, to

19 the case of Ljuboten.

20 There was also the outside associate for legal associate as an

21 advisor for legal issues, Jordan Arsov, an outside associate, a former

22 judge. He also followed these events and gave guidelines; as well as

23 Pavle Manov [phoen], also an outside associate, that also worked on this

24 issue. But I believe on the Ljuboten case, it was more Katica Jovanovska

25 and Jordan Arsov that worked on this matter until I came.

Page 8796

1 Q. And who directed this outside legal advisor, Jordan Arsov, to work

2 on the Ljuboten case.

3 A. This was certainly decided at a collegium of the minister and that

4 was the decision of the advisors to the minister, that such person should

5 be retained to work around this case. But he had some other tasks as

6 well, and those were run in parallel. This was one of the tasks, one of

7 the duties, and it concerned only following the information that came to

8 the sector of analysis and research. And I believe that the aim was that

9 he and Katica Jovanovska would gather the information, discuss them, and

10 then organise them in a binder.

11 Q. And so, if I understand you, the advisors of Minister Boskoski,

12 the members of his collegium, they recommended to the minister that

13 Mr. Jordan Arsov perform this task, provide this assistance?

14 A. I stress, again, his assistance was to follow all the analytical

15 information together with Mrs. Katica Jovanovska; otherwise --

16 Q. Mrs. Galeva, I'm sorry. Maybe you didn't understand my question.

17 My question was very simple. It's your evidence, then, that the advisors

18 of Minister Boskoski, the members of his collegium, recommended to the

19 minister that Mr. Jordan Arsov provide some assistance on the Ljuboten

20 matter. Is that correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Okay. And, then, was it Minister Boskoski who then arranged to

23 have Mr. Arsov provide his particular assistance?

24 A. I wasn't present during the event, when he was invited, the time

25 and place when he was invited by the minister. And whether that was a

Page 8797

1 one-on-one meeting with the minister or whether that was on a collegium

2 that took place regularly in the minister's office, the minister and his

3 advisors would participate. Certainly, he was invited during that time,

4 and this task was given to him, among other tasks.

5 Q. And where would we find any report written by Mr. Arsov with

6 respect to the work that he did?

7 A. There is no written report, as there is no written report from the

8 work of Mrs. Jovanovska. I'm saying again: that was a task force or a

9 working group that dealt exclusively with analytical information,

10 gathering of all analytical information pertaining to this period that

11 was compiled at the sector for analysis and research within the

12 ministry.

13 Part of those information were then handed over to me; and, of

14 course, they were included in the materials that was later given to the

15 minister.

16 Q. If we can move on to another topic, please.

17 Mrs. Galeva, I'd like to turn your mind, please, to the subject of

18 the sector of the Ministry of Interior for counter-intelligence. The

19 abbreviation that you used yesterday, UBK.

20 Yesterday, during your testimony, you explained that the -- that

21 the main aspects of the UBK -- excuse me, the main aspects of the work of

22 the UBK, are, among others, to follow persons, to obtain information, and

23 to intercept telephone conversations.

24 Do you recall that testimony?

25 A. Yes.

Page 8798

1 Q. To do that kind of work normally requires a lot of people and

2 resources, doesn't it?

3 A. It should.

4 Q. And it will also require a lot of skill and professional

5 experience on the part of the members of the UBK who are doing that work.

6 Is that right?

7 A. Certainly.

8 Q. If the members of the -- if the UBK, the sector for

9 counter-intelligence, needed to identify police officers who participated

10 in an operation, the members of the UBK could find that information,

11 couldn't they?

12 A. Yes, that is one of the ways.

13 Q. I'd like to turn to another topic, because you mentioned yesterday

14 that after you began your work collecting materials regarding the Ljuboten

15 event, you -- you explained that on many such occasions you spoke with

16 Minister Boskoski about the progress of your work. Am I correct in

17 assuming you're talking about discussions that took place during the

18 summer of 2002; June, July, August?

19 A. Of course. After I started working on that, after I received the

20 decision to be deployed in the cabinet of the minister, certainly the

21 minister was interested to learn what stage has the procedure reached and

22 what have I managed to find.

23 And we had discussions or those were questions asked at collegiums

24 before a broader audience or also during informal one-on-one decisions, if

25 the minister considered that appropriate. So he would be informed about

Page 8799

1 the state of the matters.

2 Q. And you mentioned that there was a lot of speculation about the

3 Ljuboten events in the media at the time, particularly after the

4 exhumation, and Minister Boskoski wanted to get to the truth as soon as

5 possible.

6 A. [No verbal response]

7 Q. You need to make it a verbal response; I'm sorry.

8 A. Yes, that is correct. There were many speculations in the public

9 related to the Ljuboten event. There were allegations that that was an

10 armed attack where members of the security forces of the Ministry of

11 Interior took part; that the outcome of that was, among other things, a

12 murder of civilians; and that those were speculations present in the

13 public. To an overly large extent, there were criticisms coming from

14 Human Rights Watch. There were recommendations to the government. So the

15 minister demonstrated really significant interest to investigate and

16 examine all this over the briefest time possible, and this is why such

17 efforts were made to establish committees, to establish official and

18 unofficial groups, to gather all available materials that the services in

19 the ministries had, in order to provide many answers related to the event,

20 to see what was actually taking place there.

21 Q. Thank you.

22 A. And, of course --

23 Q. That's clear. Just to simplify this, a lot of the speculation in

24 the media took place in the months after the exhumations and the autopsies

25 were carried out in the spring of 2002.

Page 8800

1 A. There were speculations always.

2 Q. Okay.

3 A. But those were the same speculations that were present before the

4 start of the actual procedure, as well as afterwards, since no results

5 were present to the public from the post-mortem.

6 Q. Well, then, the exhumations and the autopsies that were performed

7 in April 2002 did not really clarify the facts about what had happened in

8 Ljuboten on the 12th of August, 2001, did they?

9 A. Well, there was no final report. I'm saying, in the Ministry of

10 Interior, there was no final report; otherwise, there was a final report

11 on the part of the Forensics Medicine Institute that was communicated to

12 our justice system bodies; and after that, it was communicated to the

13 ICTY.

14 I spoke at that time with the head of the forensics police in the

15 MOI. That was the only service that participated in that process, and I

16 gathered some information from them, also some findings from the professor

17 from the director of the Forensic Institute, Dr. Aleksej Duma. And from

18 the discussions with them, many interesting conclusions were drawn.

19 Otherwise, the expertise itself, the expert report on the materials

20 gathered, was brought to an independent institute, independent laboratory

21 that is located here in the Netherlands.

22 Q. Mrs. Galeva --

23 A. That was --

24 Q. Can you tell us which -- in which of the reports of the Forensic

25 Institute for which of the exhumations or autopsies we would find these

Page 8801

1 many interesting conclusions?

2 A. Would you please repeat the question?

3 Q. Well, in your last response, you said from your discussions with

4 people, such as the head of the Forensic Institute, Dr. Duma, many

5 interesting conclusions were drawn. And I just wanted to ask you, if you

6 can tell us specifically, in which of the reports of the Forensic

7 Institute we would find these "many interesting conclusions," or the

8 conclusions that you found interesting?

9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.

11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that this

12 question is unfounded in -- from the answer of the witness, because as far

13 as can I see, in line 20 of page 40, the witness says that there were

14 discussions with them, many interesting conclusions were drawn. And the

15 question was from what materials, so I think that this should be the

16 direction that my learned colleague should take.

17 JUDGE PARKER: I'm sure, Ms. Residovic, that the witness will be

18 very well able to make it clear, if that is the case.


20 Q. Mrs. Galeva, do you want me to repeat the question?

21 A. I understood the question, but I think that I had already answer

22 it previously. So, I'm stressing once again: I did not read that from

23 any report. What I'm saying is on the basis of the discussions that I had

24 with the head of the forensics police, Mr. Uslinkovski; and the director

25 of the Forensic Medicine Institute, Aleksej Duma; and some time later,

Page 8802

1 also with are the investigating judge who was chairing the entire

2 procedure, Mr. Dragan Nikolovski.

3 So it is only on the basis of discussions.

4 Q. If I understood your evidence from yesterday, Minister Boskoski

5 encouraged you to work quickly, to do as much as you could and as fast as

6 you could. Is that right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And that's because Mr. Boskoski wanted to know the truth.

9 A. Of course.

10 Q. And you informed him, during your discussions, about how had you

11 spoken with, what had you done, and Mr. Boskoski gave you his full

12 support?

13 A. He was always kept informed. He wanted to be informed how far the

14 procedure has gone. He wanted to know about all things that were taking

15 place, what contacts I had, what materials I was gathering. So he had a

16 special interest in that, and he stressed always that it should be

17 finalised as soon as possible.

18 Q. And, given Mr. Boskoski's special interest, when appropriate, he

19 also gave you instructions to speak with particular heads of sectors or

20 units who might be able to give you an answer about particular issues.

21 Isn't that right?

22 A. Maybe that was mentioned during some discussions, but I primarily

23 relied on the discussions with the other senior officers and I was already

24 knowledgeable about issues. So I knew myself whom among the senior

25 officers I could address and who could provide answers to me.

Page 8803

1 Q. I just want to read to you a bit of a response that you gave

2 yesterday to my colleague, Ms. Residovic, in response to one of her

3 questions about your discussions with Minister Boskoski. This is on page

4 8704 of the transcript.

5 You said: "As for special instructions, he," that's Minister

6 Boskoski, "he let me know that a certain head of a sector of a unit could

7 also give an answer to certain issues. So he gave me a kind of

8 instructions, sort of to direct my activities, so I would not sway too

9 much in this matter."

10 Is that correct?

11 A. Yes. I told you that he had mentioned something of the sort

12 during the discussions.

13 Q. Did Minister Boskoski ever instruct you to speak with a man named

14 Johan Tarculovski?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Did Minister Boskoski ever instruct you to speak with a man who

17 owned a security company called Kometa?

18 A. No.

19 Q. A man named Zoran Jovanovski who had the nickname Bucuk. Did the

20 minister of suggest that you speak with that man?

21 A. Zoran Jovanovski was then in the police department when I came to

22 work for the Ministry of Interior, if he is the person that you're

23 referring to.

24 Q. I'm sorry, Mrs. Galeva, and it is a very easier confusion. I'm

25 talking about a man with the same name, the exact same name, because both

Page 8804

1 that -- both those names are common in Macedonia. But the man who -- the

2 man with the name Zoran Jovanovski, his nickname was Bucuk. He ran a

3 security company known as Kometa. Did Minister Boskoski ever suggest that

4 you speak with that gentleman?

5 A. No, no. It was never mentioned.

6 Q. Did Minister Boskoski ever suggest that you speak with a man known

7 as Kunta?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Two brothers with the last name Janevski.

10 MR. SAXON: Mr. Apostolski is on his feet, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE PARKER: I know that but I was waiting for you to finish

12 your line of questioning.

13 Mr. Apostolski.

14 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I object to this

15 manner of examining the witness. I believe that it would be fair to first

16 ask the witness whether she knows those individuals, and then to start

17 asking such questions.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Apostolski, but I think that this is

19 it a matter that can be left with Mr. Saxon.


21 Q. I'll repeat my question, Mrs. Galeva. Did Minister Boskoski ever

22 instruct you to speak with a man known as Kunta?

23 A. No.

24 Q. How about two brothers with the last name Janev or Janevski?

25 A. No.

Page 8805

1 Q. You mentioned yesterday - turning to another topic now - you

2 provided some testimony about the report that the organisation Human

3 Rights Watch issued about the Ljuboten event. Do you recall that?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Did you ever discuss the Human Rights Watch report with Minister

6 Boskoski?

7 A. That was on the same date when I was first invited to the

8 minister's office, to the office of Mr. Ljube Boskoski, and let's not go

9 back to the entire conversation. On that same date, Katica Jovanovska was

10 invited, because she was tasked with giving the materials that she had

11 already gathered to me. Among the other materials, the analytical

12 information that I had mentioned already, was also the report of Human

13 Rights Watch; and then we had some brief discussions and brief comments

14 around this report, or maybe later during other meetings that we had.

15 Q. Can you recall what comments, if any, Minister Boskoski gave

16 regarding the Human Rights Watch report?

17 A. Yes, I remember. I just can't say precisely whether it was on the

18 same date or during one of the subsequent meetings, yes. And when

19 commenting on this report, he said that it was full of unfounded,

20 uncorroborated matters; and, of course, anyone could allege anything

21 before the public. Anything could be put on paper.

22 But having in mind our legal system and the presumption of

23 innocence, until you prove that something was perpetrated, until you prove

24 the responsibility and culpability on the part of the accused person,

25 there is no accusation. The person is free, and they were really

Page 8806

1 unfounded and uncorroborated allegations.

2 This is why he was greatly interested in denying all the

3 allegations contained in the report and prove the opposite. This is why

4 he was in such a hurry to resolve the entire case as soon as possible and

5 to resolve all dilemmas, to provide many answers to the questions raised

6 within that. Since in the materials that I gathered later, there were a

7 lot of contradictions, huge discrepancies within certain details of

8 specific data.

9 Q. You have explained that yesterday. Thank you.

10 Mrs. Galeva, if you could please turn to what is tab 4 in the

11 binder in front of you, please.

12 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, this will be Exhibit P355. It should be

13 in your binder.

14 Q. And, Mrs. Galeva, I hope you a Macedonian translation of this

15 document. It's a news report from the BBC dated the 27th of August, 2001,

16 and the headline is: Macedonia's interior minister rejects human rights

17 accusations."

18 Do you see that?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And the article begins where Minister Boskoski is denying claims

21 that were apparently put in a new report by Human Rights Watch related to

22 the events in Ljuboten. And sort of in the middle of the page, we see a

23 sentence that says: "I vigorously reject the accusations."

24 Do you see that, Mrs. Galeva?

25 A. Yes.

Page 8807

1 Q. And there the Minister is quoted. First, he said there were no

2 grounds for the claims, just above that.

3 Then he is quoted as saying: "I vigorously reject the accusations

4 against the interior ministry and against the regular and the reserve

5 police forces, which have demonstrated unprecedented courage in defending

6 Macedonia's sovereignty and territorial integrity in the past six months."

7 Are you following with me?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And then he says: "I view the accusations issued by Human Rights

10 Watch as a classic act of framing the interior minister."

11 And then below that, we see a sentence that says: "He," and that

12 would be Mr. Boskoski, "said his purpose was to defend the Macedonian

13 people's national interests and that he no intention to justify his

14 actions."

15 Do you see that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And then in the last line, Minister Boskoski is quoted from the

18 radio as saying: "If there exists any evidence, I am prepared to account

19 for it; although, all this is out of the question."

20 Have you been following with me?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Wasn't one of the interests of Minister Boskoski in collecting

23 information about the Ljuboten event was to protect what he perceived to

24 be the Macedonian people's national interest?

25 A. Could you please ask the question again? I apologise.

Page 8808

1 Q. Sure. Well, you've explained that Minister Boskoski had a special

2 interest in collecting all information within the ministry related to the

3 Ljuboten event and that Minister Boskoski was anxious to get to the truth

4 as soon as possible.

5 Wasn't one of the motives of Minister Boskoski to put, as he is

6 quoted here, "to defend the national interest of the Macedonian people"?

7 A. Of course.

8 Q. And in this matter, would it be fair to say that within the

9 minister's cabinet, at least by 2002, there was a perception that the

10 report of Human Rights Watch was damaging to the national interest of the

11 Macedonian people; wasn't it?

12 A. There was such atmosphere that such comments were really annoying

13 and tasteless. Since they were unfounded and uncorroborated, of course

14 they hurt you.

15 Q. The comments made by Human Rights Watch?

16 A. Yes, yes.

17 Q. And it was also an objective of Ljube Boskoski to protect the

18 reputation of the Macedonian police, wasn't it?

19 A. Certainly.

20 Q. In fact, it was one of Minister Boskoski's objectives to protect

21 the reputation of the entire Ministry of Interior, wasn't it?

22 A. Yes. But, still, the possibility was not precluded. If there

23 were issues that go against the reputation of the police in general, as a

24 whole, of course he would react. Of course, as the leader of that

25 ministry, he found the reputation important. But if something was done to

Page 8809

1 jeopardise that, he would certainly react.

2 Q. And, for example, one of Minister Boskoski's reaction was to set

3 up a commission on the 13th of August, 2001, to investigate the Ljuboten

4 event, right?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Can you turn, please, to tab 6 in your binder.

7 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, this is Exhibit P356.

8 Q. And I see do you not have a Macedonian translation. I will read a

9 portion of this article to you.

10 It's from the New York Times, from September 2001, and the

11 headline says: "Report says Macedonians killed civilians in revenge."

12 It describes the report of Human Rights Watch that was to be

13 issued on the same day as this article appeared in this newspaper, and it

14 refers to some of the details and allegations contained in the Human

15 Rights Watch report. It refers to several comments that Minister Boskoski

16 made in reaction to the Human Rights Watch report.

17 And, at one point, about halfway down the page, on the right hand

18 column, the article says: "He," that is Mr. Boskoski, "he also attacked

19 Human Rights Watch which investigated the incident, calling it 'an

20 international mercenary organisation.'"

21 Mrs. Galeva, did you ever hear Minister Boskoski use that term in

22 reference to Human Rights Watch.

23 A. In my presence, in the presence of other colleagues on all of our

24 joint meetings and collegia, a statement of this kind I have not heard.

25 As I said, I heard that there were many contradictory sentences within,

Page 8810

1 many statements, accusations which are unsustainable and uncorroborated.

2 This was his comment for the most part regarding their report.

3 Q. You're somewhat familiar with Human Rights Watch because part of

4 your task was to review their report and ascertain whether the allegations

5 were correct. Do you believe that Human Rights Watch is an international

6 mercenary organisation?

7 A. I would not like to give my personal opinion on this.

8 Q. I'm asking for it.

9 A. According to what I'm able to see so far and my experience in

10 preparing this material, primarily I was able to read really some who

11 horrific things which really sounded quite incredible to me. With time,

12 by gathering all of the material, by obtaining altogether different

13 information from that contained in this report, I gathered that there is a

14 very large gap, which led me to a position to think that they are

15 providing this information.

16 The reasons for this and why they are doing this or not, they are

17 best to judge. It is not mine to judge. I know that there was great

18 differences and some unsubstantiated and uncorroborated matters within.

19 Q. I'm sorry, Mrs. Galeva. In the English transcript, you're quoted

20 as saying: "I gathered that there is a very large gap, which led me to a

21 position to think that they are providing this information."

22 But I think --

23 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Misinformation or

24 disinformation.

25 MR. SAXON: Okay. Thank you.

Page 8811

1 Q. Okay. What did Ljube Boskoski say to you about this Tribunal and

2 its investigation into the events in Ljuboten?

3 A. In regards to The Hague Tribunal, from the very start, he was

4 interested to be -- gather the material as quickly as possible that would

5 be of use to the Tribunal. This is a Tribunal that should reach the last

6 decision. We are on the other side. We are the ministry that should make

7 available all material available and at its disposal from all professional

8 services in the ministry. That will be for the benefit for reaching this

9 decision, in order to establish a true, factual situation, supported by

10 arguments and facts that will corroborate this.

11 This is why he requested in all of these procedures that -- or

12 procedures that went in our country at that time to include

13 representatives from The Hague Tribunal. I can be specific, especially in

14 the process of exhumation which was one of the most important ones. There

15 was insistence that this not be left only to our services, that it involve

16 the active participation of supervisors from The Hague Tribunal in Skopje

17 in order to avoid any possible manipulation in future.

18 Q. You said Minister Boskoski said he wanted to gather the material

19 as quickly as possible that would be of use to this Tribunal. So that was

20 in the spring and summer of 2002, wasn't it?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Because, at that time, the Prosecutor of this Tribunal had

23 asserted her primacy over the Ljuboten case. Isn't that right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. I'd like to move to a different topic now.

Page 8812

1 You mentioned in your testimony yesterday that you had a number of

2 meetings and/or even telephone discussions with persons who might be able

3 to provide you with information related to the Ljuboten event; for

4 example, you mentioned the man, the head of the crime technique sector of

5 the police, Mr. Uslinkovski, and that had you several meetings with him.

6 Do you recall your testimony?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And, as you described yesterday, Mr. Uslinkovski gave you

9 information related to the persons who were exhumed at Ljuboten and then

10 who subsequently were subjected to an autopsy, right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And those discussion -- that discussion or those discussions with

13 Mr. Uslinkovski must have been important discussions, isn't that right,

14 with respect to your work?

15 A. Of course.

16 Q. And you explained -- if I understood your testimony from

17 yesterday, you explained that Mr. Uslinkovski -- that the discussions with

18 Mr. Uslinkovski led you to meet with Professor Duma, the head of the

19 Forensic Institute. Is that right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. You -- you had several meetings with Professor Duma, and you

22 explained that Professor Duma confirmed what Mr. Uslinkovski had told you.

23 That's right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. So, again, those would have been important meetings with respect

Page 8813

1 to the work that you were doing.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And your conversations with Professor Duma led you to speak with

4 the investigating judge at the time, Mr. Dragan Nikolovski, right?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And from Judge Nikolovski, you received similar information to the

7 information that was provided to you by Mr. Uslinkovski and Professor

8 Duma, right?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And so, again, those discussions with professor -- I'm sorry, your

11 discussion with Judge Nikolovski also would have been an important meeting

12 for your work.

13 A. This is correct.

14 Q. You also telephoned Mr. Ljube Krstevski but he declined to assist

15 you, right?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. That must have been a disappointment to you, but obviously it was

18 a significant conversation for you because you remember it very well. Is

19 that right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Where did you record the information that you received in these

22 important discussions with Mr. Uslinkovski, Professor Duma,

23 Judge Nikolovski, and Ljube Krstevski? Where can we find the record of

24 these discussions?

25 A. There are no minutes because most often these were

Page 8814

1 person-to-person meetings, and it was customary not to take minutes on the

2 collegia. All I can say, for myself personally, on each meeting, I took

3 personal notes, text for all issues that were raised and for all answers

4 that I received with each of these persons.

5 Q. And where can we find your personal notes of these meetings?

6 A. These were personal notes that I took at the time. I remember at

7 the end, when I handed over the material to the public prosecutor general,

8 once the whole material was gathered, all of these notes were contained

9 and were part of this material.

10 Q. And these were materials that were eventually destined to be sent

11 to this Tribunal. Isn't that right?

12 A. Yes. This is what the public prosecutor general told me.

13 Q. So, if members of this Tribunal were to review the material that

14 was provided to this Tribunal by the government of Macedonia in 2002,

15 surely they will find your personal notes of these important discussions,

16 right?

17 A. It should be; although, there are also other evidence to this --

18 to this extent. What I remember surely is remembered by the other persons

19 with whom I had conversations with, and they can confirm this in their

20 statements.

21 Q. That may be, but I'm asking you about your notes or whatever

22 records you may have created.

23 You mentioned earlier today that one of your professional

24 strengths was the ability to make and keep good records. Why is it that

25 you didn't make minutes of these very important conversations that you

Page 8815

1 had?

2 A. In the Ministry of Interior, for meetings held, minutes are held

3 exclusively by the analysts. This is not something that I can do or

4 anyone else in a different work position. All my notes from all the

5 conversations I had were, for the most part, talking points from these

6 meetings, the most important points, questions or answers.

7 These were not official minutes. This is not something that was

8 under my competence to do. This was done exclusively by analysts at the

9 ministry.

10 Q. You became a lawyer, and you graduated as a lawyer, was it 1993?

11 A. Yes, 1993.

12 Q. And are you suggesting that, with all of your experience by 2002,

13 you were unable to create minutes of the -- or some other record of the

14 conversations that you had?

15 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, misleading of the

16 witness. The witness said that it was not her task, not that she was not

17 in a position to do so.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

19 Carry on, Mr. Saxon.


21 Q. Can you answer my question, please, Mrs. Galeva?

22 A. As I already emphasised, in the ministry, the task for taking

23 minutes is assigned to a person employed as analyst. All other records,

24 of course, can be led by anyone else within the framework of the work they

25 carried out; but these were not obligatory, nor were they official

Page 8816

1 records.

2 Q. Mrs. Galeva, when you went to speak to these important

3 individuals, Professor Duma, Judge Nikolovski, Mr. Uslinkovski, you didn't

4 bring an analyst with you, did you?

5 A. No, never.

6 Q. So, then, the only person from the side of the Ministry of

7 Interior who could have created a record of these conversations, could

8 have physically created a record, was you, right?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And just to understand you, you had been given what was for

11 Minister Boskoski a very important task, wasn't it, to get to the truth

12 about the Ljuboten event?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And in your prior law practice, your work as an apprentice,

15 wouldn't you always try to keep full and accurate records of any aspect of

16 your important tasks?

17 A. Of course, I had some records; but I will emphasise, once again,

18 in this specific case, it was not obligatory to lead official reports

19 because this was not an official commission, rather, a working group, with

20 tasks and obligation assigned by authorisation of the minister.

21 If it had been a commission or another working body, then, surely,

22 there would have to have been some written records or written acts,

23 results which would have been the result of the activities of this

24 commission or working group.

25 However, since this is something altogether different - I'm

Page 8817

1 clarifying now - such records were not mandatory. Whether I kept my own

2 records or not, that was really my personal business, a matter of my

3 personal belief, without anyone tasking me or authorising me to do this work.

4 Q. You say that this was not an official commission, but you had been

5 tasked by the Minister of the Interior to clarify or try to clarify the

6 truth about an important event in which people had died. Are you saying

7 this was not official part of the duties -- or part of the official duties

8 of the Ministry of Interior?

9 A. There was a working group, yes. Official in the sense that it was

10 not made official in a -- with a written document. In a way, the minister

11 had the authorisation to do this in written and in oral form. In view of

12 the fact that the situation was really critical and it was expected to

13 achieve the final results as soon as possible that will disclose the

14 truth, these working groups, several working groups and commissions were

15 formed. A lot of other employees of the MOI were engaged that dealt with

16 the Ljuboten case.

17 Q. Just so that I'm sure that I understand you, are you making a

18 distinction within the work of the Ministry of Interior between the -- the

19 work of a working group and the work of an official commission? Does the

20 work of an official commission have some higher level of authority or

21 formality than the work of a working group?

22 A. No. This is a matter of procedure. The commission is set up with

23 a decision in written form; while working group, as I clarified, can be

24 set up with the oral authorisation. Their competencies and their

25 importance are on equal footing. There is no difference.

Page 8818

1 Q. Okay. Well, then, with respect to the working group that you were

2 participating in, in 2002, there was no reason why minutes of important

3 meetings that were part of the work of that working group could not have

4 been created, right?

5 A. I would not agree.

6 Q. Judge Nikolovski told you that "the law provided that the

7 investigating judge not provide information in writing to the Ministry of

8 Interior."

9 Do you recall that part of your evidence?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Tell us, please, what law makes that prohibition? Where can we

12 find that law?

13 A. I do not know this. This is not a matter in my scope of work.

14 Q. I'd like to move to another topic now, please.

15 You mentioned yesterday that, at one point during your work, you

16 telephoned Ljube Krstevski and attempted to initiate contact with him,

17 and you testified yesterday that Mr. Krstevski refused to cooperate with

18 you. Do you recall that evidence?

19 A. I recall.

20 Q. Can we assume that you reported Mr. Krstevski's response to

21 Minister Boskoski?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And what was Minister Boskoski's response to that information?

24 A. Briefly only, I informed the minister, Mr. Ljube Boskoski, that

25 Mr. Ljube Krstevski, despite my efforts to have a meeting with him,

Page 8819

1 refused that proposal and that he had a very brief excuse, saying that

2 what he knew about the event and all the written materials that he had, he

3 had already communicated and that he could not say more than that. And,

4 of course, I communicated this to Mr. Ljube Boskoski. What happened

5 further, I don't know.

6 Q. Mrs. Galeva, I'd like you to ask [sic] the question that I asked

7 you -- excuse me, we're all tired.

8 I'd like to you answer the question that I asked you. My question

9 was: What was Minister Boskoski's response to this information that you

10 gave him about your communication with Ljube Krstevski?

11 A. Simply, he was surprised with the answer that I communicated to

12 him, and he told me to not take any initiative in this respect and to

13 leave it to him.

14 Q. And are you aware of any other measures or actions that

15 Mr. Boskoski took after that, with respect to obtaining the cooperation of

16 Mr. Krstevski?

17 A. I am aware only that the head of the criminal police force the

18 city of Skopje regularly, on a daily basis, communicated with Mr. Ljube

19 Krstevski. Whether the initiative for that came from the minister or not,

20 I'm really not aware.

21 Q. Did you ask Mr. Boskoski to order Mr. Krstevski to cooperate with

22 you?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Any reason why not?

25 A. He already gave me the answer, that everything that was needed

Page 8820

1 would be undertaken by him, that I should not take any further initiative,

2 to leave it to him. And I expected that he would tell me anything if he

3 needed -- if he considered it needed. Because he never told me anything,

4 I didn't take any further action.

5 Q. But when you continued not to receive any response from

6 Mr. Krstevski, did you bring up the matter again with Minister Boskoski?

7 A. I did not raise that issue ever again with Mr. -- but then I had

8 regular contacts with the assistant for criminal police, Mr. Lube

9 Stojanovski, who was on a daily basis in communication with the head of

10 the department for internal affairs, Ljube Krstevski. So this is how I

11 received a large number of information from him.

12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The interpreters did not

13 get the name in line 60, 1, where the witness did not raise the issue with

14 Mr., and we could not get the name.


16 Q. We need to clarify something in the interpretation, Mrs. Galeva.

17 At the start of your last answer, you're quoted as saying: "I did not

18 raise that issue ever again with Mr...." and then the interpreters didn't

19 hear the name. I believe I heard you say "Mr. Boskoski." Is that right?

20 A. Yes. With the minister, yes.

21 Q. Did you report to director of the public security bureau, Goran

22 Mitevski, the fact that Ljube Krstevski had declined to cooperate with

23 you?

24 A. Yes. Immediately afterwards, I informed the director.

25 Q. And what was Mr. Mitevski's response?

Page 8821

1 A. That he would confer with the minister, and they would decide what

2 activities to take next.

3 Q. So you didn't ask Goran Mitevski to order Mr. Krstevski to

4 cooperate with you?

5 A. I just informed him and I awaited for his response, and he told

6 me, "Leave it to me. I will confer, I will discuss the issue with the

7 minister, and then we will see what strategy we will employ."

8 Q. Did you ever hear back from Goran Mitevski about this matter

9 again?

10 A. No, never.

11 Q. I'd like to discuss a different topic with you, if I may.

12 You mentioned yesterday, in your testimony, you gave the Trial

13 Chamber some information about a man named Atulla Qaili who died shortly

14 after the event in Ljuboten. I'm just trying to understand your evidence.

15 Did you actually read certain written records pertaining to

16 Mr. Atulla Qaili in the course of your work in 2002?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And did you report what you learned about Mr. Qaili to Minister

19 Boskoski?

20 A. I don't remember if I spoke to the minister about this event. I

21 remember that I did discussion with the director, Mr. Goran Mitevski. And

22 I also discussed it, and he was the one who sent me to discuss it with Mr.

23 Petre Stojanovski.

24 Q. And, so, Goran Mitevski suggested that you speak to Petre

25 Stojanovski about the death of Atulla Qaili. Is that right?

Page 8822

1 A. Yes, among other information that he already told me orally, the

2 director. So we first had a discussion. He provided me with some

3 information related to the case, and then he told me that I should feel

4 free to discuss it with Mr. Petre Stojanovski, since this was in the area

5 cover by a police station in the OVR Cair and they were potentially able

6 to provide me with further useful information.

7 Q. And what else, if anything, did Goran Mitevski tell to you do to

8 ascertain how Atulla Qaili died or why he died?

9 A. As far as I remember, there was a document, an act that the person

10 was taken to a hospital. I believe that it was the city General Hospital;

11 that there was presence there of a judge; and that immediately after the

12 Ministry of Interior learned about it, they have informed the duty

13 prosecutor about the case.

14 After that, the prosecutor requested the ministry with an act to

15 establish the identity of that person, and, really, that was done within

16 the ministry, within the sector for police forensics. Such establishing

17 of identity was carried out on the basis of papillary lines, and it was

18 proven that this was the person.

19 Q. Thank you for that, but I don't think you actually answered my

20 question.

21 My question was: In addition to suggesting that you speak with

22 Petre Stojanovski, what else, if anything, did Goran Mitevski suggest to

23 you that you could do to learn how Mr. Qaili had died. Did Mr. Mitevski

24 give you any other suggestions?

25 A. That request, that act was sent from the ministry to the

Page 8823

1 prosecutor's office, stating that we had such a case, that we had a case

2 of a person who died at the hospital; and, after that, the prosecutor

3 requested to carry out an expert report to establish the identity on the

4 basis of papillary lines. Those were the basic acts that I had in my

5 folder, and I discussed them with the director, Goran Mitevski, and with

6 Petre Stojanovski. I discussed those issues when the identity of the

7 person was really ascertained. Those were, really, as far as I remember,

8 several acts related to that person.

9 Q. I understand that. That's very clear. But those acts, request

10 for expert report, to establish the identity on the basis of papillary

11 line, et cetera, those acts were produced, those written documents, they

12 were produced back in August of 2001.

13 What I'm trying to understand is, in the spring and summer of

14 2002, when you spoke with Goran Mitevski about your work on the Ljuboten

15 event and he suggested to you that you speak with Petre Stojanovski with

16 regard to the death of Atulla Qaili; that's very clear.

17 My question is simply: Did Goran Mitevski give you any other

18 suggestions at that time, in 2002, as to where you might find information

19 about the cause or the circumstances of the death of Atulla Qaili. That's

20 all.

21 If the answer is no, that's fine. We just need an answer.

22 A. As far as I remember, I believe that that case, as well as other

23 cases, was included in the procedure, and the outcome of the autopsy was

24 awaited, whether really there was a report on that person, among others.

25 Q. So you never became familiar with a report of an autopsy that was

Page 8824

1 done on Mr. -- on the body of Atulla Qaili in August of 2001. You never

2 became familiar with that report?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Did you ever visit Skopje City Hospital and ask to see the medical

5 records there related to persons who had been detained at Ljuboten?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Why not?

8 A. I believe that it was not necessary. I already had those

9 materials. That was a case that took place before I came to work for the

10 Ministry of Interior, and I believe that the materials that the ministry

11 had available were sufficient, that there was no need after such a long

12 time to go to the hospital and ask for any reports.

13 Q. Are you aware whether the Ministry of Interior, prior to your

14 employment, had obtained the medical records from Skopje City Hospital of

15 persons who had been detained at Ljuboten?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Yesterday, Mrs. Galeva, you provided some testimony about the

18 autopsies of persons who had been exhumed at the cemetery in Ljuboten,

19 and you told us that when the bodies were exhumed and then subsequently

20 autopsied, you said: "So they were wearing black T-shirts or camouflage

21 T-shirts."

22 Do you remember that?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Would it surprise you to learn that none of the autopsy reports or

25 examinations of clothing worn by the deceased persons indicate that an

Page 8825

1 individual was wearing camouflage?

2 A. That is really surprising, because I did not rely on a single

3 source. I had many sources. It would not be possible for all the sources

4 to differ so much. There were identical elements in the discussions that

5 I had with those persons before I received that report, and it was

6 impossible that I would receive such report.

7 MR. SAXON: And, Your Honour, for the record, I'm referring to

8 Exhibits P445 through P450, Exhibit P452, and Exhibit 1D74 and 1D77.

9 Q. You said you had many sources about this information that some

10 persons were wearing camouflage clothing. Can you tell us who the sources

11 were?

12 A. Many sources, those that I had mentioned already. Those are the

13 sector, the department for police forensics within the MOI, where a team,

14 a numerous expert team composed of several persons. Experts, experts in

15 their respective areas, were involved in the investigation I discussed

16 with them. Then there was the director of the Forensic Institute,

17 Professor Aleksej Duma; the investigating judge, Dragan Nikolovski, who

18 was the main leader of the overall procedure of exhumation and autopsy of

19 those persons. So if one of them told me something, all the others

20 provided identical answers regarding all of these issues.

21 Q. So each of these persons who you just mentioned, they would

22 confirm that some of the one or more of the persons who were exhumed from

23 the cemetery in Ljuboten were wearing some kind of camouflage clothing.

24 Is that right?

25 A. Yes.

Page 8826

1 Q. You described, yesterday, a meeting that you attended in the late

2 summer of 2002, where members of the commission to investigate war crimes

3 were present, do you recall that bit of your testimony, and files were

4 discussed --

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. -- and documents were reviewed?

7 Help us understand something: Couldn't Minister Boskoski have

8 assigned the Ljuboten case to this commission that he already set up to

9 investigate war crimes?

10 A. As far as I understood, I had a single contact, a single meeting

11 with this committee. I could give you the description. They came to my

12 office. It was a large group. If there is a need, I will enumerate the

13 persons present.

14 Q. Mrs. Galeva, I need you to answer the question that I asked you.

15 My question was: Couldn't Minister Boskoski have assigned the Ljuboten

16 case to this commission that he already set up to investigate war crimes.

17 A. Not to that committee alone, because that committee dealt with

18 many other cases and not the Ljuboten case only.

19 Q. So there was a commission or a committee that dealt with the

20 Ljuboten case, among others. Is that right?

21 A. Specifically, this committee was dealing with war crimes?

22 Q. There was -- there was this committee for investigating war

23 crimes, and that committee dealt with the Ljuboten case, among others,

24 right?

25 A. Yes.

Page 8827

1 Q. And that committee was composed of a group of qualified

2 professionals, wasn't it?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. So why was it necessary, then, to start yet another project and

5 assign you the task of compiling information about the Ljuboten matter and

6 putting it in chronological order?

7 A. Because at that time there were several committees, several

8 working bodies; and, simply, there was a need to have all the materials

9 gathered by previous committees or the existing committees and working

10 bodies to have them entered into a single case file.

11 Q. All right. So part of your task was to take the materials related

12 to the Ljuboten event that had been gathered by the commission to

13 investigate war crimes and incorporate that material in the single case

14 file that you were building. Is that right?

15 A. For the committee dealing with war crimes, as I mentioned, I had

16 only one meeting with them. Maybe later, I would receive some materials

17 from them in different manner, through post or something.

18 But all the materials that they had produced on Ljuboten case,

19 they had the task to hand is over directly to Mr. Boskoski, to the

20 minister, not to me. They only informed me about their work.

21 Q. Very well, then. So does that mean that the case file that you

22 put together in chronological order related to the Ljuboten event did not

23 contain 100 percent of the materials available to the Ministry of

24 Interior, because there were some materials that the members of the

25 commission to investigate war crimes gave directly to Minister Boskoski.

Page 8828

1 Is that right?

2 A. I can feel free to state that the materials that I gathered was

3 100 percent of the materials that the ministry had available and that was

4 supposed to be communicated to the minister, Ljube Boskoski.

5 What the other commissions and committees did, specifically the

6 one on war crimes, was just one part of the materials that was, of course,

7 later handed over to Mr. Ljube Boskoski, and that was actually part of

8 what I had already gathered as a range of materials.

9 So many things contained in their report were also contents of the

10 materials that I had. There was absolutely no difference.

11 Q. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that.

12 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I see the time. Would this be an

13 appropriate time to take the second break?

14 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Saxon.

15 We will resume at 1.00.

16 --- Recess taken at 12.29 p.m.

17 --- On resuming at 1.00 p.m.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Saxon.

19 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour.

20 Q. Mrs. Galeva, yesterday, during your examination-in-chief, you

21 explained to the Trial Chamber that "once the police turns to the basic

22 public prosecutor's office or to the investigating judge, at the same

23 moment, the obligation of the police..." --

24 THE INTERPRETER: My apology.

25 MR. SAXON: I'm getting a little bit of interference but I'll

Page 8829

1 start over.

2 Q. You were asked a question yesterday about what happens when

3 members of the police report a crime to the public prosecutor; and at page

4 8747 of the transcript, you said this: "Of course, once the police turns

5 to the basic public prosecutor's office or to the investigating judge, at

6 the same moment, the obligation of the police on that case ceases.

7 "Then there is a transfer of the obligations towards the judicial

8 bodies; in this case, to the public prosecutor's office."

9 Do you remember that testimony?

10 A. [No verbal response]

11 Q. I'm sorry. We need a verbal response?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Can you just help us, please, where in the law or the laws of

14 Macedonia do you find support for that proposition?

15 A. I couldn't say with certainty.

16 Q. Can you say, roughly, where in the laws of Macedonia should one

17 look in a particular law or laws to find support for that proposition?

18 A. Roughly speaking, this is something that could be found in the

19 Law on Public Prosecutor or the Law on Criminal Procedure. This is my

20 opinion, but I am not sure, perhaps in another law as well.

21 Q. Yesterday, you also testified regarding the transparency of the

22 work of the Ministry of Interior with respect to the Ljuboten event, and

23 you said on page 8726 that: "From everything that I collected, all the

24 materials, all the interviews I conducted, I gathered the impression that

25 the work was completely transparent; nothing was hidden."

Page 8830

1 And then at the end of the same paragraph: "Nothing was hidden.

2 Everything was transparent, absolutely."

3 Do you remember that testimony?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. I'd like to ask you, if you could, please, maybe with the

6 assistance of the usher, to turn to tab 23 in your binder.

7 Actually, before do you that, before you do that, Mrs. Galeva,

8 before do you that, just for a minute, are you aware that in 2003 the

9 person who succeeded Ljube Boskoski as minister of the interior, Hari

10 Kostov, he established yet another commission to investigate the Ljuboten

11 event? Did you become aware of that at some point?

12 A. I had heard about this, but I have never seen, nor have I found --

13 nor did I found out whether such a commission did, in fact, exist or did

14 it do any work.

15 I was told that, with the coming of the new minister, the decision

16 for the previous commission is no longer in effect, which means that a new

17 commission would have to be set up. Whether this was actually done, this

18 is not something I know.

19 Q. Okay. Well, let -- I'm going to show you a couple of pieces of

20 the work of the commission that was set up by Hari Kostov in 2003.

21 If you turn to what is tab 23 in your binder.

22 MR. SAXON: And, Your Honours, the first document that you should

23 see in tab 23, is -- it is not part of Exhibit P379. It still has

24 Prosecution 65 ter number 285.24, because this was one of the documents

25 that, pursuant to your decision of 7 December of last year, was not

Page 8831

1 admitted into evidence.

2 Q. And, Mrs. Galeva, this is a report on a meeting of the 2003

3 commission that investigated the events in Ljuboten. It's dated the 6th

4 of May, 2003, and if you could turn, please, to page 2 in the Macedonian

5 version.

6 MR. SAXON: For those following in English, it's the bottom of

7 page 1.

8 Q. Mrs. Galeva, if you look in the second paragraph of page 2 in your

9 language, you'll see a paragraph beginning with: "Johan Tarculovski."

10 Do you see that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And it says: "Johan Tarculovski played the main role in the

13 combat operations in Ljuboten village, and he said that while he was an

14 escort inspector with the security sector, the previous minister, Ljube

15 Boskoski, called him personally and gave him a verbal order to solve the

16 case, informing him that the suspect, Xhavid Hasani, was located in

17 Ljuboten village."

18 And then it says: "Tarculovski and the rest of the reservists

19 were issued weapons, semi-automatic rifles and pistols, at the CO KOB at

20 the order of the then minister, for which there are documents on the issue

21 and return of the items."

22 Then there are some more paragraphs that talk about the events

23 that occurred in the village of Ljuboten on the 12th of August.

24 Have you been following with me?

25 A. Yes.

Page 8832

1 Q. My question for you is: In your discussions with Minister

2 Boskoski in the summer of 2002, did he mention any of this information to

3 you?

4 A. [No interpretation]

5 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.

6 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I believe that the witness

7 answered this previously. To a similar question, the witness answered

8 that the minister never mentioned Johan Tarculovski. Again, the witness

9 is being asked the same question. Even before I objected to this, the

10 witness had answered it.

11 JUDGE PARKER: This is going further than simply a name. This is

12 going to information.

13 Please carry on, Mr. Saxon.

14 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour.

15 Q. If we could turn, please, to the next document in tab 3 [sic].

16 MR. SAXON: And, Your Honours, this should be Exhibit P379.02 -- I

17 apologise, it is --

18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] My apologies. There is no answer

19 of the witness prior to the previous question put to her.

20 MR. SAXON: In response to the previous question, Your Honours,

21 the witness answered "No."

22 JUDGE PARKER: Are you saying that that answer has not been

23 recorded?

24 MR. SAXON: Yes. My colleague and I agree on that point.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. Thank you.

Page 8833


2 Q. The next document in tab 23 is admitted Exhibit P379.01. It has

3 ERN N000-8922, and I would just like -- this was an Official Note written

4 by Johan Tarculovski in May of 2003.

5 Mrs. Galeva, I can actually see that you're not looking at the

6 document that you need to be looking at.

7 MR. SAXON: Can I have the usher's assistance again, please. It's

8 the second document in tab 23. It's only two paragraphs long.

9 Excuse me for a moment.

10 [Prosecution counsel confer]

11 MR. SAXON: Perhaps if the Macedonian version could be put object

12 on --

13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel, please.

14 MR. SAXON: I would like to ask for the assistance of the court

15 officer. If the Macedonian could be put on e-court because the

16 Macedonian version is apparently not in our binders. It's in Judge

17 Thelin's binder. Okay.

18 Q. If you can follow along with me, Mrs. Galeva, this is an Official

19 Note provided by Johan Tarculovski to the 2003 commission.

20 It says: "The investigation commission for Ljuboten village

21 called me. During the interview, I was asked about the way in which the

22 reservists were issued with weapons and about their arrival and billeting

23 and the course of operations.

24 "They were issued at weapons at PSOLO. The people who registered

25 for the reserve were volunteers. Since I was a local, I knew the terrain

Page 8834

1 and I headed toward Ljuboten together with the other men."

2 Mrs. Galeva, did any of the persons what you spoke with in the

3 Ministry of Interior about the Ljuboten event mention a group of

4 reservists who were armed at PSOLO and then subsequently entered Ljuboten

5 village?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Did Minister Boskoski ever mention to you anything about a group

8 of reservists who were armed at PSOLO and then entered Ljuboten village

9 after that?

10 A. We did not speak about this. At least he did not say this in

11 front of me.

12 Q. Okay. I'd like to ask you to turn to a different document.

13 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, if we could turn, please, to what is

14 P379.02. It should be the following document in your binders. I'm

15 hopeful that Mrs. Galeva will have a Macedonian translation.

16 Q. Mrs. Galeva, this is a document entitled, "Minutes of a meeting of

17 the commission for inquiry into the events and incidents in Ljuboten

18 village."

19 Do you see that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And it's dated 12 November 2003. And at the bottom of the page in

22 your version, Mrs. Galeva, you'll see a paragraph where it says: "In

23 reply to these questions Tarculovski first explained that he had been

24 called to the first meeting as an employee of the ministry although he was

25 now a civilian, having given notice to the Ministry of Interior. He said

Page 8835

1 that he had gone to Ljuboten of his own accord and will, that is to say,

2 nobody ordered him to go to Ljuboten. As for the persons who were in

3 Ljuboten with him, Tarculovski replied that he had decided to withhold

4 their names."

5 Do you see that?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. It's dated 12 November 2003. At the bottom of the page in your

8 version, Mrs. Galeva, you'll see a paragraph where it says: "In reply to

9 these questions, Tarculovski first explained that he had been called to

10 the first meeting as an employee of the ministry; although, he was now a

11 civilian, having given notice to the Ministry of Interior.

12 "He said that he had gone to Ljuboten of his own accord and will;

13 that is to say, nobody ordered him to go to Ljuboten. As for the persons

14 who were in Ljuboten with him, Tarculovski replied that he had decided to

15 withhold their names."

16 Do you see that?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Then if you turn to the next page in your version, please, you

19 will see: "Regarding the question on the manner in which weapons were

20 issued ..."

21 Do you see that paragraph?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. "... Tarculovski replied that he had received a call from the then

24 Minister of the Interior, who told him to collect the reserve force for

25 guarding vital state buildings."

Page 8836

1 Then later on in that paragraph: "Tarculovski explained further

2 that the then Minister of the Interior had personally ordered him to

3 select the men."

4 Do you see that?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Then in the next paragraph: "Tarculovski replies that he been in

7 Ljuboten with a large group of men, more than 100."

8 Do you see that?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Just so that the record is clear, did you ever speak with Johan

11 Tarculovski as part of your work?

12 A. I already said that I did not know Johan Tarculovski, which means

13 that I have not had any conversations with him.

14 Q. All right. And in your conversations with Ljube Boskoski, did he

15 give you any information about a group of reservists who he wanted to

16 guard vital state buildings?

17 A. Personally, the minister did not tell me about such a group of

18 reservists; but I know that from the very onset of the conflict in the

19 state, both regular and reserve forces were included as part of the

20 security forces of the ministry.

21 Q. Okay. Mrs. Galeva, can you turn, please, to what is tab 13 in

22 your binder.

23 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, this would be Rule 65 ter 1141. It's a

24 document that the Prosecution obtained after receiving the Rule 65 ter (G)

25 list of witnesses from the Defence.

Page 8837

1 Q. I don't believe we have a Macedonian translation, Mrs. Galeva, but

2 it's a document dated January --

3 A. Yes .

4 Q. It's a document dated January 19th, 2002, and it's a letter from

5 Human Rights Watch to Prime Minister Ljubco Georgievski. The purpose of

6 the letter is to complain about what Human Rights Watch refers to as "a

7 public campaign against the Macedonian Helsinki Committee for Human

8 Rights, and its president Mrs. Marijana Najcevska, saying that

9 Mrs. Najcevska and the Macedonian Helsinki Committee had become the

10 targets of intimidation and verbal assaults by cabinet members, media

11 outlets close to the government.

12 But then it says this in the second paragraph: "Particularly

13 worrying are the repeated public statements by the Minister of the

14 Interior Ljube Boskoski, who spoke to the press and appeared on two

15 television programmes to portray Ms. Najcevska as 'state enemy number 1.'"

16 Then it goes on to say that such attacks have been amplified public

17 television and TV and other government controlled media.

18 Would it be fair to say, Mrs. Galeva, if you know, that Ljube

19 Boskoski did not have a very high opinion of Human Rights Watch or the

20 Macedonian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights?

21 A. The case which I just heard about now, I'm not aware of and I

22 cannot comment about something I had not heard or seen.

23 Q. I'm not asking you to comment about this particular case. I'm

24 asking you to comment about what you know, what discussions you had in the

25 presence of Ljube Boskoski, during the time-period when you were working

Page 8838

1 in his cabinet.

2 My question is this: Ljube Boskoski did not have a very high

3 opinion of Human Rights Watch, did he?

4 A. I cannot say what his opinion was. I know that there were many

5 accusations made my Human Rights Watch and that he wanted to prove the

6 contrary and to refute such accusations.

7 Q. Do you know whether Ljube Boskoski had a negative opinion of the

8 Macedonian Chapter of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights?

9 A. I'm not aware of this.

10 Q. Mrs. Galeva, I'd like to put you that the work of the Ministry of

11 Interior to allegedly clarify the Ljuboten event was really not very

12 transparent, was it?

13 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.

14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I thought that my

15 learned colleague would continue the line of questioning about the

16 previous document, which was put before the witness. My apologies for

17 interrupting him now on another issue.

18 But in regards to the previous document, I wish to state that this

19 is a Human Rights Watch document. The Prosecution called Mr. Bouckaert

20 who testified before this Court in regards to this question, and it was

21 perhaps necessary to ask that witness these questions. I apologise again

22 for the interruption.

23 MR. SAXON: Just to clarify the record, Your Honour. Never mind,

24 Your Honour. I will move on.

25 Q. Let me go back to my last question, Mrs. Galeva. I'd like to put

Page 8839

1 to you the proposition that the work of the Ministry of the Interior to

2 allegedly clarify the Ljuboten event was really not very transparent, was

3 it?

4 A. I don't agree. I believe it was transparent.

5 Q. Your work, Mrs. Galeva, was intended to protect the reputation of

6 Ljube Boskoski and the reputation of the Ministry of Interior, wasn't it?

7 A. Only to an extent, since the minister wanted to learn what had

8 happened, no matter the consequences. So if something had happened, if

9 some of the allegations were true, if part of those allegations were true,

10 he was determined to hold accountable all participants, if any

11 participants.

12 So his objective was not just to protect the reputation and the

13 standing of the ministry and its members, but it was completely the

14 opposite, to clarify and to disclose the truth. And if there was somebody

15 who should have been held accountable and responsible, then that the issue

16 should be resolved and that person be held accountable.

17 Q. And is it your testimony today that Minister Boskoski was even

18 determined to hold himself accountable for the event in Ljuboten?

19 A. As long as the opposite was not proven. He actually proved by

20 this that he had the intention that I had mentioned, to detect and to

21 clarify everything and to prove the responsibility. So he included

22 himself here as well.

23 Q. Mrs. Galeva, your work, rather than intended to provide the truth

24 about what happened at Ljuboten, was simply intended to collect incomplete

25 materials that were already in the possession of the Ministry of Internal

Page 8840

1 Affairs, in order to transfer them to The Hague Tribunal. Isn't that

2 right?

3 A. No. That was just one part of the materials, a smaller part,

4 while the rest of the materials were gathered after I was tasked by the

5 minister. This is how a larger volume of materials was compiled, and

6 there you can find many issues through which you can give answers to many

7 questions related to the Ljuboten event.

8 Q. You already testified earlier today that you're aware that in May

9 of 2002, Carla Del Ponte, then the Prosecutor of this Tribunal, asserted

10 primacy over the Ljuboten case.

11 Are you also aware that several months of delays ensued after May

12 2002, while the Macedonian authorities declined to refer jurisdiction of

13 the Ljuboten case to this Tribunal, without a formal order of this

14 Tribunal?

15 Are you aware of that?

16 A. I have heard about it, that there was some delay, but I didn't go

17 into the details of why was it done.

18 Q. Are you aware that on the 5th of September, 2002, Carla Del Ponte

19 made a formal request to this Tribunal for an order to Macedonia to defer

20 competence over the Ljuboten case from Macedonia to The Hague Tribunal?

21 Are you aware of that?

22 A. I have heard about that.

23 Q. Are you aware that The Hague Tribunal issued such an order of

24 deferral to the government of Macedonia on the 4th of October, 2002?

25 A. Yes. I can't remember the date.

Page 8841

1 MR. SAXON: And, Your Honour, I'm referring to information

2 contained in Exhibit 1D218. Additional information on this matter, Your

3 Honour, can be obtained in Exhibit P391.

4 Q. And, Mrs. Galeva, it was in June or July 2002 when you had your

5 meeting with Judge Nikolovski, and he told you that he could not provide

6 written materials to the Ministry of Interior. Isn't that right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And isn't it right that all of your activities, collecting

9 information on the Ljuboten event from May to October 2002, were related

10 to the ongoing proceedings between The Hague Tribunal and the Macedonian

11 government over the issue of deferring jurisdiction over the Ljuboten

12 case?

13 A. Could you please repeat the question? I apologise for this.

14 Q. Isn't it true that the real objective of your work was to prepare

15 the government of Macedonia to provide materials to The Hague Tribunal

16 once jurisdiction had been transferred from Macedonia to this Tribunal?

17 A. Maybe that was the purpose, but the activities and the initiative

18 came a lot sooner. The initiative came from the Minister of the Interior

19 before the other events and requests arrived, immediately after the event

20 has taken place. So there was still nothing. The minister already

21 demanded and initiated the procedure within the ministry before the

22 justice system bodies in our state, so that the procedure would be

23 instigated and an answer provided; and only afterwards, the Tribunal

24 submitted its request.

25 Q. Yes. We're familiar with the report that Mr. Boskoski's first

Page 8842

1 commission produced.

2 It's also true, isn't it, Mrs. Galeva, that could you have easily

3 produced minutes of important meetings and discussions that you had with

4 your work, regarding your work, couldn't you?

5 A. You are asking me again about the minutes, and I believe I already

6 provided an answer to that question.

7 Q. Okay. Thank you.

8 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, I have no further questions at this

9 time. Thank you very much.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Saxon.

11 Ms. Residovic, do you re-examine.

12 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I do --

13 JUDGE PARKER: Before you do, Mr. Apostolski, I assume you had no

14 questions of the witness; is that correct?

15 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, your guess was

16 right. I have no questions of this witness.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

18 Ms. Residovic.

19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours,

20 and I apologise for turning towards my colleague because, simply, I

21 thought that it was his turn.

22 JUDGE PARKER: He would have come before Mr. Saxon, and it was at

23 that point I made my assumption when Mr. Saxon stood to cross-examine.

24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

25 Re-examination by Ms. Residovic:

Page 8843

1 Q. [Interpretation] Mrs. Galeva, you remember that my learned

2 colleague, the Prosecutor, asked you about your experience in the police

3 before you were employed performing the jobs that you described before the

4 Chamber within the Ministry of Interior. Do you remember that?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And you answered that you never worked as a police officer before

7 that. Do you remember that as well?

8 A. [No verbal response]

9 Q. But you answered that you had passed the bar exam, and I'm

10 interested whether it is necessary for a person who has passed a bar exam,

11 whether any additional training is needed for the person to become a

12 judge, so even an investigating judge by that token, a prosecutor,

13 attorney, or a Defence counsel for the most severe crimes.

14 Is the bar exam a sufficient basis for a lawyer in the Republic of

15 Macedonia to be able to perform all these duties?

16 A. The bar exam is the only prerequisite for an individual to be able

17 to engage there such activities, those that you have enumerated: Judge,

18 attorney, prosecutor, legal representative, et cetera.

19 Q. When you were given the task to collect all documents information

20 about the measures undertaken within the ministry in relation to the

21 Ljuboten case, my learned colleague asked you several questions about the

22 persons that you had conversations with. Do you remember that?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And I would like to ask you the question: Since you stated that

25 you had conversations with Goran Mitevski, with Nikola Spasovski, Spasen

Page 8844

1 Sofevski, Miroslav Uslinkovski and Petre Stojanovski on numerous

2 occasions, tell me whether you are aware, do these persons that you have

3 enumerated have any police experience and what is their professional

4 standing within the ministry?

5 A. At that time, and all the way until the present time, for as long

6 as I'm with the ministry, of course they enjoy good standing and they are

7 considered professionals in their respective areas.

8 Q. Also, if you remember, my learned colleague, the Prosecutor, asked

9 you whether you have been a member of a political party; and if I remember

10 correctly, you affirmed that. You said that you were a member of the

11 VMRO, and you stated that this fact did not play a decisive role in your

12 employment.

13 Tell me, please, considering the fact that previously you were an

14 attorney, to what extent was that fact of importance or otherwise for your

15 employment at the jobs that you were performing?

16 A. I think this was decisive, my previously work experience.

17 Q. My learned colleague, the Prosecutor, asked you several questions

18 related to the report that you received from Katica Jovanovska. That was

19 the Human Rights Watch report. Do you remember that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Tell me, when you received this report, did you read it?

22 A. Of course.

23 Q. Did you see -- in that report, were you able to see a description

24 of the alleged events in and around the village, at the check-points and

25 the -- in police stations?

Page 8845

1 A. Yes, there were such descriptions.

2 Q. When you spoke about the fact that you were to collect information

3 about the Ljuboten case, my question is: To what extent did you

4 understand the Ljuboten case considering all circumstances that are

5 indicated in this report?

6 A. I did obtain a picture of about what had happened. This is a

7 picture, a depiction on the one hand. Of course, I needed to get a

8 picture on the other hand as well, in order to come to my own judgment

9 about what had happened.

10 Q. And, in all your efforts to arrive at the information from various

11 bodies, did you request information about all allegations contained in

12 this report, or did you request information just regarding certain

13 allegations?

14 Did you attempt to clarify everything or just some of the answers

15 from the report?

16 A. I can say that this is all allegations. I was particularly

17 interested about the ones regarding the Ljuboten case, but also all other

18 events that would have allowed me to assess the reliability of what is

19 written.

20 Q. When asked by my learned colleague, the Prosecutor, you answered

21 what was your understanding of the attitude of Mr. Boskoski when he spoke

22 about this report; and if I understood you correctly, both he and you

23 identified certain gaps, contradictory statements, and inaccuracies in the

24 report.

25 So could you tell me, first of all, considering that in the report

Page 8846

1 itself the minister was mentioned, that he was standing on a balcony, and

2 that was in command of the action, did you hear the minister ever to say

3 that that information was accurate or that it was absolutely inaccurate,

4 or did he have any comments to such allegations from the report?

5 A. This was of special interest to me and this why I spoke about this

6 previously with other persons from the ministry and then with the

7 ministry, Ljube Boskoski, because he could best describe the event to me.

8 From that conversation, I understood that he was present for a

9 very short period of time, after the end of this whole event, in the

10 afternoon, that is to say, but that the purpose of his coming there was to

11 learn what had happened and what was happening.

12 I know that, as he told me, he was in contact with Mr. Ljube

13 Krstevski, the head of OVR Cair, and that he gave the instructions about

14 rescuing civilian population, because at that time, it was noted that

15 there was massive movement of the population living there from the other

16 villages. Due to fear and being afraid of a general conflict breaking

17 out, these instructions were given in order to rescue the population.

18 Q. Tell me, please, Mrs. Galeva, since the Prosecutor asked what were

19 the forces that were present at Ljuboten, if any, did you in the

20 discussions with the then under-secretary for police, Mr. Galevski,

21 discuss the notion of whether some police units were at Ljuboten?

22 A. Yes. We talked with General Galevski, and he told me that that

23 same day he was away from Skopje. He was travelling, I believe in Ohrid.

24 He received a telephone call from Vlada [phoen], I don't remember who

25 exactly, and that he was told that that there is a terrible situation,

Page 8847

1 that the security situation is disrupted in and around the village of

2 Ljuboten, and that measures need to be taken immediately in order to

3 rescue the population.

4 Then he activated all police units in that area to go and assist

5 of population, the same as the goal of the minister, to rescue the

6 population and to allow the people to return safely to their homes.

7 Q. So if I understood you correctly, you were interested in those

8 issues, and you learned that after the events the police was deployed to

9 rescue the population. Was that what you are you trying to explain now,

10 or was it my misunderstanding?

11 A. Yes, absolutely.

12 Q. Thank you.

13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm mindful of the

14 time. I don't know whether to tender some documents now. I have an

15 additional half an hour for my re-direct, and it is obvious that the time

16 will not permit me to complete it today.

17 JUDGE PARKER: We adjourn now. We resume on Monday at 2.15, not

18 in this courtroom. I think in Courtroom I, but check the courtroom.

19 It will be necessary, I'm afraid, for you to continue your

20 evidence on Monday. So it will be a stay in The Hague over the weekend.

21 We now adjourn.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If this is necessary.

23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,

24 To be reconvened on Monday, the 4th day of

25 February, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.