1 Monday, 11 February 2008

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning.

7 Good morning to you, sir. May I remind you the affirmation you

8 made at the beginning of your evidence still applies.

9 WITNESS: PETRE STOJANOVSKI [Resumed]

10 [Witness answered through interpreter]

11 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.

12 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours.

13 Examination by Ms. Residovic: [Continued]

14 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Stojanovski.

15 You remember, Mr. Stojanovski, that you stated yesterday that you

16 went to Cair for the first time on the 14th of August.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. So, if someone were to assert before this Court that you came to

19 Cair on the evening of Sunday, 12th of August, what would you say to such

20 assertion?

21 A. That it is not correct.

22 Q. When I asked you, you also stated that it was the duty of the OVR

23 Cair to file a criminal report on an event. Is that correct?

24 A. Yes, OVR Cair.

25 Q. Very well. Thank you. I would like to ask you to look now, to

1 find in the larger binder, the document 113 -- in tab 113.

2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] That is 65 ter 1D1170. Tab 113.

3 Q. This is a document, as you can see, in the upper corner, coming

4 from the sector for -- of internal affairs of the city of Skopje,

5 department of analytics, Cair.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And it is an information on the crime of terrorism that is for the

8 preparation to perpetrate terrorists activities, and it involves ten

9 individuals from the Ljuboten village, Skopje region.

10 The first paragraph reads: "The department for internal affairs

11 Cair, today, on 14 August 2001, filed a criminal report to the basic

12 public prosecutor's office, Skopje, for further processing of persons,"

13 and then the names of persons who will be handed over are indicated.

14 Tell me, Mr. Stojanovski, does this information corroborate the

15 notion that the OVR Cair was in charge of filing of a criminal report and

16 handing the persons over to the court.

17 A. Yes, in view of the fact where this act was committed.

18 Q. We discussed this issue several times, and you spoke about the

19 duties of the police after it files a criminal report. Tell me, once

20 again, please, what are the obligations of the police once the criminal

21 report has been filed or after it had informed the prosecutor or the

22 investigating judge?

23 A. They're no obligations, but we do have a duty in the case that

24 they request of us to undertake certain measures or activities to carry

25 out their request.

1 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, you stated, yesterday, that you were informed by

2 the persons that you tasked with activities, that you informed them about

3 the room that should have been made available to the detained persons, the

4 duration of their detention, and also the number of criminal reports.

5 Do you remember having testified about this?

6 A. Yes, this is correct.

7 Q. Were you, at any moment, Mr. Stojanovski, informed of some

8 problems, especially health problems, in some of the detainees?

9 A. Yes. I received information that one of the persons that were

10 previously brought in the police station Mirkovci was taken to a hospital

11 where this person died.

12 Q. Tell me, Mr. Stojanovski, considering the information that one

13 individual was taken to hospital and died there, to whom did the

14 obligation to undertake measures belong and are you aware whether such

15 measures were undertaken?

16 A. As I said previously, in view of the place where this criminal --

17 this act was committed, it was the OVR Cair that is responsible and;

18 according to my information, they undertook everything that was under

19 their duty, which means that they informed the public prosecutor's office

20 and the investigating judge.

21 Q. I will kindly ask you now to look at the document in tab 93 from

22 this same binder.

23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] That is Exhibit P261.

24 Q. It is an Official Note from the OVR Cair, submitted by Blagoja

25 Toskovski; Official Note number 537.

1 A. Yes, I see it.

2 Q. Tell me, is this the information that you received with regards to

3 that -- one of the detained individuals?

4 A. Yes, this should be it.

5 Q. I will kindly ask you now to look at the document after tab 94.

6 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] That is Exhibit P46.16, under

7 seal.

8 Q. P46.16.

9 A. Yes, I see the document. In this case --

10 Q. Yes, please tell us. This is what I wanted to ask you: What is

11 this?

12 A. This is a document which is submitted to the basic public

13 prosecutor's office in Skopje by the OVR Cair. This act supplements the

14 criminal report; that is to say, it means that the necessary expertise was

15 sent to the public prosecutor's office on fire-arm residue as well as an

16 Official Note, I believe the one we saw previously. This is the report on

17 this.

18 Q. Where do you see that this document was filed with the basic

19 public prosecutor's office?

20 A. In the title, it states it is prepared by OVR Cair; and

21 immediately following, it states "to" and the abbreviation "OJO," which

22 means public prosecutor's office.

23 Q. You stated that the Official Note number 537 was attached to this,

24 as it says in the text, information on a person who has died and that was

25 actually the Official Note that we had seen a while ago. Is that correct?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Would you please now go look at the document in tab 93. So that

3 is the Official Note that was submitted to the prosecutor.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Tell me, is this the legally prescribed way in which the police

6 informs the prosecutor of the fact that an individual has died?

7 A. Yes. This is within the framework of procedures.

8 Q. You stated that after filing such report, your obligation is to

9 undertake certain actions only upon a request of the judge or the

10 prosecutor; have I understood you well.

11 A. Yes. From the moment that the public prosecutor and especially

12 the investigating judge becomes involved, then we are, so to say, under

13 their command and we are obliged to carry out their requests or orders.

14 Q. Could the public prosecutor, on the investigating judge's request,

15 obtain certain data from other organs?

16 A. This is the right of the investigating judge and his assessment

17 who he or she might involve in the work, and from whom documents will be

18 requested or measures will be required.

19 Q. Could the police -- or rather, does the police have the right or

20 the duty to tell the judge whom to request data from?

21 A. Not at all.

22 Q. Let's look now at the document after tab 124, please.

23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] That is Exhibit P54.052, under

24 seal.

25 Q. This is a document from the investigative department of the Basic

1 Court Skopje II. Can you tell us to whom was this memo addressed by the

2 investigating judge and who was requested to provide some data?

3 A. The investigating judge submitted this document to the general

4 city hospital, Skopje, and requested the data he deemed necessary.

5 Q. I will draw your attention to the paragraph that starts with the

6 words: "The accused, Bajrami, Nevaip; Ramadani; Ismail; et cetera..."

7 Do you see this paragraph?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. It reads here: "The accused, Bajrami, Nevaip; Ramadani, Ismail;

10 Qaili, Atulla; Ametovski, Adem, immediately after the events of 12th,

11 August, 2001, in the area of Ljuboten village, Skopje region, were

12 transferred and kept at the general city hospital, Skopje, because of

13 their injuries; while the accused, Qaili, Atulla, had passed away as we

14 were informed by the police station Cair.

15 "Considering that this is a detention case, there is a need to

16 immediately inform us about the health status of the accused, Bajrami

17 Nevaip; Ramadani, Ismail; and Adem Ametovksi: What injuries they

18 sustained, are they able to communicate with the court, and are the

19 bodies ... [as interpreted].

20 "Considering that pursuant to the Law on Criminal Procedure, it is

21 necessary that they are questioned by an investigating judge."

22 Mr. Stojanovski, is it clear from this document that the OVR Cair

23 informed the investigating judge of the death of Atulla Qaili?

24 A. Of course.

25 Q. From this correspondence, tell me, is it clear that the

1 investigating judge decided to request the data from the general city

2 hospital, information regarding the injuries of other persons that were at

3 the hospital as he was informed?

4 A. Of course, according to this document.

5 Q. Does this document corroborate your testimony that the

6 investigating judge is the body that decides what are data to be requested

7 and from which bodies?

8 A. As I said previously, this is the exclusive right of the

9 investigating judge.

10 Q. Would you please look now at the document after tab 125.

11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] That is Exhibit P54.027, under

12 seal.

13 Q. This, too, is a document from the investigating department of the

14 Basic Court Skopje. The investigating judge signed is Velce Pancevski.

15 It is addressed to the Skopje prison in Skopje, and it should be received

16 by the director.

17 In this note, the third paragraph reads: "After the conversation

18 with Dr. Nikola Gruev, director of Skopje City General Hospital, the

19 investigating judge was informed that the condition of detainees, Bajrami

20 Nevaip and Ramadani Ismail, has improved and that they should be

21 re-examined in a few days," et cetera.

22 Does this document corroborate again, Mr. Stojanovski, that it is

23 the investigating judge who decides which organ is to be informed and that

24 the investigating judge was already in communication with the director of

25 the city General Hospital with regards to the injuries of some

1 individuals?

2 A. Yes, it does confirm it.

3 Q. I will kindly ask you now to look at the document after tab 126.

4 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] That is it Exhibit P54.028, under

5 seal.

6 Q. This is, again, a document, signed by the investigating judge of

7 the Basic Court Skopje II, sent to the penitentiary institution, prison,

8 Skopje.

9 And if we look at the second paragraph, the judge says: "In order

10 to establish the identity of the detainee, Qaili Atulla, son of Avdi,

11 father, and Hava, mother, born on 3rd of November 1965 in Skopje, resident

12 of village of Ljuboten, Skopje," and then there is the ID number, "primary

13 school education, Albanian, national of the Republic of Macedonia, the

14 investigating judge sent a letter, KI number 436/01, of 16th of August,

15 2001, to the Forensic Medicine Institutes and to the Ministry of Interior

16 of the Republic of Macedonia, OVR Skopje, in order to obtain data on the

17 detainee from the registry of deceased."

18 Mr. Stojanovski, does this also corroborate the notion that it was

19 the investigating judge who decided and who was actually the only

20 individual able to request the data from the Forensic Medicine Institute?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Would you please look at the document in tab 127.

23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] That is Exhibit P54.029, under

24 seal.

25 Q. This is a document sent by the court to the city administration of

1 internal affairs. So this is the body where you work, but to the sector

2 for internal affairs, to the registry department.

3 Does this document corroborate your evidence that it is the

4 investigating judge who decides which data are requested from the police

5 and when the police has a duty to respond?

6 A. Yes.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.

8 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, my anxiety level is rising. We've heard

9 a series of leading questions. I realise my colleague is doing this, in

10 part, at least, to save some time. However, several of these questions

11 are touching on points that are actually quite crucial to the case, and

12 perhaps she could try to phrase some of her questions in a less leading

13 way.

14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I asked all the

15 questions already of the witness. I'm just showing the documents. He

16 previously already answered each and every of these questions. So if you

17 believe that this is not the proper way for me to carry out my direct

18 examination, I will follow your instructions.

19 JUDGE PARKER: The objection is made that you are leading. It is

20 the case. You are also being very repetitive. In the course of the

21 evidence of this witness last week and now, we have gone over some of

22 these things three times at least. So I think you can, A, avoid leading;

23 and, B, watch what has already been dealt with a little more carefully.

24 Thank you.

25 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I will just

1 mention that the documents in tabs 128 and 129, which are Exhibits P54.030

2 and P52.12, are documents that have the same nature as the ones that I

3 asked the witness about.

4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: In line 8:4, it is

5 not "OVR Skopje," it is the "head office of the Ministry of Interior."

6 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. I will kindly ask you now, Mr. Stojanovski, to look at the

8 document in tab 135.

9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] That is Exhibit P28, under seal.

10 In addition to the documents that I indicated were of same nature,

11 I would also like to include the document -- the Exhibit P120 in tab 130;

12 the Exhibit P46.4 in tab 131; and the exhibit in tab 132, that is Exhibit

13 P54.059.

14 Q. I would like to ask you now, Mr. Stojanovski, to look at this

15 document.

16 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] That is Exhibit P28, under seal.

17 Q. This is a document produced by the OVR Cair. Would you tell me

18 what is it?

19 A. This is a special report, a supplement to the criminal report that

20 was drafted by OVR Cair, which, due to the problems in the course of

21 drafting and lack of time, was filed without the expertise of fire-arms

22 and without photographs of these weapons. In cases such as these, OVR

23 Cair is obliged to supplement this report with the evidence which were

24 secured in the course of their work.

25 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] And just for the transcript, with

1 regards to this answer, we have the Exhibit P47.22.

2 Q. Would you please now look at the document in tab 137.

3 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] That is Exhibit P52.13, under

4 seal.

5 Q. This is a document signed by three investigating judges, sent --

6 would you tell us to whom is this document addressed?

7 A. Yes. I believe that we mentioned already that the OVR Cair has

8 produced three criminal reports, and the investigating judges responsible

9 for these cases have filed the request with the department for internal

10 affairs, OVR Cair, by which they request additional data on the

11 information that took place in the period between the 10th and the 12th of

12 August in the area of village Ljuboten.

13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] In connection with this response,

14 I refer you to P50.009 [as interpreted], under seal, and Exhibit P50.20

15 [as interpreted], under seal. They are behind tabs 138 and 139.

16 "P50.29," I believe I stated that. "50.010" is what line 20

17 should state.

18 Q. Would you please be so kind as to look at the document behind tab

19 139, which is Exhibit P50.010, and tell me whether you're familiar with

20 this report and in connection with what?

21 A. This is a report produced upon a request of the SVR Skopje;

22 namely, as I said previously during this evidence, a committee was

23 established by the Minister Boskoski to investigate the events in the

24 village of Ljuboten. I was appointed contact person for cooperation with

25 that committee. So upon a request of the committee the department of

1 internal affairs, OVR Cair produced this information.

2 Q. Thank you very much. On Friday, you stated that after an

3 attempted on-site investigation, the burial of the persons who died took

4 place. Do you recall that?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And you said that after that, there was no point in going to the

7 scene of crime because there was no scene of crime any longer. Is that

8 right?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Tell me, what is required to enable you to answer the basic

11 questions as to how and as a result what the persons died, after these

12 same individuals had been buried?

13 A. Considering what was taking place there, the only way to ascertain

14 those things that you mentioned as needed was through exhumation and

15 post-mortem; so if we wanted to establish the cause of death, that is.

16 Q. Who was the only individual authorised to authorise the exhumation

17 and autopsy; do you know?

18 A. Pursuant to our legislation, the public prosecutor is the only

19 organ that can file such motion with the investigating judge, and the

20 investigating judge is the only organ that can approve and enforce that.

21 Q. Do you know if a request for exhumation and autopsy was filed; and

22 if so, by whom and on whose initiative?

23 A. There was no such proposal at that time, as far as I know. But I

24 know that later there was certain initiative on the part of the ministry

25 to undertake such activities.

1 Q. Thank you very much.

2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Let me state for the record,

3 Exhibits 1D33; then P55.02, under seal; Exhibit 1D46; and Exhibit 1D70 --

4 73, rather, 1D73.

5 Q. Please look at document behind tab 146, which is 1D47.

6 A. Could you please repeat this?

7 Q. Tab 146, which is Exhibit 1D47.

8 A. It's all right. Thank you.

9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't think we have that

10 document, 1D47. N001-0 - or rather, pages 1D1949 in Macedonian and

11 1950 -- or rather, 1D001950 [as interpreted] is the page in the English

12 version.

13 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, this is a letter from the investigating judge to

14 the head of the public security bureau in connection with the need to find

15 some information concerning exhumations.

16 Please, tell me, were you aware of this document?

17 A. I know that OVR Cair was tasked with carrying out certain

18 verifications and then responding to the investigating judge.

19 Q. If the director, Mitevski, in fact, received this document, would

20 he be the authorised individual to double-check the reliability of the

21 information contained therein, or would he have some other duties?

22 A. No. The route to follow is the following: The director forwards

23 this document to the sector for internal affairs, Skopje; and from there,

24 we forward it to the department of internal affairs, OVR Cair, so that

25 they process it.

1 Q. Look at document behind tab 147, which is 1D190.

2 Can you tell me whose document this is, and what the report

3 therein refers to?

4 A. This is a document produced by the OVR Cair, and it deals with the

5 request that they received from the investigating judge; and through this

6 document, they inform him of the outcome of the verifications or

7 double-checks that they carried out.

8 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] In connection with this answer, I

9 refer you to Exhibit P104 and 1D189.

10 Q. Tell me, what is your knowledge about the OVR Cair, in fact,

11 receiving the information the investigating judge sought or not?

12 A. As far as I know, the OVR Cair did not succeed in fully following

13 the request of the investigating judge.

14 Q. Tell me, do you have any information as to why the OVR Cair failed

15 to obtain the information?

16 A. Primarily because the population of Ljuboten village did not want

17 to cooperate with the police at all.

18 Q. Since you knew that the residents were not forthcoming in their

19 cooperation, did you personally, since you worked in the crime police

20 department in Skopje, try to assist OVR Cair in obtaining some information

21 at least?

22 A. Maintaining contact with the international organisations was

23 within the remits of my duty, so I had contacts with the security office

24 of the United Nations, OSCE, representatives of foreign embassies, et

25 cetera.

1 Q. Some of the individuals from these organisations and bodies that

2 were present in Skopje, did you, in addition to having business relations

3 with them, have social relations with them?

4 A. Yes. Considering that we had frequent -- yes, we built -- you

5 might say that we had social relations as well, friendly relations.

6 Q. Can you name some of the individuals you had good business

7 relations but with whom you were also on friendly terms?

8 A. We cooperated with the OSCE the most and with the security office

9 of the United Nations in Skopje. The closest contacts and the friendliest

10 contacts we had at the OSCE were with Mr. Henry Bolton; and with regards

11 to the United Nations office, I believe that Mr. Tom was there at the

12 time, and then Ms. Julie.

13 Q. Had you ever pointed to the problem in obtaining information to

14 these international associates, and did you ever seek assistance from

15 them?

16 A. Yes, in particular, from the OSCE, considering that they had

17 access to the village and considering their contacts with the population,

18 with the inhabitants there; however, they pursued their policy, of

19 course. So they kept us in isolation to an extent. And with regards to

20 the access to the village, entering the village, their position was that

21 it was too early and that priority is the restoration of confidence in the

22 population.

23 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, do you know if at some point the international

24 community got involved in the process of exhumation in the village of

25 Ljuboten?

1 A. Yes, but that was later. That was in the following year.

2 Q. Were you involved in the process of exhumation as the police force

3 at that point in time?

4 A. The SVR Skopje was not involved; however, the police forensics of

5 the MOI were involved, yes. They were the only body that was involved.

6 Q. Before starting the process of exhumation, should there -- should

7 some preliminary actions precede that process, do you know, or could these

8 have been done only by the police force in Macedonia, or the judiciary?

9 A. I believe I mentioned that the investigating judge had sent

10 previously a request to obtain certain information. However, if we speak

11 specifically about the exhumation, then probably we would need to know the

12 identity of the persons. And considering the time that had lapsed, we

13 needed to secure certain information that would aid the identification of

14 the bodies and, of course, the location where they were buried. However,

15 the OVR Cair, the department for internal affairs, Cair, was not able to

16 secure such information.

17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] In reference to this answer, I

18 refer you to P55.09, P49.033, P49.034, P55.10, P55.55, P55.28, P55.27,

19 P55.21, P55.25, P49.014. All these documents are under seal.

20 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, did you ever receive the results or the findings

21 from the exhumations and the autopsies of the bodies exhumed?

22 A. I did not have any opportunity to see that, and we have no access

23 to such type of documents.

24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I refer you to

25 Exhibits P46.15; P45.19 --

1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: P55.19.

2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] P55.34; Exhibit P49.003; P49.004;

3 P55.20.

4 Q. Tell me, please, a moment ago you said that as the police, you

5 were not involved in assisting the court in the process of exhumations and

6 autopsies. What was your view or your assessment of the situation at the

7 time? How did it sit with you? How did you take it.

8 A. I can give you only my personal feeling about that. That was, in

9 my opinion, removing the sovereignty, in a way, of the state. And if,

10 when the events at Aracinovo took place, I started to doubt, I believe

11 that these events confirmed the notion that Macedonia became a state where

12 the -- instead of rule of law, the political rules were prevailing. So

13 the politics took precedence over the enforcement of the law, which means

14 that someone prohibited us from performing our duties that we were charged

15 with.

16 Q. Thank you. Tell me, Please, Mr. Stojanovski, was the subject of

17 your interest only the events that transpired in the village, or also the

18 events that took place in the aftermath of that incident at check-points

19 and police stations?

20 A. I can't --

21 MR. SAXON: Objection.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.

23 MR. SAXON: That's another leading question, Your Honour.

24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] May I rephrase the question or

25 should I move on to another question?

1 JUDGE PARKER: Try rephrasing, Ms. Residovic, yes.

2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, in addition to exhibiting interest in what had

4 happened in the victim, did the police show interest in any other events?

5 A. During that time, the media published speculations that civilians

6 were killed in the village, that the police had ill-treated the residents

7 of the village at the check-points, and that the police ill-treated the

8 detainees, individuals who were brought in with regards to this event.

9 When we received those information, we had the duty to check it

10 because the reputation of the police was at stake. I can say that, on the

11 basis of all the actions, measures that were taken, and in which I myself

12 participated directly, we were not able to verify or otherwise that

13 information.

14 At the same time, there was a lot of pressure on the Ministry of

15 Interior to examine that information, and if they proved accurate to

16 detective the perpetrators.

17 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, you already stated that the Albanian population

18 from the village refused to cooperate with the police. Did anyone report

19 any sort of mistreatment carried out at the hands of the police, the

20 police station, or the OVR or SVR?

21 A. Considering that the committee had already been established and I

22 was appointed a contact person, I also processed some requests that came

23 from the committee. I, myself, interviewed all heads of the departments

24 for internal affairs where persons were brought in, in relation to the

25 Ljuboten events, and not one of them confirmed that such things had taken

1 place.

2 There was no complaint. There was not a single complaint or

3 petition filed with regard to the detention. No breach of duty was

4 registered. Simply, without cooperation, the cooperation with the

5 residents or with the allegedly ill-treated, it was not possible to secure

6 anything of the sort.

7 Although, you know, pursuant to our rules, such complaint or

8 report could be filed over the telephone. It was not necessary for anyone

9 to come to the police station to report such incident, but nothing of the

10 sort was available.

11 Q. Did at any point the prosecutor, the court, or the defence council

12 representing the individual against whom the proceedings were initiated,

13 inform you that those individuals had complained to them of the police

14 having overstepped their duty, mistreated them, or in any abused them at

15 the police station or elsewhere?

16 A. I think, in the previous answer, we clarified the position of the

17 police and that of the public prosecutor or investigating judge. Once the

18 persons were handed over to the investigating judge, and once they were

19 brought in --

20 Q. I apologise. We have already heard that. Did they let you know

21 that they had been told in turn by someone that someone had complained to

22 them about the conduct of the police?

23 A. We did not receive such information.

24 Q. A moment ago, you said that the VMRO [as interpreted] had also

25 insisted on the matters being sorted out. Can you tell me who were in

1 touch with at the VMRO [as interpreted] in contention with the clearing up

2 or sorting out of the situation in connection with Ljuboten?

3 A. I don't know how many persons went through my office in regards to

4 this event, all of them requesting information, requesting that checks be

5 made. I could mention some of them because there's no way that I could

6 remember all of these persons.

7 First of all, this is the crime police at the MOI. I think

8 Mr. Mihajlovski was assistant there at the time. Ms. Katica Jovanovska,

9 who I think came to my office every other day, went directly to OVR Cair

10 to conduct her checks. Then she was replaced by Ms. Galevska [as

11 interpreted]. There was a working group for investigating war crimes. I

12 did not have so much contact with them. Our duties were to provide them

13 with logistical and staff support.

14 I also had contacts with representatives from international

15 organisations. However, I will say again this information was not

16 confirmed.

17 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, you are now testifying before the Trial Chamber.

18 Tell me, under the circumstances in which you tried to clear the situation

19 up concerning Ljuboten, what is your opinion? Were you able to do

20 anything more than what you did to obtain other and different information?

21 A. One can always do better. However, having in mind the

22 circumstances in which we were working, I think I explained that my

23 colleagues did not go home for days, that they were moving targets at that

24 period. Although, I can say that there's always room to do more and to do

25 better, I am personally am satisfied by what they did. Even under such

1 circumstances, they carried out their legal duties. One could not ask for

2 more.

3 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, let me ask you this at the end: If someone were

4 to claim before this Chamber that you had issued an order to the chief of

5 Cair, to issue with a vehicle some persons who is arrived Cair, to issue

6 them with weapons although this was contrary to his wishes, to go to the

7 meeting of the battalion of the 1st Guards Brigade, that you were an

8 eye-witness of the police mistreating the individuals who were brought

9 there, and that, as a result of that, you were duty-bound to launch an

10 inquiry into this, what would you, Mr. Stojanovski, respond to such an

11 assertion?

12 A. You mentioned several things. All single one of them are lies.

13 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, why do you think that someone would not be

14 telling the truth before this Tribunal?

15 JUDGE PARKER: How can the witness answer that, Ms. Residovic?

16 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I put the question, and I'll

17 withdraw it, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] And this will complete my

20 examination of the witness.

21 Thank you, Mr. Stojanovski, for answering my questions.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Ms. Residovic.

23 Mr. Apostolski, is there any questions you have for this witness?

24 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.

25 I will have several questions for this witness, and I think that

1 my questioning would take about 15 to 20 minutes.

2 JUDGE PARKER: That may be a very good timing, Mr. Apostolski, and

3 we'll have a break after your questions. Thank you.

4 Please carry on.

5 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] I wanted to inform the Court of

6 this, so we can plan our time.

7 Cross-examination by Mr. Apostolski:

8 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Witness Petre Stojanovski. My name

9 is Antonio Apostolski, and I'm the Defence attorney for Johan Tarculovski.

10 My colleague, Edina Residovic, alerted you of the fact that you

11 understand her language. You understand the language which I speak even

12 better since we are communicating with the Macedonian language. However,

13 you will have to wait for the questions to be interpreted so that the

14 Trial Chamber can better follow the questioning.

15 Did you understand?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. You said that the detainees from Ljuboten of 12th of August, 2001

18 were given a paraffin glove test. Did you recall testifying to this?

19 A. Yes. This was the procedure.

20 Q. Can you tell us what was the aim of the paraffin glove test?

21 A. Usually, these kinds of tests are requested when there is

22 suspicion that the persons used fire-arms.

23 Q. Is it correct that the positive result of the paraffin glove test

24 sets grounds for suspicion that a certain person has used armed weapons?

25 A. In accordance to my knowledge, yes.

1 Q. Is it true that the positive results of the paraffin glove test is

2 the basis for filing a criminal report to the basic public prosecutor's

3 office against a person; that is to say, that that person has used a

4 fire-arm?

5 A. Yes. I think previously we saw some such criminal reports.

6 Q. You also said that, during the operation of the Macedonian

7 security forces of 12th of August, 2001, weapons were seized from the

8 detained persons. Do you recall this?

9 A. Yes. This was in the case of the persons who were detained in the

10 police station Mirkovci.

11 Q. Is it correct that the terrorist organisation NLA had to be

12 disarmed with the Essential Harvest Operation in September 2001?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Is it correct that part of the terrorist group NLA did not give

15 back or return the weapons? Do you have knowledge to this extent?

16 A. There is such knowledge.

17 Q. Is it correct that after 2001 the Macedonian police carried out

18 several actions, whereby bunkers were detected, bunkers of concealed

19 weapons used by the terrorist group NLA?

20 MR. SAXON: Objection, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Saxon.

22 MR. SAXON: What's the relevance of that question? This case

23 deals with the events of 2001, particularly the events in August 2001.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski.

25 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] I'm aware of this event prior to

1 asking the question; however, my ensuing questions might also include the

2 period after 2001. But my questions will be very concrete about the

3 events around the village of Ljuboten; therefore, my ensuing questions

4 about focus on the village of Ljuboten. This was the basis for putting

5 forth my ensuing questions.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Are you asking about bunkers in Ljuboten or in the

7 vicinity of Ljuboten.

8 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. This would be

9 my following question.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Your first question isn't limited in that way, you

11 see. I'm not quite sure what you were directing that question to.

12 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] My questioning about bunkers of

13 weapons on the territory of the -- in and around Ljuboten, after 2001, is

14 asked because the case of the Defence is that in the village of Ljuboten,

15 before 2001 and after 2001, as well as in the course of 2001, groupations

16 [as interpreted] of the terrorist group NLA were active, whereby Ljuboten

17 was used for was used for hiding weapons as well as for logistics for the

18 terrorist group NLA, as well as to other previous terrorist groups that

19 were active on the territory of the Republic of Macedonia.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.

21 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, the issue in this case is whether -- let

22 me correct myself. One of the issues in this case is whether there were

23 members of the National Liberation Army in and around Ljuboten on the 12th

24 of August, 2001. The Prosecution does not see how the fact that a bunker

25 may have existed in or around Ljuboten after 2001, and I don't know how

1 many years after Mr. Apostolski is going to be asking about, can be

2 relevant to the core issue of this case.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Well, Mr. Saxon, there are number of potential

4 issues. One is whether there were NLA terrorists in Ljuboten at the time

5 we're concerned with in August of 2001; whether, even if there were no

6 terrorists there, security forces had some reasonable basis for belief

7 that there were such terrorists. There is also the question of whether

8 there was a state of armed conflict in August, and whether it had existed

9 before and perhaps whether it had continued later.

10 So I don't think we can narrow the issues as narrowly as you were

11 putting them, and I'm sure there could be more. Nor is it immediately

12 apparent that what happened after 2001 is going to help us in this case

13 very much.

14 Mr. Apostolski, I think the problem with your question that

15 prompted all this is that it was completely unlimited in time and

16 location. You just said: Were there bunkers find anywhere in Macedonia?

17 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my questions will

18 be focussed on the territory around Ljuboten, and it will be followed by

19 two documents which I wish to put before the witness.

20 With your permission, I would like to continue my questioning in

21 this line.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Well, if you can put your questions on that

23 confined factual basis, yes, Mr. Apostolski.

24 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown

25 document 65 ter 2D00502.

1 Q. Witness, in the screen before you, do you see on the left-hand

2 side the document title, which it states: "Republic of Macedonia,

3 Ministry of Interior, Skopje sector of the UBK, Skopje"?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Do you see that it was prepared on the 25th of March, 2004?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Underneath, nature of the material: "Report from an interview

8 with the operational position Silo." The interview took place on 24 March

9 2004.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Can you tell us what kind of document this is?

12 A. This is an information regarding terrorism and extremism; that is

13 to say, activities of the NLA in the village of Ljuboten.

14 Q. Can you tell us who drafted this document?

15 A. Yes. This document was drafted by the sector of the security and

16 counter-intelligence bureau of Skopje.

17 Q. I would read parts of this document to you: "This is an interview

18 with the operational position Silo, who, through direct contacts with

19 persons, took part in the deployment of weapons stationed in the village

20 of Ljuboten, given by the so-called NLA for the defence of the village of

21 Ljuboten, whereby the only responsible person was Alimi Baki, so-called

22 Commander Lisi, a history teacher at the primary school in the village of

23 Ljuboten, whereby weapons were collected from several points which were

24 foreseen for the defence of the village of Ljuboten.

25 "And it is emphasised that there were two Gulinovs. So heavy

1 machine-guns were collected, one with ammunition and the other slightly

2 damaged and without ammunition; three large light machine-guns with

3 stands; a large quantity of automatic rifles, some of them so-called

4 Tulumbashi. According to the information given by the source, over 150

5 pieces, ammunition, hand-grenades, and various so-called Zoljas hand-held

6 rocket launchers."

7 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Could we see the second page of

8 this document, please.

9 Q. "A small number of anti-personnel mines, as well as several

10 anti-tank mines. (At the moment, the person, Sherafedim Bajrami, also

11 known as Shef, is in possession of one such mine and plans to lay it on

12 the road used by the Ministry of Interior and Macedonian army patrols, the

13 only reason being to avenge the death of his two brothers killed in the

14 operation during the military conflict in Ljuboten)."

15 Does this part of the report of this interview correspond to your

16 knowledge that part of the terrorist group NLA did not return the weapons

17 after the essential harvest operation?

18 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski, this appears to be a report of

19 information received in 2004, is that correct, and it's information

20 received from a person who is not identified in this report? Is that

21 correct?

22 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. On the basis

23 of this interview, the Macedonian police carried out an action later on,

24 which is the next document I want to show to the witness, whereby arms was

25 detected and seized from the village of Ljuboten. Therefore, this

1 document is just the basis for showing the other document to the witness

2 and so finish my line of questioning.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Is it the intention of your Defence case to call

4 this informant as a witness?

5 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours, it is not.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Your basis for seeing this as relevant is what was

7 found in 2004, is that what you're saying, by a police search?

8 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. On the basis

9 of this information, after several months, weapons were found in the

10 village of Ljuboten.

11 [Trial Chamber confers]

12 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] And it pertains to the events of

13 2001, because these are weapons which were hidden in 2001.

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.

16 MR. SAXON: Just a point of clarification, Your Honour. The

17 Prosecution believes that nowhere in this document does it refer to

18 weapons located or deposited in Ljuboten during 2001. The document is

19 completely unclear. These weapons could have been deposited in Ljuboten,

20 if they were, in 2003 or 2004, 2002. The document simply doesn't say.

21 JUDGE PARKER: In fact, there could be implications from the

22 document that these weapons were collected, to enable an individual to

23 make some response in respect of some of the deaths that occurred in

24 Ljuboten with which we are concerned. The implementation of that being

25 that the weapons could have been collected later rather than before the

1 relevant events in Ljuboten.

2 [Trial Chamber confers]

3 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski, the Chamber takes the view that

4 this information has no sufficient connection that has been demonstrated

5 with any event that we're concerned with in 2001. All sorts of weapons

6 might be found in 2004 or 2008, even, in a place. We need to know whether

7 there were weapons in 2001, and anything you seem to be intending to

8 adduce does not go to establish that.

9 So you should not pursue this line of questioning, unless you've

10 got some way to demonstrate that these weapons were there in 2001.

11 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was aware even

12 prior to asking those questions about the problem which could arise. But

13 I felt that this information, as well as the information that weapons were

14 found in Ljuboten after the events which are not relevant to this case, I

15 would like to point out that after the events in that same village,

16 weapons were found in a concrete place in a concrete house.

17 Therefore, I felt that it would assist the Trial Chamber in

18 establishing the factual state of affairs. However, if the Chamber

19 believes that there is no grounds to pursue this, then I will not show the

20 next document and I will end my line of questioning here.

21 JUDGE PARKER: That is the position of the Chamber. Thank you,

22 Mr. Apostolski.

23 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have

24 no further questions for this witness.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

1 I think that is a convenient time, then, for the first break, or

2 the break, and we resume at 11.00.

3 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.

4 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.

6 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, during the recess, I

7 spoke to my colleague, the Prosecutor, and he would not object the

8 proposal I'm making. I'm tendering the documents that I showed to the

9 witness as exhibits, and I'm referring to the following documents and I

10 kindly ask the Chamber to receive them in evidence.

11 The first one is 65 ter 1D1238. That was in tab 10, and this is

12 an order --

13 JUDGE PARKER: Just pause there while the registry officer catches

14 up to that.

15 That will be received as an exhibit.

16 THE REGISTRAR: The document will become Exhibit 1D291, Your

17 Honours.

18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] The next document is 65 ter 406.

19 It was in tab 43.

20 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

21 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D292, Your Honours.

22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] 65 ter 1D1219, which was in tab

23 173.

24 Those are criminal reports filed against certain individuals,

25 because of violence against Albanian property in Skopje.

1 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] 65 ter 1D --

3 THE REGISTRAR: The document will be received as Exhibit 1D293,

4 Your Honours.

5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] And the next two documents are

6 also criminal reports. These are 65 ter 1D1220 and 65 ter 1D1221.

7 They were in tabs 174 and 175.

8 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

9 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 1D1220 will become Exhibit 1D294; and

10 65 ter 1D1221 will become Exhibit 1D295, Your Honours.

11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] And, at the end, 65 ter 1170. The

12 document was in tab 113. That is a document coming from the analytics

13 department of the OVR Cair.

14 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

15 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours.

16 THE REGISTRAR: It will be received as Exhibit 1D296, Your

17 Honours.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much.

19 Mr. Saxon.

20 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honours.

21 Cross-examination by Mr. Saxon:

22 Q. Good morning, Mr. Stojanovski. My name is Dan Saxon. I'm from

23 originally the city of Boston in the United States, and I represent the

24 Prosecutor in this case and I've got some questions for you this morning.

25 First of all, is it correct that you understand and you can read a

1 fair amount of the English language?

2 A. One could say this, yes.

3 Q. And do you have any kind of a family relationship with Ljube

4 Boskoski?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Was Mr. Boskoski the godfather or "kum" to you or to someone close

7 to you?

8 A. No.

9 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, you won't be surprised that the

10 Prosecution has prepared a couple of binders of materials that we'd like

11 to use with this witness, and we'd like to distribute the first binder

12 now.

13 I'm grateful to our usher for her literally doing the heavy

14 lifting.

15 Q. And, Mr. Stojanovski, perhaps, with the usher's assistance, you

16 could turn to what is tab 2 in that binder that's in front of you, and if

17 you could turn to the Macedonian version, Mr. Stojanovski.

18 MR. SAXON: This is 65 ter 1146, Your Honours.

19 Q. And you'll see, Mr. Stojanovski, that this is actually a copy of

20 the -- of your personnel file from the Ministry of Interior.

21 Do you see that on the first page?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And if we can go to -- if you go to around the third or fourth

24 page, you will see what appears to be your resume or a history of your

25 employment with the ministry.

1 Can you keep going, please to the page that looks like this. Page

2 looks like this, Mr. Stojanovski.

3 MR. SAXON: It has ERN number N006-7979.

4 Q. And if we can just take a look, please, at this report of your

5 employment in the Ministry of Interior, maybe we could start by focussing

6 on the year 1996.

7 You see there is an entry that, by November 1996, you were the

8 temporary head of the department for illegal trade in the crime police.

9 Is that right?

10 A. Yes, this is right.

11 Q. And, for example, in that position, when you were the head of that

12 department, who were your subordinates? Who did you supervise?

13 A. At that time, the department for illegal trade worked on matters

14 related to illegal trade of arms and narcotic. Within this framework, my

15 subordinates were the heads of those units.

16 Q. And when you say "the heads of those units," you're referring to

17 heads of those units within the Republic headquarters of the Ministry of

18 Interior?

19 A. In the crime police of the Ministry of Interior.

20 Q. And that would include, of course, the heads of the units for

21 illegal trade in the different SVRs, right?

22 A. The line goes through the heads of the SVRs.

23 Q. All right. Then through the heads of the SVRs, you could task the

24 heads of the unit for illegal trade within a SVR, couldn't you?

25 A. Depending on the situation. If we're working on a joint case,

1 then I could.

2 Q. And you could also task, depending on the situation, the head or

3 the heads of the units for illegal trade within OVRs, couldn't you?

4 A. There are no such units at the OVRs.

5 Q. All right. So at least, though, you could provide instructions to

6 the units for illegal trade in the SVRs, right?

7 A. When we're working on matters such as these, and when we believe

8 that instructions have to be given to the units for illegal trade at the

9 SVR, we draft the instruction. We prepare the instruction, but it has to

10 be approved also by the head of the crime police, depending on the type of

11 instructions, also by the director for public security.

12 Q. And once it's approved by the head of the crime police, and the

13 director for public security if necessary, then the instruction would go

14 down the chain to the SVR, wouldn't it?

15 A. Yes. It goes to the SVR and in the unit for illegal trade at the

16 SVR.

17 Q. And, if necessary, if some work had to be done, then, at an OVR,

18 the appropriate orders would also be issued to the appropriate head of the

19 OVR. Isn't that right?

20 A. No. This is a task for the SVR, for the head of the unit for

21 illegal trade at the SVR, which organises and establishes cooperation with

22 the unit of internal affairs --

23 Q. I see --

24 A. -- with the OVR.

25 Q. All right. So, then if the head of --

1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Prosecutor, please.

2 MR. SAXON:

3 Q. All right. So if the head of the unit for illegal trade at the

4 SVR needs the cooperation of an individual or colleagues in a OVR, what

5 does that person do, or what would that person do back in 2001?

6 A. Coordination within the SVR goes through the head of the SVR.

7 This means that if there is a need for undertaking certain measures, the

8 coordination of these units is conducted by the sector for internal

9 affairs.

10 Q. All right. And the instruction to undertake certain measures

11 within an OVR would come from whom at that time?

12 A. As I said, the coordination is part of the work of the head of the

13 SVR Skopje.

14 Q. So put another way, then, if the -- if additional measures or

15 tasks are needed to be performed, then it would be the head of the SVR

16 Skopje who would issue instructions to the head of the particular OVR to

17 make sure those tasks were performed. Correct?

18 A. One could say that, yes. The coordination is carried out by the

19 head of the sector for internal affairs.

20 Q. All right. And, again, going back to the late 1990s when you were

21 the head of the directorate for illegal trade at the crime police, who

22 were your superiors then? Or maybe an easier question: Who was your

23 immediate superior at that time, say, back in 1997?

24 A. There were several while I was at the crime police:

25 Mr. Trenevski, Mr. Zafirovski.

1 Q. What were their positions?

2 A. Heads of the crime police at the MOI.

3 Q. At the Republic level?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And if you're -- if those superiors felt that a particular measure

6 or task had to be undertaken, they might issue an instruction to you which

7 you might forward to an SVR. Isn't that right?

8 A. In essence, initiatives went the other way around, because the

9 heads of the crime police are experienced, but this doesn't mean that

10 they're skilled in all areas. If one of the specialised departments

11 establishes the need for an instruction, then it initiates this through or

12 at the head of the crime police.

13 Q. And when the head of the crime police would then approve the

14 initiative and would issue that instruction, that was needed, right?

15 A. Yes, if it agreed with the facts, proposals, and understandings

16 that we gave. Nonetheless --

17 Q. Please continue.

18 A. Nonetheless, for certain issues and matters, only the director

19 could approve a certain instruction and that it be sent to the territorial

20 organisational units.

21 Q. Okay. So if I understand you correctly, at least in the late

22 1990s and up until 2001, first of all, the head of the crime police, if

23 that person agreed with the proposal, that person would issue an

24 instruction down the chain through you, perhaps, for the appropriate to be

25 carried out, right? That's one way something would occur?

1 A. In principle. In concrete cases, then it's the head of the crime

2 police. If these are general tasks that encompass other sectors for

3 internal affairs, then it should be the director for public security.

4 Q. All right. And when the director for public security approved of

5 a particular task or initiative, then the director for public security

6 would issue that instruction or issue that approval, and his instruction

7 would then pass down the chain of command to the relevant operative

8 person, is that right, in those particular situations?

9 A. We prepared the material, and we submitted for approval. The

10 material which is approved, and there were also cases when it was not

11 approved, is returned to us. If approved, we distributed further.

12 Q. And if these particular initiatives were not approved, then those

13 measures would not be carried out. Isn't that right?

14 A. Yes. If our proposal is not accepted, then it is not carried out.

15 Q. And that was the situation in 2001, wasn't it?

16 A. Yes, as far as I know.

17 Q. And when those -- for example, if approval for a particular

18 initiative was given and then the measure was carried out, the particular

19 unit or colleague at the ministry would then send a report to their

20 superiors about the measures that they undertook, wouldn't they?

21 A. Yes, to the sector -- to the head of the sector for internal

22 affairs and to the head of the relevant directorate at the crime police.

23 Q. When you say "the head of the relevant directorate at the crime

24 place," you're referring to the relevant directorate at the crime police

25 at the Republic level, right?

1 A. To simplify, if it is a narcotic case or instructions about a

2 narcotics issue, then the measures, as per the received instruction,

3 should be reported to the SVR where their work where the colleagues work

4 and then to the head of the directorate.

5 If were more simply to say it this way, it would be sent to me, if

6 we're talking about the time when I was at that position.

7 Q. And, at that time, when you were in that position back in the late

8 1990s, your position was at the headquarters of the ministry for the

9 republic level, wasn't it, at the national level.

10 A. The crime police was part of Bureau for Public Security;

11 therefore, one could say at the level of the republic.

12 Q. Okay. Then we see, from the history of your career, that since

13 the mid-1990s, you began to hold a series of positions of responsibility.

14 In 1998, you were the head of the sector for illegal weapons

15 trafficking, the crime police; and then in 2000, you became the deputy for

16 crime police matters at the cabinet of the SVR Skopje; and then in 2001,

17 if I'm reading this correctly, you became an assistant head at the crime

18 police for SVR Skopje in the beginning of August.

19 Is that about right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And you also told us earlier that, after 1995, you attended

22 several courses and seminars related to illegal drug trafficking, and also

23 you attended several management courses, right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. You attended courses in Paris, in Germany, in Bulgaria, and within

1 Macedonia, itself, at the faculty for security. Is that correct?

2 A. Yes, this is correct.

3 Q. And it's true, isn't it, that within the Ministry of Interior, to

4 be selected to attend courses abroad is considered an important

5 professional honour and distinction, isn't it?

6 A. I do not understand your question. The goal of the training is to

7 train people, not to award distinctions.

8 Q. I understand what the goals of training is. But, for example, the

9 ministry would not send just any police officer to a training course in

10 Paris, would they? They would send people who have performed their duties

11 with particular competence and distinction, isn't it, and dedication?

12 A. When a need is established for special or supplemental education,

13 additional education, the SVRs propose and nominate colleagues which they

14 believe require such training and whom they believe will have a serious

15 approach towards such training.

16 This proposal is most often then verified by the crime police and

17 the director approved it, if this was the case of training courses abroad.

18 Q. And it would be true, wouldn't it, that you were selected to go to

19 these courses abroad because you were known as an officer who took a

20 serious approach? Isn't that right?

21 A. There are two alternatives, two options. Someone felt that I

22 needed additional training and that someone felt that I would show and

23 demonstrate a serious approach towards such training.

24 Q. I certainly respect your modesty, Mr. Stojanovski, but I'll put

25 the question a different way: You did take a serious approach to your

1 work and to your training, didn't you, throughout your career?

2 A. I would hope so, yes.

3 Q. And, in fact, in the late 1990s, you were awarded several bonuses,

4 if that's the right word, for your particular efforts in solving certain

5 cases, such as discovering narcotics, confiscating explosives. Is that

6 right?

7 A. I think that, yes, I was relatively successful.

8 Q. If you could turn, please, to what is the -- it should be the

9 sixth page in your language. Maybe it's one page further on. No, I'm

10 sorry. I'm sorry, Mr. Stojanovski. Not tab 6. But in the same series of

11 documents, it's a document that looks like this.

12 MR. SAXON: Maybe the usher could assistant.

13 It has ERN number N006-7978.

14 Q. If you're with me, Mr. Stojanovski, this is a document dated the

15 5th of June, 2001. It's addressed to the sector of legal and personnel

16 matters of the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Macedonia. It's

17 the -- the subject is the award of a financial reward, and it is a

18 proposal to award you an award of 15.000 dinars. Do you see that?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And it says that: "During 2001, the named person manifested

21 particular professionalism, efficiency, and creativity in performing the

22 established plans and programmes in the area of work and organisation of

23 the crime police at SVR Skopje."

24 Are you following me?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Then the next paragraph talks about your "contributions to

2 detecting and disclosing a large number of criminal acts, as well as

3 capturing and arresting the perpetrators."

4 Then, in the next paragraph, it mentions you and talks about your

5 demonstrated initiatives and the contributions that you made to the

6 results of the crime police at SVR Skopje.

7 Then the proposal is signed by the head of the sector, Zoran

8 Efremov. Mr. Efremov, he was your boss at the time, wasn't he? Am I

9 right?

10 A. Yes, this is so.

11 Q. If you could cast your modesty aside for a moment, tell us why you

12 were normal indicated for this award. What were these achievements and

13 accomplishments that you -- that you accomplished during the first part of

14 2001?

15 A. The crime police of SVR Skopje, that is to say, the units which I

16 was directly superior to, successfully carried out their tasks, under

17 conditions elaborated on -- on several occasions previously; and this act,

18 in itself, working under such conditions, presumed a solid organisation

19 within and efforts which exceeded the usual work tasks.

20 Also, at that period, our manner of work was through daily

21 meetings with my subordinates where we looked into problems and we sought

22 common solutions. I believe that I succeeded with some initiatives in

23 directing my colleagues to carry out their work tasks as successfully as

24 possible.

25 Q. And so, just so that I understand you, you've described the

1 extraordinarily complex and difficult circumstances in which you and your

2 colleagues were working in 2001, and at least part of the reason why you

3 were nominated for this award is because, in spite of those difficulties,

4 you and your colleagues persevered and you managed to accomplish your

5 tasks. Is that right?

6 A. Generally speaking, yes.

7 Q. And if you turn to the next page, we see that this proposal was

8 being submitted to crime police department.

9 MR. SAXON: This is ERN N006-7986.

10 Q. It's dated the 11th of June, 2001. Then if you turn to the page

11 once more, Mr. Stojanovski, you'll see a decision.

12 And if you're having trouble finding it, maybe the usher can

13 assist. It has ERN N006-7977.

14 A. Well, this is not on the following. This is on the previous page,

15 as far as I understand.

16 Q. Then it's my fault. The important thing is that you see it.

17 A. I see it now.

18 Q. Okay. So, we see here, this decision dated the 15th of June,

19 2001, and this is decision signed by Ljube Boskoski, the minister at that

20 point. Do you see that?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And this decision, effectively it approves the proposal to give

23 you a financial reward, doesn't it?

24 A. Yes. The minister endorsed the opinion of my direct superior and

25 accepted his opinion.

1 Q. And that's because, according to the Law on Internal Affairs,

2 decisions on awards -- final decisions are to be made by the minister.

3 Isn't that right?

4 A. I should read the law to be able to answer this question.

5 Q. All right. Actually, I may be citing to you the wrong law, so I'm

6 going to come back to this point later on.

7 This was the decision that awarded you this award. Is that right?

8 A. Yes, pursuant to the law and the collective agreement.

9 Q. And if you can turn to what is ERN N006-7973, this is a decision

10 dated the 24th of July, 2001. You'll see it's signed by the Minister of

11 the Interior then, Ljube Boskoski, and it's a decision redeploying you.

12 Do you see that, Mr. Stojanovski?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And you're being redeployed as the assistant head officer for the

15 crime police in the SVR Skopje as of 1st of August, 2001. Do you see

16 that?

17 A. Yes. This is a decision appointing me, but I occupied that post

18 before even, so this just confirms it. Since when I became assistant head

19 of the police for the SVR Skopje, it took place during the time when

20 Mr. Dosta Dimovska was the Minister of the Interior, while this decision

21 is just a technical correction.

22 Q. So, now, Dosta Dimovska, he stepped down as Minister of the

23 Interior in May of 2001, right?

24 A. Probably.

25 Q. And, before that time, you were already performing the functions

1 of this particular position, assistant head officer for crime police in

2 the SVR Skopje. Is that correct?

3 A. No. First of all, the title of my post was deputy to the head of

4 the SVR Skopje; and from 1st of August, 2001, it is assistant to the head

5 for crime police. The level in the hierarchy remained unchanged.

6 Q. Okay. But I'm just trying to clarify something that you told us

7 earlier.

8 If the translation is correct, you explained to us that you had

9 occupied this position even before this document was issued on the 24th of

10 July, 2001, and I'm just trying to clarify what you mean by that.

11 Does that mean you were performing the functions of the position

12 that's named in this document prior to July 2001?

13 A. Yes. So, there were no changes with regards to the duties that I

14 was to perform, except that the title "deputy" was changed into

15 "assistant."

16 Q. All right. So, de facto, you were performing the same duties

17 prior to the date that this decision was issued, right?

18 A. That is correct. But with regards to the change of the

19 systemization, titles in the post of the SVR Skopje, the title of my post

20 was changed as well; and because of that change, a new decision was

21 issued.

22 Q. I see. Okay. All right.

23 And, hopefully, the next document, the very next page in your

24 binder, hopefully, will be another decision.

25 MR. SAXON: This has ERN number N006-7975, dated the 3rd of

1 October, 2002.

2 Q. Do you see that?

3 A. Yes, I see it.

4 Q. And this document is a decision, because of particular engagement

5 in accomplishing the function of the Ministry of Interior, you are being

6 awarded a pistol, an HS-2000 9-millimetre pistol; and this decision is

7 signed by Ljube Boskoski. Do you see that?

8 A. Yes. The proposal of my superior at that time, Mr. Kocovski, was

9 endorsed and accepted by Mr. Boskoski.

10 Q. And, again, if you could please turn your modesty aside for a

11 moment, just so that we can understand, why were you given this award at

12 this time, in October 2002? Why were you being honoured with this award?

13 A. Are you asking me to explain the positions of another person? I

14 can't give you another answer, but say that my direct superior was

15 probably satisfied with the way I was performing my tasks.

16 Q. All right.

17 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I would seek to intend -- I would seek to

18 admit 65 ter 1146.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Tab 2 will be received.

20 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P570, Your Honours.

21 MR. SAXON:

22 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, you described, last week to my colleague

23 Ms. Residovic, how extremely complex the security situation in 2001 was,

24 and so it would be fair to say that it was extremely difficult for you and

25 your colleagues to work from March 2001 to the end of the year. Is that

1 right?

2 A. Of course.

3 Q. And you mentioned that the members of the Ministry of Interior

4 were extremely pressed with work at that time, and that is with your

5 regular duties and with what you referred to as the additional obligations

6 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs at that time.

7 That statement would be true -- it would be true to say that all

8 of the employees of the Ministry of Interior were extremely pressed during

9 that work, during that period, isn't it?

10 A. Probably.

11 Q. And that would include those colleagues in the ministry working at

12 high levels of the ministry, persons with large amounts of responsibility.

13 They were also extremely pressed, weren't they?

14 A. That was a very stressful period for everyone.

15 Q. And that answer, then, is a yes? Do I take that as a yes?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And this would also be true for the minister himself,

18 Mr. Boskoski?

19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Ms. Residovic.

21 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise for interrupting my

22 learned friend. But for a number of questions already, the witness is

23 expected to testify about the work or the feelings of other individuals.

24 I don't believe this is a proper way of questioning the witness.

25 MR. SAXON: Well, Your Honour, the witness was working at a fairly

1 high level within the Ministry of Interior at that time, and the witness

2 would be able to understand the dynamics in which people were working.

3 [Trial Chamber confers]

4 JUDGE PARKER: Carry on, please, Mr. Saxon.

5 MR. SAXON:

6 Q. It would also be true, Mr. Stojanovski, that the minister himself,

7 during that complex time in 2001, would have also been very pressed at

8 work. Right?

9 A. If I were in his shoes, probably I would be under a lot of

10 pressure. I would feel under a lot of pressure.

11 Q. And before we go on, you mentioned these additional obligations of

12 the Ministry of Internal Affairs at that time. What were those additional

13 obligations of the ministry in the spring and summer of 2001?

14 A. If I said "ministry," I was referring to crime police, actually;

15 and I can say that it really had additional duties, primarily with regards

16 to securing, security. Usually, the members of the crime police do not

17 participate in security for protest; but during this time, because of a

18 shortage in personnel or a sufficient number of police officers, it was

19 necessary to have them involved as well in the security activities in

20 relation to protests, regarding facilities of vital importance, et cetera.

21 Q. And are you aware that other units or sectors of the Ministry of

22 Interior, during that difficult period, also had to perform additional

23 obligations or tasks?

24 A. It is probably so; although, I can't speak of them and their

25 tasks.

1 Q. Okay. Mr. Stojanovski, would you agree that in exceptional

2 circumstances, times of great pressure and stress, people and institutions

3 don't always follow the strict rules and procedures that they would

4 normally follow during peacetime? Would you agree with that?

5 A. Partially. You never know in which way will a person react when

6 under threat, when they are in immediate danger.

7 Q. All right.

8 A. Whereas, I would not agree with you with regards to the

9 institutions.

10 Q. All right.

11 A. Although, I could not preclude anything on the basis of the

12 knowledge that I have.

13 Q. You mentioned, during your direct examination, for example, the

14 large numbers of telephone calls that you made and received every day

15 during the crisis time in 2001. Do you recall that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And it's true, isn't it, that in 2001, there may have been times

18 of stress when you, for example, instead of taking the time to write an

19 Official Note or a report, you might have reached for your telephone and

20 given a verbal report to your superior. Is that fair?

21 A. It is possible that such situations existed.

22 Q. And there may have been times when a particular superior within

23 the Ministry of Interior, instead of drafting written orders and sending

24 them down the chain of command, might have, due to time pressures and

25 stress, have simply issued orders to their subordinates by telephone.

1 Isn't that right?

2 A. In both those cases, when a report is requested or when an order

3 is issued, it can be given orally, but it must be done then followed an

4 order in writing.

5 Q. But in those times of stress, occasionally times of emergency,

6 people would have a greater tendency to issue orders by telephone,

7 wouldn't they?

8 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.

9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that the

10 previous three questions, as well as this one, are questions of a general

11 nature or asked in a general way. I believe that it would be proper, if

12 my colleague has a specific event in mind, that it would be proper to ask

13 him of this event directly.

14 MR. SAXON: Well, Your Honour, I'm asking about the general tenure

15 of work the Ministry of Interior in 2001, and how work was done in that

16 complex period.

17 JUDGE PARKER: It becomes of very little weight, as you have not

18 established any foundation for this witness's knowledge of others in the

19 ministry and how they worked. You may be on more sure ground asking how

20 this witness worked.

21 MR. SAXON:

22 Q. Mr. Stojanovski, were there times in 2001, during the crisis time,

23 when, instead of drafting a written order to your -- to any subordinate,

24 you simply reached for the telephone and called that person?

25 A. An order is not a usual matter in the work of the crime police,

1 because all members of the crime police are under legal duty to carry out

2 their tasks.

3 Q. Well, I'll ask the question in a different way.

4 If there was a task that you wanted performed, were there times in

5 2001 that you reached for your telephone and directed the appropriate

6 person to carry out that task?

7 A. In situations such as those, the task which I assigned or the

8 priority I established was always accompanied with a written document,

9 which was related to a concrete problem that we were working on.

10 Q. Did you ever assign a task using the telephone during that time?

11 A. I don't recall having done so.

12 Q. Then what were you doing on all those telephone conversations that

13 you told us about last week? I think you mentioned at least two hours a

14 day you were on the telephone.

15 A. As I told you, the unit of internal affairs was -- were obliged to

16 inform me of events that happened on their territory and the measures

17 which they planned to undertake, so as I could enable the head of the

18 sector of internal affairs to carry out his function of coordination.

19 Q. Are you saying and is it your evidence that you were a mere

20 conduit of information on the telephone, that information went through you

21 up the chain, but instructions were never passed down by you, using the

22 telephone?

23 A. I said -- I believe I said previously that my instructions were

24 followed with written documents.

25 Q. Your instructions were followed with written documents. So is it

1 your testimony now that you might have, first, given oral instructions via

2 the telephone or otherwise, and then follow that up with a written

3 document?

4 A. If the nature of the work requires that measures and activities be

5 taken, or if I receive a written document that we have to carry through,

6 depending on the urgency, it is possible to contact my subordinates by

7 telephone. However, in any event, the written document with my notes

8 later was sent to them.

9 Q. All right. I'd like to talk to you a little bit more about your

10 duties during 2001, Mr. Stojanovski.

11 Last week, in response to some questions from my colleague,

12 Ms. Residovic, you explained that: "My duties were to perform the tasks

13 assigned to me by the head of SVR Skopje."

14 MR. SAXON: This is as page 9083 of the transcript.

15 Q. Then you elaborated. You said your duties were to "facilitate a

16 more efficient and quality executions of the functions of the chief of SVR

17 Skopje," and you said at that time: "My relationship was toward the head,

18 the chief of SVR Skopje, and so were my tasks."

19 Do you remember that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Now, in the spring and summer of 2001, the head of SVR Skopje was

22 a gentleman named Zoran Efremov. Is that correct?

23 A. Yes, this is correct.

24 Q. And Zoran Efremov was seriously injured in an automobile accident

25 that summer, which led to him being replaced as head of SVR Skopje in

1 September 2001 by Mr. Kocovski. Is that right?

2 A. I cannot claim for certain about the reasons due to which

3 Mr. Efremov was replaced; although, there had been other explanations. I

4 have heard also other explanations for this.

5 Q. But would it be fair to say that before Mr. Efremov was replaced,

6 you worked with Mr. Efremov fairly closely?

7 A. I was duty-bound to cooperate with all heads of SVR Skopje,

8 regardless of their name or anything else. I don't understand you. What

9 do you mean by this --

10 Q. Well, you --

11 A. -- "closely."

12 Q. Well, Mr. Efremov was the chief of SVR Skopje, right?

13 A. This is correct.

14 Q. And you told us earlier that your duty or one of your duties was

15 to "facilitate a more efficient and quality exclusions of the function of

16 chief of SVR Skopje," who was Mr. Efremov, right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. So, in your job, did you have a -- did you have a lot of contact

19 with Mr. Efremov?

20 A. Surely, yes.

21 Q. Would you speak to Mr. Efremov on a daily basis?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And would it be fair to say, then, that given the very complex

24 security situation at that time, Mr. Efremov had a very difficult and

25 stressful job?

1 A. Yes. I would say that it was difficult to carry out these tasks.

2 Q. And, at page 9084 of the transcript, last week you told us:

3 "I was charged to follow the situation in the OVRs from the point

4 of view of the crime police and to suggest, if necessary, to the head of

5 the SVR certain solutions which could help him carry out his function of

6 coordination."

7 Do you remember that?

8 A. Yes.

9 MR. SAXON: If we could turn now to what is Exhibit 1D107.

10 Your Honours, this would be in the first binder of exhibits that

11 my colleague, Ms. Residovic, provided to you last week at tab 4.

12 You know, I can give -- I can give Mr. Stojanovski my copy of the

13 Macedonian version.

14 Q. And you'll see, Mr. Stojanovski, that this is a document that I

15 think you've seen before. It's the "Book of Rules of Organisation and

16 Operation of the Ministry of Internal Affairs."

17 Do you see is that?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And if you could turn please to what is Article 9 in this Book of

20 Rules, it's on page 10 of the English version.

21 Do you have Article 9 now, in front of you, Mr. Stojanovski?

22 A. Yes, I do.

23 Q. We see that according to Article -- Article 9 describes the

24 organisation of the sector for internal affairs, the SVR, of the city of

25 Skopje. You see that?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And, for example, we see numerous departments and sections,

3 ranging from a duty operating centre, section for defence preparation,

4 organised crime, general crime, drug trafficking, arms trafficking,

5 department for public peace and order, traffic, et cetera, as well as a

6 department for analysis and fire protection.

7 Did you see that?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And below that - this is on the next page in the English version -

10 we see the five OVRs, the departments for internal affairs that were

11 within the area or the organisational unit of the SVR Skopje; Centar,

12 Karpos, Kisela Voda, Gazi Baba, and Cair with their subpolice stations,

13 sectors for operative affairs and analysis.

14 Do you see that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And it would be fair to say, wouldn't it, that the responsibility

17 of SVR Skopje, and, by extension, Zoran Efremov in 2001, was quite large

18 and included numerous departments, sections, police stations, as well as

19 the five separate OVRs.

20 Is that a fair statement?

21 A. Yes. Within the framework of the SVR, there are a number of

22 organisational units and this is probably one of the reasons for the

23 existence of my position and that of Mr. Bliznakovski.

24 Q. Yes. And so, following up on that point, during that complex

25 summer of 2001, spring/summer 2001, given your competence, your

1 dedication, you made many suggestions to Mr. Efremov about many different

2 aspects of the work of the SVR and of the OVRs, didn't you, in order to

3 assist Mr. Efremov?

4 A. Yes, where the crime police was concerned.

5 Q. And, no doubt, there were times when Mr. Zoran Efremov, in

6 response to your suggestions, made a decision about a particular task -

7 for example, in a particular OVR - and directed you to relay an

8 instruction to the head of that OVR. Is that right?

9 A. My suggestions were directed towards Mr. Zoran Efremov. In most

10 cases, he personally contacted the heads of the OVRs, if he felt that what

11 I had proposed was correct and justified. However, there were situations

12 when I could, on his behalf, call some of the heads and convey an opinion

13 or an instruction from Mr. Zoran Efremov; that is to say, at the moment,

14 when my proposal or suggestion is conveyed to the sector of the SVR, it is

15 no longer of my ownership. This is now the decision of the head of the

16 sector.

17 Q. And in those situations when, on Mr. Efremov's behalf, you called

18 some of the heads of the OVRs and conveyed an opinion or an instruction -

19 perhaps let's focus on instruction from Mr. Efremov - then the heads of

20 the OVRs would have carried out those instructions, right?

21 A. Although this happened rarely, they should take them into

22 consideration, the opinions, the suggestions, the understandings, of

23 Mr. Efremov. Mr. Efremov, as head of sector, had a coordination function,

24 among others; and if some of the OVRs requested measures or coordinated

25 activities to be taken in conjunction with another OVR, then if

1 Mr. Efremov agreed with such a proposal, then it was natural that these be

2 carried out by the other OVRs.

3 Q. Well --

4 A. Allow me to clarify, if necessary.

5 There's always one side that requests something, and another side

6 that has to offer something. If an OVR faces a difficulty in its work,

7 SVR Skopje should clarify organisational problems; or, in another case, if

8 an OVR is working on a particular case that requires measures and

9 encompasses the territory of another OVR, then this is conveyed to the

10 relevant OVR, which then has to carry out these activities.

11 Q. So, in other words, I believe, finally, in your response, you

12 clarified that if, for example, Mr. Efremov, as head of SVR Skopje, if he

13 conveys an instruction to a relevant OVR, to a particular OVR, then the

14 members of that OVR have to carry out the instructions of Mr. Efremov. Is

15 that right?

16 A. If the relevant OVR, as part of its legal tasks and obligation,

17 requires to undertake measures and activities on a territory of a

18 different OVR, then this instruction is communicated there, where it

19 should be carried out. However, this instruction also is part of the

20 duties and authorisations of the OVR that is requesting this.

21 Q. Are you at all suggesting, in any way, that if the head of an OVR

22 received an instruction from the head of SVR Skopje, the head of the OVR

23 could disregard that instruction? Is that -- are you suggesting that?

24 A. If they're not respecting it, they have to explain why they're not

25 carrying out their tasks.

1 Q. So, in other words, the head of the OVR would have the duty to

2 carry out the instruction of Mr. Efremov, the head of SVR Skopje, or

3 explain why they cannot carry it out. Is that correct?

4 A. This is it correct, because these instructions are based in law

5 and for the purpose of carrying out the tasks of the OVR.

6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: In 18:12 [sic],

7 instead of "that is requesting this," it is "of which it is requested."

8 That is, line 55:18.

9 MR. SAXON:

10 Q. I believe you mentioned, a few minutes ago, that there were some

11 times in 2001 when Mr. Efremov directed you to relay an instruction, for

12 example, to the head of an OVR. In that sense, would it be fair to say

13 that, during 2001, part of your function was to be sort of an extension of

14 Mr. Efremov?

15 A. I don't know whether it's fair to say that. I was superior to

16 organisational units, which I hope I was successful in explaining,

17 specialised or especially equipped for carrying out certain tasks.

18 If an OVR had the need of these units, it would turn to the head

19 of the SVR; and then the head of the SVR could turn to me and ask of me to

20 organise this with the organisational units which were subordinate to me.

21 In such cases, and in this many shall, if this is how you understand an

22 extension, then, yes.

23 Q. And particularly, during that stressful period, during 2001, if

24 the head of an OVR needed to speak with Zoran Efremov but could not reach

25 Zoran Efremov on the telephone, the head of that OVR might call you,

1 right?

2 A. My work was not to -- to be a substitute of Mr. Efremov, but it

3 did happen that certain heads of OVRs would call him and ask for advice

4 related to criminalistic affairs.

5 Q. I understand that, but my question is something different.

6 During those stressful periods during 2001, there were times,

7 weren't there, when, for whatever reason, instead of calling Mr. Efremov

8 to convey some information or to seek assistance, a head of an OVR might

9 have called you, right?

10 A. Yes, one could call.

11 Q. And you had also mentioned, if -- during your direct examination,

12 I believe you mentioned that if members of the Ministry of Interior who

13 are assigned to a particular OVR did not perform their duties in

14 accordance with the law, then their superior, the head of the OVR, would

15 need to raise the issue of their disciplinary responsibility.

16 Is that right?

17 A. I don't know enough about this area, but I could clarify how this

18 happened in practice.

19 If, for example, if one employee at an OVR, for example, oversteps

20 or does not carry out -- oversteps discipline or does not carry out

21 measures, then the head of the OVR is due to document this case and to

22 give it to the head of the sector for internal affairs, Skopje, who then

23 proposes -- issues a proposal for establishing disciplinary

24 responsibility.

25 Q. And, Mr. Stojanovski, suppose the head of the OVR does not perform

1 his duties, or her duties, in accordance with the law or the regulations

2 of the ministry, who would have the duty, then, to address the

3 disciplinary responsibility of the head of the OVR?

4 A. This would be his immediate superior.

5 Q. And, for example, the immediate superior of the head of OVR Cair,

6 in 2001, who would that have been?

7 A. The head of the sector for internal affairs. In 2001 --

8 Q. That would have been Mr. Efremov then, the head of the SVR Skopje.

9 A. In 2001, to avoid any misunderstanding, in 2001, many persons --

10 several persons carried out the duty of head of SVR. If we're talking

11 about the period when Mr. Efremov was appointed or head of this sector,

12 yes.

13 But, once again, there is not linked to a name; rather, it is

14 linked to a job position.

15 Q. Thank you for clarifying that. That makes perfect sense. Thank

16 you for that.

17 So the head of the SVR, then, retains some disciplinary powers

18 over the head of the OVR, right?

19 A. Again, this is not something I've worked on. But I know that

20 there are decisions for establishing disciplinary commissions. I think

21 this was a transferred authorisation of the minister. Since I did not

22 work on matters such as these, I leave room for -- for the possibility

23 that this not -- may not exactly be so.

24 Q. All right. But you've already explained that the head of the SVR

25 would have the responsibility to address the disciplinary issue for the

1 head of an OVR. That means, doesn't it, that the OVRs, as an

2 organisational unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, are not fully

3 independent of the SVRs, are they?

4 A. I believe these are viewpoints, whether control and execution of

5 tasks is mixed, if I understand you correctly.

6 Q. Well, if you in your work today have the ability to initiate

7 disciplinary proposals against one of your -- against a member of your

8 unit or section, that person would not be independent of you, would he?

9 A. The person must implement the law, enforce the law, and carry out

10 work tasks. When we say "independent," this does not mean independent of

11 the law and legal obligations. If one establishes that this is not being

12 respected, then it's another viewpoint now. This is not a matter of

13 independence of work, but an aspect of supervision or something like that.

14 But could I not link what you are saying, in terms of independence and

15 disciplinary responsibility.

16 Q. Well --

17 A. This would mean -- if I'm allowed to interpret in a more free

18 manner, ultimately this means that an order could issued that a person be

19 brought in. OVR will carry out this task independently, and this is where

20 independence comes in. If it does not act upon this order, then we have

21 an altogether different situation.

22 Q. So, if I with paraphrase what you're explaining then, when you use

23 the term "independent" to describe the OVRs during your direct

24 examination, you meant that members of the OVR have a certain independence

25 in terms of their ability to carry out tasks, but you were not suggesting

1 that OVRs were independent and outside the normal chain of command of the

2 Ministry of Internal Affairs.

3 A. They're obligated by the Book of Rules, if this is what you have

4 in mind.

5 Q. Okay.

6 A. And this forms a whole.

7 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I see the time. Shall we break at this

8 time?

9 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Saxon. I was waiting until you reached a

10 logical point.

11 We adjourn now, to resume tomorrow at 9.00, and I won't say

12 anything about the progress of this case, this witness.

13 We resume again at 9.00 tomorrow morning.

14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.36 p.m.,

15 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 12th day of

16 February, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25