1 Friday, 22 February 2008

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning.

7 Judge Van den Wyngaert is not able to sit this morning. We do

8 anticipate she will be sitting again on Monday, and Judge Thelin and I

9 will continue the hearing this morning under the Rule.

10 Could I mention for Mr. Saxon and other counsel, and particularly

11 for the witness, that to ease the time problem today and to try and ensure

12 that we can finish the professor's evidence, we will sit for three full

13 one and a half hour sessions and have a one-hour break at 12.30, resuming

14 at 1.30 through to 3.00.

15 So if it is possible, Mr. Saxon, for you to have that in mind;

16 and, hopefully, it will prove possible for you to finish your

17 cross-examination and Ms. Residovic to conclude her re-examination in that

18 extended time.

19 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Could I remind you, Professor, the affirmation you

21 made at the beginning of your evidence still applies.

22 Now Mr. Saxon.

23 WITNESS: SLAGJANA TASEVA [Resumed]

24 [Witness answered through interpreter]

25 Cross-examination by Mr. Saxon: [Continued]

1 MR. SAXON: Could the Prosecution's first binder be given back to

2 the witness, please, so that she can see her expert report.

3 And if we could turn to the witness's report, which I believe is

4 now 1D00309. I believe the court officer is ahead of me on that.

5 Q. And, Professor, if you could turn to paragraph 55, please, of your

6 report.

7 Paragraph 55, in the first sentence, says that: "With a view to

8 determine what duties and obligations each category of authorised

9 officials has under the Law of Macedonia, it is therefore necessary to

10 read the Law on Internal Affairs together with any particular legal

11 provision that specifies the role and responsibilities of the category of

12 authorised officials that is under consideration."

13 Then, as authority, in footnote 47, you cite to Article 47 of the

14 Law on Organisation and Work of Government Bodies, which is Exhibit P92.

15 MR. SAXON: And if we could turn to Exhibit P92, please, and if we

16 could turn to the next page, please, in each language.

17 Okay. I see I have the wrong document that I -- I believe the

18 document that I need to show - I apologise - is Exhibit P95, which is at

19 tab 53 of the first Prosecution binder.

20 I'm told now that there is no English translation in e-court.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Nor is the document on the screen, the one you're

22 after.

23 MR. SAXON: We're looking for P95.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Do you mean Exhibit 1D310, by any chance,

25 Mr. Saxon? Do you want the report?

1 MR. SAXON: No, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Oh.

3 MR. SAXON: I'm sorry, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE PARKER: My mistake.

5 MR. SAXON: I'm sorry if I'm confusing the parties.

6 JUDGE PARKER: You don't want the number I gave you then.

7 MR. SAXON: No. P95, which should be at tab 53 of your binder.

8 Q. If you could turn to that, Ms. Taseva.

9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.

11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. I wouldn't like to

12 add to the confusion. But for -- to make it clear for us, so that we can

13 follow, the Prosecutor says, in line 2:13, the conclusion of the witness,

14 footnote 47, which reads -- which quotes to Article 47 of the Law on

15 Organisation. We see here that, in footnote 47, the transcript is cited

16 to only. So maybe our learned colleague could clarify this a bit for us.

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 MR. SAXON: I stand corrected. I'm grateful to Ms. Residovic for

19 correcting me. She is absolutely right that the authority cited by

20 Professor Taseva is a portion of the transcript. That's absolutely right.

21 Thank you for that. I apologise for the confusion.

22 Having said that, now I would look at what is Exhibit P53. It's a

23 decree on the use of means of coercion and fire-arms.

24 Q. And if you could turn, please, to Article 7, Professor Taseva.

25 Do you have Article 7 in front of you?

1 MR. SAXON: I apologise, if I misspoke again. I'm referring to

2 P95. It's at tab 53, the first binder.

3 Q. Do you have Article 7 in front of you?

4 A. Considering the fact that I noticed many problems with the

5 translation of documents yesterday, I would kindly ask that I receive

6 simultaneously also the version in Macedonian language, so that I'm able

7 to answer your questions correctly.

8 Q. You should have a copy in the Macedonian language there,

9 underneath that green sheet in front of you, Professor. You can also

10 see --

11 A. Thank you.

12 Q. -- it on the screen. So you've got it twice. All right?

13 A. Thank you.

14 Q. Okay. Article 7, this particular document, the decree on the use

15 of means of coercion and fire-arms, describes how use of force, including

16 the use of fire-arms, can be used by authorised persons in the Ministry of

17 Internal Affairs. And Article 7 tells us that authorised persons of the

18 ministry acquire advanced training on the use of the means of coercion and

19 fire-arms in the manner prescribed by special provisions.

20 Do you see that?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And Article 9 -- excuse me, Article 8, an authorised person will

23 use means of coercion against members of the army of the Republic of

24 Macedonia in uniform only -- in uniform, only if there is no possibility

25 to provide intervention of the police of the army of the Republic of

1 Macedonia.

2 Do you see that?

3 A. Yes, I see it.

4 Q. Now, these Articles - Article 7, Article 8 - they don't refer to

5 specific categories of authorised officials, do they?

6 A. These provisions do not refer to a specific category or specific

7 categories of authorised officials, that's right. These are general

8 provisions.

9 Q. Right. These Articles refer to authorised officials in general

10 terms, right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. So, when authorised officials are referred to in the laws and

13 regulations of the Ministry of Interior, they are not always precisely

14 defined by particular categories. Sometimes we see the term "authorised

15 officials" simply used in a broad, general term, right?

16 A. In the acts of the Ministry of Interior, the categories of

17 authorised officials are precisely established, and the authorisations

18 that each of the authorised officials have and can use are precisely

19 established in the act on systemization and organisation of the job posts

20 within the Ministry of Interior.

21 Q. But, for example, with respect to the use of force, these two

22 Articles would suggest that any authorised person can receive training in

23 the use of fire-arms, and they would seem to suggest that any authorised

24 persons may use force against members of -- against uniformed members of

25 the army only in a particular situation, right?

1 A. This provision, which we are reviewing now, was passed by the

2 president of the Republic of Macedonia, Mr. Branko Crvenkovski, and it is

3 not a regulation or a document that was passed within the Ministry of

4 Interior.

5 Q. Right. But you didn't answer my question. Can you answer my

6 question, please.

7 A. This decree that is passed by the president is a general document,

8 which just indicates the authorised officials without further specifying

9 who among the authorised officials have what type of authorisations and

10 can use what type of authorisations. That is further defined in the acts

11 of the Ministry of Interior, depending on the job posts and the duties

12 entailed in those.

13 Q. Okay.

14 MR. SAXON: Could we turn, please, to Article 17 of this decree on

15 the use of force. You will see that, just above Article 17, it's a new

16 chapter, Chapter 3, Use of Other Means of Coercion.

17 Article 17 says: "During carrying out of duties and tasks, the

18 authorised persons may use chemical and gas substances," tear gas, "for

19 restoring law and order after violation of larger scale (violent

20 demonstrations, mass fights), removing persons from facilities, means of

21 transportation or other areas by force."

22 Do you see that?

23 A. Yes, I see it.

24 Q. What does the term "other areas" mean?

25 A. Other premises could be any other public location.

1 Q. Could be any other public location. All right. Could it include

2 a shopping mall, for instance?

3 A. This could be under facilities.

4 Q. And a shopping mall is a facility?

5 A. Facilities or "objekti" in the Macedonian meaning of this word

6 would mean any building. This is a general or generic term about any

7 building without specifying its nature.

8 Q. I see. All right. Well, this term "other areas," could it

9 include a football field?

10 A. Yes. It can also comprise a football field.

11 Q. How do you know that?

12 A. Since another area is everything that an area denotes, a public

13 lotion.

14 Q. Well, where is that located in the law?

15 A. I believe that the law, or the decree actually, has left here room

16 without restrictions, since public law and order could be disrupted to a

17 larger extent also in a park. It could be disrupted at a football field.

18 It could be disrupted also at a horse race grounds and anything else that

19 is public space.

20 Q. How about a children's playground?

21 A. Yes, that as well.

22 Q. You think they might be using tear gas in a children's playground?

23 A. If there is a need, the measures foreseen will be used whenever it

24 is needed, according to the assessment made.

25 Q. All right. Well, I think what you're telling me and what you've

1 told us is that laws sometimes, a law like this one, leaves some room for

2 interpretation and flexibility, doesn't it?

3 A. The decrees, the acts of this type, have left sufficient room to

4 make the assessment in accordance with the situation on the ground.

5 Q. And the same would be true, wouldn't it, for laws that apply to

6 the Ministry of Internal Affairs, like the Law on Internal Affairs,

7 wouldn't it? They leave room for assessment, depending on what's going

8 on, on the ground?

9 A. You couldn't say so. You couldn't use a general.

10 Q. Really? Why not?

11 A. Since there are numerous by-laws that are derived in a way from

12 the Law on Internal Affairs which regulate the competencies and the way in

13 which those competencies are implemented in detail. And the application

14 of special authorisations is regulated by other by-laws of the Ministry of

15 Interior.

16 Q. And the reasons those by-laws are necessary, isn't it, Professor,

17 it's because there's a lot of room for assessment and interpretation in

18 the Law on Internal Affairs, right?

19 A. In our legal system, whenever a law is adopted, by-laws are

20 necessary for the law to become applicable and implementable. Just for

21 the sake of illustration, I will mention that for the Law on Police to

22 become enforceable, that law was passed last year, the Ministry of

23 Interior is presently developing more than 200 by-laws.

24 Q. So I can take your response, then, to my question as a "yes,"

25 right?

1 A. No. Since my explanation was my attempt to explain the legal

2 system which operates in the way, that all details related to application

3 of certain legal provisions are regulate the through by-laws.

4 Q. And that's --

5 A. And this does not leave room for the laws to be interpreted

6 broadly.

7 Q. Well, if the law is so clearly written -- let's refer to the Law

8 on Internal Affairs. If that law is so clearly and precisely written,

9 then why is it necessary to have by-laws?

10 A. Since it is necessary to establish the specific way of conduct

11 when applying each of the action or measure or authorisation that is

12 incorporated in the law itself. Since the law does not specify in detail

13 the way in which it will be applied.

14 Q. Precisely. And it's the minister of internal affairs who approves

15 the by-laws. Isn't that right?

16 A. If, pursuant to the law, and not only pursuant to the Law on

17 Interior but also other legislation --

18 Q. I think this is a yes-or-no question. Now we need to move along

19 today. We're trying to move along fairly quickly so that you can go own

20 to your other affairs.

21 It's the minister of internal affairs who approves the by-laws

22 that are passed, right?

23 A. At this moment, we see a decree passed by the president. This is

24 why I stated, not always such instruments are passed by the minister of

25 the interior. Whenever authorised by the law, the minister of the

1 interior does that.

2 Q. Okay. So frequently, the minister of the interior approves the

3 by-laws for the Ministry of Internal Affairs, right?

4 A. Where he is authorised for that by-law, yes.

5 Q. Okay. Professor Taseva, before you left the Ministry of Internal

6 Affairs in 2000, did you meet a colleague named Valentina Naumova who

7 worked in the department for legal and personnel matters?

8 A. I don't remember. Maybe.

9 Q. Well, a person who works in the department for legal and personnel

10 matters is not considered to be an operative worker, is she?

11 A. I couldn't give you an answer to this question, whether she should

12 not be considered an operative worker, no.

13 Q. So your answer is -- so the answer to my question is "yes," I

14 believe?

15 A. Yes.

16 MR. SAXON: Can we show what the witness what is Exhibit 1D113,

17 and this is not in your binders. We have this only in e-court at this

18 time.

19 Q. We see, Professor, this is a resolution dated 18th June 2001, the

20 Ministry of Interior, to form a commission to investigate the validity of

21 the reports by ethnic Albanian nationals in the Republic of Macedonia that

22 members of the Ministry of Interior violated their authority.

23 Then we see, in Roman numeral I, that a commission is to be formed

24 to investigates the validity of these reports composed of the following

25 members, and you see that the fourth member is Valentina Naumova, senior

1 advisor for legal property matters and representation in the sector for

2 legal and personnel matters. Do you see that?

3 A. Yes, I see it.

4 Q. Then, in Roman numeral II, we see that the commission is assigned

5 the task of determining the validity of the allegations contained in the

6 reports, both individual and group, which were submitted to the Ministry

7 of Interior by ethnic Albanian citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, as

8 well as by non-governmental organisations, claiming that certain members

9 of the ministry violated their authority during the completion of their

10 work.

11 Have you been following with me?

12 A. Yes, yes.

13 Q. Professor, the work of this commission to investigate whether

14 these allegations are valid, that would involve some operative work,

15 wouldn't it?

16 A. No. The work of this committee is not operative work.

17 Q. Well, how else will the commission do its investigation?

18 A. Could I have displayed on the screen the first part of this

19 document in Macedonian language, please.

20 MR. SAXON: Can we go to the top of the page, or the page before.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the Macedonian text, it reads,

22 "Examine," which is very different from investigation. So this committee

23 does not have a role to play in operative investigations or any other

24 investigations that would be considered actions within the preliminary

25 procedure. This is purely administrative procedure.

1 MR. SAXON:

2 Q. Take a like, though, at Roman numeral II, which says that the

3 commission is assigned the task of determining the validity of the

4 allegations contained in the reports.

5 Now, to make that determination, Professor, don't people have to

6 do some investigative work?

7 A. No. As I said, this is a completely administrative procedure. We

8 have here petitions lodged by citizens, and this committee has the task to

9 assess whether there is any ground to forward this for further processing.

10 If you allow me, as an illustration, I will indicate that such

11 type of procedures are run all the time in the state anti-corruption

12 committee which does not have investigating powers; and, also, many such

13 petitions are filed with the non-governmental sector which does these same

14 things, although it does not have authority to run any investigations.

15 Q. Doesn't this committee, or this commission, to do its job, need to

16 gather whatever evidence might exist regarding allegations of criminal

17 activity?

18 A. They have to look into what is at hand. If they can obtain any

19 other additional information, so as to propose further procedures and

20 undertaking further procedures, this committee comprising of persons from

21 a number of sectors will have to validly assess whether further procedures

22 are to be undertaken in this regard.

23 Q. Professor Taseva, pursuant to the code of criminal procedure, and

24 I think it's Articles 140 and 142, and I'm sure other Articles as well,

25 police officers, operative members of the Ministry of Interior who are

1 informed that a crime might have been committed or see a crime, an

2 ex officio crime, they're supposed to try to gather some more information,

3 aren't they, to see if there's -- to see if there's any grounds, to see if

4 there's reasonable suspicion that a crime occurred, right?

5 A. Yes. This is a competency of the Ministry of Interior, but this

6 committee is not a body which has such a competency.

7 Q. Well, the problem, Professor, that I see or the inconsistencies

8 you told us, about a minute ago, lines 9 to 10, page 12, that this

9 committee has the task to assess whether there is any ground to forward

10 this for further processing.

11 What's the difference between that task and the task of a police

12 officer?

13 A. Here we have petitions by civilians who and which pertain to the

14 work of members of the Ministry of Interior. These petitions can be of

15 various nature. They can pertain to unseeming behaviour of a police

16 officer. This need not be any other kind of incident.

17 Perhaps the citizen is not pleased with the way the police officer

18 addressed him. Perhaps he is not pleased with how this police officer is

19 carrying out other parts of his work. We can't immediately say that there

20 is an event which has to be observed from the point of view of a criminal

21 procedural law.

22 Q. I understand that professor, but you didn't really answer my

23 question.

24 You told us before that the people in this commission have to

25 assess the information to see whether there is any ground to forward this

1 information on for further processing. Well, what's the difference

2 between that work and the work of a police officer who also has to

3 determine whether there are reasonable grounds that a crime has occurred

4 and then submits a report to the public prosecutor?

5 What's the difference?

6 A. This is a preliminary phase within the ministry. As I said, this

7 is about members of the ministry, and there's the possibility of any kind

8 of petitions. Perhaps someone will file a petition, and there have been

9 such petitions, that they've lended 10.000 dinars to a police officer,

10 which this police officer has not returned.

11 In cases such as these, first, it has to be clarified what is at

12 hand in order to see what needs to be taken further. This does not mean

13 that it will not be necessary to proceed further. But, first, it needs to

14 be clarified how and what needs to be undertaken.

15 MR. SAXON: And if we can turn back to the first page in the

16 Macedonian version, please.

17 Q. Professor, Valentina Naumova, at the time this commission was set

18 up, she was an advisor for legal property matters within the sector for

19 legal and personnel matters. Evaluating these kinds of petitions, that

20 wasn't within the remit of her job duties, was it?

21 A. Evaluating these kinds of petitions falls within the remit of the

22 sector of legal and personnel affairs because there may be various types

23 of questions that are considered and require broader knowledge of family

24 law, commercial law; for example, there's a petition where a wife

25 complains of the husband not paying alimony.

1 Does the persons who are in these sectors can help fully elucidate

2 cases such as these, and this is the reason why commissions of this kind

3 are established.

4 Q. All right. I'd lake to move on to another topic, please.

5 I'd like to talk to you about the duties and obligations of the

6 minister of internal affairs, himself, or, in the case of the present,

7 herself.

8 MR. SAXON: Can we please turn to Exhibit P92, please, which will

9 be available in e-court. This is the Law on the Organisation and Work of

10 Government Bodies. If we could move to Article 49, please.

11 Q. And in Article 49 of this -- of this law, in the first paragraph,

12 we see: "The minister represents the ministry, and he organises and

13 secures the lawful and efficient completion of work and tasks ..."

14 Do you see that?

15 A. Yes, I see it.

16 Q. And there are a number of other -- well, there are several other

17 responsibilities listed there.

18 MR. SAXON: Can we turn to the next page, please.

19 Q. And there's a subchapter 5 called Acts of Government Bodies, and

20 Article 55 talks about the minister, where the minister "submits rules,

21 orders, guidelines, plans, programmes, decisions, and other types of acts

22 for the execution of laws and other regulations, when he is authorised to

23 do so by law."

24 Do you see that?

25 A. Yes.

1 MR. SAXON: Then in Article 56, if we could go one more page in

2 the Macedonian version, please.

3 Q. In subparagraph (2) of Article 56, we see that it says: "Orders,

4 instruct or prohibit proceedings in a specific situation which has

5 significance for the execution of the laws and regulations."

6 Do you see that?

7 A. Yes. Yes, I see it.

8 Q. And that subparagraph 2, that's within the remit of the minister's

9 authority, right?

10 A. Yes. This Article, paragraph (1) establishes also that the rules

11 determined further the laws and other acts in order for them to be

12 rendered operational. This is what we spoke about previously.

13 Q. All right. And, Professor, that's quite a bit of authority, isn't

14 it, what is laid out there in Article 56, subparagraph (2)?

15 A. Our legislators felt that the ministers in the government of the

16 Republic of Macedonia should have these authorisations which the

17 legislature has awarded to them; therefore, these pertain to all ministers

18 in the government of the Republic of Macedonia.

19 Q. All right.

20 MR. SAXON: Can we turn now, please, to what is Exhibit P00551.

21 Q. And by the way, can I take your last response to my question as a

22 "yes."

23 A. Yes. The ministers have these legal authorisations.

24 Q. Now, Article 51 -- excuse me, Exhibit P551, again, is the Law on

25 the Government of the Republic of Macedonia. This is from July 2000.

1 MR. SAXON: Can we turn to what is Article 13, please.

2 Q. You see, Professor, Article 13 of this law says that: "A minister

3 manages independently the ministry to which he/she is elected, monitors

4 and is responsible for the implementation of the laws and other

5 regulations."

6 Do you see that?

7 A. Yes, I see it.

8 Q. So, for example, with respect to the Ministry of Internal Affairs,

9 this particular legal provision provides for a great deal of

10 responsibility and a great deal of authority for the minister, right?

11 A. This is correct. The authorities are also established in other

12 laws.

13 Q. All right. And so, for example, there's no provision here that

14 says, for example, the president manages ministries, because that would

15 not fall within the work of the president. Is that right?

16 A. This is a Law on Government and does not pertain to the president.

17 Q. That's right. And there's no law that says a president can manage

18 a ministry, is there?

19 A. There is no such law.

20 Q. Okay.

21 MR. SAXON: Can we turn, please, to what is Exhibit P00086, which

22 will again appear on e-court. It should be the Law on Internal Affairs.

23 It is. And if we could turn to Article 10, please, and if we could scroll

24 down a little bit in the English version.

25 Could we go to Article 10, please, in the Macedonian version.

1 Q. You'll see, Professor, that Article 10 contains two paragraphs.

2 The first paragraph says: "The policemen could accomplish the activities

3 mentioned in Article 8 of this law in civilian clothes, as well as if the

4 immediate supervisor or the employee authorised by him is ordering this."

5 But it's the second paragraph that I'm more interested in. It

6 says this: "When the public peace and order are deranged in a larger

7 scale, the minister can order also other authorised officials from

8 Article 24, paragraph 2, of this law, to conduct certain activities in

9 uniform."

10 Have you been following with me?

11 A. Yes, I'm following you.

12 Q. Can we agree that this provision in the Law on Internal Affairs

13 also provides some broad powers to the minister, doesn't it?

14 A. The minister here is not mentioned anywhere.

15 Q. Well, maybe there is a problem with the translation. Please

16 correct me. As I read the second paragraph, it says: "When the public

17 peace and order are deranged in a larger scale, the minister can order

18 also other authorised officials from Article 24, paragraph 2, of this law,

19 to conduct certain activities in uniform."

20 A. Yes, the translation is right.

21 Can we look at Article 24, please?

22 Q. Certainly.

23 MR. SAXON: Let's go to Article 24, if we can.

24 Q. And we see that Article 24 defines who authorised officials are:

25 Police and operative employees, and that's a lot of employees as we

1 discussed yesterday; employees who accomplish activities that are in

2 direct connection to police and operative activities; and the minister,

3 his deputy, and supervisors of certain organisational units.

4 Anyway, going back to my question related to Article 10, that

5 second part of Article 10 grants the minister some broad powers, doesn't

6 it?

7 A. These are powers of the minister to order or to ask other

8 authorised officials to act in uniform but under conditions which are

9 specified in Article 8; only under those conditions.

10 MR. SAXON: Can we turn back to Article 10, please.

11 Q. There's no reference in Article 10 to Article 8.

12 Article 10 says: "The minister can order other authorised

13 officials to conduct certain activities in uniform when the public peace

14 and order are deranged."

15 Do you see that?

16 A. Paragraph 1 of Article 10 points to Article 8.

17 Q. Okay.

18 MR. SAXON: Can we go up and see Article 8, please, in the English

19 version.

20 Q. And we see, yes: "Activities in the direct maintaining of the

21 public peace and order, the regulation and control of the traffic on

22 roads, control of crossings over the border, security on the lakes are

23 carried out by the police," right, "and they should be uniformed."

24 That's what Article 8 says?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Now, how does Article 8 in any way limit the powers given to the

2 minister in the second half of Article 10?

3 A. By saying that this can happen only in cases of maintaining public

4 law and order, regulating traffic and roads, control of state borders, and

5 security of lakes. Only what is listed in Article 8.

6 Q. The problem with that interpretation, Professor, is that the

7 second part of Article 10 clearly says: "When the public peace and order

8 are deranged on a large scale, the minister can order that certain

9 activities be carried out by authorised officials." Right?

10 A. Yes, in the case when the public peace and order is under threat

11 of a broader scale. Here it is even more narrowly stated as public peace

12 and order.

13 Q. Professor, can we agree that during the crisis time in 2001 the

14 public peace and order in Macedonia was deranged on a large scale?

15 Can we agree on that?

16 A. No, because this was not a disruption of the public peace and

17 order. It would be well perhaps to look at the definitions of peace and

18 order, public peace and order.

19 Q. I think I'm just going to move on after that, Professor.

20 MR. SAXON: Can we please show the witness what is Exhibit 1D107,

21 which should be the rule book of operations for the Ministry of Internal

22 Affairs.

23 And if we can turn, please, to Article 25 which will be on the

24 20th page in e-court in English and the 18th page in Macedonian on

25 e-court.

1 Q. Professor, Article 25 of this rule book says that: "In relation

2 to reviewing specific matters, preparations of draft regulations, giving

3 opinions and proposals for specific matters, as well as conducting

4 specific duties within the competencies of the ministry, permanent or

5 temporary professional commissions and working groups can be formed."

6 Do you see that?

7 A. Yes, I see it. In the Macedonian text, it states: "To

8 [Macedonian spoken] "proucuvanje," which should be translated more as

9 "studying."

10 Q. Okay. Thank you for that.

11 Who in the ministry has the authority to establish these

12 commissions?

13 A. Commissions of this type in the ministry can be set up by all

14 those who head various organisational units in the ministry.

15 Q. So we've got persons who head organisational units in the

16 ministry; and in this case, we've seen a number of decisions where the

17 minister, himself, established commissions to look into different matters.

18 So would it be fair to say that the minister has also the

19 authority to set up commissions?

20 A. In cases where the law has authorised him to do so, yes.

21 Q. Well, are there particular provisions and particular laws that

22 authorise a minister of the interior to set up a particular kind of

23 commission?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And which law or laws are those?

1 A. For example, he establishes the members of disciplinary

2 commissions. For example, he determines the membership of the commissions

3 who provide licences to companies which carry out driving exams.

4 Q. Is there a specific law or legal provision that says the minister

5 has the authority to set up a commission to examine the conduct of the

6 members of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in a particular village at a

7 particular time?

8 A. In accordance with the Law on Government, the government [as

9 interpreted] can set up such a commission.

10 Q. No, sorry, that wasn't my question. I'll repeat --

11 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The minister.

12 MR. SAXON: It was my -- I stand corrected.

13 Q. Well, where in the rule book does it say that the minister has the

14 right or the prerogative to establish commissions? It doesn't say that in

15 Article 25, does it?

16 A. Article 25 is a general provision, which enables commissions to be

17 set up whenever that is necessary.

18 Q. Professor Taseva, isn't this rule book lex specialis to the

19 broader laws of the government of Macedonia, including the Law on Internal

20 Affairs?

21 A. This rule book enables commissions to be set up at all times when

22 a certain effort has to be done which is a task.

23 Q. I'm going to interrupt you. I'm very sorry. I want you to answer

24 the question that I just asked you, a very simple straightforward

25 question. I'll ask it again.

1 Isn't this rule book lex specialis to the law on government, the

2 laws of the government of Macedonia, including the Law on Internal

3 Affairs?

4 A. This rule book is not a lex specialis. It just regulates the

5 manner of carrying out concern powers of the Ministry of Interior.

6 Q. Based on -- and those powers given to the Ministry of Interior are

7 paws provided by the general laws and the constitution of the Republic of

8 Macedonia. Isn't that right?

9 A. Yes. There are also other by-laws in addition to this rule book.

10 This is why it can be considered as an only one.

11 Q. So this rule book, then, would be lex specialis to the Law on

12 Internal Affairs, the constitution, and other laws of the Republic of

13 Macedonia that describe the powers of persons who work for the Ministry of

14 Internal Affairs, right?

15 A. It explains in more concrete terms the manner in which matters and

16 work related to internal affairs should be carried out. And it does not

17 go to the full end it because there are also other acts which further

18 explain provisions within this rule book.

19 Q. Can I take your last response, then, as a "yes" to my question?

20 A. Yes. It explains part of the competencies, not all of them.

21 Q. All right.

22 A. So there are issues that are explained in other by-laws.

23 Q. Very well. I'm glad we've gotten there now.

24 So if this rule book is lexis specialis, then Article 25 should

25 refer to specific persons in the Ministry of Internal Affairs who have the

1 authority to set up commissions. Isn't that right?

2 A. No, it is not like that, since this is a broad provision that

3 leaves room to establish various types of committees within various bodies

4 on various levels.

5 Q. Tell me, Professor, where in the laws of Republic of Macedonia or

6 the Law on Internal Affairs does it say that the minister of internal

7 affairs can set up a commission to investigate the conduct of members of

8 the ministry in a particular village? Where is that expressly stated in

9 the law?

10 A. There is not stated expressly in the law. The law only states

11 that commissions could be established of various types, depending on the

12 needs.

13 Q. And over the years, different ministers of the interior have

14 assumed the authority, haven't they, for establishing such commissions,

15 right? They have assumed that authority for themselves, haven't they?

16 A. No, since such committees were established many times also by

17 other heads at various levels within the ministry.

18 Q. But if there's no specific law that says a minister can set up

19 this kind of commission, or these kinds of commissions, then this kind of

20 authority is something that, over time, ministers have taken for

21 themselves, in addition to the fact that other heads of other parts of the

22 ministry could also set up these commissions. Right?

23 A. No. That's not right, since the heads of bodies can also

24 establish commissions, such as, for instance, the commission established

25 in cooperation with the local self-government and the schools. To

1 overcome the problem with the juvenile crime or use of drugs, such

2 commissions can be established by individuals who are working at the local

3 level.

4 So depending on the need, the commission is established.

5 Q. I'm going to move on now, Professor.

6 MR. SAXON: Can we turn, please, to, in the English translation,

7 the next page, and if we could focus on Article 26. It's on the same page

8 in the Macedonian version. And I think there is a small probably

9 typographical error in the first line of Article 26.

10 Q. If you could focus on this with me, Professor Taseva, Article 26,

11 the first line says: "A collegium exists within the ministry acting as an

12 advisory body for the minister."

13 Is that what it says in the Macedonian original as well?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Okay. So, if I understand correctly, the members of the collegium

16 give advice to the minister on different issues, and then the minister

17 makes decisions, based on the advice that he receives.

18 Is that how it works?

19 A. Yes. This is what is written here. I said that I have never been

20 a member of the collegium, so I can't speak from my own experience.

21 Q. But, as an expert, that is your understanding how this works, how

22 the system works?

23 A. I said yes, this is what is written here.

24 Q. And, Professor, the members of the collegium would be the, to use

25 your term, the professional members of the Ministry of Internal Affairs

1 that you mentioned in your direct examination, right?

2 A. I apologise. I did not follow you because I was reading again the

3 Article 26 to see about those issues.

4 Q. Professor Taseva, during your direct examination, you -- you made

5 a distinction between the minister as someone with a political function

6 and his close colleagues in the ministry, the directors for example, you

7 described them as professionals.

8 My question is simply this: The members of the collegium, apart

9 from the minister, would be the professional members of the Ministry of

10 Internal Affairs that you mentioned previously, right?

11 A. Apart from the deputy minister.

12 Q. All right. You see, during your direct examination, you told my

13 colleague, Ms. Residovic, or you agreed with a proposition put to you by

14 Ms. Residovic, that it is the professionals in the Ministry of Internal

15 Affairs who have the last word in the work of the ministry.

16 I don't understand, Professor, how both things could be correct,

17 because you've told us today that the members of the collegium, which

18 include these what you call the professionals, they give advice to the

19 minister, and the minister makes decisions based on that advice.

20 So why did you tell my colleague previously that it's the

21 professionals who have the last word?

22 A. The decisions that the minister brings are political decisions.

23 The decisions that pertain to the performance of duty of the Ministry of

24 Interior are something that is carried out by professionals exclusively,

25 and the decisions are made by the professionals.

1 Q. Isn't your testimony, Professor Taseva -- let's think back to 2001

2 now. That was a difficult time. Ljube Boskoski was the minister of

3 internal affairs. People were being killed. People were displaced from

4 their homes.

5 Is it your testimony that Minister Boskoski would not have made a

6 single decision related to the performance of the duty or the work of

7 members of the Ministry of Internal Affairs? Is that your evidence? I

8 just want to understand you.

9 A. The decisions are brought at the level of collegium, and the

10 minister discusses all the decisions with the collegium.

11 Q. And the minister then, if there is the -- the minister is going to

12 make the decision, isn't he, on an important issue. That's why they have

13 collegiums, to discuss them, so the minister can be informed. Right?

14 A. Yes, so that the minister is informed.

15 Q. So, as you said, the decisions are brought at the level of

16 collegium, the minister discusses them with the collegium, and then the

17 minister will make a final decision. Isn't that right?

18 A. When authorised by the law to pass a decision, the minister will

19 pass a decision. That decision could be also to request information that

20 they will send to the government. So --

21 Q. For example -- I'm sorry. I interrupted you.

22 Well, for example, we looked at Article 10 of the Law on Internal

23 Affairs a few minutes ago, which was -- that was P86, Exhibit P86.

24 A second part of Article 10 gives the minister powers to order

25 authorised officials to perform "certain activities at a time when the

1 public peace and order is deranged."

2 So, for example, back in 2001, would it be possible that the

3 minister might have made some decisions to use his powers to instruct

4 certain authorised officials to conduct certain activities?

5 Isn't that possible?

6 A. The decisions were brought at the level of Ministry of Interior.

7 I could not give you offhand assessments or speculate on how were the

8 decisions made and who brought those decisions.

9 Q. Professor, you've come here to testify as an expert on how the

10 Ministry of Internal Affairs functioned in 2001.

11 Are you saying you're not -- you're not able to tell us or you're

12 not able to answer my question as to what the minister might have done

13 back in 2001, pursuant to Article 10?

14 A. I couldn't, because I'm not a direct participant in those events

15 you are looking for a direct answer.

16 Q. Professor, your report talks about, for example, joint operations.

17 You told us earlier you never participated in a joint operation, but

18 you've given us a piece of your expert about that, well footnoted. Your

19 report talks about the mobilisation of reservists, even the demobilisation

20 of reservists. I don't think you have ever been a police reserve; I could

21 be wrong.

22 Your report talks about criminal investigations; although, I stand

23 corrected, you have participate in the criminal investigations.

24 Your report talks about the interpretation of the amnesty law. I

25 could be wrong, but I don't know whether you have been directly involved

1 in matters related to prosecution or not related to the Law on Amnesty.

2 Why are you telling us now that you can't give an opinion on

3 something because you were not directly present or involved?

4 A. The questions that you -- or issues that you indicated now and

5 which I speak about in my report are something that I had the opportunity

6 to study and analyse when preparing my report; analysing laws, by-laws but

7 also document atlas that pertain to those specific issues that I advanced

8 my opinion.

9 With regard to some of the issues and most part of the them, I

10 also speak from my own personal experience. This specific question, the

11 work of the minister's collegium, is something that I haven't studied and

12 I can't give you a more specific answer on that.

13 Q. You did look at the rule book for operations of the Ministry of

14 Internal Affairs as part of the preparation of your report, didn't you?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And, in your report, you have an entire chapter, Chapter 5,

17 called: The role and of the minister in the Ministry of Interior,

18 paragraphs 56 to 69, right?

19 A. That's right.

20 Q. So why are you telling us now that you just can't say anything

21 about the collegium, given the fact that it's even discussed in the

22 materials that you reviewed for your report?

23 A. Working on my report and studying the documents that I reviewed

24 when preparing my report, I was not looking for specific references to the

25 way in which the minister's collegium operates, and I did not review that

1 issue specifically.

2 Q. All right. Would you agree, though, that the manner in which the

3 minister's collegium operates would be relevant to the issue of how the

4 Ministry of Internal Affairs operates. Is that fair?

5 A. Probably, yes. Yes.

6 Q. And would you agree that the manner in which the minister's

7 collegium operates would be relevant to the exercise of the powers and

8 authorities of the minister. Is that fair?

9 A. I believe that this would need to be placed in correlation with

10 the work of other substitutions such as the government when we're speaking

11 specifically about the competencies of the minister.

12 Q. All right. I'm going to move on briefly to another topic.

13 Can you turn to paragraph 60, please, of your report. This is in

14 the subchapter entitled, Delegated nature of responsibilities of the

15 minister.

16 Professor Taseva, paragraph 60 reads like this: "The law not only

17 gives powers to the minister to do certain things. It also restricts his

18 powers. In other words, the law authorises him to do certain things, and

19 he is only allowed to undertake tasks and duties which the law authorises

20 him to undertake."

21 Have you been following me?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. You don't cite any authority for the points that you make in that

24 paragraph. Can you just tell me, briefly, on what did you rely to make

25 these conclusions?

1 A. All laws mentioned at the beginning of this report and other laws

2 that were not mentioned but which I'm aware of.

3 Q. Then why on such an important point in your report, Professor,

4 didn't you mention, didn't you cite to any of these laws in the report,

5 paragraph 60?

6 A. Since this is a general conclusion, and the specific provisions

7 are found elsewhere in the report and in other references contained in the

8 report.

9 Q. Well, I see. Can you just tell us, please, point me, please, to

10 the specific legal provisions that support what you say in paragraph 60,

11 particularly the last sentence of paragraph 60.

12 A. These are provisions also in the Law on Internal Affairs.

13 Q. Which provisions?

14 A. I couldn't say from the top of my head. I need to see the law and

15 I will indicate which ones they are.

16 MR. SAXON: I see the time, Your Honour. Shall we take the first

17 break now?

18 JUDGE PARKER: If that's convenient, Mr. Saxon.

19 We will resume at 11.00.

20 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

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

22 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.

23 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour.

24 Q. Professor Taseva, before the break, we were talking about

25 paragraph 60 in your report, and, in particular, the last sentence which

1 says: "In other words, the law authorises him," the minister, "to do

2 certain things and he is only allowed to undertake tasks and duties which

3 the law authorises him to undertake."

4 You told us that authority for this proposition would be found in

5 the Law on Internal Affairs.

6 MR. SAXON: So if we can show the witness now what is Exhibit P86,

7 please.

8 Q. And if you could direct us, please, Professor, to the provisions

9 of this law that support what you say in paragraph 60.

10 A. What I presented in item 60 of my report is a general observation

11 about the legal positioning of the position minister. I said this at the

12 end of the previous session, that what the law provides for the minister

13 is also incorporated in the Law on Internal Affairs; that is to say, it is

14 not only this law as we were able to see previously the Law on

15 Organisation of the Government and the Law on Organisation of State as

16 administration, including also the Law on Internal Affairs as well as

17 other laws provide powers to the minister as to -- as to what he can do.

18 Q. Professor Taseva, I'm going to stop you there, please.

19 Before the break, I asked you this question: "Can you just tell

20 us, please, point me, please, to the specific legal provisions that

21 support what you say in paragraph 60, particularly the last sentence of

22 paragraph 60."

23 You answered: "These are provisions also in the Law on Internal

24 Affairs."

25 I asked you: "Which provisions?"

1 You said: "I couldn't say from the top of my head. I need to see

2 the law and I will indicate which ones they are."

3 So can you point, please, to a single provision in the Law on

4 Internal Affairs that supports what you say in the last sentence to

5 paragraph 60 of your report.

6 A. If this is essential, I would ask that I receive a hard copy of

7 the text.

8 Q. Professor, very well.

9 MR. SAXON: Could the usher please provide the witness with my

10 binder.

11 Q. Here we have a hard copy of the text in English and Macedonian.

12 A. Just one such example is Article 11 of the Law on Internal

13 Affairs.

14 MR. SAXON: Can we turn in e-court to Article 11, please.

15 Q. Professor, how does Article 11 stand for the proposition that you

16 make in paragraph 60 or support the proposition that you make in

17 paragraph 60: "In other words, the law authorises him to do certain

18 things and he is only allowed to undertake tasks and duties which the law

19 authorises him to undertake."

20 How does Article 11 support that proposition?

21 A. Article 11 provides specifically a power to the minister. The law

22 authorises the minister to undertake certain activities.

23 Q. Is that your response?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. How does Article 11 support the proposition that: "He is only

1 allowed to undertake tasks and duties which the law authorises him to

2 undertake"? How does Article 11 support that proposition?

3 A. This sentence from my report is supported in many other laws, has

4 its support in many other laws, in all laws that establish --

5 Q. I'm going to stop you there. Sorry to interrupt.

6 I would like you to answer the question that I asked you: How

7 does Article 11 support the proposition that the minister is only allowed

8 to undertake tasks and duties which the law authorises him to undertake?

9 A. The minister has the authority to undertake that which is provided

10 by law as his competency, and these are the competencies of the minister

11 and this is what he is allowed to do.

12 Q. How does Article 11 in any way support the proposition that the

13 minister is only allowed to undertake tasks and duties which the law

14 authorises him to undertake?

15 A. My observation and position in this report is the result of the

16 review and analysis of everything that pertains to the competency of a

17 minister, including, and specifically in this case, the minister of the

18 interior. What is given to him as authority by the law is that which the

19 minister can undertake.

20 Q. And that is your interpretation of the law, isn't it? That's how

21 your reading all these laws, isn't it?

22 A. Yes. This is my interpretation of the law.

23 Q. Professor, doesn't the rather narrow interpretation of the powers

24 available to the minister of the interior, which you express in paragraph

25 60 of your report, conflict with the principle of interpretation used to

1 describe the president's powers over joint operations in paragraph 17 of

2 your report?

3 MR. SAXON: Can you turn to paragraph 17, please.

4 Q. See, in the last sentence in paragraph 17, you say: "Nothing in

5 the constitution or any other law would prevent the president, himself, to

6 command or direct a joint operation."

7 So you appear to be suggesting here that, well, if the law doesn't

8 expressly prevent something, then the president can do it. Why, then, why

9 do you record that interpretive model for the powers given to the

10 president in a more restrictive interpretive framework for the powers

11 accorded to the minister?

12 A. In my way of thinking, both positions in my report are fully

13 consistent, because this also falls within the same manner of

14 interpretation of the legal provisions correct -- correctly and precisely

15 what is written in the laws.

16 Q. Well, you see, in paragraph 17, you seem to be interpreting the

17 constitution and the laws to be saying, well, if the constitution and the

18 laws don't prohibit an activity, then the president can do it.

19 But in paragraph 60, you say that the minister can only do things,

20 can only undertake tasks and duties which the law authorises him to

21 undertake. So, in other words, if it is not in the law, he can't do it.

22 You don't see a contradiction there?

23 A. No, I don't see a contradiction. Also, I don't see anywhere in my

24 report the word "prohibition."

25 I'm speaking in general terms that with my analysis of the laws

1 and other documents, I have concluded that nothing in the laws would

2 prevent or limit the president to practice his constitutional powers,

3 while many laws contain provisions which clearly establish which

4 activities a minister can undertake and what are the powers of a minister

5 and specifically the minister of the interior.

6 Q. Well, if there's nothing in the law that would prevent or limit a

7 minister of the interior, say, from organising a birthday party for a

8 family member at his office, by the same token, then, then the minister

9 could undertake that activity, right?

10 A. Correct. This is so, and I can organise this event, too.

11 Q. And so, for example, in a period of crisis, if there's nothing in

12 the law that expressly prevent or limit the minister of the interior, say,

13 from sending a group of authorised officials to conduct a particular

14 activity, or sending an authorised official to conduct a particular

15 activity, then the minister can do that, right?

16 A. For this type of activities, the professional structures of the

17 ministry are competent.

18 Q. You didn't answer my question. My question is: If, during a

19 crisis time, if there's nothing in the law that expressly prevents or

20 limits a minister from directing an authorised official to conduct a

21 particular activity, then the minister can do that, right?

22 A. No. He cannot, because this is not within his competency.

23 Q. If there's nothing in a particular law that expressly prohibits

24 it, then, on the same principle that we've been discussing, the minister

25 should be able to do it, right?

1 A. The laws clearly establish the authorisations of the minister.

2 This is not enumerated as a competency.

3 Q. Well, Article 10 of the Law on Internal Affairs says that in times

4 when public peace and order is seriously deranged, the minister can order

5 an authorised official or officials to carry out certain activities.

6 So, if, during the crisis time, the minister wanted to authorise

7 an authorised official to carry out a certain activity, if that activity

8 is not expressly prohibited in the law, then the minister could do it,

9 right?

10 A. The minister can order what is written down specifically in the

11 law.

12 Q. And what if there's some room for interpretation in what is

13 written down in the law, like the phrase "certain activities"?

14 A. The minister cannot undertake activities which are outside his

15 competencies. Previously I also said that in our legal definition of

16 public peace and order, or public law and order, cases are specifically

17 defined which signify a disruption of public law and order.

18 Q. Well, Professor, do you suppose that fighting between two groups,

19 fighting between members of the security forces of the Republic of

20 Macedonia and another group calling themselves the NLA that involves the

21 use of automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, tanks, artillery,

22 helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, you don't think that would qualify as a

23 disruption of public peace and order?

24 A. No.

25 Q. I see. And so, for example, if such activities occurred in 2001,

1 if I understand you then, for example, rather than exercising his powers

2 accorded to him under Article 10 of the Law on Internal Affairs, the

3 minister would just do nothing, right?

4 A. The ministry and other state bodies can undertake measures, but

5 this measure does not fall within the measures taken in situations such as

6 these. These are measures foreseen for a situation when the public peace

7 and order is disturbed; for example, demonstrations; for example, clashes

8 between reporters of two teams and other such examples.

9 Q. How about clashes between members of two different ethnic

10 communities? Would that qualify as a disturbance of the public law and

11 order?

12 A. Depending on the type of clashes.

13 Q. What do you mean by that?

14 A. I mean that if they are -- if they meet on the street or in front

15 of the parliament building, which does happen, this means disturbance of

16 the public law and order.

17 Q. Well, what if they meet in a more rural area? What if they meet

18 in a village somewhere? Isn't that disturbance of the public law and

19 order?

20 A. I said it would depend on the situation.

21 Q. So it might --

22 A. If they're having an argument in the village pub, then we have a

23 case of disturbance of public law and order.

24 Q. All right. You said, in your direct examination, that the

25 minister of internal affairs does not perform operative tasks operation or

1 operations within the areas of work provided in the Law on Internal

2 Affairs. Do you recall that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. But the minister, to be an efficient an effective minister, must

5 supervise how those operations and operative tasks are carried out.

6 Isn't that right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Okay. And, for example, if the minister doesn't like the way

9 certain operative employees are doing their job, the minister might tell

10 them to do it differently, right?

11 A. The minister can speak with them why they're acting in the way

12 they are, but he cannot tell them how they should act.

13 Q. Well, the minister could tell the director of public security to

14 tell the operative employees to act differently, can't he?

15 A. No. The director for the directorate of public security acts

16 independently.

17 Q. Well, suppose the minister is not happy with the performance of

18 the director? Is the minister simply supposed to stand by and remain

19 silent and do nothing, while operative activities are carried out in an

20 unsatisfactory fashion?

21 A. If the minister has a problem with the work of the director, then

22 he should inform the government of this, the government who appointed the

23 director, and to ask that specific measures be taken, whether this will be

24 removal of the director or perhaps other measures which the government can

25 undertake.

1 Q. And you say that because the minister, he can propose -- he can

2 propose who should be appointed as director by the government, and the

3 minister also proposes -- can make a proposal to have a director dismissed

4 by the government. Is that right?

5 A. No. The government appoints the director.

6 Q. And the government does that upon a proposal of the minister,

7 right?

8 A. The government appoints the director independently.

9 Q. Ms. Taseva, are you telling the Chamber that the government does

10 not -- that, in practice, the government does not appoint the director of

11 public security upon a proposal of the minister of the interior?

12 Is that your evidence?

13 A. Could we see now the legal provisions related to this?

14 Q. No, I'm sorry, Ms. Taseva. You're the expert. You're supposed to

15 know about this. You've testified at length about the public security

16 bureau and the director.

17 Can you answer my question?

18 A. The government appoints the director of the bureau for public

19 security independently.

20 Q. And the government will appoint that director upon a proposal of

21 the minister, right?

22 A. No.

23 MR. SAXON: Can we show the witness what is 65 ter -- this is a

24 video-clip. It will be played in Sanction. It's 65 ter 1117.6, ERN

25 V000-4741 -- it's V000-7471, and it is a video made on the 29th of July,

1 2002, in Tetovo.

2 Q. I'd like you to watch the video, please, Professor.

3 [Videotape played]

4 MR. SAXON: Stop there.

5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.

7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask my learned

8 friend, before he asks the question, could he just clarify for us when was

9 this speech made and what was the occasion for it. Is this the minister's

10 speech, or is it something completely different? I'm asking this because

11 of the words heard.

12 MR. SAXON: It is a speech by then-Minister Boskoski at or during

13 a political campaign on the 29th of July, 2002 in the city of Tetovo.

14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask you to say also

15 what was the political campaign. Was it the general elections or a

16 political --

17 MR. SAXON: It is my understanding that this was part of the

18 political campaign of the accused and other members of his party for the

19 general elections that occurred later in 2002.

20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21 MR. SAXON:

22 Q. Professor, in your opinion, can the minister of the interior

23 lawfully take part in political campaigns, in electoral campaigns?

24 A. All ministers in the Republic of Macedonia participate in

25 political campaigns.

1 Q. And where is this authorisation or ability codified in the

2 constitution or the laws; do you know?

3 A. I'm not aware that the constitution or laws provide such approval

4 or authorisations to participate in election campaigns.

5 Q. Okay. Well, maybe I can help you a little bit with the

6 constitution of Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia.

7 MR. SAXON: And, Your Honours this is Exhibit P00091.

8 Q. For example, Article 16 subparagraph 2 refers to the freedom of

9 speech; although, it doesn't specifically refer to election campaigns.

10 Article 20, subparagraph 1, refers to freedom of association to exercise

11 political and other rights; although, it doesn't explicitly to electoral

12 campaigns or to ministers.

13 But would it be fair to say that implicit in these provisions of

14 the constitution or these provisions of the constitution could be

15 interpreted to give ministers the ability or the authority to take part in

16 political campaigns while they are ministers?

17 Is that fair?

18 A. This constitutional provision belongs to the chapter of provisions

19 on basic human rights and freedoms, and then they give the right to every

20 citizen of the Republic of Macedonia to participate in such type of

21 activities: Freedom of speech, freedom of organisation and meeting, of

22 associating.

23 The laws contain restrictions with regards to the professional

24 part of the state administration, and the bodies of state administration,

25 with regards to their ability or eligibility to participate in campaigns.

1 I spoke about the professional part, while the minister and all ministers

2 belong to political part of the administration and there are no provisions

3 that would restrict their participation in such type of activities.

4 Q. And since there are no provisions in the laws that restrict

5 ministers from taking part in these political activities, then that means

6 that ministers are able to take part in these activities, right?

7 A. The ministers are politicians and they are members of political

8 parties who participate in exercise of power after the elections were won,

9 and the understanding of politics in the Republic of Macedonia is such

10 that all political office holders participate in the political

11 activities. Whether those are campaigns or other types of activities,

12 that is not always relevant.

13 Q. Okay. So another way of looking at what a minister can or cannot

14 do would be to, for example, look at the understanding of politics in the

15 Republic of Macedonia, right?

16 A. No. I said previously that what the minister can do or cannot do

17 is precisely stipulated in the laws.

18 Q. Well, all right. But let's go back to my question which you

19 haven't really answered.

20 Since there are no provisions in the laws that restrict ministers

21 from taking part in these political activities, then that means that

22 ministers are able to take part in these activities. That's right?

23 A. Da [No interpretation]

24 MR. SAXON: The witness said "da," but we did not hear anything.

25 THE INTERPRETER: "Yes."

1 MR. SAXON: Okay.

2 Q. I'd like to move on to a different topic, Professor Taseva.

3 During your direct examination, Ms. Residovic asked you to confirm

4 whether: "The directors of the bodies within the ministry are independent

5 in the performance of their tasks and the minister could not exert

6 influence over those bodies to prevent them from lawfully performing their

7 duties."

8 You answered: "Yes. This is the legal provision. This is the

9 legal position."

10 Do you recall that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And my question for you is: Back in 2001, could the minister

13 exert influence over the director of public security and the bodies of the

14 ministry to -- to ensure that they lawfully perform their duties?

15 A. The minister can monitor their work through the bodies in the

16 ministry, such as the collegium, but the minister could not impose or

17 exert his influence.

18 Q. Well, again, if the minister doesn't like how the director of

19 public security is carrying out one aspect of his work, particularly in a

20 time of crisis, wouldn't the minister logically tell the director of

21 public security, how the minister feels and tell the director to change

22 his performance?

23 A. He could not order the director anything.

24 Q. Why not?

25 A. Because the directors are independent, autonomous, in the

1 performance of their tasks.

2 Q. And what is the purpose of having a minister then?

3 A. The minister is the political manager and head of the ministry

4 that he is in charge of.

5 Q. Yes. And as the manager and head of the ministry, the minister is

6 responsible for what -- the acts and conduct of the employees of the

7 Ministry of Internal Affairs, right?

8 A. Yes. He is competent to carry out tasks from within the

9 competency of that ministry.

10 Q. And so how can the minister carry out his responsibilities if he

11 can't tell the director what to do in a given situation?

12 A. The minister of the interior cannot issue orders to other

13 structures within the ministry. This is why the other bodies are

14 structured and established, such as the collegium, and the law provides

15 that there are two independent bodies within the ministry that perform

16 their duties autonomously.

17 The minister can coordinate, can convene collegiums when certain

18 issues would be discussed, but the minister cannot order in which way to

19 act.

20 Q. Well, you see, what you just said really contradicts Article 10 of

21 the Law on Internal Affairs; subparagraph 2. says that: "The minister

22 of the interior cannot issue orders to other structures within the

23 ministry." That's what you just said.

24 But that legal provision says that in times disturbance of public

25 peace and order, the minister can direct authorised officials to carry out

1 certain activities.

2 So why do you say that the minister of the interior cannot issue

3 orders to other structures within the ministry? Why do you say that?

4 A. Since I'm making a distinction between the way in which a decision

5 is built and made, and the formal issuance and signing of a decision as a

6 formal act.

7 Q. I'm not sure that I understood that response. Are you saying that

8 under Article 10 of the Law on Internal Affairs subparagraph 2, the

9 minister cannot issue instructions to authorised officials in the

10 ministry, including the director of public security?

11 A. This competency of the minister, or authorisation to issue such

12 act, such order, is what it is. But the way in which the decision is

13 made, the way in which the decision is then executed are established by

14 separate acts. The decision is brought by the collegium. It is not a

15 decision by the minister himself, a decision that the minister alone can

16 make, because the minister does not have all the elements necessary to

17 make the assessment. This is why the minister needs a collegium.

18 The minister can issue an order after the decision is made.

19 Q. Are you saying, Professor, now, and is it your evidence, that

20 again, are you saying that in a meeting of the collegium that the members

21 of the collegium are supposed to make decisions based on consensus?

22 Is that what you're saying, that that's how the decision is made,

23 and then after that the minister just issues a piece of paper saying, "My

24 decision is this"?

25 Is that your evidence?

1 A. That is my understanding of the matters, but I stated before, that

2 I can't give my opinion with regards to the work of the collegium because

3 I haven't analysed that and I have never participated in the work of the

4 collegium.

5 Q. All right. Well, then I'm confused why a moment ago you discussed

6 how the collegium functions, but I'm going to leave it alone for now.

7 I will move to another topic.

8 Professor Taseva, after the Ohrid Framework Agreement was signed

9 on the 13th of August, 2001, you're aware, aren't you, that the NLA

10 undertook to demobilise its ranks and to turn in its weapons --

11 MR. SAXON: Actually, Your Honour, there is something I forgot to

12 do. Your Honour, I forgot to tender the video-clip that we saw a few

13 minutes ago. That was 65 ter 1117.6, if I could tender that, please, so I

14 don't forget it.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.

16 MR. SAXON: And the transcript.

17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours. I don't know what

18 is the relevance of this video-clip, considering, as we heard, that was a

19 speech of Mr. Boskoski made within a political campaign of his party in

20 the summer of 2002. So that goes beyond the scope of the indictment and

21 also beyond his ministerial duties.

22 MR. SAXON: Well, this entire discussion with this witness has

23 been about the powers and authorities of the minister and whether they are

24 expressly restricted by the laws or not, and this is one example,

25 Your Honours, where they are not expressly restricted.

1 JUDGE PARKER: That is not the issue, Mr. Saxon. The issue is

2 whether the video itself is relevant. The fact that he made a political

3 speech is one that is demonstrated by the video is accepted by the

4 witness, and there has been discussion about his capacity to do so.

5 But is the content of the speech or something about the video

6 material in this case?

7 MR. SAXON: In this case. Well, for example, at 1638,

8 Mr. Boskoski, in referring to the events in 2001, refers to the fact how

9 he and the prime minister, Ljubco Georgievski, were there in Tetovo during

10 the crisis period in 2001; specifically referring to the prime minister,

11 not the president.

12 At 22:16, he also refers to the fact that the prime minister was

13 in Tetovo with the policemen who were defending Macedonia at that time.

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

16 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P577, Your Honours.

17 MR. SAXON:

18 Q. You are aware, I believe, Professor Taseva, that after the Ohrid

19 Agreement was signed on the 13th of August, 2001 the NLA undertook to

20 demobilised its ranks and turn in its weapons by 26 September 2001.

21 Do you recall that?

22 A. [In English] Yes, I can. It is from the member.

23 Q. Okay. And the process of collecting NLA weapons was accomplished

24 with the assistance of NATO forces in an operation in August and September

25 2001 called Essential Harvest. Do you remember that?

1 A. [Interpretation] Yes.

2 MR. SAXON: Can we show the witness what is Exhibit P00083,

3 please. That is the Law on Amnesty, and this will be available in

4 e-court.

5 Q. You can see, Professor, that this law was published in the

6 Official Gazette on Friday, the 8th of March, 2002, and it was the decree

7 for proclaiming the Law on Amnesty which was adopted by the assembly of

8 the Republic of Macedonia on the 7th of March, 2001.

9 Do you see that?

10 A. Yes, I see it.

11 Q. And you see how, for example, in the first paragraph, the first

12 line, it says: "This law exempts from prosecution, discontinues the

13 criminal proceedings ..."

14 Do you see that?

15 A. Yes, I see it.

16 Q. And then, in the English, in the last two lines of that

17 paragraph: "... for whom there is a reasonable doubt that they have

18 prepared or committed criminal acts related to the conflict in the year

19 2001 conclusive of 26 September 2001."

20 Do you see that?

21 A. Yes, I see it.

22 MR. SAXON: And could we see more of the bottom of the page.

23 Thank you so much.

24 Q. And, again, in the next paragraph, you see a reference to persons

25 who have prepared or committed criminal acts; and then, two subparagraphs

1 down, it says: "The criminal proceedings for criminal acts pursuant to

2 the Criminal Code and other laws," at the end, "are discontinued."

3 Do you see that?

4 A. Yes.

5 MR. SAXON: And if we can take a look at the next page, please.

6 Q. There's nothing in the Law on Amnesty that refers to disciplinary

7 proceedings, does it?

8 A. No, there isn't anything.

9 Q. Are you aware that in its reasons for passing the Law on Amnesty,

10 the government of Macedonia noted that the amnesty law covers persons who

11 participated in the conflict and who voluntarily gave up their weapons by

12 26 September 2001? Are you aware of that?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Well, doesn't that sound, then, that the Law on Amnesty was really

15 directed at members of the NLA, not at members of the Macedonian security

16 forces?

17 A. The law does not make any distinction between the individuals

18 comprised by it, so everyone is who participated in the actions. The law

19 speaks of citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, people with legal

20 residence and individuals who have families or property and regarding

21 which there is a suspicion and then, as you read it. So there is no

22 distinction with regards to the capacity of the citizens, ethnic,

23 religious, official, or any other capacity of them.

24 Q. Well, I understand that. But we've been talking about the

25 interpretation of laws for several days now; and, first of all, would you

1 agree with me that laws are often the extension of politics, of political

2 situations?

3 A. The laws are the expression of the will of the politics.

4 Q. Okay. Now, in 2001, the members of the NLA, they were considered

5 to be terrorists and outlaws, weren't they?

6 A. There were many terms used during that period. Outlaws also was

7 among them; terrorists, yes.

8 Q. And many NLA members, in particular NLA leaders, were living a

9 clandestine life, weren't they? They were in hiding from the authorities

10 and institutions of the state. Is that right?

11 A. I could not confirm this.

12 Q. Well, can you give us your opinion as someone who lived through

13 that time and is certainly aware of the events of that time.

14 A. I can't confirm this because there is the way in which many of the

15 citizens of the Republic of Macedonia lived.

16 Q. I'm asking you about members of the NLA.

17 A. I don't know.

18 Q. Well, would it be fair to say that many members of the NLA were

19 separated and isolated at least from the ethnic Macedonian population?

20 A. No.

21 Q. And what do you base that answer on?

22 A. Since I don't have any first-hand knowledge of that.

23 Q. So why did you answer "no"?

24 A. Since I can't say in the affirmative and because my personal

25 experience does not confirm anything of that nature. So I'm saying no,

1 because that is my position.

2 Q. But if I understand you, you're saying really that you don't know.

3 Is that what you're saying? Are you saying "I can't say in the

4 affirmative." So you don't know; is that right?

5 A. I don't know, yes.

6 Q. Throughout the crisis time in 2001, members of the army and the

7 police, they continued to live as fully -- fully active, lawful citizens

8 of Macedonia, didn't they?

9 A. All citizens in the Republic of Macedonia, in that period of time,

10 lived as active, lawful citizens of the Republic of Macedonia. There were

11 no restrictions for anyone.

12 Q. Is it your evidence, Professor Taseva, that the fighters of the

13 NLA in 2001 were living as active, lawful citizens of the Republic of

14 Macedonia? Is that your evidence?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And by the same token, the members of the security forces would

17 also have been living as active, lawful citizens, right?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Well, then, why, in paragraph 128 in your report, in the first

20 sentence, do you say: "The main purpose of the law was to ensure that

21 peace could return to the country and that 'those involved in the fighting

22 could be reintegrated into society.'"?

23 Why did people need to be reintegrated into society if they had

24 never left society? How does that work?

25 A. This is it a political decision at hand, and it means that

1 everyone who participated or took part must be reintegrated. There is no

2 restrictions as to one or another side which needs to be reintegrated.

3 Q. You didn't answer my question. Can you answer my question,

4 please?

5 A. In this conflict, which had two parties to it, here it is stated

6 those who were involved should be reintegrated, the ones, the others, and

7 everyone together.

8 Q. Well, you see, in your expert report, you said: "And that those

9 involved in the fighting could be reintegrated into society."

10 But you've just told us that members of the NLA, the NLA fighters

11 and the fighters of the Macedonian security forces, were never separated

12 from Macedonian society. So I'm just trying to understand what that

13 sentence means in your report or how it is consistent with what you have

14 told us today?

15 A. This sentence denotes what is incorporated in the political

16 documents of the times, where it -- reintegration of all citizens of the

17 society was discussed, to continue the normal course of life and work,

18 regardless of who belonged to what side or in what capacity took part in

19 those activities.

20 Q. And regardless of the fact that people had never left society.

21 They had never been separated from society.

22 A. Correct. They were never separated from the society. But in the

23 society, a condition was created whereby together the citizens, the

24 politicians, and the international community assessed required measures

25 for overcoming. This is why the Ohrid Agreement was signed.

1 Q. In the second sentence of paragraph 128. You say: "It was also,"

2 in other words, it the was the purpose of the amnesty law, "was also to

3 serve a societal purpose in avoiding vengeance by all, institution or

4 otherwise."

5 Then you cite to a exhibit, in footnote 141, Exhibit 1D185.

6 MR. SAXON: Can we see that exhibit, please. Can we enlarge the

7 Macedonian version, please.

8 Q. Can read the second paragraph in the Macedonian version to us,

9 Professor. It begins with: "The Ministry of Interior."

10 Can you read that to us out loud, please.

11 A. "The Ministry of Interior guarantees that it will not arrest,

12 detain, or bring in citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, former members

13 of the NLA, who voluntarily hand in their weapons by 26 September 2001."

14 Q. This is dated the 10th of December, 2001.

15 Professor, there was no requirement for members of the Macedonian

16 police or army to turn in their weapons by 26 September 2001, was there?

17 A. This was an action for collecting weapons from the citizens of the

18 Republic of Macedonia.

19 Q. Professor, isn't it understood that action was intended to collect

20 the weapons that were in the possession of the so-called NLA?

21 Can you just answer "yes" or "no."

22 A. No.

23 Q. Very well.

24 MR. SAXON: Can we please turn to what is Exhibit P00572. This

25 will be at tab 29, binder 1.

1 Can we turn to the next page, please, in both versions. You see

2 it is entitled: Criminal charge.

3 Q. You'll see, Professor, this is a criminal charge issued by the

4 Ministry of Interior on the 24th of July, 2001. It's being sent to the

5 public prosecutor of Republic of Macedonia and the basic public

6 prosecutor.

7 You see, for example, in the English version on the first page,

8 it's against Ali Ahmeti, who is described as being actively in the

9 organisation, function, and activity of the so-called UCK.

10 MR. SAXON: Can we go to the next page, please.

11 Q. We see at the end, in the English version, at the end of that

12 first long paragraph, it's referring to possibility of crimes -- criminal

13 act of terrorism against Mr. Ali Ahmeti, and then followed by similar

14 language regarding to Fazli Veliu.

15 MR. SAXON: Can we go to the next page, please.

16 Q. Similar language related to Gzim Ostreni, Musa Demiri, persons who

17 were known to be leaders of the NLA.

18 Do you see that?

19 A. Yes, I see it.

20 MR. SAXON: Can we turn to page 14, please. If we could have the

21 same version in the Macedonian version, please, for Professor Taseva, and

22 the next page in the Macedonian version, please. One more page, please,

23 and one more page.

24 We need to go to the same page as we see in the English. It

25 should be the second-to-the-last page.

1 Q. So, you see, here we see the proposal, Professor, that to pursue

2 the perpetrators of the criminal acts against the reported suspects.

3 Do you see that?

4 A. Yes, I see it.

5 Q. And to start of criminal procedure. Then the special proposal, in

6 the next paragraph, is that custody be ordered for these suspects.

7 Do you see that?

8 A. Yes, I see it.

9 MR. SAXON: And can we see the bottom of the Macedonian version,

10 please. Can we go to the next page in both versions, and the next -- the

11 last page in the Macedonian version?

12 Q. So we see that this was -- these criminal charged were signed by

13 the director of public security at that time, Mr. Goran Mitevski.

14 Do you see that?

15 A. Yes, I see it.

16 Q. Now, I'd like to show what you is 65 ter number 1156.

17 MR. SAXON: It's in binder 1, tab number 30, and I don't know if

18 it would save time for the witness to look at the hard copy or not, if the

19 usher could assist.

20 I see it's coming up now.

21 Q. This is, Professor -- it's a bit hard to see it all. It is a

22 request for an investigation by the -- to extend an investigation by the

23 public prosecutor against these same leaders of the UCK, and it is dated

24 the 8th of October, 2001.

25 Do you see that?

1 A. Yes, I see it.

2 MR. SAXON: Can we go to the last page, please.

3 Q. So we see that it is submitted by the deputy public prosecutor,

4 Mr. Marko Zrlevski.

5 So, here we see, Professor, an example where, in August of 2001,

6 the investigation against NLA leaders was continuing, right?

7 A. [In English] Excuse me.

8 Q. This proposal to extended investigation is dated, I believe, the

9 8th of August -- excuse me, the 8th of October, 2001. I misspoke before.

10 My question should be: This is an example where, as of October

11 2001, the investigation against NLA leaders was continuing, right?

12 A. [Interpretation] Yes. Here the procedure is still in the

13 preliminary phase in the public prosecutor's office.

14 Q. And that's in spite of the fact that, at that time, people were

15 expecting that, eventually, an amnesty law would be enacted, right?

16 A. The right to decide whether an activity would fall under this law

17 falls on the courts.

18 Q. You didn't answer my question. By October 2001, it was generally

19 expected in the Macedonian public that, at some point, there would be a

20 Law on Amnesty enacted, right?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. All right.

23 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I would seek to tender this document.

24 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

25 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P578, Your Honours.

1 MR. SAXON: Can we show the witness what is 65 ter 1157. This is

2 at -- in binder 1 at tab 31.

3 Q. This is a decision dated the 15th of October, 2001, whereby the

4 investigative judge of the Basic Court Skopje agrees to conduct the

5 investigation against these same leaders of the NLA.

6 Do you see that, Professor?

7 A. Yes.

8 MR. SAXON: Can we turn to the last page, please.

9 Q. So there we see the decision on the last page, that during the

10 investigation material and verbal evidence shall be obtained, et cetera,

11 to decide whether an indictment should be submitted against the accused.

12 All right.

13 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, I would seek to tender this document,

14 please.

15 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

16 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P579, Your Honours.

17 MR. SAXON: Your Honours --

18 JUDGE PARKER: Would that be a convenient time, Mr. Saxon?

19 MR. SAXON: It would, Your Honour.

20 I am aware of the time and I really tried very hard to finish in

21 two sessions. Obviously, I did not succeed. I believe I might be able to

22 finish in half an hour in one more session.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Our extension of time to a full hour and a half

24 would enable you to have another three quarters of an hour, as a rough

25 indication, Mr. Saxon.

1 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE PARKER: We resume at 1.30.

3 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.30 p.m.

4 --- On resuming at 1.34 p.m.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.

6 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honours.

7 Before I re-begin my questions, I need to alert the Chamber and

8 the parties to a mistake that the Prosecution made during the last

9 session.

10 You'll recall that a video-clip was admitted as Exhibit P00577.

11 The 65 ter number of that video-clip was actually 1117.7, not 1117.6 as

12 the Chamber was informed. And because I had numbers transposed, I also

13 gave some incorrect, incorrect, information about the date of that speech.

14 The speech that was -- the video-clip of the speech that was

15 admitted as P577 was given by Mr. Boskoski during the electoral campaign

16 on the 28th of August, 2002, not on the 29th of July, 2002, in Tetovo.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

18 MR. SAXON: Could we please show the witness what is 65 ter 1152,

19 please, and this is at tab 91 in the second Prosecution binder.

20 Q. You'll see this is another -- well, this is a indictment that is

21 being submitted, Professor Taseva, on the 6th of March, 2002, by the

22 public prosecutor.

23 MR. SAXON: And if we could scroll down to the bottom, more

24 towards the bottom of the first page, please.

25 Q. We see, for example, in paragraph 1, this is an indictment against

1 Mr. Skodran Idrizi. And, in the middle of that paragraph, we see he is in

2 pre-trial detention based on the decision of the investigative judge from

3 Basic Court II in Skopje.

4 Do you see that, Professor?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And we see several more persons listed who are listed as

7 fugitives, yeah; although, it appears to say that pre-trial detention is

8 recommended when those persons are found, do you see that, for the other

9 persons listed on the first page?

10 A. Yes.

11 MR. SAXON: Can we turn to the next page, please, in both

12 languages.

13 Q. And, again, on the following page, we see several more persons who

14 are listed in this indictment, and I believe each one of them is a

15 fugitive, but pre-trial detention is recommended at the time of their

16 capture.

17 Do you see that, Professor Taseva?

18 A. Yes, I see it.

19 Q. And can we agree that, at least in most cases, these gentlemen

20 would have what we call Albanian surnames?

21 A. Yes, it's right; at least, this is what it seems.

22 MR. SAXON: Can we turn to the next page, please, in both

23 languages.

24 Q. And here is the suggestion for the indictment. There's a few more

25 persons on the third page also with Albanian surnames. And, again, in the

1 middle of the page, we see a suggestion for an indictment against a minor

2 named Fadilj Ferati nicknamed Diljo.

3 MR. SAXON: And, Your Honour, can we go into private session,

4 please.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Private.

6 [Private session]

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 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 9894-9896 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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 [Open session]

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

17 MR. SAXON:

18 Q. Can we also agree, Professor Taseva, that, in a democratic

19 society, police officers play a special role and -- due to their powers

20 and authority? Can we agree on that?

21 A. They have the role to carry out the tasks as assigned by law.

22 Everyone who works for the state administration can be said to have a

23 special role.

24 Q. Well, yes, but if we speak about the police in particular, since

25 they have the responsibility of protecting the public peace and order,

1 they also have a special relationship of trust with the public, don't

2 they?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Well, if the purposes of the amnesty law are to promote peace and

5 reconciliation, wouldn't it undermine the purposes of the amnesty law if

6 police officers, those persons who are supposed to have that -- persons

7 who are in that special position of trust towards the public, if police

8 officers who committed serious acts of misconduct are allowed to continue

9 performing the same duties and responsibilities, wouldn't that undermine

10 the entire purpose of the Law on Amnesty?

11 A. I am attempting to understand, so this is why I have to read it

12 again.

13 I really cannot respond to a question formulated in this way.

14 Q. Well, then I'll try to reformulate it.

15 You told us before that one of the main purposes of the amnesty

16 law was to promote peace and reconciliation.

17 So my question is: Well, if police officers are not disciplined

18 for their acts of misconduct, they are essentially given a certain level

19 of immunity, aren't they, first of all?

20 A. I believe that you are not right in saying this, that members of

21 the police enjoyed some sort of immunity, because the Law on Amnesty does

22 not make any distinctions among citizens on any basis. This is why the

23 provisions of this law pertain to all citizens of the Republic of

24 Macedonia.

25 Q. But if police officers -- I misspoke before. I should have used

1 the word "impunity," not "immunity."

2 But if police officers are not held accountable for their

3 disciplinary violations, then how would public trust that is so important

4 for any process of peace and reconciliation be advanced?

5 A. In the same manner in which many were amnestied, people who took

6 part in the events of that period.

7 Q. Do you know any police officers who were amnestied?

8 A. I do not know any specific person who was amnestied because I do

9 not know them personally.

10 Q. Well, you're taking my question very literally. Do you know of,

11 have you heard about any police officers who were amnestied, who received

12 amnesty for acts committed in 2001?

13 A. I heard that there are persons who received amnesty; but who they

14 are, I really don't know.

15 Q. You heard that, but you don't have any more information that?

16 A. I have no more information than that the law is applied.

17 MR. SAXON: I'd like to move to a slightly different topic. Can

18 we show the witness what is Exhibit P530, please, on e-court.

19 Q. You see this is a file, and it involves a disciplinary matter for

20 a man named Peco Josevski.

21 MR. SAXON: Can we turn to the last page, please, in both

22 languages?

23 Q. You can see, Professor Taseva, that disciplinary punishment was

24 imposed against this individual. And in the second-to-the-last paragraph

25 we see a sentence that stands alone, and it say this is -- actually the

1 third-to-the paragraph.: "Against this decision, within eight days after

2 the reception of the same, the employee has the right to object to the

3 commission for arbitration at the second level of the area of labour at

4 the government of the Republic of Macedonia through this Ministry of

5 Interior."

6 Do you see that?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. So, in other words, the employee has the right, within eight days,

9 to appeal this decision. Isn't that right?

10 A. Yes, this is right.

11 Q. And then it says: "The objection, or the appeal, does not prevent

12 the execution of this decision."

13 Do you see that?

14 A. Yes, I see it.

15 Q. So these decisions go into force, even while an appeal of the

16 decision is pending. Isn't that right?

17 A. This is how it is regulated by law in the collective agreement.

18 Q. So the answer to my question is a "yes"?

19 A. Yes. But this is so because it is regulated in this manner by

20 procedures.

21 Q. All right. I'd like to talk to you about the Law on Defence,

22 please.

23 MR. SAXON: If we could turn to your report, to paragraph 18.

24 Q. Paragraph 18 says: "In 2001, the president could also exercise

25 his authority over the police forces. A new Law on Defence was adopted in

1 June 2001 which circumscribed the power of the president over police

2 forces.

3 "However, and in practice, the president continued to perform his

4 constitutional authority over both the army and the police forces of the

5 Republic. The by-laws necessary for the complete enforcement of the new

6 Law on Defence had not been adopted."

7 What you're saying there in paragraph 18 is that, in practice,

8 during the summer of 2001, the president continued to exercise his

9 authority over both the army and the police. Is that right?

10 A. Yes, this is right.

11 MR. SAXON: Can we show the witness what is Exhibit P464.

12 Your Honours, this is the book: The War in Macedonia. In the ERN

13 range, the English ERN range, N006-3017 to N006-3033, can we go to page 8

14 in the English version. In the Macedonian version, this will be page 107

15 in e-court -- actually, 106. I stand corrected.

16 Q. And you see this subheading that says: "Orders the use of the

17 police during martial law to support the army."

18 Do you see that in bold? Do you see that in bold, Professor?

19 A. Yes, I see it; except, I do not understand the English

20 translation. In Macedonian, it is stated: "Orders the use of the police

21 during a state of war as support of the army."

22 Q. All right. Thank you very much. By the way, a state of war was

23 never declared in Macedonia during 2001, was it?

24 A. No, it was not.

25 Q. All right.

1 A. It was not proclaimed.

2 Q. If you look at the paragraph below that bold subtitle, we see a

3 paragraph beginning with: "Since martial law was not..." -- or I suppose

4 it should say in English: "Since a state of war was not declared."

5 Do you see that paragraph?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. It reads like this, and in the moment we'll have to go to the next

8 page in the Macedonian version: "Since a state of war was not declared,

9 the police was not under Joint Command and acted independently. One can

10 only imagine what the situation is like when two ministers from the same

11 government (MVR, Ministry of Interior and MO, Ministry of Defence) have

12 two armed components at their disposal, one of which is 'commanded,' by

13 the prime minister through the minister of the interior, while the other

14 is under the command of the president of the Republic through the Defence

15 minister."

16 Do you see that?

17 A. Yes, I see it.

18 Q. So the authors of this book are indicating that during the crisis

19 time in 2001 there were effectively two chains of command: One from the

20 army going up to the president, the commander in chief; and the police

21 going up to the prime minister through the minister of the interior.

22 Do you see that?

23 A. It's not mentioned here.

24 Q. Well, but that is the indication, isn't it?

25 A. I'm sorry?

1 Q. Well, he's talking about two ministers from the same government

2 having two armed components at their disposal, right? One is commanded by

3 the prime minister through the minister of the interior; and the other is

4 commanded by the president of the Republic through the Defence minister.

5 You see that, right?

6 A. Yes, I see that.

7 MR. SAXON: Can we show the witness, please, Exhibit P402, and

8 this is the book, My Battle for Macedonia, by Mr. Boskoski.

9 And if we can go, please, quickly to page -- page 12 in the

10 Macedonian e-court version and page 12 in the English e-court version.

11 And in the English version, if we can focus on the paragraph at the bottom

12 of the page, please.

13 And if we can focus on the same paragraph in the Macedonian

14 version, beginning: "From the manager post in the office ..."

15 Q. You see there's a paragraph that says, starts: "From the manager

16 post."

17 Do you see that, Professor?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And in that paragraph, a few lines down, we see: "The situation

20 escalated and the circumstances led to a government reconstruction where I

21 was appointed minister of the interior. The prime minister, who, on

22 several occasions, publicly demanded a proclamation of a state of ...,"

23 and it says "martial law" in English.

24 I don't know if it says "state of war" in the Macedonian

25 original: "... in the country, in order to quickly, efficiently, and

1 professionally put an end to the intruders, to which demand the president

2 of the country did not react. So the prime minister wanted a more

3 sophisticated action in that situation by the Macedonian security forces,

4 which greatly depended on the Ministry of Internal Affairs top

5 management."

6 Do you see that?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And this section of this book would be consistent with the section

9 that I read to from The War in Macedonia a moment or two ago, wouldn't it?

10 A. No, I don't agree. I can't comment on those issues.

11 Q. Why can't you comment on those issues? You commented on the Law

12 on Defence and the role of the president and the role of the minister of

13 the interior, so why can't you comment now?

14 A. What I commented upon and what is advanced in my report is based

15 on the documents that I saw and the acts, laws, and by-laws that I

16 analysed.

17 These here are books written by authors who advance something, I

18 don't know what, in those books, whether those are their personal

19 experiences or story telling or dreams. So I can't comment. Therefore, I

20 wouldn't venture comments on something that I see for the first time now.

21 Q. Okay, Professor --

22 A. With regards to my report, I know precisely why those words and

23 conclusions were made.

24 Q. Professor, moving on to a different topic.

25 Briefly, can you tell us how, during the crisis time in 2001,

1 members of the press and media communicated with the members of the

2 Ministry of Internal Affairs. How did the media obtain its information

3 from the Ministry of Internal Affairs?

4 A. I don't know. I'm not aware of that.

5 Q. All right.

6 I'd like to put a few points to you, Professor Taseva, if I may,

7 please. I'd like to put to you the proposition that you have interpreted

8 the rules and the laws related to the Ministry of Internal Affairs in a

9 highly restrictive manner, which is not logical and is not consistent with

10 the actual practice of the Ministry of Internal Affairs as it was in 2001.

11 Do you agree with that?

12 A. I don't agree. I commented upon the issues as I felt the comments

13 were deserved.

14 Q. I put it to you, Professor, that the rules and law -- that the Law

15 on Internal Affairs and other rules and laws that affect the functioning

16 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs demonstrate that, in 2001, the

17 ministry was a very centralised structure with a strict hierarchy, with

18 the minister at the top of that hierarchy.

19 Would you agree with that?

20 A. No.

21 Q. And I suggest to you that the police department and the criminal

22 police were answerable to the minister through the head of the bureau for

23 public security.

24 Do you agree with that?

25 A. Yes. Pursuant to the law, the minister has the competencies over

1 the work of the ministry. So he has to be responsible for the work of the

2 bureau also, but the work of the bureau is organised and coordinated by

3 the director of the bureau.

4 Q. I put it to you that, in 2001, the minister of internal affairs

5 had effective oversight over police operations as demonstrated by his

6 various orders and decisions.

7 Do you agree with that?

8 A. No.

9 Q. I put it to you, Professor, that, in 2001, Minister Boskoski did

10 not narrowly follow the black letter law and was in control over police

11 units within the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

12 A. This is not what I saw.

13 Q. I put it to you, Professor, that, in 2001, important matters were

14 not resolved in the Ministry of Interior without the approval of the

15 minister.

16 Do you agree with that?

17 A. No. I can't agree with this because I don't have the facts to

18 support this position.

19 Q. I put it to you, Professor, that, in 2001, Minister Boskoski had

20 the power and authority to establish police units and even engage police

21 units to go into combat without strict formalities. Is that correct?

22 A. No.

23 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, I have no further questions.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Saxon.

25 Ms. Residovic.

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

2 Re-examination by Ms. Residovic:

3 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Professor Taseva.

4 I will take up from the most recent questions put to you by my

5 learned friend.

6 My colleague showed to you a book by some authors; and in relation

7 to that, he put to you that there was a dual line chain of command in 2002

8 and you did not accept that. Do you recall that?

9 A. Yes.

10 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown 65 ter

11 1D1268, please.

12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The year is "2001,"

13 not "2002."

14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can Article 1 be shown of the

15 relevant law on special rights of members of the security forces of the

16 ministry of the Republic of Macedonia.

17 Q. Rather, please read out or read Article 2. Can you read that

18 Article in Macedonian?

19 A. "Members of the security forces of the Republic of Macedonia, as

20 specified by this law, are soldier serving conscription military service,

21 professional soldier, military officer, and a civilian serving within the

22 permanent force of the army district of the Republic of Macedonia,

23 uniformed person within the Ministry of Internal Affairs, as well as

24 individuals with special competency and authorisations employed in the

25 Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Interior."

1 Q. Thank you. There's no need to read any further.

2 Professor Taseva, does this description of who makes up the

3 security forces tally with your position whereby these were single forces

4 of the Republic of Macedonia in 2001?

5 A. Yes.

6 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, may I object.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.

8 MR. SAXON: To me this feels like a misleading use of the evidence

9 because this is a document that I believe is dated January 2002.

10 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] But it relates to the previous

11 year 2002, and to the rights these individuals enjoyed in the previous

12 year.

13 MR. SAXON: Well, if we could be pointed to that part of the text

14 that says that, Your Honour, I would be grateful.

15 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Under paragraph 2, it says:

16 Participation in the defence of independence, territorial integrity, and

17 sovereignty of the Republic of Macedonia, and in the prevention of violent

18 destruction of the democratic institutions, determined with the

19 constitution of the Republic of Macedonia, in view of paragraph 1 of this

20 Article, this means in an organised activity of the members of the

21 security forces in armed activities against armed extremist and

22 paramilitary groups."

23 I'm really sorry, Your Honours, not to have the entire law here to

24 be able to read it out to you, but paragraph 1 deals with a specific date

25 and it says they are set up in the constitution of Macedonia from 2nd of

1 January, 2002. In the text it says, member of the security forces. But

2 the translation erroneously reads "1st of January 2002"; while in

3 Macedonian text it readings: "as of 1st of January, 2000."

4 JUDGE PARKER: Please proceed, Ms. Residovic; and if there is some

5 issue about that, it can be taken up on Monday.

6 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

7 Perhaps Professor Taseva should now be shown the document dated

8 21st of June 2001, which is 65 ter 1D529. Page is 1D4809. The English

9 version being 1D8176.

10 Q. Professor Taseva, do you see at the top of the document that the

11 date is the 21st of June, 2001?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And you'll agree with me that this is after the new law was, in

14 fact, enforced?

15 A. That's right.

16 Q. Who is the issuing authority of this enactment of this combat

17 order?

18 A. As is written on the order itself, that is the Ministry of

19 Defence, General Staff of the army of Republic of Macedonia, command of

20 the security forces.

21 Q. And to whom is this document addressed? This is an abbreviation

22 of --

23 A. ESZ, units for special tasks within the Ministry of Interior.

24 Q. And this is a direct combat order from the General Staff to one of

25 the units of the Ministry of Interior. Is that right?

1 A. That is right.

2 Q. Madam Taseva, does this document, too, confirm your position

3 according to which the police units were under the command of the army in

4 the course of 2001 and after the new Law on Defence was passed?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Thank you. Professor Taseva, my learned friend asked you about

7 the return of weapons by the 26th of September 2001. Do you recall that?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Tell me, in addition to NLA, were there other Albanian groups and

10 otherwise in possession of illegal weapons at the time?

11 A. I'm not aware of that.

12 Q. You said that all citizens were duty-bound do return weapons. Did

13 this order refer to the return of illegally held weapons or legally held

14 weapons?

15 A. All citizens that had illegal weapons needed to return those

16 during that action.

17 Q. The army and the police, were they in possession of illegal

18 weapons?

19 A. That action did not pertain to the army or the police at all.

20 Q. My learned friend showed you a number of documents relating to the

21 so-called Mavrovo's worker's case. Do you recall that?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. You said that you were familiar with that case.

24 A. Yes, from what I read, and I've heard of that case.

25 Q. Professor Taseva, are you aware that some cases from the Republic

1 of Macedonia were deferred to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal?

2 A. Yes. I am aware of that, and the case of Mavrovo workers was one

3 of those cases.

4 Q. In accordance with the Law on Amnesty, were these cases excluded

5 from that law?

6 A. Yes. These cases were excluded from the Law on Amnesty.

7 Q. Answering my learned friend question you said, that members of the

8 NLA did not have their rights abolished. Do you recall that?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Even though a crisis existed at the time, were any of the citizens

11 of Macedonia deprived of their civil rights at the time?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Is that the reason why you -- your answer was that their rights

14 needn't have been conferred upon them again?

15 A. Yes. This why I said so.

16 Q. Professor Taseva, yesterday and today, the Prosecutor mentioned

17 paragraph 59 -- paragraphs 59 and 60 of your report more than once, where

18 you said that the powers of the minister of the interior stemmed from a

19 law, and that the restrictions upon his powers also stemmed from law.

20 Do you recall having been asked that, and do you recall having

21 repeated the same answer more than once?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. You stated repeatedly that these stemmed not from only one law but

24 from several laws and some of those you cited, did you not?

25 A. Yes, I did.

1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown P92,

2 Article 55.

3 Q. You cited P92 in several of your footnotes of the report, did you

4 not?

5 A. Yes, I did.

6 Q. When answering questions, you said that this was a systemic law

7 which had to be applied. Is that right?

8 A. Precisely.

9 Q. Please read Article 55.

10 A. "The minister enacts rules, orders, instructions, plans,

11 programmes, decisions, and other types of acts related to enforcement of

12 laws and other regulations when authorised by the law."

13 Q. Is this legal provision consistent with -- or rather, is it basis

14 of your conclusion that every minister can issue all the documents

15 mentioned here when so authorised by the law?

16 A. Yes, precisely. I repeated this several times.

17 Q. My learned friend showed to you Article 56 of the law?

18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] And can we please show that

19 Article to the witness.

20 Q. Item 1 says: "The rule book develops upon or details certain

21 provisions of the law in order to enable their enforcement."

22 Paragraph 2 says: "Orders instruct or prohibit proceedings in a

23 specific situation which has significance general significance for the

24 execution of laws and other regulations."

25 And paragraph 3 says: Guidelines established the manner for

1 proceeding in the execution of a certain provisions of laws and other

2 regulations."

3 Professor Taseva, my question is as follows: Does this provision

4 provide for new powers, or does it, in fact, detail how the previously

5 determined powers are to be implemented?

6 MR. SAXON: Your Honours.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This provision instructs how the

8 authorisations already vested are implemented.

9 JUDGE PARKER: Now Mr. Saxon.

10 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, that was a very leading question on a

11 matter of crucial importance but the answer has been given.

12 JUDGE PARKER: It was, indeed, and it has been. I'm sure

13 Ms. Residovic will bear that in mind for the future, though.

14 Thank you.

15 Carry on, Ms. Residovic.

16 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters ask the counsel and witness to

17 pause for a moment, so we that we are able to give full answers and hear

18 full answers.

19 JUDGE PARKER: I'm glad of that because things are getting a bit

20 hectic.

21 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Although I'm hard pressed for time

22 and the reason why I'm speeding is that I want to put questions to the

23 witness that I deem are necessary, and I believe that Their Honours will

24 allow me to do that.

25 Can we turn to P551, which is the Law on Government, the Law on

1 the Government of the Republic of Macedonia.

2 Q. I will remind you of the questions put by my learned friend who

3 asked you to state the basis for your conclusion in paragraph 60: The law

4 at the same time restricts some of the rights confirmed -- conferred upon

5 the minister.

6 My learned friend showed to you Article 13 of the Law on

7 Government, which states: "The minister independently autonomously heads

8 the ministry to which he is appointed and follows and is responsible for

9 the enforcement of the laws and other regulations."

10 Do you remember having been shown this by the Prosecutor?

11 A. Yes, I remember.

12 Q. Can you now look at Article 36, please.

13 Paragraph 2 reads: "By a decree, the government regulates the

14 enforcement of the law, establishes principles of the internal

15 organisation of the ministries and other bodies of state administration,

16 and regulates other relations pursuant to the constitution and laws."

17 Paragraph 7 reads: "By a conclusion, the government takes a

18 position on issues which it has reviewed on a session."

19 And towards the end, let's not read through everything, it

20 establishes the tasks for the ministries and bodies of state

21 administration and the tasks for its services and takes positions on

22 issues within its competence.

23 Tell me, Professor Taseva, considering the previous provision, the

24 one of Article 13, which provides certain competencies for the minister,

25 does the government have acts and ways by which it will have an impact or

1 exert influence on the work of the ministries?

2 A. Yes, it has. Those are the acts that are enumerated in this

3 Article.

4 Q. Can these acts restrict the basic right of the minister as

5 provided in Article 13?

6 A. These acts restrict direct, guide the way in which a minister

7 works.

8 Q. Madam Taseva, in the provisions I've just shown you, did you find

9 your basis there for the opinions you stated in paragraphs 59 and 60 that

10 whilst providing competencies the law also restricts them?

11 A. Yes, precisely. I repeated that my conclusions were based on

12 quite a number of legal provisions.

13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown P86 now,

14 the Law on Internal Affairs.

15 Q. My learned friend showed you this on several occasions during his

16 cross-examination. Is that right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Whilst discussing the powers of the minister and the restrictions

19 thereof, you explained that both the powers and the restrictions can be

20 referred to in a number of laws which you cited as having analysed?

21 A. Yes, and other laws which are not referenced here.

22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at Article 10 of

23 the Law on Internal Affairs, which the Prosecutor showed on several

24 occasions.

25 Q. In paragraph 2 of this Article, it indicates, as you read, when

1 the -- there is a greater disturbance of public law and order, the

2 minister can order that other officials, authorised officials of Article

3 24, paragraph 2 of this law, conducted certain activities in a uniform.

4 This is a provision from the Law on Internal Affairs.

5 Tell me, Professor Taseva, is it consistent with the provision

6 that we were reviewing a moment ago and also your position that it is only

7 the law that sets fort the competencies of the minister?

8 A. Yes, precisely.

9 Q. Does this provision of the law show that it is the law that

10 provides for the situations in which the minister can issue an order?

11 A. Yes. I repeated this several times, that this specific provision

12 is one of those establishing when a minister can undertake an action.

13 Q. In connection with your conclusion and viewpoint in paragraph 60,

14 according to which the law whilst providing powers, among other things to

15 issue orders, it can also restrict these powers.

16 What is the nature of this restriction? Is it a restriction in

17 relation to individuals or in relation to circumstances, dictating

18 restrictions in relation to bodies, and so on and so forth? Must the law

19 give a specific restriction, or can it be any sort of restriction?

20 A. The law could provide for various restrictions on what can be

21 done, depending on a specific situation that the law pertains to.

22 Q. Tell me, in Article 10, paragraph 2, according to which the

23 minister can allow employees, who normally do not wear a uniform, to

24 actually in some situations wear a uniforms, did the law provide for when

25 something like this can be ordered?

1 A. This paragraph in Article 10 is sufficiently clear. It says that

2 this can be done in conditions when there is a greater disturbance to the

3 public law and order, so it speaks about the precisely defined situation.

4 Q. When you, yourself, wanted to cite an example of the powers by

5 virtue of the law and the restrictions contained therein, you asked for a

6 hard copy of the law and said that Article -- or rather, you mentioned

7 Article 11 in that context.

8 Can tell me -- I apologise. You stated here that the minister is

9 authorised to set up a unit.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Is this power conferred by the law and is this in accordance with

12 your viewpoint that you presented in paragraph 59 -- or rather, what is

13 stated in Article 45 of the Law on State Administration?

14 A. Yes. This is a right vested in the minister by law, and it is

15 fully corresponding to what I stated before.

16 Q. In this particular law, the minister's power to set up a unit, is

17 it in any way restricted in terms of times limits, individuals, territory,

18 or is it an absolute right belonging to the minister to set up a unit?

19 A. There are a number of determinants or factors here, I would say

20 decisive components, which provide for what is possible. So, in order to

21 safeguard the security in a state of war or in a state of emergency, those

22 are two different situations.

23 So state of war, state of emergency or a state when there is a

24 great disturbance ever public law and order, in situations like that, the

25 minister can with regards to those enumerated categories, police officers,

1 but also police apprentices. Those are young police officers who have

2 graduated but haven't yet passed the exam to have the full employment.

3 Also students older than 18, it precisely defines the categories

4 of people who can be involved.

5 Q. Very well. Thank you. We are able to see for ourselves what the

6 Article says, but my question is: Does this provision which you cited

7 also confirm your opinion presented in paragraph 60 whereby the law

8 confirms -- confers this power but restricts it as well?

9 A. Yes, precisely.

10 Q. The Prosecutor asked several questions in relation to the

11 possibility for Minister Boskoski to be engaged in political activities.

12 Is that right?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. At the time, you explained that all ministers are political

15 figures and that they enjoy the basic civil rights to take part in

16 political election campaigns. Is that a fair summary of what you said?

17 A. Yes. Yes, that's right.

18 Q. These citizens rights or ministers rights are not the subject of

19 provision of the law. Is that right?

20 A. No. Those rights of citizens and of politicians are not subject

21 to those laws.

22 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask that the other

23 microphone of the witness is switched on because we can't hear her very

24 well.

25 JUDGE PARKER: [Microphone not activated].

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I apologise.

2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Madam Taseva, do ministers, including Mr. Boskoski, have other

4 rights, such as marital rights, rights under the tax law, and were they

5 able to exercise these rights regardless of their position of ministers?

6 A. Of course. There are many rights that every citizen possesses and

7 exercises, enjoys pursuant to Law on Constitution.

8 Q. And, surely, these rights are not dealt with by the Law on State

9 Administration or the Law on Internal Affairs.

10 A. There is quite a number of laws that regulate other rights of the

11 citizens of the Republic of Macedonia.

12 Q. My learned friend showed you 1D113.

13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have it on our

14 screens again.

15 Q. You discussed the provisions of Article 25 or 26 of the rules

16 governing the organisation and work of the Ministry of Interior in

17 connection with this. That was ones 107. Do you recall that?

18 A. Yes, I recall that.

19 Q. In the preamble of this document, we can see that the legal

20 authority for this decision, Article 55, paragraph 1, of the Law on The

21 Organisation and Work of the Bodies of State Administration; and when we

22 were looking at that law, you said that it defined the powers of all the

23 ministers, including the minister of the interior. Is that right?

24 A. Yes, that's right.

25 Q. Tell me, Professor Taseva, the provision of information to these

1 different commissions, does it in any way encroach upon the work of the

2 other bodies and units within the Ministry of Interior?

3 A. As I said, these commissions are established to perform special

4 tasks, special works, and in no way they encroach the obligations and the

5 competencies of other units within the Ministry of Interior or any other

6 ministry where such commissions would be established.

7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the second page of this

8 document be shown; namely, item 4.

9 Q. It says the following: "Regarding any petition lodged, the

10 competent service in charge of processing petitions within the Ministry of

11 Interior, after examining and verifying the allegations in the petition,

12 has the duty to submit a report to the commission mentioned in part 1 of

13 this decision."

14 Does this line confirm your position that the commission does not

15 replace the existing organ, the commission for petitions and grievances

16 which already exists within the ministry?

17 A. Yes. It does not replace the existing bodies.

18 Q. Item 5, paragraph 2 states the following: "If the committee finds

19 that there has been abuse of powers by certain members of the Ministry of

20 Interior, it will recommend the instigation of procedures to determine

21 their liability due to violence of work discipline by the competent organs

22 of the ministry."

23 Is this formulation, in this decision, something corroborating

24 your position, that this committee could not be a substitute for the

25 bodies that are in charge of the procedure if abuse of powers was

1 identified?

2 A. Yes. It corroborates it.

3 Q. On several occasions, my learned friend advanced suggestions to

4 you about your assessments and. In paragraph 17, you say that the

5 president -- or rather, that nothing precludes the president from

6 exercising command himself over a given operation. I'm now paraphrasing

7 your words liberally. Could such a broadcast explanation be applied to

8 ministers, as well, including the minister of the interior?

9 This was the question put to you and or suggestion and you did not

10 accept it. Do you recall that?

11 A. Yes, I recall it.

12 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness now be shown P91,

13 Article 79 of the constitution of the Republic of Macedonia.

14 Q. Article 79 of the constitution reads: "The president of the

15 Republic of Macedonia represents the state."

16 And after that, it is stated: "The president of the Republic is

17 the supreme commander of the armed forces of Macedonia."

18 Is there any restriction in this particular provision upon the

19 president's capacity of the supreme commander?

20 A. No. There is no restriction here with regards to the direct

21 implementation of this constitutional provision.

22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we call up P52, Article 55

23 again.

24 Q. This sets forth the powers of ministers including the minister of

25 the interior, about which you said that it conferred powers to the

1 ministers.

2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Article 55. We don't have the

3 text in Macedonian yet.

4 Q. You said that this Article provided for the powers of the minister

5 to issue rules, decrees, and so on and so forth. Unlike the provisions

6 governing the powers of the president, for which you said that no

7 conditions were placed upon that, were -- are the powers of the minister

8 laid down in this Article tied up with some condition?

9 A. Yes. They are tied up to the condition that there is a need or a

10 necessity that there is an authorisation established by law for any act

11 that they issue.

12 Q. Professor Taseva, was this the basis of your conclusion in

13 paragraph 17 that nothing precluded the president from exercising his

14 capacity as the supreme commander in the way you described here?

15 A. Yes.

16 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown 1D52.

17 MR. SAXON: Your Honour.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.

19 MR. SAXON: I just think, in the future, it would be more correct

20 for my colleague to ask the witness what the basis of her conclusion was

21 in a particular paragraph prior to showing her a particular statutory

22 provision, going over it with the witness, and then asking the witness

23 whether this was the basis for a particular conclusion.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Carry on, Ms. Residovic. You've heard those

25 practical suggestions, and they will affect the weight we can attach to

1 answers, of course.

2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

3 Q. You were asked about the opinion you advanced -- or rather, I

4 apologise. Don't look at text now.

5 Can you please answer my question first. Can the president

6 directly, by virtue of the power conferred upon him in constitution, issue

7 a specific order or decision in his capacity as a supreme commander?

8 A. Yes, he can.

9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness now be shown 1D52.

10 Q. In the preamble of the decision, which was issued as a matter of

11 urgency by the president of the Republic of Macedonia on the 7th of

12 August, 2001, it says: "The basis of Article 79, paragraph 2 of the

13 constitution of the Republic of Macedonia, the president passed this

14 decision."

15 Does this decision confirm the opinion you referred to a moment

16 ago?

17 A. Yes. This decision is a direct corroboration and a specific

18 corroboration to this position that I've taken.

19 Q. Thank you. Yesterday, Professor Taseva, you discussed the concept

20 of the chain of command with my learned friend, and you stated at that

21 time that the flow of information and the chain of command don't go

22 together hand in hand, and you disagreed with the suggestions put to you

23 by my learned friend.

24 Do you recall that?

25 A. Yes, I recall that.

1 Q. Tell me, again, what is your view of the situation: When an order

2 is issued, how does the flow of information take place through the chain

3 of command?

4 A. If there is a chain of command, there is an order issued by the

5 commander; and, as a feedback, there is a report from the one who is

6 reporting, regarding the performance of a specifically given task, upon a

7 specifically issued order. So this is why I insisted yesterday to define

8 those notions.

9 Q. Thank you.

10 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness now be shown

11 P468.

12 Q. This is an information dated 10 June shown to you by the

13 Prosecutor yesterday.

14 While we're waiting for this report to show up, can you tell me,

15 generally speaking, what is the way in which these briefs or reports are

16 put together in the ministry? In what way do the analysis sectors in

17 which you worked yourself gather information and compile it? What is

18 their way of proceeding?

19 A. The sector for analytics, which is within the headquarters of the

20 Ministry of Interior, receives information on various areas on a daily

21 basis, from all regional secretariats and from the department of internal

22 affairs, SVRs and OVRs.

23 The information is gathered; and with regards to the more

24 significant information, a daily information note is produced everyday,

25 and it is forwarded to all competent senior officers within the Ministry

1 of Interior.

2 Q. Thank you. Your testimony of a moment ago about information notes

3 thus compiled are not reports on orders executed, are they?

4 A. No. They contain information on current events and developments

5 in the state.

6 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I'll apologise for showing the

7 document first.

8 Can we show P575, which is the information note that -- dated the

9 7th of June.

10 Q. Tell me, in view of the explanation you just provided, is this

11 another such information note prepared in the way you have just described?

12 A. Yes. I also stated this during my yesterday's evidence. This was

13 one information note that was compiled by the analytics sector in the

14 normal everyday manner.

15 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Let us look at the second page.

16 Q. Professor Taseva, you agreed yesterday that information can also

17 be the basis for debate but also for the adoption of certain decisions.

18 Do you remember agreeing with the Prosecutor on that score?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. We have several individuals listed here as having received the

21 information note.

22 Can you tell us, Professor Taseva, who would it be in the ministry

23 who would issue decisions on similar information notes that he may have

24 received?

25 A. Primarily, the individuals who are heads of certain sectors within

1 the Ministry of Interior, director for the bureau for public security,

2 police department for crime police, the director of the UBK, receive the

3 information in order to be informed basically, rather than to enable them

4 to act. The others are using these information notes also as a basis for

5 taking specific measure, if it is necessary to undertake specific measures

6 or to make decisions to further broaden the activities or to instigate

7 some specific activities.

8 Q. On the basis of such information notes, could the bodies who are

9 not competent for the matters contained in that information note issue any

10 decisions on them?

11 A. Those that are mentioned in this information note first receive

12 this information notes in order to be informed, not in order to base their

13 actions on that. So that would be the state secretary, the director of

14 the administration for security and counter-intelligence, and they receive

15 such type of information regularly in order to be informed, to be kept

16 abreast.

17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now show P478, please --

18 P468.

19 Q. You examined this document and another similar document in detail

20 with the Prosecutor, and I don't want to ask you anything about it.

21 THE INTERPRETER: Could Ms. Residovic please speak into the

22 microphone, please.

23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. And in that context you spoke about the following: "In order to

25 take certain security measures, it was necessary for something to be

1 done."

2 Let me draw your attention to the second part of the sentence

3 which says: "replacement of police forces..."

4 Tell me, please, is it your understanding that there were some

5 police forces in place there?

6 A. Yes. As it is written in this document, it states that the police

7 forces should be replaced. That would mean that they were already in

8 place.

9 Q. Tell me, would these police forces which were supposed to replace

10 others have anything to do with information note dated the 10th of June,

11 in relation to which the Prosecutor suggested to you that this telegram

12 had, in fact, been drafted?

13 A. Yesterday, I also said that I cannot make a direct correlation or

14 any kind of analysis of separate documents or pieces of information, such

15 as this telegram, and to bring them in some kind of direct correlation.

16 Q. Do you know if the minister is empowered by the virtue of the law

17 to deploy or redeploy men?

18 A. Yes. This is a power of the minister as an employer also.

19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown P86,

20 Article 56.

21 Q. This Article states in the head line: "Assignment of employees."

22 It says that: "An employee can be assigned..."

23 And in the second indent, it says: "... professional assistance in

24 conducting the duties and tasks of the regional organisational unit..."

25 And the following indent says: "... as a condition to ensure more

1 effective functioning of the ministry."

2 Tell me, Professor Taseva, this power to assign workers provided

3 for by the law to what extent, could it have a bearing on the fact that it

4 is being sought that 50 men be assigned to a different location in order

5 to replace police officers or for reasons of the security-related

6 situation?

7 A. This gives the minister the right to assign people in other

8 organisational units for the purpose of enhancing the efficiency of work.

9 Q. Do you remember discussing the Prosecutor the instructions for the

10 assignment of weapons, which is P94?

11 Do you also recall the Prosecutor asking you about the power

12 conferred by the law to the minister to issue one such instruction and

13 where was it to be found? Do you remember that?

14 A. Yes, I remember.

15 Q. This is the instruction at hand, which speaks in what way official

16 weapons can be issued or signed up for.

17 On the face value on the basis of its title, what would you say,

18 Professor Taseva, does this instruction provide for some sort of a power

19 or a competence?

20 A. This instruction establishes the manner in which a certain

21 activity will be carried out, an activity foreseen by law and another

22 by-law.

23 Q. In connection with this, the Prosecutor showed to you Article 25

24 of the law, which is P86.

25 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have that Article on our

1 screens again.

2 Q. Article 25 says, in paragraph 2: "Authorised officials in

3 accordance with the regulations for performing special duties and powers

4 are in possession and wear an official fire-arm, ammunition, and other

5 means and equipment adequately prescribed."

6 When answering the question put to you by the Prosecutor, you kept

7 going back to the fact that it had to be defined by by-laws. Do you

8 recall that?

9 A. Yes. I remember having said this.

10 Q. However, the Prosecutor, proceeding from your opinion stated in

11 paragraphs 59 and 60, asked you to say where -- or, rather, in which law

12 and where could the power of the minister to issue such regulations be

13 found, including the regulations for exercising special competencies and

14 powers. Do you recall that?

15 A. Yes, I recall.

16 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at Article 74 of

17 the law.

18 JUDGE PARKER: While that's happening, could I point out,

19 Ms. Residovic, that we're now at the end of our time. So you'll have to

20 bring it to a close.

21 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I should like to know

22 how many minutes I still have left. I asked yesterday to be given a

23 whole -- a full 50 minutes, and I believe I have had less than that.

24 [Trial Chamber confers]

25 JUDGE PARKER: Well, you haven't 50 minutes. It is re-examination

1 of a witness with an extensive written report. We extended to a maximum

2 period in this, so doubling the time of the normal last period, and that

3 gave you a full 45 minutes, as you would have had, if we had set the

4 normal time. We doubled that by sitting for an hour and a half, trying to

5 ensure that Mr. Saxon could finish his work, which was clearly going to

6 take longer.

7 We have now given you over 50 minutes.

8 MS. RESIDOVIC: 50 minutes.

9 JUDGE THELIN: 55.

10 JUDGE PARKER: So, you are at the end of your --

11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] It will be enough thank you.

12 JUDGE PARKER: -- time, and the tape is nearly at the end as well.

13 So if you've got a last question, please.

14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15 Q. Please look at Article 74 of the law. Does this Article confer

16 powers upon the minister?

17 A. This Article does confer power to the minister to pass the by-laws

18 about which I spoke several times; first, to carry the work out in the

19 Ministry of Internal Affairs and other by-laws.

20 Q. Tell me, among these powers conferred upon the minister, could the

21 power to issue the instructions be found?

22 A. I can only repeat what I said yesterday that the minister has the

23 power to pass by-laws and regulations for establishing the manner in which

24 the work in the Ministry of Interior will be carried out. Passing of an

25 instruction, which we just saw, in fact means additional

1 operationalisation of what is listed in the rule book for performing the

2 work of the Ministry of Interior.

3 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I should like to

4 state before I complete my examination that the rules of service, as are

5 stated here as the power of the minister to resolve matters of authorised

6 officials and their powers, have not been fully translated. We made a

7 short draft translation which deals with the way in which official weapons

8 can be held, and it starts from Article 289. Once we have completed it,

9 we will ask that it be annexed to this document.

10 The second matter I wish to raise is that the translation of the

11 instructions is also missing.

12 Yes. I'm told that I should specify that I was -- that what I've

13 just said has to do with P96, because Article 84 points to the adoption of

14 the enactment which deals with certain powers.

15 The other matter about what I wanted to say about the translation

16 is that the instructions on the assignments of weapons contain a

17 significant error; that is to say, the translation contains a significant

18 error as we established yesterday, and we will ask for an official

19 translation from the CLSS, since the translation we have been working so

20 far with was the one provided by the Prosecution. That translation, in

21 Article 2, states instead of the assignment of weapons in the head office

22 of the Ministry of Interior, the assignment of weapons in the entire

23 ministry is mentioned.

24 If this is the end of my re-examination, then I will stop here.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Ms. Residovic and we look forward to

1 those matters being attended to.

2 You will be pleased to know, Professor, that by being a little

3 determined with our time, we have managed to reach the end of your

4 evidence. So you are free to go to attend to the other matter that you

5 needed to attend to and you do not need to return here.

6 We would like to thank you for your attention and your assistance.

7 We are grateful to counsel for having managed to complete the questioning

8 of the witness in the time we had available today, including the extra

9 time that we were able to make.

10 We adjourn now and resume on Monday afternoon, it is, at 2.15.

11 Thank you.

12 [The witness withdrew]

13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.17 p.m.,

14 to be reconvened on Monday, the 25th day of

15 February, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25