1 Thursday, 11 February 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 [The witness takes the stand]
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
8 JUDGE PARKER: If I could remind you of the affirmation you made
9 to tell the truth still applies.
10 Ms. Kravetz.
11 MS. KRAVETZ: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 If we could please have D590 up on the screen and this is Defence
13 65 ter 70.
14 WITNESS: KOSTA NOVAKOVIC [Resumed]
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 Cross-examination by Ms. Kravetz: [Continued]
17 Q. Sir, I want to go back very briefly to a document we were
18 discussing yesterday and this is a report that was sent to you and other
19 members of your liaison team, and it's dated 24th December - it should be
20 1998, but I note that the English says 1999. And this report refers to
21 the deployment of a tank company of the reinforced 15th Armoured Brigade
22 to the area of the Batlava airfield sector. You remember we were
23 discussing this report yesterday?
24 A. Yes, I do remember that.
25 MS. KRAVETZ: If we could move to page 3 in the English, the
1 bottom, page 3; and this is page 4 in the B/C/S, also in the bottom.
2 This is -- are we there? No. There.
3 Q. There's a reference in the report to a meeting between Loncar and
4 General Drewienkiewicz, whom we spoke about yesterday. And
5 General Drewienkiewicz is noted as saying that he's very surprised at the
6 deployment of strong VJ forces in the Podujevo area. He understands that
7 the unit is carrying out exercises on the training-ground but the timing
8 is inappropriate to the situation. He expressed fears that the so-called
9 KLA - and I turn the page in the English and it's also the same paragraph
10 in B/C/S - members could open fire to which VJ members would respond and
11 this could escalate into armed conflict. And this is page 5 in the
12 B/C/S, and it's also the top of page 4 in the English. It notes there
13 that he's told that the training activities would last until
14 22nd December, so that is four days after this deployment.
15 Do you see the passage I'm referring to, those two paragraphs
17 A. Yes, I see it.
18 Q. Now, sir, do you recall that this unit in fact did not leave the
19 area of the Batlava airfield in Podujevo municipality on the 22nd, as had
20 been announced to General Drewienkiewicz from the KVM. It in fact was
21 reinforced with additional units. Do you recall that happening some days
23 A. No, not quite, but you can see that from this part here. From
24 here you see that it's going to be until the 22nd.
25 Q. What I'm asking, sir, is this unit was in fact not sent back to
1 barracks on the 22nd. Additional units were sent to this area by the VJ;
3 A. No, I don't see it here. It's possible, but I don't see that.
4 Q. Let me show you another document and maybe that refreshes your
5 memory of what I'm speaking about, this is P9666 [sic], these are the VJ
6 collegium minutes of 24th December 1998. This is in fact the same date
7 that the report was drafted, and I'm looking for page 14 in the English,
8 and I believe it's the same page in the B/C/S. And this is passage where
9 Mihajlovic is speaking, and he was the leader of the duty operations of
10 the VJ General Staff; correct? Are you familiar with General Mihajlovic?
11 A. I know that he was the acting duty operations officer, but I
12 don't know him.
13 Q. Okay. And in the passage he starts speaking at the previous
14 page, but this passage is -- it's on the top page of the English, if we
15 could scroll back to the top page of the English. It says:
16 "One fortified tank company went out for training on
17 19th December, and two mechanised platoons from the 15th Armoured Brigade
18 on the 22nd of December. They were combined to form provisional
19 formations in the area of the Batlava airport ..." and it goes on to
20 indicate the composition. And it says in total there are 221 persons,
21 there are also nine tanks, T-55 tanks, ten M-80 combat vehicles, three
22 Pragas, one armoured personnel carrier, three mortars, and one tank.
23 Do you recall the fact that these units were sent, these
24 additional reinforcements were sent to the area of Batlava on this date?
25 And we're speaking of the date on which the unit was supposed to pull out
1 from the area, that's on the 22nd of December.
2 A. Well, that doesn't have to be a reinforcement. These can be
3 other units which came to also take part in the exercise and the
5 Q. But the information that had been provided to KVM was that the
6 unit would be sent back to barracks, that the trainings would conclude on
7 the 22nd; correct?
8 A. No, I don't know of such information.
9 Q. Didn't we just look at the report that you had received which
10 stated that that's what General Drewienkiewicz had been told in his
11 meeting with Colonel Loncar?
12 A. Could we see it again, please.
13 Q. We can. This is D590, and the passage is page 5 in the English.
14 I believe it's also page 5 in the B/C/S. Do you see that in the first
15 paragraph, the date of 22nd?
16 A. Yes, yes, I see it now. I see it now. It's okay now.
17 Q. So what I'm asking, sir, if this unit in fact was reinforced and
18 was not withdrawn from the area, as had been announced to the KVM -- in
19 fact, remained in the area and was reinforced?
20 A. It probably remained in the area for some time until the planned
21 exercises were finished, but General Loncar was not a representative of
22 the army. So he was not really in close contact in relation to these
23 assignments, so it's possible that this was a mistake.
24 Q. Sir, are you aware that on the days following this VJ collegium
25 meeting that we just referred to, that was the 24th of December, fighting
1 broke out in the area where these units were deployed in the -- near the
2 Batlava airfield and the Podujevo municipality? And this was fighting
3 between the VJ and MUP and KLA forces. Are you aware of that?
4 A. I have to say that I wasn't really following those activities.
5 Q. Wouldn't this have been included in the daily reports you were
6 receiving from the 3rd Army command liaison officer in the section on
7 incidents affecting the VJ? Wouldn't this be the type of information
8 reported in these daily reports?
9 A. Yes, probably, but I don't really recall that.
10 Q. And you don't recall hearing anything about this from other
11 members of your liaison team?
12 A. I cannot recall that now, no.
13 Q. And you don't recall hearing about anything from any members of
14 the KVM or any complaints from the KVM regarding this incident I'm
15 referring to, the fighting in this area? You don't recall anything about
16 that either?
17 A. Not in our team. I don't know if this was in some other place.
18 I don't know.
19 Q. I must say, sir, I'm quite surprised that you weren't aware of
20 this, as news of this incident made it all the way back to Belgrade. I
21 now want to show you a document, this is P1330, it's dated 30th of
22 December, 1998. And if we could have page 14 in the English and page 15
23 in the B/C/S. And these are the VJ -- the minutes of the VJ collegium of
24 that date, as we see when the page has been displayed.
25 MS. KRAVETZ: I'm looking for page 14 in the English and page 15
1 in the B/C/S.
2 Q. And this is a passage that starts on the previous page in the
3 English, and on the B/C/S we have it on the same page. And it's
4 General Dimitrijevic speaking. I take it, sir, you're familiar with
5 General Dimitrijevic, he was the chief of the army security at the time;
7 A. I don't know him personally, but I do know that he was the chief,
9 MS. KRAVETZ: If we could scroll up in the English. I think
10 we've moved down.
11 Q. And I want to direct your attention to a passage that starts:
12 "In addition, the current situation in the vicinity of
13 Podujevo, I think that we must be completely consistent here and
14 completely open towards each other, so to speak. The situation in
15 Podujevo and the surroundings, it was complex before, but when did it
16 suddenly become even more complicated? After the so-called --"
17 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please slow down when reading. Thank
19 MS. KRAVETZ: I'm sorry.
20 Q. "... after the so-called pretend or real planned exercises in
21 which this company took part in the field.
22 "General, these sorts of moves will lead us to disaster, the
23 explanation that this was a planned exercise, that is not true. It was
24 planned that the unit would provoke the terrorists so that the MUP would
25 then have to do whatever it had to do. The fact that the MUP did not do
1 what it had to do afterwards has resulted in what we have now."
2 Do you see the passage I just read out, sir?
3 A. Yes, I see it.
4 Q. And you would agree with me, sir, based on your knowledge of the
5 agreement which we went over yesterday, that this sort of deployment
6 under the pretext of an exercise would in fact have been a violation of
7 the obligations of the VJ under these agreements?
8 A. I wouldn't come to that conclusion. First of all, I'm not aware
9 of these reports from the collegium sessions, and you know that I did not
10 attend those meetings of the collegium. Secondly, I don't know what the
11 other senior officers noted in respect of this comment by
12 Mr. Dimitrijevic. It would be interesting to hear the comment of the
13 Chief of the General Staff. But I would like to say something. We in
14 the team --
15 Q. Sir, if I can stop you there.
16 I'm not asking whether you heard these comments personally or I'm
17 not suggesting that you were at this meeting. All I'm asking is based on
18 your knowledge of the agreements we went over yesterday if a deployment
19 of this type, which is a unit being deployed outside of barracks under
20 the pretext of a planning -- of a training exercise but really to draw
21 fire from the KLA, if that sort of deployment was in violation of the
22 agreements? That's what I'm asking. So I'm asking if based on your
23 knowledge of the agreements this sort of deployment would have been a
24 violation of the agreements?
25 A. I must complete what I wanted to say. As far as we're concerned
1 in the team, what is important to us is the report by the team signed by
2 General Mladenovic, who was a proper officer. So I don't know about this
3 particular one, I cannot really comment in that way.
4 Q. Well, I note you're not really answering my question, sir, but
5 I'll move on from that point.
6 MS. KRAVETZ: We scroll down on the same page in the English, and
7 it's -- I believe it's the next page in the B/C/S.
8 Q. We see that General Obradovic, your team leader, is speaking.
9 MS. KRAVETZ: If we could scroll down and scroll down in the
11 Q. There's a passage which begins:
12 "We have registered it, and we have managed to avoid registering
13 it as a combat group, because it has been defined as though it was going
14 into battle. Instead we have registered it as some sort of mixed or
15 mechanised company that is on extended combat training in this
16 training-ground, and this is how it will be decided down there. That's
18 And I know you haven't read the entirety of this text, but I put
19 to you, sir, that he's speaking about the same company that was deployed
20 in the Podujevo area.
21 MS. KRAVETZ: I see my learned colleague is on his feet.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, I'm waiting, though, for the answer.
23 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] We don't have the text on the
24 screen. This is all I wanted to say, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Okay. Thank you.
1 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] The screen is not showing that
2 section of the text in the Serbian, so that the witness could read it.
3 This is all I wished to say.
4 MS. KRAVETZ: It's on the next page in the B/C/S. Yes, on the
5 top part, it's right there, right above where Colonel Zivanovic starts
7 Q. Do you see the passage that I've just referred to which start
9 "We have registered it, and we have managed to avoid registering
10 it as a combat group ..."
11 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: It was the previous page
12 in the B/C/S.
13 MS. KRAVETZ: Okay. I think we have the right passage now.
14 Q. Now, sir, General Obradovic here is referring to this combat
15 group having been registered as being -- as a company on extended combat
16 training. Who would normally register this sort of group or company as
17 being in extended combat training? Was that something that was done at
18 your level, at the level of your liaison group, or was this done at the
19 level of the 3rd Army or the Pristina Corps? Who would normally register
20 it as a company on extended combat training?
21 A. No, all the definitions are at the level of the army command and
22 the corps command. We did not define anything. All we had was we
23 received reports. We were not authorised to change anything. We
24 received reports and we trusted our superiors. They wrote reports on
25 behalf of the team and in agreement with the command. Nothing was done.
1 The team was subordinated to the corps command or the army command, the
2 3rd Army command. So everything that was done was done in accordance
3 with the position, the joint position, and pursuant to the correct
5 Q. And when it says "we have registered," does this mean that it was
6 registered with the KVM as being a company on extended combat training?
7 Is that what it's referring to?
8 A. I don't know that because General Obradovic never presented those
9 positions from the collegium in this way, and he was not obliged to
10 present to us the positions taken at the collegium. These are
11 professional questions, although in this particular instance the question
12 of relations with the missions is also being mentioned. But again, I
13 mention we were not present. Had the general mentioned it to us, we
14 would have acted pursuant to whatever he told us.
15 Q. Very well, sir.
16 MS. KRAVETZ: If we can look at another document, and this is
18 Q. Sir, this company or this unit that we've been referring to in
19 the Podujevo area, they in fact did not return to barracks in January
20 either. They were still deployed in that area; correct?
21 A. I cannot remember. I would have to see that.
22 Q. We can look at this document. It's Defence 65 ter 781, and if we
23 see a paragraph that starts with:
24 "Between 0800 and 01400 hours on 27th January, a reinforced TC,"
25 which we saw in the other document was tank company; it's been translated
1 as armoured squadron, "of the 15th Armoured Brigade was made up of 11 b/v
2 and 69 men carried out a tactical exercise on the Pristina village of
3 Luzane axis," and it says, "(general Podujevo sector) on the topic of
4 securing roads and capturing assigned facilities."
5 This is the same tank company as the 15th Armoured Brigade that
6 we've been referred to; correct?
7 A. Well, you can conclude that on the basis of this, yes.
8 Q. And we see that this is a regular weekly report from the period
9 of 22nd to 28th January, and it was again sent to your liaison team. We
10 see that at the top; correct? It's dated 28th January --
11 A. Yes, and naturally we sent the same thing to the mission.
12 Q. Now if we can briefly turn to page 5 in the English and page 6,
13 it's the middle of page 6 in the B/C/S. There's a reference there to a
14 meeting which took place on the same day in the Pristina offices of the
15 federal government's co-ordination team between General Drewienkiewicz
16 and Mr. Dusan Loncar. And it indicates that the topic discussed at the
17 meeting was the current situation in the general area of Podujevo and the
18 VJ activities in the sector.
19 Do you see the passage I'm referring to, sir?
20 A. Yes, I see it.
21 Q. These training exercises, sir, I put to you that these training
22 exercises that this report refers to again resulted in extensive fighting
23 in the area of Podujevo. Are you aware of that?
24 A. No, I wasn't aware of that, but the unit did have a real reason.
25 There was a reason to organise training there for purposes of protecting
1 the roads, and now we see that being put into practice.
2 Q. Wouldn't information on fighting in this area have been contained
3 in the reports that you were receiving, sir?
4 A. That would be usual, but there -- it's not here, no.
5 Q. And, sir, this unit in fact remained in this area all the way
6 until the NATO bombing campaign began in March of 1999; correct?
7 A. I don't have the precise information. But if it did stay there
8 it was in the training camp, and it was there at the training camp which
9 was meant for training. But I don't know if it was there throughout that
10 whole period. Perhaps there was some replacements.
11 Q. Thank you for that.
12 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honours, I seek to tender this exhibit.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Which one is that?
14 MS. KRAVETZ: This is Defence 65 ter 781. It's --
15 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, it will be received.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01529.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Did we have as exhibits all of the documents you
18 put to the witness --
19 MS. KRAVETZ: Yes, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE PARKER: -- before that?
21 MS. KRAVETZ: Yes. That's why I haven't moved to tender them.
22 JUDGE PARKER: There was some problem with the recording, which
23 is why I asked the question.
24 MS. KRAVETZ: That should be P966. I may have --
25 JUDGE PARKER: P966. Thank you very much.
1 MS. KRAVETZ: -- indicated it wrong.
2 Q. Now, sir, yesterday when my learned colleague was questioning
3 you, you spoke about the freedom of movement of OSCE, and that was
4 contained in the OSCE agreement. And you indicated that the VJ
5 understood that this freedom of movement throughout Kosovo did not
6 include access to VJ barracks. Do you remember speaking about that?
7 A. Yes, that's what I said.
8 Q. During the period from when the KVM was set up all the way up to
9 the period when it withdrew from Kosovo, was it ever -- were members of
10 the KVM ever allowed entry into VJ barracks in Kosovo?
11 A. Yes, yes, and more than once.
12 Q. And in which occasion was that, do you recall?
13 A. As we were making those preparations, if you allow me a longer
14 answer, we had ordered all these commanders to provide within the
15 perimeter of the barracks an area so that KVM can come unhindered and
16 wait in an area until we provide liaison officers. And since there were
17 many such requests, we found it appropriate to receive those people and
18 to talk to them. Many of them insisted constantly to have meetings with
19 commanders, and they frequently did have contacts with commanders of our
20 brigades and our border battalions. On several occasions, although I
21 can't tell you how often, it was even allowed to them to inspect the
22 units and the systems that they had no jurisdiction over, such as the
23 anti-aircraft defence system, including the heavy weapons that were
24 inspected and controlled under the agreement -- the subregional agreement
25 on weapons control. And we accepted that the KVM should also inspect
1 those weapons from time to time, regardless of our agreement with NATO.
2 So there was a thaw in our relations, but simply we believed it was not
3 entirely in keeping with the agreement.
4 Q. So if I understand correctly - and I'm just also recalling your
5 evidence from yesterday - the initial position was that access to
6 barracks was to be denied because that was not authorised by the
7 agreement, was that the initial position of the VJ?
8 A. That was the initial position, with a proviso that we insisted
9 that leaders of the mission, Ambassador Walker and his deputy
10 Drewienkiewicz should raise the issue with political counterparts so that
11 they should resolve the issue of entry into barracks at that level.
12 Because the issue could expand. They could next ask to go into the
13 apartments of the officers, and so on, and so on.
14 Q. And did this change in position -- you've told us that they were
15 allowed at some point. Did this change in position happen around March
16 of 1999? Was that when there was a change in this position and
17 inspections into the barracks of the anti-aircraft defence system was
18 allowed? Was that when it occurred?
19 A. It was not a global change. It was a sign of goodwill and our
20 readiness to co-operate even beyond our obligations.
21 Q. Yes. I'm asking if this sign of goodwill, as you've termed it,
22 if this happened around March of 1999. You told us yesterday that this
23 was a sticking point, and it was repeatedly raised in your meetings with
24 KVM. Was this access to the barracks, in the way you've described it,
25 allowed as of March of 1999?
1 A. I think it was actually a bit earlier. Yesterday in my evidence
2 I kept trying to explain that we always had an increasingly tolerant
3 position towards the KVM, because they were people too. There were 2.000
4 of them. They needed to do certain things. They needed to be engaged.
5 It was a lot, 2.000 men, in such a small area. We knew that they were
6 our colleagues, officers, and we had understanding for them, although I
7 must say they did not have that much understanding for us.
8 Q. Okay. Very well, sir. I'll move on from there. I just have one
9 last document I want to show you. And this is Prosecution 65 ter 01473,
10 if we could have that up on the screen.
11 And yesterday, sir, while that is being brought up you told us
12 that you worked at the operations centre of the VJ General Staff; is that
13 correct? For the 2nd Army, if I recall.
14 A. No, I don't think you understood that well, or maybe you
15 misstated it. I wasn't working at the operations centre. I was working
16 at the operations administration, it was called the first administration,
17 that dealt with organising the units of the General Staff. Maybe it's
18 not a good comparison, but like Registry is an organisational unit of the
19 Tribunal; in the same way our operations administration was an
20 organisational unit of the General Staff, and I was working in this first
22 Q. I misspoke, sir, I meant operations administration, not
23 operations centre. Now we see -- you see the document on the screen
24 before us is a document dated 1st April 1999, and it is sent from the
25 Supreme Command Staff operations administration to the command of the
1 2nd Army.
2 MS. KRAVETZ: And if we could scroll down on both versions of the
4 Q. We see it says there: "Written by: Colonel Kosta Novakovic."
5 That would be you, sir?
6 A. Yes, yes, that's the right document.
7 Q. And we see that this was signed by General Ojdanic, so it was
8 prepared by you for General Ojdanic's signature?
9 A. Yes, correct.
10 Q. Now, we see - if we could scroll up a bit in the English - we see
11 that this order refers to the resubordination of the 37th Motorised
12 Brigade to the command of the Pristina Corps 3rd Army. And it says that
13 the resubordination will take place on 2nd April, 1999, by marching on
14 the axis Raska-Kosovska Mitrovica-Srbica. Do you see that? That's
15 number 2 that I'm reading out.
16 A. I can see that.
17 Q. This unit that the -- this order refers to was based in the Raska
18 area; correct?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. And pursuant to this order, it was deployed to Kosovo and
21 subordinated to the Pristina Corps command on that date, on 1st of April?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. And do you recall, sir, that this unit remained in Kosovo
24 throughout the 1999 conflict, that is, all the way up to June of 1999?
25 A. Yes, I think so.
1 Q. Do you recall who was the commander of this unit, sir?
2 A. I think it's one of the lieutenant-colonels, but I can't remember
3 the name.
4 Q. And, sir, before this order was issued by General Ojdanic to
5 subordinate this unit to the Pristina Corps command, elements of this
6 brigade were already in Kosovo, no, they had already been brought in to
7 Kosovo by the commander of the 3rd Army. Do you recall that happening,
9 A. I'm not aware of that, but I can see from this order that the
10 commander was already there. And it's my judgement that he was there to
11 inspect his brigade and to conduct the so-called commander
12 reconnaissance. But while we are at this order we should really note the
13 date because it's important. The aggression was well under way, the
14 Kosovo Verification Mission was no longer there, and there was no reason
15 for this unit not to go into Kosovo.
16 Q. I'm not asking about that. I was just asking about the time when
17 elements of this brigade came in, and we see that it's being deployed to
18 the Srbica area, correct, that's what we see in number 2 of this
20 A. It's correct, but the date is very important. Otherwise I agree
21 with you on all the other elements.
22 Q. Thank you, sir.
23 MS. KRAVETZ: I seek to tender this exhibit into evidence,
24 Your Honours.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01530.
2 MS. KRAVETZ: I have no further questions for this witness,
3 Your Honours. Thank you.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Ms. Kravetz.
5 Mr. Djurdjic.
6 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Can we
7 get the same document back, P1530, and then we'll start from the end.
8 Re-examination by Mr. Djurdjic:
9 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Novakovic, my learned friend asserted based
10 on this order that parts of this brigade had already been stationed in
11 Kosovo and Metohija on the 1st of April when the order was issued. Can
12 we establish that really based on this order?
13 A. No, I don't think so. Madam Prosecutor probably interpreted this
14 para 3, where it says that the commander of the brigade shall accommodate
15 the brigade, the commander who is in the sector. It's important to note
16 the date, the 1st of April, whereas the bombing of the FRY - which we
17 called NATO aggression, and in fact it was NATO aggression - started back
18 on the 23rd of March. The bombardment was underway, and this commander
19 had to go with his scouts to the area before his unit so that his unit
20 would not be destroyed by the bombing. That's why he was there earlier.
21 Q. And item 1 says resubordinate the 37th Motorised Brigade. Does
22 it mean the entire brigade?
23 A. Absolutely.
24 Q. And then it says in item 2: "Carry out the resubordination by
25 marching ..." Does it mean that the unit mentioned in item 1 should be
1 marched in its entirety?
2 A. Yes, it says Raska-Kosovska Mitrovica-Srbica. I don't know if it
3 was to be taken over solely by the march or ...
4 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have P01529.
5 Q. But before we see it, after all these October Agreements did
6 there occur a withdrawal of the army and all the other security forces
7 into barracks out of Kosovo and Metohija as envisaged by the agreement?
8 A. Absolutely, I kept emphasising that --
9 Q. Okay. Let's not spend any more time on it. I have more
10 questions. What about this area from which the security forces of
11 Yugoslavia and Serbia withdrew, do you know what happened with that area
12 from the withdrawal until the arrival of the Kosovo Verification Mission?
13 A. Yes. The KLA, the terrorist forces, recovered that area.
14 Q. Was it in keeping with the agreement signed?
15 A. Certainly not.
16 Q. My learned friend pointed out this passage to you.
17 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we just go to the left in
18 B/C/S. I can't see the date. On -- I can't see the date.
19 Q. A reinforced unit carried out a tactical exercise on the topic of
20 securing roads and capturing assigned facilities on the Pristina-Luzane
21 village axis, general Podujevo sector. Can we see from this where this
22 column was?
23 A. Thank you for pointing this out. They went along the axis --
24 [No interpretation]
25 I hadn't noticed this straight away. Maybe -- may I continue
2 Q. No, no, no. Let us wait for the Trial Chamber and their
3 indication when you may continue.
4 JUDGE PARKER: We need to repeat that previous answer,
5 Mr. Djurdjic, as it was missed all together in the interpretation.
6 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Mr. Novakovic, do you remember your previous answer, or shall I
8 repeat my question?
9 From what we just read that on 22nd [as interpreted] January the
10 reinforced unit, the 15th Armoured Brigade, made up of 11 combat vehicles
11 and 69 men, carried out a tactical exercise, et cetera, et cetera. Do we
12 see how strong the unit was, where they went, and how long the tactical
13 exercise lasted?
14 A. Yes. I said I had omitted an important element, because there is
15 a highlighted passage here, and I don't read it -- I can't read it very
16 well. But now I can see. This unit from 14 -- from 0800 to 1400 hours,
17 so it's a very limited time-span, was on this assignment on the axis of
18 Pristina-Luzane village, and that's the general Podujevo sector. From
19 this we can conclude that the unit set off from Pristina towards Podujevo
20 and returned within this time-span because it's very limited, from 0800
21 hours to 1400 hours. This follows logically from this paragraph.
22 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Now, can we now see P966.
23 JUDGE PARKER: While that's happening, I'd note that page 20,
24 line 7, you are recorded as reading the 22nd of January, it was the 27th
25 of January.
1 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I couldn't see the date at all.
2 Something is highlighted. I said 20-something January.
3 May I continue, Your Honour? Thank you.
4 If we see on the screen P966, I'd like to request the page in
5 B/C/S 14 I think -- no, 15, and it's 14 in English. Now I made a
6 mistake. We need 14 in Serbian.
7 Q. Mr. Novakovic, my colleague read this out to you and then you
8 moved to the next page, and that's where the question by Mrs. Kravetz
9 ended. What is written below on this page, the second paragraph from the
11 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I want to see the top of the page,
13 Q. Do you see that second paragraph?
14 A. There were no other exercises in this period. Is that what you
16 Q. Yes, yes. So after the report by the operations duty officer,
17 the conclusion is to be found in the second paragraph?
18 A. Yes, there were no other exercises in this period.
19 Q. But I can't see that we got it in English.
20 A. Yes, it's there.
21 Q. Yes, it's there. Thank you.
22 Mr. Novakovic, did the agreements that were signed ban any
23 exercises in training in Kosovo and Metohija?
24 A. No, on the contrary, they were allowed.
25 Q. What about this training centre, Batlava, did it exist even
1 before these events in Kosovo?
2 A. Yes, we called it a training-ground, and it was the best in the
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see P837, page --
6 page 3, please.
7 Q. Mr. Novakovic, my learned friend, Mrs. Kravetz, pointed out to
8 you points 2, 4, and 5 of the agreement. I'd like to know whether these
9 points, 2, 4, and 5 - and please look at point 7 as well - tell us
10 whether our obligations under this agreement had been honoured by this
12 A. I think I've said so many times, yes.
13 Q. Yes, but who received reports at that time?
14 A. To the Kosovo Diplomatic Mission, KDOM, that consisted of
15 representatives of embassies, attaches and their assistants, a large
16 number of officers in fact.
17 Q. Now, please look at item 8 very carefully. It says:
18 "With a view to verification of the implementation of these
19 provisions, commanding officers of the Yugoslav Army and MUP shall report
20 weekly -- will provide to KDOM/OSCE detailed weekly reports of manning,
21 weapons, and activities of their forces."
22 What does it mean "weekly"?
23 A. That means that even before the Kosovo Verification Mission
24 started their work, KDOM, and through them the OSCE, had all the
25 information about manning, weapons, and activities. And as we know,
1 after the Kosovo Verification Mission arrived the KDOM was supposed to
2 integrate with them. And upon its arrival the KVM had all the
3 information about personnel, weapons, and activities, and these things
4 that Drewienkiewicz asked for were already in the reports.
5 Q. But when it says "weekly reports," what kind of activities can be
6 covered by such a report?
7 A. Well, it specifies very clearly.
8 Q. No, that's not what I'm asking. Does it mean past circumstances
9 or future circumstances?
10 A. No, past.
11 Q. Weekly, what does it mean?
12 A. Once a week for the past week.
13 Q. I don't think I need to show you again the Resolution 1199
14 concerning the relationship between KDOM and the KVM under that
15 resolution. I'd only like one more thing, P967, please. It's a
16 collegium meeting of the 3rd December 1998. Page 21 in B/C/S and 19 in
17 English. It's a collegium of the Chief of the General Staff. We're
18 interested in the contribution by Lieutenant-General Obradovic. It's
19 another thing that had been covered by Mrs. Kravetz. No, the next page,
20 please -- yeah, that's it, that's it. Milorad Obradovic.
21 Do you see -- it's somewhere in the middle. We need to -- we
22 need to draft a brief on the Vienna Agreement by 15 December, do you see
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. What kind of Vienna Agreement is that and what was he talking
2 A. The Vienna Agreement relates to the control of heavy weaponry,
3 12.7 millimetres and more.
4 Q. What kind of legal document is it?
5 A. It's the agreement on the subregional control of weapons.
6 Q. Thank you, Mr. Novakovic, for your evidence.
7 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] And thank you, Your Honours. I
8 have no further questions for this witness.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Djurdjic.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE PARKER: You'll be pleased to know that that completes the
12 questions for you. The Chamber would thank you for your attendance here
13 in The Hague and the assistance you have given. You may of course now
14 return to your normal activities. A Court Officer will show you out.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
16 [The witness withdrew]
17 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer].
18 JUDGE PARKER: We are told, Mr. Djordjevic, that your witness is
20 [The witness entered court]
21 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning.
22 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Would you please read aloud the affirmation shown
24 to you.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
1 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Please sit down.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djordjevic has some questions for you.
5 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Microphone not activated]
6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for counsel, please.
7 WITNESS: MILOVAN VLAJKOVIC
8 [Witness answered through interpreter]
9 Examination by Mr. Djordjevic:
10 Q. [Interpretation] To repeat, good morning, since my microphone was
12 A. Good morning to you and everyone else in the courtroom.
13 Q. Please tell us your full first and last name.
14 A. Milovan Vlajkovic, retired army colonel.
15 Q. Where were you born and when?
16 A. I was born on the 21st of February, 1948, in the village of
17 Omoljica, the municipality of Pancevo.
18 Q. Thank you. Did you provide a statement to Mr. Ratko Djukanovic
19 on the 17th of August, 2007, as well as an additional statement to
20 Tomislav Visnjic on the 17th of September, 2007?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Did you read both of them, and did you study them in detail
23 before your testimony here today?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Would you state the same answers if asked the same things today?
1 A. Yes, I would, but please bear in mind that I made a correction to
2 paragraph 14 of the statement. I made it more precise and clear, and as
3 far as I know, that is on the record. In terms of precision, I wanted to
4 state what the mail procedure was used by the assistants in the
5 Main Staff and the Supreme Command when they submitted such mail to the
6 chief for signature. That was the description I provided, and I believe
7 it is on the record now.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask the Chamber
10 to admit both statements into evidence. The first one of the 17th of
11 August, 2007, is D010-0697, and the other one of the 17th of September,
12 2007, is D010-711 [sic].
13 JUDGE PARKER: They will be admitted.
14 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Or 0711.
15 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the statement
16 D010-0697 will be Exhibit D00600 and the statement D010-0711 will be
17 Exhibit D00601.
18 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Did you testify in the Milutinovic et al. case on the 20th of
20 September, 2007?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Would you provide the same answers as then, or would you change
24 A. I would not. Perhaps I would expand on my answers.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] This transcript marked as
2 D010-3937 is something that I seek to tender into evidence.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00602.
5 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] This witness will testify today
6 about the following. In the second half of 1998 and the first half of
7 1999, the witness held the function of the chef de cabinet, Chief of the
8 General Staff, as it was called during peacetime; or the Chief of Staff
9 of the Supreme Command during the NATO aggression. The witness will
10 testify about his duties and obligations he had as the chef de cabinet of
11 both the General Staff in peacetime as well as of the Supreme Command in
12 war time. He will testify about how the cabinet, in keeping with annual
13 and periodical work-plans and in co-operation with other organisational
14 units, drafted work-plans for the Chief of Staff of the General Staff and
15 the staff of the Supreme Command. He monitored the implementation of
16 those plans. Changes to those plans could be undertaken without changing
17 the gist of such plans only in emergency conditions or upon the request
18 of the president of the FRY and the Supreme Council of Defence or by
19 intervention of superior institutions.
20 The cabinet of the Chief of the General Staff in peacetime or the
21 staff of the -- Supreme Command Staff in war time and the chief of
22 cabinet, in keeping with its function, regularly participated and
23 co-operated with the operational administration for operational staff in
24 the preparation of the agendas for regular meetings and briefings held by
25 the Chief of the General Staff and the Supreme Command Staff, which he
1 had to verify in advance. The witness provided the technical aspects
2 such as the making of audio and visual recordings. He also wants to
3 point out at the -- point out the mistakes which may have occurred during
4 such meetings that were of technical nature. He will also testify about
5 the meetings and documentation created in the wake of such meetings. He
6 will also explain how he prepared mail which required the signature of
7 the Chief of Staff or the chief of the Supreme Command Staff and how it
8 was archived.
9 The witness will also comment on different documents explaining
10 what a reception stamp is, as well as the Registry log number or what
11 errors could be made or what notations could be made by the Chief of the
12 General Staff on such documents themselves. The documents have been kept
13 in the log-books under the dates they were received. Mistakes could
14 occur in terms of entering the correct date. As the chief of cabinet, he
15 had no knowledge of any member of the Supreme Command Staff ordering or
16 approving any type of activities which would be contrary to international
17 humanitarian law in terms of committing war crimes. Quite to the
18 contrary, the witness will confirm that numerous documents strictly
19 prohibited such conduct.
20 He will also testify that during NATO aggression he has the chef
21 de cabinet of the Supreme Command Staff was with the chief of the Supreme
22 Command Staff at the command post on a daily basis. He attended daily
23 briefings and situation analyses. Due to the virtue of his function, the
24 witness attended briefings given to the Chief of the General Staff, and
25 pursuant to his orders he precisely defined tasks in linguistic terms and
1 subsequently distributed them to those who were in charge of implementing
2 them. He also followed the implementation of those tasks and submitted
3 reports on the same.
4 The witness will testify about who was in attendance at those
5 meetings. He will also explain that he has no knowledge of any ethnic
6 cleansing operations in Kosovo and Metohija as operations which had been
7 planned at the end of 1998. He will explain that at the meetings of the
8 Supreme Command Staff and during the briefings, there were no
9 informations of any war crimes committed until early June 1999. The
10 witness will testify that operations of the Army of Yugoslavia in their
11 defence of the territory against the KLA and a possible attack by NATO
12 were never directed against the Albanian population with the aim of
13 driving them out. The increase of forces in 1999 was primarily focused
14 on the defence of the country from the KLA and NATO.
15 This is the summary of the witness's testimony.
16 Q. Mr. Vlajkovic, first I'll have a number of general questions to
17 put to you, and then we'll move to certain documents and I will require
18 your comment upon those. Given that we speak the same language, I must
19 ask you that following my questions you pause shortly so that the
20 interpreters would be able to interpret for all those in the courtroom
21 what I had said. Please answer only following that pause, and I of
22 course also need to bear in mind to do the same once you have completed
23 your answers. Let us begin.
24 Colonel, what is your educational background?
25 A. Following the elementary school, I completed the military high
1 school, natural sciences, in Belgrade. After that, the land forces
2 academy, specialisation in artillery. In 1971 I became an artillery
3 lieutenant. Between 1980 and 1982 I completed the military political
4 higher school at the level of staff, which is a precondition to receive
5 the rank of a colonel. Between 1987 and 1990 I received my master's
6 degree in military science, specialisation in political matters. There
7 were no particular other courses that I undertook, save for a number of
8 courses I attended outside the regular schooling.
9 Q. Could you now in the form of a narrative tell us about your
11 A. From the time I graduated from the military academy and receiving
12 the rank of second lieutenant, I was commander of platoon for three
13 years, for two years I was battery commander, then for two years I was
14 assistant for moral guidance in an artillery battalion. For two years
15 after that I was chief of a class of the higher military school,
16 artillery section. After that I was head of class of the military
17 academy, again artillery section. For 18 months I was assistant for
18 moral guidance in a school for active-duty officers. In 1985, in
19 December, I was transferred, or rather, applied for the post and obtained
20 the post of lecturer in a high military school, and that's where I stayed
21 until 1990. In the meantime I received my master's degree. In 1991 I
22 was moved to the administration for information and moral guidance of the
23 General Staff, and in 1994 I was appointed to the office of the Chief of
24 the General Staff as deputy chief of office of the Chief of the General
1 In 2000 I was sent for preparations to become military attache in
2 Vienna, and that's what I did from 2001 until 2005, when upon meeting all
3 the requirements in terms of age and years of service I was retired.
4 Q. That would mean that you retired quite regularly?
5 A. Yes. I fulfilled all the legal conditions for retirement.
6 Q. May I now ask you to explain what your duties were in 1998 when
7 this institution where you worked was still called General Staff and you
8 were the chief of office of the Chief of the General Staff?
9 A. Precisely.
10 Q. Now, could you please describe to the best of your ability your
11 work there, your job description, your duties and responsibilities.
12 A. The responsibilities of the office of the Chief of the General
13 Staff are rather precisely defined in the instruction on the competencies
14 of the organisational units of the General Staff. According to those
15 instructions, the office was to provide all the material, technical and
16 other support, to the Chief of the General Staff and the deputy Chief of
17 the General Staff. The office also had to take care that the tasks of
18 the General Staff are implemented to prepare work-plans, to prepare and
19 distribute mail that was presented to the General Staff chief for his
20 information and signature. And the office also processed other mail that
21 did not have to pass by the desk of the Chief of the General Staff. He
22 only had to be told that it was of such and such a nature and that it had
23 been taken care of. The office also dealt with the security of the
24 General Staff and the chief. We took security measures, both at the
25 office and during travel. The office had on its staff personnel who were
1 qualified and responsible for dealing with staffing issues, financial
2 issues, and something that is included in what I said first, providing
3 all the possible support to the General Staff and its chief in the
4 realisation of their duties.
5 Q. You mentioned security measures at the office and during travel.
6 Can you tell us briefly what security measures were in effect at
7 the office itself, not -- not those that were directed at persons, but
8 security measures in dealing with mail, with written documents.
9 A. The General Staff has a security unit, and through this security
10 unit the office of the General Staff also made sure that all the mail and
11 all the parcels went through a security check. We called it - and it is
12 in essence - the procedure of anti-sabotage control. These security
13 checks were done at the forwarding unit of the General Staff which would
14 affix an appropriate stamp once the security check was completed, and
15 without that stamp we did not present anything to the Chief of the
16 General Staff.
17 Q. So it was called anti-sabotage control, BDK?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Which unit at the office of the Chief of the General Staff, later
20 called Supreme Command Staff, dealt with anti-sabotage control?
21 A. At the forwarding unit where all the mail comes in, and it was
22 conducted under the supervision of the security administration.
23 Q. We'll go back later to that topic. My next question is: Did you
24 have a deputy?
25 A. According to our establishment there was an establishment post of
1 deputy chief of office of the Chief of the General Staff and a deputy
2 chief of office for the deputy Chief of the General Staff. So this
3 deputy chief was a connection between me and the deputy Chief of the
4 General Staff. The deputy who worked on all these issues with me was
5 Colonel Radoicic.
6 Q. First name?
7 A. Milan Radoicic. It was in the nature of our work to share
8 everything with him so that in my absence he could stand in for me and so
9 that work should run smoothly, even in my absence. As for obligations
10 and responsibilities, it was very difficult to distinguish between the
11 two of us because we both did everything, except that he was familiar
12 with all the tasks to such a level that enabled him to take over when I
13 was absent.
14 Q. Mr. Radoicic, if I understood correctly, practically did the same
15 work that you did except that he was not the chief responsible?
16 A. Yes, practically all that I did.
17 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I think before I move to my next
18 set of questions this is a good time for a break, 10.30, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. We will have the first break, and we
20 resume at 11.00.
21 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
22 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djordjevic.
24 MR. DJORDJEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
25 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, we will continue. Can you please tell us
1 what the annual and periodical and monthly work-plans are that came from
2 the office of the Chief of the General Staff?
3 A. The Chief of the General Staff primarily implemented his duties
4 in accordance with those plans. We drafted the plans as monthly and
5 annual plans. We developed them in accordance with the annual and
6 monthly plans of the General Staff. We placed all the duties of the
7 chief into the plan in relation to superiors, to subordinates, according
8 to the elements of each of his activities. The plan of the Chief of the
9 General Staff was something that the Chief of the General Staff adhered
10 to. There were certain deviations in terms of changes because of the
11 president, the Supreme Defence Council, and the General Staff. But
12 primarily, this was a document to which the chief stuck to a great
14 Q. Thank you. My next question is: What was the position or the
15 attitude of the office towards the president of the Federal Republic of
16 Yugoslavia and the Supreme Defence Council and the federal government,
17 the position of the chief of the Supreme Command? And by that I'm
18 thinking of their personal relations, correspondence, and so on.
19 A. The chief -- the office of the Chief of the General Staff had
20 excellent co-operation with the military cabinet of the president of the
21 republic or the president of the Supreme Defence Council and the
22 communication between us and the president proceeded exclusively through
23 the office. The chief of the office was General Slavoljub Susic. And
24 while working with him in the distribution of documents and co-ordination
25 of certain activities, there were no problems at all.
1 Q. Can you please tell me what the collegium sessions are of the
2 Supreme Command Staff or the General Staff in peacetime. Did you prepare
3 for such sessions? Was that part of your duties? Could you clarify that
4 as much as you are able to, please.
5 A. Pursuant to the work-plans, the collegium was a body that had
6 regular meetings. In peacetime these were sessions of the collegium of
7 the General Staff, and in the technical sense decisions by the
8 General Staff were finalised in the collegium. The agenda of the
9 collegium was prepared by the organisational units of the General Staff.
10 The office of the chief had as its duty, pursuant to the agenda of the
11 collegium which was drafted in consultation with other organisational
12 units of the General Staff, to present that to the chief; after which he
13 would verify it. And then this agenda would serve as the basis for the
14 preparation of documents and other technical aspects of that meeting.
15 There were presentations, slides, documents that were needed and had to
16 be prepared previously for these meetings. So that was the duty of the
17 office. So based on an agenda which was approved by the chief, all the
18 documents and necessary things for the meetings were prepared.
19 The preparations for the collegium sessions - and now I'm talking
20 about the peacetime sessions - we would organise the audio recording of
21 these sessions. And then after the audio recording a transcript would be
22 made, and those transcripts would be archived and registered in the
23 log-book of the office. Each collegium session was accompanied by some
24 technical and professional aspects that were in our care. For example,
25 when there would be a coffee break or a refreshment break, and so on and
1 so forth.
2 Q. Excuse me.
3 A. When we're talking about war time and sessions of the collegium
4 or sessions of the Supreme Command Staff, the official name of such
5 meetings was briefings or reports to the Chief of Staff of the
6 Supreme Command. But since we transferred to this war time formation
7 overnight, just pure by inertia -- just purely by inertia, sometimes we
8 would call it briefing, sometimes collegium, sometimes evening meetings,
9 but this was such a form of work where the Chief of Staff of the Supreme
10 Command and his subordinates would report on certain matters from their
11 area of work. And I would like to note that during war time, during
12 briefings, in the Supreme Command Staff these briefings were not recorded
13 and the minutes from those meetings were kept in a special book which was
14 done by the operations administrations in the Supreme Command. Two
15 colonels were entrusted with these duties, to monitor the addresses, the
16 commands, the speeches, and then to note that down and to verify that in
17 the minutes.
18 Q. Thank you. I'm going to digress slightly here, but I think this
19 is essential at this point. Can you please tell me the General Staff in
20 peacetime and the Supreme Command Staff in war time, are you able to make
21 some kind of comparison in their work once this peacetime institution
22 transformed into a war time institution? I think you are competent to
23 explain this.
24 A. In the command and control system, the position of the collegium
25 or the place of reporting, actually, is not something that is very
1 different --
2 Q. I'm sorry, I have to interrupt you here. What we're interested
3 at this point is for you to make a distinction between the office of the
4 General Staff -- I'm not talking about the collegiums or briefings now.
5 I'm talking about the duties of the Supreme Command Staff office. Can
6 you make a comparison between these two periods of operation, or would
7 the difference only be in the name?
8 A. The difference in the name came about from the changed volume of
9 duties. The General Staff in peacetime was primarily engaged with
10 subordinate units and directed its activities in that area; in war time
11 this would be the Supreme Command Staff, and its work became more
12 complex. It grew, the number of tasks and assignments became greater.
13 So in that sense the staff had more duties and had more work, and even
14 though it was operating at a different location and had a smaller staff.
15 Q. Thank you very much. We can go back now to the topic that we
16 were on previously. Who actually comprised the collegium? Or let me ask
17 you this: Who attended the meetings of the Supreme Command Staff during
18 war time? Was that some kind of regular meeting, or was it something
19 that would be subject to change?
20 A. The composition of the office was -- actually the assistants of
21 the Chief of General Staff, these would be heads of sectors and heads of
22 independent administrations. This would be the permanent composition.
23 Depending on the agenda, the collegium could be attended by other
24 officers too. I'm talking about senior officers. If the question of
25 borders was discussed, then the meeting would be attended by the chief of
1 the section from the operations administration in charge of that
2 particular area. The collegium had expanded meetings from time to time
3 which were attended by the commanders of the strategic groupations [as
4 interpreted, the commands of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Armies, the air force,
5 navy, and anti-aircraft and special unit commanders, so these units which
6 were directly subordinated to the General Staff. There was situations
7 when the chief, because it was necessary to react quickly, would summon
8 only some of his assistants in order to deal with a particular problem.
9 We would call that the inner collegium. This was something when it was
10 not essential for all the others to participate in, and it was when
11 urgent or very specific questions were being dealt with. So we have the
12 permanent composition, the expanded or broader composition, and sometimes
13 we have the inner collegium.
14 If necessary, I can also comment that from the point of view of
15 the Supreme Command.
16 Q. Yes, this is most important to us.
17 A. These briefings which are practically the same as the collegium
18 were also attended by the assistants of the General Staff, the
19 independent administration. And depending on the matters being
20 considered, someone from other organisational units of the General Staff
21 could also attend in order to clarify specific professional matters.
22 Depending on the tactical bearer of a particular assignment, the chief of
23 that particular section would attend and he would explain the topic or
24 the matter being discussed. During the bombing or the aggression, the
25 briefings at one point were not attended by any other persons who were
1 not members of the Army of Yugoslavia.
2 Q. Thank you. I am first of all interested in 1998 when we're
3 talking about the office of the Chief of the General Staff, and then
4 later could you please draw a parallel with the body when it was the
5 office of the chief of the Supreme Command. Could you tell me if you
6 yourself took part by establishment in these collegiums. By the nature
7 of your position did you attend the evening briefings, perhaps?
8 A. Because of the duties that I had in preparing for the collegiums
9 and the briefings and because of the work I had after that or during the
10 collegium sessions and afterwards, I attended all of those meetings.
11 Sometimes for justified reasons if I was not there, if I was unable to
12 attend, my deputy would attend who was familiar with all aspects of the
13 work. But this would only happen in situations when I would not be
15 Q. Was that the gentleman you mentioned?
16 A. Yes, this is Colonel Milan Radoicic.
17 Q. Thank you. As chief of the office of the Supreme Command Staff,
18 did you monitor the implementation of assignments or directives that you
19 received by the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command relating to the
20 collegiums and the briefings, the daily briefings; and if so, who did you
21 report back to, what was your reporting duty in terms of that?
22 A. The Chief of the General Staff or the Supreme Command Staff
23 particularly insisted that upon completion of collegium sessions or
24 briefings, assignments that he would issue during such meetings be
25 formulated precisely during the summing-up, for example. So while we
1 were consulting, if necessary, with the relevant administrations or by
2 looking at the minutes at the Supreme Command Staff, we would formulate
3 the -- these things and process them and distribute them to those who
4 would be responsible for their implementation. This would be done after
5 the collegium sessions by the end of the workday. And in the Supreme
6 Command Staff staff after the briefings we would complete that by the end
7 of the day or by midnight at the latest. So these assignments would be
8 received by those responsible for carrying them out by the time the
9 meeting was over. My task was to follow and monitor the implementation
10 of these assignments, and then at the next meeting or briefing it was my
11 duty to refer -- report to the chief and everyone present about the
12 degree to which the tasks were implemented. The chief insisted on this,
13 and we adhered to that.
14 Q. These documents that you drafted after these meetings, the
15 collegium sessions and later during the war after the evening briefings,
16 were then sent to the institutions they were addressed to, to the
17 commands, the administrations, the sectors. What I'm interested in is in
18 the technical aspect. How was this logged in the cabinet? If something
19 was dispatched from the cabinet, was it somebody's duty to log that; and
20 if so, how was it done, what was the manner in which it was done, and who
21 was it done by?
22 A. The data was processed and logged in the log-book of the office,
23 which implies that the document was stamped, there was a date placed,
24 there was a stamp placed on the document register, and then one copy
25 would be registered and then archived at the office of the -- at the
1 archive of the cabinet. All of the documents bear their number,
2 certification, and stamp, and the addressee; and they were dispatched to
3 all those who had certain duties and who were issued with certain
5 Q. My next question is: These documents, were they sorted according
6 to some other criteria? For example, according to the classification or
7 something else.
8 A. All the assignments at the collegium were of a confidential
9 nature, and that is how they were treated.
10 Q. What does that mean?
11 A. That means that access in the technical sense -- actually, it
12 means that the document could only be dispatched to the person it was
13 addressed to. A copy had to be saved in the archives, and the recipient
14 of the document had to treat the document as a confidential one, meaning
15 that they had to log that document also and stamp it in order to confirm
16 this, which would indicate that the document was received and registered
17 in the log-book, and as such, archived in the vault and kept.
18 Q. I'm talking about the technical aspect of this document that
19 would be dispatched from your cabinet. Were you obliged to enter some
20 other markings, for example, the number of copies of a certain document
21 or anything that would be relevant that you could tell us now relating to
22 this technical aspect of the documents?
23 A. Other than the elements laid down in the rules, we did not make
24 any other markings or any other technical elements. As I said, in the
25 section that -- where the document -- to whom the document would be
1 dispatched, this would be recorded. But since it was not strictly
2 confidential, we did not have the duty to place numbers on each of the
4 Q. But all the documents leaving the office were confidential. Some
5 of them were perhaps strictly confidential. Would they be treated
6 differently if we're talking about strictly confidential documents? Were
7 there any other classifications which were used pursuant to the rules
8 that you have just referred to?
9 A. As a rule, documents can be state or military secret, then they
10 can be confidential, strictly confidential, or for internal use only.
11 State documents are always strictly confidential. Military documents
12 could receive different grades, such as military secret, confidential,
13 strictly confidential, or internal use only. Military documents that
14 were strictly confidential, technically speaking, were processed in such
15 a way that each document would receive a copy number, that is to say copy
16 number 1, 2, 3, or 4 following the list of distribution. If it is copy
17 number 3 sent, say, to the command of the 3rd Army, then we knew that
18 that particular copy belonged to them alone. If it bore the number 2, it
19 could not be sent to the 3rd Army.
20 Q. As for the dispatching of these documents given the degree of
21 confidentiality, as you have explained as being part of the rules, what
22 was the handling treatment in terms of distributing those documents to
23 the end user, to the addressees themselves? How was that forwarded?
24 A. Depending on the degree of confidentiality and urgency, that is
25 how they were distributed. Each document would be placed in an envelope
1 bearing the same Registry number as well as the sign of degree of
2 confidentiality. You would know based on the envelope what the type of
3 the document is. If it was strictly confidential, it was treated as
4 such, in the sense of registering it, keeping track of it, archiving it,
5 distributing it, and so on and so forth. If a document was urgent, the
6 envelope would bear that sign. It would be a signal to us to take it to
7 the Chief of the General Staff or of the Supreme Command Staff for
8 signature. We knew if we had to do that immediately or if we could do
9 that together with other mail, which happened twice a day. Anything that
10 was urgent was sent to him immediately. We didn't allow ourselves, and
11 we were not allowed by the chief to violate that rule.
12 In case the chief was absent, under his authority it could be
13 done by his deputy, to open such an urgent document and follow it up. I
14 hope this is all.
15 Q. I'm interested in the way documents were dispatched depending on
16 the categories you have enumerated.
17 A. Urgent documents could be sent by telegram or by courier, also
18 depending on our assessment. Strictly confidential documents bearing
19 that sign would be sent to the forwarding -- mail forwarding room by
20 courier, inside a courier bag that was locked. It would be opened in the
21 mail room and forwarded depending on the degree of confidentiality. The
22 courier in the process of bringing it or taking out mail was unable to
23 open his bag.
24 Q. Thank you. Do you recall a letter of Ms. Louise Arbour of the
25 29th of April, 1999?
1 A. I do. If I may add something, I can tell you that my memory was
2 jogged during the Milutinovic case --
3 Q. We'll go back to that letter subsequently, and we'll show it to
4 you. My next question is this: There is something you said in paragraph
5 19 of your statement. Is it true when you say that you were with the
6 chief of the Supreme Command Staff at the command post all the time?
7 A. I was at the command post all the time, which doesn't necessarily
8 mean that we shared the same office all the time.
9 Q. Let me ask you this then: During the aggression, what did that
10 mean for you when you spent your time at the command post, and the same
11 goes for the gentleman who replaced you occasionally?
12 A. We were forced to spend the whole day there. We were resolving
13 issues, creating conditions for the work of the Chief of the Supreme
14 Command Staff which required a dynamic approach and day-long engagement.
15 In order to be able to cope with that tempo, I organised shifts in the
16 office. If I was resting, my deputy was there. Other services in the
17 office were also organised in such a way that they could react
18 immediately to any request of the chief of Supreme Command Staff. The
19 number of tasks multiplied, and he began asking for more detailed and
20 precise information and reaction to any particular document. And I hope
21 by having organised us the way we did, we managed to meet his requests.
22 Q. Thank you. Does that mean that you did not go home during the
23 aggression, or can that be explained in some other way because you say
24 you were there all day long?
25 A. I went home, let's say, once a week for two to three hours, to
1 take a shower, change clothes, and go back.
2 Q. What about your deputy?
3 A. The same.
4 Q. Thank you. Did you co-operate with the Ministry of the Interior,
5 that is to say, did the chief of Supreme Command Staff have any contact
6 with the MUP during the aggression?
7 A. I think there were official contacts, but it never happened at
8 the Supreme Command Staff. At the command post where we were, where the
9 Supreme Command Staff was deployed, there was no one else save for
10 military personnel with special permits.
11 Q. Thank you. I'm particularly interested in knowing whether you
12 knew the accused, Mr. Vlastimir Djordjevic, personally who was then head
13 of security of the MUP of Serbia?
14 A. I think when Minister Stojiljkovic visited once the Chief of the
15 General Staff, he was escorted by Mr. Djordjevic. Otherwise, I had no
16 further contacts with him.
17 Q. What about 1999 and the time of aggression?
18 A. No, I didn't see him at the time.
19 Q. As the chief of office of the chief of Supreme Command Staff
20 during the aggression, did you have any communication with the Ministry
21 of the Interior or the public security sector head in the sense that you
22 received correspondence from them or you sent documents to them?
23 A. There was no official communication between the office and the
24 minister's office of the Ministry of the Interior, including
25 Mr. Djordjevic. I don't see -- I don't remember a single document that
1 was either sent to or received from the Ministry of the Interior.
2 Q. Colonel, thank you for the answers so far. I would like to
3 clarify a different matter now, and I believe you are the relevant person
4 to put those questions to.
5 What is the source of the documents for which we can say -- you
6 said you testified in the Milutinovic et al. case. On that occasion you
7 saw different military documents. Can you tell us something about the
8 source of those documents, if you recall that period; if not, I'll show
9 you different documents and then put questions to you.
10 A. Once the aggression stopped under the authority of the chief of
11 Supreme Command Staff or the Chief of General Staff in peacetime all
12 war time material had to be archived and handed over to the military
13 archives. As far as I know, in late 1999 and in 2000 that was indeed
14 done. This meant that all documents pertaining to war time activities
15 were transferred to the military archives. Taking documents out of the
16 military archives could only happen if there was an order or a permission
17 given by the custodian, that is to say the archives. Officially
18 speaking, one could not receive archive documents by any other channels
19 except from the archives themselves following their approval. If
20 documents were lent by the archives and copied, they received appropriate
21 stamps. If a document bears the stamp of the military archives, then it
22 means that it was actually deposited in the archives and kept there.
23 Q. Did you see any documents in your previous testimony which did
24 not originate from the military archives; if so, how could you explain
25 the nature of such documents?
1 A. I saw certain documents which do not bear the stamp of the
2 military archive. It is possible that these documents were received even
3 before their transfer to the archives or by other means. There may have
4 been copies made before the documents were transferred or they may come
5 from the bulk of documents of a certain unit.
6 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask the Chamber
7 to allow us to use the usher when we intend to show documents to the
8 witness, for the usher to hand over the binder with the hard copies to
9 the witness.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
11 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have P1243 put
12 on the screen.
13 Q. In your binder it is tab 1. We'll wait for the document to
14 appear, in B/C/S as well. Do we have it in B/C/S? This is the
15 translation. Could we please zoom in a bit. That's good.
16 Mr. Vlajkovic, what kind of a document is this? Can you give us
17 a detailed description in relation to what you have said so far, and of
18 course from the point of view of your duty as the chief of office of the
19 Supreme Command Staff.
20 A. This is a rule pertaining to official correspondence and office
21 administration in the Army of Yugoslavia from 1994, that is to say the
22 rule in force.
23 Q. What does it entail?
24 A. It uniformly regulates the handling of military documents. In
25 detail the rule explains and regulates the handling of documents as of
1 the moment of their creation until the moment of archiving. This means
2 technical processing, the format, the degree of secrecy and
3 confidentiality, use, registering, forwarding, receiving, photocopying or
4 multiplication, signing, et cetera. In the part pertaining to office
5 administration, it elaborates the handling of documents as of the moment
6 of receiving in the mailroom, the opening of such documents, registering,
7 sorting, processing, submitting for signature, et cetera. The title of
8 the rule is: Rule on official correspondence and office administration
9 in the Army of Yugoslavia, meaning that all units of the Army of
10 Yugoslavia had to handle their documents in the way prescribed and to
11 treat it in the spirit of this regulation. This is how we can tell
12 whether a document was properly technically processed, whether it was
13 handled properly -- appropriately, and whether there is anything wrong
14 with it. The rule is quite precise, particularly when it comes to
15 preservation, archiving, and distribution of documents. We followed the
16 rule in the office, which makes it easier for us to recognise such
17 documents where the procedure was not followed.
18 Q. Thank you. Can you now confirm that this rule is, in fact, what
19 you called earlier in your evidence the rule book and the instruction on
20 office management, is this the document?
21 A. Yes, this is the document.
22 Q. Is there any other rule book or any other instruction regarding
23 office management?
24 A. This one nullifies all the previous ones, and this is the one
25 that was in force when I was working, during my tenure.
1 Q. When was that?
2 A. 1998/1999, the time when I served at the office.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] This is already exhibited, I
5 believe, Your Honours.
6 Can I now call up D010-074.
7 Q. In your binder ...
8 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Sorry, it's D010-0719.
9 Q. In your binder it's 2. Now we have both on the monitors. You
10 spoke about the way you worked and what your obligations were. You
11 described this in detail in your evidence earlier and today. I want to
12 ask you: What is this that we're looking at, best of all, is it an
13 authentic document from your office; and if so, what is it?
14 A. Looking at the format, the technical features and the contents,
15 it's a document created at the office. I am the author, as you can see
16 from the signature. And it is usual communication of the sort I
17 exchanged with assistants, chiefs of the General Staff, both in peacetime
18 and in war time. So when the Chief of the General Staff notes on the
19 margins of the document or gives me a verbal order, I formulate into a
20 document; and as such, it is attached to the document and submitted to
21 the chief of the operations department and to the deputy chief of the
22 Supreme Command Staff, including tasks ordered by the Chief of the
23 General Staff and just formulated by me.
24 Q. Do you remember when you would formulate the chief's instructions
25 on a separate piece of paper, it is the result of an order that you
1 received, or can you describe this in detail?
2 A. When we give a certain document to the chief along with our
3 suggestions, if we have any, he reviews it and he can either write on the
4 margins what needs to be done -- we used to call that annotations on the
5 document. He would write in his own hand what to do concerning that
6 document or to whom to copy it. I would take that down in my copy book,
7 and then I would write it up on a separate piece of paper. I thought
8 that the assistant needed to receive a clean copy reflecting the
9 annotations of the chief. This concerns a letter of the then-chief
10 Prosecutor of the ICTY, Louise Arbour, addressed to the Chief of the
11 General Staff and the commander of the 3rd Army. And we presented this
12 to the chief. The chief ordered us to prepare a draft order to prevent
13 the commission of war crimes, as Mrs. Louise Arbour asked. So in this
14 case what did the chief ask us to do? He asked us to prepare a draft
16 Q. Stop here. You need to explain. You said officers Marjanovic
17 and Kovacevic, who are they by establishment?
18 A. General Marjanovic was deputy chief of the Supreme Command Staff,
19 and General Blagoje Kovacevic was assistant for operations and staff
21 The chief ordered us to prepare a draft order. When the
22 responsible administration submitted this through me for signature, the
23 chief looked at it and said, "Give it to Marjanovic and Kovacevic to
24 review it and to make corrections, if any."
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I hereby tender this for
3 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00603.
5 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Now I'd like to ask you to look at another document, D010-0721.
7 That's your tab 3. Okay, now it's legible.
8 Again we see this separate sheet, as you called it. What is it?
9 A. When Generals Marjanovic and Kovacevic and the assistant -- that
10 is, assistant of the Chief of the General Staff and chief of the
11 operations sector reviewed the draft order and made the suggestions, I
12 was required to return the draft order to the author with this cover
13 letter, asking them to include the suggestions and corrections into the
14 order. So this cover letter and the original draft order were returned
15 by me to the department that was responsible for drafting, in connection
16 with the letter by Louise Arbour.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can I tender this now, please.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00604.
21 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now call up D217.
22 Q. In your binder it's tab 4. Can you see the document?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. What is it?
25 A. This is an order -- the order we discussed regarding those two
1 separate sheets. It's the final version signed by the chief, and it was
2 drafted including the modifications made by the generals I mentioned.
3 And as such, it was distributed to various units mentioned on the last
4 page. So that's the order signed by the chief of the Supreme Command
5 Staff and sent down to the units. It concerns the prevention of war
6 crimes in the spirit of the letter by Mrs. Arbour.
7 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Page 2, please.
8 Q. Look at this. You saw the first page as well. Was this the
9 usual procedure -- because you explained the contents already. Was this
10 the usual procedure when following the orders of the chief of the Supreme
11 Command Staff?
12 A. Yes. This is a document that was created in complete accordance
13 with the prescribed procedure and delivered to the units listed here.
14 All these units were subordinated to the chief of the Supreme Command
15 Staff. One noteworthy thing is that this document was received from the
16 military archive because it bears their stamp.
17 Q. What about the authenticity?
18 A. The technical processing indicates that its authentic. All the
19 technical indicators confirm it, and the seal of the military archive
20 confirms it was received from them.
21 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] This document has already been
23 The next document will be D010-0742.
24 Q. In your binder it's tab 5. Please look at it. What is this
1 A. This document was created at the office of the Chief of the
2 General Staff. On the orders of the Chief of the General Staff I created
3 a document addressed to all the units indicated by the chief and
4 requiring them to provide the office with all the documents they had
5 produced so far in connection with the prevention of war crimes and
6 violations of international humanitarian law. This document is directly
7 linked to the previous order. The chief first gave an order and then
8 requires feedback what -- about what was done to execute that order,
9 except that he extends his requirement to the period before the order.
10 You can see on the second page to whom it was delivered. All these units
11 were required to submit all the documents for the period before the
12 aggression and after the 24th of March concerning the prevention of war
13 crimes and violations of international humanitarian law. You can see the
14 addressees on page 2.
15 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we see page 2.
16 Q. Is that it?
17 A. Yes, all the organisational units were required to make available
18 to the office --
19 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we zoom in on this passage
20 on the left as well.
21 Q. You signed this?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. On the left I just want to see this without the signature. That
24 is sufficient.
25 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] May I tender this document now,
1 Your Honours.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00605.
4 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The next document is tab 6, and
5 I'd like to call up D008-2472.
6 Q. This is a new document. It says: "Reporting to the chief of the
7 Supreme Command Staff or a briefing." The format doesn't matter. What
8 can you tell us about this?
9 A. This is probably a transcript of the minutes from a briefing.
10 Minutes were kept in an A4 copy book, and somebody transcribed these
11 minutes. I don't see that the transcript is verified or authorised.
12 Q. Wait a second.
13 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we see the last page of this
15 Q. Please go ahead.
16 A. We can't see any authorisation of this transcript. There's no
17 indication that it's been verified. And as far as the substance is
18 concerned we can see certain deficiencies that make it difficult to
19 decide what it really is, certain imprecisions that combined with the
20 lack of any data about verification make it difficult to determine how
21 authentic it is.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can I ask that this document be
24 admitted into evidence, please.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00606.
2 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now call up D008-2190.
3 Q. In you're binder it's tab 7, Colonel. Here we see a document
4 under the same title, different date. It says: "Attended by
5 17 persons." Tell us what it is.
6 A. It's again a transcript from the book of minutes kept at
7 briefings of the Supreme Command Staff. This one is of the 7th of April.
8 It has the same features as the previous one, unauthorised with many
9 imprecisions that make it difficult to interpret it. On page 3 here --
10 Q. Wait a moment.
11 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we see page 3 on the screen.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Before you go on I've been holding Ms. Kravetz for
13 some time. She has an objection -- oh, the moment has passed.
14 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I didn't notice,
15 Your Honour, either.
16 We can see page 3 now.
17 Q. Please continue.
18 A. On page 3 we have somewhere in the fourth paragraph my name,
19 Colonel Vlajkovic --
20 JUDGE PARKER: I'm sorry to interrupt, but we do not have an
21 equivalent page in English on the screen.
22 MR. DJORDJEVIC: That's correct, Your Honour. I'm wondering what
23 is the case now. It should be also third page. Wait a minute. Next
24 page in English. No. There is no interpretation in English.
25 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
1 JUDGE PARKER: From the very first page of this document, it
2 seems we may not have the correct document at all as the English
4 MR. DJORDJEVIC: No. Your Honour, it seems that it is on the
5 first page in English and third page in B/C/S.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Well, the two documents appear to be quite
7 different on looking at the screens, the format -- if you look at the
8 length of paragraph 2 in Serbian, it's long; and short in English.
9 Whereas, in Serbian paragraph 3 is short, but it's long in English.
10 Quite different.
11 MR. DJORDJEVIC: Well, I have in my docs translation in English
12 but in hard copy, and this document is marked with D008-2194. But it
13 seems that it is not right document.
14 JUDGE PARKER: If you look at the date and the times at the
15 top --
16 MR. DJORDJEVIC: 7th of April.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, but one is a meeting from 1800 until 1930.
18 The other is a meeting from 2030 or 2100 to 2215, two different times on
19 the same day.
20 MR. DJORDJEVIC: Let's move on the next document.
21 [Interpretation] We're not going to ask that this document to be
22 admitted. Evidently there has been some confusion here, but the Defence
23 just wanted to confirm with this document what we heard earlier.
24 The next document is D568. Can we please look at that on the
1 Q. In your binder this is tab 8, sir, and we see it here on the
2 screen. Can we please have your comment on this document.
3 A. I saw this document for the first time during my testimony here
4 at the Tribunal. This is a document that was compiled at the
5 General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia in October 2001, when I was no
6 longer at the office at my previous post. The document was compiled in
7 violation of the rules and regulations regulating the drafting and
8 archiving of documents in the military, in the Army of Yugoslavia.
9 Q. What does that mean?
10 A. From the technical aspect, the format does not correspond, and
11 you cannot see a summary like this anywhere. I really don't know why
12 this summary was compiled in the first place. This is a non-standard
13 format, an overview, and only the person who actually made this overview
14 knows why they did it.
15 Q. And do you know perhaps who requested this summary to be made?
16 A. Evidently the summary originated from the General Staff of the
17 Army of Yugoslavia or from the Chief of the General Staff from the Army
18 of Yugoslavia --
19 Q. I'm sorry I have to interrupt you here.
20 A. At the time the Chief of the General Staff was Colonel Pavkovic,
21 Nebojsa Pavkovic.
22 Q. Thank you. Please continue.
23 The year?
24 A. The document was compiled in 2001, and it's an overview of the
25 archive's materials from 1998 and 1999. I have previously said that by
1 an order of the Chief of the General Staff, General Ojdanic, all the
2 archived materials from the war had to be archived by the end of 1999,
3 which means that this is some other type of archiving of those documents
4 not based on the rules and regulations of archiving in the military.
5 Q. In relation to the answer you gave previously, you said that
6 Mr. -- or actually, General Dragoljub Ojdanic ordered that all the
7 documents should be archived by the end of 1999. Was this done?
8 A. Yes, according to what I know this was done. As far as archived
9 materials from the office, since I was certain -- it was certain already
10 that I was leaving the office, I handed this task to my deputy, Colonel
11 Milan Radoicic. And in -- he technically processed all the materials and
12 documents dating from that period, and through the office with the
13 accompanying documents that are sent with the archive materials list
14 which I saw later, he submitted the complete set to the archives of the
15 Army of Yugoslavia. This means that all the documents from the period of
16 the war were archived at the military archives, all the documents
17 originating or from the office.
18 Q. Thank you. Can we now move to the next document.
19 MR. DJORDJEVIC: This will be -- actually, can we look at
20 documents D585 and P888. Can we look at these documents both at the same
21 time. This would be tabs 9 and 10 in the binder, so we're looking at
22 D585 and P888, please. I asked for both documents to be shown in English
23 side by side. We're looking at the documents in B/C/S. I was asking for
24 the English versions of D585 and P888, if we can look at the English
25 versions of the documents, please. I'm doing this in order to assist the
1 Trial Chamber and my friends from the Prosecution. Can we look at the
2 next page, please. The following page of each of the documents, please.
3 Excellent. Thank you.
4 And we can see from this that this is a document which on the
5 face of it has the same content, but now let us look at the B/C/S
6 versions of D585 and P888. Can we look at the first page of each of
7 those documents and can we put them side by side, please. Can we look at
8 the right-hand document. Can we make it a little bit smaller so that we
9 can see the corners of the page. Thank you. Excellent.
10 Q. Mr. Vlajkovic, you also have the hard copy in front of you. Can
11 you please look at this document and can you tell me whether you
12 recognise this document. Have you seen it before? We can see to whom
13 the document is addressed.
14 A. I saw this document for the first time when I testified in the
15 Milutinovic et al. case -- both documents actually. Up until that time,
16 I did not see or register seeing this document at the office, neither by
17 the format or content.
18 Q. Looking at this document on the first page of each of the
19 documents, can you comment first of all on the adherence to the rules on
20 office operation that we talked about a little bit earlier.
21 A. Looking at the technical characteristics, these are two different
23 Q. How is that?
24 A. Well, 248 is one marking, and then 94/1 is 1-2, which would
25 indicate -- actually, it does not confirm that this would be a copy of
1 the same document. The document on the left-hand has the stamp of the
2 military archive, meaning that it was received from the military archive,
3 this is document marked 248. The right-hand document marked with 72 does
4 not have that same stamp which would indicate that it was received from a
5 different source.
6 Q. Colonel, sir, can you tell me on the right-hand side of each of
7 the documents we have the words "military secret, strictly confidential,"
8 and then we have copy number, and a line. You were talking about that a
9 little bit earlier. So I would like to ask you if this perhaps indicates
10 something else.
11 A. Documents marked "military secret, strictly confidential" had to
12 be distributed with the copy of the document indicated. For example, a
13 copy could be marked copy number 1, and then in the list you would have
14 copy number 1 archived. And then number 2 sent to the Supreme Command
15 Staff. And then at the bottom it would say that it was dispatched to the
16 Supreme Command Staff. This number is not present here, so in that sense
17 this document is not properly drafted or processed.
18 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at page 2 of
19 each document, please. Can we place the document so that we can see the
20 stamp and the signature at the bottom of each of the documents. Yes.
21 Q. Sir, can you please look at page 2 of each of these documents and
22 can you add anything else about them?
23 A. The left document has the stamp of the military archive, meaning
24 that the document was received from the military archives. There is no
25 such stamp on the document on the right-hand side. Then as far as format
1 is confirmed -- concerned, the document does not state to whom it was
2 dispatched, because it can also be dispatched to other addressees, not
3 just to the commander. It could be provided to somebody for purposes of
4 information, but this would need to be stated. Then we see that the
5 signature is evidently different.
6 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we zoom in onto the part on
7 the right-hand side where it says "komandant," commander, where we can
8 see the signature and the stamp so that we can see that more closely.
9 Q. We are looking at it.
10 A. I am not a handwriting analysis expert, but it's evident here
11 that it's not the signature and the stamp is different, indicating that
12 it's a different copy, not a copy of the same document.
13 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at the whole page of
14 each of the documents, please.
15 Q. What is in the bottom left-hand corner? Can we see? There is
16 something in the left-hand bottom corner of the document, but we do not
17 see that on the document on the right side.
18 A. The left document contains a stamp of the office of the Supreme
19 Command Staff, which would lead us to conclude that the document was at
20 the office and was logged in at the office. On the right-hand side,
21 there is no such stamp.
22 Q. Can you presume what the source of the first document is and what
23 the source of the second document is?
24 A. The source of the first one is the military archives. I cannot
25 tell you anything about the source of the other document.
1 Q. Thank you. My next question concerning the document is this:
2 You looked at the contents?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. If this document was indeed received by the Supreme Command
5 Staff, what should have been done with it?
6 A. Once received by the office following the procedure I've already
7 explained --
8 Q. Yes, you can skip that.
9 A. -- it would be presented to the Chief of the General Staff.
10 Judging by the contents, I -- it is difficult for me to believe that the
11 chief would not react to it.
12 Q. What do you mean?
13 A. Well, it required certain follow-up by different people. There
14 was several tasks contained therein, both horizontally and vertically
15 speaking in terms of hierarchy. This document could not have gone
16 without the signature of the chief or without a separate note with tasks
17 specified. When I look at the reception stamp it says "military secret,
18 strictly confidential, personally for the chief of Supreme Command
19 Staff," and the Registry number is questionable. Such an important
20 document is not registered --
21 Q. Let me stop you there. Are you talking about page number 1?
22 A. Yes.
23 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Let's see page 1 then.
24 Q. Please continue.
25 A. In the upper left-hand side corner it says 3rd Army command,
1 strictly confidential, number so and so. The significance of the
2 document and the person it was addressed to would not mean that it would
3 be archived with only five or six numbers. In the log-book of the
4 3rd Army, it required a separate number because there would be other
5 documents as the -- as a result of this one, and the numbers would start
6 with 1 and go on up to 3 or 4. The number itself is rather problematic.
7 To me it means that this was additionally added to a list.
8 Q. Given your position and the significance of this document, could
9 it have happened that you knew nothing whatsoever about this document and
10 the documents which followed -- which were supposed to follow-up?
11 A. It is difficult for me to believe that I would not have noticed
12 it, either because of its significance or because of the documents that
13 would be required as a follow-up and that were supposed to be issued by
14 the chief of the Supreme Command Staff.
15 Q. Thank you. Bear with me.
16 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] It may be wiser even not to
17 embark upon this right now because this set of questions, given the
18 number of documents that I intend to show, is very important for the
19 Defence, and I will conclude that in the next session. Therefore, it
20 would be better to start this topic after the break, particularly it is
21 very important for the Defence.
22 JUDGE PARKER: We will resume at 1.00.
23 MR. DJORDJEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 --- Recess taken at 12.29 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 1.00 p.m.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djordjevic.
2 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. Colonel, in your binder it is tab 11, and I would kindly ask for
4 P1240 to be put on the screen. Are you familiar with this document?
5 A. The document was created in the command of the Pristina Corps.
6 It was sent to the 3rd Army command, to their forward command post. It
7 serves to -- goes to confirm that this document was not within my reach.
8 I didn't see it.
9 Q. Did you see it before the previous case?
10 A. No.
11 Q. From the point of view of a person who was familiar with the
12 procedure presented today, can you comment the technical aspects of this
14 A. The document is strictly confidential. It's a military secret,
15 but there is no file number and no copy number.
16 Q. What does that mean?
17 A. That the procedure on office management was not followed. Then
18 on page 2 -- sorry, page 1.
19 Q. You need page 2?
20 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Let's go to page 2, please.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On page 2 we don't have a
22 distribution list. In this -- in that case we would have copy number 1,
23 copy number 2, and so on. It is signed by the corps commander, and there
24 is a Registry stamp of the 3rd Army command, meaning -- or which could
25 mean, if the document is authentic, that it was received by that command.
1 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Can you arrive at any other conclusion in relation to this
4 A. The Registry numbers, given the significance of this document and
5 the persons involved would have required long numbers with many digits,
6 and it is not quite clear to me why it is not the case.
7 Q. Is that contrary to the procedure we have discussed?
8 A. Yes, contrary to the regulation.
9 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please next move to
11 Q. In your binder, Mr. Vlajkovic, it is tab 12. We'll wait for the
12 document to appear. Very well.
13 Colonel, have you had occasion to see this document?
14 A. No. It's a telegram of the command of the 3rd Army, also
15 strictly confidential and urgent, sent to the sector of the staff of the
16 Supreme Command, in particular land forces sector. It is a request to
17 deal with certain problems that had to do with combat-readiness of the
18 Pristina Corps. There was a possibility to have that forwarded directly
19 to the sector for ...
20 Although it says "urgent," it doesn't mention that it was
21 supposed to be sent by telegram.
22 Q. What would be the usual way?
23 A. It would have said "urgent telegram."
24 Q. What other technical aspects can you mention concerning office
1 A. On page 2.
2 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Let's go to page 2.
3 Q. Very well.
4 A. We don't see a single signature there, no signature of the
5 commander, of Lieutenant-General Nebojsa Pavkovic, and no signature of
6 the Chief of Staff, Mr. Stojimirovic, that the telegram could be sent.
7 Thirdly, there is no stamp which would indicate that the telegram was
8 technically processed or the document was sent as a telegram.
9 Q. What does that mean?
10 A. Well, the rules would interpret that as a document that was not
11 sent. Had it been sent, the person who was supposed to process it would
12 have applied the stamp and have entered all the necessary details about
13 the reception and dispatch of this document.
14 Q. What about the fact that it wasn't signed by Commander
15 Nebojsa Pavkovic and that it was not signed by Chief of Staff,
16 Major-General Ljubisa Stojimirovic? You just mentioned that.
17 A. It means that the person who was supposed to send the telegram
18 would not have been able to do that without their signatures -- or
19 rather, was not supposed to do that. That would have been against the
21 Q. Thank you. Would you have learned of such a document had it ever
22 arrived to the Supreme Command Staff, because it was one of the
24 A. Not necessarily because it was sent to the land forces sector and
25 they could have dealt with it within their own purview, or they could
1 have reported to and consulted with the chief of the Supreme Command
2 Staff. This would have been a perfectly legal way to go about it, to
3 have the sector deal with it itself without going through the Supreme
4 Command Staff.
5 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please next have P584
6 [as interpreted] and D583, one next to each other at the same time on the
7 screen if possible.
8 Q. In your binder these would be tabs 13 and 14.
9 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] For the record, Ms. O'Leary
10 draws my attention to a mistake in the transcript. I said D583 and D584.
11 JUDGE PARKER: While we're looking at that, the previous
12 telegram, is that an exhibit? Could you give me the number, please.
13 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I've already
14 indicated that. It is P1505.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
16 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Here we have two archived lists in English. Could we please go
18 to page 2 in both these documents, both please.
19 The first document, the one on the left, we should have, I
20 believe, page 7 with the entry number 82. Very good. Entry number 82.
21 Next could we go to the last page in both documents, the very
22 bottom of the page so as to be able to see the signature block. Very
24 Next could we have the same two documents on the screen but in
25 B/C/S, and it should be page 1. Thank you.
1 Q. Colonel, as I've said already, in your binder you have hard
2 copies of both documents in tabs 13 and 14. First tell me whether what
3 you can see is familiar to you; and if so, tell us what it is.
4 A. As I've said already, any archival tasks were handed over by me
5 to my deputy, Colonel Radoicic, because I departed the office. In any
6 case, I was privy to the process and procedure, and I am familiar with
7 this document from that time as well as because of the previous case I
8 testified in.
9 Q. Now have a look at the document on the left side and on the
10 right side. Having in mind your knowledge of the rules and the rule on
11 business management in particular, please tell us what it is that you can
12 observe on these documents. As we can see, they're both photocopies of
13 some originals.
14 A. This is an archive list compiled in the office of the Chief of
15 the General Staff, and served as the basis for the hand-over of war time
16 material to the military archives of the VJ. It contains all those
17 documents that were handed over to the military archives. The hand-over
18 was conducted on the 10th of August, 1992. 277 documents were handed
19 over, totalling 735 pages. The other copy that I have here is different
20 from the first, because when it was being photocopied the column with the
21 contents of documents was covered, and this one does not have a stamp of
22 the military archives. On the one that has the stamp we see the
23 description of all documents that were on the lists. When something is
24 being archived in the military archives, a separate procedure is
25 followed. There have to be three copies of each document bound together.
1 The person working in the archives checks whether the document under
2 number 1 contains three pages on two pieces of which paper. So that's
3 what he does. He carries out that check and enters corrections if there
4 were mistakes made, and I can explain what sort of mistakes those can be.
5 At the end he adds up the figures as well as the number of
6 corrections and the number of documents and number of pages. He enters
7 the total in the upper right-hand corner because it is required by the
8 format. It says here that 277 documents were handed over totalling
9 735 pages. This is something that can be easily checked. The person
10 receiving archival material takes document number 1, for example. He
11 establishes that these are actually two documents containing three pages.
12 He crossed out the number 2 and entered the number 3, that is the number
13 of pages.
14 Sometimes we counted sheets and the archivist counted pages.
15 Sometimes there can be some confusion about the cover and whether it is
16 counted separately. It's not because of an ill intent on anyone's part;
17 it is simply due to a lack of precision.
18 Q. My next question: You say that there is an establishment format
19 for this form, and you say that thus there are 277 documents, which we
20 see in the left corner, and there are 735 sheets. Who put in these
21 figures actually?
22 A. These two figures are written in by the clerk at the archives who
23 received the documentation, and he adds up the figures including
25 Q. So it's only after all the corrections have been taken into
1 account that the clerk puts in the total number of documents and sheets?
2 A. Yes, and that's when it's turned over to the archives. And this
3 number, 21606 is written in by another clerk.
4 Q. Let's go back to these two numbers, 277 and 735. Did I
5 understand you correctly when you explained that this number, 277
6 documents, is the result of adding up all the numbers in the column
7 "documents," column number 5?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And the sum of sheets is from the column number 6?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Can you tell us some more. What about the same reference number
12 on both documents, 21606, you say one document has the stamp of the
13 archives, the other doesn't, although the number is the same. But there
14 is another difference. One document states exactly what it is, whereas
15 in another document a whole segment is pasted over.
16 A. Well, somebody covered this column. I don't know why. Looking
17 at other technical features, the number of pages and sheets, everything
18 is identical. But what I don't understand is why one of these has the
19 stamp of the military archive and the other doesn't. Now, who covered up
20 part of this form, I don't know.
21 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see page 7 of the
22 document on the left, and I think page 2 of the document on the right,
23 archive unit 82. That's it.
24 Can we just zoom in on 82 on the left and on the right. Let's
25 see the columns 3, 4, 5, and 6. Excellent.
1 Q. Look at this now. In one archive unit, number 82, it says:
2 "Official Note from the meeting of the chief of the Supreme
3 Command Staff with the chief of the administration for the preparation of
4 republican organs for defence in the Republic of Serbia, SMO."
5 In both documents in columns 5 and 6 we see there are two
6 documents. We see it was corrected in a way that differs from the
7 corrections in other boxes, both above and below. In other boxes the
8 correction is written on top of the original number, and here it's below
9 the original number. Maybe -- maybe this is one document or maybe it's
10 two documents. Can I -- can you give us your comment.
11 A. In column number 3 we see the name of the document archived under
12 this item, official note from the meeting, et cetera. We see the number
13 248-1, as it is in our log-book. We see it's a document of three pages.
14 Somebody, I don't know who, made this correction. They just changed the
15 document -- the number of pages and sheets, and they wrote in the number
16 of documents without writing a brief description.
17 Q. Why didn't they write the description? Were they supposed to?
18 A. Yes, they were supposed to. In addition, this number, 248-2,
19 written in longhand is supposed to be written above the original number,
20 if possible. And the handwriting is identical to the handwriting on the
21 stamp on that order of the commander of the 3rd Army on resubordination
22 that I did not understand the provenance of. That handwriting on the
23 register stamp of the office and the handwriting here is the same. And
24 if it's two persons, then these two persons are not authorised to do each
25 other's job. From several aspects, this entry is problematic. I -- it
1 leads me to believe that it must have been done at a later stage.
2 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] May I now ask the usher or the
3 Legal Officer to put back on the screen D585 in B/C/S alongside P888.
4 Q. So please remember this number written in longhand 248-2. Let us
5 look at the reference of this document. In the right top corner the
6 document on the left is marked 248.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And in this correction it says that under item number 82 a
9 document was entered marked 248-2. Is this the document?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Let's go back now to the archive list, the document we had on the
12 screen a moment ago. That's it. D588. Can we now please go to the last
13 page of both versions.
14 Can we please scroll up a bit.
15 You have a hard copy. We see something marked in column
16 number 7, something was written in longhand and signed. There are
17 certain corrections. It says in the signature "chief," with an
18 indication "on behalf of the chief." What does it say?
19 A. Record made by the chief of office and it's signed by my deputy,
20 Colonel Radoicic, on my behalf. There's nothing controversial there. On
21 the right-hand side in column 7 the clerk at the archive
22 Dusan Mladenovski, signed to indicate that it was he who received this
23 documentation into the military archive. That means that he was the
24 person who made the corrections on this sheet and no one else was
25 authorised to.
1 Q. Is there anything noteworthy?
2 A. When we add up the number of documents and sheets, we will note
3 that this number is no longer correct.
4 Q. You mean the -- in the form on the first page?
5 A. If we just add it up. If we just add it up without taking into
6 account corrections, then the number on the first page is still accurate.
7 Q. What's the conclusion?
8 A. Well, the person who counted this obviously didn't know or failed
9 to take into account the corrections and modify the number on the first
11 Q. So documents D588 and D587, your tabs 15, 16 will be the
12 documents we're going to look at again.
13 I have the impression that the pages are not the same -- in fact,
14 I'm sure they're not the same. D588 and D587. This is more like it.
15 And the first page -- I don't think this is the first page.
16 [In English] In fact, it's a log-book. That's correct now.
17 [Interpretation] The document on the right should look the same,
18 but it doesn't look the same. D588 and D587 I think are documents that
19 were exhibited yesterday.
20 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
21 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] So on the right we should be
22 looking at the same thing at the same heading as on the left.
23 JUDGE PARKER: We have to go to the second page of the document
24 on the left I think to see the lower part of the document on the right.
25 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] That's it. Now can we have the
1 same document in B/C/S, again one alongside the other, page 1. Correct,
2 and on the right.
3 Q. In your binder, Colonel, it's numbers 15 and 16. These are the
4 originals of the one document and the other, I suppose. Now, the
5 question is whether it's the same document. I think there are some
6 obvious differences on the first page, on the cover page.
7 A. Well, the first one was obtained from the military archive, the
8 one on the left. And the document on the right is a copy -- I don't know
9 where it comes from, but basically it's the same document, it's our
11 Q. Where was it created?
12 A. At the beginning of every year, our office opens a new log-book
13 and we start entering documents for that year starting from number 1 as
14 they come in.
15 Q. What does this log-book look like in technical terms? Does it
16 provide for a decent level of security and protects the register against
18 A. It's a hard binding. The number of sheets is verified, and it's
19 impossible to take out a page without leaving a visible trace. It should
20 be sealed, but in this case we haven't done that because it is a
21 hard-bound book.
22 Q. Was it allowed to make modifications and corrections in this
24 A. Corrections are not even necessary, let alone allowed, if the
25 procedure is followed. There is a procedure for entering documents and
1 for following up on documents, so there is no need to correct anything at
2 a later stage.
3 Q. Who is responsible for the contents of this log-book?
4 A. Ultimately the chief of office.
5 Q. That would be you?
6 A. Yes, that would be me, but technically speaking it's the office
7 manager whose direct responsibility it is.
8 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now see that document
9 again, 248. Can we zoom in on the right-hand-side document. 248, yes.
10 Q. Have a look at entry number 248, that's the first column. We see
11 two documents entered there with their dates, and we have columns 2, 3,
12 4, 5, and 6 containing data. Could you please comment on what we can see
13 here. For starters, because later on we'll stick to one document so as
14 to follow through the entire 248 entry, can you tell us whether in your
15 opinion the left and the right side of the document are identical. Is it
16 the same document? Have a closer look and then share your conclusion
17 with us.
18 A. Yes, it is the same document.
19 Q. The same?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Very well.
22 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we zoom in even further on
23 the left-hand side document. Let's look at entry number 248. We can
24 remove the right-hand side document, but before that --
25 Q. Sorry, before that, the right-hand side part that we can see
1 without any data, it's blank. Why is it?
2 A. Whoever provided this document believed that that part of the
3 page should be covered and that it wasn't necessary. This was done by
4 technical means when photocopying.
5 Q. So the same explanation as with the archive list before?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Very well. Let's do what I proposed earlier then, to have the
8 entry 248 zoomed in. Thank you. Very well.
9 Please have a look at the monitor. It is document 248. In the
10 archive list we can see that there was some data in columns 5 and 6,
11 stating that there were two documents and five sheets, I believe. But it
12 said that there was only one document, and here it is different. I'd
13 like to hear your comment.
14 A. Under 248 of the register of the office on the 15th of May a
15 document was entered under number 1, strictly confidential, the federal
16 defence ministry, the administration for Defence preparations, and so on
17 and so forth.
18 Q. Is that the document that was entered under 82?
19 A. Yes, precisely, and it contains its full title there.
20 Q. Thank you. Move on.
21 A. Let's stay with this page.
22 Q. Yes. By all means.
23 A. So entry 248, item 2, on the 26th of May, 1999, we have a
24 document of the 3rd Army number 872-94/1-2. It seems that there is no
25 link between the first and the second document.
1 Q. Why do you say that?
2 A. Because under the rules sub-items are only added to those
3 documents that they are in direct relation to. These should be documents
4 dealing with the same issue, and it is only then that they are entered as
5 items 1, 2, and 3 to the original number. That is to say the document
6 from the Federal Ministry of Defence does not seem to have any relation
7 to another document which is under number 2 coming from the 3rd Army.
8 There should have been no reason to do that, and it corresponds to what
9 we could see before according to the number of documents and sheets in
10 the archive list.
11 Q. And your final conclusion is?
12 A. That this could have only been entered subsequently, given the
13 lack of expertise of those who did that.
14 Q. You have specifically document number 2 in mind?
15 A. Yes, I believe this was done illegally.
16 Q. Let us look at column number 6. We see that the number there is
17 872-94/1-2. It says "3rd Army command."
18 A. This should be the register number of the document where it was
20 Q. Let's keep this number in mind, 872-94/1-2. Let's next have only
21 D585 put on the screen which is your tab 9, and we will go back to this
22 document later. This should suffice if we zoom in on that part.
23 What can we see in the upper right-hand side corner?
24 A. We see the very same number, 248.
25 Q. Very well. And on the left side?
1 A. There is stamp of the 3rd Army command.
2 Q. What's the number?
3 A. 872-94/1-2.
4 Q. Is that the document we have just seen?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Let us now go back to the two documents that we could see on the
7 screen previously, this is D588 and 587. In your binder these are tabs
8 15 and 16. Page 2, please.
9 Any further comments?
10 A. Regarding 248?
11 Q. Yes.
12 A. I don't see anything else of interest.
13 Q. Thank you. Do we have any further comments on the entire
14 register of the office of the chief of the Supreme Command Staff,
15 anything to add?
16 A. Perhaps concerning the linkage between documents. If there are
17 two documents that are related, they should be under the same entry
18 number with subnumbers. As you can see, for example, in 254 --
19 Q. Please clarify that, and let's wrap it up for today.
20 A. Number 254 contains four documents, four subdocuments, but they
21 are related. These were issues of status dealt by -- through the
22 ministry and our department for recruitment and personnel issues.
23 Q. What about 248?
24 A. There we see no link between the documents.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I suggest we conclude for the
2 day, Your Honours, given that we are -- ran out of time, and I will only
3 require a short amount of time tomorrow morning concerning my direct
5 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. We must now adjourn, and we resume at
6 9.00 in the morning.
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.,
8 to be reconvened on Friday, the 12th day of
9 February, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.