Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 12141

 1                           Tuesday, 2 March 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.

 5             MR. STAMP:  May it please Your Honours, if I may just comment.

 6             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Stamp.

 7             MR. STAMP:  Thank you.  Yesterday I had indicated that I wanted

 8     to cite an assertion I made or give citations for it.  Having reviewed

 9     the transcript, it seems that what is recorded in the transcript is not

10     what I intended to say, and not what I thought said.  And I presume that

11     that the transcript is probably right.  What I thought I said was that

12     the accused had said that he was in Kosovo in 1998 when he testified.  I

13     think the transcript has me saying that this witness said that the

14     accused was in Kosovo in 1998.  So the citations I have of the accused

15     saying he was in Kosovo, according to the transcript, that is not what

16     was put to the witness.

17             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you for that very neat recovery.  And I

18     think a brownie point for Mr. Popovic.

19                           [The witness takes the stand]

20             JUDGE PARKER:  Good afternoon.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.

22             JUDGE PARKER:  The affirmation you made to tell the truth still

23     applies.

24             Mr. Stamp, you are continuing.

25             MR. STAMP:  Thank you, Your Honours.

Page 12142

 1                           WITNESS:  MILOS PANTELIC [Resumed]

 2                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 3                           Cross-examination by Mr. Stamp:  [Continued]

 4        Q.   You were shown a few of the orders or dispatches signed by

 5     General Djordjevic in which he mobilised and dispatched PJP detachments

 6     in Kosovo.  Perhaps we can have a look at one or two of them quickly.

 7     You were shown P133.  This is a dispatch of 28th of July, 1998.

 8             And if you turn to the second page, you see it's signed by --

 9     it's signed for the chief of the public security department

10     General Djordjevic, and you were also shown a couple of the documents in

11     which General Djordjevic mobilised and dispatched.

12             MR. STAMP:  If we could go back to the first page of this

13     document, that would be good.

14        Q.   You were also shown a couple of documents in which

15     General Djordjevic mobilised and dispatched these PJP units from various

16     SUPs in Serbia to Djordjevic -- to Kosovo and Metohija.

17             Under what authority did he issue these orders?  And specifically

18     if you look at the first line of this order, that these detachments are

19     to be mobilised and dispatched.

20        A.   These are dispatches of the chief of the public security

21     department of the Ministry of the Interior which were sent to the

22     secretariats whereby the units were to be sent to carry out special

23     security tasks in the territory of Kosovo and Metohija.  Here the 65th

24     Detachment is also mentioned.  This is the detachment in which one of my

25     units was, this was the company size unit of approximately 100 people.

Page 12143

 1     So with this dispatch, he addressed the secretariats so that they

 2     prepared their units in order to send them to carry out special security

 3     tasks.  He sent this as chief of public security sector.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  He sent this detachment mobilising, dispatching these

 5     PJP units to carry out security tasks in Kosovo.  I am sorry, I see the

 6     transcript has something wrong.

 7             He sent this dispatch by which he mobilised and dispatched PJP

 8     units or carried out special tasks, special security tasks in Kosovo, and

 9     he did so as chief of the public security department.  Was there any law,

10     rule, or regulation by virtue of which he performed or issued this order?

11        A.   This order was issued pursuant to the authorities given by the

12     Ministry of the Interior.  This was not in line with any legislation.

13     This is not something that exists neither in the law nor in any other

14     regulations.

15        Q.   I see.

16        A.   However --

17        Q.   You said it was issued pursuant to the authorities given by the

18     minister of interior.

19             MR. STAMP:  In which case could we look at P58.

20             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Popovic.

21             MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I believe that we have a mistake in

22     the transcript concerning what Mr. Stamp said.  I believe that Mr. Stamp

23     said it in the same way in which -- in which the witness said, that this

24     was the authority of the minister -- yes, yes, now it's okay in the

25     transcript, thank you.

Page 12144

 1             MR. STAMP:

 2        Q.   This is the decision of 19th of February, 1992, setting out the

 3     PJM -- sorry, it's a decision of the 1st of August, 1992 -- 1993, setting

 4     out the PJM.  You had indicated, just for clarification, Mr. Pantelic,

 5     earlier, that there's a name change.  The PJM became known as the PJP; is

 6     that correct?

 7        A.   These units changed names but their purpose was not changed.

 8        Q.   Yes.  And I think we see them referred here in this order or

 9     referred to here in this order as a PJM.  That is what later on became

10     known as a PJP?

11        A.   That is correct.

12             MR. STAMP:  If we could look at the second page of this in

13     English, and you could probably stay on the first page in B/C/S.  We want

14     to see item 2.

15        Q.   It says that bringing into readiness, mobilising, and engaging

16     the PJM on performing tasks described in paragraph 1 of this item shall

17     be done on orders from the minister and when approved by the minister,

18     also on orders from the chief of the public security department.  So can

19     I take it then that General Djordjevic in issuing these orders, like the

20     last one we saw where he mobilised and dispatched these units to Kosovo

21     for security-related tasks, was done by virtue of this regulation?

22        A.   Yes, it would appear so pursuant to this decision because here we

23     can see that putting units into readiness, their mobilisation and

24     engaging of PJMs was done exclusively on orders from the minister or on

25     orders from somebody authorised by the minister to do so, in this case

Page 12145

 1     the chief of the public security department.

 2        Q.   Well, that is not precise what it says.  It says either the

 3     minister or on the authority of the minister, the chief of the public

 4     security department.  Do you see that?

 5        A.   Yes, I can see this very well under item 2, paragraph 2 within

 6     item 2, and here it says on orders from the minister and when approved by

 7     the minister, also on orders from the chief of the public security

 8     department.  This is what this decision reads.  So the decision was

 9     adopted by the minister and then operational and technical tasks are

10     actually carried out by the chief of the public security department.

11        Q.   Very well.  If we could move on.  Did you have units in Kosovo in

12     mid-April 1999?  If I may rephrase.  Were there any PJP detachments from

13     your SUP engaged in security-related tasks in Kosovo in mid-April 1999?

14        A.   During the course of 1999 my units were permanently dispatched to

15     carry out special security tasks in the territory of the Autonomous

16     Province of Kosovo and Metohija.  I can't precisely remember whether in

17     mid-April any such units were there, but it is very probable that they

18     were.  So I can't remember the exact dates, but I do know that my company

19     of the PJP was engaged in special security tasks, then there would be a

20     break, and after a short while they would go again.  So this was done

21     continuously during the year of 1999.

22        Q.   Your company belonged to which detachment?

23        A.   I had several companies.  These were the third companies of the

24     35th, 65th, and 85th Detachment.  In the 85th Detachment, we mostly had

25     members of the reserve police forces, and they were seldomly used during

Page 12146

 1     this period, I even believe they weren't used at all, but members of the

 2     35th Detachment and of the 65th Detachment were used continuously.

 3             MR. STAMP:  Perhaps we could have a look at document 06063.  This

 4     is one that -- that's Prosecution 65 ter number 06063.

 5        Q.   On the first page at the bottom.  This is a document listing the

 6     deployment of PJP units on the 17th of April, 1999.  The first page at

 7     the bottom we see the units of the 35th Detachment, and if we go to the

 8     second page in English, and I think we could stay on the same page in

 9     B/C/S, we see the 3rd Company at Vaganica.  Is that where your -- where

10     the unit from your SUP was located?  Do you recall that?

11        A.   If this is written so in this document, this is certainly

12     correct.  So the 35th Detachment of the PJP consisted of police units

13     from Sabac, Valjevo, and Uzice.  Their base was in Uzice.  So if this is

14     what is written here that the 35th Detachment was deployed at the time,

15     this is most probably true.  But I can't remember any details, and I do

16     not know of a place called Vaganica.

17        Q.   Well, this is -- if we go back to page 1 in English.  This is in

18     the Secretariat of Kosovska Mitrovica.  Did you have units in that area?

19        A.   The PJP's Special Police units of the secretariat from Valjevo

20     spent a longer period of time in the territory of the Secretariat of

21     Kosovska Mitrovica.  In 1998 we had one person killed of the PJPs who

22     carried out security tasks of the protection of a hunting ammunition

23     factory in Srbica.  Thereafter, during the course of 1999 on several

24     occasions, members of this detachment of PJP were present in the

25     territory which was under the jurisdiction of the secretariat from

Page 12147

 1     Mitrovica.

 2             On the 26th of March, while carrying out security tasks in that

 3     territory, so I'm talking about the 26th of March, 1999, when entering

 4     the village of Lajkovac, five members of my unit were killed and six of

 5     them were heavily injured.  On that occasion, they were carrying out the

 6     tasks that were ordered to them by the Pristina staff and the Secretariat

 7     of the Interior in Mitrovica.  They controlled the terrain in the given

 8     area.

 9        Q.   I see.  You had explained that to us yesterday.  If we look at

10     item 2 on the Secretariat for Kosovska Mitrovica, and that is on the

11     second page in English, we see their deployments or deployment of the

12     units in the 85th detachment.  Do you see where the 3rd -- or the areas

13     where the 3rd Company is deployed?  Did you have any units deployed in

14     those areas?

15        A.   I really cannot remember whether at the time any of my units were

16     sent down there because we never had a full detachment.  It depended on

17     the security situation, so it was requested for particular secretariats,

18     and as I told you a short while ago, these were three secretariats, in

19     Uzice, Sabac, and Valjevo, to provide a certain number of men.  This

20     doesn't necessarily mean that a full company from the secretariat in

21     Valjevo was deployed to the detachment.  I honestly cannot remember the

22     dates and whether this was the case at the time.

23        Q.   Very well.

24             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Popovic.

25             MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I see that this

Page 12148

 1     document is of more significant interest of Mr. Stamp, so I would first

 2     of all like to hear what is this all about, possibly we first had to see

 3     whether the witness could recognise this document, and there is no

 4     introduction into the document, no signatures, so we do know where it

 5     comes from.  I do not mind the questions that my learned friend asked,

 6     but I wonder whether we could establish what is this document all about.

 7             JUDGE PARKER:  As far as I know, this is not yet an exhibit, is

 8     that so, Mr. Stamp?

 9             MR. STAMP:  No, Your Honours, I'm merely asking the witness

10     whether he knows whether the information on it is correct.

11             JUDGE PARKER:  Are you intending on exhibiting the document at

12     some later time?

13             MR. STAMP:  Yes, Your Honours.

14             JUDGE PARKER:  Will you want it marked or identification at the

15     moment?

16             MR. STAMP:  That had been my plan, that was my intention

17     depending on his answers, which the answers being as they are, that would

18     be the course of conduct I would pursue.

19             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be marked.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01545, marked

21     for identification.

22             MR. STAMP:

23        Q.   You kept, I think it is your evidence, regular contact with your

24     men, your men who had been assigned to Kosovo by way of telephone calls.

25     Is that true?

Page 12149

 1        A.   Absolutely.  I was in contact with them possibly every four to

 2     five days depending on the situation, depending on the area in which they

 3     were deployed, and depending on whether they could use any secured phone

 4     lines to call me and inform me about their problems and possible

 5     assistance that I could have provided.

 6        Q.   And this situation continued throughout the war?

 7        A.   I'm not sure what you mean throughout the war, but occasionally

 8     it would happen that we couldn't talk to one another for ten days, but

 9     what was important for me was that they were all alive and well, that

10     nobody was killed or injured, and that they held all the conditions

11     necessary to perform their tasks normally in the territory in which they

12     were employed to carry out security tasks.

13        Q.   When I said during the war, I mean during the period of the NATO

14     intervention in 1999.  Did you maintain contact with your units in Kosovo

15     during this period?

16        A.   It's been a long time ago, but when I had an opportunity, I would

17     use it, so either the commanders of the units deployed in Kosovo got in

18     touch with me somehow, but as I said, this was not continuously.  So we

19     spoke occasionally; I received information; and this was sufficient for

20     me.

21        Q.   I'll try to ask the question in a different way.  During the war,

22     during the NATO intervention, did you have any contact at all with your

23     men in Kosovo?

24        A.   During the NATO intervention, the contacts were very far apart,

25     but we still spoke.  I can't remember how many times a month or a week,

Page 12150

 1     but if I couldn't get in touch with any of them, then I would call the

 2     staff in Pristina, and I would ask about them.  And this was enough for

 3     me.

 4        Q.   So you could more readily get in touch with the staff in Pristina

 5     than your units that were in the field outside of Pristina; is that a

 6     fair statement?

 7        A.   I was in touch with the staff in Pristina occasionally until NATO

 8     aircraft struck the facility where the staff had been housed.  Later on

 9     when it was dispatched to reserve positions, I basically had no contact

10     with them.

11        Q.   About when was it that NATO struck their position?

12        A.   I know when NATO attacked the territory of the municipality of

13     Valjevo.  As for Kosovo, I know that it was bombed on a daily basis, and

14     that facility was probably struck at the outset.  As for any dates, I

15     don't know those, and I can't say anything.

16        Q.   You said that when your PJP detachments went down to Kosovo, then

17     you had no further responsibility to monitor them and to maintain

18     disciplinary control of them.  That responsibility resided in the

19     secretariats to which they were sent.  Is that accurate?

20        A.   As of the moment when PJP units were sent from the territory of

21     our secretariat where I was the chief, all my obligations towards those

22     PJP units ceased.  What I had to do was to use the -- an inspector from

23     the department of police to have him organise their departure in keeping

24     with the dispatch I received from the police administration of the

25     Ministry of the Interior.  I had to provide them with everything

Page 12151

 1     requested in that dispatch, and as of the moment when they left the

 2     territory of my secretariat, I no longer had any competencies.

 3             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Popovic.

 4             MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in this question it

 5     was put to the witness that he said something he didn't actually say.  He

 6     said previously that he had no disciplinary oversight over those units.

 7     Mr. Stamp referred to something of that sort, and I would perhaps like to

 8     know what the reference is that he is relying upon, otherwise perhaps the

 9     question should be withdrawn.

10             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Stamp.

11             MR. STAMP:  I asked the witness if he said something, and he

12     explained what he meant.  But it seemed that my friend doesn't understand

13     the question I asked.

14        Q.   Mr. Pantelic, was this procedure, the one you just described,

15     where you lost any competency over the units that were sent, was that

16     something that was regulated by law or by the rules?

17        A.   That issue was not regulated by any legal provisions.  However,

18     it is regulated by a number of bylaws put into force by the minister of

19     the interior.  Perhaps I should clarify the issue of disciplinary

20     measures.  In cases of infringement of the disciplinary rules from the

21     disciplinary code committed in the territory of Kosovo and Metohija by

22     members of the PJP who had been sent to that area, their immediate

23     superior had to establish whether there was any disciplinary liability.

24     In such cases, he was charged with undertaking measures, preliminary

25     measures, after which he was supposed to forward the case file to the

Page 12152

 1     home secretariat.

 2             So the preliminary measures were under the competence of the

 3     immediate superior, and once those who breached discipline returned to

 4     their home secretariat, proceedings would be instituted against them.

 5        Q.   I see.  So when it came to disciplinary matters at least, the

 6     home secretariat did retain some competence?

 7        A.   The home secretariat had that sole competence in cases of

 8     disciplinary liability.  In such cases, the employee would be held

 9     accountable upon his return to the home secretariat.  Otherwise, the home

10     secretariat held no sway in any other matters.

11             MR. STAMP:  Could we have a look at 0 -- that is 65 ter number

12     05234.  This was a document that we -- was not on our initial

13     notification, but we notified the Defence as soon as there was testimony

14     that caused us to believe the witness might be able to comment on it.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could we please zoom in.  This

16     actually confirms what I have just said.  In the last paragraph it reads

17     that for the above-mentioned reasons, it is proposed that the person

18     concerned be temporarily removed from the ministry until the date

19     mentioned therein.  So the chief of secretariat was instructed to

20     undertake disciplinary measures concerning this case.  The person in

21     question was not suspended, but sent to his home unit and home

22     secretariat so as to have disciplinary measures imposed.

23             MR. STAMP:

24        Q.   I see.  There -- just to be accurate, this is the Chief of

25     Secretariat of Bor, SUP Bor, Caslav Golubovic seeking approval to bring

Page 12153

 1     disciplinary charges against a MUP employee for breaches committed in

 2     Kosovo; that's correct?

 3        A.   It is correct, as we can read from the document.  However, the

 4     chief of secretariat, by that time in 1999 was probably not familiar with

 5     how disciplinary proceedings were regulated at the time and where they

 6     were supposed to take place.

 7        Q.   I am afraid I don't understand your last comment.  Are you saying

 8     that what SUP chief Golubovic is doing here is irregular?

 9        A.   I didn't say what he was doing was irregular.  I'm just saying

10     that I don't know why he asked the minister of the interior of Serbia for

11     an approval to be in charge of such a procedure.  In the earlier

12     dispatches we saw, the whole situation was well regulated.

13        Q.   At that time, the 23rd of March, 1999, would he not have to seek

14     the permission of the administration in Belgrade, the headquarters in

15     Belgrade to remove the officer from the ministry?

16        A.   The chiefs of the SUP who signed this asked for approval to

17     suspend the employee pending the closure proceedings.  So that person was

18     not sent away.  He was simply returned to his home unit and to the home

19     secretariat from which he had been dispatched.  The reason for which the

20     secretariat chief was inquiring of the Serbian MUP what to do, that is

21     something that I'm not very clear about.

22        Q.   So you don't know whether or not at that time the SUP chief would

23     have to request permission from MUP headquarters to remove a MUP employee

24     from his employment?

25        A.   As I've just said, I explained to you how I conducted military

Page 12154

 1     procedures in the territory of my SUP.  I wasn't aware of any need to

 2     have the approval of the MUP of Serbia for such measures.  Although, to

 3     speak honestly, I did not have any disciplinary cases on my hands on

 4     which I had to act.  As far as I remember, though, no approval on the

 5     part of the ministry would have been necessary for me to do that.

 6             MR. STAMP:  Your Honours, I tender this document, 5234, and ask

 7     that it be given an exhibit number.

 8             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01546.

10             MR. STAMP:  And if we could move on.  Could we look at P1207.

11        Q.   I think you said yesterday that by this dispatch,

12     General Djordjevic issued regular tasks to various departments and

13     organisational units of the police.  You see in the addressee section,

14     Mr. Pantelic, that one of the organisational unit was the "UKP, the Crime

15     Police Administration - here - to the chief."?

16        A.   This is hardly legible.  Yes, now I see it.  It was sent to the

17     UKP by the sector chief.  These are tasks passed down along certain

18     professional lines, and I have no information regarding this.

19        Q.   The chief of the crime police was General Ilic?

20        A.   Yes, General Ilic.

21        Q.   So would you agree with me that at least for some purposes the

22     hierarchy remained in place, General Djordjevic could and did task

23     General Ilic?

24        A.   All I can do is confirm what the dispatch says.  It was sent to

25     the chief of administration.  I don't know for what reasons and why.  As

Page 12155

 1     I have said, it was my impression that General Ilic was directly

 2     subordinated to the minister of the interior, and I stand by that

 3     assertion.

 4        Q.   I suppose you have answered the question.  For clarification, I

 5     think you said that these were tasks passed down along the professional

 6     lines, and I'm saying to you doesn't this demonstrate that

 7     General Djordjevic could and did task General Ilic?

 8        A.   I said that he could issue orders only following the minister's

 9     approval, strictly speaking.  Following the rule book, the minister would

10     not be involved in this.  As of 1987 [as interpreted] when assistant

11     ministers of the interior were appointed, each of them answered for a

12     certain aspect of work --

13        Q.   But we have heard about the history.  I just want to confine

14     ourselves to this document and what you have said about it in your

15     testimony.  And on the basis of that, would it be fair to say that

16     General Djordjevic as chief of the public security sector could and did

17     issue tasks to General Ilic?

18        A.   I think I've answered.  In any case, this dispatch --

19        Q.   Just a simple question.

20        A.   It is my answer that following a minister's approval, he could

21     issue any type of dispatch.

22        Q.   Okay.  So that is a hierarchy.  The minister is superior to

23     General Djordjevic; General Djordjevic is superior to General Ilic;

24     General Ilic is superior to the UKP chiefs in the SUPs.  There is a

25     hierarchy.  Is that correct?

Page 12156

 1        A.   The hierarchy, as you describe it, is correct only in the first

 2     part of your question.  General Ilic was not subordinated to the

 3     territorial units.  His tasks were to exercise direct co-ordination and

 4     control of work following which he could undertake certain measures in

 5     the criminal or crime area.

 6        Q.   There must have been an error.  I wasn't suggesting that

 7     General Ilic was subordinated to the territorial units.  Very well.

 8             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes, Mr. Popovic.

 9             MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  A

10     correction for the transcript.  Page 15, line 8, it is 1987, whereas I

11     believe the witness said 1997.  I didn't want to interrupt Mr. Stamp, but

12     having realised that he is finished with this topic, I made use of this

13     opportunity to point that out.

14             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

15             MR. STAMP:  Could we move on and have a look quickly at P356.

16        Q.   This is a dispatch from General Djordjevic of the 18th of

17     February, 1999, that you spoke about yesterday.

18             MR. STAMP:  And if we could move straight to item 7.

19        Q.   You were saying, Mr. Pantelic -- or let me put it this way.  Your

20     understanding, is it that when he referred to volunteers, it meant that

21     volunteers were to be directed towards your appropriate military

22     territorial unit?

23        A.   Yes, to the appropriate military territorial unit.  Under the

24     existing Law on the Interior, no volunteers can be engaged in the

25     execution of any security-related tasks.  They could -- such people could

Page 12157

 1     only have come from the reserve force of the police.

 2        Q.   And are you also saying that when he was referring to the

 3     paramilitary units and their members, he meant the suppression of

 4     paramilitary units and their members because they were inclined to

 5     include criminal elements?

 6        A.   I don't think one needs to generalise.  For the most part, units

 7     did contain criminal elements, but there were different units as well.

 8     Specifically in my area, there were no paramilitary units.  I didn't

 9     register a single one, and I didn't notify the minister of the interior

10     of the existence of any such units.

11             MR. STAMP:  If we could go back to the first page of that

12     document just to get the reference number or the dispatch number.

13     Dispatch number 312, dated 18th of February, 1999.

14             Now if we could move to P702.

15        Q.   And I just want to remind you of what you said yesterday about

16     paramilitaries.  It's at 12079, line 7:

17             "I believe the law on people's Defence did not regulate

18     paramilitary units.  Usually these were people who came from the rank of

19     criminals, and we tried in every way we could to eliminate them partaking

20     in any kind of volunteer units."

21             So please remember your testimony.  You will see in this

22     document, this is a dispatch of the 24th of March, 1999.  We'll see later

23     that it is from the minister, that is Mr. Djordjevic's superior, and you

24     see in the first paragraph it says or refers to "our dispatch number 312

25     of the 18th of February, 1999," that's the previous dispatch you just

Page 12158

 1     saw.  Just read that first paragraph, please.  Not aloud, just read it so

 2     you understand it.

 3        A.   I am sorry, I can't read that.

 4             MR. STAMP:  Very well, if it could be expanded, and I'll read it

 5     to you in any case.

 6        Q.   It says:

 7             "Since the 23rd of March" ...

 8        A.   I have read it.

 9             MR. STAMP:  And if we could go back to the English, and go to

10     page 3 of the English and ... I am sorry, I think we want page 2 of the

11     English.  Now, I don't have a copy in front of me.  I think we need

12     page 1 then.  I'm so sorry.  Yes, item 5 of page 1.

13        Q.   Here, the minister on the eve of the war is telling us, "you

14     shall" -- and I quote:

15             "You shall register all volunteer and paramilitary units and

16     their members and keep them under control in case you might need to

17     engage them."

18             Do you know that it was the intention of the minister and

19     General Djordjevic to illegally engage volunteers into the MUP?

20        A.   Pursuant to the then law on the Internal Affairs, no volunteers

21     could be engaged in units that were under the command of the Ministry of

22     the Interior on any of the their organisational units.  What is written

23     here in this dispatch that they should be kept under control and what the

24     exact intention of the minister were regarding this particular dispatch,

25     I cannot comment on that.  As I said a short while ago, in my territory,

Page 12159

 1     in the territory under my jurisdiction, there were no such units and

 2     there was no need to keep them under control or to inform the ministry

 3     about them.

 4        Q.   The question asked you about the purpose of the minister and

 5     General Djordjevic in respect to the volunteers.  I take it your answer

 6     is, you don't know, having seen this.  Can I ask you in respect to the

 7     paramilitaries, did you know or were you aware that it was the intention

 8     of the minister and General Djordjevic to engage paramilitary units,

 9     people who usually came from the ranks of criminals, to quote your words,

10     into the MUP?

11        A.   I am not sure how I could comment on this.  This is the first

12     time that I have learned that there was any intention to engage such

13     units as members of the Ministry of the Interior.  We never discussed

14     this at any of the meetings or during any of the conversations with the

15     generals and representatives of different professional lines at the

16     Ministry of the Interior.

17        Q.   Were you aware of a meeting attended by General Djordjevic, the

18     minister, General Lukic, and the leaders of the police from Kosovo and

19     Metohija on the 17th of February, 1999?

20        A.   I don't know what that meeting could have been all about, but

21     probably by the nature of things, I was not supposed to know about it.

22        Q.   Well, if you recall the first document on this topic you were

23     shown, that is, General Djordjevic's dispatch of the 18th of February,

24     1999, it included the matters that were discussed at the meeting of the

25     17th of February.  Did you know about this?

Page 12160

 1        A.   I can't recall that dispatch unless I'm reminded of it, but what

 2     happened away from the territory of my secretariat, I had very little

 3     knowledge on that, and I will gladly share with you those things that I

 4     do remember.

 5        Q.   Yes, I understand that, but I'm mostly interested right now in

 6     matters relating to Kosovo.

 7             If we could move on.  The Law on Internal Affairs remained in

 8     force during the NATO intervention, did to not?

 9        A.   Yes.  It remained in force and also the decree on the

10     Internal Affairs during a state of war was implemented.  The one that was

11     adopted by the federal government, and if there were any colliding

12     provisions, then the decree was implemented.

13        Q.   If we could just take things in chronological order or step by

14     step.  There was also in force a decree on disciplinary responsibility.

15             MR. STAMP:  This is P1049.  Perhaps the witness could have a look

16     at it just to orient himself.

17        Q.   This decree on disciplinary responsibility in the Ministry of the

18     Interior, that was also in force during the NATO intervention, was it?

19        A.   Yes, this decree simply precised the provisions of the Law on

20     Internal Affairs.

21             MR. STAMP:  Could we look at Article 8 of that decree.

22     Paragraph 2 of Article 8.

23        Q.   This is in respect to proceedings for serious breaches, and in

24     paragraph 2 indicates that "... for serious breaches which constitute a

25     crime, disciplinary investigator shall interview the employee witnesses

Page 12161

 1     and expert witnesses, collect the evidence, and investigate ex-officio

 2     all circumstance of significance for the full determination of

 3     responsibility."  That was the -- or one of the operational provisions,

 4     was it?

 5        A.   Absolutely.

 6        Q.   And the Article 9 provides that:  "The immediate supervisor shall

 7     report any serious breaches to the responsible officer."

 8             And just so that we can be sure where we are, could we look at

 9     Article 4 for who is the responsible officer.  Chief of the secretariat,

10     chief of the administration, or other appropriate organisational unit at

11     the headquarters of the ministry.  Those are the persons who would

12     institute the disciplinary proceedings?

13        A.   Disciplinary proceedings were launched following a report which

14     was filed by the immediately superior officer.  We have to distinguish

15     between two things.  First of all a disciplinary report and a

16     disciplinary proceedings and issuing of disciplinary measures.  In the

17     previous articles that we saw a short while ago, it was stipulated that

18     in case of a disciplinary offence which constituted a crime, you also had

19     a disciplinary investigator involved who would carry on the proceedings.

20             So if you had a major breach of working discipline without a

21     crime, then the proceedings would have been different, but always the

22     immediately superior person would file a report, that report would reach

23     the chief of the secretariat, and he would forward it to the disciplinary

24     court which decided on the case in the first instance.

25             And in this article which you presented to me, you can see that

Page 12162

 1     it was possible to appeal, so both parties could appeal that court

 2     decision.  So the person against whom the disciplinary measure was

 3     pronounced, and also the chief who filed this report, but it is important

 4     to make this distinction, regardless of the fact whether there were

 5     disciplinary proceedings and also criminal proceedings or not.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Now, we have just described the -- how criminal

 7     proceedings would be instituted for serious breaches that constituted a

 8     crime.  Weren't the powers of the security organs, the MUP, expanded

 9     during the war?  In other words, weren't SUP chiefs or the responsible

10     officer that we see here given expanded powers to investigate crimes and

11     arrest and detain persons?

12        A.   Here we have two issues.  The decree on the Internal Affairs

13     during a state of war also regulated disciplinary responsibility of

14     employees, and it provided for more expanded powers, so following the

15     authorisation of the head of the unit given to the chiefs of territorial

16     organisational units, they could carry out proceedings for serious

17     breaches of discipline during a state of war, and they could also

18     pronounce appropriate measures.

19             The second issue is related to the law on the application of

20     criminal proceedings during a state of war.  According to that law, on

21     the application of criminal proceedings, certain powers were also given

22     to the organs of the Ministry of the Interior so that during the state of

23     war, they could carry out some investigative activities without a

24     prosecutor.  But they were obliged to report about any such investigative

25     activities that were undertaken, to report to the prosecutor in the

Page 12163

 1     shortest possible period of time.  So these were interviews with

 2     witnesses, opening of letters, and similar actions.

 3        Q.   Yes, let's look at it quickly.

 4             MR. STAMP:  P200, please.  This is a decree on implementation of

 5     criminal procedure during the war.  And if we could look at Article 6,

 6     paragraphs 3 and 4.

 7        Q.   This, I think, confirms what you were saying.  Paragraph 3

 8     provides that:

 9             "The organ of the interior may in urgent cases carry out

10     investigative activities even without the decision of the public or state

11     prosecutor."

12             In other words, MUP officials could institute investigations and

13     were not hampered by the presence or absence of investigative judges or

14     prosecutors where urgency of the situation required it.

15        A.   This is precisely what it means, but you have to understand the

16     conditions under which we worked.  The bombs fell throughout the day.

17     There were many casualties.  And prosecutors and investigative judges

18     were continuously carrying out crime scene investigations because of

19     different accidents.  So under such circumstances, the organs of the

20     interior could not function.  Possibly in certain areas they could, but

21     in certain areas they would not be able to function if they were to wait

22     for the prosecutor and investigative judge.  Then all the traces would

23     have been lost, and it would be difficult to establish whether this was a

24     crime or a smaller offence, whether this was a general crime offence or

25     disruption of law and order, and so on.

Page 12164

 1             So the organs of the interior had to be as efficient as possible

 2     and for those reasons, as far as I know, such powers were given to them.

 3     However, I can claim with full responsibility that in the territory that

 4     was under jurisdiction of my secretariat, these powers were never abused.

 5        Q.   Yes --

 6        A.   And --

 7        Q.   Thanks.  I am not claiming that you or anybody working under your

 8     supervision abused powers.  I'm just asking the operation or the intended

 9     operation of the law.  If could you look at paragraph 8 or Article 8 of

10     this.  It also gives organs of the interior powers to detain persons.

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And, in other words, the responsible officers of the interior

13     could or were empowered to launch their own investigations if they had

14     information about crimes being committed, and arrest and detain suspects?

15        A.   I wouldn't define it with precisely those words.  Members of the

16     Ministry of the Interior even previously had the powers, even before this

17     decree came into force, to arrest persons, interview them, and detain

18     them for a period of up to three days.  So with this decree, the powers

19     were simply extended in terms of the time-limit, so now they could detain

20     them for up to 30 days, but it was in nobody's interest to detain

21     suspects for such a long period.

22             If I remember it well, somewhere in this law you can see that

23     they were obliged to immediately send them to carry out their sentences,

24     their penalties in the responsible detention institution.

25        Q.   Thank you.  And the next law you mention which is of interest to

Page 12165

 1     us was the decree in respect to disciplinary measures.

 2             MR. STAMP:  If we could look at P1050.  This is a 9th of April,

 3     1999, letter by General Djordjevic.  I said the next law I mention was

 4     the decree in respect to disciplinary measures; I meant the decree on

 5     Internal Affairs, which this dispatch from General Djordjevic deals with.

 6             Can we look at page 2 in English.  And I think it's also page 2

 7     in the B/C/S.  Top of the page in both documents.

 8        Q.   Now, just for the purposes of the record, can you read aloud, so

 9     we could have an independent translation, the paragraph that states that

10     the chief of the department of public security has authorised the heads.

11     Do you see that?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Can you read that aloud, please.

14        A.   "The chief of public security sector has authorised the heads of

15     organisational units to impose prescribed measures and punishment for

16     major violations of employment obligations and duties.  And this

17     authorisation is enclosed herewith."

18        Q.   I ask you to read this because yesterday I think you said that he

19     authorised the heads of the territorial units, but this, I think you will

20     agree with me, referred to the heads of the organisational units.

21        A.   I'm not sure that you understood this well.  What I said

22     yesterday was true.  He authorised the heads of organisational units.

23     The organisational units existed at the level of the Ministry of the

24     Interior, but there were also organisational territorial units, and these

25     were the secretariats.  So the organisational units existed both at the

Page 12166

 1     seat of the ministry and in the territory of the entire republic.  So all

 2     the heads were authorised starting from chiefs of administrations to

 3     chiefs of secretariats which are territorial organisational units.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  It must be my mistake.  I thought yesterday you were

 5     limiting this authorisation to the territorial units.

 6             So he was authorising organisational units including the crime

 7     police headed by General Ilic?

 8        A.   It says those in charge of organisational units, he had in mind

 9     the chiefs of all administrations within the Ministry of the Interior.

10     Dragan Ilic, yes, absolutely.

11        Q.   Isn't it fair to say from the authorisation here that

12     General Djordjevic was entitled to grant to the organisational units that

13     he was a professional police officer most responsible for the enforcement

14     of discipline in the MUP during the war?

15        A.   The document we are looking at stemming from the decree on

16     Internal Affairs during a state of war provided certain authority to the

17     organs of the interior, and it had to be abided by.  Someone signing this

18     dispatch, and later on we see a similar dispatch, signed by the chief of

19     joint affairs administration of the ministry, which was also forwarded to

20     all organisational units - I think we discussed that yesterday - is more

21     precise in terms of what the chief of the sector signed in this document.

22     By virtue of this decree, the chief of the sector had to address such a

23     document to all organisational units.

24        Q.   But wouldn't you agree with me that by virtue of the decree, it

25     was invested in the chief of the public security sector the power and the

Page 12167

 1     right to authorise the heads of organisational units to impose the

 2     sentences?  He was invested with that power, was he not?

 3        A.   Such an authorisation could have only come from the minister.  As

 4     to who he delegated the powers to see that implemented, that's no longer

 5     an issue of mine.

 6        Q.   But you were given this document to comment upon earlier on when

 7     you testified in chief, and you commented upon it on the basis that you

 8     received it and you are aware of its meaning and purpose.  It says

 9     clearly here that:

10             "For serious violations of obligations and duty, the chief of the

11     ministry department or a person he authorises, shall impose measures and

12     punishments as proposed by the immediate superior."  And that's

13     quotation.

14             Then General Djordjevic goes on and issues his authorisation:

15             "The chief of the department of public security has authorised

16     the heads of organisational units to impose prescribed measures and

17     sentences ..."

18             Wouldn't you agree with me that General Djordjevic had the right

19     and the power to authorise the heads of the organisational units both in

20     Belgrade and in the territorial units to impose sentences for serious

21     breaches?

22        A.   As I said a moment ago, this was delegated pursuant to a decision

23     by the minister.  Chief Djordjevic addressed the organisational units

24     forwarding to them the decision of the Government of Serbia.  I can tell

25     you once again that this decree was practically not implemented during

Page 12168

 1     the state of war.  You won't find even two or three secretariats in which

 2     at the time it was being implemented.  I don't think there's any

 3     reason --

 4        Q.   Mr. Pantelic, you are going way beyond the question I'm asking

 5     you because -- and more.  You are telling us thing that even you said you

 6     didn't know.  You don't know what is going on in Kosovo, you said that.

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Is it not fair to say that if you take the minister out of this

 9     equation, and the minister is, I think we can agree with each other, the

10     person in charge of the ministry.  Wouldn't you agree with me that

11     General Djordjevic was the highest professional officer in the MUP

12     charged with and responsible for the enforcement of discipline in the

13     MUP?

14        A.   According to this dispatch as it reads, I could agree with you

15     you.  However, he delegated that responsibility to the chiefs of other

16     organisational units.

17        Q.   Very well.

18             MR. STAMP:  Your Honour, I think I have two more minutes, five

19     more minutes, but perhaps --

20             JUDGE PARKER:  After the break, Mr. Stamp.

21             MR. STAMP:  Thank you, Your Honours.

22             JUDGE PARKER:  We will have the break now and resume at

23     20 minutes past 4.00.

24                           [The witness stands down]

25                           --- Recess taken at 3.52 p.m.

Page 12169

 1                           --- On resuming at 4.21 p.m.

 2                           [The witness takes the stand]

 3             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Stamp.

 4             MR. STAMP:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 5        Q.   Mr. Pantelic, you said when you were here last time, or

 6     yesterday, that to speak of a plan to expel the Kosovo Albanians was

 7     absurd.  I'd like to show you a video, just a small clip and ask you to

 8     comment on it.

 9             MR. STAMP:  This is P1510, Your Honours, that we notified a

10     little bit late because of what the witness said in chief.

11                           [Video-clip played]

12             MR. STAMP:

13        Q.   So you would agree with me that it's not quite so absurd to

14     suggest.  Or may I ask you this question, did you know that Mr. Seselj

15     made this speech shortly before the NATO intervention?

16        A.   Mr. Seselj said many things.  I don't recall these words

17     specifically, but I do know that he frequently appeared in the media

18     saying things which one wouldn't say are shared by all Serbs.

19        Q.   Was he a member of the government at that time?

20        A.   I think for a while he was a government official, but I don't

21     recall what year it was.

22        Q.   Was there a deputy prime minister during 1999?

23        A.   I can't say exactly.

24             MR. STAMP:  Thank you very much, Your Honours.  I have nothing

25     further to ask.

Page 12170

 1             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you, Mr. Stamp.

 2             Mr. Popovic.

 3             MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  Briefly

 4     before I embark upon my redirect which will last five minutes at the

 5     most, I just wanted to point out this fact, the last video-clip we saw

 6     was the fourth document shown to this witness which he had no occasion to

 7     see during his proofing with the Defence.  This is the fourth document

 8     that was disclosed to the Defence in the course of this witness's

 9     testimony.  I don't think the Prosecutor showed more than seven or eight

10     documents during this witness's cross, out of which basically half of

11     that number were given to us during his testimony.  I didn't want to

12     raise this issue before so as not to interrupt the testimony, but I think

13     this type of conduct on the part of the Prosecutor points to the

14     existence of a pattern.  These were no longer individual instances.

15             I will now resume my redirect.

16             MR. Pantelic --

17             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Popovic, before you pass quickly off the

18     point, part of the problem with this particular witness is that his

19     evidence was given viva voce.  It was not given on the basis of a

20     prepared statement.  For that reason, it is, I would suggest to you, not

21     easy to anticipate all that the witness may say in the course of his

22     evidence.

23             I think you need to bear that in mind because if you think over

24     the evidence of the previous witnesses, it has not been a common

25     occurrence for a document to be used in cross-examination without proper

Page 12171

 1     prior notification.  There have been instances, those instances have, I

 2     think, been less than was the case of the Defence when cross-examining

 3     Prosecution witnesses.  But this witness has this great difference that

 4     much of his evidence is something that the Prosecution may not anticipate

 5     in its particulars.  Therefore, when it is heard what the witness says

 6     about a particular matter or event, the need to use a document may

 7     appear.

 8             Now, I make that point so that you can put this into perspective.

 9     That doesn't mean to say that we will not be alert to the need for

10     documents to be notified in the ordinary course, and if there is a

11     pattern of failure to observe that, the Chamber will certainly act.  But

12     this occasion may not justify your comment that this is a pattern.  Carry

13     on, please.

14             MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Very well, Your Honour.  It is

15     precisely for this reason that I desisted from interjecting earlier.  I

16     take your instructions into account fully.

17                           Re-examination by Mr. Popovic:

18        Q.   Mr. Pantelic, did Mr. Djordjevic or could Mr. Djordjevic make a

19     decision on the dispatching of Special Police units to the territory of

20     Kosovo and Metohija without a previous decision on engagement issued by

21     the minister of the interior?

22        A.   To be as brief as possible, it was not possible.

23        Q.   Thank you.

24             MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see P1546 again.

25        Q.   Mr. Pantelic, you have already been shown this document.  It is a

Page 12172

 1     notification from the Bor SUP on a disciplinary procedure.

 2             MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please zoom in.

 3        Q.   I wanted to ask you to have a look at the last paragraph.  It

 4     says:

 5             "For the above-mentioned reasons, we propose to temporarily

 6     remove the sergeant in question from the ministry until the end of

 7     disciplinary proceedings, effective as of 23 March 1999."

 8             Based on what we can read here, can we conclude that there was a

 9     disciplinary procedure instituted against this person?

10        A.   The decision that is made by the person in charge of the

11     organisational unit in organisational terms has nothing to do with the

12     initiation of a disciplinary procedure.  In other words, one can have

13     simultaneously a disciplinary procedure underway as well as a suspension

14     of the worker in question.

15        Q.   Thank you.  So is this asking for an approval to have someone

16     suspended?

17        A.   Yes, such an approval is sought.

18        Q.   Does this have anything to do with a disciplinary procedure and

19     have any disciplinary measures been taken by that time?

20        A.   This is not related to the first issue.

21        Q.   Thank you.

22             MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we next please have P356.

23        Q.   Mr. Pantelic, you had occasion to see a document in which the

24     minister in a way by dispatch sent instructions on the treatment of the

25     volunteers and paramilitary formations.  This is a document dated

Page 12173

 1     18 February 1999.  It's a dispatch which came from Mr. Djordjevic.

 2             MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Let's look at item 7 which is on

 3     the next page in both versions.

 4        Q.   Have a look at item 7.  Does Mr. Djordjevic refer any engagement

 5     of volunteers and paramilitary forces in that item?

 6        A.   It only states here that there should be checks carried out of

 7     volunteers and paramilitary units.  There is no mention of any

 8     engagement.

 9        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Pantelic.

10             MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this concludes my

11     redirect.

12             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

13                           Questioned by the Court:

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Sir, I have some questions for you.  You were

15     just asked by counsel if it was possible to dispatch Special Police units

16     to Kosovo without the previous decision or engagement -- or an engagement

17     issued by the minister of the interior himself.  And then you asked to be

18     as brief as possible; it was not possible.  I appreciate that you wanted

19     to be very short, but could you explain that.  What was the reason why

20     this was not possible?

21        A.   First we should deal with legal regulation concerning the Law on

22     Ministries, and Law on State Administration, as well as the Law on the

23     Interior, which are the three principal pieces of legislation governing

24     our work.  The only authority lies with the minister of the interior.  He

25     is the person empowered to implement those three pieces of legislation.

Page 12174

 1     He is a person elected into that position by the Serbian Assembly.  All

 2     other people were appointed.

 3             The minister, however, can delegate certain of his powers to

 4     other people.  This doesn't need to be specifically a chief of one of the

 5     sectors.  It can be any of the assistant ministers or chiefs of

 6     administrations.  So in the context of your question concerning the

 7     deployment of PJP units to carry out special security-related tasks in

 8     the autonomous province of Kosovo, that decision had to be made by the

 9     minister in keeping with the laws I just enumerated.

10             As for all the logistics sending away and reception of those

11     units, these were the tasks to be delegated to any number of persons

12     starting with the various chiefs of administrations, as well as deputy

13     ministers.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  To avoid any misunderstandings, are you saying

15     that every decision made by any member of the Ministry of the Interior

16     must have been approved by the minister personally before this decision

17     was issued?

18        A.   Such issues were regulated on the rules of work and functioning

19     of the Ministry of the Interior.  Those rules specifically enumerate the

20     authority and scope of authority of persons in the seat of the ministry.

21     If, according to the rules, a sector chief was in charge of particular

22     issues, as a rule, the minister did not have to delegate all of his

23     authority to that chief.

24             The issues specified in the rules of the work of the ministry

25     could be applied by the minister in a way he saw fit.  He could convey

Page 12175

 1     specific aspects of his authority to another person.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

 3             Another question, I would like to take you back to yesterday,

 4     your testimony of yesterday.  You told us that the previous -- the former

 5     minister, Sokolovic, head deputy minister, he was at the same time the

 6     head of the public security.  Who was the deputy of Mr. Stojiljkovic,

 7     Minister Stojiljkovic?

 8        A.   As I said yesterday, it's not that the minister had assistants or

 9     deputies, he had an assistant [as interpreted] minister who at the same

10     time was the chief of the public security sector.  However, the principle

11     in place was different.  Although, all laws and bylaws remained in power,

12     it depended much on the minister.  At the time the minister delegated

13     many of his aspects of authority to the sector and along other

14     professional lines in the Ministry of the Interior.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I would like to stop you here.  Perhaps you

16     misunderstood my question.  I wanted to know who stood in for the

17     minister himself?  Who was really his deputy of the Minister

18     Stojiljkovic?  I'm not talking about assistant ministers.

19        A.   Let me see if I understand you correctly.  Are you asking me

20     about a deputy to Minister Stojiljkovic?

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Exactly.

22        A.   Minister Stojiljkovic did not have a deputy.  He had only

23     assistant ministers and chiefs of sectors, as well as chiefs in charge of

24     specific professional aspects or lines of work.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.  My last question, I would

Page 12176

 1     like to know about the specific task, what was the duty of Stojan Misic

 2     in April 1999 and the MUP.  Which was his position?

 3        A.   Stojan Misic was the assistant minister of the interior directly

 4     in charge of those professional aspects which had to do with border

 5     affair, administrative affairs, resident aliens, state borders, weapons,

 6     fire-fighting department, analyses and IT, as well as communications.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And what was the position of Mr. Zekovic at that

 8     time in April 1999?

 9        A.   Mr. Petar Zekovic was the chief the administration; he was also

10     an assistant minister, at the same time in charge of the administration

11     for general affairs.  As such, he was in charge of providing

12     accommodation and food supplies for all the employees of the Ministry of

13     the Interior.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

15             And Mr. Djordjevic?

16        A.   Mr. Djordjevic was assistant minister and the chief of the public

17     security sector.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Were all the three assistant ministers on the

19     same level, or were there any differences?

20        A.   In the previous period there had been less assistants than there

21     are now.  In essence an assistant minister is an assistant minister.  If

22     a certain assistant is tasked with certain aspects of work, he is

23     answerable solely to the minister.  Otherwise, it would have been

24     illogical for chiefs of administrations to be ...

25             Well, we had chiefs of administrations which were answerable for

Page 12177

 1     their aspects of work.  So as for the role of assistant ministers ...

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The last sentence was not complete.

 3        A.   I tried to say as follows:  Why would there have been assistants

 4     if there had already been chiefs of administrations in the Ministry of

 5     the Interior.  Petar Zekovic had already been an administration chief,

 6     and at the same time he was assistant minister.  Stojan Misic was also an

 7     administration chief as well as assistant minister.  The fact that he was

 8     an assistant minister, it gave him a certain position.  And now at the

 9     top of the ministry there was a problem, since he was assistant minister

10     in the exercise of control and co-ordination of the lines of work he was

11     in charge with, was directly answerable to the minister.

12             I'm trying to say this, there is a great difference between the

13     rules of systematisation of the ministry and what was taking place in

14     practice.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Was one of the three assistant ministers we were

16     talking about subordinate or superior to one of the other of these three

17     assistant ministers?

18        A.   In my opinion when assistants are concerned, they were all of the

19     same rank.  In my opinion I say.  As the chief of a territorial

20     organisational unit, that is to say the chief of the secretariat, I was

21     immediately answerable to the chief of the public security sector.  As

22     for any relationships in the ministry itself, that's what needs to be

23     pondered upon.

24             It is my opinion that if we are discussing assistant ministers,

25     they are all directly linked to the minister himself.

Page 12178

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  My last question.  Did you ever work in the

 2     Ministry of the Interior?

 3        A.   I am not sure whether you are referring to the seat of the

 4     ministry.  I never worked at the seat of the ministry.  I started my

 5     career at the Secretariat of the Interior in Valjevo, and I retired

 6     following my own request on 30th of December 1991.  I have a degree in

 7     law, and this is why I was interested in the job systematisation.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you, I was not asking for that, but only if

 9     you personally have been employed in the ministry itself and not in the

10     SUP at any time during your career.

11        A.   No, I never worked in the seat of the ministry as I just said.  I

12     only worked in the territorial organisational unit.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

14        A.   Thank you.

15             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Popovic.

16             MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.

17     Just one correction in page 35, line 1, in his answer the witness said

18     that the minister had a deputy who was at the same time chief of the

19     public security sector.  So not the assistant but the deputy, and this is

20     what may have caused some confusion.

21             JUDGE PARKER:  I think that was clarified as the questioning

22     progressed.

23             That concludes the questioning for you.  The Chamber would like

24     to thank you for your attendance here and for the assistance you've been

25     able to give.  You are, of course, now free to return to your normal

Page 12179

 1     activities, and a Court Officer will show you out.  Thank you once again.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 3                           [The witness withdrew]

 4             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Popovic.

 5             MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, our next witness will

 6     be addressed by Mr. Djurdjic.  This is witness 6D2, if I'm not mistaken.

 7             JUDGE PARKER: [Microphone not activated] I take it, Mr. Djurdjic,

 8     to go into private session?

 9             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this witness is fully

10     covered by protective measures, so if we could kindly move into a private

11     session.

12             [In english] Closed session.

13             JUDGE PARKER:  We'll actually go into closed session,

14     Mr. Djurdjic.

15                           [Closed session]

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 12180











11 Pages 12180-12211 redacted. Closed session.















Page 12212

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.01 p.m.

24                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 3rd day of

25                           March, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.