100302ED

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.