Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 14280

 1                           Thursday, 20 May 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

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

 5             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djurdjic.

 6             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.

 7     Before the witness is brought in, I should like to ask you to allow our

 8     Defence team member, Jonathan Flynn to attend the hearing today.

 9             JUDGE PARKER:  We certainly would allow that, and welcome.  Yes.

10                           [The witness takes the stand]

11             JUDGE PARKER:  Good morning, sir.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

13             JUDGE PARKER:  We would remind you of the affirmation you made to

14     tell the truth which still applies, and we continue now your evidence and

15     invite Mr. Stamp to ask any questions he has.

16             MR. STAMP:  Thank you very much, Your Honours, and good morning.

17                           WITNESS:  RADOMIR MILASINOVIC [Resumed]

18                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

19                           Cross-examination by Mr. Stamp:

20        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Milasinovic.

21        A.   Good morning.

22        Q.   I was looking at your curriculum vitae, and I see it says in your

23     career resume that in 1972 you were employed at the Ministry of Interior

24     Affairs for the socialist Republic of Serbia, and then in 1973 to 1988

25     you were employed in the federal Ministry of Interior.  You worked for a

Page 14281

 1     year in 1972 at the Ministry of Interior for Serbia, Republic of Serbia;

 2     is that your evidence?

 3        A.   That is correct.  However, I also worked for the republican

 4     Ministry of the Interior in Croatia for three years, so that I spent the

 5     total of five years as a staff member of a republican ministry.

 6        Q.   Oh, I see.  Because the transcripts seem to reflect that you were

 7     saying that you worked three years in the MUP Republic of Serbia, so that

 8     is not correct.  You worked one year in the MUP Republic of Serbia and

 9     three years in the MUP Republic of Croatia?

10        A.   I worked for two and a half years for the republican MUP of

11     Serbia and three and a half years for the republican MUP of Croatia.

12        Q.   Okay.  When did you work for the republican MUP of Croatia?

13        A.   I worked for the Croatian MUP from the 1st or the 15th of

14     January, 1988 up until November 1991.

15        Q.   Okay.

16             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness come closer to the

17     microphones, please.

18             MR. STAMP:

19        Q.   When did you work for the MUP Republic of Serbia?

20        A.   From the 10th of January, 1992, up until the 15th of May, 1994.

21        Q.   Can you open your curriculum vitae. [Overlapping speakers] ...

22        A.   If my memory serves me well, that is.

23        Q.   Yes.  Can you have a look at your curriculum vitae, please.  I

24     think in line 20 -- oh, let me just ask the witness.  You started working

25     in the MUP Republic of Serbia in 1972; is that correct?

Page 14282

 1        A.   Yes, the 10th of January, as far as I remember.

 2             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djurdjic.

 3             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] My apologies, I should not be

 4     interfering at this point, but can you repeat the question because

 5     apparently there's been a mistake as far as the years are concerned, and

 6     we are wasting time.

 7             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Stamp, there certainly seems to be some

 8     difference between the printed document and the spoken evidence of the

 9     witness.  If you think it's important, you better clarify that.

10             MR. STAMP:  Yes.

11        Q.   Your curriculum vitae indicates that you worked for the Ministry

12     of Interior or interior affairs socialist Republic of Serbia 1972, and

13     not from January 1972 to May 1994, as you now claim.  Which is correct?

14        A.   It is correct that I worked from the 10th of January, 19 -- 1972

15     up until the 15th of May, 1974.

16        Q.   So what is printed there in your curriculum vitae is not correct,

17     or at least incomplete?

18        A.   It may be incomplete, and it is possible that there may be a

19     mistake, but what I'm saying is correct.

20        Q.   All right.  If I tell you that your curriculum vitae published on

21     the website for the university of Belgrade also indicates that you worked

22     in the MUP Serbia only during the year of 1972, would that refresh your

23     memory as to when you worked in the MUP for Serbia?

24        A.   That curriculum vitae was drafted by a staff member who did not

25     consult me directly but drew upon incomplete information contained in

Page 14283

 1     various documents.  You see, some of my documents were left behind in

 2     Ljubljana and Zagreb, and it is possible that he may have made some

 3     mistakes in drafting my CV.

 4        Q.   I see.  But at least with the CV that we have here, I saw

 5     yesterday, and I feel very certain that counsel for Mr. Djordjevic did

 6     give you an opportunity to correct your CV, but you didn't make use of

 7     the opportunity.  Is there any reason why?

 8        A.   I didn't use the opportunity simply because I was giving an

 9     overview of all the posts I held in both the republican MUP of Serbia and

10     the federal MUP, so I didn't think that the various dates of -- in terms

11     of office were important.  But you can see that I spent the total of five

12     years, at least five years working for the republican ministry.

13        Q.   And you are telling us now that you also worked for the

14     republican Ministry of the Interior in Croatia.  Can you remember when

15     that was?

16        A.   Yes.  I think that the whole of 1999, 1990 and 1991 up until

17     November -- or rather, from 1998 when I was employed there, that was when

18     I started working for the Ministry of the Interior of Croatia.

19        Q.   Okay.  I see here it says from 1998 when I was employed there.

20     Can you say again --

21        A.   1998, yes.  From the end of 1998 and the start of 1999 up until

22     November 1991.

23             JUDGE PARKER:  Is it perhaps 1989 rather than 1998?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 1989, apologies.  1989 and 1990 and

25     1991 through to almost the end of 1991.

Page 14284

 1             MR. STAMP:

 2        Q.   What position did you hold in the MUP Republic of Croatia?

 3        A.   I was a lecturer on the subject of security and international

 4     relations at the faculty of criminal sciences which was initially part of

 5     the republican Ministry of the Interior and eventually it became part of

 6     the Zagreb university.

 7        Q.   I see.  What position did you hold in the MUP Republic of Serbia?

 8        A.   In the MUP of the Republic of Serbia, I performed tasks of

 9     operative nature aimed at uncovering and suppressing individuals engaged

10     in anti-constitutional activities, or activities against the

11     constitutional order of the Republic of Serbia.  So they were of an

12     operative nature.

13        Q.   By operative nature, you mean that you were involved in gathering

14     information from persons in the field?

15        A.   No.

16        Q.   What do you mean by operative nature?

17        A.   I meant to say that I first underwent a specialised training and

18     took a number of exams which had to do with the workings of the internal

19     agencies of the Republic of Serbia.  Thereupon I was assigned to deal

20     with the suppression of activities aimed at overthrowing the

21     constitutional order or disrupting the constitutional order.  These were

22     tasks that had to do both with state security and public security.

23        Q.   Were you employed in state security or in public security or in

24     both?

25        A.   I was an employee of the state security of the republican

Page 14285

 1     ministry.  Now, in the federal ministry I was head of the information and

 2     analysis department which post I held from 1994 to 1998, and there I had

 3     tasks pertaining to both public and state security.

 4        Q.   You have to try to slow down when you speak of dates,

 5     Mr. Milasinovic.

 6        A.   Yes, well, I give you the dates as far as I can remember them.

 7     It is difficult to recall each and every date of the activities I

 8     performed in the 40 years of my career.  I've given you roughly the

 9     extent of the posts I held and the time periods concerned.

10        Q.   No, but it says here that you claim that you were in the federal

11     ministry from 1994 to 1998.  Are you actually saying that you were there

12     from 1974 until 1988?

13        A.   That's right.  But I said that I was head of the department for

14     research, analysis, and information from 1984, and previously I was

15     charged with performing other sort of duties.

16             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djurdjic.

17             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, line 6, but I can't

18     tell which page it was, the witness said from 1984 to 1988 and what we

19     have in the transcript is 1994 and 1998, so we have confusion again.

20     That's page 6, line 1.  He said from 1984 to 1988 and not from 1994 to

21     1998.

22             MR. STAMP:  Well, in any case, I think I clarified that because

23     later on he said 1974 to 1988.

24        Q.   In any case, Mr. Milasinovic, let's just cut this down.  Have you

25     ever been employed in the public service department of the Ministry of

Page 14286

 1     the Interior for the Republic of Serbia?

 2        A.   Since the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia

 3     comprised both the public security and state security departments, their

 4     competences overlapped.  Therefore, their activities overlapped insofar

 5     as when I was working for the state security, I also did some tasks that

 6     came under the competence of public security.  However, when I said that

 7     I was working for the republican ministry, I said that I was discharging

 8     duties falling under state security.

 9        Q.   Let me be clear about this.  Did you ever have the employment

10     status of being a member of the public security for the Republic of

11     Serbia?  Were you employed within the Republic of Serbia MUP?

12        A.   No, not for that department.

13        Q.   If we look at page 3 of your curriculum vitae in English under

14     your most important papers, and this is going to your academic career and

15     some of your published books, these are quite impressive list of

16     publications involving intelligence services and the activities of these

17     intelligence services international affairs, especially aimed against the

18     FRY.  I probably missed any that dealt specifically with the organisation

19     of the MUP for the Republic of Serbia.

20             Among your most important papers, have you published any work in

21     any serious journal on the organisation of the MUP for the Republic of

22     Serbia?

23        A.   Yes, but let me correct you first in one point.

24        Q.   No, corrections can come later.  Questions can be asked from

25     different parties.  I have limited time.  Where on your curriculum vitae,

Page 14287

 1     you have it in front of you, is that important work on the publication on

 2     the organisation of the MUP Republic of Serbia?  Look at your curriculum

 3     vitae, please, that's what I'm asking you, and find it, and tell us where

 4     it is, if it is here?

 5        A.   "Sources and Forms of Threatening the Security of SFRY."  That

 6     was one paper that was published.  I don't know if it's included here.

 7     I've already told you who it was who drafted this.  Secondly, the role --

 8     "The Place and Role of State Security Organs in Suppressing Crime in the

 9     Republic of Serbia."  Another thing that is not mentioned here is that I

10     was project manager on the subject of the role of the organs of Internal

11     Affairs in the Republic of Serbia in the activities against threats to

12     the security of the Republic of Croatia -- of Serbia.  What is also not

13     included is that I had a consultative role that I played on several

14     occasions on some of these subjects, so what is stated here is most of

15     the work I've done, but there were also projects of an internal character

16     that were used by organisational units of all the republics and provinces

17     which explained the organisation and workings of the organs of Internal

18     Affairs.  They were also used by some educational institutions --

19        Q.   Mr. Milasinovic, time is limited.  Do not waste time and do not

20     evade the questions.  Please look at your CV and point to us, if you can,

21     at any publication by you relating to the organisation of the MUP

22     Republic of Serbia.

23        A.   It's a collection of papers for criminological and sociological

24     research.

25        Q.   Mr. Milasinovic, look at your CV --

Page 14288

 1        A.   That's precisely what I'm doing.  And item -- collection of

 2     papers.  It's under 12, collection of papers for criminological and

 3     sociological research, and the paper was "Role of the Organs of Interior

 4     Internal Affairs in Crime Prevention."

 5        Q.   I'm not asking you about crime prevention or criminology or

 6     anything like that.  I'm asking you about the organisation of the MUP of

 7     Serbia.  Have you published anything relating to the organisation of the

 8     MUP Republic of Serbia?

 9        A.   Yes, in that particular work, that's what -- that's the one that

10     deals with the organisation of the MUP of Serbia precisely.  And apart

11     from that, I lectured on subjects related to security.

12        Q.   I'm not asking about security.  I'm asking you now about your

13     curriculum vitae.  Is there anything else on your curriculum vitae in

14     terms of your publications that you say relates to the organisation of

15     the MUP Republic of Serbia?

16        A.   This is just part of the work.

17        Q.   Can I take it then --

18        A.   Part of my work put on that list.  It's not here, no.

19        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  So apart from this work on crime prevention,

20     there's nothing here relating to the organisation of the MUP Serbia?

21        A.   Not on this list, no, but I did have such papers --

22        Q.   Is there anything -- why, Mr. Milasinovic, you are here

23     presenting this document relating to the organisation of the MUP Republic

24     of Serbia and in your CV listing your publications you do not include

25     your publications on the management or the organisation of the MUP

Page 14289

 1     Republic of Serbia?

 2        A.   Because that wasn't what I was asked to do.  And I explained what

 3     I did yesterday, and apart from that, the works published here and listed

 4     here is not part of the work of the intelligence services aimed against

 5     Yugoslavia but about the work of the intelligence services in general in

 6     the world, and you can see that from the title, from the title of those

 7     various papers and work, and none of them relate to intelligence work

 8     against Yugoslavia.

 9        Q.   Specifically the title of this document that you have presented

10     to the court, "The Position and Role of the Chief of the Public Security

11     Department in the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia in

12     the Anti-terrorist Activities in Kosovo and Metohija in 1998 and 1999."

13     That's specifically what you title it.  And I take it that you would

14     agree with me that you have never published anything in the past on the

15     management, organisation of the MUP Republic of Serbia?

16        A.   I did not publish them in scientific and scholarly journals, but

17     I did work on the projects that were used in the organs of the interior

18     and --

19        Q.   Where did you publish them?

20        A.   It was published -- well, they were internal studies to do with

21     internal projects used -- well, in all the republics and provinces.  They

22     were published for the internal requirements, for instance, in the

23     security institute, they were printed in Zagreb, in Belgrade, Ljubljana,

24     Skopje, all over.  They were printed and published for the purposes of

25     the Internal Affairs organs and for training and educational purposes in

Page 14290

 1     the organs and institutions of the Internal Affairs organs.

 2        Q.   Again, I was asking you about publications in scholarly

 3     publications, but you are telling us now that they are internal

 4     documents.  This is not disclosed in your curriculum vitae.  You are

 5     aware of that?

 6        A.   I am conscious of the fact that not all of the papers that were

 7     published are listed here, but you can check that out.  You can verify

 8     the fact that I did have work published in the various collections of

 9     works, et cetera.

10        Q.   It should be reflected in your CV, Mr. Milasinovic, and I

11     represent to you that you have never published any work in any scholarly

12     publication in respect to the management, organisation of the MUP Serbia

13     before this document that you bring before this court, never.

14        A.   In 1994 I did publish a paper of that kind, and you can check

15     that out.  You'll find it in the collection of crime and sociological

16     institutions for the institute for sociological research, and the

17     contents of that paper of mine can be found in that collection of

18     crime-related papers.

19        Q.   Were you aware, Mr. Milasinovic, that the Prosecution had filed a

20     motion claiming that you were not an expert in the field of the

21     leadership responsibilities in the MUP Serbia?  Were you aware of that?

22        A.   Yes, I am aware of that.

23        Q.   And that was, you know, months ago.  Having been aware of that,

24     Mr. Milasinovic, did you not think it was important to indicate on your

25     CV that you had done or prepared some of these unpublished works on the

Page 14291

 1     leadership and management responsibilities of the MUP Serbia?

 2        A.   I did state that I attended a specialist course dealing with the

 3     organisation of --

 4        Q.   Don't evade the question.

 5        A.   Now, as far as scholarly and scientific papers are concerned, I

 6     did not list that for the simple reason that, as far as these

 7     requirements go and what was needed here, only the data that was taken

 8     off the internet site from the faculty of security were used.

 9        Q.   Let's move on.  Did you write this report with any assistance, or

10     did you receive assistance in writing it?

11        A.   I -- well, the final version, yes, but in the initial work I

12     engaged over 50 people who assisted me in compiling this, in compiling

13     this expert report.

14        Q.   Were any of those 50 people employed to the BIA in the Republic

15     of Serbia?

16        A.   They all worked in the military security organs in the public

17     security sector and the state security sector, and some of them were in

18     special units whereas there were also people from scientific institutions

19     and from the university as well.

20        Q.   Can we look at one or two aspects of your report because it seems

21     that you've made quite a few statements in the report which don't seem to

22     be supported.  If we look at page 10 in the English version of your

23     report.

24        A.   And you are referring to what?  The special-purpose units?

25        Q.   Yes.

Page 14292

 1        A.   Does that refer to the special units and groups, the SAJ and the

 2     others?

 3        Q.   Just a moment, let me find --

 4        A.   PJP.

 5        Q.   Give me a moment, please.  It's in -- yes, it's at page 12 in

 6     English, I'm sorry, and it's under the paragraph that is numbered 2.2.3,

 7     and it is the third to last paragraph in that section, the third to last

 8     paragraph before section 2.3.

 9        A.   In Serbian.

10        Q.   Third to last paragraph before paragraph 2.3.

11             JUDGE PARKER:  While that's being located, Mr. Djurdjic.

12             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we can't be giving

13     references in English.  Mr. Stamp must give us the reference in the

14     Serbian version because the pages are different in Serbian, the number of

15     pages are different in Serbian than English.  So we are not able to

16     pin-point the reference.  What does he mean, paragraph 2.3 of what?

17     Could he give us the Serbian reference, please.

18             MR. STAMP:  Paragraphs --

19             JUDGE PARKER:  Are not the paragraph numbers the same?  Not the

20     page numbers, but the paragraph numbers?  He was giving paragraph

21     numbers, so that ought to be -- but, thank you, Mr. Djurdjic.

22             MR. STAMP:  Yes, I'm told it's page 12 in the B/C/S as well.

23        Q.   But, I think, Mr. Milasinovic, it would be easier to find if you

24     use your own numbering system.  You have a section that is 2.3.  If you

25     look three paragraphs before that, you see a paragraph which reads:  "The

Page 14293

 1     SAJ belonged to the category of special purpose police units, smaller in

 2     strength, up to 200 members but highly homogenised and permanently

 3     mobile.  The personnel consisting of highly professional, highly

 4     organised, specialised and well-equipped police officers.

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  Could Mr. Stamp not read so fast please, thank

 6     you.

 7             MR. STAMP:

 8        Q.   Had undergone a strict selection process.

 9        A.   Yes, I've found that.

10        Q.   The last section reads:

11             "Their engagement in the performance of special purpose tasks

12     could be ordered only by the minister or by a chief authorised by the

13     minister."

14             You make that statement and there is no support for that

15     statement in your report.  What was the source or on what material did

16     you base this statement?

17        A.   I based it on the decision on establishing the SAJ in 1996 from

18     the 5th of April, dated the 5th of April, which refers to the SAJ and the

19     characteristics and nature of those special anti-terrorist units, the SAJ

20     which existed in the previous period as well in 199 -- well, before 1998

21     and 1999.

22        Q.   So are you saying that the document forming the SAJ stated that

23     only the minister or the chief authorising the minister could engage the

24     SAJ?

25        A.   It's only the minister that can issue orders of that nature.  And

Page 14294

 1     pursuant to an order from the minister or permission from the minister,

 2     somebody else could take it up down the chain.

 3        Q.   That's what you said.  Listen to the question I'm asking you

 4     about the basis for saying that.  Are you saying that you made this

 5     statement because that is what the document on the formation of the SAJ

 6     stated?

 7        A.   Yes, the document and decision on the establishment of the SAJ,

 8     but it also refers to the rights and duties of the minister as the sole

 9     elected individual by the National Assembly into the Ministry of the

10     Interior, also refers to those documents.  And he was the sole person who

11     had the authority to organise the special units, the SAJs and PJPs within

12     the organs of the interior.

13        Q.   Is there a reason why you did not cite that document when you

14     made that statement, why you did not give us a footnote indicating that

15     that was the reference and that was the basis on which you made that

16     statement?

17        A.   Well, it is stipulated in the earlier observation, so I didn't

18     think I needed to repeat it again to repeat the same sources again,

19     because if you read the document carefully, you would be able to

20     establish that.

21        Q.   Okay.  Where in the earlier observations did you make that

22     statement and provide a reference?

23        A.   Well, Article 7 of the Law on Internal Affairs which is mentioned

24     previously.

25        Q.   Mr. Milasinovic, we can't be going all over the place --

Page 14295

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   I read to you a sentence and I asked you what was the source.

 3     You said the source was a document on the formation of the SAJ.  I want

 4     you to show us where it is that you made that statement in the report and

 5     cited that source document on the formation of the SAJ.

 6        A.   Well, it's the decision by the minister on the establishment of

 7     the SAJ.  Let me just take a moment to locate that passage.  The number

 8     is 1693/96, the 5th of April, 1996.  That's the date of it.  That's the

 9     date of that decision.  It's on page 12, the decision on the

10     establishment of the SAJ.  The decision on the establishment of the SAJ,

11     number 1693/96 of the 5th of April, 1996.  Article 6, para 2, the Law on

12     Internal Affairs, you'll find it there too.  Formed by the minister, by

13     decision, that is to say the minister of the interior, on the basis of

14     the laws that were valid at the time governing the Ministry of the

15     Interior and the rules on internal MUP organisation, and then a decision

16     on the establishment of the SAJ 1693/96 of the 5th of April, 1996.

17     Decision on the establishment of the SAJ.  So there you have four

18     sources, all of these relate to this observation.

19        Q.   Well, you are telling us it's a decision on the formation of the

20     SAJ.  Let's look at that one, that's D401.  Could we look at it quickly.

21     D401 is a decision on the establishment of the SAJ.  I'm going to

22     represent to you that it does not say what you stated before the court

23     that it says.  If you can find where it says that only the minister or

24     the chief of public security authorised by the minister could engage the

25     SAJ, please tell us.

Page 14296

 1        A.   Well, according to this decision, the special SAJ unit is

 2     established as a separate unit so that all the tasks can reflect the

 3     requirements of everyone on the basis of Article 6, para 2 of the

 4     "Official Gazette" of Serbia, 1991.  Article 6, para 1 of the Laws on the

 5     Internal Organisation of the Ministry of the Interior, and may we turn

 6     the page, please.  Next page, please, if possible.  Signed by minister

 7     Sokolovic.  So everything that I have just talked about is set out there,

 8     and it refers to the nature of the SAJs themselves and their

 9     characteristic features.  So this observation --

10        Q.   Maybe there was a misunderstanding.  Let's do it again.  You make

11     the statement that engagement of the SAJ in the performance of special

12     purpose tasks could be ordered only by the minister or by the chief

13     authorised by the minister.  And when I asked you on what basis you made

14     that, you said on the basis of this decision.  I'm asking you where it is

15     in this decision, what is it about this decision?  Point to us what it is

16     about this decision that caused you or that supports that statement.

17     It's a short decision, tell us which statement or which paragraph.

18        A.   It was supported by Article 7 of the Law on the Interior and

19     Article 6 as well of the rules, and it refers to the decision made by the

20     minister of the interior.

21        Q.   Excuse me.  You will now agree with me, Mr. Milasinovic, that

22     this statement here which is not supported in your report, is certainly

23     not supported by this order or this decision of the minister?

24        A.   But the decision emanates from the authority of the minister and

25     the authority of the minister is vested in the law governing ministries

Page 14297

 1     as an organ of statement administration.

 2        Q.   Well, you are now saying --

 3        A.   So that's a broader base, but I'm talking about the decision

 4     which is based on the authority given the minister by the laws of the

 5     country and passed by the National Assembly as the source authority based

 6     on the law governing Internal Affairs and authority stemming from the

 7     rules on organisation for the organs of the interior, and the possibility

 8     of forming and establishing the SAJs and PJPs in the Ministry of the

 9     Interior in addition to the regular units and organisational forms within

10     the ministry.

11        Q.   I'm being very precise.

12        A.   So they are based on the law.

13        Q.   Sir, I'm being very precise.  You are saying that the rules of

14     internal organisation of the MUP, Article 7, and the law of Internal

15     Affairs, Article 6, also support that statement that you made?

16        A.   Article 6, para 1 of the Rules on Internal Organisation.

17        Q.   We'll get back to that.  Let's have a look at page 13 on the

18     section 2.4 reserve police squads and local security.  And let's look at

19     the third paragraph in that section.  Last two sentences.

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   [Overlapping speakers] ... were not permanently assigned to them,

22     they were ad hoc units.  Once the general mobilisation was declared,

23     their members were signed to appropriate military and police units in

24     accordance with their war time assignments.  Again that's a statement for

25     which you have provided no support.  What is the basis for that

Page 14298

 1     statement?  I'm just speaking about the members were assigned to

 2     appropriate military police units in accordance with their war time

 3     assignments?

 4        A.   Well, I came on the basis of regular procedure during conflicts

 5     or imminent danger of war, when it was customary for the reserve police

 6     departments and squads to be made up by the reserve force of the military

 7     territorial organs and armed as well.  And it used to be a social

 8     self-protection, a total social self-protection in Yugoslavia before.

 9     Here we see it's a question of military and territorial departments and

10     the reserve police force, and this is determined according to their place

11     of residence, and that was the reason for these reserve police

12     departments to be formed to act as a defensive in the various localities.

13        Q.   So, I take it that your answer, if you are going to answer me

14     precisely and directly as to the basis of the statement, is regular

15     procedure during conflict, that is what your source for making the

16     statement?

17        A.   No, no.

18        Q.   On what basis was that statement made?

19        A.   It was a recitive [as interpreted] only, something that remained

20     of the earlier practice applied in all the crisis situations from an era

21     that I experienced and remember.  It was stated on the basis of something

22     that used to be a practice, and a direct basis can be found in the rules

23     governing the internal organisation of the MUP, although these are

24     reserve squads which until such point as they are engaged and activated,

25     are not part of the organs of internal affairs.  In other words, they are

Page 14299

 1     not a component part of them until such time as they are deployed and

 2     engaged.

 3        Q.   I'm sorry to have to keep interrupting you, Mr. Milasinovic, but

 4     you are an expert supposedly.  You can just answer questions.  I'm just

 5     ask you about the source of the information or the information on which

 6     you base the statement.  Can I ask you this:  When you say that they on

 7     general mobilisation the members of the RPOs were assigned to appropriate

 8     military and police units, are you saying that the RPOs were disbanded on

 9     mobilisation?  Or what became of the RPOs, according to you?

10        A.   First of all, I proceeded from the factual situation.  Secondly,

11     as soon as they are mobilised, they are part of the regular police force.

12     In this particular instance, they are not a component part of the MUP.

13     They are merely a defensive force out in the field.  There are active

14     policemen appointed to be in command of them because this was dictated by

15     the situation since these operational pursuit groups, they don't have

16     adequate communication systems, so they needed to be supported by the

17     active police force.  They lacked proper communication system between

18     various localities.  You will know that in Kosovo Metohija, the

19     atmosphere that prevailed is one that you are well informed of according

20     to security assessments.  It was necessary under the circumstances to

21     mount a defensive resistance to the attacks by terrorists and other

22     subversive elements.

23        Q.   Mr. Milasinovic --

24        A.   In other words, it was a defensive protection accorded to the

25     non-Albanian population.

Page 14300

 1        Q.   You say that these operational groups did not have adequate

 2     communication systems, that was a part of your answer.  Were these RPOs

 3     operational groups?  It's at line 20 -- at page 20, line 8, you said:

 4             "There are active policemen appointed to be in command of them

 5     because this was dictated by the situation since these operational

 6     groups, they don't have adequate communication systems."

 7             Were these RPOs operational groups?

 8        A.   If you are referring to -- no, they were not operational groups.

 9        Q.   [Overlapping speakers] ...

10        A.   They were PJPs, Posebne special units.

11        Q.   The RPOs were PJPs?

12        A.   The RPOs were part of PJPs, however, the RPO was not a part of

13     operational pursuit groups.  If you are referring to operational pursuit

14     groups, then they were part of Special Police Units.  In other words,

15     PJPs; whereas, the RPOs did not hold the status of members of the MUP up

16     until the point of their deployment, engagement, or mobilisation into the

17     regular police units.

18        Q.   Okay.  So you are saying -- I'm reading now what you just said.

19     They were part of the PJPs, however, they were not part of the

20     operational pursuit groups.  Who told you this?

21        A.   The RPOs were not a part of the regular police units.  That's a

22     mistake.  I may have misspoken.  If I said that, it was a mistake on my

23     part.  The reserve police squads are not part of the regular police

24     force.  What I thought you were asking me about were operational pursuit

25     groups, operational pursuit squads.  I thought you were asking me about

Page 14301

 1     the squads of pursuit groups.  They were part of the police force, but

 2     not the RPOs, the reserve police squads.  They had nothing to do with the

 3     regular or Special Police unions, and can you please have that corrected

 4     because I either misunderstood or misspoke or it was not recorded

 5     properly.

 6        Q.   Let's get back to the statement in your report that the members

 7     were assigned to appropriate military police units in accordance with war

 8     time assignments on general mobilisation.  And the question is this:  On

 9     general mobilisation, were the RPOs disbanded, or did they remain in

10     existence?

11        A.   All the military conscripts would, based on their war time

12     assignments, report either to reserve police units or military police

13     units.

14        Q.   Okay, simple question --

15        A.   Now, as to whether they would be disbanded or not, this is a

16     different issue which would depend most probably on the security

17     assessment.  The RPOs were comprised armed members of the reserve forces

18     of the military territorial organs and the reserve police force.  In the

19     event of mobilisation, they would be deployed to the localities as

20     defined in their war time assignments.  And they could simply not, in

21     this sense, be able to operate as reserve police squads in different

22     locations.

23        Q.   Now, I'm asking a question again for the third time.  Having

24     regard to what you said here, is it that on general mobilisation, the

25     RPOs were disbanded because their members were assigned to the

Page 14302

 1     appropriate military or police units, or did the RPOs remain in

 2     existence?

 3        A.   Since it was precisely the individuals who had war time

 4     assignments would join -- would be members of the reserve police squad,

 5     for this very reason, the RPOs could not remain in existence for the

 6     purposes for which they were initially put together.  They could not

 7     remain in existence because they were composed of military territorial,

 8     or rather, the reserve force of the military territorial organs and the

 9     reserve police force according to their place of residence.  In other

10     words, these were not individuals who arrived from elsewhere.  They were

11     locals who were given the possibility of self-defence in the event of an

12     attack.

13        Q.   Can you just stick to my questions.  This statement that you made

14     in your report, which you said is based on your practical experience, and

15     the statement that you make now, which you say could not remain in

16     existence, I am going to ask what's the basis, on what information do you

17     say that?

18        A.   Based on the practice and everything that took place in Kosovo

19     and Metohija.

20        Q.   Who informed you of the practice that took place?

21        A.   Because I tasked 50 individuals to research this, and they were

22     supervised by their mentor and the president of the commission.  They

23     were the ones researching the subject, and these were researchers,

24     scholars who were tasked with providing me with a detailed explanation of

25     the workings of this.

Page 14303

 1        Q.   You know, it's no where in your report do you tell us that you

 2     had these 50 people from state security and military security helping you

 3     with your research.  You should have told us about this, I put it to you.

 4        A.   Not from state security, but from the public security department.

 5     Most of them came from the public security department, and some of them

 6     came from the military and state security department.  However, 90 per

 7     cent of these individuals were from public security departments at all

 8     levels post-graduate, graduate, masters, and doctoral research.

 9        Q.   That's not the point, Mr. Milasinovic.  Don't you think that

10     somewhere in your report you should have informed us that many of these

11     statements, and I represent to you that this report is replete with

12     unsupported statements, don't you think you should have told us that you

13     were receiving information from these sources?

14        A.   I could have cited that, but I did not necessarily have to cite

15     everything, all the sources of my knowledge.  I also toured there -- the

16     various areas of Kosovo and Metohija, interviewed people, and the

17     interviewees were Albanians, Serbs, and non-Albanians.  So I was very

18     familiar with these subjects, and not everything I stated in the report

19     needed to have a footnote.

20        Q.   Mr. Milasinovic, you did not tell us also that you toured Kosovo

21     and received information that you put in your report.  But when did you

22     tour Kosovo?

23        A.   Yes, I toured it in January of 2006 and in 2007.  In other words,

24     a year and a half ago.  1998.  And so it was in 2008, I'm sorry.  And I

25     was in Kosovo in the earlier years as well.  In 1992 I was elected a

Page 14304

 1     professor at the Kosovo university, so I had dealings there between 1981

 2     and 2009.

 3        Q.   I'm talking about information that you said you put in this

 4     report which is unsourced.  When did you tour Kosovo?  You said you

 5     toured Kosovo and interviewed these people in 2006, 2007, 2008.  For what

 6     purpose?  What assignment were you undertaking when you toured Kosovo in

 7     2006, 2007, 2008 to interview people?

 8        A.   It was not a questionnaire that I had or a poll.  It was more of

 9     a conversation, an interview I held with people about the events in

10     Kosovo during those war time years.  It wasn't a real survey.  It was

11     merely for me to gain insight into some of these issues that existed out

12     in the field, that existed in reality rather than drawing upon sources

13     which did not fully reflect the events.  I'm not saying that either side

14     is right --

15        Q.   Mr. Milasinovic --

16        A.   My personal principles, all the principles of work ethics would

17     not allow me to take sides.

18        Q.   Try to keep your answers short and direct.  These tours of Kosovo

19     when you interviewed people, were they for just out of your personal

20     interest as seems to be indicated by your last answer, or were you

21     undertaking an assignment as an employee or representative of anyone?

22        A.   No, I wasn't anyone's representative.  It was my personal

23     interest in that, and the purpose was to produce a more adequate

24     analysis.

25        Q.   When were you engaged to do this analysis, this one that you have

Page 14305

 1     brought before the Court?

 2        A.   I think I was engaged roughly 18 months ago.  I'm not sure of the

 3     exact time.  Perhaps 14, 15 months ago.

 4        Q.   Which year?

 5        A.   I think it was in 2009 or 2008.  I don't remember exactly, and

 6     please don't pin me down on any dates because I'm not good on dates.  So

 7     it was a year and a half ago, roughly.  At any rate, before my departure

 8     to Kosovo and Metohija.

 9        Q.   When you were engaged to create this report, had this trial

10     started?

11        A.   The trial had already started.  I don't know when exactly I was

12     engaged, but I've been working on the analysis for at least a year.  So I

13     had been working for a year roughly, and I must have been engaged earlier

14     on.  June of 1999.  I went to Kosovo on several occasions, and I know

15     that I went there once I was -- I took up this assignment.

16        Q.   Yes, well --

17        A.   So 13 or 14 months ago.

18        Q.   This trial started last year, 2009, you know.  So you are telling

19     us --

20        A.   2009.  Which month?

21        Q.   I don't recall.  But you were telling us that you were going to

22     Kosovo in 2006, 2007, 2008 to interview people for this report.

23        A.   That was when I went to Kosovo, but it was only after I took over

24     this assignment of producing the analysis, and that was in January 2009,

25     yes, right.  It was the last time I visited Kosovo.

Page 14306

 1             MR. STAMP:  Okay.  Let's look quickly at P771.

 2        Q.   While it comes up -- while the document comes up I just submit to

 3     you -- or not submit, I put to you that you are not correct when you say

 4     that these RPOs went out of existence because their members were assigned

 5     to the military or police units.

 6             This is the minutes of a MUP staff meeting of the 7th of May,

 7     1999 after the general mobilisation.

 8             MR. STAMP:  And if we could look at the last page.

 9        Q.   The second to last bullet point, and I think you can see from

10     your copy in Serbian that this is General Lukic speaking.  He says:

11             "Members of the RPOs must not wear police uniforms, and this must

12     be prohibited immediately except when they have been engaged according to

13     the plan in the reserve police.  This must also be applied to military

14     uniforms and ensure that RPO members wear military uniforms only when

15     they are engaged as part of the VJ reserve complement."

16             MR. STAMP:  And if we could look at another document.  P764.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.  As soon as general

18     mobilisation was called, their members were assigned to appropriate

19     military or police units based on their war time assignment.  We need to

20     bear this in mind as it is the truth.

21             MR. STAMP:  And this is -- these are the minutes of the MUP staff

22     meeting of the 4th of April, 1999.  And if we go to page 3 in both

23     English and Serbian.

24        Q.   Under item 2, fifth bullet point, Sreten Lukic instructs:

25             "Use ammunition and mines and explosives very rationally and

Page 14307

 1     especially draw attention of RPO commanders."

 2             Now, having seen those two documents, and let me refer you again

 3     to what you said based on your report, this is at page 23, line 5.  You

 4     said, the RPOs could not -- sorry.  Page 22, lines 19 to 21 you said, the

 5     RPOs could not remain in existence.  That is your evidence here and that

 6     is based on this report that is unsourced.  Can I ask you, if, according

 7     to you the RPOs could not remain in existence after mobilisation, what is

 8     General Lukic referring to at these two MUP staff meetings when he speaks

 9     about the RPOs and their commanders?

10        A.   According to the laws of physics one cannot be in two places at

11     the same time.  Those who were mobilised could no longer be members of

12     the RPOs in the place where they were deployed.  They were mobilised and

13     therefore had to report to the point of assembly based on their war time

14     assignment, so this would be contrary to the logic and laws of physics.

15     What General Lukic meant when he said this is something that he should be

16     asked about.  But it's simply, if someone is mobilised and assigned

17     accordingly, he can only be in that particular location to which he was

18     deployed pursuant to his assignment.  There could be armed people left

19     behind who didn't have war time assignments, however, what we see here

20     are individuals who were military conscripts whilst members of the RPOs,

21     but they were at the same time reservists of either the police or the

22     army.  You simply can't have one individual in two places at the same

23     time.

24        Q.   Well, that's a conclusion you draw, as you say, on the laws of

25     physics.  But you have no explanation as to why after general

Page 14308

 1     mobilisation General Lukic, the chief of the staff, would be referring to

 2     the RPOs and their commanders and giving instructions with respect to

 3     them?

 4        A.   I don't know what he meant exactly.

 5        Q.   Very well.

 6        A.   He was probably referring to some individuals who stayed behind.

 7     I don't know.  But it definitely did not refer to what I was talking

 8     about, i.e., the RPOs.

 9        Q.   If we could move on quickly to page 16 of your report.  This is

10     another statement that I will represent to you you have not supported,

11     just an unfounded, unsupported statement that you made.

12             MR. STAMP:  Page 16 in English and it's -- in B/C/S it's three

13     paragraphs before your section 3.2.

14        Q.   Paragraph entitled "Response to Terrorist Acts."

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   It's a short paragraph so I'll just read it in full.  Or I'll

17     just start with the second sentence of that paragraph.

18             "In the period starting with the arrival of the Verification

19     Mission and ending with the war, in full compliance with the agreement,

20     the police refrained from anti-terrorist actions and in most cases merely

21     responded to terrorist attacks."

22             This is another, in the context of this case, relatively

23     important statement.  On what basis, what was the source of your

24     information to make the statement A, that they were in full compliance

25     with the agreement in respect to the Verification Missions and two, they

Page 14309

 1     refrained from anti-terrorist actions and merely responded to terrorist

 2     attacks?  You have given no citation, you have not told us where you got

 3     that information from.

 4        A.   It was an agreement reached with --

 5        Q.   No, no, just a minute --

 6        A.   -- one side, that is to say the Serb side --

 7        Q.   I don't want you to tell us about verification agreements, that's

 8     not what I'm asking you.  I just read to you the statement you made and

 9     I'm asking you simply, what was the source of the information that you

10     base this statement on?

11        A.   The source of information was the knowledge that this was not

12     applied.  Through interviews we learned this and general knowledge, that

13     the number of units was reduced and that it was only when there was a

14     specific terrorist attack underway that they responded to that.

15        Q.   Stop there.  Please don't repeat what you say.  The question is

16     source.  I take it your source is interviews?

17        A.   And the documents.

18        Q.   Who did you interview?  Start with the interviews.  Who told you

19     this?

20        A.   The direct participants told me.  They told me that they did not

21     launch anti-terrorist actions after an agreement was reached between the

22     parties and that they withdrew the heavy weapons, reduced the number of

23     units --

24        Q.   Mr. Milasinovic --

25        A.   And, therefore, did not want to provoke any further incidents in

Page 14310

 1     Kosovo, so it stems from the agreement that was respected on all counts.

 2        Q.   The question again, I remind you I'm asking you about the source

 3     of your information.  So you say you interviewed the participants, and

 4     they told you they were respecting the agreement.  Which participants did

 5     you interview in order to make this statement?

 6        A.   I first of all read the agreement and then I went ahead and

 7     interviewed quite a number of people.  I really can't give you the names

 8     now.  They were some of my students that were doing specialist training

 9     for their MAs, PhDs, and so on that were well versed in those affairs.

10     So there were written documents.  I became acquainted with the agreement,

11     and of course then there was practice as well, standard practice and what

12     was done and that testifies to the truth and correctness of this

13     assertion.

14        Q.   So you can't help us with the names?

15        A.   It's based on my personal knowledge, what I personally wrote.

16     Well, I can help you out, but I can't tell you their names, and their

17     papers are found in the faculty for security, and they used customary

18     methodology to establish facts for the commission when defending their MA

19     thesis or PhD thesis, and it was papers written for that period, and this

20     gave me a general insight into the situation in Kosovo and Metohija as

21     well as the interviews I had with people, the people I talked to there

22     concerned in these events.

23        Q.   And the next question is going to be, which commission are you

24     speaking of, but I see, Your Honours, that --

25             JUDGE PARKER:  Ask that question because if you don't, I was

Page 14311

 1     about to.

 2             MR. STAMP:  But will we take the break or will we proceed?

 3             JUDGE PARKER:  Ask what the commission is.

 4             MR. STAMP:

 5        Q.   Yes, which commission, for the second or third time you keep

 6     referring to, that assisted you in establishing these facts?

 7        A.   They were scientific and tuitional commissions, teaching

 8     commissions assessing the exactness and truthfulness of the facts

 9     presented in the MA thesis of the various people and their PhD thesis.

10             MR. STAMP:  I wonder if we could take the break, and I could

11     consider whether I should follow it up.

12             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes.  And there was a reference earlier to the

13     president of the commission, which I think needs to be identified as

14     well.  But we will have our first break now and resume at five minutes

15     past 11.00.

16                           [The witness stands down]

17                           --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.

18                           --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.

19                           [The witness takes the stand]

20             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes, Mr. Stamp.

21             MR. STAMP:  Thank you, Your Honours.

22        Q.   Mr. Milasinovic, very quickly if we can, you said you had --

23     there were some persons, possibly 50 engaged in research assisting you in

24     setting the facts, and they were in a commission.  Who was the president

25     of this commission?

Page 14312

 1        A.   In most cases I was the president of the commission, a member of

 2     the commission, or one of the mentors.  It was the political science

 3     faculty, the police academy, and crime institute and so on.

 4        Q.   So there was a commission set up that was staffed or that

 5     included members from those three bodies that you have mentioned.  When

 6     was this commission set up?

 7        A.   The commission was -- well, actually, it was an ad hoc

 8     commission, and commissions linked to a special problem.  They were

 9     scientific commissions, the faculties proposed commissions, and a council

10     of experts of the university in Belgrade finally elects them.  Scientific

11     professional council in Belgrade co-ordinating the work of all the

12     faculties of the Belgrade university.

13        Q.   I'm speaking about the commissions that were set up in respect to

14     your evidence.  You said that you had information that you received from

15     50 persons that you tasked who were members of these commissions.  When

16     was the commission in respect to your evidence first set up?

17        A.   They were different commissions made up of the best people in the

18     field of terrorism and anti-terrorism in the country.  They were ad hoc

19     commissions.  It wasn't just one commission.  They were ad hoc

20     commissions set up, and for every candidate that was a separate

21     commission, but I am just referring to the commissions in which I was at

22     one time the president, a member, or a mentor of the commission.  And

23     they are different degrees of education.  MA studies, PhD studies and so

24     forth.

25        Q.   I see.  Let's turn to your report where we last left off.  We

Page 14313

 1     were at page 16 where you said the police refrain from anti-terrorist

 2     actions in full compliance with the agreement and in most cases may have

 3     responded to terrorist attacks.

 4             MR. STAMP:  Can we have a look at P689.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And the reference for my version is

 6     where?

 7             MR. STAMP:

 8        Q.   This was the last part of your report that we were discussing.

 9     This is the third to last paragraph before your section 3.2 where you

10     said:

11             "In the period starting with the arrival of the Verification

12     Mission and ending with the war, in full compliance with the agreement,

13     the police refrain from anti-terrorist actions."

14             It's on page 16 in the English version.  I want to show you,

15     Mr. Milasinovic, a document which reflects or in which a record was taken

16     of a MUP staff meeting.

17             MR. STAMP:  Could we move to the next page, please.  MUP staff

18     meeting on the 2nd of December in Pristina.  I think we should move to

19     the third page.

20        Q.   You can see here it's dated the 2nd of December.

21        A.   Yes, that's right.  It's the minutes from the staff meeting,

22     staff members meeting.

23        Q.   If you look at the paragraph -- the first paragraph after it

24     says, "the meeting commenced at 1100 hours."  In it Major General Lukic

25     briefed the participants on a meeting held in Belgrade by the minister of

Page 14314

 1     interior attended by the minister, the chiefs of the departments in which

 2     the current security situation in Kosovo was examined and which the

 3     duties and further engagement of members of the police of Kosovo were

 4     defined.  The essence of the meeting was a continued execution of

 5     anti-terrorist actions aimed at suppressing terrorism in Kosovo and that

 6     in this regard, the police will be more offensive in taking measures in

 7     the newly arisen situation.

 8             Having regard to the contemporary record of what the head of the

 9     MUP staff was saying at that time, would you now agree with me that your

10     statement in your report based on this information you gathered from your

11     researchers that the police refrained from anti-terrorist actions in that

12     period is not correct?

13        A.   What I'm saying is -- well, what I said is correct for the simple

14     reason that concrete terrorist activities were reacted to so it was

15     linked, any action was linked to concrete terrorist action, reaction to

16     specific anti-terrorist actions, not broader operations on general

17     anti-terrorist activities.  And this, probably although I can't comment

18     the statement made by the general, by General Sreten Lukic, but anyway, I

19     can't say what he was specifically referring to, but certainly you cannot

20     draw the conclusion that after the agreement actions could be

21     intensified, so that's not true, they weren't intensified.

22        Q.   But you are saying the police refrained from anti-terrorist

23     actions.  That doesn't square up with the contemporary record.

24        A.   Well, they refrained from carrying out planned actions

25     undertaking the kind of actions that they had undertaken previously.  But

Page 14315

 1     they reacted to concrete terrorist actions, so there wasn't any planning.

 2     It wasn't a planned anti-terrorist action.  It was -- it just stated that

 3     they needed to intensify standing up and reacting to concrete specific

 4     terrorist acts, that's my understanding of this.  And to be quite frank,

 5     perhaps General Lukic had something else in mind as well when he said

 6     that.

 7        Q.   The thing is, Mr. Milasinovic, is that you weren't there at the

 8     time and you make these sweeping statements without giving us a source of

 9     this information except that it is composed of research personnel.  Did

10     you see this document before?  Have you ever seen this document before?

11        A.   I have seen all the documents before, and I interpret them in a

12     way that corresponds to the actual facts, and the facts are that there

13     was no planning of anti-terrorist activities because a war conflict was

14     expected, or rather, an aggression.  So nobody in their right mind would

15     have been able to undertake any widespread activities across the board in

16     quantitative terms because certain forces were withdrawn as were weapons

17     and everything else that was linked to broad anti-terrorist operations.

18     I know that for a fact, and I became aware of it based on many documents

19     speaking to the issue, and also what was done on the ground with the

20     forces, police forces, the police forces of Serbia.

21        Q.   You must have heard of the Racak anti-terrorist action.  Was that

22     one planned, or was it not planned?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   It was planned?

25        A.   Terrorist activities on the part of the terrorist organisations

Page 14316

 1     and groups and individuals in Kosovo and Metohija were intensified

 2     precisely after the arrival of the Verification Commission in October.

 3     So as to Racak, yes, I didn't deal with Racak separately in my analysis,

 4     and that can be seen from the analysis itself.  So that I can't talk

 5     about Racak.

 6        Q.   You also say at page 32 of your report that the MUP staff did not

 7     inform the headquarters about anti-terrorist actions.  We could keep the

 8     document here, but if you could look at page 32 of the report, if you

 9     could look at the last paragraph of part 2 of your report.

10        A.   Page 32, did you say?

11        Q.   No, no, that's the page in English.  I'm telling you in Serbian

12     it's the last paragraph of part 2, paragraph --

13        A.   What page is that?

14        Q.   The paragraph immediately before part 3 begins.

15        A.   But what page is it in Serbian, please?

16        Q.   I'm afraid I can't assist you.  I was using your numbering

17     system, your system of marking it.  Mr. Milasinovic, you have part 3 in

18     your report, can't you find that?

19        A.   I see, part 3.  Status, rights, and responsibilities of MUP

20     personnel.  Are you referring to part 3, page 32, the status, rights, and

21     responsibilities of MUP personnel; is that what you are referring to?

22        Q.   No, I'm referring to the paragraph immediately before that

23     begins.  The last paragraph in part 2.  And it's page 31 in Serbian.  You

24     say here the secretariats of Kosovo --

25        A.   I see, yes.

Page 14317

 1        Q.   You say here that the secretariats in Kosovo and Metohija and the

 2     MUP staff did not inform the MUP on a daily basis about these events, and

 3     the events we are talking about is anti-terrorist actions.  This

 4     statement you made that the MUP headquarters was not informed, again, can

 5     I take it that you received this information from the research of this

 6     commission, because I don't see the basis on which you make this

 7     statement cited here?

 8             The question is, what was the source of this statement that the

 9     MUP staff headquarters were not informed of the anti-terrorist actions?

10        A.   The secretariat of the interior on the territory of Kosovo and

11     Metohija and the centres of the public security sectors, the staff which

12     was established by the minister was informed about the issues set out

13     here, but it was not -- but the Ministry of the Interior was not

14     informed.  So only the minister of the interior could have been informed

15     by the Chief of Staff for anti-terrorist action in Kosovo and Metohija.

16     Nobody else.

17        Q.   You are repeating, Mr. Milasinovic.  I have to stop you.  You are

18     repeating what you said in evidence before and what you have said in the

19     report.  I'm pointing you now to this specific part of the report and

20     asking you, what is the source or the basis for making this statement?

21        A.   The source is to be found in the documents.  Whether staff makes

22     it incumbent upon the secretariats and centres to supply them alone with

23     reports on terrorist activities that were planned and carried out and the

24     planned and carried out anti-terrorist actions their results and

25     consequences and the movements of police units in Kosovo and Metohija as

Page 14318

 1     well as the secretariats in Kosovo and Metohija and the MUP staff, they

 2     were -- they did not send daily reports to the MUP.  So it's based on the

 3     document which the staff forwarded to the secretariats of the Internal

 4     Affairs and centres and ordered them to inform the staff and not anybody

 5     in the Ministry of the Interior or the analysis department.

 6             Here we have a dispatch about SUP mentioned in Kosovska

 7     Mitrovica, and then an act, a document of the staff dating back to 1998,

 8     the 21st of October, section B, the dispatch on Kosovska Mitrovica.  If

 9     you turn to the previous page, you will see the sources and basis for

10     that assertion.

11        Q.   Which document --

12        A.   They are to be found set out there --

13        Q.   Mr. Milasinovic -- listen to my question.

14        A.   Document number 12, staff document number 12.

15        Q.   You are saying that this document stated that the Ministry of the

16     Interior --

17        A.   It is a document issued by the staff.

18        Q.   The question is, which document states that the Ministry of

19     Interior headquarters was not to be informed?

20        A.   The decision establishing the staff sets out only the reporting

21     between the staff and the minister himself.  He set it out this way

22     because he drafted the document.

23             Now, in a separate document of the staff issued to -- it is a

24     ministry decision establishing the staff which sets out that the staff is

25     directly responsible to the minister and that it should report directly

Page 14319

 1     to him outside of the regular reporting system save for the routine

 2     matters.  Everything that had to do with anti-terrorist documents --

 3     anti-terrorist activities with plans for anti-terrorist activities, none

 4     of these were sent elsewhere unless they also had items referring to

 5     routine events outside of the scope of work of the MUP staff.

 6             These were reports sent up the hierarchy of the ministry, but

 7     this sort of reports were kept by the staff.  I'm telling you matters

 8     that I drew upon in these various documents and on the basis of which I

 9     made these inferences.  If you look at these documents, you will see that

10     the reporting on the planned anti-terrorist activities does not include

11     as the receiver anyone other than the minister himself.  No one else in

12     the ministry including the analysis department and various other

13     departments are included in this reporting system which would otherwise

14     of course have been included on all the other issues.

15        Q.   Mr. Milasinovic, we won't have time to go through these reports

16     that went up.  But I represent to you that the reports of the MUP staff

17     went to the minister and to the chief of the department.  Are you not

18     aware of that?  Just answer, please, are you aware that there were

19     reports that went to the minister as well as the chief of the department

20     and these reports were from the MUP staff?

21        A.   These reports were not sent to the chief of the department and

22     the minister, rather, a special direct vertical reporting channel was set

23     up.  You see, the communication between the minister and the chief could

24     also be verbal.  In these documents, however, you can't see anything

25     testifying to that.  Now, how the minister would receive reports from the

Page 14320

 1     staff is something that should be determined by the minister himself.

 2        Q.   Mr. Milasinovic --

 3        A.   This is a bilateral reporting system.  I saw reports sent to the

 4     minister.  In none of these reports did I observe that on these

 5     anti-terrorist or planned activities the chief of the public security

 6     department was informed to.  I did not come across any such documents or

 7     any such information that would indicate that the chief of the public

 8     security department was informed of matters related to anti-terrorist

 9     planning and activities in Kosovo and Metohija.

10        Q.   Well, look at this document in front of you again.  Here we have

11     the chief of the department and the minister, among others, setting

12     policy, it would seem.  The current situation in Kosovo was examined in

13     the meeting in which the duties and further engagement of members of the

14     police were defined.  How could Mr. Djordjevic be involved in defining

15     the duties of members of the police in anti-terrorist actions without

16     being informed about the anti-terrorist actions that they were to be

17     involved in?

18        A.   General Djordjevic performed the duty of the chief of the public

19     security department.  He carried out tasks that fell within that remit.

20     The tasks of suppressing terrorism were outside of his jurisdiction.  To

21     put it simply, his role lay more in the field of logistics and logistical

22     support.  These were technical and to a certain extent material issues

23     which had to do with the regular activities across the territory of the

24     republic including Kosovo and Metohija save for the duties that were

25     conferred upon the staff for the suppression of terrorism in Kosovo and

Page 14321

 1     Metohija.

 2             This is the situation as it was de facto and de jure.

 3        Q.   Well, it is really for the court to determine the situation based

 4     on the evidence.  You have received information from sources we can't

 5     identify.  But coming back to my question.

 6        A.   Absolutely.

 7        Q.   Mr. Lukic here is saying that Mr. Djordjevic is involved in

 8     defining the engagement of the MUP forces in anti-terrorist operations in

 9     Belgrade.  Simply, how could Mr. Djordjevic be involved in defining the

10     engagement of the MUP forces in anti-terrorist operations without

11     receiving information about the anti-terrorist operations?

12        A.   Well, I said this for the simple reason because none of the

13     documents evidenced that he was informed of these activities.  He could

14     have been informed of certain situations at meetings, but his role had

15     nothing to do with this specific chain of command which he was outside

16     of, and that applied to the head of the state security department too.

17     We had this direct line to the minister who defined that the dealings

18     were to be organised in that manner.  So his role was asymmetrical.

19        Q.   You keep repeating --

20        A.   It's not that I'm defending the gentleman.  I'm merely setting

21     out assertions based on the documents and the research I conducted in

22     this field.

23        Q.   You seem to refuse to answer my question.  Let me ask you this

24     then:  Having seen this document --

25        A.   Can you repeat the question then if I'm -- misunderstood it.

Page 14322

 1        Q.   I've asked it three times, we don't have time for that.  I'll ask

 2     you another one.  Having seen this document, if you assume that what

 3     General Lukic reported here is true, would you now agree that General

 4     Djordjevic, on the basis of this, must have been informed about the

 5     anti-terrorist operations in Kosovo if he was involved in defining the

 6     task for the engagement?

 7        A.   This isn't true.  He could only have been involved in logistics

 8     and certainly not in a matter which was precisely defined or specifically

 9     defined in the decision on the establishment.

10        Q.   That is your answer, very well.  Let's look at the decision on

11     the establishment, P57.

12             MR. STAMP:  If we could move to that document.

13        Q.   And you treat that document in your report at section 3.1 which

14     begins at page 26 in the English version, but it's section 3.1.

15        A.   Page 26.

16        Q.   Should be page 26 in Serbian but --

17        A.   Tasks of the staff.

18        Q.   But -- or page 27 in Serbian.  It's the section that you numbered

19     3 .2.  That's the beginning of the part where you treat on this document,

20     where you discuss this document.  You told us that you base your

21     conclusions on what -- or may I just put this as a question.  Your

22     conclusions that anti-terrorist police activities in Kosovo was outside

23     of the sphere of Mr. Djordjevic after this decision was made or issued,

24     and I think you told us that you based it on this document.  In the third

25     to last paragraph of this section of your report, section that you number

Page 14323

 1     3.2, the third to last paragraph, and this is on page 29 in English, the

 2     second paragraph beginning on that page.  You say:

 3             "As regards the staff for prevention of terrorism and its

 4     purview, the RJP chief according to the minister's decision retained

 5     jurisdiction only in the sphere of expert and administrative logistic

 6     support to the staff and the units engaged in performance of the task."

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Retained jurisdiction only in the sphere of expert support.  What

 9     does expert support mean?

10        A.   In the sphere of expert or professional and administrative

11     logistic support to the staff and the units engaged --

12        Q.   Sorry --

13        A.   Yes.  Well, expert in the sense that it can, in specific

14     situations and not based on the competences it may have in relation to

15     the anti-terrorist staff, rather to provide opinions on specific

16     situations and problems related to the broader security related matters

17     across the republic.  It is important for the staff to be well aware of

18     the activities taking place across the Republic of Serbia.  However, the

19     support was largely logistic and expert in the sense if someone had to be

20     replaced or someone had to be dispatched or someone who is sick may be

21     replaced because these may also have been individuals who were sent there

22     on specific assignments given by the minister.

23        Q.   The question dealt, Mr. Milasinovic, only about what was this

24     expert report, and I see your answer.  You are saying that --

25        A.   Expert and administrative support.  You cannot have one without

Page 14324

 1     the other.  It falls under the same category.  Or rather these two terms

 2     fall into the same category, expert and administrative logistic support.

 3        Q.   Now, you say "he retained jurisdiction only in the sphere of

 4     expert and administrative logistic support to the staff and units engaged

 5     in the performance of the task."  And you said "according to the

 6     minister's decision."  Where in the minister's decision, where in the

 7     minister's decision can we see --

 8        A.   This isn't stated in the decision.

 9        Q.   So when you write in your report that according to the minister's

10     decision, the RJB chief retained jurisdiction, only the sphere of expert

11     and administration and logistic support to the staff and units engaged in

12     the performance of the task, you are actually misrepresenting what is in

13     the minister's decision, aren't you?

14        A.   I am not misrepresenting it, rather I am attaching it to his

15     broader powers stemming from the rules governing the internal

16     organisation of the MUP and the minister's authority to issue his

17     assistance with tasks although these individuals were elected by the

18     government on the minister's proposal.  It is the minister who defines

19     the tasks that these individuals are to carry out, but based on his

20     order.  They could not have done this individually or independently

21     without his knowledge.

22             Therefore, the documents cannot be seen outside of the context

23     into which they fit.  Legally speaking, they must stem one from the other

24     and that's to say the specific ones arise from the general ones or there

25     may even be general ones arising from special ones, and we can see here

Page 14325

 1     that it says technical material and various other activities, and, of

 2     course, they need to be accompanied by experts.  Of course, this doesn't

 3     go to say that an individual cannot at the same time be an expert for the

 4     suppression of terrorism and other matters.  We see that the other

 5     assistants were also given their respective fields of expertise and in

 6     this way, the jurisdiction or the competence of the head of the public

 7     security department was reduced.

 8        Q.   I'll ask you again, please just stick to what I ask you.  You

 9     have given us a lot of information again and again without focusing on

10     what I ask you.

11             This decision, when was the first time you saw this decision?

12        A.   I don't remember exactly, but I did see it.

13        Q.   Was the first time that you saw this decision during the time

14     when you were preparing this report?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   So in your previous examinations of the management of the

17     organisation of the MUP, you never saw this report.  Question withdrawn.

18     That is obvious.

19             Mr. Lukic was the chief of the staff according to this report.

20     I'd like to show you something he said and ask you about it.

21             MR. STAMP:  If we could look at P -- sorry not P, document 00948.

22     That's the 65 ter number.  It may be more convenient if we look at P1507.

23     I think the relevant passage had been extracted because the previous

24     document I referred to, the document of some 200 pages, and I'm only

25     interested in one page which was extracted in document MFI P1607 -- 1507.

Page 14326

 1     If we scroll to the ...

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I please be given this document

 3     in the Serbian language.

 4             MR. STAMP:

 5        Q.   This is the interview of Mr. Lukic in 2002, and it was done with

 6     a translator, so you have both the Serbian there and the English there.

 7     I wanted to look at the last or at the bottom of the page where Mr. Lukic

 8     is asked about who had primacy in respect --

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Who was giving instructions in respect to the use of the special

11     units.  He said -- before I read that --

12             MR. STAMP:  Your Honours, I just wish to read this part to the

13     witness.  I know before this with ordinary witnesses, the Court had

14     indicated that perhaps it could only be shown the document and not be

15     read to them.  I think this is an expert witness and he is entitled to

16     give opinions and therefore we could --

17             JUDGE PARKER:  There are two quite distinct issues.  The first is

18     whether you can read the document given that it is in English, and I

19     think inevitably you must and have it interpreted for the witness.  A

20     quite separate issue is whether there would be any -- perhaps I needn't

21     spend time on that now, it may not arise, but you mentioned both issues.

22     We'll just deal with this.  Read the passage to which you wish the

23     witness to direct his attention.

24             MR. STAMP:

25        Q.   You will see, Mr. Milasinovic, that Mr. Lukic --

Page 14327

 1             JUDGE PARKER:  I'm sorry, is not there B/C/S as well?

 2             MR. STAMP:  Yes, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE PARKER:  Well, what's the problem then?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation], yes, yes.

 5             MR. STAMP:  I would like to read the part I want the witness to

 6     focus on.

 7             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes.

 8             MR. STAMP:

 9        Q.   Mr. Lukic in answering questions about what primacy in respect to

10     these anti-terrorist operations said:

11             "Effectively, from mid-July until the end of September or

12     beginning of October, the chief of the department, Mr. Djordjevic and

13     Obrad Stevanovic, the assistant minister and commander of the special

14     units, were with me constantly in Pristina."

15             Note he is being asked about who had primacy as a leader.

16             MR. STAMP:  If we move to the next page.

17        Q.   He continues:

18             "In the hierarchy, they are by all means above the head of staff

19     because they are at the same time ... they are also assistant

20     ministers ..."  Mr. Lukic here is indicating that as far as work was

21     concerned in those months in Kosovo, July, August, September, October

22     Mr. Djordjevic was there with him, Mr. Stevanovic was there with him, and

23     in the hierarchy they were above him.  Having regard to what you --

24     listen to the question.

25        A.   This isn't correct.  Very well.

Page 14328

 1        Q.   Are you saying Mr. Lukic -- well, listen to the question.  Having

 2     regard to what Mr. Lukic has said here, would you not agree with me that

 3     even after the minister issued this order, the previous order we spoke of

 4     on the 12th of June, the superior subordinate relationship between

 5     Mr. Djordjevic and Mr. Lukic in respect to activities in Kosovo still

 6     continued?

 7        A.   I would not agree at all because pursuant to lex specialis, the

 8     primacy was given over the ordinary hierarchy because there was no

 9     relationship between Mr. Lukic -- direct relationship between Mr. Lukic

10     and the minister of the interior.  So I would not agree.  It's not true.

11             MR. STAMP:  Counsel, Your Honour, I think he indicates that he

12     has to say something, so may I just ask that we be careful in what we say

13     in the presence of the witness.

14             JUDGE PARKER:  Very careful, Mr. Djurdjic.

15             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Absolutely, Your Honour.

16     Mr. Stamp read it out correctly, but in line 47 or page 47, line 15, it

17     says beginning with October, whereas Mr. Stamp read it out correctly, it

18     says until the end of September or from mid-July to the end of September

19     in Pristina and not October as it was recorded in the transcript.

20             JUDGE PARKER:  What appears is end of September, beginning of

21     October.

22             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Yes.

23             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

24             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Not October, no.

25             MR. STAMP:

Page 14329

 1        Q.   Well, just so that we can see it again.  Could we return to the

 2     previous page.

 3             From mid-July until the end of September or beginning of October.

 4     That is what Mr. Lukic was referring to.  You said earlier when I asked

 5     you about this, that that is not correct.  Are you saying that what

 6     Mr. Lukic said here is not true?

 7        A.   If that refers to September, or rather, October 1998, I didn't

 8     see the date properly.  May I see the year?  If that's the year, then

 9     that's not correct.

10        Q.   Yes, it's referring to 1998.  You are saying that what Mr. Lukic

11     is say something not correct?

12        A.   Not correct, no.

13        Q.   Now, you are making some interpretations on the basis of this

14     document, this one-page decision of the minister that you read for the

15     first time when you got involved in this case, and you are saying that

16     it's on the basis of this document that you are reading, that you read,

17     that you are saying that Mr. Lukic misrepresented the command

18     relationship between himself and Mr. Djordjevic?

19        A.   After the establishment of the staff, it was a mistake.  It

20     wasn't the proper relationship and right up to the formation of the staff

21     for anti-terrorism, the contents were quite different and the

22     relationship was quite different in the chain of command.  Up until the

23     16th was one case, 1998, the 6th of June when staff was established, the

24     ministry for anti-terrorism in Kosovo and Metohija, and it's quite a

25     different matter the hierarchical setup and chain of command was quite

Page 14330

 1     different up until the abolishment of the staff as of the 15th of May,

 2     1998.  So the situation was different from the 15th of May to the 16th of

 3     June, 1998 and different again, a different chain of command after that

 4     date, or rather, after the establishment of the staff with the members it

 5     had as of the 31st of December, I believe, 1998.

 6        Q.   Mr. Milasinovic, apart from the minister's decision of June 1998,

 7     what information -- and I'd ask you to try to tell us where the

 8     information comes from, do you have in respect to the command

 9     relationship between Mr. Lukic and Mr. Djordjevic in the latter part of

10     1998 which entitles you to say that Mr. Lukic is not truthful?

11        A.   There is a decision on the establishment of the staff for

12     suppressing terrorism.

13        Q.   Apart from that --

14        A.   Dating 1998.

15        Q.   Mr. Milasinovic --

16        A.   In June.

17        Q.   I'm sorry, I didn't probably ask the question clearly enough.  I

18     said, apart from that decision, what information do you have and what is

19     the source of that information in respect to the defacto relationship,

20     command relationship between Mr. Djordjevic and Mr. Lukic in the latter

21     part of 1998?

22        A.   In the latter part of 1998 as the source I have the decision from

23     the minister and from that decision and in that decision, you can see

24     everything relating to the various competencies, deployment information

25     and so on.

Page 14331

 1        Q.   Mr. Milasinovic, the decision is just a little bit more than a

 2     page, and I represent to you, we can't reread it in court, that there's

 3     nothing in the decision which takes away any authority from

 4     Mr. Djordjevic.  My question is, leaving the decision aside, what is your

 5     information about the actual reality of the command relationship between

 6     Mr. Djordjevic and Mr. Lukic in July, August, September, October 1998?

 7        A.   The Law on Internal Affairs for one.  In Article 7, giving the

 8     minister the right to organise, as he sees fit, all the organisational

 9     bodies in the Ministry of the Interior.

10        Q.   Very well, that is your answer.

11             MR. STAMP:  Could we look at P886.

12        Q.   While that is coming up, since you've done research in the

13     management and command relationships in the MUP, can you tell us, if you

14     know of any reason, why Mr. Lukic would misrepresent the reality that

15     Mr. Djordjevic was his superior in those months?

16        A.   I don't understand his reasons.  And I don't want to speculate.

17        Q.   Very well.

18             MR. STAMP:  This document, Your Honours, I must admit and I think

19     that is why I now see counsel on his feet, was not notified.  I just

20     realised that, but I only want to use one line of it, actually.

21             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djurdjic.

22             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Well, my learned friend Mr. Stamp

23     has already said that this document wasn't on the list as a document that

24     would be used during the testimony of this expert witness, nor was the

25     Defence informed of it, and Mr. Stamp has just explained it and said it,

Page 14332

 1     so I don't think it would be in order to use the document, especially if

 2     we bear in mind the fact that -- if we bear in mind the analysis of this

 3     expert witness who didn't mention it at all.

 4             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Stamp, until we see the document, we can't

 5     make a decision as to the degree of unfairness that might arise if the

 6     document were used.  So if you -- if the document could be brought up and

 7     you identify the passage, we will then be able to come to a decision.

 8             MR. STAMP:  This is P886.  It's the minutes of a meeting of the

 9     Kosovo and Metohija Joint Command.  And if we could move to page 19 in

10     both English and B/C/S.  A meeting of the 29th of July, 1998, some six

11     weeks or more after the decision of the minister in which we see

12     Mr. Djordjevic present along with General Pavkovic and Mr. Matkovic.  And

13     if we could scroll down to the bottom of the page in both English and

14     B/C/S, the third bullet point of what General Lukic says at this meeting,

15     and it says:

16             "The unit did not leave Orahovac as ordered by General

17     Djordjevic."

18             JUDGE PARKER:  We don't have that on the screen.

19             MR. STAMP:  The last line.

20             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes.

21             MR. STAMP:  And that is the only thing I want to ask him about,

22     that line.  That statement.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE PARKER:  The Chamber is of the view, Mr. Djurdjic, that

25     even though the procedural rule has not been complied with, the document

Page 14333

 1     is one which you have already had significant general knowledge, and the

 2     reference is of such a specific and limited type that it would be

 3     possible for you to deal with the matter in re-examination without

 4     disadvantage.

 5             So please carry on, Mr. Stamp.

 6             MR. STAMP:  Thank you very much, Your Honours.

 7        Q.   Mr. Milasinovic, can you tell us on what basis could General

 8     Djordjevic be issuing orders in respect to the engagement of units in

 9     this context?

10        A.   This is the first time that I'm seeing this document so I can't

11     really comment on it, and I don't see the document in which General

12     Djordjevic issued the order with respect to some anti-terrorist action.

13     So I don't see either of those documents.  Nor was I shown any document,

14     for that matter, in which he issues an order on the planning or

15     undertaking of anti-terrorist measures.  If such a document exist, could

16     you show it to me so that I can read it and see whether I can comment on

17     it or not.  But like this, I can't say anything either way, I don't know

18     what it's about.

19        Q.   General Lukic is here saying that the unit did not leave Orahovac

20     as ordered by General Djordjevic, and this is the 27th of July.  29th of

21     July, 1998.  As an expert, can you just accept the hypothesis that this

22     is an accurate record of what General Lukic said, and assuming that

23     General Lukic said this, can you tell us as an expert on what basis could

24     General Djordjevic be issuing these orders in Kosovo at that time?

25        A.   First of all, I can't comment on this because, as I said, I don't

Page 14334

 1     know what specific decision it was, and I think that you should ask

 2     General Lukic what he had in mind, what document he was referring to, how

 3     the order was issued, on what basis, because none of that is visible

 4     here.  It's free interpretation, or the story of somebody who was there.

 5     But how could I know what the basis for this is.  Show me the document

 6     relating to General Djordjevic's order that he did this vis-a-vis General

 7     Lukic.  How am I expected to know that?  Either as an expert or as an

 8     ordinary witness, or however, if I wasn't there and if I didn't have the

 9     documents to look at.

10        Q.   I'm just -- I'm asking this question --

11        A.   I'm unable to comment.

12        Q.   Can you then, Mr. Milasinovic, Mr. Milasinovic --

13        A.   It's just a statement.  You can't see who or when.

14        Q.   Mr. Milasinovic, are you able to tell us what was the Joint

15     Command in Kosovo?

16        A.   Since during my career for six and a half years I taught the

17     subject of the history of warfare, in no textbook or document did I ever

18     come across this term "Joint Command."  There are associated commands,

19     but this Joint Command, what that means, I never came across it in any

20     encyclopaedia or dictionary, nor do I know what this term "Joint Command"

21     means.  It's a phrase that has been put together and of all the people

22     that I've consulted, none of them were able to explain to me what it

23     means.  And I consulted professors at the military academy, and they said

24     that this was the first time that they had encountered the term, and to

25     be quite frank, it's the first time I encountered it.  It doesn't exist

Page 14335

 1     in the literature, it doesn't exist in any lexicon explaining what this

 2     term "Joint Command" could mean.  Associated command is another matter in

 3     military terms, but Joint Command, that's the first time the history of

 4     warfare has encountered this or the history of conflicts.  I am a

 5     conflictologist myself, and I asked professors of conflictology what this

 6     meant, but they couldn't explain it to me, none of them knew.

 7        Q.   Quite a lot of information.  Can't focus on all of it, but

 8     there's one that is interesting.  You said you never saw any document

 9     with the expression "Joint Command."  The question is this:  In

10     preparation for this case, did you not see many documents or orders

11     issued by the Joint Command for Kosovo and Metohija?

12        A.   Well, I saw dozens of documents in which mention is made of the

13     Joint Command, but I was not able to understand the substance of the

14     term.

15        Q.   Weren't you aware that the Joint Command was a body that at the

16     minimum involved co-ordination and sharing information in respect to

17     joint MUP VJ action in Kosovo?  Were you not aware of that?

18        A.   I was speaking about the semantics of the term "Joint Command,"

19     but I did see that that name was used.  Now, what it meant in concrete

20     terms, well, it can be a matter of different interpretation and

21     assumptions, but you can't have a professional or scientific or scholarly

22     explanation of the term, just a free interpretation based on, well, who,

23     what, where, when, how, et cetera, it doesn't answer any of that.

24        Q.   Well, in your preparation and your previous years of research in

25     the management of the MUP in Kosovo and Metohija, did you not become

Page 14336

 1     aware of meetings involving senior police personnel including General

 2     Lukic and General Djordjevic, as well as senior political leaders and

 3     military leaders, and these meetings were referred to as the Joint

 4     Command.  You did not become aware of these meetings?

 5        A.   Well, I read about it, but there's no scientific explanation,

 6     because quite simply, they use names and terms which did not imply any

 7     strict clear-cut hierarchy and division of labour in performing command

 8     activities, and it's just some sort of nonsense which I wasn't able to

 9     understand clearly enough, so I don't want to comment further.

10        Q.   No, but I wish to ask you some questions about this because --

11        A.   By giving a layman's view.

12        Q.   But -- no, but you say you are an expert and even Mr. Djordjevic

13     testified, I'm representing to you, even Mr. Djordjevic testified that he

14     attended these meetings.  And there's a lot of evidence on this.  In your

15     expertise, did you become aware that decisions in respect to

16     anti-terrorist operations were made at these meetings?

17        A.   My job was not to deal with that so-called Joint Command and

18     nowhere do I mention it in my expert report.  And quite simply, I didn't

19     understand the term and concept of Joint Command.  I could make

20     assumptions and speculations, but I didn't want to delve in that.  So

21     neither in the functional sense or real sense -- well, if you give the

22     wrong name to someone, then let's put it this way:  A mouse can't be an

23     elephant and an elephant can't be a mouse.  You can't have an individual

24     being a group and a group being an individual.  I don't know if you are

25     following my line of thought.  I apologise if you weren't able to

Page 14337

 1     understand me, but that's what I have to say.

 2        Q.   Did you become aware that at these meetings, which were attended

 3     by the leadership of the police, among others, decisions were made in

 4     respect to anti-terrorist operation in Kosovo?  Very simple question.

 5        A.   I saw that talks were held, but anything specific with respect to

 6     orders, no, I didn't see that.  Maybe I didn't remember it, but I didn't

 7     deal with things like that.  I did not focus on them, and you will not

 8     find it anywhere in my analysis.

 9        Q.   Very well.  I think we could move on.  You say at page 21 of your

10     report, or at page 21 in English, and that is by your numbering system

11     the first section of paragraph 2.  You said that:  "The relationship

12     between the higher and lower level officers in charge in the MUP were set

13     up in such a way that each lower level officer in charge had only one

14     immediate superior who could issue orders to him, the single authority

15     principle.  The minister was the only immediate superior of the

16     department, chiefs, assistant ministers, and officers in charge of

17     organisational units that were not part of the departments and of no one

18     else.  Consequently, the RJB chief was the only immediate superior of

19     administrative chiefs in the MUP headquarters and of SUP chiefs and of no

20     one else."

21             Weren't some of these administrations, that is the organisational

22     units at the ministry that are described as administrations, weren't they

23     headed by assistant ministers?

24        A.   No, they weren't, for the simple reason that with the division of

25     labour and the principle of the singleness of command, it was determined

Page 14338

 1     that according to territorial organisational units and the chains, for

 2     example, the chief of a department had his superior only in the head of

 3     the public security department.  Similarly, the secretary of Internal

 4     Affairs, his superior was the chief of the public security department,

 5     the chief of the public security department had the minister above him.

 6     So that was the upward chain.  And except if there's a proposal from the

 7     minister saying who would perform which function, there the assistant

 8     ministers were equal because they covered different areas.

 9        Q.   Can I ask the question again?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And I see you have answered it.  The question was, weren't some

12     of these administrations, that is the organisational units at the

13     ministry that are described as administrations, weren't they headed by

14     assistant ministers, and you say, no, they weren't.  I just -- I'm going

15     to --

16        A.   All they had was the assistant to the minister who covered down

17     the chain on assignment the minister of that administration.  In that

18     case, yes, because the distribution of labour between the assistant

19     ministers was such that part of the public --

20        Q.   Is it yes or no?  Weren't some of these administrations at the

21     seat of the ministry headed by assistant ministers?

22        A.   Yes.  Only if --

23        Q.   So when you say -- so please listen to my question because time

24     is limited.  So in respect to those administrations at the seat of the

25     ministry that were headed by assistant ministers, these assistant

Page 14339

 1     ministers would be the subordinates to Mr. Djordjevic, would they not?

 2        A.   No.

 3        Q.   Very well.  You say, and I will read what you say in the report

 4     again. "The RJB chief was the only immediate superior of administration

 5     chiefs in the MUP headquarters."  And you just agreed with me that some

 6     of these administration chiefs were also assistant ministers.  So come

 7     again.

 8        A.   No, I didn't mean administrations.  I was referring to the scope

 9     of activity within his competence.  Now, chiefs of administrations were

10     linked to the chief of the public security department as far as the

11     public security department is concerned.  Now, both the public security

12     and state security departments had as their superior only the minister.

13     In other words, assistants did not have superior subordinate relationship

14     in relation to the chiefs of administrations that were headquartered

15     where the headquarters of the department was, but the minister could

16     define certain powers for assistant ministers to perform certain tasks on

17     his order.  I am stating something that is an assumption.  However, the

18     prevailing principle governing such situation was that of singleness of

19     command.

20             MR. STAMP:  Let's look quickly at P263.

21        Q.   I just want to ask you the question again because I don't, to be

22     honest, follow your answer.  Weren't some of the administrations at the

23     seat of the ministry headed by assistant ministers?  Your answer was

24     first no and it become yes, and I'm asking you a third time because it

25     now becomes quite confused on the basis of your last answer.

Page 14340

 1        A.   Please, they had the assistant minister as their superior in the

 2     capacity of the chief of the public security department because the chief

 3     of the public security department was an assistant minister.  Am I making

 4     myself clear now?  Because when you say assistant minister, I'm

 5     immediately thinking about the capacity that was also held by the chief

 6     of the public security department.

 7        Q.   Okay.  This is the order --

 8        A.   You see, an assistant minister can be Janko, Marko, and Dick, Tom

 9     and Harry, but you have to tell me which assistant minister you are

10     referring to, or are you referring to all of the assistant ministers?  So

11     we have to make sure that we are talking about an assistant minister or

12     ministers -- assistant ministers.

13        Q.   The document in front of you, Mr. Milasinovic, is a directive of

14     the minister of the 4th of June, 1997, setting out the responsibilities

15     of his assistant ministers, of the assistant ministers.  He begins by

16     indicating that the chief of the public security department is

17     Lieutenant-General Djordjevic and then he assigns various fields or

18     administrations to his several assistant ministers.  I'll ask you the

19     question a fourth time.  Were some of these administrations not headed by

20     assistant ministers?

21        A.   This relates to assistant ministers who were empowered -- I'm not

22     sure which paragraph you are referring to.  Can you direct me to it so I

23     can read it.

24        Q.   Look at the screen, the screen in front of you.

25        A.   Sorry.

Page 14341

 1        Q.   The question, were some of the administrations at the seat of the

 2     ministry in Belgrade led or commanded by assistant ministers?

 3        A.   All the organisational units were under minister's command, and

 4     it was the minister who distributed the various tasks in the rules

 5     governing the work of the ministry in relation to his assistants, that's

 6     what I can tell you.  So you can see that Major-General Petar Zekovic was

 7     charged with the tasks falling within the remit of the administration for

 8     general affairs board and lodging.  He was responsible to the minister

 9     for the tasks thus assigned to him.

10        Q.   But it seems that now you agree that some of these

11     administrations were headed by assistant ministers, you agree?

12        A.   No, I don't agree because of the fact that assistant ministers

13     assisted the minister in the performing of certain tasks, and it was the

14     minister who charged them with certain fields of activity.  So it was

15     only the minister who was their superior and no one else.  Where the

16     principle of singleness of command applies, this is the way matters are

17     defined and organised.

18        Q.   Very well.  We'll have to move on.  Last question,

19     Mr. Milasinovic, do you know of the procedures that would be in place,

20     and I'd like to refer you to page 22 of your report where you deal with

21     illegal orders.  And the question is, do you know of any procedure that

22     would be in place to guide the chief of the public security department if

23     he became aware of information indicating that the minister had committed

24     crimes?

25        A.   In the event that the minister had committed crimes, and I don't

Page 14342

 1     know what these crimes specifically could be, but in the event that he

 2     had committed crimes, the minister could not have -- well, what he could

 3     have done was that if the minister issued him with such an order which

 4     would have as a result the commission of the crime, he had to disobey it,

 5     not to carry it out.  And, again, if a crime was committed, it would

 6     depend on conscience, just as it would be the case with any other

 7     citizen.  He could have refused to carry out such an order, and if a

 8     crime was committed, he would be prosecuted in the usual way.  He would

 9     be -- his actions would be reported to the competent authority.

10        Q.   Very well.  Should be prosecuted in the usual way.  But when we

11     are talking about the chief of the public security and the minister, I

12     suggest to you that if there is awareness that crimes are being

13     committed, it can't depend on anybody's conscience.

14             MR. STAMP:  Very well, Your Honours, I thank the Court for the

15     additional time.  I went a little bit overboard, and I'm grateful for the

16     time.  That is the end of the cross-examination.

17             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.  We now adjourn, we will resume at ten

18     minutes past 1.00

19                           [The witness stands down]

20                           --- Recess taken at 12.41 p.m.

21                           --- On resuming at 1.11 p.m.

22                           [The witness takes the stand]

23             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes, Mr. Djurdjic.

24             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

25                           Re-examination by Mr. Djurdjic:

Page 14343

 1        Q.   Good afternoon, Professor.

 2        A.   Good afternoon, Professor Djurdjic.

 3        Q.   I'd like to start from the end, from where Mr. Stamp left off.

 4     And for that, let us look at tab 26, which is Exhibit P263.

 5        A.   Could you repeat all that, please, all those numbers.  I was just

 6     changing my spectacles.

 7        Q.   Tab 26.  P263 is the exhibit number.  This is a dispatch from

 8     minister Vlajko Stojiljkovic of the 4th of June, 1996 -- 1997.  Have you

 9     found that?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Can you tell me -- well, we see here the assistant ministers will

12     be put in charge of the following areas of work or fields of work.  Now,

13     could you tell us what that means?

14        A.   That means that the individual ministers will perform the tasks

15     which are given to them or which the minister of the interior has ordered

16     them to carry out.  And so they are then responsible for those tasks to

17     the minister of the interior who issued them in the first place.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Here it says the ministers will be responsible.  Did

19     you mean the ministers or assistant ministers?

20        A.   The assistant ministers will be responsible to the minister.

21        Q.   Thank you.  Further down we have the fields.  Each person was

22     assigned his field of work?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And so, for example, Mr. Radomir Markovic was given an assignment

25     for crime police affairs and analysis and information technology?

Page 14344

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Now, Mr. Markovic wasn't at the head of the crime prevention

 3     police department, was he?

 4        A.   That's right.

 5        Q.   So these are just the fields of work, not the leaders of the

 6     administrations within the public security department; is that right?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Now, bearing in mind the field of work for which

 9     these assistant ministers were responsible to the minister, how did that

10     affect the authority of the head of the public security department and

11     how he managed the department?

12        A.   Well, the authority of the public, the head of the public

13     security department was shifted with respect to the work covered by the

14     assistant ministers.

15        Q.   Thank you.

16             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] May we have called up on e-court

17     next, please, Exhibit P57, which is tab 11 in your binder.

18        Q.   What I'd like to ask you is this:  I'd like us to turn to page 3

19     in the Serbian and 2 in the English.  So next page for the English,

20     please.  And for you it's tab 11.  Page 3 of tab 11.  It's the last page.

21     And look at item 6, please.

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   "With the coming into force of this decision," what is it that

24     the minister decided in this item 6?

25        A.   All the decisions on the establishment of the operational staffs

Page 14345

 1     such and such a number of the 21st of April, 1999 [as interpreted] shall

 2     no longer be valid.  The decision of the establishment of staff of the

 3     minister of the -- for Kosovo and Metohija of the 15th of May, and the

 4     decision on the appointment of the members of the staff, that is the head

 5     and members of the staff of the Ministry of the Interior of the AP of

 6     Kosovo and Metohija, strictly confidential, et cetera, et cetera, the

 7     11th of June, 1998.

 8             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Now, page 65, it

 9     should read the 21st of April, 1998.  1999 was recorded.

10        Q.   Now, Professor, did you come across any document which delegates

11     the minister on the establishment of the ministry for the suppression of

12     terrorism in 1998 and 1999?

13        A.   No, I didn't come across any document of that kind refuting what

14     was previously stated on the establishment of the staff of the 16th of

15     June, 1998.

16        Q.   Thank you.  I'd like now to move on to your expert report, and

17     that portion of it which deals with reporting.  And Mr. Stamp showed

18     you -- asked you to look at page 31 of the B/C/S version.  In English

19     that would be 32.  That's the page.  Now, let me just ask you this.  What

20     it says in those last two sentences or three sentences, or the whole

21     paragraph, does that represent your conclusion?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Thank you.  Now turn to the previous page, please.  And looking

24     at those footnotes there, was it on the basis of those documents listed

25     there, that you were able to make your conclusions?

Page 14346

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Now I'd like to ask you to turn to tab number, just

 3     let me take a moment to find it.  Tab number 15 in your binder.

 4             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] It's D274.  Exhibit D274, please.

 5        Q.   Have you found it?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   It's a dispatch from the SUP of Kosovska Mitrovica sent to the

 8     staff of the ministry, to the leader on the 14th of January, 1999.  And

 9     now tell me, please, what under items 2 and 5 this dispatch contains?

10        A.   Under point 2 it is "the following police operations were carried

11     out" and then it says that the following police operations had been

12     planned, and the times are stipulated as are the assignments.

13        Q.   Thank you.

14             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Now, may we have tab 14 next,

15     please.  It is P1041.  P1041.  And it's tab 14.

16        Q.   This is a dispatch from the staff of the ministry dated the 21st

17     of October, 1998, sent to all the chiefs of the SUP in Kosovo and

18     Metohija.  Now, on page 2, item B is the one I'm interested in.  Let's

19     just take a moment to wait for the document to come up on our screens.

20     Let's take it slowly.  We need the English version.

21             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness kindly speak into the

22     microphones.  Thank you.

23             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   We see B, where it says reporting.  And could you speak into the

25     microphone, please, so that we can hear you better.

Page 14347

 1             We have reporting and information.  Now, with this order, is the

 2     staff ordering the SUPs to provide more detailed information on the

 3     following occurrences and events?

 4        A.   Yes.  Daily information with respect to provocations, police

 5     actions undertaken, police movements, the reason for their movements,

 6     transfers and so on and so forth, a series of other information.

 7        Q.   Thank you.

 8             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Now may we have D275, which is tab

 9     16 in your set of documents.

10        Q.   Let's just take a moment to have the document displayed and then

11     I'll come to my questions.  We can focus on the English version.  We just

12     need the English version because the witness has his hard copy.  But this

13     is a dispatch from the SUP of Kosovska Mitrovica sent to the operative

14     centre of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia and the ministry staff dated

15     the 15th of January, 1999.

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   It's a daily report on criminal offences committed, events and

18     incidents in the area of Kosovska Mitrovica SUP for the 14th of January,

19     1999.  And here we see, we have crime under one, public law and order

20     under two, border affairs, foreigners and other instances -- incidents

21     and occurrences.  Now does it speak about any planned and undertaken

22     police actions?

23        A.   No, not a single piece of information.  There's nothing about

24     that at all.

25        Q.   Thank you.

Page 14348

 1             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] May we now have tab 17, which is

 2     Exhibit D284.  May we have that displayed next.

 3        Q.   This is a review of the security related and important -- well,

 4     let's wait for the English to come up on our screens.

 5             A summary of security related events, incidents, and information

 6     recorded between 0600 hours on the 13th of March to 0600 hours on the

 7     14th of March, 1999, which the MUP staff sent to the Ministry of the

 8     Interior of the Republic of Serbia on the 14th of March, 1999.  In this

 9     report, in this summary, was anything observed about any planned or

10     undertaken anti-terrorist actions either on the part of the staff or the

11     SUPs on the territory of Kosovo and Metohija?

12        A.   This document clearly shows what the events referred to,

13     terrorist provocations, serious crimes committed, provocations in

14     general, traffic accidents, and the like.  But there's not a single piece

15     of information or nothing about any anti-terrorist actions that were

16     planned.

17        Q.   Thank you.

18             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] May we now have tab 18, which is

19     P1057.  Exhibit P1057.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

21             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   We have before us a dispatch once again from the staff of the MUP

23     of the Republic of Serbia dated the 11th of April, 1999, sent to the

24     secretariats in Kosovo and Metohija, and in item 1 of this dispatch, the

25     staff sets out what reporting and information they need from the SUP of

Page 14349

 1     Kosovo and Metohija; is that right?

 2        A.   Here the staff is -- it says that the staff shall inform the

 3     secretariats of the interior of Pristina, Pec, Djakovica, Prizren,

 4     Urosevac, and Gnjilane since the war began about the NATO bombing

 5     terrorist attacks against the men and facilities of Serbia, any serious

 6     crimes, persons who have absconded and so on and so forth, so those are

 7     the main issue issues.  It's the beginning of the war and a new set of

 8     instructions is being issued about information reporting.

 9             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] May we now have P701 displayed

10     next, please, which is tab 19 of your documents.  For the transcript, the

11     previous document was the 1st of April, was it?  Does it relate to

12     instructions to the SUPs how the staff should be informed?

13        A.   Yes, that's all.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Now, we have before us a summary of the security

15     related events, incidents, and intelligence recorded between 0600 hours

16     on the 24th of April to 0600 hours on the 25th of April, 1999, the staff

17     of the republic of the MUP of Serbia dated the 25th of April, 1999.  Now,

18     in this report, is there any mention in this summary of any planned or

19     implemented anti-terrorist activities, either on the part of the MUP

20     staff or the SUP in Kosovo and Metohija?

21        A.   No.

22        Q.   Thank you.

23             JUDGE PARKER:  The exhibit number of this document, Mr. Djurdjic?

24             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it was Exhibit P701.

25             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

Page 14350

 1             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] May we now have displayed Exhibit

 2     D408, please, which is tab 20 in your set.

 3        Q.   Just one moment, please.  We are looking at the dispatch from the

 4     department for analysis of the public security sector of the 24th of

 5     April, 1999, sent to all the secretariats from 1 to 33 and the MUP staff

 6     in Pristina.  It's the daily review of current events and occurrences in

 7     the public security area for the 23rd of April, 1999.  I don't want to go

 8     back to your expertise so that we don't lose time, please.  On the basis

 9     of information received at the headquarters of the MUP or the public

10     security department, is there any information in this report about

11     planned and carried out anti-terrorist activities?

12        A.   No, there are none such pieces of information there.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Professor, there was a question about your part of

14     the expert report so I would like you to go back to the report.  It's in

15     tab 2.  And that was page 12 and page 13 in English and -- no, I'm sorry,

16     not page 12 and 13, but it was page 13 in English, yes.  This question

17     about the RPOs where you noted that members in accordance with their

18     combat assignments were sent to the appropriate police or military units

19     in the event of mobilisation.  According to the documents that you had,

20     were there persons in the RPO who were not in the reserve forces of the

21     military territorial detachments and the reserve forces of the police?

22        A.   As far as I recall, there were none such members.  These were ad

23     hoc forces.  The RPO were predominantly consisting of members of the

24     police reserves, and the DTO.

25        Q.   Were there any members there who were not members of the reserve

Page 14351

 1     forces of either formation?

 2        A.   Well, these were just simply armed --

 3        Q.   Please, can you answer this question?

 4        A.   No, I don't know.

 5        Q.   In these detachments were there any members who were not members

 6     of the military territorial or police forces up until the point in time

 7     of the mobilisation who didn't have a war time assignment?

 8        A.   No, no.

 9             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Your Honours, I have

10     no further questions.  Professor, sir, thank you very much.  Your

11     Honours, I have no further questions.

12             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you, Mr. Djurdjic.

13                           Questioned by the Court:

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I have only one question for you.  On page 16 of

15     your report in the English version, it is just before paragraph 2. --

16     3.2, there's one sentence I'm interested on your comment.  "Planned

17     anti-terrorist operations were implemented through joint planned

18     activities of the police and the army."  Could you perhaps explain who

19     was in command of these joint planned activities of the police and the

20     army, which body and which person?

21        A.   The implementation of these tasks manoeuvre units of the MUPs or

22     the PJP, SAJ, and JSO were primarily engaged.  These anti-terrorist

23     operations were under the charge of the special staff which was formed by

24     the minister on the 16th of June, 1998.  He had the exclusive

25     jurisdiction over these units, over the Kosovo and Metohija staff which

Page 14352

 1     was in charge of these operations.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Are you saying that the minister of interior was

 3     also in charge for actions including the army of Serbia?

 4        A.   No, because in war time operations, the idea was to have the

 5     police forces resubordinated to the military forces, however, this did

 6     not happen in practice.  But this does not mean in any way that the

 7     minister or the chief of the staff were in command of the units which

 8     were part of the military.  In the event of resubordination, then this

 9     would, of course, imply resubordination to the command which was actually

10     responsible and in charge of the war operations.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I'm very sorry, but I don't understand your

12     answer.  I was asking you, what do you mean by that, planned

13     anti-terrorist operations were implemented, I'm not talking about law and

14     organisational orders, but implemented through joint planned activities

15     of the police and the army.  Which body was responsible for that again?

16        A.   The chief of the staff or the staff was responsible for the MUP

17     forces, and the military forces were under the jurisdiction of the

18     military command that was overseeing those actions.  This would be the

19     joint action, but the Joint Command could only be actually taken up to

20     the supreme commander and the Supreme Defence Council.

21             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter did not hear the rest of the answer

22     of the witness.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The commanders were actually

24     exercising the command in the territory who were responsible to the

25     staff, as far as the police special units were concerned, the SAJ and the

Page 14353

 1     JSO.  So the function was divided and the joint responsibility is

 2     something that I did not encounter in any document.  There being one

 3     commander both for the police and for the military.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I would like to stop you here, but I don't see --

 5     but you were dealing with this problem of joint planned activities of the

 6     police and the army in your report.  What is the background, what is your

 7     knowledge about, what are the sources for such a statement?

 8        A.   I had sources that related to the engagement of military and the

 9     engagement of police units.  In anti-terrorist activities, they

10     participated in the territorial and temporal co-action in the territory

11     and in the same time, but they did not have a joint commander.  They were

12     not resubordinated.  The police organs were not resubordinated to the

13     military organ, so there can be no question of being resubordinated to

14     one commander but to the commanders of the units that were carrying out

15     tasks and the units that were co-operating amongst themselves in the

16     implementation of these anti-terrorist activities.  There was no

17     resubordination or at least I did not come across any document where the

18     police forces, the PJP, and the JSO units would be resubordinated to the

19     military.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Are you saying that there was no joint -- kind of

21     a joint planned activities if there was no Joint Command and similar

22     body?

23        A.   Probably while mutually agreeing on matters there was division of

24     tasks in joint actions while carrying out broader anti-terrorist actions

25     and planned anti-terrorist actions.

Page 14354

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 2             JUDGE BAIRD:  Mr. Milasinovic, you gave us a comprehensive

 3     description of the structure and functions of the various units including

 4     units that were not part of the department, didn't you?

 5        A.   That's correct, yes.

 6             JUDGE BAIRD:  Yes.  And in answer to Mr. Djurdjic awhile ago, he

 7     asked you, in these detachments were there any members who were not

 8     members of the military, territorial, or police forces up until the point

 9     in time of the mobilisation who did not have a war time assignment, and

10     you said no.

11        A.   Very well.

12             JUDGE BAIRD:  Now, tell me, did you hear at all of paramilitary

13     units?

14        A.   Yes, I heard of paramilitary units, but I did not come across any

15     document that would speak about formed paramilitary units and their

16     activities, except documents where attention is being drawn to the fact

17     that if such units appeared, they would be placed under control, and any

18     paramilitary unit should be prevented or any individual should be --

19     about whom any prior criminal records existed or criminal activity was

20     suspected should be placed under control in the sense that they should be

21     excluded from the anti-terrorist forces acting in Kosovo and Metohija.

22     There were many concrete questions that I did not really deal with, and

23     these are many questions that also have to do with the previous question

24     having to do with things evolving in the terrain.  I didn't participate

25     in those actions myself, but based on the documents that I had at my

Page 14355

 1     disposal, I was able to make the conclusions and the findings that I made

 2     in my expert report.

 3             JUDGE BAIRD:  I see.  So you cannot say whether any paramilitary

 4     unit was actually employed or used?

 5        A.   I can say and I know that there were none there.

 6             JUDGE BAIRD:  Did you ever hear of a group called the White

 7     Eagles?

 8        A.   Yes, I heard of the group White Eagles.

 9             JUDGE BAIRD:  And do you have any sort of --

10        A.   Skorpions, White Eagles, and many other paramilitary

11     organisations, yes, but I never actually came across them, even in

12     conversations with people.  All the organised forces or the command

13     leadership forces would avoid engaging such people.  Later I found about

14     the terms White Eagles, Skorpions, and different other paramilitary

15     forces which were more known about from conflicts that happened outside

16     of Kosovo Metohija, rather than in Kosovo and Metohija, and the units in

17     Kosovo and Metohija did not have such forces in that kind of sense.  The

18     departing point was to mobilise and engage individuals.  If there was a

19     person who was outside of Serbia, they were placed under the control or

20     checks would be made through the records that were available to the

21     judicial or the MUP organs in order to prevent people getting in who

22     could possibly commit something that was not in accordance with the ideas

23     and the concept of the command structure of the military or the police.

24             JUDGE BAIRD:  I have just one last question.  Did you ever hear

25     at all of the collegium?  The collegium?

Page 14356

 1        A.   Yes.

 2             JUDGE BAIRD:  Can you say anything at all about it?

 3        A.   Since I frequently attended collegium sessions in republican SUPs

 4     and at the federal Ministry of the Interior, I can say that the collegium

 5     is a working informal body which was formed and which could discuss

 6     different matters with the minister on a whole range of professional

 7     lines that have to do with organisation, functioning, and the

 8     implementation of specific tasks so the collegium could include people

 9     such as inspectors, chiefs of administrations, and the like.  Then also

10     persons from the analysis department who are monitoring a certain topic

11     analytically that had do with organised crime, terrorism or similar

12     matters.  And simply these would be working meetings which would be held

13     at the initiative of the minister or the chief of the department in order

14     to discuss specific issues from their sphere of work.

15             JUDGE BAIRD:  Thank you very much.

16             JUDGE PARKER:  You'll be pleased to know that that concludes the

17     questions for you.  The Chamber would thank you for your attendance here

18     in The Hague and the assistance that you've been able to give us.  We

19     thank you.  You may now, of course, return to your normal activities and

20     the Court Officer will show you out.  Thank you.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22                           [The witness withdrew]

23             JUDGE PARKER:  I understand there's a matter that you wish to

24     raise, Mr. Stamp.

25             MR. STAMP:  Yes, Your Honour.  The matter that the Prosecution

Page 14357

 1     wishes to raise with your leave could be addressed by Ms. D'Ascoli,

 2     although there's a another matter in respect to the document from the

 3     witness that probably could be dealt with.

 4             JUDGE PARKER:  That almost sounds like an answer of this last

 5     witness.  Is there something that you wish to deal with?

 6             MR. STAMP:  Ms. D'Ascoli will deal with that one.

 7             JUDGE PARKER:  Ms. D'Ascoli knows all about it.

 8             MS. D'ASCOLI:  Thank you, Your Honours.  Yes, very briefly.  I

 9     have a communication and two oral applications.  The communication is in

10     regard to you last order of last Monday, the 17th of May at page

11     transcript 14179.  The Prosecution was ordered to correct the e-court

12     version of five transcript tendered under Rule 92 ter, and namely, they

13     are P428, P495, P979, P1321, and P1416.  So I just wanted to let the

14     Chamber know that this was done, and pursuant to the direction of the

15     Chamber's we uploaded the new transcript to replace those previously

16     admitted in e-court.  So now the new versions are newly uploaded and are

17     the correct ones.  They kept the same exhibit number, of course.

18             The first oral application is that in doing so we noticed that

19     the P428, which is the Milutinovic transcript of witness Bislim Zyrapi

20     did not have a redacted or confidential version, although it presented

21     two pages in private session, so what we did was to upload an unredacted

22     -- a confidential version of this transcript with the 65 ter number

23     05201.01.  And, therefore, my oral application is to have this 65 ter

24     number assigned a separate exhibit number and to have it admitted into

25     evidence under seal.

Page 14358

 1             JUDGE PARKER:  First, thank you for your information concerning

 2     the correct transcripts now for those exhibits.  And, secondly, yes, the

 3     further document will be received.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P1603 under seal, Your Honours.

 5             MS. D'ASCOLI:  Thank you.  The second and last oral application,

 6     it concerns the witness statement of K73.  We made further redactions to

 7     the public version of K73 witness statement, which is currently admitted

 8     as Exhibit P330-A.  This newly redacted version of the statement has been

 9     disclosed to Defence yesterday, 19 of May, therefore, I'm now seeking

10     leave to replace the version in e-court with this newly redacted public

11     version under the same exhibit number, P330-A.

12             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes, leave is granted.

13             MS. D'ASCOLI:  Thank you very much.  That was all from my side.

14             JUDGE PARKER:  Is that all?  Any other matter, Ms. D'Ascoli, for

15     the Prosecution?

16             MS. D'ASCOLI:  Not that I am aware of.

17             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djurdjic, any other matter for the Defence?

18             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Well, Ms. O'Leary has given me two

19     or three tasks to deal with.  First of all D903, may we have the English

20     version D0115486, 011 -- the transcript seems to have stopped.  Yes, the

21     number is correct.  That's one point.

22             The second thing is this:  I'd like to request of the Trial

23     Chamber that when the Defence case is completed, we can file a bar table

24     motion request for admission of exhibits, or if there is any other way

25     for us to do that.

Page 14359

 1             And the third thing is that I should like to ask for your ruling

 2     on the admission of the expert report into evidence.

 3             JUDGE PARKER:  Now, I understand with respect to Exhibit D903

 4     that we now have the correct transcript, you say.  Thank you for that.

 5     You foreshadow a bar table motion for the exhibiting of documents that

 6     you anticipate will be -- when will that be moved, when will that motion

 7     be filed?

 8             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Well, I would have preferred you

 9     to give -- have given me a dead-line, but let's say seven days.

10             JUDGE PARKER:  [Overlapping speakers] ... Mr. Djurdjic.

11             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Shall we say seven days starting

12     with next Tuesday?

13             JUDGE PARKER:  And are you able to indicate the number of

14     documents that you have in mind?

15             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Well, I don't think there will be

16     more than 20 odd, but don't hold me to that, please.  20 to 30 at the

17     most.  We did our best to tender the documents through witnesses.

18                           [Trial Chamber confers]

19             JUDGE PARKER:  Well, you may by no later than Thursday at noon of

20     next week file a motion in respect of the admission of further documents

21     from the the bar table.  And the Chamber will give attention to that in

22     due course.

23             The third matter you raised was the report of the witness.  The

24     Chamber will give consideration to the question, as I have already

25     indicated, and will issue a short written decision in the next few days

Page 14360

 1     about whether the whole or part or perhaps none, but really the whole or

 2     part of that document will be received as an exhibit.

 3             Subject to the motion you foreshadowed for the admission of some

 4     further documents, does that then conclude the Defence case,

 5     Mr. Djurdjic?

 6             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, but with an

 7     explanation.  D903 is the exact translation of the document, but it's not

 8     the transcript.  It's the correct translation.  That's all I wanted to

 9     add.

10             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.  I couldn't for the life of me remember

11     what document Exhibit D903 was, I thought it was a transcript.  Very

12     well.  We would thank then the Defence for the case it has presented, and

13     for the attention to ensuring that it was not unduly long so that we've

14     received evidence from less witnesses than originally contemplated by the

15     Defence.  We are grateful for that.

16             Is there anything remaining or outstanding on the part of the

17     Prosecution?

18             MR. STAMP:  No, Your Honours.

19                           [Trial Chamber confers]

20             JUDGE PARKER:  That being so, then, the Chamber will now adjourn

21     this hearing.  We have concluded the admission of evidence save for the

22     foreshadowed motion of the Defence and save for the deciding on the

23     question of the report of this last witness and those two matters will be

24     dealt with in due course.  That having been done, we have procedural

25     orders in place for written submissions to be filed by both parties by

Page 14361

 1     the 30th of June, and that the Chamber will sit to hear oral submissions

 2     on the 13th and 14th of July, and that, we anticipate, will conclude the

 3     hearings, and it's been an interesting, long progress until now, but

 4     we've reached this point.  I'm sure all parties are anxious to finish the

 5     case and the Chamber is anxious to be able to enter into its full

 6     deliberation and reach a decision.

 7             We thank you all.  We now adjourn and we expect next to see you

 8     on the 13th of July in court.

 9                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.04 p.m.

10                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 13th day of July,

11                           2010.