1 Tuesday, 21 August 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: While the witness is being brought in, can I check

6 whether any Defence counsel wishes to cross-examine. No indication that

7 anyone does.

8 [The witness entered court]

9 WITNESS: ZIVADIN JOVANOVIC [Resumed]

10 [Witness answered through interpreter]

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, Mr. Jovanovic.

12 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: You will now be cross-examined by Mr. Stamp on

14 behalf of the Prosecution. Please bear in mind during your evidence today

15 that the solemn declaration to speak the truth, which you made at the

16 beginning of your evidence, continues to apply to your evidence today.

17 Mr. Stamp.

18 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honours.

19 Cross-examination by Mr. Stamp:

20 Q. Good morning, Mr. Jovanovic.

21 A. [Interpretation] Good morning to you.

22 Q. Are you still politically active?

23 A. As a citizen, yes.

24 Q. Are you a member or still a member of any political party?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Which party is that?

2 A. I'm a member of the Socialist Party of Serbia.

3 Q. Do you hold any senior post in that party?

4 A. No, no.

5 Q. How long have you been a member?

6 A. Since 1993.

7 Q. And you were elevated in 1997 to vice-president of that party?

8 A. Your information is accurate. It was then that I was elected

9 vice-president of the Main Board of the -- vice-chairman of the Main Board

10 of the Socialist Party of Serbia. There were five such deputy chairmen

11 posts, and I was in charge of international relations on behalf of the

12 Socialist Party of Serbia.

13 Q. In 1997, President Milosevic made a decision that there should be

14 a reshuffling of the party leadership; is that correct?

15 A. He made a -- I don't know who made the decision for this new

16 reshuffle of the party leadership.

17 Q. You're also appointed a Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of

18 Foreign Affairs in 1997. Is that the year you were appointed, or 1998?

19 A. No, that's not true.

20 Q. It's 1998, are you telling me then?

21 A. I was appointed federal Minister of Foreign Affairs in January

22 1998.

23 Q. And you were appointed by the prime minister, the federal prime

24 minister?

25 A. I was appointed by the Federal Assembly at the proposal of the

1 prime minister, Rade Kontic.

2 Q. Did President Milosevic play a role in your appointment as federal

3 prime minister -- as federal Minister of Foreign Affairs?

4 A. It's possible, but I don't know for sure.

5 Q. You were a deputy leader of the party in June 1998, or

6 vice-president; that's the correct expression, I think.

7 A. That's right. As I said, I was one of the co-chairmen of the Main

8 Board of the Socialist Party of Serbia.

9 Q. And, by that time, I'm sure you will agree with me, one of the

10 main problems and issues that was facing the nation and the party was the

11 events in Kosovo and Metohija.

12 A. The issues in Kosovo and Metohija were long-term issues. It is

13 quite true that tensions began to mount steeply over the years that I was

14 the co-chairman of the Main Board of the Socialist Party of Serbia and

15 also the federal Minister of Foreign Affairs.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: I wonder if there is some confusion in translation.

17 You've twice now been translated into English as saying that you were one

18 of the co-chairmen of the Main Board, and earlier you said you were a

19 vice-chairman or vice-president of the Main Board. Can you clarify that

20 for us?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is probably a

22 mistranslation. I don't think I have misspoken myself. I said that I was

23 one of the five deputy chairmen of the Main Board of the Socialist Party

24 of Serbia; and in my capacity as deputy chairman, I was in charge of the

25 party's international relations.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

2 Mr. Stamp.

3 MR. STAMP:

4 Q. By mid-1998, the issues, the problems of Kosovo and Metohija had

5 become central to the discussions of the party leadership at its meetings;

6 is that correct?

7 A. The problems of Kosovo and Metohija were without a doubt the most

8 burning issues in both Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It

9 was only natural that the Socialist Party of Serbia, too, as the then

10 party in power, frequently considered what its responsibilities were

11 vis-a-vis a political solution for Kosovo and Metohija.

12 Q. And do you recall that one of the solutions discussed at that time

13 in the party was that senior and dependable members of the party ought to

14 be appointed to work on coordinating the government programmes and party

15 programmes in Kosovo?

16 A. No, that's not true. The Main Board of the Socialist Party of

17 Serbia established at one point a Working Group, comprising members of the

18 leadership of the Socialist Party of Serbia. They were tasked with

19 dealing with the responsibilities of the party but not the

20 responsibilities of any state organs in Kosovo and Metohija.

21 Q. Of course, the Socialist Party, being the main party in the

22 government, many of the leading members of the Socialist Party who would

23 coordinate party work in Kosovo, were also responsible for government

24 programmes in Kosovo because they also held government post. Would you

25 agree with that?

1 A. The members of the Working Group of the Socialist Party of Serbia,

2 in terms of their party commitments in Kosovo and Metohija, were not

3 necessarily at the same high-ranking state officials. However, whenever

4 there were overlaps between their individual responsibilities, there was

5 never a dilemma. The Main Board of the Socialist Party of Serbia always

6 appointed them as party officials alone, and in relation to the party's

7 tasks and responsibilities in Kosovo and Metohija alone.

8 Q. Do you recall that at a meeting of the 16th session of the Main

9 Board of the party, on the 10th of June, 1998, Milomir Minic, Dusko

10 Matkovic, and Zoran Andjelkovic were appointed to coordinate the political

11 activity of the SPS in Kosovo and Metohija?

12 A. Yes. I remember a decision by the Main Board to set up the

13 Working Group to deal with the party's commitments and responsibilities in

14 Kosovo and Metohija; although, I do not remember the exact date or the

15 exact composition. However, based on what the learned Prosecutor has just

16 stated, it is perfectly clear that only one of the three appointees,

17 appointed officials of the Socialist Party of Serbia, also held a post

18 within the state structure.

19 The remaining members did not hold any posts, or at least I was

20 not aware of them holding any posts. For example, Dusko Matkovic, the

21 person mentioned by the Prosecutor, to the best of my recollection, held

22 no date post or federal post at the time.

23 Q. Did Mr. Minic hold a post?

24 A. Yes. I think Mr. Minic, at the time, was chairman of one of the

25 councils of the Federal Assembly. However, Mr. Dusko Matkovic was only

1 one of the deputy presidents of the party itself, that's if my memory

2 still serves me.

3 Q. Did Mr. Andjelkovic hold any government post in Kosovo in that

4 period?

5 A. In June 1998, which is the period you refer to, Mr. Andjelkovic

6 was Secretary-General of the Socialist Party of Serbia. I know that much,

7 but I can't tell you exactly when he was appointed the chairman of the

8 provisional Executive Board of Kosovo and Metohija.

9 Q. Now, at that -- do you recall that meeting at all of the party, of

10 the Main Board of the party? There was a presentation in respect to

11 Kosovo by Mr. Minic. Mr. Milosevic also addressed the party with respect

12 to the government programmes in respect of Kosovo, and the decision was

13 that there needed to be more coordination of the various activities in

14 Kosovo. Can you recall that meeting at all?

15 A. I must point out that the Main Board of the Socialist Party of

16 Serbia devoted a lot of its meetings to the problem of Kosovo and

17 Metohija. It would be far too great a risk for me to state that I

18 remember any specific dates or specific agendas for any of these meetings.

19 Nevertheless, as I said, I do remember that the Main Board decided to

20 establish its own Working Group to perform the task of the Socialist Party

21 of Serbia in Kosovo and Metohija.

22 Q. Do you remember the party leader and President Slobodan

23 Milosevic's address, saying the government is responsible for coordinating

24 the work of the state organs down there, and that they've already named

25 their representatives who will coordinate the work of the state organs?

1 A. I don't remember. However, I cannot rule out that President

2 Milosevic indeed stated that.

3 Q. Were you interested as a senior member of the government and a

4 member of the -- well, a senior member of the party as well, to follow the

5 role and the work of the government in coordinating state organs to meet

6 the issues that were faced by the country in Kosovo?

7 A. It's not about whether I was interested or not. One of my

8 principal duties as a member of the federal government, and in my capacity

9 as Minister of Foreign Affairs, was to contribute to the understanding of

10 the cause of the problems arising in Kosovo and Metohija on an

11 international plane.

12 Another of my duties was to explain the policies of the federal

13 government in the Republic of Serbia to achieve a peaceful and political

14 solution to the crisis in Kosovo and Metohija.

15 Q. And I take it you're saying in the course of -- of both your party

16 and your government functions, you never, in 1998, became aware of a body

17 for coordinating government activities in Kosovo, in particular security

18 forces that was referred to as the Joint Command. You never became aware

19 of that in 1998?

20 A. No. If I may --

21 Q. Thanks.

22 MR. STAMP: Could we have a look at P141 -- 1468.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Does that have a tab number in this bundle?

24 MR. STAMP: No. No, Your Honour.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my eyesight is rather

1 poor. I have great difficulty following documents on the screen. Would

2 it be possible for me to receive a hard copy?

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Can you assist with that, Mr. Stamp, or do we have

4 to make do with the screen?

5 MR. STAMP: Yes. I think we have to make do with the screen.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Very often, hard copy is made available,

7 Mr. Jovanovic, but it appears there is not one available in relation to

8 this, so the best we can do is magnify the document on the screen, and

9 that will be done to ensure that you can read it adequately.

10 MR. STAMP:

11 Q. Let's start with the page in front of you. Can you read that?

12 This is a document. The front page reads "Meetings of Joint Command of

13 Kosovo and Metohija."

14 A. If I may just make an observation. This is a very unusual --

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a moment, please, Mr. Jovanovic.

16 Mr. Fila.

17 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Wouldn't it be fair to first ask the

18 witness if he's ever laid eyes on this document? The title page was

19 shown, and it went missing from the screen without the witness telling us

20 whether he's actually seen the document or not. I believe that would only

21 be fair and even required, wouldn't it, for this to be shown him and for

22 him to be told what is exactly he's being shown. There.

23 I don't, as a matter of principle, oppose the idea of the witness

24 being shown this, but I think he should be told what it is.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: I think you realised that he was about to tell us

1 that it was of an unusual nature. We'll let the witness proceed with the

2 answer, Mr. Fila.

3 Please continue, Mr. Jovanovic.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's fine, as far as I'm concerned.

5 This is a very unusual document. It's a handwritten document which has no

6 header; not the sort that one usually expects to find in an official

7 document. I can only see a portion of what the Prosecutor claims is a

8 title page. I can't even see the title page in its entirety, and

9 particularly, I can't see the bottom of the page, or the substance, or for

10 that matter of signatures and stamps.

11 Therefore, what I can observe, based on this, is that a document

12 like this, for example, in Serbia's legal system, would have no legal

13 consequences or importance whatsoever. May it be understood that I've

14 never set eyes on this document before, this handwritten document.

15 MR. STAMP:

16 Q. Thank you. I just wanted to see if you could read what's on the

17 screen, the document. It states --

18 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I can read. I'm a literate person. If I get

19 legible documents to read, I'm perfectly able to read them as a rule, and

20 not just in my language; I dare say, in a number of different languages.

21 Q. Okay. I understand that. You see the document purports to be

22 relating to the meeting of the Joint Command for Kosovo and Metohija on

23 the 22nd of July, 1998? Do you see that on the document?

24 A. I'm perfectly able to read what the text says. I'm a lawyer by

25 training. To me, as a lawyer, this does not have the appearance of an

1 official document, not in terms of its form, not in terms of its

2 substance, not in terms of how it was technically produced.

3 Q. Okay. Mr. Jovanovic, I'm going to ask you just to confirm your

4 answer to what I've asked you. I understand what you're saying, but those

5 issues as to authenticity and source of this document are issues which can

6 be dealt with otherwise.

7 You said you have of never laid your eyes on this document before.

8 Now, do you see some names there on this document as being present at

9 this meeting? Do you see that, a list of persons named?

10 MR. STAMP: Could we scroll down, please, so we can see the entire

11 list? Yes.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

13 MR. STAMP:

14 Q. Who was number 8, Milan Djakovic? Do you know him?

15 A. Please, don't hold it against me, but I've never met this person

16 or anyone by that name.

17 Q. But you have met Mr. Minic, Mr. Sainovic, Mr. Andjelkovic.

18 A. Yes, it goes without saying.

19 Q. Without going into these documents, since you haven't seen them

20 before, I'm going to represent to you that these documents purport to

21 indicate that there were very frequent meetings of this organisation in

22 1998, which Mr. Sainovic would attend with senior police and military

23 figures; and in many of these meetings, he would define the issues, some

24 of what is happening, and give instructions.

25 I represent that to you. Now, the question is this: Were you

1 aware of Mr. Sainovic, in any capacity, attending meetings in 1998 with

2 senior military or police officers present? When I say "senior," I mean

3 of the rank you see here, like General Pavkovic and General Lukic.

4 A. Your Honours, as I've said, I've never set eyes on this document

5 before. I never attended any such meetings.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Jovanovic, if I could stop you just for a

7 moment. As a lawyer, you'll appreciate that, when one is investigating

8 allegations of crime, the inquiry is not confined simply to official

9 documents. This document has featured once or twice in this trial, and

10 the question of its authenticity will be dealt with separately. We've

11 heard that you've never seen it before. We understand that.

12 The question that you were asked is a perfectly simple question,

13 and you were being given an opportunity to see what's available before

14 being invited to answer it, which is a fair way of proceeding, and the

15 simple question was whether you were aware of Mr. Sainovic, in 1998,

16 attending meetings with senior military and police figures. Now, that

17 doesn't depend on the document; that depends on your recollection. And if

18 you could help us with that, it would be extremely useful.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my answer is no.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

21 Mr. Stamp.

22 MR. STAMP:

23 Q. Were you aware --

24 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I waited for the question

25 and the answer to be over. I didn't intervene because I do not mind the

1 way Mr. Stamp phrase the his question, but what did this question mean,

2 that Mr. Sainovic took part in Joint Command meetings, because this paper

3 is right under his nose, or should this paper be removed from the screen

4 and should the question be put as follows: Did Sainovic ever attend such

5 meetings? Because if you look at this paper, it's only fair to assume

6 that he attend the meeting that is in front of you.

7 That is what I wanted to say in terms of procedure. You cannot

8 show one piece of paper and ask a question that relates to something

9 completely different. That is my objection, nothing else.

10 MR. STAMP: Your Honour --

11 JUDGE BONOMY: If, however, you were listening closely, Mr. Fila,

12 you would note that's how I put the question. I diverted the attention of

13 the witness away from the document and ensured that he was answering the

14 general question, and he's answered by saying no. No matter whether

15 meetings were joint command or anything else, he was not aware of

16 Sainovic, in 1998, attending meetings with senior military and police

17 figures. So that's a complete blank as far as the Prosecutor is

18 concerned.

19 Mr. Stamp, please continue.

20 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honour.

21 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Precisely, that's what I've been

22 saying, that you had to intervene because the Prosecutor is not doing it

23 right. So lest this happen again, that was all I wanted to say.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp.

25 MR. STAMP: Thank you.

1 Q. Mr. Jovanovic, were you aware of Mr. Sainovic attending meetings

2 on a regular basis with the leadership of the VJ and the MUP in Kosovo and

3 Metohija in 1999?

4 A. No.

5 Q. This -- if that happened at all, it did not come within your

6 remit? You would not know about it, or you're saying that would not have

7 happened at all?

8 A. I stand by the answer I gave. I am not in favour of dealing with

9 any kind of hypothetical situations.

10 Q. In the course of your association with the party, was it not --

11 well, let's not say "frequent." May I rephrase the question.

12 On occasion, did not President Milosevic make arrangement in

13 respect of the work of the government that were not necessarily on

14 official lines?

15 A. Your Honours, there is only one type of government sessions;

16 namely, those that are scheduled by the prime minister. I am not aware of

17 any other type of government meetings that anyone else called at any other

18 time, officially or informally.

19 Q. Did -- for example, just as an example, did President Milosevic

20 informally, without official documentation, ask the former chief of the

21 customs in Serbia to deliver to you 900 [sic] marks in cash?

22 A. Your Honour, this is a malicious question counting on my -- or,

23 rather, intending to discredit me personally and my testimony as well.

24 Q. Sir --

25 A. I did not quite understand whether the proceedings here have to do

1 with the problems in Kosovo and Metohija or the work of the customs

2 office -- the federal customs office in Belgrade.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: In spite of that, would you please answer the

4 question, and we'll judge whether it's got any significance for the

5 determinations we have to make.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Allow me, Your Honour, to say that I

7 am 69 years old, that I lived in five states, and was the citizen of five

8 states in the territory of Yugoslavia. I lived under five different

9 social-political systems, and never until this point in time have I been

10 convicted in any kind of proceedings, criminal or civil.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: I understand what you say. Are you unwilling to

12 answer the question, because it's a perfectly simple one.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not understand the question

14 well then. Could it please be repeated?

15 MR. STAMP:

16 Q. The question is simple: Did President Milosevic informally ask

17 the head of the customs department, Mihajl Kertes, to hand you 900,000

18 marks from customs revenue in cash?

19 JUDGE BONOMY: That's a different question than the one that's on

20 the screen, which related to 900 marks, or it may be a translation -- no,

21 it can't be. It's your own language, it's your own words that are being

22 recorded, and that's what I heard. I didn't hear anything inconsistent

23 with the transcript. And if it's such a significant allegation as the one

24 you now make, can you put a date on it?

25 MR. STAMP: The figure of 100.000 [sic] or thereabouts.

1 Q. Let me just ask you one question. It's an important -- it is --

2 and I just say this. I intend to make no allegations. I'm just going to

3 ask you open questions that I invite you to answer.

4 You gave a statement, in regard to what I'm asking you about, to a

5 judge, didn't you? Simple question.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila?

7 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I would like to tell the Honourable

8 Court the following, that investigations are secret in the country that I

9 used to live in, Yugoslavia. And everything that witnesses say during the

10 course of the investigation cannot be disclosed. If Mr. Stamp wants to

11 use that transcript, I was counsel. I know what this is about. Let him

12 show me a waiver issued by the state of Yugoslavia that he's allowed to

13 disclose this document. I, as Defence counsel, was not allowed to use

14 that.

15 Please look at the heading there, and you will see that I'm

16 Defence counsel, and that cannot be used. He can ask him something, but

17 he cannot put this to him.

18 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could Mr. Stamp's

19 microphone please be turned off.

20 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] As for these proceedings, they were

21 stopped against Milosevic because he died. So you have to have grounds

22 for this; otherwise, I am going to show the documents that you have

23 forbidden me to use. The Serbian press could hardly wait to read these

24 documents.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: So that we can address this properly, we shall go

1 briefly into private session.

2 [Private session]

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 14090-14091 redacted. Private session

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 [Open session]

1 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

3 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, first of all, there's a fine line here

4 that I'm not sure where it should be drawn. If a cross-examiner asks a

5 question of a witness based on a document which he has received from

6 somewhere, he could certainly be required to prove that he had some kind

7 of a basis for asking the question. The question that I have is: At what

8 point. When you're using a document in that way. Should it be a document

9 that's notified to the Defence, as all other documents that are going to

10 be used on cross-examination are notified to the Defence?

11 No notice was made that this particular document would be used,

12 yet I watched Mr. Stamp stand up there and hold it in his happened and

13 refer to it as a document that he was using during this cross-examination.

14 If he was going to use it during this cross-examination, then he should

15 have made it available to us and told us he was going to use it, in my

16 view.

17 The second part is -- is another part of that, and give me just a

18 second to find it. During his explanation to you of what he was doing,

19 Mr. Stamp said this: "There are few occasions where you have a document

20 or evidence because is -- it is informal. One occasion, the Prosecution

21 will later allege, is a situation in respect of the Joint Command, and

22 this is another situation which fortuitously we laid our hands upon."

23 I suspect that he's talking about another document regarding the

24 Joint Command, and I don't see that noticed in the cross-examination for

25 this witness, and I don't know if it's been finished to us. But we

1 understood the rule as we were doing cross-examinations of their witnesses

2 that we were to notify them of every document that we'd use and make it

3 available to them, and we did that.

4 If we had thought we could ambush witnesses like this, we would

5 have been doing that. That doesn't do much for justice, but it makes for

6 a more fun trial, I suppose. But I don't think this is proper.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Deal with the second point first, please,

8 Mr. Stamp. Are you referring to yet another document later?

9 MR. STAMP: No, Your Honour. When I said "fortuitously we have a

10 document," indicating some informal arrangement, I was referring to this

11 question.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: That's what I understood certainly. So that deals

13 with the second point. On the first point?

14 MR. STAMP: The first point, the document we propose to

15 cross-examine the witness: The documents that base this question were

16 disclosed to the Defence, and we advised them that the documents could be

17 used in cross-examination. Perhaps my friend didn't link the P number in

18 e-court to the particular documents.

19 Ambush is a strong word. We have no intent of ambushing the

20 Defence. I make that clear. So the documents were given to the Defence

21 and I don't even -- I hope not even to use the documents. Many times, the

22 documents are put there, and the witness answers a certain way. We move

23 on without using the document. Having regard with what Mr. Fila said, it

24 is not my intention to use any of these documents with the, witness unless

25 absolutely necessary. They are there for a very limited purpose.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Mr. Ackerman that seems to answer the

2 first point also.

3 MR. ACKERMAN: What exhibit number is that interview that

4 Mr. Stamp has been referring to?

5 MR. STAMP: P2898 --

6 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Stamp. I apologise, I wasn't aware

7 of that particular exhibit.

8 MR. STAMP: -- and P2897.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Can the witness please return.

10 [The witness takes the stand]

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Jovanovic, we are often guided by counsel who

12 object when inappropriate questions are posed. We often act ourselves,

13 without prompting, to refuse to allow a question to be posed; and with

14 that background, we would be grateful if you would allow us to be the

15 judges of what questions you should and should not answer.

16 Having had a chance to reflect on this issue, we consider that it

17 is appropriate for the Prosecutor to seek an answer to the question he

18 posed to you, which with a date added to it or a rough time scale would,

19 in our view, be a perfectly reasonable question to put in the context in

20 which he seeks to put it.

21 So please listen, again, to the question from Mr. Stamp, and

22 please assist us to the best of your ability with an answer based on your

23 recollection.

24 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I'm sorry. Just before the issue goes

25 completely away, P2897, which is the document he's referring to, is only

1 in Serbian. There's no English translation, which explains why I probably

2 didn't notice it.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: We weren't holding it against you, Mr. Ackerman,

4 and your explanation confirms we were right.

5 MR. ACKERMAN: I understand, but there still should be an English

6 translation of it if he's going to use it, I would think.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it looks as though he's not, so let's

8 proceed.

9 MR. STAMP: Could I just say that P2898 is in English and, indeed,

10 is the same thing.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, before we lose the thread of this completely,

12 could you please pose your question, and let's hear what Mr. Jovanovic has

13 to tell us.

14 MR. STAMP: Thank you.

15 Q. Mr. Jovanovic, if you can, could you just answer yes or no. Did

16 Mr. Milutinovic -- withdrawn. Did Mr. Milosevic ask the head of the

17 custom department to deliver to you $900.000 in cash, in the first half of

18 2000?

19 A. I'm not aware of that.

20 Q. In May 2000?

21 A. No. I'm not aware what Mr. Milosevic told Mr. Kertes to do.

22 Q. Very well. Did Mr. Kertes - and this is a slightly different

23 question, which you can answer yes or no as well - in the year 2000, hand

24 over to you a total of approximately 1.4 million marks in cash?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. And this money was not handed over to you in the normal course of

2 government business, or by "normal" means through the budget and the

3 ministry, but it was an informal arrangement to achieve various goals?

4 A. No. It was not an informal arrangement; rather, I received that

5 money belonging to the state as the federal Minister of Foreign Affairs

6 for the needs of the state. And the money was partly spent to meet the

7 needs of the state, and the rest remained in cash in the Foreign Ministry

8 of foreign affairs during and after the changes of October 2000.

9 Q. Sir --

10 A. By your leave, I wish to stress that while I was Foreign Minister

11 for Foreign Affairs, every cent of state money I received was invested for

12 the needs of the state exclusively, and there was not the smallest

13 possibility for anyone to misuse state money for their personal or private

14 purposes.

15 Q. Very well. Now, Mr. Jovanovic, please understand me. I'm not, in

16 the next question, suggesting at all that you or anybody misused the

17 money. That's a question for a different forum. All I want to know is

18 whether or not this money was handed over to you in the normal method,

19 through the normal financial systems in place at the government, or was it

20 an informal arrangement for that money to be handed from the customs,

21 duties, in cash?

22 A. At that time, formally, there was no normal banking system in

23 Yugoslavia. The money was handed over officially by one official of the

24 federal state to another official of the federal state with the

25 appropriate documents accompanying the money, which made it possible to

1 trace the course of the money from the moment it entered the Foreign

2 Ministry of -- Foreign Ministry until it was invested for certain

3 purposes.

4 Q. Well --

5 JUDGE BONOMY: What position did Mr. Kertes hold then?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Mr. Kertes at that

7 time was the director of the Federal Customs Administration.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

9 Mr. Stamp.

10 MR. STAMP:

11 Q. I see your explanation here, but -- and, again, I remind you. All

12 I'm asking about is whether or not the hand-over of the money was

13 according to the normal system of budgetary administration in the

14 government. I'm not asking you about any possible use of it.

15 Did you explain to the judge who interviewed you why the cash --

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp, that's a matter that we understood you

17 were not necessarily embarking upon, and we've heard certain things said

18 about it and may wish to hear more. Can't you ask this in an open way at

19 the moment? Must you take the line that you're about to take, because

20 there may then be reasons for going into private session or taking a

21 different line.

22 MR. STAMP: Very well, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: That's not to tell you, you can't do it; it's to

24 tell you to be cautious in how you do it.

25 MR. STAMP: They well. I'll ask just one other question.

1 Q. In your career in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, have you ever

2 received cash to the tune of a million marks or more for government

3 business, apart from this occasion?

4 A. I received that money only when I was Foreign Minister -- the

5 Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs.

6 Q. And that was the only one time that you received cash money for

7 government affairs -- sorry, you received cash in that quantity, in that

8 amount for government affairs? Only one it happened in your entire

9 career?

10 A. I think I've answered that question.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I'm certainly not clear about this, because I

12 don't think it was very clearly put to you. Is that the only occasion on

13 which you received a large amount of cash for official ministry business?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The amount mentioned here was handed

15 over to me on three occasions. In any case, I received certain amounts of

16 money from Mr. Kertes on three occasions. On each of those occasions, the

17 hand-over was carried out with the appropriate accompanying documents

18 which are in the state archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Roughly, what were the dates of these occasions,

20 these three occasions?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I cannot remember the

22 dates. If the Prosecutor has the documents, I can --

23 JUDGE BONOMY: The year then? Can you assist us with the year?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This was in the year 2000. I

25 received the first amount for repairs to the ministry building, the roof

1 of which had been destroyed in the NATO aggression. On the second

2 occasion, I received funds to prepare -- to repair a state building

3 intended for foreign diplomatic representative offices. And on the third

4 occasion, it had to do with the sending of a large number of diplomats to

5 assist in Rambouillet and Paris during the so-called negotiations.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, these negotiations were in 1999.

7 A. They went on until January 2000 and were completed only later, I

8 think, in March. I think the negotiations finished on the 19th of March,

9 2000.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Well --

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excuse me, Your Honour. No, it was

12 1999.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, was that the last of the three payments?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Apart from those three occasions,

15 there were no other payments.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, the one Mr. Stamp first asked you about was

17 in May 2000, which is significantly later than the use of money for

18 attendance at Rambouillet and Paris.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I cannot recall the

20 date. It's quite possible this happened in May. I would be assisted by

21 documents if the Prosecutor could show them to me.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: And can you just clarify the amount on each of

23 these three occasions for us?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know, on one occasion, it was

25 about 500.000 marks. On the second occasion, it was probably these

1 900.000 mentioned here. And on the third occasion, I cannot remember the

2 amount. In any case, I wish to point out that every detail, including the

3 amount and date, is recorded in documentation, official documentation, in

4 the Foreign Ministry, the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and these

5 documents can be used if need be.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Do you know whether the work of any other ministry

7 was being funded in this way?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not aware of that. I don't

9 know.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

11 Mr. Stamp.

12 MR. STAMP:

13 Q. There is one other question I have on this issue. You remember,

14 though, that all of this money was handed over to you in the year 2000?

15 A. I cannot recall the dates. Could I please be shown the documents

16 on the basis of which such documents are being asked?

17 Q. I was not saying about the date. I was saying about the year, the

18 year 2000. Do you remember it was all in the year 2000?

19 A. I don't remember.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: You've been given quite contrary evidence to that,

21 that one of these was prior to the 19th of March 1999. You may have

22 stumbled upon a nugget, or it may be something in relation to material

23 that you already have. I don't know.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, by your leave, may I

25 say that I would not like to speculate. In my opinion, it would be best

1 to look at the official documentation of the Foreign Ministry of foreign

2 affairs. I believe that the esteemed Prosecutor has these at his

3 disposal.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Jovanovic, your counsel will -- Mr. Sainovic's

5 counsel will have an opportunity to re-examine you at the end of the

6 Prosecutor's cross-examination.

7 Mr. Stamp.

8 MR. STAMP:

9 Q. You testified -- I am moving on. Do you testify that it was the

10 policy of the government of the FRY to solve the issues in Kosovo, in

11 1998, through dialogue and peaceful means? And you discussed with us

12 yesterday a number of documents which someone from the government of the

13 FRY used that -- used that expression, that it was intention to solve the

14 problems through peaceful political means.

15 We have a number of witnesses here who said that that is what was

16 regularly, naturally being said by the FRY government officials; for

17 example, Wolfgang Petritsch. But he testified that part of the problem

18 was that what was being said was contradicted by what was happening on the

19 ground.

20 Did any of your three outposts in Kosovo and Metohija, in 1998,

21 report upwards to you, the minister, about alleged crimes that were

22 committed by the Serbian MUP or the VJ against Kosovo Albanian citizens in

23 1998?

24 A. Of course, the Prosecutor is in a better position because he can

25 hear witnesses I have not had an opportunity to hear, but I knew them as

1 diplomats of their countries in Belgrade. My points in Kosovo and

2 Metohija, my outposts, never reported that there was ever any kind of

3 violence or illegal work being done by the security services or the organs

4 of Serbia or the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Jovanovic, in fairness to you, perhaps I should

6 remind you that that question was about allegations of crime. So are you

7 saying that none of your outposts even reported allegations against Serb

8 forces in Kosovo?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My outposts faithfully transmitted

10 the contents of conversations conducted by them or other diplomats with

11 foreign diplomats in Kosovo and Metohija, and they conveyed the comments

12 or complaints against actions of the state organs in particular situations

13 as these were seen and assessed by foreign representatives.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: And did that include allegations of criminal

15 activity by Serb forces or person he will?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I think these were incidents

17 and accusations, for example, concerning the massacre in Racak. Of

18 course, the diplomats in Kosovo and Metohija reported such accusations to

19 the head office.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: And the question so far has related to 1998, which

21 is earlier than Racak. Were such reports being received of accusations

22 against Serb personnel in 1998?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were such comments by foreign

24 representatives.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp, is this a suitable time to interrupt?

1 MR. STAMP: Yes.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Jovanovic, we have to take a break at this

3 time. In fact, I think you were with us yesterday when we had to have a

4 similar break. The usher will show you where to go while we have this

5 break. In this instance, it will simply be 20 minutes. We will resume at

6 10 minutes to 11.00. Now could you please leave the courtroom with the

7 usher.

8 [The witness stands down]

9 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.

10 --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.

11 [The witness takes the stand]

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp.

13 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honours.

14 Q. When we left off, you said that there were comments by foreign

15 representatives in respect to accusations received about the activities of

16 Serb personnel. In regard to that, Mr. Jovanovic, we have evidence for

17 the Court that in the course of the operation, in 1998. And "1998," I'm

18 speaking of evidence from one Mr. John Crosland, who was with the KVM in

19 Kosovo, and his evidence is P2645 for the record.

20 He saw hundreds of villages burnt. Crops were wantonly destroyed.

21 Business of all sorts were looted and destroyed. Those are the types of

22 reports or allegations that he received up the chain or through diplomatic

23 channels.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: What's the question, Mr. Stamp?

25 MR. STAMP:

1 Q. Were those -- did you receive information about complaints like

2 that being made by the foreign diplomats in Kosovo and Metohija?

3 A. The showdown with terror groups in Kosovo and Metohija certainly

4 led to casualties, and, as is well known, not just on one of the sides.

5 There is one thing that I wish to point out. As a minister and a citizen

6 of the Republic of Serbia, I bow before the shadows of all victims, and I

7 think that whoever is responsible must be made to account for all these

8 victims.

9 As for all the reports on burnt villages and similar events, if

10 any such reports reached my office, they were swiftly forwarded to the

11 relevant bodies for verification so that appropriate measures might be

12 taken. Our role in this was to collect all those reports on positive and

13 negative trends alike in Kosovo and submit them without undue delay to the

14 relevant bodies. We always displayed great earnestness in performing this

15 task.

16 As for Colonel Crosland's evidence, I'm not familiar with his

17 reports, nor were the reports of foreign delegates [as interpreted] ever

18 forwarded to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the foreign military

19 observers.

20 May I just add this: The diplomatic representatives of my

21 ministry in Kosovo and Metohija, as a rule, were not in contact with

22 military officials but with civilian representatives alone.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Petrovic.

24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, page 32, line 5. The

25 witness said "military attaches."

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Instead of "foreign delegates"?

2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Indeed, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Jovanovic, when you say that, as a minister and

4 a citizen of the Republic of Serbia, you bow before the shadows of all

5 victims and think that whoever is responsible must be made to account for

6 all their victims, is that an expression of acknowledgement now that there

7 were victims for whom some Serbs bear responsibility?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is no doubt whatsoever that

9 crimes were committed on all sides. It remains to be established who the

10 responsible persons for those crimes were. There were certainly crimes

11 committed by Serbs as well; however, this was never a policy pursued by

12 the government of which I was a member. This was never a policy pursued

13 by Yugoslavia or Serbia, generally speaking.

14 These were crimes committed by individuals, individuals who acted

15 in a random and wanton manner and were under no kind of control. As far

16 as I know in very general terms, because this is not my sphere of

17 activity, proceedings were instituted in many of these cases in order to

18 establish the criminal responsibility of all those suspected to be

19 responsible for crimes.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Did the cabinet on occasions discuss this, the

21 problem of allegations of criminal behaviour by Serbs?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not aware if and when this sort

23 of problem was included in the agenda of the federal government.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm curious. If the allegations were taken

25 seriously, were they not significant enough for the government to discuss

1 them, with a view to deciding how to at least present a better face to the

2 international community?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is understood that, in these

4 cases, those bodies and those institutions came into play that bore legal

5 responsibility for doing something about any crimes that were committed.

6 I am talking about the institutions of the judiciary, first and foremost,

7 as well as state investigators and prosecutors.

8 As for considering these problems at a political level, it goes

9 without saying that, in the framework of analysing the general situation

10 and problems in Kosovo and in terms of adopting general positions, the

11 government had occasion to familiarise itself with this sort of problem.

12 It also had occasion to react in an appropriate way.

13 I'm afraid I can't be more specific, simply because I can't name

14 the specific sessions or the specific dates.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp.

16 MR. STAMP:

17 Q. Sir, did the members of the government -- well, did you, for

18 example, and President Milosevic discuss the idea of razing to the ground

19 any area in respect to KLA activity?

20 A. It is understood --

21 Q. Did you or did you not? I'm sorry. We have to move a little bit

22 quickly. Did you have discussions like that?

23 A. No.

24 Q. No.

25 A. I respect the need for expedience, but it is certainly not in your

1 best interest to be denied a full answer, is it?

2 Q. Mr. Fila will no doubt ask any relevant follow-up questions, sir.

3 MR. STAMP: Could we put on the e-court P2 --

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As for your last question -- as for

5 your last question, my answer is no.

6 MR. STAMP: -- P2899, and if I could with the help of the usher

7 hand the witness a hard copy.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila.

9 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] First and foremost, can we have the

10 witness leave the courtroom for a brief while so we have a chance to

11 discuss this? One look at the document should be sufficient for you it to

12 understand why I am requesting this.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, can it be shown on our screen, first of all?

14 Mr. Jovanovic, we've been asked to invite you to leave the

15 courtroom to discuss this, and we think that's an appropriate course to

16 follow, so could you go with the usher. We'll be as quick as we can.

17 [The witness stands down]

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila.

19 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] This is a document served on us by the

20 OTP under Rule 68, exculpatory material. I'm not sure what it's supposed

21 to exculpate anyone from, but this is an intercepted conversation. You

22 can't tell, on the face of the document, who it was intercepted by or

23 when, nor what the technology was that was used. I now remind you that

24 the OTP originally had on their list witnesses who were supposed to tell

25 us who they were intercepting, who they were eavesdropping on how and

1 when, but the OTP never produced those witnesses that were promised.

2 This document, if indeed it deserves to be called a document,

3 cannot be used as a basis for this, because it shows none of the things

4 that it's supposed to tell us: Who, when, how. This is a shred of paper

5 that I don't think is worth discussing. They said they would bring

6 witnesses to tell us about these intercepts, tell us how, when, and who,

7 but they failed to do that. Therefore, I don't think this document should

8 be used. Anyone could have put it together.

9 We first set eyes on it two days ago. I'm not suggesting that

10 Mr. Stamp put this document together. That is not at all what I'm

11 suggesting.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Are you saying this was disclosed to you only two

13 days ago as Rule 68 material?

14 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right, under Rule 68 as

15 exculpatory material, without knowing exactly what it is. It's a shred of

16 paper as far as I'm concerned.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

18 Mr. Stamp.

19 MR. STAMP: Your Honours, I think the -- my learned friend is not

20 making an appropriate distinction between two matters in respect to the

21 use of documents of this nature. One is whether or not the document as it

22 is now can be used as evidence, and perhaps not. That is one question.

23 Another question is whether or not a witness can be asked a variety of

24 questions about the document, which is what the Prosecution purports to do

25 now, and this is not any witness. This witness is a lawyer, and the

1 document can be used to ask him to refresh his memory and can be used to

2 ask him if the contents are true.

3 So I submit that use of the document for cross-examination is

4 quite permissible. Whether or not the document, as it is, can be used as

5 evidence of the truth of its contents is a different question.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Have you asked him questions on which you need to

7 refresh his memory?

8 MR. STAMP: I've asked him about whether or not they discussed

9 razing an area, and I would also ask him about the circumstances

10 surrounding the purported conversation or the conversation that the

11 document purports to -- to record.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, the other matter raised with you is the time

13 of disclosure.

14 MR. STAMP: This document came to our -- has been in our records,

15 I admit that, but it came to our attention in recent searches done by what

16 is called the ISU, the search unit of the OTP.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: When was that?

18 MR. STAMP: I know within a matter of days before or maybe the

19 same day when it was disclosed. I mean, I could estimate when we received

20 it from that unit or when it was located based on the system that we have.

21 When a witness is coming, the ISU, we ask them to do searches of the

22 millions of documents that we have, and also searches in the internet on

23 that person. And sometimes it brings up documents we did not know before.

24 So the results of this search had become available to us sometime within

25 days before the witness came in, maybe sometime last week, I think.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: How long has it been in the possession of the OTP?

2 MR. STAMP: Since the 22nd of September, 2003.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: And it couldn't be said to be obvious that any

4 intercepted communication of Slobodan Milosevic might have relevance for

5 this trial.

6 MR. STAMP: I certainly think that any intercepted conversation of

7 Slobodan Milosevic in respect to Kosovo would be relevant to this trial,

8 and therefore this is on its face relevant --

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, but it makes it very strange that it has not

10 been discovered earlier. All you need to put in is Milosevic, intercepted

11 communications. Would you not to do an exhaustive search for that in the

12 course of preparing for this case.

13 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honour. I'm quite sure that searches have

14 been conducted for that on more than one occasion. It is possible when it

15 comes to searching electronic photo records, not word documents or

16 documents -- or digital documents, when the search tool has to scan the

17 document for the word, that sometimes the words are missed and the

18 technology improves every day, as it were, but I can't explain how the

19 document was missed. I just know that it happens from time to time.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

21 Mr. Fila.

22 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just one thing with. In

23 order to call something a document in a legal sense - and we are lawyers,

24 aren't we? - there must be a foundation. What I choose to call this is a

25 shred of paper. It wasn't given to me for me to investigate it, and this

1 is not the first case of something like this happening. Some witnesses we

2 received on the 15th of July, then some other witnesses were found at a

3 very late date, and then they found some additional witnesses which they

4 forwarded to us. But I'm questioning the method used because we did not

5 apply this method in dealing with them.

6 Secondly, we talked about the sensitivity of intercepts. They

7 said they would bring the people who did the actual intercepts, which they

8 failed to do. As a consequence, I am now made to suffer and bear the

9 brunt. I don't think that would be fair. They did promise that. They

10 did promise that the people who made the intercepts would be coming

11 forward on their behalf.

12 Thank you.

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE BONOMY: The document appears to have disappeared from the

15 screen. Can it be returned? Thank you.

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp, what indication is there that this is

18 authentic?

19 MR. STAMP: On the face of the document?

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, or because it's been certified or whatever.

21 MR. STAMP: The evidence unit of the OTP makes a receipt or a

22 record --

23 JUDGE BONOMY: No, I mean, when I talk about certificate, I mean

24 on the face of it. How can we tell at this point that this is an

25 authentic document?

1 MR. STAMP: The contents of the document. One is the contents of

2 the documents. It would indicate that this is a document, a record of a

3 transcript of an interview -- or a transcript of a tape recording of an

4 interview. I don't know if in these circumstances, we would expect the

5 document to be stamped or anything like that.

6 But I would concede that, on its face, there is no direct indicia

7 of authenticity of the document. And that is a matter, I respectfully

8 submit, that would weigh in an issue as to the admissibility of the

9 document later on, or the use of the contents of the document for the

10 truth there. However, the witness can be shown the document and be asked

11 about the circumstances in which a conversation might have occurred and

12 whether or not, having seen the document, he recalls the conversation and

13 what was said.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: At the moment, we're not satisfied that it was

15 necessary for you to get to this point at this time. This is a matter

16 that could have been explored orally with the witness before any question

17 of refreshing his memory arose.

18 What's the problem about dealing with it that way?

19 MR. STAMP: It could be dealt with that way.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp, we shall allow you to ask questions

22 orally of the witness and hope that the matter can be dealt with that way,

23 and we see no need at this stage for his being referred to the document,

24 so let's have the witness back, please.

25 MR. STAMP: Thank you.

1 [The witness takes the stand]

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, the document should be removed from e-court,

3 please, that's from the display.

4 Mr. Stamp.

5 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honours.

6 Q. Do you recall participating, in January 1999, in efforts to secure

7 the release of some Serb -- or some VJ personnel who were held by the KLA?

8 A. You know, it's hard for me to remember because there were a lot of

9 kidnappings - military, police, and civilian at that - by the terrorist

10 KLA. Sometimes I did have a role in seeking ways and means for these

11 persons to be set free, but most often this was done through other

12 ministries and other institutions, because I was focused on contacts with

13 foreign diplomats, primarily in Belgrade and in other countries.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: We've been given the impression that this was a

15 well-known incident in January 1999, where there had to be an exchange of

16 prisoners, and it had to be undertaken in a particularly sensitive way.

17 Do you not remember that?

18 I think eight Serb soldiers were detained, and there were a number

19 of KLA prisoners to be swapped over for them. Are you saying you don't

20 remember that?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, no. The question put

22 here was whether I took part in setting them free, not whether I remember

23 the incident.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I won't bandy words with you, Mr. Jovanovic,

25 but I think you could have answered the question in a simpler way, if you

1 do clearly remember the incident. Do you?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Proceed, Mr. Stamp.

4 MR. STAMP: Thank you.

5 Q. Do you remember making contact with diplomats in Belgrade for the

6 purpose of securing the release of the soldiers who were held?

7 A. I do not remember any specific case when I acted --

8 Q. I'm talking about the case in January 1999.

9 A. Yes. I remember that case, and it is quite possible that I was

10 involved in the process of their release, but I do not remember that this

11 was in the form of exchanging prisoners of war, because I don't know what

12 kind of prisoners of war could be involved when I do not know what the

13 warring parties are.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Jovanovic, I don't think I used the expression

15 "prisoners of war." I referred to "prisoners." If you wanted to change

16 that to some other expression, I'll happy agree to it, if we can just get

17 to the crux the matter and not get bogged down in technical definitions.

18 Mr. Stamp.

19 MR. STAMP:

20 Q. As the Foreign Minister of the federal republic, did you play any

21 part in any diplomatic discussions in relation to the release of these

22 prisoners?

23 A. I did.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, that, Mr. Jovanovic, appears to be a quite

25 different answer from one you gave a moment ago, when you said you were

1 possibly involved. Please concentrate on these questions and ensure that,

2 at the first time of asking, you answer with the full extent of your

3 knowledge.

4 Mr. Stamp.

5 MR. STAMP:

6 Q. And did you discuss your role in making contact, diplomatic

7 contact, with President Milosevic -- I withdraw the question. Let me

8 rephrase the question.

9 Did you have conversations with President Milosevic about what you

10 were doing in contacting foreign diplomats about releasing these

11 prisoners?

12 A. I do not remember that I talked to President Milosevic about that,

13 but I did everything I could in contacts along my own lines in order to

14 set the kidnapped soldiers free.

15 Q. Was there a diplomat in Belgrade at the time that you referred

16 to -- or referred to as "Miles"?

17 A. Yes. That was the charge d'affaires of the US embassy, if I

18 remember correctly.

19 Q. Did you or your ministry get in touch with Miles to discuss this

20 issue?

21 A. Possibly, because the UN diplomat had influence over the KLA.

22 Q. And, incidentally, what is Miles full name?

23 A. I could not recall. I just know it's Miles, and that he was the

24 charge d'affaires of the US --

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Let the question be answered, then we'll come back

1 to transcript problems.

2 Sorry, about that, Mr. Stamp, but I think you've got the answer,

3 though, that the witness doesn't know his full name.

4 Now, Mr. Zecevic, what's the problem.

5 MR. ZECEVIC: It's been cleared in the meantime, Your Honour. UN,

6 US.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

8 Mr. Stamp.

9 MR. STAMP:

10 Q. Do you recall telling Mr. Milosevic about the course of these

11 discussions that you were having with the Americans on the 9th of January,

12 1999?

13 A. No. I do not remember that I talked about this with President

14 Milosevic. I simply do not remember.

15 Q. Do you recall Mr. Milosevic telling you to keep Saho [sic] posted

16 about the developments?

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila.

18 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, twice, he said that he did

19 not remember talking to Mr. Milosevic. How could he remember the details

20 of something that he does not remember in the first place? This is really

21 too much now; I think, at least.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we disagree. We've considered this carefully

23 in the period we had, and we consider that to try to refresh the witness's

24 memory in this way is entirely appropriate.

25 So please continue, Mr. Stamp.

1 MR. STAMP:

2 Q. Mr. Sainovic was referred to as "Saho"; correct?

3 A. That is not correct. I am not aware of that being correct. I

4 never called him by that nickname or did I ever hear anyone call him that.

5 Q. Was he referred to as "Sajo"?

6 A. I don't know about that either. I don't know. I always called

7 him "Sainovic."

8 JUDGE BONOMY: What about other people? Did you ever hear anyone

9 else call him by a shortened form of his name or a sort of a nickname?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't hear that. I have

11 already told Your Honour that, as far as I'm concerned, my relations with

12 Sainovic were always official; and in these relations, I never used any

13 nicknames or any abbreviated versions of names.

14 MR. STAMP:

15 Q. Did you tell Mr. -- well, do you recall telling Mr. Milosevic, in

16 respect to your dealings with the Americans, that you told Mr. Sainovic

17 about it?

18 A. No, I don't remember.

19 Q. Do you recall Mr. Milosevic, if Mr. Milosevic told you, in

20 conversation about these captured soldiers, that he told Sainovic that he,

21 that is, Mr. Sainovic, could give them, that's the KLA, six hours?

22 A. No, I don't remember.

23 Q. Do you not recall in the course of this conversation Mr. Milosevic

24 saying that, "We should try this," that is, give them six hours, and, "If

25 not, we'll raze them to the ground"? Do you recall Mr. Milosevic saying

1 that at all to you?

2 A. I do not recall, or knowing President Milosevic does it seem to me

3 that he could have said anything like that.

4 Q. And do you recall suggesting to Mr. Milosevic that you should also

5 speak to the Russians about what is happening?

6 A. I do not recall.

7 Q. Did you, as a minister, contact the diplomats on behalf of Russia

8 to speak to them about what was happening?

9 A. I do not recall.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Just hold on a moment, please, Mr. Stamp.

11 [Trial Chamber confers]

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Jovanovic, I wonder if you could again leave

13 the courtroom very briefly. There is something I want to ask about this,

14 and I want to do it without your presence. There is nothing usual about

15 that course of action. I'm sorry you have had to go in and out more than

16 once, but this will be very brief.

17 THE WITNESS: It's all right.

18 [The witness stands down]

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp, do you have the actual recording of the

20 intercept?

21 MR. STAMP: No, Your Honour. I've got a transcript in the same

22 organisation that was the subject of applications that were made earlier

23 in the case.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Have you now completed the points

25 you're making to the witness from the material?

1 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: We're not inclined to allow you to place this

3 document before him, because there is no foundation for saying at this

4 stage that it is authentic. On the other hand, if you had had the

5 recording, the position would have been quite different, because you could

6 have put to the witness the question whether it was his voice. However,

7 if we've completed that, we can move to something else.

8 Bring the witness back, please.

9 [The witness takes the stand]

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you for your patience, Mr. Jovanovic.

11 Mr. Stamp.

12 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honour.

13 Q. Mr. Jovanovic, I'm going to ask you to bear with me. There are

14 some other matters I think we need to move through rather quickly in

15 regard to the time.

16 Do you remember the date that Mr. Sainovic left Rambouillet to

17 return to Belgrade for consultations?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Was this at the beginning of the talks there when the issue as to

20 the signing of the principles, the ten principles, was raised?

21 A. I remember that that happened at the moment when the

22 negotiations -- or rather, the process in Rambouillet got into a very

23 serious crisis. I remember very well that his trip had to do with

24 consultations as to how this critical point in time should be overcome in

25 order for the negotiations to continue.

1 However, with all due respect, please understand me that, as a

2 rule, I have difficulty with remembering dates, and, of course, all of

3 this happened eight years ago. So it is impossible for me to remember the

4 date or even the time frame as such.

5 Q. Very well. But it was in relation to issue of the signing or

6 non-signing of the ten principles, ten non-negotiable principles of the

7 Contact Group? Was it in relation to that that he returned to Belgrade?

8 A. I think so, yes.

9 Q. The discussions leading up to Rambouillet lasted for a period of

10 many months in 1998. Are you aware of that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Did you participate in those discussions?

13 A. In some of them in Belgrade, yes. As a rule, whenever I was in

14 the country, when I was not on foreign visits, then I did take part in

15 these talks. However, in other places like Pristina or, generally

16 speaking, places outside Belgrade, I did not take part.

17 Q. Were you aware that sometimes the Contact Group, for practical

18 purposes of achieving progress in the discussions, would sometimes hand

19 over various chapters to be discussed at different times -- or maybe I

20 should withdraw that and quote directly from the evidence.

21 In order to achieve advancement in the discussions, sometimes the

22 Contact Group had the policy of handing over draft agreements, chapter by

23 chapter, in order to hold focus and make progress, were you area of that,

24 in the course of the negotiations?

25 A. I did the not know that those were the methods used, let alone

1 that these were decisions of the Contact Group, but that is precisely what

2 was done in Rambouillet.

3 As for the integral text, it was published in a newspaper in

4 Albanian in Pristina before the negotiations in Rambouillet started.

5 Therefore, the question is why something which was basically published as

6 a integral text, as the entire text, in Pristina was being distributed

7 only in its parts in Rambouillet.

8 Q. Okay. That is not responding to any question I asked you, and I'm

9 not sure if you're asking me that. But the evidence of Mr. Petritsch is

10 that the entire text was formerly known to the parties at Rambouillet from

11 at least the 18th of February. Are you aware of that?

12 A. I'm not aware of that.

13 Q. During 1998, was the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia a member of

14 the OSCE?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And you had representatives at the OSCE headquarters in Vienna?

17 A. We had an embassy in Vienna that was at the same time in charge

18 of our relations with the OSCE.

19 Q. Now --

20 A. Your Honour, may I give a brief explanation, please?

21 Q. Of what?

22 JUDGE BONOMY: What do you feel you need to explain?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

24 was never expelled from the OSCE. Its membership rights were temporarily

25 suspended for a certain period of time.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp.

2 MR. STAMP:

3 Q. I see. Was it suspended in 1998?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Thanks. Are you aware that KVM mission reports went to the

6 headquarters in Vienna and from there were distributed to the Member

7 States, including the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?

8 A. No. I have already had occasion to tell Your Honours that one of

9 the key problems in cooperation during the KVM mission consisted in the

10 fact that the OSCE was not carrying out its obligation to deliver reports

11 of the KVM to the government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia;

12 although, this was an express provision of the agreement.

13 I also had the honour to tell Your Honours that we presented this

14 problem to the chairperson of the Ministry of the -- of Foreign Affairs of

15 Sweden, Mr. Vollebaek, in early January, 1999. And even after that

16 intervention, which is documented and which is presented to Your Honours,

17 there was no compliance with this provision by the OSCE.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Was the visit to Vollebaek made in connection with

19 his impending assumption of office at the OSCE?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Minister Vollebaek, the

21 chairperson of the OSCE, visited Belgrade just a few days after taking

22 over the chairmanship.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Yesterday, though, we read of arrangements being

24 made for a visit with a Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sweden, I think.

25 Now, was that a visit that Mr. Sainovic actually paid to Sweden, or was it

1 the reception of a delegation from Sweden in Belgrade?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I don't remember Mr. Sainovic

3 travelling to Sweden. I do know that he visited Belgium and the European

4 Union and Austria.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

6 Mr. Stamp.

7 MR. STAMP:

8 Q. Well, Witness Sandra Mitchell, who testified in this case, told us

9 of the KVM system of reporting on a weekly basis to the head office, and

10 these reports became available to the Member States. Were you aware of

11 this?

12 A. I am aware of what I stated before Your Honours, and that is that

13 reports of the KVM were not delivered to the Federal Republic of

14 Yugoslavia and that the OSCE thus violated an express provision of the

15 agreement. If there are any indicia, or if there is any evidence to the

16 contrary, I would be very happy to look at it and comment on it.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Jovanovic, just to go back to the point I asked

18 you about a moment ago, do you still have the binder of documents there?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Could you look at that tab 28, which is 2D183. Is

21 that not about a visit that Mr. Sainovic was to pay to Sweden and Denmark?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this relates to a

23 planned visit of Mr. Sainovic to Denmark and Sweden.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Did it not take place?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I remember correctly, that visit

1 did not actually take place. I can't recall the precise reason why it did

2 not materialise.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

4 Mr. Stamp.

5 MR. STAMP:

6 Q. You were shown -- sorry. You were shown the agreement that you

7 signed with Mr. Geremek on the 19th of October, 1998, in which --

8 MR. STAMP: Perhaps my friend would help me with the tab number.

9 The witness is looking for it.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, please.

11 MR. STAMP: It's P432, but I --

12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it's tab number 8.

13 MR. STAMP:

14 Q. And you referred to item 3, section 1, which reads that: "The

15 verification mission will travel throughout Kosovo to verify the

16 maintenance of the cease-fire by all elements. It will investigate

17 reports of cease-fire violations. Mission personnel will have full

18 freedom of movement and access throughout Kosovo at all times."

19 Now, you were saying that you did not -- you said that you did not

20 know what cease-fire was being referred to; and as far as you're

21 concerned, access or movement throughout Kosovo at all times did not

22 include access to VJ or MUP barracks or weapons disposition, armouries.

23 You also said that this agreement should be read in context with

24 other agreements that existed at that time.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila.

1 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] The way the question was put by

2 Mr. Stamp implies that there are two questions, in fact, contained in that

3 question, and the first one is incorrect. Mr. Stamp is saying that

4 Witness Jovanovic said that he did not know the word "cease-fire" was

5 mentioned in the agreement he drafted. He didn't say that.

6 Let's not have two questions in one. He knows his agreement off

7 by heart, I suppose.

8 MR. STAMP: I was not implying that he did not know the word

9 "cease-fire" was in the agreement, but witness did say --

10 Q. -- did you not, Mr. Jovanovic, that you didn't know what

11 cease-fire they were talking about in the agreement, what cease-fire was

12 being referred to?

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. He did say that, Mr. Stamp, that's correct.

14 So please proceed with the question.

15 MR. STAMP:

16 Q. Did you --

17 JUDGE BONOMY: You were asking --

18 MR. STAMP:

19 Q. -- know that - sorry - the UN Security Council Resolution 1199

20 called on all parties to cease hostilities, and in particular Yugoslavia

21 to cease all actions by security forces affecting the civilian population?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. In addition to that, do you not know of an agreement signed by

24 Mr. Sainovic in which he -- or the agreement provided that combined

25 police, special police trained in Kosovo, would be reduced to their

1 February 1998 duty level? This is P395 I'm referring to. Did you know of

2 that agreement, that there's an agreement?

3 It's not in your folder, I don't think. I'm just asking if you

4 know of that agreement.

5 A. Am an I a signatory of the agreement or a participant?

6 Q. No, you're not.

7 A. No. I'm not familiar with that document, but I do know that it

8 was agreed that the military and police presence in Kosovo and Metohija

9 was to be reduced, and this is also mentioned in the Moscow declaration

10 which was accepted or agreed on much earlier.

11 Q. And this was also a matter that the KVM observer team were

12 responsible to verify?

13 A. For me, as a Minister of Foreign Affairs, all the KVM powers and

14 competencies are contained solely in the agreement I signed with the

15 chairman, Geremek, not on the 19th of October --

16 Q. Yes. But --

17 A. -- but on the 16th of October. No other provisions existed for me

18 in the capacity of federal minister, nor was it my responsibility to deal

19 with anything beyond the agreement I signed with Chairman Geremek. All my

20 obligations are contained in that document -- or rather, the obligations

21 of the government I represented.

22 Q. Now --

23 A. In the provisions --

24 Q. -- I understand that. Didn't you say that this document that you

25 signed should be read along with other agreements in place at the time?

1 A. The document I signed with Mr. Geremek was self-explanatory. It

2 does not refer to any other agreements or accords.

3 Q. Yes. Just listen to me, Mr. Jovanovic --

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Do you have a page reference for this statement

5 that you're making that he said it had to be read in conjunction with

6 other agreements?

7 MR. STAMP: Not right now, Your Honour, but I could find it.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it is the quick way of getting to the point

9 in these situations, Mr. Stamp.

10 MR. STAMP:

11 Q. Anyway, do you recall saying that, and -- do you recall saying

12 that? And this needs a yes or no answer. Was it your position yesterday

13 that this agreement had to be read in context with existing agreements at

14 the time?

15 A. This agreement should be read in the light of the

16 Milosevic-Holbrooke Agreement of the 12th of October, 1998.

17 Q. Was it the position of the FRY, in 1998 and 1999, that this

18 Tribunal would have jurisdiction over war crimes that might have been

19 committed in the FRY after 1993? Was that the position on the FRY?

20 A. The position on the FRY was formulated at the time of the

21 Dayton-Paris Agreement, which said that the sides would cooperate in

22 discovering and prosecuting crimes.

23 Q. And would cooperate with this Tribunal? That's what the question

24 is about. Wasn't it the position of the FRY, when you were Foreign

25 Minister, that the FRY would cooperate with this Tribunal? Again that

1 question can be answered, "Yes, it was," or, "No, it was not."

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Do you recall, however, saying, in 2001 or 2002, after you

4 relinquished office, that the hand-over of President Milosevic to this

5 Tribunal would be, to quote you, "the ultimate treason"? Do you recall

6 saying that?

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila.

8 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] May I see the reference for that? Can

9 this be shown?

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, let's find out if the witness recognise this

11 first of all.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can you repeat the question, please?

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Do you recall saying, in 2001 or 2002, that the

14 hand-over of President Milosevic to this Tribunal would be, in your words,

15 "the ultimate treason"?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course, I spoke at many public

17 gatherings, and I cannot remember all the expressions I used; but, in

18 general, I advocated the position that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,

19 in cooperation with The Hague Tribunal, is bound to respect its own

20 constitution and its own laws.

21 MR. STAMP:

22 Q. Do you recall saying that to hand over President Milosevic to the

23 Tribunal would be -- would amount to the ultimate treason? Did you say

24 that?

25 A. I don't remember.

1 MR. STAMP: I don't have anything further for this witness. Thank

2 you very much, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Stamp.

4 Do you have re-examination, Mr. Fila?

5 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I'll try and do it in three minutes.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you're under no pressure. It's a matter for

7 you.

8 MR. FILA: [In English] No, no, no. [Interpretation] We'll see

9 how it goes.

10 Re-examination by Mr. Fila:

11 Q. Mr. Jovanovic, one of Mr. Stamp's question was when Yugoslavia's

12 membership in the OSCE was suspended, but you were interrupted when you

13 were replying. Can you tell me when this happened?

14 A. This happened in 1992 at the OSC conference in Budapest when the

15 suspension of the membership rights of the FRY was done by violating the

16 principle of consensus, and almost inexplicably the position was adopted

17 of consensus minus one.

18 Q. And how long did this situation last?

19 A. Until the political changes that took place in Serbia in the year

20 2000.

21 Q. Thank you.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a clarify that. Was it the FRY's membership

23 that was suspended, or was it the Socialist Federal Republic's membership

24 that was suspended?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The membership rights of Yugoslavia

1 were suspended because, at that time, the Socialist Federative Republic of

2 Yugoslavia was breaking up.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

4 Mr. Fila.

5 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]

6 Q. The Prosecutor asked you about crimes against -- or rather, crimes

7 committed by Serbs in 1998. Do you know of a single crime committed by

8 Serbs in 1998?

9 A. No.

10 Q. Perhaps Obrinje?

11 A. I remember the name from the media, yes.

12 Q. Nothing else?

13 A. No, nothing else.

14 Q. Do you remember crimes against Serbs; for example, Klecka,

15 Radonjic -- or Lake Radonjic?

16 A. Yes, I remember these crimes.

17 Q. Thank you. And my last question, and then we'll have a break:

18 The Prosecutor asked you whether Sainovic reported to you about his

19 contacts and conversations while he was at Kosovo. Was it his duty to

20 inform you of who he was meeting and what he was talking about?

21 A. Yes, of course. He used professionals from the Ministry of

22 Foreign Affairs as logistics, and they sent reports after every

23 conversation.

24 Q. And if he spoke to, for example, a municipal president, did he

25 have to inform you of that?

1 A. No. He did not have to, and he didn't.

2 Q. And this refers to the army, the police?

3 A. That's right.

4 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions.

5 MR. STAMP: Your Honours, the re-examination moved so speedily in

6 Serbian that I could not interpose an objection in respect to the question

7 at line 58, 1, that prefaced by saying that I asked Mr. Sainovic whether

8 he reported to Mr. Jovanovic. I did not ask Mr. Sainovic whether he

9 reported to Mr. Jovanovic.

10 But the thing is that the answer is "yes," which raises something

11 quite new which did not flow from anything I asked. And if the answer is

12 yes, he reported to Mr. Jovanovic, I would ask to inquire further into

13 that after the break.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila, what do you have to say about that?

15 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] There are two types of contacts in

16 question. When Sainovic had contacts with diplomats, he used the services

17 of the outposts and he spoke about this to Mr. Jovanovic, but my

18 question --

19 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't want you to explain things of that nature

20 in the presence of the witness. The question is: Do you have any

21 objection to Mr. Stamp exploring further the communications that took

22 place from Sainovic to him.

23 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] No.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we will do that after we've had the break.

25 Again, please, Mr. Jovanovic, would you leave the courtroom with

1 the usher, and you should return -- well, you'll come back at 10 minutes

2 to 1.00, when we shall resume.

3 [The witness stands down]

4 --- Recess taken at 12.23 p.m.

5 --- On resuming at 12.51 p.m.

6 [The witness takes the stand]

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp, or who is taking over?

8 MS. GOPALAN: Mr. Stamp is on his way down. I'm trying to reach

9 him at present, if we could just have a moment, please. Thank you.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: He normally returns, Mr. Jovanovic. I doubt if

11 you've scored a direct hit.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am not that malicious, Your

13 Honour.

14 MS. GOPALAN: Your Honours, he's just on his way down. I

15 apologise for the slight delay.

16 MR. STAMP: Your Honours, I do apologise. Somehow I got the times

17 mixed up. I think we've been having the long day so often I assumed it

18 was a one-hour break, and that is how --

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I hope you're not suffering from indigestion.

20 We shall allow you to explore the matter you raised at the end of the last

21 session.

22 Further cross-examination by Mr. Stamp:

23 Q. What I understand or it seemed to me what you were saying, and

24 tell me if I am right, is that you were saying Mr. Sainovic had a duty or

25 obligation to make -- to report to you?

1 A. I'm afraid, with all due respect, that you misunderstood me. I

2 respect that you're busy with a number of different subjects, but you

3 misunderstood me. The deputy prime minister does not, as a rule, submit

4 reports to any minister in the government. However, what is at stake here

5 is information and conversations that Deputy Prime Minister Sainovic had

6 with foreign diplomats in Kosovo and Metohija or elsewhere, for that

7 matter.

8 These reports were produced by professionals employed by the

9 Federal Foreign Ministry, and these were the people providing the

10 logistics it, as it were, in addition to the deputy prime minister.

11 [In English] These are not reports but information.

12 Q. And it's information about the activities and foreign affairs on

13 the diplomatic front; is that correct? Is that what you're saying?

14 A. [Interpretation] Yes.

15 Q. I'm sorry, I think I misunderstood your answer before the break.

16 Very well.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Stamp.

18 [Trial Chamber confers]

19 Questioned by the Court:

20 JUDGE CHOWHAN: Well, it's a political science [Realtime

21 transcript read in error "politicised"] question more than anything else.

22 I was wondering how did you arrive at a consensus within the cabinet and

23 how deliberations went there on issues for the relevant time which was

24 very crucial and tumultuous and all things were brought in and how were

25 these resolved? If you could throw some light on the working of the

1 cabinet, that's very kind and thank you very much, sir.

2 A. Your Honour, if I may, I would like to say that Kosovo and

3 Metohija is the single most important state and national problem in both

4 Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. A consensus always existed

5 about this issue, even prior to the democratic changes in 2000; just as

6 today, there is a consensus by all major political parties in Serbia on

7 ways to find a peaceful political solution.

8 There were no substantial differences as far as essential issues

9 were concerned between the different members of the government, members of

10 the cabinet, or between the different ministries. They -- there may have

11 been subtle differences but never any disagreement on the essence of the

12 entire problem. Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia always

13 wanted to achieve a lasting peace and stability in that part of South-east

14 Europe, in that part of Serbia and Yugoslavia.

15 The cabinet was fully aware that this was the only way forward to

16 greater economic prosperity and stability, and that only in this way would

17 Serbia soon be on its way to Europe and to the renewal of its membership

18 in all European and international organisations. There was the awareness

19 that peace in Kosovo and Metohija was a precondition of any future

20 prosperity in Yugoslavia, and this awareness existed throughout my time as

21 a member of the cabinet.

22 As a citizen of Serbia, I do have to express my deep satisfaction

23 that such a consensus exists even as we speak.

24 JUDGE CHOWHAN: When there was an agreement at Rambouillet, was it

25 brought to the attention of the cabinet; and if so, did the cabinet take a

1 decision on that and was that voiced? Thank you, sir.

2 A. Your Honour, this may strike you as my personal private position,

3 but it was the position of my government, the cabinet of which I was a

4 member. There was no agreement that was reached in Rambouillet. It is a

5 pleasure to hear that Your Honour is inquiring about the political and

6 social aspects, which gives me an opportunity to say this: Any agreement

7 implies a consensus and goodwill on the part of all parties to

8 negotiations.

9 In Paris and in Rambouillet, there was no consensus, regrettably I

10 have to say, since Rambouillet was later used as a pretext for NATO's

11 aggression against Yugoslavia.

12 As for Rambouillet, I personally submitted a report to the federal

13 government about the problems and about the substance of the talks. There

14 is an official document which is included in this set of documents, and

15 this reflects accurately what position were is taken by the federal

16 government vis-a-vis the report.

17 Nothing about the so-called negotiations at Rambouillet and Paris,

18 nothing about the positions taken by Serbia and Yugoslavia, was a secret,

19 a secret for the public in Serbia or for the international public for that

20 matter. All information was accessible: The strategies, the various

21 causes, and the various problems. I believe this is the situation that

22 still prevails today.

23 I sincerely hope that this clarity will contribute to a lasting

24 peaceful solution, which would be a good reflection of the efforts made by

25 Serbia as we speak.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: I think, Mr. Jovanovic, you may have misunderstood

2 a part of that question. There were elements of the Rambouillet agreement

3 on which there were no differences. Were these, on which there was some

4 agreement, considered by the cabinet, and I think Judge Chowhan was

5 anxious to know what the cabinet's reaction was. Did they approve of

6 these or was there a different view taken among any members of the

7 cabinet?

8 A. Your Honour, the federal government was the recipient of a full,

9 extensive analysis and a very thorough information on both what happened

10 in Rambouillet and Paris and on the result and the substance of the

11 document conditionally referred to as the Rambouillet agreement.

12 By your leave, and this may be an unacceptable thing for me to

13 say, but the agreement exists as a whole or not at all.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. There is one other minor matter to

15 resolve. Line 61 -- sorry, page 61, line 2, the question Judge Chowhan

16 asked was prefaced by the words it's a "political science question," not

17 "a politicised question."

18 JUDGE CHOWHAN: Thank you, sir.

19 Mr. Jovanovic, that completes your evidence. Thank you for coming

20 here to give us the benefit of your involvement in these various events.

21 You are now free to leave. Thank you.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

23 [The witness withdrew]

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila.

25 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, our next witness is Milan

1 Jovanovic. He's somewhere in the Tribunal building.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: There was some question over the 65 ter notice in

3 relation to him. Is there any --

4 Mr. Stamp, there was a request to amend the 65 ter notice in

5 relation to the next witness in relation to that? Is there any problem

6 with that?

7 MR. STAMP: No.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: We'll allow that.

9 [The witness entered court]

10 WITNESS: MILAN JOVANOVIC

11 [Witness answered through interpreter]

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Good afternoon, Mr. Jovanovic. You should have

13 earphones, I think, if -- good afternoon, Mr. Jovanovic.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Would you please make the solemn declaration to

16 speak the truth by reading allowed the document which you will now be

17 shown.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

19 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Please be seated. You will now be

21 examined by Mr. Fila on behalf of Mr. Sainovic.

22 Mr. Fila.

23 Examination by Mr. Fila:

24 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir.

25 A. Good afternoon.

1 Q. Can you state your name, please. Share your personal information

2 with us, sir.

3 A. My name is Milan Jovanovic. I was born on the 12th of March 1958

4 in Tuzla. I went to elementary and secondary school in Lukavac in the

5 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I graduated, took my MA degree and my

6 Ph.D. at the Faculty of Political Sciences in Belgrade. Having completed

7 my education, I worked at the Institute for Political Research, and I

8 worked for a number of different political organisations. For four years,

9 I worked as the director of the -- the republican directorate for property

10 of the Republic of Serbia. I was also the manager of the public company

11 of the Official Gazette of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

12 Since 1998, I have been working at the Faculty of Political

13 Sciences, which is attached to the Belgrade University. I am an associate

14 professor, and I teach a subject called "Serbia's Political System."

15 Q. What did you do in the Socialist Party of Serbia?

16 A. Since its very foundation, I have performed different tasks in the

17 party. Between 1990 and 1993, I worked as a consultant in the Commission

18 for Theoretical Work and an advisor to the Committee for Foreign Affairs.

19 I was also the chef de cabinet of the deputy president of the SPS.

20 Between 1993 and 2000, I worked as secretary of the Technical

21 Services Section for the Main Board of the SPS. This is a position that

22 I, as expert, was appointed to the Executive Board of the Socialist Party

23 of Serbia.

24 Q. What about your involvement in the SPS? Was it a professional

25 involvement or a political one?

1 A. It was professional. For a brief while in 2000, between the 4th

2 and the 5th Congresses, I was also a member of the Main and Executive

3 Boards of the SPS.

4 Q. Did you attend meetings of the Main Board, the Executive Board, or

5 any other very important Working Groups or bodies of the SPS?

6 A. Yes. I attended meetings of the Main and Executive Boards between

7 1993 and 2000. I attended most of the sessions. In my capacity as

8 secretary, before the Technical Services, I was duty-bound to attend. I

9 had close ties to the Secretary-General of the SPS who headed the

10 Executive Board. It was for this reason that I was involved in the work

11 of these bodies.

12 Q. So what about the Main Board do as opposed to the Executive Board?

13 A. As opposed to the Main Board, the Executive Board was the

14 executive body of the Main Board of the Socialist Party of Serbia.

15 Q. Were minutes taken at the meetings of the Main Board and the

16 Executive Board of the SPS?

17 A. Yes. Minutes were taken and records were drawn up from the

18 meetings of the Main Board and the Executive Board of the SPS. These are

19 documents that at every meeting of the Main Board or the Executive Board

20 would first be adopted. The minutes from the previous meeting would first

21 be adopted because they reflected any discussion that took place during

22 that previous meeting; therefore, these documents were then adopted.

23 Q. In relation to the position which you held in the SPS, did you

24 have any insight into the documents, the developments, and the political

25 ideas of the SPS at the time you spent working there?

1 A. Yes. I had an insight into all the essential political documents

2 of the SPS at the time. I was directly involved in producing many drafts

3 and documents of many different kinds, starting with various types of

4 analysis, presentations, communiques, the statute itself; therefore, I am

5 familiar with all of the SPS's policies.

6 Q. How were these communiques or announcements following meetings of

7 the Main Board and Executive Board of the SPS produced?

8 A. Most frequently, I was directly involved in the drafting and

9 production of these documents. Our bodies in the SPS, the Main Board and

10 the Executive Board, our bodies were a great number of members. The Main

11 Board comprised up to 250 people, and the Executive Board comprised up to

12 35 persons. The various Working Groups or bodies would normally number

13 between 20 and 50 members.

14 The official communiques or announcements would always reflect the

15 gist of what was discussed at any of the meetings. It was simply

16 impossible for one thing to be discussed and another to be communicated;

17 and after all, there was no need for that. The SPS was a party organised

18 along democratic lines and not some sort of conspiratorial cell.

19 If you bear in mind the fact that very often a large number of

20 vice-presidents, presidents and secretaries were involved in these bodies

21 - I'm talking about municipal level, the district level, and the

22 provincial level, the boards at municipal provincial and district levels -

23 then it becomes clear that a large number of people were involved in the

24 drafting of those documents.

25 The concept of a mass party, the party for the masses, implies

1 that we have permanent communication with our boards. The boards were

2 sending all sorts of contributions to the headquarters of the party, and

3 they always reacted positively to our communiques. They related to all

4 our positions. They could relate to all our positions. Had that not been

5 the case, they certainly would have raised some -- some sort of a protest.

6 Q. And now for the benefit of the Chamber and everybody else

7 listening, can you please briefly explain the way the SPS was organised,

8 specifically the Main Board and the Executive Board. How exactly did that

9 work?

10 A. The Congress is the supreme body of the SPS. The Congress would

11 meet once every four years or earlier if needed. At the Congress, a

12 president would be elected, the Main Board, and the statutory and

13 supervisory commission. Between any two Congress meetings, the Main Board

14 was the supreme body of the party. It appointed the members of the

15 Executive Board, the Secretary-General, and all the vice-presidents.

16 Q. Were there any commissions or such like?

17 A. Yes. The Main Board would appoint members to all these various

18 bodies, such as commissions, councils, that sort of thing.

19 Q. Who had the power to make nominations for the post of

20 vice-president of the SPS?

21 A. The person with the power to do that under the statute was the

22 president of the Socialist Party of Serbia. He was the principal

23 proposer, in a manner of speaking, and he had sole right to nominate

24 candidates and table these nominations to the Main Board. He could also

25 propose what powers they might or might not have, and he could also

1 propose that certain people be dismissed from that post.

2 Q. We know that this person was Slobodan Milosevic, so what was his

3 influence on the overall activity and work of the SPS?

4 A. President Slobodan Milosevic enjoyed a large degree of authority

5 and influence over the work of the SPS.

6 Q. Did he chair any of the bodies?

7 A. Yes, the Main Board.

8 Q. So how were conclusions adopted by the Main Board of the SPS?

9 A. Before every meeting, certain persons were appointed to make

10 reports in different fields; usually, it was the Secretary-General or some

11 of the members of the Main Board or Executive Board who was well-versed in

12 terms of the subjects that were discussed, that were on the agenda.

13 These rapporteurs had the role of moderators as well during the

14 debate. They familiarised the board with the items that were on the

15 agenda; and then after their reports, there would be a debate, sometimes

16 longer, sometimes shorter.

17 Once the debate was over, it would be summarised by the president

18 of the party, Slobodan Milosevic. Conclusions were proposed by the

19 rapporteurs and by the participants in the discussion; however, he finally

20 summarised the discussion and proposed conclusions to the Main Board. The

21 Main Board would state its views by way of a vote, and then the

22 conclusions would be adopted.

23 Q. What was the dominant subject in this period of time that we're

24 talking about, in this period of 1998, 1999?

25 A. In that period, the dominant subject was the situation in Kosovo

1 and Metohija: The economic situation, the activities of the government,

2 and of our parliamentary group in the national assembly.

3 Q. What about the Executive Board of the SPS? What did they do and

4 what did they take decisions on?

5 A. The Executive Board had up to 35 members. All of them

6 individually had specific assignments in specific fields, and they

7 followed the work of district and municipal committees. It mainly dealt

8 with carrying out decisions by the Main Board. The Executive Board made

9 its decisions through public ballot, and they were as a rule adopted

10 unanimously.

11 Slobodan Milosevic did not chair meetings of the Executive Board.

12 That was done bit Secretary-General of the SPS.

13 Q. What about regional representation in the Executive Board? Were

14 there representatives from all parts of the country?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Now I would like to ask you to explain to us the participation of

17 the SPS in government and in coalitions at the level of the republic and

18 at the level of the federation in the period up to 1999 -- the end of

19 1999.

20 A. After the first elections in 1990, when the SPS formed a single

21 party government, all other elections resulted in a way that led to the

22 creation of coalition governments. After the elections in 1992, there was

23 a minority government whose term was short; and then after 1993, a

24 government was formed with the party called New Democracy, one of the

25 coalition partners parties Depos coalition.

1 After the 1997 elections, at the level of the Republic of Serbia,

2 a broader coalition was formed. There was a national unity government

3 with the Serb Radical Party and the Yugoslav Left, respectively.

4 At federal level, from the very moment the Federal Republic of

5 Yugoslavia was constituted, there were coalition governments. As for the

6 other republic that was a member of the federation, that is to say

7 Montenegro, the coalition partner was the Democratic Party of Socialists.

8 After the split in that party in 1997, the SPS formed a coalition

9 with the Socialist Party, The Socialist People's Party from Montenegro, a

10 political party that advocated the further existence of the Federal

11 Republic of Yugoslavia.

12 Different coalitions at federal and republican levels required a

13 subtle pursuit of policy and far more tolerance within the legislation and

14 government because a broader consensus had to be built in order for

15 decisions to be made.

16 Q. As you already said, Kosovo and Metohija were always a priority in

17 SPS activities. How did it come about that a Main Board session was held

18 on the 10th [Realtime transcript read in error "12th"] of June, 1998?

19 JUDGE BONOMY: The word used was "Kosovo and Metohija were always

20 a priority in SPS activities," and that's in line 21. Yes.

21 Please answer the question now.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That session was held in an

23 atmosphere when there was an escalation of terrorist attacks in Kosovo and

24 Metohija. Every day there were news about attacks against public

25 institutions, about assassinations of public servants, police, the

1 military, post offices, waterworks, et cetera.

2 The terrorists blocked roads; and, in this way, practically

3 blocked 40 per cent of the territory of that province. Every day they

4 placed roadblocks on these roads, kidnapped citizens, murdered them, and

5 wounded them. Such news were coming in every day from that region.

6 Many citizens were forced to leave their homes, which was the

7 objective of the terrorists. Every day, from the Albanian border, large

8 quantities of war materiel and weapons were brought in from the Republic

9 of Albanians, which showed that the terrorists were preparing an

10 escalation of conflict in the province.

11 The right assessment would be that panic prevailed among the

12 citizens, and they raised the question of whether the state was capable of

13 protecting them and insuring a normal peaceful life in the province and

14 whether indeed the date wanted to do that.

15 In this kind of an atmosphere, the session that you mentioned was

16 held, the session of the Main Board.

17 Q. What was the position of Serbs in the territory of Metohija?

18 A. The position of Serbs in the territory of Metohija was such that

19 they were the most threatened ethnic group. However, terrorists were

20 displaying violence against the members of other ethnic groups as well,

21 including Albanians who did not want to join them and who remained loyal

22 to the policy of and the state of the Republic of Serbia.

23 Q. I have a problem with the transcript. The transcript says that

24 the special was held on the "12th," and it was actually held on the 10th

25 of June, 1998.

1 Do you have that binder?

2 A. It was here, but I don't see it now.

3 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Could he please have it.

4 Q. Could you please look at tab 12 now. P1012 is the exhibit number,

5 and could you tell us what this document is?

6 A. This is a joint proposal --

7 Q. Sorry. There's been some kind of a mistake. That's not it. I am

8 sorry. Wrong number. I am sorry. There has been a mistake in terms of

9 the numbers. Yes. Now we're going to have a look at -- it is tab 8.

10 Sorry. Mistake. Tab 8.

11 A. These are minutes of the 16th Session of the Main Board of the

12 Socialist Party of Serbia held on the 10th of June 1998.

13 Q. The first question I'd like to put to you is: Who made the

14 introductory report, and how did the debate develop at that session?

15 A. Three reports were submitted there by Gorica Gajevic,

16 Secretary-General; Prime Minister Mirko Marjanovic; and as for the

17 situation in Kosovo and Metohija, a report was made by Milomir Minic.

18 Q. Who was what?

19 A. He was a member of the Main Board of the Socialist Party of Serbia

20 and of the Executive Board in that period.

21 Q. Did he have a particular position in the Assembly?

22 A. Yes. He was president of the Chamber of citizens in the national

23 assembly.

24 Q. Was Mr. Sainovic present, and did he take part in debate at this

25 session where Kosovo was discussed?

1 A. Yes. He was present, but he did not take part in the debate.

2 Q. Thank you. Could you tell us now what the conclusions were that

3 were reached by that particular meeting of the Main Board of the SPS?

4 Could you look at page 3 of the minutes, and could you tell us then what

5 the ways and means were for finding a solution to this?

6 A. This session of the Main Board was practically -- practically

7 adopted a platform for the policy of the SPS vis-a-vis Kosovo and

8 Metohija. Briefly, it was based on a few fundamental principles:

9 First, that all problems have to be resolved by peaceful means,

10 political means, through direct dialogue among all the ethnic communities

11 living in Kosovo and Metohija.

12 Furthermore, that dialogues should start straight away without any

13 pre-conditions.

14 Thirdly, that a solution for Kosovo and Metohija should be based

15 on a broadest possible autonomy that would take into account all standards

16 pertaining to human rights, civic rights, and the rights of national

17 minorities, too. In this way, it would fully be in line with documents

18 adopted by international organisations.

19 Also, this was supposed to be organised in a way that would

20 prevent the possibility of any kind of out-voting or discrimination on

21 ethnic grounds.

22 The next principle pertained to condemning violence as a method of

23 attaining political goals.

24 And, finally, that platform contained a position stating that the

25 international community was called upon in order to include Serbia and the

1 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in international integration processes as

2 soon as possible, because this would send a signal to the terrorists that

3 violence would not be tolerated in Kosovo and Metohija.

4 Q. European processes?

5 A. European and international.

6 Q. The Main Board of the SPS, at this meeting of the 10th of June,

7 1998, did it make any special decisions? Could you look at page 4,

8 paragraph 1.

9 A. Yes. The Main Board established a Working Group in order to speed

10 up a solution for Kosovo and Metohija. It consists of Milomir Minic,

11 Dusko Matkovic, and Zoran Andjelkovic.

12 I already mentioned that the first person was a member of the Main

13 Board, the Executive Board, president of the Chamber of citizens of the

14 Federal Assembly.

15 Mr. Matkovic was vice-president of the Socialist Party of Serbia,

16 a Member of Parliament, and the director of a big company, the Smederevo

17 Steelworks.

18 Zoran Andjelkovic was a member of the Main Board, an MP, and a

19 minister and activist with a lot of experience on the ground.

20 Q. And who headed this group?

21 A. Milomir Minic headed this group.

22 Q. That can be seen from the text.

23 A. Right.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Jovanovic, earlier in your evidence, you said

25 that Working Groups normally consisted of 20 to 50 members. Was this a

1 very unusual Working Group?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was referring to the councils and

3 commissions of the Main Board. These were broader bodies charged with

4 various areas, such as agriculture, foreign affairs, health care, welfare,

5 and so on, and they were more numerous. These were permanent working

6 bodies, either of the Main Board or of the Executive Board.

7 The Main Board set up Working Groups like this one whenever there

8 were problems in a certain domain. That's why this was not unusual, and

9 this was the number of members such groups usually had.

10 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Does it say here that it can be broadened? Would you read what it

12 says?

13 A. There is a possibility here for this group to be extended and to

14 include cadres from other parts of the republic.

15 This was done in a particular way. Each district committee was in

16 charge of a certain area in cooperation with our party committees in

17 Kosovo and Metohija.

18 Q. Why was this set up?

19 A. The main reason why this Working Group was set up was to seek a

20 political solution in Kosovo and Metohija, to calm down the situation, and

21 to find a way of solving the issues. This team which joined them was

22 working on the strength of their political and personal authority in

23 Kosovo and Metohija.

24 They carried out consultations, talked to citizens, various party

25 fora. They were not in a position to suspend or substitute other existing

1 state or party organs in Kosovo. They were simply there to assist them in

2 their work.

3 Q. And what was their obligation towards the party headquarters in

4 Belgrade?

5 A. Their duty was to submit regular reports on their work to the

6 party headquarters, as well as report on the situation in Kosovo and

7 Metohija, the standpoints expressed by the citizens and activists they

8 met, and so on.

9 Q. Would you please tell us how long this team spent in Kosovo and

10 Metohija? How long was it there?

11 A. This team spent the most time in Kosovo and Metohija in the course

12 of the summer, until the end of the anti-terrorist activities in

13 September. After that time, there was no longer an intense need for their

14 work.

15 Q. You mentioned anti-terrorist actions. When was this and what were

16 the consequences?

17 A. These anti-terrorist actions took place in September, and they led

18 to the pacifying of the situation in Kosovo and Metohija so that there was

19 no longer any need for the activity of the team.

20 Q. After the end of these anti-terrorist operations, were some sort

21 of agreements reached in Yugoslavia?

22 A. Yes. Agreements were concluded between Milosevic and Holbrooke,

23 Jovanovic and Geremek. The arrival of the verification of the OSCE was

24 imminent, and the situation became calmer. One could see a political

25 outcome ahead, a political denouement. So there was no longer any need

1 for that team to work.

2 Q. To the best of your knowledge, when was the last time the team

3 spent in Kosovo and Metohija?

4 A. In late October. I think that was the last time they visited

5 Kosovo and Metohija. They attended a session of the Regional Board.

6 Q. A SPS Regional Board?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Was that the end of their work?

9 A. Yes. That was the end of their work; although, in the course of

10 September, the team had been a lot less active because they had other

11 obligations also. So they visited Kosovo and Metohija less often.

12 Q. Was this team in any functional connection with other state organs

13 or individuals engaged in official business for the state or was it only

14 linked to the party?

15 A. No. This team was exclusively connected to the organs of the

16 Socialist Party of Serbia in functional terms.

17 Q. Did any of these three members of the team that you mentioned

18 remain in Kosovo and Metohija after what you said, after October 1998?

19 A. Zoran Andjelkovic remained but in the capacity of president of the

20 Executive Board. He was appointed by the national assembly of the

21 Republic of Serbia to that position. From that point on, he was a state

22 official and no longer had any party tasks.

23 Q. So when he was appointed by the national assembly he became the

24 president of the regional Executive Board. That was a provisional

25 Executive Board?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Of Kosovo and Metohija?

3 A. Yes.

4 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have a few more

5 questions, but I think this might be a convenient moment to break for the

6 day.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: When you say a "few more," you're not near the end

8 of the examination, are you, or are you?

9 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] No.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

11 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] But I'm not far from the end.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Jovanovic, we have to end our session for the

13 day at this time because this court is occupied now by another case. That

14 means, regrettably, that you have to come back tomorrow. That will be at

15 9.00 tomorrow morning.

16 Meanwhile, it's very important that overnight, between now and

17 coming back here, you have no discussions with anyone about the evidence

18 in this case. You can discuss anything else with whoever you like, but

19 you must have no discussion about anyone at all about the evidence.

20 Now, could you please leave the courtroom with the usher, and we

21 will see you again tomorrow at 9.00.

22 [The witness stands down]

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp, there was just one other matter. It may

24 be only Mr. Hannis knows the answer, but there's been a recent application

25 by Mr. Fila for videolink in relation to another of his witnesses who has

1 suffered recent incapacity. Do you know yet whether the Prosecution have

2 anything to say on that question?

3 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honour. We are just making one inquiry. We

4 probably will have an answer this afternoon later tomorrow and indicate

5 our position then.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Well if you could convey the answer when you get it

7 we should be in a position to get it with a view to that evidence being

8 taken at the same time as the other videolink evidence if appropriate.

9 MR. STAMP: [Microphone not activated].

10 JUDGE BONOMY: 9.00 tomorrow morning.

11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,

12 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 22nd day

13 of August, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25