Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 16104

1 Friday, 21 September 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Sepenuk, I gather you wish to raise something

6 before we continue with the witness.

7 MR. SEPENUK: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you very much. It concerns

8 the testimony yesterday of Colonel Milovan Vlajkovic, and specifically

9 matters that came up in the cross-examination by Mr. Ackerman and concerns

10 what we regard as the improper use of Exhibit P1696 which was the RTS

11 television report of a meeting of May 4th, 1999, attended by Mr. Milosevic

12 and a number of other officials, some unnamed, but General Ojdanic,

13 General Pavkovic, General Lukic, and Mr. Milutinovic, and we're moving to

14 strike that portion of the testimony, Your Honours, and I will now mention

15 why.

16 Mr. Ackerman quoted extensively from this television --

17 JUDGE BONOMY: [Microphone not activated].

18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

19 MR. SEPENUK: So starts on page 69, line 9 --

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we already have it updated so --


22 JUDGE BONOMY: When roughly was it in the course of the day,

23 two-thirds of the way through or --

24 MR. SEPENUK: Yeah, roughly, I would say that would be about

25 right, Your Honour.

Page 16105

1 JUDGE BONOMY: 3D, sorry --

2 MR. SEPENUK: The exhibit is P1696, and that's the R -- the RTS

3 television report.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Do you know if it was in the last session, 16.080.

5 Please continue.

6 MR. SEPENUK: Thank you, Your Honour. And Mr. Ackerman quoted

7 extensively from this P1696 and he said, among other things, the security

8 forces dealt with numerous cases of violence, I'm going to paraphrase

9 here, killings, pillage and other crimes. The state authorities legally

10 and in an unbiased manner carried out their duties, it was concluded that

11 these measures had made such actions impossible and it went on to say

12 military courts acting in accordance with the proceedings envisaged in war

13 conditions have already passed a large number of sentences ranging from

14 five to 20 years' imprisonment for the crimes committed.

15 Now, Mr. Ackerman apparently assumed the truth of what was

16 contained in this article and said to the witness on cross-examination why

17 didn't General Ojdanic pass this on to the collegium. We say this was

18 improper for several reasons.

19 First, P1696 at that point in the case had not been admitted into

20 evidence as an exhibit. It's ironic to note that Mr. Ackerman in his

21 Pavkovic response to the OTP's second request for admission of exhibits

22 from the bar table objected to a proposed OTP exhibit which was a

23 newspaper article, and in his objection noted: "OTP P1010 is an

24 inadmissible newspaper article. The Trial Chamber has held that newspaper

25 articles are inadmissible and unreliable."

Page 16106

1 And Mr. Ackerman in making that statement correctly referred to

2 transcript 8561, 8562 of the record. And at that time, Your Honour, this

3 was on January 17th, 2007, Mr. Cepic --

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Sepenuk, there's a difference between what

5 Mr. Ackerman may assert as a question and what the evidence in this case

6 is. Now, this witness yesterday made it clear that he knew nothing about

7 any of this, and it doesn't amount to any evidence in this case at this

8 stage. We have a rather different approach from perhaps what has always

9 been traditional in this institution of seeing that there can be value in

10 a document to understand the answer to the question without necessarily

11 treating the document as having any probative value in itself. This is

12 one of these examples. We've made it clear what we think of reports of

13 newspaper or television or radio but it doesn't mean it can't be a

14 foundation for a question.

15 MR. SEPENUK: But the document, Your Honour, has no relevance

16 unless we assume the truth of what was in it because he asked the witness,

17 Mr. Ackerman asked the witness why didn't General Ojdanic pass this

18 information on to the collegium, and we're going to show by evidence in

19 this case that the reason he didn't pass this on to the collegium is that

20 most of those evidence in -- most of those statements in that report were

21 false --

22 JUDGE BONOMY: The answer to the question was --

23 MR. SEPENUK: -- and misleading.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: But the answer to the question is do you know why it

25 was? No, I don't. End of story.

Page 16107

1 MR. SEPENUK: But it assumes the truth of what is in the article

2 as if General Ojdanic did something improper and we shouldn't have to

3 rebut that, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: It's not part of the evidence in this case unless

5 someone has agreed with it. On what basis -- bearing in mind all we've

6 said so far, could you regard that as positive evidence of the facts set

7 out in the article?

8 MR. SEPENUK: Well, I certainly don't.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you can't if you follow the rules we've been

10 following.

11 MR. SEPENUK: So is it my understanding, Your Honour -- maybe I've

12 misunderstood. Is it my understanding that this exhibit will have no

13 weight whatsoever in your consideration of this case?

14 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm about to ask Mr. Ackerman for his comment, but

15 on the face of it unless -- you've told me it hasn't been admitted, it's

16 been used only for this purpose, the answer to the question was no, I

17 don't and therefore there appears to be no positive evidence emanating

18 from the use of this article at this stage in the case.

19 MR. SEPENUK: Nor do I think that Your Honour should give any

20 weight whatsoever to the answer of Colonel Vlajkovic that this was not --

21 that General Ojdanic didn't somehow turn over this information which we

22 regard as false to the collegium. That should also be stricken.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I don't think that's what he said. He said

24 that there were no reports at -- referred to in the minutes and briefings

25 until early June.

Page 16108

1 MR. SEPENUK: The question was, Your Honour: "And you know,

2 didn't you," this is Mr. Ackerman. "And you knew, didn't you, that there

3 was an important issue that was being discussed in the western press and

4 an issue was being made about it. My question to you that you didn't

5 answer is: Do you know why General Ojdanic failed to take steps to deal

6 with that," in other words, assuming the truth of what was in the article,

7 do you know why he failed to take steps to deal with that and failed to

8 report it to the collegium, a grossly unfair question.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, two things: The witness's answer does not

10 assume the truth of the question -- the events referred to in the

11 question; and secondly, you should have objected at the time if that was

12 your position.

13 MR. SEPENUK: That was my position -- let me tell you why I didn't

14 object, Your Honour. I didn't object for a few reasons. One is --

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, do we need to --

16 MR. SEPENUK: I want to explain that for the record. You asked

17 me, Your Honour, and I want to explain for the record why I didn't object.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: You know you're using your own valuable time here.

19 MR. SEPENUK: I think it's important, Your Honour. We'll take our

20 chances on that. And I didn't object because for one thing, I didn't even

21 know about this article until Mr. Ackerman brought it pup. And the second

22 thing, I just assumed -- Mr. Ackerman is a respected colleague and I don't

23 like to interfere with a respected colleague if he regards this as

24 essential for his case. Frankly, we should have objected, but I go on the

25 theory, Your Honour, it's never too late to do the right thing and I'm

Page 16109

1 objecting now while Mr. -- while Colonel Vlajkovic is still here.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: The respected ones, Mr. Sepenuk, are usually -- are

3 the ones most likely to be pushing the boundaries. They know that their

4 job is to push the boundaries as far as they can.

5 MR. SEPENUK: I don't like to assume that about my fellow counsel,

6 Your Honour.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Some would say --

8 MR. SEPENUK: And in any event --

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Some might say they aren't doing their duty unless

10 they do it.

11 MR. SEPENUK: Well, we could probably spend a long time talking

12 about that, Your Honour. Anyway, that's my position. I think the exhibit

13 should be given no weight whatsoever. I think that Colonel Vlajkovic's

14 testimony regarding this exhibit should be stricken and not considered by

15 the Court for anything. We don't know who gave the information in this

16 statement, by the way, the only one quoted in this article is President

17 Milosevic toward the end. We got this article -- this source from the

18 government. It says: "Government control station under tight control of

19 the Milosevic regime."

20 This might have been a bit of wartime propaganda here and there's

21 been no evidence whatsoever tying General Ojdanic or, for that matter, any

22 of these other defendants who are mentioned to the specifics of that

23 article.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ackerman, do you wish to comment on this?

25 MR. ACKERMAN: Just very briefly, Your Honour. The proposition

Page 16110

1 that it wasn't known about until I brought it up is not exactly --

2 shouldn't be exactly correct since it was sent to everybody at the

3 beginning of the direct examination of this witness that I was going to

4 use it during cross-examination. So if they didn't know, they should have

5 known.

6 The second thing is that the content of that particular document

7 is also repeated in Politika and in a video V0001824/1A, both of which

8 could be made available if necessary. And there may be additional

9 evidence. The other thing that I think is very important to consider is

10 that this document was used simply as a foundational document for a -- the

11 basis for asking the question in the first place, and that was its only

12 use at that point. Now, it may be that there is evidence that could be

13 put on to actually prove that meeting and its contents but that remains to

14 be seen.

15 The other thing is that it was a double-headed question, as you

16 might recall. I wasn't talking just about the May 4th meeting, but also

17 talking about the meetings of the 16th and 17th of May, and I think those

18 are proven without any doubt in this case now that General Ojdanic became

19 aware by the 16th or the 17th of May. So my question about why it wasn't

20 brought up in the collegium, those issues brought up in the collegium

21 until some time in early June I think still may have some validity,

22 although I didn't ever see that as a major part of my cross-examination in

23 the first place. There may be a very good reason why it wasn't brought

24 up.

25 But in any event, I think -- I strongly oppose the motion of

Page 16111

1 Mr. Sepenuk that that testimony be stricken from the record. I don't

2 think it should be. I don't think it was improper or anything I did was

3 improper. So that's my position.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 JUDGE BONOMY: We appreciate that the way we've treated exhibits

7 can give rise to misunderstandings and we regret that, but for the

8 avoidance of doubt, let me repeat that this is an entirely procedural

9 issue. It has no bearing on the evaluation of the probative value of

10 documents. We believe that to fully understand the evidence you need to

11 have available to you as part of the record the material that was used for

12 the purpose of posing the questions. However, as I've just explained,

13 that does not make this document, P1696, evidence of the truth of its

14 contents in this context because the witness denied any knowledge of it,

15 as we read his answers.

16 It doesn't follow that newspaper articles may have absolutely no

17 probative value at all. For example, we found assistance from newspaper

18 articles in deciding whether or not to admit press statements sought by

19 the first accused. Now, you can understand why trying to find out whether

20 or not it appeared in the press is relevant to determining whether we

21 should admit it. It's quite another matter, however, to decide what is

22 the probative value of the press statement. These are complex issues that

23 the Trial Chamber will have to deal with when it comes to deliberate on

24 all the evidence in the case.

25 So the normal rules that you understand, Mr. Sepenuk, about

Page 16112

1 relevance and probative value do apply here, but you should not assume

2 that because a document gets on to our record to reflect the questions put

3 that we will give it a weight that will not be appropriate on the basis of

4 the normal rules of relevancy and probative value. So we actually welcome

5 the intervention to try to give clarification to this, but we do not think

6 the appropriate course is to strike it from the record. It may be that

7 other evidence will materialise in due course on which this does have a

8 bearing, and we would have to look at the evidence in its entirety to

9 decide what to do and you will have -- clearly have an opportunity to

10 address us on that in your final submissions.

11 MR. SEPENUK: Thank you very much, Your Honour. And just for the

12 sake of the record, I want to stress that I don't think this exhibit

13 should be given any weight whatsoever and there will be testimony in the

14 case to show that a good portion of what is in this article is false.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: I understand that. But let's assume we hear from

16 the editor of RTS about the way in which this article was compiled and

17 presented and bearing in mind the rules of hearsay evidence, the position

18 would change and the record should be there to reflect what happened

19 earlier in the case. So we hear what you say, we hear your position, we

20 note it, we think it hasn't been prejudiced at this stage by the evidence

21 that has been given so far by this witness. And therefore, you need not

22 fear that we will be holding against you the truth of the contents of this

23 article -- or these articles at this stage.

24 MR. SEPENUK: Thank you, Your Honours.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.

Page 16113

1 We can proceed now, Mr. Visnjic --

2 MR. VISNJIC: Yes, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: -- can we.

4 Let's have the witness. You'll see why I like to get witnesses

5 finished the day they first appear here.

6 [The witness entered court]

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, Mr. Vlajkovic.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Your re-examination by Mr. Visnjic will continue in

10 a moment. It is important for you to bear in mind that the solemn

11 declaration you made at the beginning of your evidence to speak the truth

12 continues to apply to that evidence today.

13 Mr. Visnjic.

14 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.


16 [Witness answered through interpreter]

17 Re-examination by Mr. Visnjic:

18 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Colonel.

19 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown

20 Defence Exhibit 3D1109, pages 2 and 3 at the same time on the monitor,

21 please.

22 Q. Colonel, yesterday Mr. Ackerman suggested a few things to you in

23 respect of which he said that they could have led to a mistake when making

24 entries in the register. I will go through each and everything that

25 Mr. Ackerman suggested to you, so we will have a look as to what this

Page 16114

1 really was like.

2 The first thing that Mr. Ackerman suggested to you was that

3 perhaps the document on the resubordination of the command of the 3rd

4 Army, that is under entry 248, was supposed to be attached to the document

5 in 247, another document of the 3rd Army that was registered under number

6 872-137/1.

7 Now I would like to ask you to look at column 7 on page 3 of this

8 document; and if possible, could you please read out for us what the

9 content of this order is, the one registered in 247.

10 A. The content of the order is: "Report on rejecting order by

11 soldier from the 3rd Company or the 3rd Battalion of the 125th Motorised

12 Brigade in the zone of responsibility of the Pristina Corps."

13 Q. In view of the heading of this document - we don't have the

14 document before us right now - in this document 3D1106, on resubordination

15 on the basis of your knowledge, should these two documents have been

16 entered in the same rubric 247?

17 A. From the content of the document, it can be concluded that they

18 are not directly related, one did not produce the other and therefore they

19 cannot be registered under the same number, they are not registered under

20 the same number.

21 Q. Thank you. The next thing that -- the next suggestion that

22 Mr. Ackerman made to you was that numbers 247 and 248 should be in the

23 same archive list; that is to say, 3D1108, that is the archive list,

24 rather, number 21606. Yesterday you went together with him through

25 archive list 21606, that which is 3D1108, and you established that this

Page 16115

1 number, 247, is not on that archive list. I would like to ask you to have

2 a look at this. You still have page 3 --

3 MR. VISNJIC: Just leave third page of D1109, 3D.

4 [Interpretation] Could we also enlarge column 10, that is to say the upper

5 left-hand corner, a bit more, further down, please. Thank you. Thank

6 you.

7 Q. Colonel, now I would like to ask you to tell us in which archive

8 list is the document from column 247?

9 A. This document is in archive list number 1548 dash, if I see this

10 right.

11 Q. And the document from column 248, in which archive list is that?

12 A. It is in archive list 21606.

13 Q. Colonel, does that mean that these two documents cannot be in the

14 same archive list by any means, 21606, 3D1108, as was suggested to you

15 yesterday by Mr. Ackerman?

16 A. On the basis of this, it is obvious that these are two archive

17 lists where these documents were registered.

18 Q. So there wasn't any need for us to look for it in 3D1108?

19 A. No, there wasn't any need for that.

20 Q. Thank you.

21 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown

22 P1459.

23 Q. Colonel, if you remember, yesterday Mr. Ackerman also suggested to

24 you that numbers 72 that are in the upper right-hand corner and 81/3 in

25 the middle of this document are in actual fact proof of this document

Page 16116

1 having been registered in one of the registers or log-books; do you

2 remember that?

3 A. I remember that.

4 Q. Thank you.

5 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could we now display on e-court

6 Defence Exhibit 6D1130, page 1 of this document.

7 Q. That is a survey of the archive material of the Army of Yugoslavia

8 1998/1999, and on this first page there is an entry that says 2001.

9 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have page 49 of this

10 document. Thank you.

11 Q. Colonel, do you see column 72?

12 A. Yes, I do.

13 Q. And the document referred to in this column, is that the document

14 that you saw a few moments ago, P1459, the document of the 3rd Army on

15 resubordination?

16 A. The filing number and column 7 where the content of the document

17 is registered, well. That is that document..

18 Q. Thank you. Would you please look at column 10.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. In column 10 there is number 81/3, that is precisely the same

21 document that we saw on P1459.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Thank you. Now let us have a look at page 2. Who actually

24 produced this document?

25 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see page 2.

Page 16117

1 Q. Colonel, could you please say what it says in the upper left-hand

2 corner.

3 A. The General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia chief, strictly

4 confidential, number 1737-4, the 31st of October, 2001.

5 Q. Thank you. Colonel, who was the Chief of General Staff of the

6 Army of Yugoslavia in that period of time?

7 A. In 2001 the Chief of General Staff was General Pavkovic.

8 Q. Thank you.

9 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, and this information

10 is for the OTP, this is a list of documents that General Pavkovic handed

11 over to the Office of the Prosecutor in July 2002. This list is

12 practically, or rather, the -- these numbers are practically from the list

13 of documents that were handed over to the OTP.

14 Q. Now I would like to ask you to look at page 53 of this same

15 document, column 102.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. If you look at this document under number 102, it is a report of

18 the 3rd Army, strictly confidential, number 872-137/1, and this is in

19 actual fact the document that we saw a few moments ago in 3D1109 in column

20 247. Colonel, what we have here is a rather more detailed description of

21 the content of this document.

22 A. Extraordinary report to the Supreme Command Staff on the fact that

23 the 3rd Company of the 3rd/125th Motorised Brigade, about 80 soldiers,

24 refused obedience in the broader area of Kosare, detailed report on two

25 pages compiled by the commander of the 3rd Army personally.

Page 16118

1 Q. Colonel, now I'm asking you again on the basis of this more

2 detailed description of the document in column 102 which I would like to

3 note is in column 247 of 3D1109. Would the document on the

4 resubordination of the 3rd Army have to be registered in the same column

5 as the document that you quoted just now?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown

9 Exhibit 3D145. While we're still at this exhibit, Your Honour, I would

10 just like to draw your attention to something.


12 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Several hundred, or rather, several

13 hundred documents that are referred to in document 3D1106, not a single

14 document was registered, for example, as 872 and then, say, number 24, and

15 then slash and then, say, number 3. There is no document of this kind

16 except for this document, 1459, that has also -1, 2, or 3, as is the case

17 with this document, P1459 --

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Just hold on a minute. Your question on the last

19 exhibit was translated: "Now I'm asking you again on the basis of this

20 more detailed description of the document in column 102 ... would the

21 document on the resubordination of the 3rd Army have to be registered in

22 the same column as the document that you quoted just now?"

23 Now, is that the question you wanted to ask?

24 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, and the witness said no, as far

25 as I can remember.

Page 16119

1 No, no, it's the document on resubordination from the 3rd Army,

2 produced by the 3rd Army, not resubordination of the 3rd Army.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't think you're understanding me clearly, and

4 it may be a translation question. Let me read the question again: "Would

5 the document have to be registered in the same column?"

6 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes. The question should be:

7 Should the document be registered in the same column if they have a common

8 content.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: That's as far as you want to go, is it?

10 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, would you like to ask that question, please.

12 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. So, Colonel, you had before you two documents of the 3rd Army, one

14 is the document that you quoted from column 102 and that is the special

15 report to the Supreme Command Staff on the refusal of obedience of a

16 particular soldier and so on and so forth; and the second document was one

17 that pertained to a report of the commander of the 3rd Army on the

18 non-execution of an order of commands and units of the MUP for

19 resubordination. On the basis of what you know, could these two documents

20 be registered in the same column or should they be registered in the same

21 column?

22 A. According to the rules on office work, they could not and should

23 not be registered in the same column because in terms of their content

24 they are not directly related to one another. One did not stem from the

25 other.

Page 16120

1 Q. Thank you.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Please continue.

3 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could I have 4D135 brought up on the

4 screen, please.

5 Q. Now, Colonel, you are familiar with this document. You were

6 examined on it yesterday by Mr. Ackerman and Mr. Stamp, too. Mr. Ackerman

7 put it to you that there is no basis for a document on the

8 resubordination, that's P1459, to be part of this analysis; and on the

9 other hand, Mr. Stamp put it to you that on the last page of this document

10 there are reasons why this document should be part of this analysis. And

11 in the final answer you said that, in fact, the team leader working on

12 this report would be the one to make the final decision as to why this

13 document was not made part of this analysis. Could you please tell us, on

14 the basis of this document that you see in front of you, could you

15 identify the team leader or where this analysis was done at all?

16 A. On the basis of what we can see from the document, the analysis

17 was done in the operations and staff affairs sector, to be quite specific

18 as to the team leader who did this analysis, I couldn't really tell you

19 that because this is not seen from this document, I mean the person.

20 Q. Thank you. Colonel, let me ask you something. Do you rule out

21 the possibility that the reason why this document was not made part of

22 this analysis is precisely the fact that this document never reached the

23 Supreme Command Staff?

24 A. If it never reached it, then it could not be subject of an

25 analysis.

Page 16121

1 Q. Thank you very much.

2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] This completes my examination of

3 this witness, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Visnjic.

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Vlajkovic, that completes your evidence. Thank

7 you for coming to the Tribunal to assist us. You're now free to leave.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

9 [The witness withdrew]

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic, can you indicate what your plans are

11 for the rest of today.

12 MR. VISNJIC: [Microphone not activated].

13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for the counsel.

14 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Witness Radoicic should take between

15 half an hour and 45 minutes; witness Uzelac 20 minutes; witness Pantelic,

16 well, let's say up to half an hour, not more, I'm being optimistic now.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: What about Gojovic?

18 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] We've already sent Gojovic home.

19 There was no way we could have examined him. We will bring him back after

20 the adjournment.

21 [Defence counsel confer]

22 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I mean before the adjournment. I

23 said "after," but I meant his break, Gojovic.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well.

25 Let's have Mr. Radoicic.

Page 16122

1 [Trial Chamber confers]

2 [The witness entered court]

3 JUDGE BONOMY: [Microphone not activated]

4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: [Microphone not activated].

7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Would you please make the solemn declaration to

9 speak the truth by reading aloud the document which will now be shown to

10 you.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

12 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Please be seated.

14 You will now be examined by Mr. Visnjic on behalf of Mr. Ojdanic.

15 Mr. Visnjic.

16 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.


18 [Witness answered through interpreter]

19 Examination by Mr. Visnjic:

20 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Colonel.

21 A. Good morning.

22 Q. Could you please state your full name for the record, please.

23 A. My name is Milan Radoicic.

24 Q. Colonel, did you on the 17th of August, 2007, give a statement to

25 the investigators of the Defence team of General Ojdanic and did you sign

Page 16123

1 this statement?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. When you came to The Hague were you able to go through this

4 statement; and if you were to give evidence before this Court, would you

5 have given the same answers to the questions that you did in that

6 statement?

7 A. Yes, entirely.

8 Q. Thank you.

9 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is Defence

10 Exhibit 3D1108 -- no, I'm sorry.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: 1111 perhaps?

12 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, 1111.

13 Could the witness please be shown Defence Exhibit 3D1108.

14 Q. Colonel, do you recognise this document in front of you?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. What is this document? Who produced it?

17 A. This document was produced immediately after the end of the

18 aggression on the orders of the chief of the Supreme Command Staff. It

19 quite specifically regulates the procedure for the archiving of all of the

20 documents produced in the period from the beginning until the end of the

21 aggression, and this order regulates the procedure to be applied by all

22 the organizational units of the Supreme Command Staff as it was at the

23 time, including all the elements that pertained to the chef de cabinet of

24 the chief of the Supreme Command Staff. This list that is here in front

25 of me, or rather, this page is part of this procedure that was carried out

Page 16124

1 in the office of the chief of the Supreme Command Staff.

2 Q. Thank you. If I understood it correctly from previous evidence,

3 such lists were then taken to the military archive together with all the

4 documents, relevant documents?

5 A. Yes. Pursuant to the order that I mentioned, the procedure that

6 was to be followed by all the organizational units of the Supreme Command

7 Staff was regulated in great detail, gathering of the documents,

8 processing of the documents in the manner that is prescribed by the

9 regulations in force at the time on the work of the military archive and

10 of all those who had the obligation to submit or to take out certain

11 documents from the military archive.

12 Q. Thank you. Could you please tell us where was this form filled

13 in, because I can see that some items were typed in.

14 A. Well, it was not only the organizational units of the Supreme

15 Command Staff that were under the obligation to comply with the procedure

16 relating to the documents. The military archive itself was under the

17 obligation to carry out certain procedures. They had certain forms and

18 certain procedures that were binding on all of the parties handing in

19 documents, and this list is one such document. It stipulates what and how

20 is to be handed over to the military archive. It was impossible to hand

21 over a single document outside of this procedure because the responsible

22 officials from the military archive were not allowed and did not want to

23 receive any documents if they did not comply with the procedure for the

24 archiving of documents.

25 Q. I asked you where those forms were filled in.

Page 16125

1 A. The military archive filled it in, and they were submitted by

2 those who submitted documents. The office of the Supreme Command Staff

3 chief was under the obligation to fill in this empty form in the

4 prescribed manner.

5 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could we please look at the last

6 page of this document.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: There are two answers there, Mr. Visnjic. It says

8 the military archive filled it in, and then it says the office of the

9 Supreme Command Staff chief was under the obligation to fill in this empty

10 form. So who did it? I don't know at the moment.

11 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Colonel, let us clear this up. Who filled in the empty form?

13 A. Well, in this specific case it was the office of the chief of the

14 Supreme Command Staff.

15 Q. Thank you. Now, once a form that has been filled in comes into

16 the archive with the documents, do you know what the procedure was?

17 A. The responsible person from the military archive received the

18 documents in the same order as listed here one document after the other.

19 So the responsible person handed in the document, in this case it was the

20 responsible person from the office, and on the other hand it was taken

21 receipt of by the responsible person from the military archive. And if

22 the document had everything it had to contain, then it could be received.

23 If it didn't meet those requirements, it was not received.

24 Q. Thank you.

25 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Now, could we scroll down this last

Page 16126

1 page a little bit.

2 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel and witness please make pauses

3 between questions and answers.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: I hope you got that message, Mr. Visnjic, to pause

5 between question and answer.

6 MR. VISNJIC: I'm sorry.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Please continue.

8 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation].

9 Q. Colonel, who signed this document on the right-hand side, the

10 signature there?

11 A. At the very outset I said that the procedure of preparing and

12 handing over the entire documentation --

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Simple question. Please listen carefully to the

14 question, which is: "Who signed the document on the right side?" That's

15 a very easy one to answer if you can read the signature.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just had the intention of

17 explaining this here, the first name and the last name --

18 JUDGE BONOMY: If Mr. Visnjic wants an explanation, he'll ask for

19 it. Just tell us who signed the document.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well. I signed the document,

21 as authorised.

22 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Thank you. Tell me, on the right-hand side, the handwritten text

24 and the signature, who signed that?

25 A. I don't know what you mean on the right-hand side.

Page 16127

1 Q. Column 7, towards the bottom, vertically written text and there is

2 a signature.

3 A. Could it please be turned around and zoomed in because, quite

4 simply, I cannot see who wrote that and signed that. This is the first

5 time I see it this way. It says: "Received for the military archives by

6 warrant officer first class Dusan Mladenovic." And it's probably the

7 signature of the authorised official from the military archives.

8 Q. Thank you.

9 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to move

10 on to another exhibit now, 3D1078.

11 Q. Colonel, General Ojdanic in March 2002 sent you a letter. At that

12 time you were working in the Ministry of Defence, the Federal Ministry of

13 Defence?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. At that time you and General Ojdanic were not on the best of terms

16 personally; I see that from the content of the letter.

17 A. Well, I wouldn't put it that way, that we weren't on the best of

18 terms; quite simply, there wasn't a quality communication, which does not

19 mean that we were not on the best of terms.

20 Q. Thank you. Now I'm going to read out paragraph 3 to you.

21 Paragraph 3 of this letter that says: "To my astonishment on the 21st of

22 February, 2002, in the newspaper Vojska," army, "on pages 8 and 9 a text

23 appeared 'problems with resubordination of MUP forces.' One of the

24 documents under the subheading the 'summarization of report results' is

25 something I'm seeing for the first time a report of the command of the 3rd

Page 16128

1 Army, strictly confidential number 872-94/1-2 about the resubordination of

2 units and organs of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia."

3 Colonel, can you tell me what it was that General Ojdanic asked

4 you to do in relation to this document.

5 A. He asked me through this letter to provide an answer as to whether

6 I'm aware of such a document; and if so, whether such a document ever

7 reached the office, the cabinet, of the chief of the Supreme Command

8 Staff.

9 Q. Thank you.

10 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have page 2 of this

11 document, also paragraph 3.

12 Q. In this paragraph General Ojdanic writes to you and says: "As

13 Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command, I want my conscience to be

14 perfectly clear from every point of view. You know full well -- you know

15 full well what my conscience and responsibility are in carrying out my

16 functional duty. Can you imagine that had I received such a report I

17 would have silently passed over it without having directly informed my

18 collegium and Supreme Command about it, examined the proposed measures,

19 and notified the command of the 3rd Army of all this as per the

20 methodology of work which was applied by the Supreme Command Staff?"

21 Colonel, you worked with General Ojdanic for a long time. How

22 long?

23 A. From the end of 1993 when he was appointed commander of the 1st

24 Army up until the end of 1996/beginning of 1997, when General Ojdanic was

25 transferred to become deputy Chief of General Staff. It was the end of

Page 16129

1 1998 when he was appointed Chief of General Staff. I was asked to assume

2 the duty of the deputy chef de cabinet to the Chief of General Staff.

3 Q. All right.

4 A. Do I respond to this and does it suit me to assume that duty --

5 Q. All right. Let's not deal with it so extensively. You've known

6 him for quite a while.

7 A. Almost ten years.

8 Q. On the basis of everything that you know about General Ojdanic,

9 what General Ojdanic wrote here, is that correct? Is that the way he

10 reacts when he receives a report that has the kind of content that this

11 document to the 3rd Army had?

12 A. I fully accept --

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, Mr. Visnjic, what kind of a question is

14 that? If you've got a particular incident to put to the witness that he

15 can help us with or ask him about specific occasions, fine, but to put a

16 question about a similar set of circumstances to this in general is not

17 going to help us.

18 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I'm going

19 to move on to the next exhibit, 3D1077.

20 Q. Colonel, a few days later you replied to General Ojdanic by way of

21 this letter. In paragraph 3 of this document that is going to appear

22 before you right now, what did you actually establish in relation to this

23 document of the 3rd Army that General Ojdanic asked you about?

24 A. Well, precisely this, what I wrote here; that is to say that I did

25 not have any knowledge about that report and since at that time I was

Page 16130

1 already working at the Ministry of Defence, it's -- it was almost two

2 years from that period, if I can put it that way. I checked with my

3 colleagues who had stayed at the office of the Chief of General Staff, and

4 I was given this kind of return information, as I wrote here.

5 Q. Thank you.

6 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further

7 questions for this witness.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

9 Mr. Ackerman.

10 Mr. Hannis.

11 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

12 Cross-examination by Mr. Hannis:

13 Q. Good morning, Colonel. I'd like to ask you a few questions. Let

14 me follow up with that letter, Exhibit 3D1078. It's my understanding that

15 this is a letter from General Ojdanic to you; is that correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And at the bottom --

18 A. If it's the letter that I do not find here, it's not visible on my

19 screen -- ah, yes. If it's this letter, then yes.

20 Q. And at the bottom of page 1 of the English and I believe it may be

21 the very top of page 2 in the B/C/S he indicates that he's asked you to

22 help him locate this document. And he says: "Unfortunately you turned a

23 deaf ear to my request for reasons and intentions known to you."

24 Did you respond to this letter, Colonel?

25 A. I don't understand, what question are you referring to?

Page 16131

1 Q. Well, he seems to be indicating that he had made an earlier

2 request for the archive list and the combat documentation. And he

3 says: "Unfortunately you turned a deaf ear to my request for reasons and

4 intentions known to you."

5 And then he goes on to say: "It is hypocritical, to say the

6 least, to refer to the decisions of the Supreme Defence Council which

7 allegedly prevents you from fulfilling my request because I am seeking a

8 strictly confidential combat document which was published publicly in the

9 Vojska magazine."

10 So is that correct, had he previously asked you for this document

11 or information about the archive list concerning this document and you had

12 turned him down?

13 A. The overall communication between General Ojdanic and me

14 personally was not regulated by way of particular correspondence. This is

15 the only correspondence we had, which means that before that and after

16 that, our communication was regulated, as was fitting in terms of the

17 relationship that he and I had. He made a request, either orally or on a

18 little piece of paper through one of his associates. Now, why I did not

19 answer, I cannot say now quite precisely. The only thing I can do is

20 assume that in this period in between, a decision had been made by the

21 Supreme Defence Council that had given a certain number of protective

22 measures in terms of treating documents that are marked as a state secret,

23 military secret, strictly confidential, and so on. So with these

24 documents one had to behave only in the prescribed way. If it is

25 necessary for me to describe this prescribed way to you, I stand ready to

Page 16132

1 do that.

2 Q. Well, let me ask you this: I'm not clear about your answer.

3 Are -- did you reply to this request from General Ojdanic; and if so, was

4 that by a written communication or by letter or by telephone call or in

5 person?

6 A. Well, I think -- well, that is to say that I cannot remember with

7 certainty now, but as for one of the persons who had direct cooperation

8 with him, I gave a response orally that I could not seek that document

9 except in the prescribed manner, but I did reply. And I assume that this

10 letter is precisely a response indicating his justified dissatisfaction.

11 Q. His justified dissatisfaction with your first reply, correct?

12 A. Yes. Yes.

13 Q. But I also have a question, then did you respond to this letter

14 from I think it's the 2nd of March, did you respond to this letter?

15 A. Well, precisely. The letter I have before me now on the monitor

16 caused the official written response, the one that was displayed on the

17 screen previously.

18 Q. All right. Let me then go back to your -- your statement which is

19 Exhibit 3D1111. If I understand it correctly, your job during 1999 and

20 during the NATO air-strikes, did you work for Colonel Vlajkovic? Was he

21 your immediate superior?

22 A. I worked with Colonel Vlajkovic. I did not work for him. I

23 worked for the cabinet of the chief of the Supreme Command Staff, or

24 rather, the Supreme Command Staff. I was officially his deputy.

25 Q. You were officially Colonel Vlajkovic's deputy, correct?

Page 16133

1 A. Yes, yes.

2 Q. Can you tell us which meetings you attended. Did you attend the

3 meetings that we've been referring to here as the daily evening briefings

4 during -- during the war?

5 A. During the war at all sessions of the collegium of the Supreme

6 Command Staff, Colonel Vlajkovic was present. I think that once or twice

7 in a period of time while he was absent - this was justified absence - I

8 attended these sessions once or twice, not more than that. As for all the

9 other 70 days out of the total of 72, Colonel Vlajkovic was present.

10 Q. I need some clarification about this. We have some minutes from

11 meetings that were referred to as the VJ collegium, and some witnesses

12 have referred to these daily evening briefings as collegium meetings and I

13 think sometimes as meetings of the Supreme Command Staff. Is there any

14 difference between all that? Can you explain? Because the only document

15 that I've seen that's described as a meeting of the VJ collegium during

16 the 78 days of the NATO air-strikes is from the 9th of April.

17 A. I cannot judge about somebody's precise or imprecise wording,

18 whether somebody called it meetings or sessions, but the official

19 terminology that is recorded in all the written and unwritten documents,

20 this body is called the collegium and its meetings are called sessions of

21 the collegium of the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command. They were

22 held every day in the evening, as I assume you have known for a while now.

23 Q. Okay. Is there any difference then in the personnel who are

24 members of what's called the Supreme Command Staff and what you referred

25 to just now as the collegium? Are we talking about the same people?

Page 16134

1 A. The regular composition of the collegium meant that body, and

2 perhaps sometimes there was a need for the part of that composition to

3 attend for a meeting to be held in a broader or a narrower composition,

4 but officially that was the collegium of the Chief of Staff of the Supreme

5 Command.

6 Q. And if someone talks about the Supreme Command Staff, does that

7 mean the same thing as the collegium or are there some additional people

8 on the Supreme Command Staff?

9 A. Well, in the regular conceptual formulation of this body, that was

10 the staff or the collegium of the staff of the Supreme Command, that would

11 be more or less the same thing. But based on the assessment of the

12 superior commander, that would be the chief of the Supreme Command Staff,

13 that body could in the formal number that was -- that there could be more

14 people or less people, and in some cases the collegium session would be

15 held in the extended composition. That was up to the assessment of the

16 chief of the Supreme Command, both at the time when it was the Supreme

17 Command and in the period immediately before the aggression and after the

18 aggression. So it depended on the actual need and the assessment of the

19 Chief of the General Staff or of the chief of the Supreme Command Staff.

20 That body could either have the composition as provided for in the

21 organizational chart or could be narrower or extended.

22 Q. And was it General Ojdanic as the chief who made that decision

23 about whether it was narrower or extended?

24 A. Precisely.

25 Q. Now, in your statement where you describe the duties of your

Page 16135

1 office, in paragraph 3 you mentioned that it included preparing all or

2 almost all documents being sent to the military office of the president of

3 the FRY. Is that correct?

4 A. Paragraph 3, yes.

5 Q. And is that correct, it was the duty of the office you worked in

6 to prepare all or almost all documents being sent to the military office

7 of Mr. Milosevic, the president of the FRY? It's not the only thing you

8 did, but that was one of the duties of your office, correct?

9 A. Yes, precisely so, but the stress is here on the preparation of

10 all or almost all. This doesn't mean that the cabinet was the only body

11 that prepared all of the documents, but it was responsible for preparing

12 all documents, either processed in the cabinet or in the organizational

13 elements of the supreme -- of the staff or of subordinate commands, but it

14 was responsible for preparing and processing all the documents in the

15 manner that I described in my previous answers.

16 Q. Colonel, can you help us. Can you tell us what exactly was the

17 military office of President Milosevic? How many people were in that?

18 What did they do? Were they civilians or military persons? What do you

19 know about that?

20 A. I was never in a position to see the organizational chart and the

21 establishment of the structure of the cabinet of the military office of

22 the president, in other words, but my communication with the military

23 office of the president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia went through

24 the chef de cabinet of the military office of the president of the FRY or

25 his deputy or any responsible person that was in charge of a task or the

Page 16136

1 kind of job that we were supposed to do together that I was in contact

2 with, including the secretary of the chief of the military office of the

3 president of the FRY. I had no reason to make this communication broader

4 or deeper, so I have no knowledge apart from what I just told you.

5 Q. One of the exhibits we have in this case is P2166, which is about

6 a meeting of the Inter-Departmental Staff for Suppression of Terrorism,

7 and the person listed as taking the minutes in that meeting is

8 Lieutenant-General Slavoljub Susic. Did you know him?

9 A. I knew him to the extent that allowed -- that our official

10 relationship allowed, not more, not less.

11 Q. And was he a member of the military department of President

12 Milosevic or the military office of President Milosevic?

13 A. Well, his function was chief of the military office of the

14 president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. He was not part of it.

15 He was, quite literally, the most responsible person and the

16 highest-ranking officer in the military office of the president of the

17 FRY.

18 Q. Do you know the name of his deputy?

19 A. Well, it depends on the actual period. In the period when the

20 Supreme Command Staff operated, I had no opportunity to find out or to see

21 any other person apart from his secretary, who was also his deputy. But

22 in the period before the aggression, and I can't really now tell you

23 whether it was also after the aggression, but before the aggression I was

24 communicating with his deputy, at that time it was Colonel Nedjo

25 Danilovic.

Page 16137

1 Q. Thank you. Now I'd like to talk about the -- the archive list

2 that Mr. Visnjic asked you about. I think that's Exhibit P -- or 3D1108.

3 And if first we could go to page 1 of that document in both languages.

4 Colonel, in the upper left-hand corner there's a stamp which is

5 translated in English as "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Supreme Command

6 Staff, cabinet of the chief." It has a number and is dated the 10th of

7 August, 1999. Now, do I understand correctly, did you in your office

8 prepare this list, this typewritten list?

9 A. I don't know if we're looking at the same document, but the date

10 is not here, the date as far as I can see it, it's not really all that

11 legible, it's the 16th of June, 1999. I don't know if we're talking about

12 the same document, and if we're talking about the upper left-hand corner

13 there, there was the stamp of the relevant organizational unit of the

14 Supreme Command Staff, in this case it was the cabinet of the chief of the

15 Supreme Command Staff and the right and the obligation to use this stamp

16 and to apply to the documents as prescribed, that all the elements of the

17 Army of Yugoslavia were under the obligation to apply their stamps. I can

18 see this document here, it is hardly legible, but I think it is a

19 confidential document. I can't see the number, it's -- it says

20 here "confidential." But I think that the date is the 16th of June, 1999,

21 if we're talking about the same document, it's not 1992.

22 Q. Well, if I -- you heard "1992" I misspoke or was mistranslated.

23 MR. HANNIS: Can we zoom in on that seal.

24 Q. In the English it's been translated as being 10 August 1999. It

25 may not be very legible. We've tried to make it a little bigger. I don't

Page 16138

1 know if that helps you.

2 A. Yes, yes, it is the case, indeed. Yes, it's the 10th, although

3 again I can't really see it here, whether it's the 10th or the 16th zoomed

4 in as it is. It is number 8 and the -- it is 1999.

5 Q. Okay. Thank you --

6 A. So it's a copy.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 MR. HANNIS: If we could zoom out.

9 Q. I'm not sure if I got the answer to my original question. Was

10 this list prepared by you?

11 A. Well, in -- by reply to a question by the Defence counsel, I spoke

12 about that and I will repeat the same answer to you. The form was

13 obtained from the military archive, it was an empty form --

14 JUDGE BONOMY: We got --

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- with all the --

16 JUDGE BONOMY: We got all that. We know there were spaces and

17 they had to be filled in. The question is: Did you fill them in, yes or

18 no?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean I personally or we as the

20 cabinet?


22 Q. First of all, you personally.

23 A. I personally didn't do that job, but I was responsible to the chef

24 de cabinet and to the chief of the Supreme Command for the proper

25 performance of this job, but the technical preparation and the actual

Page 16139

1 typing in of all this information into this form, this was done by the

2 responsible persons, including the chief of the office of the cabinet of

3 the Supreme Command Staff. So that was an organizational unit within the

4 cabinet of the Supreme Command Staff or chief of the Supreme Command Staff

5 or the General Staff chief, they had to treat all the documents in

6 accordance with the relevant regulations in force in a proper and

7 responsible manner, including in the period of time when the Supreme

8 Command Staff was activated.

9 Q. So the actual filling in of the blank form was done by personnel

10 in your office. Was that people under either your control or the control

11 of Colonel Vlajkovic; is that fair?

12 A. Yes, precisely.

13 Q. Okay. The stamp in the upper left-hand corner where we decided

14 the date was from August 1999, who put that stamp on this document? Was

15 that done in your office?

16 A. Yes, precisely. The stamp and all the other -- this stamp and all

17 the other stamps were kept and used in that room in that organizational

18 unit which was called the office of the cabinet, so they had a right to

19 use it and also the responsibility for the proper use of the stamps and

20 seals of the cabinet of the chief of the Supreme Command Staff and the

21 chief of the General Staff and the chief of the Supreme Command Staff and

22 the Chief of the General Staff, so both the cabinet and the person.

23 Q. Okay. When you say "they," isn't this your office? Shouldn't you

24 be saying "we"? Didn't you also have authority to use that stamp?

25 A. Well, I just gave you a quite specific answer to your question

Page 16140

1 when you asked me who did that, and I can just as well say "we."

2 Q. Okay. Do you know in particular whose job it would have been to

3 put the stamp and the dates and the number on this particular document?

4 Was there one person whose job it was to do that kind of thing or did that

5 duty rotate depending on the kind of situation?

6 A. Well, on some occasions it changed according to the planned

7 schedule, but to be quite specific it was the chief of the office of the

8 chief of the cabinet of the chief of the Supreme Command Staff, at that

9 time it was the warrant officer first class Milorad Jankovic. And from

10 the handwriting used for the numbers and the designation of the degree of

11 classification, I can recognise his handwriting.

12 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, on the right side of this document at the

13 top there's another stamp which has an inventory number and a date of 24

14 September 1999 and a number of documents and a number of pages. Now, am I

15 correct in understanding that's a stamp that must have been put on in the

16 archives -- or at least not in your office; is that right?

17 A. Well, I don't know whether you've encountered anything of the sort

18 before, but this is not a stamp. These are all the same rubrics that are

19 usually present here in the upper right-hand corner, this is not a stamp,

20 this is not a seal. This is simply a box in the form where you could put

21 in the register number, the date, and everything else that is in here. So

22 the inventory number was not put in in the cabinet, it was put in in the

23 archive during the handover procedure. So on the left-hand side you have

24 the stamp of the party handing the document over, and in the right-hand

25 side there was a space for the responsible person in the military archive

Page 16141

1 to supply the proper inventory number to indicate the date when this was

2 done, and also to indicate the number of documents that were handed over.

3 So this is not a stamp.

4 Q. Okay. Thank you. I -- I understand now that this is part of the

5 blank form, correct?

6 A. Yes, yes.

7 Q. And the number of documents and number of pages that are filled in

8 in handwriting there, where would that have been done? Would that have

9 been done in your office before the documents were shipped out or would it

10 have been done at the archives when they received it, if you know?

11 A. Yes, of course. Right at the beginning in the order of the chief

12 of the Supreme Command, as I stressed, everything was regulated in

13 greatest detail. The military archive did not have the personnel, the

14 material or other capabilities to send its staff from one organizational

15 unit to the other so that -- there were several reasons why they couldn't

16 do that. It was the obligation on the part of us who were handing in the

17 documents to take it to the military archive and to carry out this

18 handover of the documents, the take-over of documents, whatever you like

19 to call it, in the premises of the military archive, that's where it was

20 done, in the military archive, the handover between the official in the

21 relevant organizational unit of the General Staff and the responsible

22 person representing the military archive of the Army of Yugoslavia.

23 Q. Thank you.

24 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I need a little more time. Can we take

25 the break?

Page 16142

1 JUDGE BONOMY: We can, yeah.

2 Mr. Radoicic, we have to have a break at this stage, that will be

3 for 20 minutes. Could you leave the courtroom with the usher and we'll

4 see you again at ten minutes to 11.00.

5 [The witness stands down]

6 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

7 --- On resuming at 10.51 a.m.

8 [The witness takes the stand]

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.

10 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

11 Q. Colonel, if you can just be patient with me a little longer, I

12 want to walk through the process to the end. So once this form is filled

13 out in your office, I take it that these documents that are going into the

14 archives are placed in some kind of box or container to physically be

15 delivered to the archives, correct?

16 A. We, quite literally, had courier bags, that is what they were

17 called. In terms of their size they're very big bags, documentation could

18 fit into it to the extent which it was needed at the time for several

19 reasons. These bags even had a special place for a padlock in order to

20 secure everything that was contained in the bag until it was handed over.

21 On that occasion it is precisely these courier bags that were used.

22 Q. And do you know how the courier bags then are taken from your

23 office and delivered to archives? Who does that or who did that at the

24 time?

25 A. That is to say that in this concrete case this was done by the

Page 16143

1 head of the office together with his deputy. I don't know to what extent

2 you understand the idea of an office. It is not an office in the sense of

3 a physical room, it is simply a word that is used. So this office had

4 log-books and personnel and technical facilities, including operators.

5 Specifically, this was done by the head of office and his deputy. By

6 taking this bag, including its content, leaving the premises of the

7 cabinet, going to the vehicle involved, because at that point in time the

8 military archives were at a location that was a few kilometres away from

9 the location where the cabinet of the Chief of General Staff was of the

10 Army of Yugoslavia, specifically from the street of Neznanog Junaka to

11 Bircaninova where the premises of the Ministry of Defence are now. In the

12 basement even before the aggression, the military archives were located

13 there; that is to say from the cabinet premises to the vehicle, from the

14 vehicle to the location where the military archives were, and then from

15 the vehicle entering the military archives and in -- on the premises of

16 the military archives there was this procedure of handover that took

17 several days in terms of time because this is a very delicate and

18 responsible job to look at each and every document.

19 That would be it in the briefest possible terms. If there's

20 anything else in connection with the procedure and everything that has to

21 be done or was envisaged in that procedure or that was to be expected, I

22 can speak about it in greater detail, too.

23 Q. Okay. Thank you. I do have a couple more questions. From your

24 answer then, so it's delivered in the courier bags by personnel from your

25 office, and at the archives you told me the procedure sometimes could take

Page 16144

1 days to actually get those documents logged in at the archives; is that

2 correct? Because you're going through the list and pulling out each

3 document one by one and making sure that the number of documents and the

4 number of pages as listed are correct. Is that how it worked?

5 A. Precisely. The procedure of the handover in terms of the people

6 who did not have occasion to work on this or see this seems simply;

7 however, as you said this now this is exceptionally responsible and very

8 complex because the responsible person from the military archives was

9 duty-bound to carry out a full examination, not a partial one, a full

10 examination of everything that he was receiving.

11 These documents had to be either originals or, if so prescribed,

12 there had to be a second and a third copy, also originals. There were few

13 occasions when only copies of documents would be received. As you said a

14 few moments ago, in particular, the number of pages, whether the first

15 page is one that matches all the attachments and so on. It's a very

16 delicate job. And finally, if the document contains several pages,

17 several attachments, was it complete, was it properly filed, was it

18 properly bound.

19 Q. And I think -- I think I heard it from Colonel Vlajkovic that at

20 the archives there was -- there was one person who would be responsible

21 for receiving all the documents that were on this list; in other words,

22 the job wasn't divided up among several persons. There was just a single

23 individual who would be responsible in this case for dealing with this

24 list of some 110 archive units or archive items. Is that right?

25 A. Well, I cannot be quite sure that that is the way it was, as my

Page 16145

1 colleague Mr. Vlajkovic said to you. But I know in terms of this entire

2 work on behalf of the cabinet of the Chief of Staff of the Supreme

3 Command, the General Staff, on behalf of the archives, the head of the

4 archives, they would have to assess in terms of the number of the

5 documents, the complexity of these documents whether it was necessary to

6 engage one or two persons.

7 On specific occasions, I did not attend the handover, I just got a

8 feedback, or rather, a report from the person who carried this out, and

9 then I informed the chef de cabinet about that. I did not -- I do not

10 recall having informed him of the number of persons who took part in this

11 from the military archives. Was it the chief of the military archives who

12 assessed that the documents coming from the Chief of Staff of the Supreme

13 Command or from some other organic entity of the Supreme Command Staff

14 required two or three or more persons? I really could not have that

15 particular information.

16 But at any rate, the procedure involving the signing and the

17 receipt, or rather, the handover, all this was signed by one person, one

18 person on behalf of the cabinet of the Chief of Staff of the Supreme

19 Command and the authorised official of the military archives. And I think

20 that you can see this from the document itself here. I told you before

21 the break, it was --

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Radoicic, you've answered the question I

23 think. If Mr. Hannis wants more information, he'll ask for it.

24 Mr. Hannis.

25 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

Page 16146

1 Q. Colonel, then, so in the actual process of the physical handover

2 at the archives someone from your office from the cabinet of the chief

3 would have been present during the process when it was being checked by

4 the person receiving these materials at the archive. Is that how it

5 worked?

6 A. Absolutely. That is compulsory, otherwise the handover could not

7 take place.

8 Q. And we've seen on this document that the typewritten entries with

9 the number of documents and the number of pages for each separate item,

10 we've seen instances where there have been handwritten changes. Now, when

11 and where would those have been made? Was that at the archives during the

12 handover process when each document is being looked at one by one?

13 A. In the technology involved as far as I knew, and I think that I

14 managed to deal with all of that because I was responsible and I had to

15 ascertain all of this, when this came back, that is to say the responsible

16 person at the cabinet of the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command, I did

17 not see that these corrections were there. However, I know that the

18 responsible person from the military archives, when receiving

19 documentation, could either receive this documentation or refuse to

20 receive this documentation. Or if it would happen, perhaps there were one

21 or two cases, that it was incomplete with a certain degree of confidence

22 he could agree to have the documentation supplemented at a later date;

23 otherwise he would not sign that, or rather, he would not sign that he

24 received such documents and with such numbers. This is the first time I

25 see these corrections. Probably there is some reason in some -- on some

Page 16147

1 occasion, I don't know when, I cannot say whether it was during the

2 handover, probably it -- this correction was entered and it was

3 initialled. And as I said to you when you showed me this page, 2, yes,

4 yes, it is the list on page 2 where you can see the signature of that

5 person from the military archives, then that is the responsibility of that

6 person to receive it in that way.

7 MR. HANNIS: Could we go to pages 2 and 3 of the B/C/S and put

8 them up side by side for the witness.

9 Q. Yes, Colonel, and I think we determined that the signature on the

10 right-hand -- far right-hand column of the last page appears to be that of

11 warrant officer first class Dusan Mladenovski?

12 A. I can just make an assumption, like you. I do not appear as an

13 expert. I did not have occasion to see the signature of this person, but

14 in terms of what we see here and the signature we see here, it is not my

15 signature and it is not the signature of anyone from the office of the

16 Chief of General Staff. So as for how meritorious all of this is ...

17 Q. Well, let me ask you this: The corrections -- the handwritten

18 corrections that are made sometimes in the -- in column 4, which has the

19 log number and date of the documents, and sometimes in columns 5 and 6,

20 which list the number of documents or the number of pages, those changes,

21 would they have been made by someone from your office or by the archivist

22 receiving the documents, if you know?

23 A. The only person who had the right to carry out corrections was the

24 responsible person from the military archives. Our corrections would not

25 be accepted. Our list had to be made very precisely, very pedantically,

Page 16148

1 so that it could be prepared for handover. With such corrections -- well,

2 that was one's attitude towards this kind of responsible job. One would

3 not dare to go to start the procedure of handover with such corrections,

4 let alone to have it completed that way. So the procedure had to be very

5 precise, correct, and also it had to be very legible without a single

6 correction.

7 Q. This archive list, do you know how many copies of it would have

8 been made and how they would have been distributed? Do you know that?

9 A. I just know that one copy had to be, if I can put it that way,

10 with the party that was delivering the document and another copy with the

11 party that was receiving the document. I don't know whether the receiving

12 party needed to have it copied further. We as the handing-over party

13 needed just one copy.

14 Q. So the copy you got back --

15 A. -- that was the original.

16 Q. You got the original back or did the archives keep the original or

17 do you know?

18 A. The list itself was made in two copies, and these two copies were

19 equal to the original. So it was a second original, it was not a carbon

20 copy, so we cannot say that it was the second carbon copy. The other copy

21 had to be identical to the first one, so both copies; that is to say for

22 the receiving party and for the handing-over copy, they had to be

23 identical.

24 Q. So you're talking about what I would refer to as duplicate

25 originals, two copies of the same thing both intended to be treated as

Page 16149

1 originals, correct?

2 A. Precisely.

3 Q. And so in this situation where we have handwritten changes made on

4 the document, you're saying there would be a second document with those

5 same handwritten changes made on it?

6 A. That's the way it should be. When I say "should be," I can

7 clarify, if necessary. I don't want to be more extensive than necessary.

8 Q. Well, I'm running over my time so I'm going to try to finish

9 quickly. Could you explain why you mean -- should be, do you mean that's

10 the way it should be but you don't know if that happened in this

11 particular instance?

12 A. If the corrections were made in the proper way, and judging by the

13 signature, that's what's probably happened, then both the first duplicate

14 original and the other duplicate original had to have been corrected in

15 the same manner. If that was not the case, then the whole procedure was

16 improper, but I cannot now tell you more. Only the officials who actually

17 did that would be in a position to tell you more if they were, in fact, in

18 charge of that, if that was their responsibility.

19 Q. Okay. And the copy, the duplicate original that you as the

20 sending party of these materials would have gotten, where would that be

21 kept in your office, basically your receipt, I would call it, where would

22 that be kept in your office?

23 A. Well, you used the right term, "receipt." By signing this, you

24 confirm that you took receipt of those documents. After the handover

25 procedure was over, that list was supposed to be kept in metal boxes, in

Page 16150

1 metal filing cabinets, in the premises of the office -- of the head of the

2 office of the cabinet of the chief of the Supreme Command Staff or the

3 General Staff.

4 Q. And, Colonel, do you know, could you help us out if today we

5 wanted to go to Belgrade and try to find your office's copy of this

6 document, where would we look for it? Where in the archives would we have

7 to ask? What description would we give so that the Serbian authorities

8 could help us find it?

9 A. Well, if I were now to locate this document for you, the first

10 thing I would do, I would go to the military archives. In the premises of

11 the military archive, you submit a request and in this request you specify

12 the document that you're looking for. You put in a brief written

13 explanation, and the authorised official, the head of the military

14 archives then deems whether this request is justified or not. If it is

15 justified, then he meets the request in the proper manner. He shows me

16 the document for me to see whether this is the document in question. If I

17 am authorised to take receipt of this document for some further action,

18 for a time-period that may be limited or not, I would then go with this

19 document to the office of the chief of the cabinet of the Chief of the

20 General Staff, and I would ask them to tell me what happened with this

21 document, whether this document was retained.

22 It would depend on the instruction that existed in the Army of

23 Yugoslavia that envisaged to the greatest detail how documents are to be

24 treated. It is a book that specifies how documents are to be treated,

25 official documents, internal documents, state secret, and so on. If this

Page 16151

1 list was to be kept in this metal filing cabinet permanently, then this

2 document is supposed to be there, and if the authorised officer in charge

3 of an organizational unit, the chef de cabinet or the Chief of General

4 Staff, indeed, deemed that this document is to be kept permanently, then

5 that is what it was done. But the retention time was set, one year, five

6 years, ten years, and if this time-period has not expired, the document is

7 there. And then with the document and the document that was taken out

8 from the military archives, then you can simply compare the two, to see

9 whether the -- both copies are identical. I think that I was quite ...

10 Q. Thank you, Colonel. I had phrased my question a certain way

11 because I have some familiarity with the process because over the years

12 we've been on several occasions trying to obtain documents from the

13 archives. And sometimes our problem from the view of the archivist seems

14 to be that we aren't describing the document correctly or accurately

15 enough for them to be able to find it, and I was just wondering if you

16 could help us with what language we should use to describe this particular

17 document, meaning your copy that you would have gotten back after these

18 materials were delivered to the archive. So should we make reference to

19 the office of the chef de cabinet of the Chief of Staff?

20 A. Well, perhaps I could think of that a bit more for the following

21 reason. Every organizational unit --

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a moment.

23 You're carrying out your investigation process here, Mr. Hannis.

24 You've already had an answer that says the copy would be in the office of

25 the chef de cabinet of the Chief of the General Staff, depending on what

Page 16152

1 the arrangements were for keeping it. I imagine there's not an unending

2 circle whereby that document would also be trailed along to the archives

3 and a receipt received for it. But if there is, I don't think you're

4 going to get clarification here today.

5 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I'll stop now.

6 Q. Thank you, Colonel.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

8 I wonder if we could have back on the screen 3D1078. Can I have

9 it on the right-hand screen, please, on the LiveNote screen so I can

10 magnify it on this screen. And the next page. That page in B/C/S also,

11 please.

12 Questioned by the Court:

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Radoicic, could you go to the second-last

14 paragraph that you see now on the screen where Mr. Ojdanic talks about you

15 being self-conceited and having a high opinion of your grandure. And if

16 you go to the sixth-last paragraph, which means going back to I think the

17 previous page unless you scroll down and we can see it - yeah, it's on

18 this page - where he refers to it being hypocritical to refer to the

19 decisions of the Supreme Defence Council. That led to Mr. Visnjic

20 suggesting to you in his initial questioning that you and Mr. Ojdanic were

21 not on the best of terms. What caused him to refer to you in this way?

22 A. Well, I have to tell you now with full responsibility and with

23 full sincerity vis-a-vis Mr. Ojdanic that in this procedure the level of

24 responsibility for the speed of my action was not sufficiently determined,

25 and I think that I should apologise now because my powers of assessment

Page 16153

1 were far less than those that he had, his assessment was broader, but on

2 the other hand for formal and legal reasons I was prevented, I was

3 hindered. I could not start searching for this document because pursuant

4 to this decision of the Supreme Defence Council that I cannot now refer to

5 precisely, but I do know that this decision prohibited the use of

6 documents - I think that I did not add that at the beginning - documents

7 that were classified as strictly confidential, state secret, and so on.

8 Except in those cases where approval was obtained. At that time I was at

9 the cabinet of the defence minister and I did not get, I did not ask, for

10 that approval. And that is where I made this big mistake. And this is

11 what I am responsible for. I did not ask officially for the approval to

12 go and look for this document.

13 And thirdly, this document was no longer within my purview because

14 at that time it was already either at the military archives or at the

15 cabinet of the Chief of General Staff. If you allow me, let me just

16 finish. So the military archives in that period of time were under the

17 administration for the information of the General Staff of the Army of

18 Yugoslavia, and I had no right to issue any orders asking to get this

19 document.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: What changed then after you received the letter

21 which is now on the screen?

22 A. Well, I don't know what you mean. Nothing changed. I got the

23 official -- I got an official letter from him, from army General Dragoljub

24 Ojdanic, and I replied to that letter.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: And are you saying his original request wasn't

Page 16154

1 official?

2 A. In that period, procedure on those requests was not something that

3 was regulated as far as I was concerned. I was not under any obligation

4 to do that, but I had to treat his initial request with a much higher

5 degree of responsibility than I did, and I feel that I'm personally

6 responsible in this case. And this is how he painted this failure on my

7 part, and he was fully right. Whether this was my conceit, my delusion of

8 grandure, this is not something that I manifested because my personal and

9 my professional treatment of General Ojdanic was always the same. But at

10 that time I was not at the level. And if you can say that I have moral

11 responsibility for not being up to scratch, then I admit that it is the

12 case. In the time that passed, I came to be convinced that the least that

13 I can be charged with is moral responsibility.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: When the question was originally put to you by

15 Mr. Visnjic your answer was: "There was not a quality communication."

16 What did that mean?

17 A. Well, at that time when this correspondence occurred, I think that

18 the relations between -- the relations were not regulated in a proper

19 manner, or rather, the relations were in accordance with the regulations,

20 but in light of the situation and in light of the needs, I think that this

21 level of regulation was such that it did not allow me to evince a greater

22 degree of responsibility such as I should have. The chef de cabinet of

23 the federal defence minister did not -- was not superior to the Chief of

24 General Staff, which was at that time fully autonomous, that is different

25 to the current situation where the defence minister is in some aspects

Page 16155

1 superior to the Chief of General Staff. It was not so at the time, and I

2 couldn't evince this higher degree of responsibility, and that is why I

3 considered that I did not deal with this in a proper way.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

5 Mr. Visnjic.

6 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have no questions in

7 re-examination.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Radoicic, that completes your evidence; thank

10 you for coming here to give it. You're now free to leave the courtroom.

11 [The witness withdrew]

12 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm reminded that I should have made it clear at

13 the outset today that Judge Nosworthy's absence is on account of urgent

14 personal business and that we did consider the position again this morning

15 and decided to continue in her absence in the interests of justice.

16 Your next witness, Mr. Visnjic?

17 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, our next witness is

18 General Milan Uzelac.

19 Your Honour, while we're waiting for the witness I can tell you

20 that this will be a viva voce witness and we anticipated his testimony

21 would take about 20 minutes, and it will mostly be about parts of evidence

22 of witness Djorovic, Prosecution witness Lakic Djorovic.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

24 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

25 [The witness entered court]

Page 16156

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, Mr. Uzelac.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Could you please make the solemn declaration to

4 speak the truth by reading aloud the document which will now be shown to

5 you.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

7 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Please be seated.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: You'll now be examined by Mr. Visnjic on behalf of

11 Mr. Ojdanic.

12 Mr. Visnjic.

13 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.


15 [Witness answered through interpreter]

16 Examination by Mr. Visnjic:

17 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, General.

18 A. Good day.

19 Q. General, can you please tell the Trial Chamber briefly about your

20 military career, which duties you performed.

21 A. I began my career just like the majority of officers in the units

22 of the Army of Yugoslavia. The last three functions that I carried out in

23 the General Staff were the independent desk officer, expert desk officer,

24 for analysis or planning of movement; deputy chief of the transport

25 administration; and then the chief of the transport administration until

Page 16157

1 the end of my career.

2 Q. General, which duties were you performing in the course of 1999?

3 A. In the course of 1999, I was the chief of the administration --

4 transport administration of the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia.

5 Q. In the second half of 1999, was the General Staff of the Army of

6 Yugoslavia resolving the problem of vehicles that were in the possession

7 of the Army of Yugoslavia and were not from the establishment?

8 A. Yes, that is correct.

9 Q. Can you please tell us what it means when the vehicles are not

10 from the establishment.

11 A. When the vehicles are not from the establishment, it means that

12 they are not entered in the military central register and that they come

13 from other sources.

14 Q. Thank you.

15 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please look at the

16 table Exhibit P2752, this is a Prosecution exhibit.

17 Q. General, you are aware of this document and the document is

18 titled: "Overview of confiscated and seized motor vehicles."

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Who drafted this document?

21 A. The document was drafted by the transport administration in the

22 second half of 1999.

23 Q. In terms of structure, General, where did these vehicles come

24 from, General? And before that let me ask you what was the purpose of

25 this overview?

Page 16158

1 A. The overview was drafted in order to resolve the issue of vehicles

2 that were in the units of the army and were not in the establishment

3 structure.

4 Q. And now you can tell me, we have a table here where it is clearly

5 stated where -- which units the vehicles are from, the type or model of

6 the vehicles, their number. Where did these vehicles come from, how did

7 they end up in the units of the Army of Yugoslavia?

8 A. The precise answer how individual vehicles ended up in the units

9 is something that we are not able to answer. We were not able to give an

10 answer to that at that time either.

11 Q. But do you have a broader idea, a broader picture?

12 A. Yes. According to information, the vehicles came from customs,

13 where they were seized and given to the army for temporary use. A certain

14 number of vehicles were given from -- by the judiciary organs which had

15 been seized during the commission of crimes, and a number came from the

16 areas where combat activities were carried out. There is a certain number

17 of vehicles among the total number that were mobilised but were not

18 returned in time because the addresses of those who had provided them were

19 unknown and did not have the required documents that are necessary in

20 order to do this.

21 Q. For purposes of the transcript, page 55, line 2, you said that a

22 number of vehicles were given to the army by customs. Am I correct? Did

23 I hear you correctly?

24 A. Yes, you are correct.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: That's line 49 [sic] of page 54. Customs,

Page 16159

1 judiciary, and combat areas are the three sources that he's given.

2 MR. VISNJIC: Yes. I'm sorry, Your Honour.

3 Q. [Interpretation] You say here that a number of the vehicles was

4 mobilised. How did you come to that conclusion? What does it mean?

5 A. The conclusion comes from the number of freight vehicles and

6 buses, and the figure given for those vehicles here is a total of 450.

7 Q. All right. Very well. Now --

8 JUDGE BONOMY: The expression "mobilised but were not returned in

9 time," what do you mean by "in time"? Do you simply mean after the war?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

12 Mr. Visnjic.

13 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. And now, General, do you have some rough idea perhaps of how many

15 of the vehicles out of the total number or in percentages came from the

16 territory of Kosovo and Metohija and how many came from other sources that

17 you mentioned a little bit earlier?

18 A. In my rough estimate and according to my best recollection, it

19 would be from 60 to 65 per cent of vehicles that came from Kosovo and

20 Metohija and the others were from other areas or from customs.

21 Q. Thank you. General, we said here before that the General Staff

22 was trying to resolve the issue of these vehicles. What was the problem

23 that you actually had with these vehicles? Can you please explain that to

24 the Trial Chamber.

25 A. The problem of these vehicles the General Staff began to deal with

Page 16160

1 right after the beginning of the war when these vehicles remained in the

2 units and were not returned to their owners, the resolution of the problem

3 was something that was initiated by the units because they needed to be

4 removed from the units as soon as possible because they were creating

5 costs, there was a problem of how to maintain them and protect them from

6 being taken away or spare parts being taken away. So also there was the

7 problem of the engagement of the units on a daily basis on their

8 maintenance.

9 Q. In the second half of 1999, were there any meetings held in order

10 to resolve that problem and can you please explain the procedure that was

11 adopted in order to resolve this problem.

12 A. In the beginning the problem was supposed to be resolved at the

13 level of the expert service transport administration at whose head --

14 which I headed later. Then we had some problems relating to the legal

15 nature of this matter and we asked the legal structures from the army and

16 the ministry to assist us to find a legal solution in order to resolve

17 this problem.

18 Q. General, I see that you said that you tried to resolve this at the

19 level of your service, the transport administration?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. How did you try to resolve this problem, what was the initial

22 position, what was the initial proposal?

23 A. The initial proposal was to settle this in the way that vehicles

24 after being used in the army which are not part of the army are actually

25 returned to the owners, and this procedure is very precisely laid down.

Page 16161

1 And according to the procedure, vehicles returned from -- are returned to

2 known owners and there would be a commission report made as well as

3 accompanying documents in the process. These vehicles did not have proper

4 documents, and then there was the problem of how to return the vehicles in

5 their original state.

6 Q. And you said that for that purpose you sought the opinion of

7 specific legal services?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. How --

10 JUDGE BONOMY: I take it this problem relates to the ones which

11 were taken in areas of combat, that the problem doesn't relate to customs

12 or the judiciary as sources of these vehicles?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The problem had to do with all the

14 vehicles mentioned here regardless of whether they came from areas where

15 there was combat or whether they came from customs, for the simple reason

16 that anything used in the army, any item, has to have the appropriate

17 documents regulating the use of that item. The vehicles in question did

18 not have proper documents because they were issued for use with

19 decisions. And then there was a problem for all the vehicles to find a

20 uniform solution and to adjust that to the needs. This was the reason why

21 the -- some of the vehicles in question were received from customs.

22 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. General, you said one thing. You said that the vehicles from

24 customs were issued with documents that were actually just for temporary

25 use, and I see that is not in the transcript, the documents were for the

Page 16162

1 temporary use. Is that what you said?

2 A. Yes, yes, yes, exactly.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: I think it is in the transcript.

4 Was there a problem then with the documents relating to vehicles

5 which came from courts?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Vehicles that came from the courts

7 that -- did not present a problem because there was the proper procedure.

8 When a decision is made during proceedings that a vehicle is being seized

9 or confiscated, that was used in the commission of a crime --

10 JUDGE BONOMY: You've answered the question I asked you.

11 Please continue, Mr. Visnjic.

12 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation].

13 Q. General, can you tell us something about meetings that were held

14 in order to resolve this matter, when these meetings were held, who

15 attended them, and ultimately what was the final result of such meetings.

16 A. The first meeting after the usual consultations and an attempt to

17 get a solution at the level of legal services, a meeting was held - I

18 cannot give the exact date - sometime in July or August of 1999 which was

19 attended by invited representatives of the legal administration of the

20 ministry, the General Staff, the security service, these were all legal

21 experts, and there were also people from the judiciary, representatives of

22 the court attended the meetings, and of course expert organs of the

23 transport administration in an attempt to find a joint solution and to

24 receive expert assistance in the resolution of this problem.

25 At that meeting the opinion prevailed that this was regulated in

Page 16163

1 the regulations, transport organs were of the view that this procedure was

2 quite slow and that this was not the best solution, at least in our

3 opinion. However, as the discussion continued, the conclusion was reached

4 that there was no other way other than to go through the regular procedure

5 which was valid at that time, it's probably still valid now, for all items

6 that are in that particular situation.

7 Q. A person called Dasic, did that person chair any one of those

8 meetings and do you know who that might be?

9 A. I chaired the meeting that I referred to. As for a person by the

10 name of Dasic, at that time this person did not work at the General Staff

11 and therefore could not attend such a meeting, let alone chair such a

12 meeting.

13 Q. Otherwise you know who Dasic is?

14 A. Yes, I do. That's a general who came to work at the General

15 Staff, as far as I can remember, towards the end of 2002. All of this was

16 happening in the second half of 1999.

17 Q. Thank you. General, did General Ojdanic ever bring any pressure

18 to bear upon you for having this resolved?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Do you know whether General Ojdanic exerted pressure upon any one

21 of your associates or persons who participated in these meetings in order

22 to have this question resolved?

23 A. I have no such knowledge.

24 Q. Did General Ojdanic directly or indirectly communicate with you in

25 order to try to resolve this matter?

Page 16164

1 A. General Ojdanic did not communicate with me, either directly or

2 indirectly, because he was my second superior officer. One's assignments

3 are received from one's immediate superior officer and over those years I

4 did not receive any assignments directly from the Chief of General Staff,

5 not only in relation to this but generally speaking.

6 Q. Was there any mention at any one of these meetings that Ojdanic

7 and Pavkovic were furious because the vehicles had not been allocated?

8 A. No. These meetings, these two meetings that were organized, the

9 first one that I spoke about and the second one that was attended by a

10 larger number of people and where this table was presented at a later

11 point. There was no reference to that, especially because General

12 Pavkovic at that time was not in the General Staff at all.

13 Q. You mentioned a table now, General. This table was compiled by

14 you, or rather, your service, not Generals Gojkovic and Obrencevic; am I

15 right?

16 A. Yes, you are right. This table could not have been compiled by

17 anyone but the professional organs because they have all the records of

18 vehicles, both those that are in the central register and those that were

19 not in that register.

20 Q. Thank you, General.

21 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further

22 questions of this witness.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.

24 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.

25 Cross-examination by Mr. Hannis:

Page 16165

1 Q. General, who was your direct superior, the one that was between

2 you and General Ojdanic in 1999?

3 A. The person who was assistant Chief of General Staff, that was

4 Lieutenant-Colonel-General Vidoje Pantelic.

5 Q. Okay. And in your position as chief of the transport

6 administration, what -- what is that exactly? What was your job in 1999?

7 Can you briefly describe your duties?

8 A. In the General Staff every administration has its precisely

9 prescribed powers and responsibilities in terms of military

10 establishment. As for the transportation administration, it was in charge

11 of planning movement, training personnel for the transport service; that

12 is to say drivers and others, and obtaining motor vehicles and registering

13 them. Those are the basic, most important tasks that were there, also

14 regulating the safety of traffic, may I add that too, that is the most

15 important work that was done.

16 Q. And can you tell us approximately how many people worked under

17 you? How many people worked in the transportation administration of the

18 VJ in 1999?

19 A. To the best of my recollection, it was between 13 and 14 persons,

20 engineers who worked in this administration.

21 Q. [Microphone not activated].

22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.


24 Q. With the onset of the NATO bombing, was there a change in your

25 duties or did they remain basically the same?

Page 16166

1 A. The duties remained basically the same, except that during the

2 bombing two or three other men were brought in to help because we worked

3 round the clock, 24 hours a day, so it was necessary in order to be able

4 to take it physically.

5 Q. All right. You mentioned that the problem with these vehicles

6 that we were talking about is that they were not entered in the military

7 central register. Can you explain for me, please, what is the military

8 central register?

9 A. In the army there is a central register where every vehicle that

10 is in the possession of the army is registered, and one knows exactly in

11 what unit it is, when it was manufactured, and everything else that is

12 required. Vehicles that were obtained in three ways can become part of

13 this central register and that have full and regular documentation.

14 Q. What are those three ways?

15 A. First way is buying from the market or from the manufacturer,

16 where contracts are made, payments are made, and the vehicle is brought

17 into the records. The second way is that when judiciary organs complete a

18 procedure and seize a vehicle in accordance with regulations, then the

19 transportation administration is the tactical mainstay to which this is

20 reported and then they allocate the vehicle as necessary.

21 And thirdly, the third possible way is if a physical person or a

22 legal person wishes to make a gift to the military, then appropriate

23 documentation is drafted and that is how a vehicle is received. That is

24 how all the vehicles were obtained, all of those that are in the central

25 register of the army.

Page 16167

1 Q. For vehicles that were obtained either through a gift, as you just

2 described, or that came as a result of a judicial forfeiture proceeding of

3 some sort, who decided where those vehicles would be allocated?

4 A. Such a decision as well as for vehicles that are obtained in the

5 other two ways is made by the transportation administration.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: What happens to vehicle -- or about vehicles which

7 are requisitioned during wartime?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, these are the

9 vehicles that we have been describing so far. They were supposed to be

10 returned to their previous owners. They were supposed to go through a

11 certain procedure and to be returned to those who owned them.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: The word "requisition" means seized, if necessary,

13 against the will of the owner. Such vehicles would not appear to fall

14 into any of the three categories you've given us.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All of these vehicles that are

16 portrayed in this table do not belong to those three categories. That is

17 the source of the problem that we tried to resolve during the course of

18 1999.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

20 Mr. Hannis.


22 Q. So requisitioned for the use of the army for military purposes,

23 say during the state of war, that's a fourth way that the VJ might

24 physically obtain vehicles, correct?

25 A. This concept of requisitioning is not something that we had, as

Page 16168

1 far as I know. I mean, I don't know how to explain this now, but this

2 requisitioning was never used as a concept.

3 Q. Well, I -- I thought we had had some evidence earlier in this case

4 that there was a process whereby during wartime the army, for necessary

5 purposes, for military purposes, could requisition vehicles from private

6 citizens or from private companies. Wasn't there such a process in the

7 VJ?

8 A. That was supposed to be called mobilised vehicles that are given

9 along with a certificate, and you know who gives it and then a

10 compensation is provided, too, as well as for vehicles that were on lists

11 before the war started, on lists of units, for use in the case of war or

12 some other necessity.

13 Q. Okay, General. It may be a language thing. I think we're talking

14 about the same thing.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we may be, but they would not appear in the

16 register?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you please repeat your

18 question. I'm not quite sure that I understood it properly.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: These questions that Mr. Hannis is asking are about

20 the -- what you described as the military central register, and you've

21 told us the three categories of vehicle which do go into the register.

22 Can we take it that those which are mobilised vehicles do not go into the

23 register?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.

Page 16169


2 Q. The evidence I was thinking of, General, actually came from

3 Colonel Pesic, who testified on the 23rd of November last year. And at

4 page 7222, line 5, now he's talking about the military district, but I'm

5 curious as to whether or not the same procedure doesn't apply to the VJ.

6 He said that during a state of war there was authorisation to requisition

7 or appropriate civilian vehicles or private properties. He said: "It's a

8 planned activity to provide sufficient number of vehicles for the units.

9 That planned activity is implemented by military sectors in order to meet

10 the needs," in this case of the Pristina Corps, "and the needs of the

11 military territorial detachments."

12 Were you familiar with that procedure?

13 A. Yes, but that is not called requisitioning, at least not in our

14 terminology, and it does not mean violent seizing of vehicles. It means

15 that military territorial organs that are in charge of providing the

16 required number of vehicles can, along with a certificate, take an

17 additional number of vehicles that before the war, or rather, in

18 preparation for carrying out tasks had not been earmarked for use by the

19 military.

20 I have to point out here that these vehicles that are mobilised

21 involve a certain procedure. Every year they are checked by a commission

22 and their owners know that, if necessary, they should bring their vehicles

23 in to a particular place and a record is made. One knows when the vehicle

24 was brought in and what the payments made would be for every day that was

25 used by the military, so that is unequivocal. However, if vehicles were

Page 16170

1 destroyed during the bombing or if there was a need for increasing

2 capacities, it is possible to do something additional about this, but

3 again a certificate has to be issued and these vehicles are treated the

4 same way as those other vehicles, except that there is not a record that

5 is compiled by the commission. Quite simply, a certificate is issued, and

6 then on the basis of that all the rights are regulated.

7 I think that it is the word "requisitioning" that caused this

8 confusion. No one requisitioned vehicles, at least not legally, the

9 military territorial organs did not do that, they did not take vehicles in

10 that way and they did not evade making the payments that were due to the

11 owners.

12 Q. I didn't mean to suggest that they were, General. But that seems

13 to be now a fifth way that the army might obtain vehicles, and the

14 vehicles that were obtained by the military territorial organs under this

15 procedure that Colonel Pesic described, would those have been entered in

16 the central register of the VJ?

17 A. No. Let me clarify once again. As for the central register, it

18 lists only vehicles that are owned by the military. They don't have to

19 pay any compensation for that and they don't have to return these vehicles

20 to anyone. These are vehicles that are in the permanent possession of the

21 army.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, I don't have a group four and five I

23 don't think. My impression is that all of this is about the same

24 methodology of acquiring vehicles which the witness describes as mobilised

25 vehicles.

Page 16171

1 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, I guess I saw a distinction

2 between what Colonel Pesic has described with the military district sort

3 of pre-planning the need for vehicles and having a list of vehicles to be

4 mobilised when needed, as opposed to sort of the ad hoc what I would call

5 requisition of vehicles, for example, during or after the onset of combat

6 by military units in the field and requisitioning civilian vehicles from

7 people on the spot, which we've had some testimony about. I think

8 Mr. Bucaliu who talked about that in his testimony.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. It may be that you can divine more than four

10 categories from all the evidence, but I wonder if this witness is

11 describing five categories. Perhaps --

12 MR. HANNIS: As long as you understand the distinction I was

13 trying to draw, Your Honour, that's all I need to do with that.

14 Q. Colonel, you mentioned -- I mean General, sorry, you mentioned

15 that one of the problems or concerns you had about these vehicles in late

16 1999 was how to protect them from being taken away or parts being taken

17 away from them. From whom did the army have to protect these vehicles?

18 A. During the air-strikes, I have to tell you now, more -- many of

19 the barracks, the garrisons, and the hangars --

20 Q. I'm talking about after the war. I understood you had been

21 talking about in late 1999, after July 1999; is that not correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Okay. So after July 1999, who were you trying to protect these

24 vehicles from being taken away?

25 A. Well, I tried to explain that. The vehicles were in their units.

Page 16172

1 The vehicles were not all gathered in one place, they were in their

2 units. And because during the air-strikes the barracks had been

3 destroyed, defences had been destroyed and the enclosed areas where those

4 vehicles could be kept in a safe manner were also destroyed both from the

5 weather and theft. This was protected against civilians, all kinds of

6 thieves that could get into those areas that had not been repaired yet,

7 and definitely this was a potential risk. There was this risk of theft,

8 and that is why I mentioned that this problem had to be resolved and to

9 have those vehicles returned to their vehicles [as interpreted] as soon as

10 possible. We were not supposed to keep them for such a long time in the

11 units and in the barracks.

12 Q. You mentioned meetings that you attended in late 1999 to talk

13 about this problem with these vehicles that weren't listed in the central

14 register. I think you said there were two meetings. Is that the total

15 number of meetings you remember attending to discuss this issue?

16 A. I mentioned at the beginning of my evidence that at the level of

17 the professional service there was several consultations and meetings

18 within the transportation administration in an effort to find a solution.

19 When we were no longer -- when we exhausted all our possibilities for

20 solving this problem, we organized the first meeting I think with the five

21 or six lawyers from all the legal services in the army and the ministry,

22 and some progress was made in order to achieve a legal solution for this

23 issue, that was based on the regulations in force and legal practice.

24 The second meeting was organized sometime in November, and a

25 larger number of people was invited to that meeting, and the seriousness

Page 16173

1 of this whole problem was discussed and possible costs for the army unless

2 this problem is resolved was also discussed. There were representatives

3 of the ministry, of the General Staff, and primarily from the legal and

4 transport service, transportation service, they were present there.

5 So those were the two main meetings where these issues were

6 addressed. There were no other meetings of this nature because the

7 position was taken at those meetings as to how this should be resolved

8 within the legal framework.

9 Q. You described those as the two main meetings. Can you tell us

10 approximately when the first one was?

11 A. Well, I can't now recall the exact date, but I think it was

12 sometime in late July or early August of that year, 1999, and the second

13 meeting was sometime in November of the same year.

14 Q. Do you recall where each of those meetings were, the first one in

15 July or August?

16 A. Yes, yes, I do. The first meeting was in my office and I chaired

17 the meeting, and the second meeting was held in the -- in a hall in the

18 General Staff building and it was attended by substantially larger number

19 of people.

20 Q. Approximately how many people attended that second meeting in

21 November?

22 A. Well, between 25 and 30 people.

23 Q. And the first meeting in your office, how many at that one?

24 A. Well, there may have been seven or eight people there.

25 Q. Did Obrencevic attend either of those meetings?

Page 16174

1 A. No. I don't know for the second one, but he did not attend the

2 first one.

3 Q. Finally I want to ask you about Exhibit P2572 which is this table

4 of confiscated and seized motor vehicles.

5 MR. HANNIS: Can we put that on the e-court for you.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic, is that the table that was being

7 referred to at the very end of the examination-in-chief?

8 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] You mean the document that's now in

9 front of us, the war log?

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes -- no, sorry --

11 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, I gave the wrong information. It should

12 be 2752, I think I transposed my digits.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: At the end of your examination-in-chief you asked

14 the witness if a table was compiled and he said it was compiled by his

15 staff. Is that the same as the document you had put on the screen, which

16 is P2752?

17 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

19 Mr. Hannis.


21 Q. General, is this the document that was prepared by your

22 transportation administration?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Was this used in connection with that November meeting? I see the

25 date on it is the 23rd of November, 1999.

Page 16175

1 A. I presented this overview because I also took part in that meeting

2 in an effort to find a solution and I took part in the debate. This

3 overview was presented at that meeting, and it was made quite some time

4 before because we knew what problem we were supposed to deal with and we

5 knew about the number of vehicles we had to have some foundation.

6 Q. Okay. Now, I take it none of these vehicles, these 1.913 total

7 are vehicles that were purchased or were the subject of judicial

8 forfeitures or gifts to the army. These are all vehicles that were not in

9 the central register, correct?

10 A. Precisely.

11 Q. Of the 1.333 listed in connection with the 3rd Army in the third

12 row there, how many of those, if you know, came to the army during combat

13 activities?

14 A. A long time has passed since then. I could not really give you a

15 definite answer, because even before 1999 we would get vehicles from the

16 customs for temporary use and they were then assigned to units. At this

17 point in time I don't have the exact figures for the number of such

18 vehicles that reached the 3rd Army before the bombing started so I really

19 couldn't give you any reliable information as to that.

20 Q. So you can't tell us out of this number, 1.333, how many came to

21 the army before the bombing started and how many came after?

22 A. I couldn't tell you because a long time has passed, but I know

23 that quite a few vehicles had come from the customs in 1997 and 1998.

24 Q. So how long had these 1.333 vehicles been in the possession of the

25 army without being returned or without being listed on the central

Page 16176

1 register? Is this a problem that's been going back for a couple of years

2 before 1999?

3 A. I'm not sure whether I understand your question correctly. Could

4 you please repeat it.

5 Q. Well, I'll withdraw it and ask you something else. Was there

6 detailed information kept somewhere in the army or in the transportation

7 administration about the sources of each of these 1.333 vehicles, or did

8 that simply not exist?

9 A. We did not have such unified records. We only kept records as to

10 the number and kind of vehicles in each unit, and on the basis of the

11 reports from the units we were able to produce this overview.

12 Q. It seems -- it seems likely to me that a certain number of these

13 vehicles must have been seized from private individuals and companies in

14 Kosovo during 1998 and 1999. Would you agree with that?

15 A. I would.

16 Q. And after the end of the war, after June 1999, what efforts did

17 you, the transportation administration in the army, make to try and

18 identify the rightful owners and return the vehicles to them?

19 A. The transportation administration and the General Staff made

20 efforts immediately after the end of the war to have those vehicles

21 returned to their owners as soon as possible, but in that period it was

22 quite difficult for a very simple reason. It was, in fact, impossible to

23 locate all the owners simply because many people from Kosovo had left, had

24 come to Serbia, to central Serbia, or went abroad, changed their

25 addresses, and we didn't know where they were.

Page 16177

1 Secondly, as regards the population or Kosovo and Metohija, the

2 communication or the possibility to reach the legal owners were low and it

3 was difficult to do so, and for some vehicles the owners were not known.

4 The owners were supposed to report themselves, they were supposed to file

5 a request for their vehicle to be returned to them. Some efforts were

6 made, in other words, but it was quite obvious that at that time it was

7 not such a simple -- not such an easy task, and that is why this meeting

8 was set up in order to see ways in which this could be done.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, we're well past the time for the

10 break. Have you got a lot to go?

11 MR. HANNIS: Two more questions.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Please continue.


14 Q. Did or the army make any efforts to make a public notification

15 calling upon owners of vehicles that had been taken by the army to come

16 forward and identify themselves and provide information about their

17 vehicles? You didn't do that, did you?

18 A. We didn't make any such public calls, but there were some owners

19 who knew, owners knew that they could seek their vehicles, the return of

20 their vehicles, through legal offices or in some other ways.

21 Q. Thank you, General.

22 MR. HANNIS: I have no more questions, Your Honour. Thank you.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

24 Mr. Visnjic, do you have re-examination?

25 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Just one question, Your Honour.

Page 16178

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well.

2 Re-examination by Mr. Visnjic:

3 Q. [Interpretation] General, you just told us that the owners came.

4 My question to you is whether you know that even after those meetings the

5 owners from Kosovo and Metohija had their vehicles returned to them.

6 A. The owners who had documents, who had proof of the ownership of

7 the vehicles, the vehicles were returned to them.

8 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have no

9 further questions.

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Uzelac, that completes your evidence. Thank

12 you for coming to give evidence. You're now free to leave the courtroom.

13 Mr. Visnjic, remind me of the estimate for Mr. Pantelic.

14 [The witness withdrew]

15 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in view of the fact

16 that it's Friday, I'll do my best to complete his evidence within 15 to 20

17 minutes max. He's testifying under Rule 92 bis, so there will be just

18 some quick additional examination -- 92 ter, I'm sorry.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm -- simply ask because there is the potential

20 of -- we're not under the extreme pressure of finishing exactly at quarter

21 to. So I think we should do our level best together to complete his

22 evidence today.

23 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours -- well, the very fact

24 that it's Friday today is pressure enough, but we will do all we can.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 16179

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we shall adjourn now and resume at 1.00.

2 --- Recess taken at 12.28 p.m.

3 --- On resuming at 12.59 p.m.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: I think it happens to each team in turn,

5 Mr. Visnjic, so Mr. Ackerman will be next.

6 [The witness entered court]

7 MR. SEPENUK: Mr. Visnjic is going to blame me for that, Your

8 Honour.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Good afternoon, Mr. Pantelic.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Would you please make the solemn declaration to

12 speak the truth by reading aloud the document which will now be shown to

13 you.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

15 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Please be seated.

17 You'll now be examined by Mr. Visnjic on behalf of Mr. Ojdanic.


19 [Witness answered through interpreter]

20 Examination by Mr. Visnjic:

21 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, General.

22 A. Good afternoon.

23 Q. General, could you please give us your name for the record.

24 A. My name is Vidoje Pantelic.

25 Q. Before you start your testimony, I wish to ask you whether it is

Page 16180

1 correct that on the 16th of September, 2007, you gave a statement to the

2 Defence team of General Ojdanic and that you signed it?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Is it correct that during the proofing for your testimony here you

5 had a look at this statement?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. As for the questions that were put to you while your statement was

8 being taken, would you give the same answers if you were to testify live

9 before this court?

10 A. Yes, absolutely.

11 Q. General, tell us what were the duties that we --

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Just before we --

13 MR. VISNJIC: I'm sorry. [Interpretation] 3D1113.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

15 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. General, could you please tell me what duties you had in 1998.

17 A. In 1998 I was chief of the operative logistics administration in

18 the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia, and at the same time I was

19 deputy assistant Chief of General Staff for logistics. And in 1999 from

20 the 18th of January, or rather, on the 18th of January I became chief --

21 assistant Chief of General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia for logistics.

22 Q. Thank you.

23 A. You're welcome.

24 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, before I continue the

25 examination of this witness, I wish to inform you that we intend to tender

Page 16181

1 the following documents: 3D1075, that is the collegium on the 12th of

2 December, 1997, that is referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 of his

3 statement.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

5 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I don't want to go into any detail

6 regarding this document. We can give the exact references in writing what

7 paragraphs of this document we are relying upon, if that is convenient for

8 you.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: It would be very helpful, Mr. Visnjic, if you were

10 to do that.

11 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: So we'll admit it subject to clarification of the

13 paragraphs that you -- the parts of it that you rely upon. Can we expect

14 that to be done before the end of next week?

15 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we're probably going to

16 do that already today. We'll send an e-mail and probably we will submit

17 this on Monday.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we'll mark it for identification until we see

19 your e-mail. Thank you.

20 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21 Also documents 3D743, 3D744, 3D745, and 3D746. These documents

22 are relevant for paragraphs 30, 31, and 32 of the witness's statement, and

23 it has to do with the relationship between the MUP and the Army of

24 Yugoslavia in terms of logistics. With the witness I just want to go

25 through two more documents here live.

Page 16182

1 Could the witness please be shown 3D1097.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: You're referring to these other four exhibits on

3 the basis that the witness doesn't say in his statement he's been shown

4 these and say anything about them, but you say that they're relevant to

5 the issues which arise in paragraphs 30, 31, and 32?

6 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Precisely, Your Honour. He does not

7 rely on them, but it is obvious from the documents that they actually

8 confirm what the witness is testifying about. These are very brief

9 documents, they are not too extensive.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: I see no objection being taken to you presenting

11 them in this way so these will be admitted -- oh, sorry, Mr. Stamp.

12 MR. STAMP: I didn't know he was asking for them to be admitted.

13 I heard him telling the Court what they were.


15 MR. STAMP: The policy has been --

16 JUDGE BONOMY: You're opposing this, are you?

17 MR. STAMP: Well, the documents have not been identified.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: You don't know what they are?

19 MR. STAMP: Well, I see the documents here and I can go on the

20 face of them but I think the documents should be identified.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Are you objecting to them being admitted?

22 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: What is the reason?

24 MR. STAMP: No foundation has been laid as to what they --

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I'm afraid you're going to have to go through

Page 16183

1 them, Mr. Visnjic.

2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Then let's

3 show the witness --

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Your alternative is to make a bar table filing, but

5 this may be quicker.

6 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I accept the alternative, Your

7 Honour, and in our request we are going to say exactly what the paragraphs

8 are that the witness is referring to.

9 Could the witness please be shown 3D1097.

10 Q. General, can you tell us what kind of a document this is, when it

11 was created?

12 A. This is an order of the Chief of General Staff of the Army of

13 Yugoslavia for a tour and control of commands and units in the area of

14 responsibility of the Pristina Corps. It was created on the 2nd of March,

15 1999, and the tour was planned for the 3rd and 4th of March the same

16 year. This order defines the tasks that the control, or rather, the tour

17 would involve in the Pristina Corps.

18 Q. Thank you, General. As far as I can see here from paragraph 2 of

19 this order, this group shall headed by General Ojdanic personally, Chief

20 of Staff?

21 A. Absolutely. General Dragoljub Ojdanic personally headed this

22 group.

23 Q. General, could you please tell us who was on the control group, if

24 you remember?

25 A. As for the control group, there were a few of us there, his

Page 16184

1 immediate assistant chiefs; in addition to General Ojdanic there was the

2 chief of sector of operations and staff affairs, General Obradovic; then

3 there was me; then from security I think it was General Gajic. I cannot

4 recall all the names right now that were ...

5 Q. Well, at any rate, if I understand you correctly, you were there?

6 A. Yes, I was there.

7 Q. How many days did this take?

8 A. This tour took two days, the 3rd and 4th of March.

9 Q. Thank you.

10 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown

11 document 1098, 3D1098.

12 Q. General, what does this document represent?

13 A. This document is a plan for touring commands and units in the area

14 of responsibility of the Pristina Corps of the 3rd Army. For every task

15 that is planned, a plan is made and one acts within a given period of time

16 in accordance with the plan made.

17 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could we see page 3, please, in

18 B/C/S and page 2 in English, please, or rather, page 3, I'm sorry.

19 Q. Now, General, it is my understanding that this activity, or

20 rather, this trip was planned in detail.

21 A. Absolutely, in detail from the departure from the General Staff to

22 the arrival at the airport, and then from Batajnica airport we flew to

23 Zlatan airport in Pristina --

24 Q. General, General, you don't have to go into all this detail. The

25 Judges can read this for themselves. What I wanted to ask you is the

Page 16185

1 following: To the best of your recollection throughout this two-day

2 activity were you with General Ojdanic all the time?

3 A. Absolutely, I was with him all the time.

4 Q. From this itinerary here --

5 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] And, Your Honours, it is on pages 3,

6 4, and 5 in B/C/S, I assume that it's similar in the English text.

7 Q. -- you had many intensive meetings in various units, and also - I

8 see that here from a particular column - you had a meeting with the organs

9 of local government and the state authorities in Kosovo?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Tell me, as for all of these meetings involving the military and

12 the civilian authorities and the units that you toured, were there any

13 discussions at any one of these meetings concerning expulsions of the

14 Albanian population from Kosovo?

15 A. No, not at a single meeting, including during this tour, was there

16 any such discussion.

17 Q. Were there any discussions about any activities that could

18 resemble population movements, movements of the civilian population from

19 Kosovo, from one territory to another or -- or having them transferred

20 across the border?

21 A. No, there were no such discussions. There were no such plans. As

22 a matter of fact, we flew by helicopter, we took a car, we took cars in

23 the territory. The population was involved in its normal spring

24 activities, agricultural activities, and from the helicopters you could

25 see their houses and their yards and their fields. And there was no

Page 16186

1 indication whatsoever of that nature, no mention of any such thing in

2 discussions with the authorities, nothing like that.

3 Q. Thank you.

4 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, no further questions

5 of this witness.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Visnjic.

7 Mr. Stamp.

8 MR. STAMP: Your Honours, can I start by indicating that I

9 withdraw the objection in respect to 3D743 to 746. I don't think it's

10 necessary to file the paperwork.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: That's very helpful. Thank you.

12 So we'll regard these as admitted in conjunction with the

13 statement.

14 Cross-examination by Mr. Stamp:

15 Q. You maintained high-level contacts with the minister of interior,

16 particularly Mr. Stojiljkovic, in respect to the delivery of armaments and

17 ammunition to the MUP for MUP activities, didn't you? And when I

18 say "you," I mean the command of the VJ.

19 A. No. To the best of my knowledge, the command of the army, or

20 rather, the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia or the Supreme Command

21 Staff during the course of the war did not hold any special links, did not

22 have any special links with Minister Stojiljkovic, minister of the

23 interior. As for this subject which is of interest, generally speaking

24 when the MUP needed something they would address the Army of Yugoslavia in

25 the prescribed way, in writing, through a written document that would be

Page 16187

1 signed by Minister Stojiljkovic and that the army would examine. And

2 within the scope of its possibilities, it would meet their needs or could

3 not. Minister Stojiljkovic --

4 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the end of the

5 answer. Could all microphones please be switched off except for the

6 speaker's. Thank you.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: I wonder if you could repeat the end of your answer

8 there since the interpreter was unable to pick it up. You were saying:

9 "And within the scope of its possibilities," that's the VJ, "it would

10 meet their needs or could not." You said: "Minister Stojiljkovic," and

11 the rest was lost.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Minister Stojiljkovic did not appear

13 in person or in some other way, except that he signed documents that would

14 come in written form to the General Staff or, possibly, to the Federal

15 Ministry of Defence and then that would be forwarded to the General Staff

16 for having it ultimately resolved.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

18 Mr. Stamp.

19 MR. STAMP: Thank you.

20 If we could look quickly at P1910, if that could be brought up on

21 e-court. And if we could move to page 2 in the English and remain on

22 the -- on page 1 in the B/C/S.

23 Q. Paragraph 6, in the middle of paragraph 6, sir, you will see an

24 indication of arrangements being made for take-over of equipment from the

25 Army of the Republika Srpska. Do you see that? Are you able to read

Page 16188

1 that?

2 A. Yes, that's in the last paragraph.

3 Q. Were -- were your supplies of armoured vehicles and tanks

4 augmented by supplies from Republika Srpska in 1999?

5 A. No, Mr. Prosecutor. Not a single tank was received from the Army

6 of Republika Srpska. It is clear here, stated here, that the overhaul

7 institution, the technical facility in the Army of Yugoslavia that

8 overhauled some of the equipment of Republika Srpska, agreement was

9 received that some of the equipment that was being overhauled could be

10 given to the Army of Yugoslavia for its use. We always said what it was.

11 It was some types of infantry weapons, motors for the T-55 tank, I don't

12 know exactly how many tank engines were involved, but it certainly could

13 not have been more. Then one power generator and 537G, that's it. There

14 were no tanks that the Army of Yugoslavia got from the Army of Republika

15 Srpska or from anyone else in the world.

16 Q. So you don't know of any tank units or tank formations being

17 transferred from Republika Srpska to the VJ in 1999?

18 A. No. I can say with full certainty that there weren't any such

19 situations. There were no tank units from the Army of Republika Srpska

20 that would come to the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

21 Q. Can we now move to your statement at paragraphs 13 and 14 and 15.

22 Do you have it there, your statement, paragraphs 13 and 14?

23 A. No, I don't see that.

24 Q. I'll just read it to you then. Paragraph 13 says that: "The VJ

25 was financed from the FRY budget. The 1999 budget did not contain any

Page 16189

1 increase in the funds for the event of a war so that the whole 1999 war

2 was financed from the peacetime budget adopted by the federal government

3 in December 1999."

4 Paragraph 14 says: "The VJ budget was about 10 million dinars,

5 but due to the outstanding payments from 1999 amounting to about 2 billion

6 dinars, it was actually lower for this amount. Moreover, the budget did

7 not contain any funds in foreign currency for equipping the army with

8 imported goods."

9 The part I wish to focus on is the budget did not contain any

10 funds in foreign currency for equipping the army with foreign goods.

11 Were there international sanctions against Yugoslavia which

12 prevented it from importing weaponry for the VJ or some types of weaponry

13 for the VJ? And I should give you a date. Were these sanctions in place

14 in 1999?

15 A. Well, first of all I would like to correct you. We're not talking

16 about 10 million, we're talking about 10 billion dinars. At that time the

17 equivalent would be about $1 billion. It is correct that at that time

18 sanctions were in place. We did not have any foreign currency to import

19 anything from abroad, and we couldn't import anything because the wall of

20 the sanctions was really very firm. So the import of any materiel or

21 anything from abroad into the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the

22 war was completely impossible, and we were very desperately short of some

23 items at that time.

24 Q. Do you know that during the time when these sanctions were in

25 place a financial structure was designed and implemented by President

Page 16190

1 Milosevic for the funding, equipping, and supplying of the VJ by diverting

2 funds from customs duties that were collected to foreign bank accounts and

3 to foreign arms suppliers, do you know that?

4 A. No, I don't know about that. Nobody's ever told me about that and

5 there was no discussion of that. I didn't know what kind of items were

6 supposed to be obtained in this way.

7 Q. Very well. You were assistant chief for logistics, so I'll ask

8 you this then. Do you know that the VJ was supplied with helicopter --

9 helicopter parts and high technology spare parts from abroad through sums

10 of money diverted by Slobodan Milosevic to foreign bank accounts for that

11 purpose?

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.

13 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like Mr. Stamp

14 to show some foundation for these questions. I let him ask the first one,

15 but now I would really like him to give us some kind of a foundation where

16 does this come from.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp.

18 MR. STAMP: I'm merely asking the witness if he knows these

19 things, but if it is necessary and if it is helpful, these are the

20 results -- or these are the findings of -- in an expert report that was

21 used in the Milosevic case and that was disclosed to the Defence a long

22 time ago.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

24 Mr. Visnjic.

25 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Does Mr. Stamp mean that this report

Page 16191

1 is among the millions of pages that were disclosed to us?

2 MR. STAMP: Oh, I wasn't sure I was expected to answer. This was

3 disclosed to Defence.

4 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] It was among the millions of pages;

5 if that is so, Your Honour, this was not exhibited in the proceedings so

6 far and I would like Mr. Stamp to provide us with the foundation for the

7 questions he's asking of the witness.

8 Well, it doesn't matter.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: The last words you uttered are translated: "It

10 doesn't matter."

11 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] No, I'm sorry, that was an aside

12 that was meant for Mr. Ivetic. I apologise. And I'm still waiting for

13 Mr. Stamp's answer.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't think it's for Mr. Stamp to answer. It's

15 obvious that he's claiming that these were disclosed to you but not

16 exhibited as yet in the trial. Give us one moment.

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 JUDGE BONOMY: We're happy to rely on Mr. Stamp's assurance about

19 his foundation and we'll allow the witness to answer the question. If it

20 emerges in due course that some prejudice has been caused to you,

21 Mr. Visnjic, then you know that you can apply to us for relief from that.

22 Mr. Stamp.

23 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honours.

24 Q. I'm merely asking you, sir, what you know. And am I to understand

25 from your evidence you do not know of the VJ being supplied in 1997, 1998,

Page 16192

1 and 1999 with armaments and spare parts for armaments from overseas?

2 A. As for 1997 and 1998, I cannot give you an answer; and as for

3 1999, I can say with absolute certainty that there were no purchases, no

4 spare parts, weapons, or anything was obtained from abroad in the period

5 of time from the 18th of January when I took over until the end of the war

6 in May -- or in June, rather.

7 The procedure for the procurement of weapons and equipment in the

8 Army of Yugoslavia is quite strictly regulated. It is carried out through

9 the administration for procurement, which was at the Ministry of Defence,

10 physically at the Ministry of Defence, and it was under the jurisdiction

11 of the federal defence minister. The procurement could be carried out

12 only if the assistant to the Chief of General Staff for air force and air

13 defence in this case obtains funds, in this case that would need to be

14 foreign exchange, dollars, pounds, marks, whatever, foreign currency of

15 some sort.

16 And if this assistant submits a report to the administration for

17 procurement and then a tender goes out or the administration finds the

18 dealer, and then the parts come in. In this period no such thing

19 happened. I don't know anything about any such instances that you just

20 described.

21 Q. And the period that you can speak about is the period beginning

22 January 18th, 1999?

23 A. No, no, it was simply not possible. It was simply not possible at

24 all. Nobody in the world --

25 Q. [Previous translation continues]... understand, sir.

Page 16193

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.

2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I want Mr. Stamp to

3 tell me, because now I remember this report quite clearly, this was

4 disclosed to us, it comes from the Milosevic report, not because he

5 disclosed it to us but because it was in Milosevic case. I want Mr. Stamp

6 to tell us where he got the idea that the helicopters were actually

7 obtained for the Army of Yugoslavia, because I don't think that that

8 report says anything about those helicopters being bought for the Army of

9 Yugoslavia.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: We don't think it's necessary for Mr. Stamp to

11 demonstrate anything of the sort in relation to these questions. He's

12 simply asking for this witness's knowledge of these matters.

13 Mr. Stamp.

14 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honours.

15 Q. You started out your last answer or the one before that by saying

16 you can't speak for 1997 and 1998. What I want to understand from you is

17 that because you were appointed to your position as chief of logistics in

18 January 1999 ...

19 A. I don't know where the question is. I replied that there had been

20 no imports. The Yugoslav air force did not fly at all from April on.

21 There was no sense --

22 Q. That's not what I'm asking you, sir.

23 A. -- for any parts to be obtained in this period.

24 Q. What I'm asking you: Is your knowledge about the source of parts

25 for the VJ limited to the period after you were appointed to the position

Page 16194

1 of chief of logistics in January 1999?

2 A. Yes, yes, I understand now. No, no. I'm absolutely certain about

3 what I say for the previous period, too. I was the assistant Chief of

4 General Staff for logistics, but the air force technical service was not

5 part of the logistics sector --

6 Q. That was not my question.

7 A. -- it was subordinated to --

8 MR. STAMP: I have nothing further to ask this witness. Thank you

9 very much, Your Honours.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Stamp.

11 Mr. Visnjic.

12 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown

13 P1910.

14 Re-examination by Mr. Visnjic:

15 Q. [Interpretation] Last paragraph on page 1, General, Mr. Stamp put

16 it to you that some tanks or whatever it may be on this list were actually

17 taken over from the Republika Srpska army. It says here that equipment

18 and materiel was overhauled that was offered by the Cacak Repairs

19 Institute. Could you please tell us what Cacak TRZ is?

20 A. The Cacak Technical Repairs Institute is a place where the highest

21 level of repairs were carried out in the Army of Yugoslavia.

22 Q. General, just one more question. Where is Cacak?

23 A. Cacak is 150 kilometres away from Belgrade in Serbia, in the

24 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

25 Q. Thank you.

Page 16195

1 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further

2 questions.

3 [Trial Chamber confers]

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Pantelic, that completes your evidence; thank

5 you for coming to give it. You're now free to leave the courtroom.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

7 [The witness withdrew]

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.

9 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm waiting for you to

10 ask me if we have any further witnesses for the rest of today so that I

11 can tell you we don't.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. I think you're better keeping quiet.

13 I think we resume in the afternoon on Monday, so we shall adjourn

14 now and resume at 2.15 on Monday.

15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.39 p.m.,

16 to be reconvened on Monday, the 24th day of

17 September, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.