1 Wednesday, 13 February 2008

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

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

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, everyone. We continue with the

6 evidence of Mr. Mijatovic.

7 [The witness entered court]

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Dobar dan, Gospodin Mijatovic.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Your examination by Mr. Lukic will continue in the

11 moment. Please bear in mind that the solemn declaration to speak the

12 truth which you gave at the outset of your evidence continues to apply

13 until that evidence is completed.

14 Mr. Lukic.

15 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

16 WITNESS: MIROSLAV MIJATOVIC [Resumed]

17 [Witness answered through interpreter]

18 Examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]

19 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning from me, too, Mr. Mijatovic.

20 A. Good morning.

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have Exhibit 6D269

22 brought up in e-court.

23 Q. We see the document now. Who and when adopted this document --

24 probably issued is the better word.

25 A. Chief of the public security, Colonel-General Vlastimir Djordjevic

1 on the 18th of February, 1999.

2 Q. Can you please go to the last page to see if he signed it as

3 well.

4 A. Indeed he did.

5 Q. Thank you. Who was this sent to? Who is it addressed to?

6 A. To all the units of the public security at the ministry's HQ in

7 Belgrade; to all the secretariats, 33 of them; to the ministry staff in

8 Pristina; to the border police stations, a total of 35 of those, as we

9 see; and to the state security department, to the chief, to the attention

10 of the chief.

11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need the entire document.

12 Q. And can you please tell us what it's about.

13 A. This document was adopted just before the start of the NATO

14 aggression, before the air-strikes began, and this is the Ministry of the

15 Interior preparing for that sort of situation. It's clear if you look at

16 the measures being ordered here.

17 Q. Can you please go to the last page with item 16. Item 16, what

18 specifically is being ordered there?

19 A. First and foremost, full cooperation with the VJ units, exchange

20 of information, and to have joint action and cooperation between this

21 ministry and the VJ.

22 Q. All right.

23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please have 6D238.

24 Q. Who adopted this document and when?

25 A. This document was adopted by Minister Vlajko Stojiljkovic on the

1 24th of March, 1999.

2 Q. Who is it addressed to?

3 A. To everyone, same as the previous document, but it wasn't

4 addressed to the public security sector -- state security sector.

5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.

6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please go to paragraph 1 of

7 this document.

8 Q. Can you please read this.

9 A. "Since on the 23rd of March, 1999, the federal government declared

10 a state of imminent threat of war, it is necessary to step up the measures

11 ordered in our dispatch number 312 dated the 18th of February, 1999, with

12 particular emphasis on the following ..."

13 My apologies. Should I repeat anything?

14 Q. No, but I do have to ask you one thing. Is this dispatch in

15 reference to the previous one that we looked at?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Can you please go to item 7 on the next page, it's the last

18 paragraph in the English, it's page 2. Item number 7. Can you read this,

19 please.

20 A. "Establish full cooperation with units of the VJ. There should be

21 exchange of information on movements, preparations, and axes of movement

22 of the aggressor forces. Organize, if necessary, concerted action by the

23 ministry and the VJ to keep the aggressor forces from forcing their entry

24 into FRY territory."

25 Q. What is this paragraph in relation to?

1 A. The same as the paragraph that we were looking at in that previous

2 document. This is about cooperation, about concerted action, and about

3 exchange of information between the police on the one hand and the army on

4 the other.

5 Q. Thank you very much.

6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please have 6D132.

7 Q. Sir, who adopted this document?

8 A. Minister Vlajko Stojiljkovic.

9 Q. Who is it addressed to?

10 A. The same addressees as the previous document, all the

11 secretariats, the staff, organizational units back in the ministry, and

12 units of the border police.

13 Q. Can you look at paragraph 1, please, and can you read it for us?

14 A. "The federal government after the air-strikes carried out by NATO

15 against our country has declared a state of war. In order to have full

16 mobility and preparedness for carrying out all jobs and assignments that

17 the ministry is in charge of in wartime, in keeping with defence plans and

18 the specific security situation prevailing in the area, secretariat," and

19 I think this is probably a typo, "it is necessary to step up measures

20 ordered in our dispatches dated the 18th of February and the 24th of

21 March, 1999."

22 Q. So is this a reference to the previous two dispatches that we

23 looked at?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Can we please go to item 2 now, and read it for us, if you can.

1 A. This is a rather poor copy but I'll do my best.

2 "Carry out the mobilisation of the needed amount of reserve police

3 officers in order to step up general police activity, patrol activity,

4 operative and other forms of activity, with the objective of maintaining

5 law and public law -- law and order stable. Preventing any crimes from

6 being committed or criminal offences, security." It probably

7 reads: "Securing or guarding some persons," because this is a very poor

8 copy and I can't really see what it says, therefore I'm just

9 guessing, "installations and carrying out other jobs and duties."

10 Q. This is the minister of the interior of the Republic of Serbia

11 giving an order, so what is this order, "nalog," about?

12 A. It's for the needed amount of police reserves to be involved to

13 step up the activities of all the police's organizational units and to

14 prevent crimes or criminal offences, as well as to secure certain

15 facilities or buildings. Needless to say, the secretariats themselves

16 know that they have to prevent any crimes or criminal offences from being

17 committed and that they have to track down their perpetrators, but given

18 this newly arisen situation, something like this might have been taken

19 advantage of by certain individuals and groups, the situation I mean would

20 have been taken advantage of by individuals and groups to carry out

21 certain crimes, and that's probably why the ministry is focusing on this

22 issue here.

23 Q. Thank you very much. I'm perfectly aware of the fact that this is

24 a very poor copy, but can we please try to read the last paragraph of this

25 document.

1 A. "Coordinate with VJ units in order to prevent the aggressor's

2 forced entry into FRY territory."

3 Q. Again, what is the minister ordering here?

4 A. To have the necessary degree of coordination with the VJ in

5 defending the country.

6 Q. Were these dispatches acted upon?

7 A. Yes, although, as they say, we had all expected that the war would

8 never come, that a peaceful solution would after all be found. I know

9 this was the position taken by the state leadership, by the army, by the

10 police. They were all expecting this and they all wanted this to happen,

11 the entire nation did, needless to say.

12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please have 6D609. No

13 translation for this document.

14 Q. You will have to tell us who is sending it, when it was made, and

15 who the addressee appears to be?

16 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.

18 MR. HANNIS: I would like to raise my standard objection about

19 this and proceed as we have in the past.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: How many of these untranslated documents are going

21 to be presented, Mr. Lukic?

22 MR. LUKIC: Just a second, please.

23 [Defence counsel confer]

24 MR. LUKIC: [Microphone not activated]

25 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm not hearing you very clearly.

1 MR. LUKIC: I think that this is the one untranslated. We had one

2 yesterday and this should be the untranslated document.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well. Proceed.

4 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mijatovic, please read, don't comment. The

6 header of this document, the addressees, the first paragraph, up to this

7 word here, "Glogovac, OUP Glogovac." Just slowly, please, for the

8 interpreters to be able to follow.

9 A. The header reads: "MUP of the Republic of Serbia, public security

10 sector, dispatch number 548, the 17th of March, 1999."

11 The document was addressed to the SUP offices in Kragujevac,

12 Jagodina, Smederevo, Pozarevac, Zajecar Bor, Belgrade, Pristina, and

13 Kosovska Mitrovica, the chief, to the chief. The commands of the 37th and

14 86th PJP Detachments in Kragujevac to the commander, the MUP staff in

15 Pristina to the head, and to the administration for joint activities in

16 the ministry's HQ to the chief. The first paragraph reads: "The

17 involvement of members of the 36th and 86th Detachments of the PJP, who on

18 the 23rd of February, 1999, were dispatched to help out the secretariats

19 of the interior in Pristina, in Kosovska Mitrovica shall terminate on the

20 24th of March, 1999. In order to have them replaced, it is necessary to

21 carry out preparations, and on this day under the establishment, dispatch

22 to OUP Glogovac from the Kragujevac SUP, the 1st Company of the 36th PJP

23 Detachment. On the Jagodina SUP, the 2nd Company of the 36th PJP

24 Detachment."

25 Do you want me to read on?

1 Q. No, thank you. No need for that. That will do because my

2 question is: Does this document show that on the 17th of March the MUP of

3 the Republic of Serbia had its headquarters planned a replacement of PJP

4 units, not the sending of new units. Is that correct?

5 A. Yes, that is correct and that can be seen from the text of the

6 first paragraph.

7 Q. When was this replacement supposed to take place?

8 A. The replacement was supposed to take place on the 24th of March,

9 1999.

10 Q. Thank you.

11 MR. LUKIC: I just want to inform Your Honours that it seems that

12 we have one more un -- that we have one more untranslated document, it

13 would be used at the very end of this examination, but it's 6D237.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

15 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, if I may, I'll raise my objection at

16 that time, but with this one while we still have it up, normally this

17 might be something I would address on my cross-exam, but because it's not

18 translated, could I request that the witness be asked to read what's

19 stamped on the bottom of both pages and any signature, what he can tell us

20 about who this is from, sort of for authenticity purposes.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Could you deal with that, please, Mr. Lukic.

22 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.

23 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mijatovic, at the bottom of both pages --

24 A. Sorry, I haven't found the document. What was the number you

25 said?

1 Q. 6D609, and you have it on the screen too.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Mijatovic, it's the one that you're dealing

3 with at the moment, forget the other one that Mr. Lukic referred to, back

4 to the one you've just read and you'll see now that the --

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Fine, I found it.

6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. So we see at the bottom of each and every page we see a text in

8 Cyrillic, and could you read for us what this says, this is a text that is

9 obviously not part of the document.

10 A. It says: "Copy faithful to the original, authorised official,

11 sergeant first -- staff sergeant or sergeant first class Ljiljana

12 Veselinovic, the 21st of June, 2006, signed by Ljiljana Veselinovic. It's

13 also on the second page rather the last page.

14 Q. Do you know what this is all about?

15 A. Well, I can assume that this copy was made precisely by Mrs.

16 Ljiljana Veselinovic from the original and she signed that because that is

17 what her text says, that this is a copy that is an authentic copy faithful

18 to the original and she confirms that.

19 MR. LUKIC: Is this enough, Your Honour? Is this enough or I

20 should examine further.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Are you content with that, Mr. Hannis?

22 MR. HANNIS: I am, Your Honour, thank you.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Mr. Mijatovic, what was the behaviour of the KLA after the 20th of

1 March, 1999, when the KVM left Kosovo?

2 A. That can be seen from certain documents that the so-called KLA

3 after the verification mission left Kosovo and Metohija intensified its

4 terrorist activity by carrying out attacks against citizens, both in urban

5 areas and outside urban areas. Civilians were killed, policemen were

6 killed. So once the KVM left the intensity of activity was stepped up.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have 6D614 on e-court

8 page 690 in both versions, B/C/S and English. I am sorry. We don't have

9 a translation, so we're -- I'm not going to use it. It's been translated

10 only up to page 590, but I will give some examples from this document in

11 terms of attacks against policemen. It is item 539, 540, 541, 542, 543,

12 544, 545, 546, all these items being on page 690, and then on page 691, in

13 both versions, 547, and I made an omission. On page 690 there is also 549

14 and 550. In relation to attacks against civilians, on page 690, there is

15 551, 552, and 553.

16 Now I would like to ask for the following document to be called up

17 on e-court, 6D --

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, what is this document, 6D614?

19 MR. LUKIC: That's a big document that encompasses criminal

20 reports from Kosovo that were collected after the war, so it does not

21 represent all the criminal cases, but the cases that were found after the

22 withdrawal.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: For the avoidance of any doubt, what you've just

24 done by reading these items does not amount to admission of any of this

25 document. I gathered from what you said before that you intend to submit

1 this in some other way for our consideration. So we will ignore the

2 reference to these various paragraphs at this stage and wait until we see

3 whether the document is admitted in some way. If it is, then we will

4 obviously come back and note that in the context of this evidence you

5 referred to these particular paragraphs.

6 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Mr. Mijatovic, now we should have a look at 6D291.

10 Who sent this document?

11 A. This document was sent by the chief of the public security sector,

12 General Vlastimir Djordjevic.

13 Q. When was it sent?

14 A. It was sent on the 21st of March, 1999.

15 Q. Who was it sent to?

16 A. It was sent to a number of secretariats. If necessary, I'm going

17 to read them all out.

18 Q. Secretariats from Kosovo, secretariats from the interior of

19 Serbia?

20 A. Yes, yes. It was sent to a number of secretariats in the central

21 part of Serbia and secretariats in Kosovo and Metohija.

22 Q. Who else?

23 A. To the commands of the 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 35th, 36th, and 37th PJP

24 Detachments in Novi Sad, Belgrade, Uzice, Kragujevac, and Nis, the

25 commander, and to the head of the MUP staff in Pristina.

1 Q. Are the headquarters of all of these PJP detachments outside

2 Kosovo?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. What can now be seen from the first paragraph, please?

5 A. Do you want me to read it or do you want me to read it and then

6 give you my comments?

7 Q. You can give us your comments straight away, if you've read it.

8 A. This paragraph shows that in order to carry out special security

9 tasks on the territory of Kosovo and Metohija, the mentioned detachments

10 are being sent, namely on the 22nd of March, that they are being sent to

11 carry out their regular work to provide assistance to the following

12 secretariats in Kosovo and Metohija.

13 Q. Were these PJP detachments sent to Kosovo to be at the disposal of

14 the MUP staff in Kosovo?

15 A. No, you can see from here that they're being sent to the

16 secretariats in Kosovo to assist them.

17 Q. After the KVM left, who came to Kosovo and Metohija from the MUP

18 leaders?

19 A. Generals Lazarevic and -- Generals Djordjevic and Stevanovic --

20 no, sorry, I think it was only Stevanovic who came.

21 Q. We have a mistake here, I think, in the transcript, the name of

22 General Lazarevic appears. Did you mention him?

23 A. No, no, I mentioned Djordjevic and Stevanovic, but I made a

24 mistake, it was General Stevanovic who came.

25 Q. Thank you. Were meetings held with the SUP chiefs and detachment

1 commanders, commanders of the PJP detachments, that is?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. What was principally discussed?

4 A. What was principally discussed were the coming tasks.

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please call up in e-court

6 6D238.

7 Q. I do apologise. I interrupted you, but on page 1, paragraph 2 of

8 this document what is primarily insisted upon there?

9 A. What is primarily insisted upon there is, among other things,

10 stepped-up activity in carrying out operative and other activities, and

11 also taking measures energetically to prevent crimes and misdemeanours,

12 particularly those involving violence, which could have been expected in

13 that kind of a situation. Of course the focus was on preventing any

14 danger to human lives and their property, so that meant the protection of

15 the population in general.

16 Q. Was that discussed at the meetings you had with commanders of the

17 detachments and the -- of the PJPs and with the chiefs of SUPs?

18 A. Yes, that was done regularly when these meetings were held, and

19 the emphasis was always on lawful conduct and taking all measures to

20 observe regulations governing police work to a maximum as well as protect

21 the civilian population. That was also done by way of certain documents,

22 and there was quite a bit of that. That's to say it wasn't done only at

23 meetings.

24 Q. Now I'd like to move on to the time of war and bombing, that is to

25 say after the 24th of March, 1999. Are you aware of the case of a killing

1 committed in Podujevo at the very beginning of the war carried out by the

2 reserve members of the SAJ?

3 A. Yes. I am aware of that incident.

4 Q. Could anyone from the staff decide that any police unit should

5 have a reserve force and how that force would be engaged?

6 A. Please let's clarify this. It is one thing to have a reserve

7 force and it is another thing to engage it. All police units according to

8 the law had their reserve force, or rather, the wartime assignments of

9 these units involved a reserve force and their involvement could only be

10 ordered by the minister of the interior or perhaps a person that he would

11 authorise to do so.

12 Q. Can we see this from this document, 6D132, paragraph 2, who has

13 the power to mobilise the reserve force of the police?

14 A. Did you say 132?

15 Q. Yes, 6D132.

16 A. Yes, we can see this from paragraph 2, where the minister himself

17 orders the mobilisation of the reserve force.

18 Q. Who at that time had the exclusive authority to actually employ or

19 engage the reserve force of the police?

20 A. On the orders of the minister, this was done by the units that

21 actually had the reserve force, so the secretariats, primarily the

22 secretariats, and there were reserve forces in the headquarters of the

23 ministry, some units did have their reserve force in Belgrade.

24 Q. Can the minister delegate this authority to anyone else?

25 A. Yes, but this time he did it himself.

1 Q. Did it ever happen that the minister -- as regards this authority

2 to engage the reserve force and to mobilise the reserve forces of the

3 Ministry of the Interior in Kosovo and Metohija, to delegate it to anyone

4 in the staff?

5 A. No, this was not done ever. It was usually delegated to the chief

6 of the public security sector or to some associate of his.

7 Q. When did you learn that some of the reservists from the SAJ were

8 again engaged in Kosovo and Metohija, the ones who had been there before?

9 A. I learned that while I was being proofed for my testimony here at

10 this trial, because I know that after this event that this unit was

11 removed from there, that they were prosecuted, but the first time that I

12 heard that they had gone back to Kosovo was when I was being proofed for

13 my testimony.

14 Q. And when was the first time that you heard about the Skorpions?

15 A. I heard about the Skorpions when they were put on trial; I saw it

16 on TV.

17 Q. Now I would like us to look --

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Can I be clear, what are we talking about when we

19 talk about the Skorpions? What event are we talking about and in what --

20 MR. LUKIC: Podujevo.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Oh, it's the same?

22 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Throughout this you have been describing them as

24 the reserve force of the SAJ.

25 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: And that's the same as what we've already heard

2 described as the Skorpions?

3 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

5 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

6 [Interpretation] So could we please have P1996 up in e-court.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Just finally, Mr. Mijatovic, when were the

8 Skorpions put on trial?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I couldn't tell you. I know

10 that it was after the war.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Roughly how long after the war?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really couldn't tell you. I watch

13 TV seldom -- in fact, I sometimes watch the daily news and that's where I

14 saw that. I saw an item on the evening news, that they were being put on

15 trial.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: When did you retire from the service?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 31st of December, 2004.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Was it after that, this trial?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really couldn't be any more

20 specific than this, but I'm sure that it was after the war and after the

21 police and the army pulled out of Kosovo and Metohija.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that would be 1999, but are you saying it

23 might even have been after 2004?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really couldn't tell you when it

25 was because I don't recall, but I do recall seeing that on the news that

1 the Skorpions were being put on -- were on trial, but I wasn't quite sure

2 what the crimes were.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

4 MR. LUKIC: I think it also might be that there were two

5 proceedings, one instigated immediately after the war and another one when

6 the term "Skorpions" was used for the first time might be -- yeah, during

7 the Milosevic trial, that was the first time --

8 JUDGE BONOMY: That's quite -- that's completely different,

9 though, isn't it?

10 MR. LUKIC: No, yeah, but the same unit was in Bosnia --

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, but it's not events in 1999 that featured in

12 the --

13 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, no, no, but the --

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, let's just proceed with the evidence. The

15 witness obviously knows nothing about this matter.

16 MR. LUKIC: Yes, thank you.

17 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mijatovic, you have this document, P1996, in

18 front of you. Could you please go to page 8 in English, that would be

19 page 10, the first paragraph, please.

20 A. Yes, I found it.

21 Q. And just below the first set of bullet points, "in the further

22 course ..."

23 A. "In the further course ..."?

24 Q. Yes, that where you should start, and then you should read -- I do

25 apologise, I'm a little bit mixed up. Could you please turn to page 1 and

1 tell us what this document is, in fact.

2 A. These are the minutes from a meeting held at the staff in Pristina

3 involving the police leadership in Kosovo and Metohija.

4 Q. And did you hear about the fact that Dragan Ilic was, in fact, in

5 Kosovo?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And on page 8 of this document, the section that I referred you to

8 before, is it clear from this that he actually participated in the debate

9 at this meeting in the MUP staff?

10 A. Yes, you can see that.

11 Q. What was he doing in the seat or headquarters of the MUP in

12 Belgrade?

13 A. General Dragan Ilic was the chief of the crime police in the MUP

14 headquarters in Belgrade.

15 Q. Do you know what his role was in May?

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we go to the next page in English.

17 Q. So what was the role of Dragan Ilic in March 1999 in Kosovo and

18 Metohija, do you know that?

19 A. Well, you can see from the minutes, Dragan Ilic had come, since he

20 was in charge of the organizational units fighting crime, he had come to

21 make them step up their work, to improve the organization, and, as we can

22 see from here, he had a meeting with the chiefs of the criminal police

23 departments in the secretariats in Kosovo and Metohija. A plan was

24 drafted to sanitize the territory, and it was distributed to the chiefs,

25 and he informed the people present at the meeting accordingly.

1 Q. And why did Dragan Ilic present this briefing at the MUP staff

2 meeting?

3 A. Well, to inform the other leaders about that because only the

4 chiefs of the criminal police departments in the secretariats were present

5 when he distributed the plan, and this was a meeting of a different kind.

6 It was attended by the chiefs of the secretariats, part of the staff,

7 Generals Stevanovic, Lukic, and so on.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: What is the date of this meeting?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 7th of May, 1999.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: You've -- you were asked a question: What was his

11 role in May? And then you were asked: What was his role in March? I

12 take it all of this relates to May then, Mr. Lukic, does it?

13 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation].

14 JUDGE BONOMY: It doesn't, sorry.

15 There was no answer to the question: Do you know what his role

16 was in May? And then you asked: What was the role in March? Now, the

17 answer's given from the minutes and the minutes seem to relate to a

18 meeting in May.

19 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, that's right, my mistake, Your Honours.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, but the witness now seems to say, no, the

21 answer relates to March, so I'm totally confused.

22 MR. LUKIC: I'll try to clarify.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Mr. Mijatovic, the activities of Mr. Ilic are -- do they pertain

1 to May or March 1999?

2 A. No, it's May. I didn't mention March I think.

3 Q. I did. It was my mistake.

4 A. Yes, I was talking about May.

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We indicated that we would be using

6 Exhibit 4D3, but it's available only in Serbian, whereas Exhibit P985 is

7 available both in English and in Serbian. So if my learned friend Mr.

8 Hannis is not opposed to it, I would like to use the Prosecution exhibit

9 so that we can avail ourselves of the translation. It is the Law on

10 Defence.

11 MR. HANNIS: No objection.

12 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mijatovic, could you please go to page 2 of

14 this exhibit and tell us what you know about the manner in which

15 anti-terrorist actions were planned and carried out in 1999. Let's just

16 clear one thing up. Yesterday I asked you about the planning in the

17 course of 1998, and when I went through my questions I don't think that

18 they were specific enough. When we talked about the planning of

19 anti-terrorist actions in 1998 and when we talked about, or rather, when

20 you spoke about the excerpts of the maps that you received from the Army

21 of Yugoslavia, did this pertain to joint actions carried out by both the

22 MUP -- the police forces and the Army of Yugoslavia; or both to joint

23 actions and actions carried out separately by the police?

24 A. It pertained only to joint actions that the police carried out,

25 not the actions that the secretariats or organizational units of the MUP

1 carried out themselves. It pertained only to joint actions.

2 Q. Now that we are on this topic, were there any actions that were

3 carried out only by the police?

4 A. Well, I don't know what actions are you referring to, but the

5 police definitely carried out its regular activities and among them were

6 actions.

7 Q. Independent anti-terrorist actions, that's what I meant.

8 A. Well, there was some small-scale actions that were planned by the

9 secretariats in order to capture the perpetrators of crimes and to arrest

10 the terrorists, but there were no large-scale actions.

11 Q. Well, those plans that were drafted by the secretariats, were they

12 similar to the military plans? Were there maps drawn, orders, "zapovest,"

13 issued in writing, if you know, how was it done when the police was

14 planning the actions on its own?

15 A. No, these were just police actions and it was not done in the same

16 way as it is done in the military.

17 Q. Fine. So now we're on the Law on Defence, that's Exhibit P985,

18 and I've asked you, and let me go back to my question, what do you know

19 about the way in which anti-terrorist actions are planned and carried out

20 in 1999?

21 A. In 1999 the activities designed to suppress terrorism or to carry

22 out anti-terrorist actions was continued in the same vein as in 1998,

23 there were no changes there. So until the order on subordination was

24 issued, the police units would receive excerpts of the maps; and after the

25 order on subordination was issued they would also receive the

1 orders, "zapovesti," and the maps.

2 Q. What about Article 16 of the Law on Defence, what does it say and

3 were you familiar with the provision at the time?

4 A. Article 16 says that, "In the defence of the country the Army of

5 Yugoslavia is the main armed force and organizer of the armed struggle, it

6 unites all participants in the armed struggle and commands all combat

7 activities."

8 Q. That's right, but we did hear, didn't we, that there was certain

9 amount of problems regarding subordination from day one, in fact. What do

10 you know about this? Do you know what led to this misunderstanding?

11 A. As far as I know the problems concerned only one particular part

12 of this, it concerned anti-terrorist activity, or actions if you like.

13 There were no problems because work resumed as normal in -- as it had been

14 done in 1998; however, at the initial stage there were a number of

15 problems which related to varying interpretations of some legal

16 provisions. There were differences in terms of interpretation by some

17 officers. We from the police believed that the units to be resubordinated

18 were those that were not involved in combat actions and that all the

19 remaining units of the MUP should continue to go about their regular work

20 under these new changed circumstances, and I mean the state of war that

21 had been declared. When I say that, I mean crime control, traffic

22 control, issuing personal identification documents, driving licences, that

23 sort of thing. Unfortunately, as far as I know, certain members of the --

24 Q. Just a minute, please. On the transcript we have exactly the

25 opposite of what you're saying. This is what it says here --

1 JUDGE BONOMY: No, Mr. Lukic, I think we need that answer again as

2 a simple way of doing it, and the issue is what were the differences in

3 interpretation.

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. We'll have to repeat this. You from the police, what did you

6 believe should be resubordinated and what gave rise to this

7 misunderstanding, or rather, what did the army believe should be

8 resubordinated, can you please explain that again.

9 A. Of course. We believed, or rather, that was our interpretation of

10 these legal provisions, that only those parts of the MUP should be

11 resubordinated, or rather, only those units that were involved in

12 anti-terrorist activity or in combat, if you like. And everybody else in

13 the MUP was to carry on with their normal daily activities that they were

14 in charge of.

15 Q. Just to avoid generalisations I will try to phrase my question the

16 following way. Were there a number of officers of the VJ who believed

17 that in addition to this police segment the non-combat segment of the

18 police should also be resubordinated?

19 A. Yes, that is precisely where problems arose initially because

20 certain VJ officers believed that anything that belonged to the MUP and

21 that happened to be within their area of responsibility should be

22 resubordinated to the VJ. Just by way of an example, the entire

23 secretariat, including the chief and the hygiene officer who was in charge

24 of cleanliness in the secretariat building, all different lines of work;

25 and this is the sort of problem that would happen at the outset. However,

1 as far as I know, this was dealt with eventually and this did not affect

2 anti-terrorist activities in any way or the defence of the country.

3 Q. Can we please go back to P1996. We see that some SUP chiefs spoke

4 at this meeting. What do we see them saying there? You've read the

5 document, haven't you? Just go through it quickly, please.

6 A. Yes. We see the SUP chiefs speaking here and we see that they are

7 talking about the situation in the territory of their own secretariats.

8 The situation was quite difficult as a consequence of NATO air-strikes.

9 We can see that a number of crimes were occurring and the secretariats

10 were taking measures in terms of tracking down perpetrators, arresting

11 perpetrators, filing criminal complaints. Among those, persons were

12 civilians, active-duty policemen, reserve policemen, VJ members, all sorts

13 of people were involved, as I say. Persons were brought in who, in

14 addition to other crimes, had committed arson. Certain manipulations

15 of --

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic --

17 A. -- of trade were prevented and so on and so forth --

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, can we see what the witness is reading

19 from?

20 MR. LUKIC: It's the whole document almost, Your Honour, so --

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Oh, I see, it's not individual.

22 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: But this misunderstanding that he's talking about,

24 is it dealt with here?

25 MR. LUKIC: Misunderstanding in between police --

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah.

2 MR. LUKIC: -- and military regarding the application of the.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah.

4 MR. LUKIC: -- law on Defence? Yes.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Can we see where it's dealt with then?

6 MR. LUKIC: Give me one minute.

7 [Defence counsel confer]

8 MR. LUKIC: Can we proceed and I -- maybe after the --

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I mean, the order on resubordination makes it

10 clear it's for combat, as you know; and I would like to know more about

11 how this -- who in the army was taking a different view.

12 MR. LUKIC: I think that -- it says and MUP institutions or

13 something like that.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: But even if that was a misunderstanding, it would

15 be the simplest thing on earth to discuss and resolve. It's all very well

16 to talk in these general terms, but we really need to have specific

17 evidence about who in the army was saying that the whole MUP operation had

18 to be resubordinated because the documents don't really give that -- give

19 an indication that that was required.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Everyone here spends so much time emphasising the

22 importance of cooperation among the organs of the state, in particular the

23 VJ and the MUP, and tell us how cooperative they all were with each

24 other. That's a prominent theme of this case. Now, how on earth do they

25 come to have different understandings of one sentence in an order without

1 ever actually sitting down and addressing the issue? Or perhaps they did,

2 in which case it would be very interesting for us to hear what went on at

3 that discussion and how it was they were able to reach agreement; or,

4 indeed, whether there was in fact a power struggle and both sides didn't

5 want to reach agreement or one of the two sides didn't want to reach

6 agreement. I certainly have no clear idea of what really is the issue

7 here at the moment, especially bearing in mind the very simple terms of

8 that order.

9 [Trial Chamber confers]

10 JUDGE BONOMY: As Judge Chowhan points out, if there is any

11 question of resubordinating the whole MUP operation to the VJ, there must

12 be a reason for that, must -- it would have to be seen to be some need.

13 It's easy to see why the army might want resubordination of the combat

14 units of the MUP. They have the responsibility of leading the fight to

15 defend the country and the fight against terrorism; that's clear from

16 Articles 16 and 17 of the Law on Defence that you've referred us to. But

17 why on earth would they want resubordination of the traffic operations of

18 the MUP or anything else of that nature? So it would help us to hear a

19 bit more specific information rather than these vague generalisations

20 about misunderstanding.

21 MR. LUKIC: I've never actually explored this with this witness,

22 but I can ask him now and I know in the future we will have some witnesses

23 that will try to explain this issue but at the lower level.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Thank you.

25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

1 [Defence counsel confer]

2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Mr. Mijatovic, we never discussed details, I have to say that it's

4 my mistake because I was happy this way before I started asking you

5 whether there were problems or not.

6 A. I'll try to explain why I think these discrepancies in terms of

7 interpreting these legal provisions came about, and I certainly hope to be

8 successful in this.

9 If we look at Article 17 it reads: "In the case of imminent

10 threat of war, a state of war, or a state of emergency, the units and

11 organs," and I emphasise, "organs of the interior may be used for combat

12 assignments," and so on and so forth. I don't think there's any need for

13 me to go on reading this.

14 This means that police units and organs can be resubordinated or

15 may be resubordinated in the case of an imminent threat of war or in a

16 state of war. So okay, where do I think the problem occurred in these

17 varying interpretations? I think the stumbling block is this word, organ,

18 because in the Ministry of the Interior there is no such thing as

19 organs --

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Mijatovic --

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- Just the Ministry of the Interior

22 as a whole.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: -- just a moment.

24 We don't want to hear your opinion on this. No doubt, there are

25 many opinions about what happened. What I would like to know is who in

1 the army it was that was giving you one interpretation that didn't seem to

2 suit the MUP, because you've told us that the misunderstanding arose in

3 the minds of certain VJ officers who thought that everything should be

4 resubordinated to them. Now, who were these people?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wasn't involved in these

6 conversations and I couldn't say from personal knowledge, but I did hear

7 about what people believed. I heard my officers say what they believed as

8 to why this had come about.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: And what was it you heard from your officers?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, precisely what I was trying to

11 explain, why the discrepancies occurred --

12 JUDGE BONOMY: No, no.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- Precisely because their

14 interpretation of these provisions was different.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: What you said just now was: "I heard my officers

16 say what they believed as to why this had come about."

17 Now, what had come about? That's what we're trying to

18 understand. What was it that actually was the disagreement?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure if this is an

20 interpretation problem because I really am doing my best to explain this.

21 I think this formulation led to the fact that varying interpretations

22 arose. Members of the army, I don't know, maybe somebody is, but these

23 people are not lawyers and I'm not a lawyer either. Lawyers would be best

24 placed to explain this. But that's precisely why I was trying to say

25 this. There was one organ, state organ, the ministry, that's the organ.

1 Everything else are units, not organ. A secretariat is not an organ,

2 therefore, I assume based on that, or rather, I believe that those people

3 interpreted it like this; when they say organ they mean the secretariat so

4 now the whole secretariat should be resubordinated. That's my opinion.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: I understand that's what you're saying as an

6 opinion of the MUP. What I would like to know, and I think my colleagues

7 would like to know is: Who in the army saw it differently? Who in the

8 army was pressing you to be totally resubordinated to the VJ? Or did you

9 just make the problem up?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, I didn't just make the

11 problem up. This is something that was discussed. I'm saying I heard

12 this from my officers. Who specifically was the commander of this brigade

13 or another brigade, I really can't say because I don't know.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that doesn't -- you can understand -- I can't

15 fault you for that. You're frankly telling us you don't know, but you'll

16 understand that doesn't help us in the least.

17 Mr. Lukic.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

19 JUDGE CHOWHAN: Just a minute. Now, we appreciate what you've

20 stated, thank you very much. But of course it's a common sense question,

21 that why army wanted to be all pervading when the requirement was less

22 than the entire MUP falling in its folds, I mean, they could have carried

23 on the combat things because of the inspiration given by Article 17. Why

24 would they like everything to come under them? There must be some reason,

25 and you are the best person to at least tell us there must have been a

1 talk about it, there must have been a thought about it. Why would they

2 like that, where were they so anxious to be all-pervading?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not saying that they wanted that

4 necessarily. I don't think there was ill intention on their part, it's

5 just this was their interpretation.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

7 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honours.

8 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Can I just ask a question, please. I'd like to

9 know, was there any point at -- as far as you are aware of, at which the

10 MUP or the Ministry of the Interior sat down with the VJ and discussed

11 this issue as to the interpretation and the different interpretation that

12 the different sides got from it and how you could go forward from this

13 misunderstanding as to what was the proper course or proper

14 interpretation?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, probably yes, because I

16 remember that I saw an order during the proofing which says precisely what

17 I've already explained to you, that the units participating in combat

18 should be resubordinated, whereas the other segments of the police should

19 continue with their usual work.

20 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: But did that happen as far as you're aware?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean the implementation of the

22 order or the discussions?

23 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Either way, what took place as far as you

24 understood?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, what happened was that the

1 activities continued as regards the anti-terrorist actions where the units

2 of the Army of Yugoslavia continued carrying out their tasks, as in the

3 previous period, so there were no problems, and the organizational units

4 of the ministry and the other members of the police continued carrying out

5 their regular tasks, their job, even in the circumstances where there was

6 a state of war.

7 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: If your lawful action in the circumstances could

8 only have been that a limited number of units could participate with the

9 VJ, why did the police not just proceed in that manner? I mean, I

10 understand the misunderstanding, but practically what would there have

11 been to prevent you from proceeding in the manner that you could lawfully

12 have done?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, work continued, but certain

14 military officers insisted that they take over these services that,

15 according to law, they should not have. The police continued doing its

16 own work.

17 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Okay. Thank you very much.

18 JUDGE CHOWHAN: You don't know who these officers were? Can you

19 identify them, those who gave a different interpretation?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really cannot because I did not

21 take part in these talks with them and I don't know who it was among them

22 that was creating problems, I mean this kind of different interpretation.

23 I really cannot give any names and surnames.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, we've come full circle, so please

25 continue.

1 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honours.

2 Q. [Interpretation] Now I would like to move on to a completely

3 different area, and I would like to ask you whether you personally or the

4 MUP staff had information to the effect that there were paramilitary

5 formations in Kosovo and Metohija.

6 A. No. As far as I know, no. I don't think that anyone on the staff

7 knew that.

8 Q. Within the police were there any volunteers?

9 A. Within the police there weren't any volunteers, and that is

10 something that the law does not allow for. The police can only have its

11 own reserve force.

12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please call up in e-court

13 6D667.

14 Q. Mr. Mijatovic, in this plan -- actually, let me ask you.

15 According to this plan for marking, what units were supposed to wear

16 ribbons?

17 A. The plan says that MUP units and VJ units.

18 Q. Very well. Does this document show who drafted it? Perhaps it

19 cannot be seen.

20 A. Well, in the last paragraph underneath the table it says -- well,

21 I conclude on the basis of that that the army drafted the document when it

22 says: "Before setting out on a task, unit commanders must check whether

23 soldiers and officers have replaced their ribbons in accordance with this

24 plan," on the basis of that I can infer that it was done by the army.

25 Q. So there was a reference to white ribbons in this table, right?

1 A. Yes, when ribbon colours are mentioned in the last line under

2 number 7 it says: "White ribbon, left shoulder."

3 Q. And do what do we see?

4 A. Yes, the right-hand rubric somewhere further up, in the first row

5 it says white ribbon and in the second one it also says white ribbon on

6 the right.

7 Q. So for the 26th, 28th, and the 31st of July, white ribbons were

8 envisaged?

9 A. That's right, that is what this table says.

10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would now like to call up in e-court

11 6D237, that's the document that was not translated, but I just have one

12 question for this witness in relation to this document. I think that it's

13 page 3 -- I beg your pardon, page 2, I'm sorry.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I haven't got document 237, but it

15 have it here on the screen.

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. On the screen.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. These are instructions for wearing ribbons by the police. Just

20 tell us the following. In this plan for the month of April, is there any

21 reference to white ribbons?

22 A. No. Here it says blue, red, and yellow, those are the three

23 colours that are used in different combinations on different days.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we just see page 6 as well.

25 Q. And the question is the same. So this is again instructions for

1 marking the police with ribbons for June 1999. Is there any reference to

2 white ribbons here?

3 A. No, again there is a reference to blue, red, and yellow for

4 different days.

5 Q. Thank you. Now I'd like to ask you something else. Do you know

6 in 1999, when did the police start wearing ribbons as a form of marking?

7 We can also have a look at another document that hasn't been translated.

8 We can just have a look at page 1 of this document, and once it is

9 translated we will know that it can be checked on page 1.

10 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour --

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Until the document -- --

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Document -- untranslated document creep, I believe

13 it's called.

14 MR. HANNIS: Yes, exactly, Your Honour and I --

15 MR. LUKIC: I think the witness knows the answer, anyways.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Aleksic.

17 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would just like to be

18 of assistance. This first page does have a translation, it's an integral

19 part of 4D421, this first page that Mr. Lukic is referring to, and I

20 believe that this will be of assistance to Mr. Hannis as well, is

21 translated within 4D421. Thank you.

22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, I would like to thank

23 Mr. Aleksic and could we please see on e-court 4D421 now.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Page 421, Mr. Aleksic, is it?

25 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Mr. Mijatovic, do you know from when the police in Kosovo and

4 Metohija started wearing these ribbons in 1999?

5 A. Yes, this can be seen from this document dated the 15th of April,

6 1999, from midnight onwards.

7 Q. Thank you. Thank you. Do you know what the total personnel level

8 of policemen was in Kosovo and Metohija while the KVM was in Kosovo,

9 tentatively?

10 A. Well, I can be quite accurate because I saw these documents during

11 the proofing, that's jogged my memory, there were 10.021 members there.

12 This is a figure that had been agreed upon with the mission.

13 Q. This agreement on the number of policemen, to the best of your

14 knowledge, had it been carried out in practice as well?

15 A. Yes, because before the KVM arrived there were somewhat more

16 policemen in Kosovo and Metohija, so this surplus personnel was returned

17 from Kosovo and Metohija to their respective units and/or secretariats.

18 Q. Now let's move on to the time of war, that is to say after the

19 24th of March, 1999. What was the maximum number of policemen in Kosovo?

20 A. Well, before the KVM arrived we had about 14 and a half thousand

21 policemen in Kosovo and Metohija. During the state of war, I could not be

22 very specific, but around 15.000, up to a maximum of 16.000, I believe it

23 wasn't more than that.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please.

25 [Defence counsel and accused confer]

1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. One more question and we are going to end on that note and then we

3 will go back to the ribbons. On the document we saw it says that at that

4 moment the army, that is to say on the 13th of April, 1999, was not

5 wearing ribbons, or rather, they did not have any ribbons. First of all,

6 what was the reason, why were these ribbons introduced in the first place,

7 if you know?

8 A. Yes. The reason for introducing these maps -- these ribbons was

9 that -- so that the persons taking part in anti-terrorist actions could be

10 able to recognise one another because there were cases of abuse of police

11 uniforms. And due to that, some individuals were trapped and then

12 kidnapped. I can give you the example of a man I new personally, Perovic

13 was his name from the Pec SUP. That is how he got caught, they tortured

14 him, and they killed in an abominable way. That was the reason why this

15 was introduced, in order to protect personnel so that they could recognise

16 each other in actions like this.

17 Q. Do you know in that period of time or after that period of time,

18 since in that document dated the 25th of May that has to do with what

19 should be worn in June, there is no such note, do you know whether the

20 members of the army wore ribbons?

21 A. I personally did not see that because I was not in the field and I

22 was not following these actions; however, since this is not written in the

23 note, I can assume that they were wearing them.

24 Q. But you don't know for yourself?

25 A. No, because as I've already said, I wasn't out there in the field.

1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Mijatovic. Those were all the questions that I had

2 for you at this point in time. Now my colleagues will probably have some

3 questions for you, colleagues from the Defence side and then the

4 Prosecutor. Thank you.

5 MR. LUKIC: Maybe, Your Honour, before we start I would have the

6 objection to the document 5D1419 to 5D1425, it has never been released and

7 we have never seen it, so it has never been released, it's not released

8 yet. So we object to those documents. We object to introduction of the

9 interview of Mr. Gajic offered by the Prosecution as I found it, because I

10 think we had a lengthy discussion on that issue and if necessary

11 Mr. Ivetic can be here to discuss that issue again, because Mr. Gajic gave

12 the statement to the OTP, we asked them to be provided with this

13 statement, we were informed that they don't have anything in writing and

14 that the machine that recorded that interview broke and there is no any

15 trace of that interview. Later on when Mr. Gajic died, suddenly this

16 interview appeared. So I think if they still want to use that interview,

17 we should have and shall have discussion on that issue.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: There was a written filing about this before?

19 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, and now we find --

20 JUDGE BONOMY: But was it incidental to some other issue?

21 MR. LUKIC: I really don't know. I only have the instruction of

22 Mr. Ivetic --

23 JUDGE BONOMY: I have a feeling it was an example of what was said

24 to be conduct of the OTP that might have affected the admissibility of

25 documents, and I can't remember if it was related directly to the

1 admissibility of a Gajic document.

2 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I should point out that at this time I'm

3 not trying to introduce the statement. It was on my notification list to

4 documents that I might use in cross-examination, and I think that's how it

5 came up before with a witness that Mr. Ivetic had. I was cross-examining

6 and I listed Gajic's statement, which is P2914, as something I was going

7 to use to ask questions from.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: It became part of an issue in a written filing,

9 though. However, the point for the moment is a simple one. We encourage

10 counsel to act the way Mr. Lukic has acted at the moment and give notice

11 of contentious issues that may arise in the course of a cross-examination

12 because it's very helpful to be prepared for these things when they do

13 actually arise. So it's equally gratifying to hear from Mr. Hannis that

14 the issue is unlikely to arise and therefore we seem to have made progress

15 in that accidental way, Mr. Lukic.

16 MR. LUKIC: Another thing regarding 5D documents --

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that --

18 MR. LUKIC: They were announced at 9.27 this morning, we didn't

19 receive any attachment, and at that time they were not released. I don't

20 know whether they are released yet. So we would object to these

21 documents.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah.

23 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cepic, were you intending to cross-examine?

25 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Yes, of course, Your Honour, but I

1 believe that I would do that after my colleagues, after Mr. Fila and

2 Mr. Aleksic --

3 JUDGE BONOMY: I understand they are queuing up on this occasion,

4 but the issue that's been taken about the intimation of documents which

5 have not been released, what is the situation?

6 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Well, those were the documents that

7 were just found in the electronic system of the OTP, and there is probably

8 a possibility, or rather, intention to have them used in

9 cross-examination. I would just like to invoke the practice that we had

10 during our Defence case and the way in which 6D presented certain

11 documents to us then.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, at least they presented them. The argument

13 at the moment is that you haven't given them an opportunity to see the

14 documents.

15 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, by your leave, I did not

16 have the possibility to see those documents until they were shown here,

17 and even on paper and several times from the same team at that.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cepic, what's being said is that this series of

19 six documents are not in e-court, and therefore Mr. Lukic has not seen

20 them. Now, why is that if you have them and you may be using them?

21 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] I still haven't got them, Your

22 Honour. My colleague Mr. Lukic said that they were announced this morning

23 and it's probably in the process of --

24 JUDGE BONOMY: In that case, Mr. Lukic, we will address that issue

25 if and when it actually arises, but thank you for alerting us to it.

1 It's now time for our break, Mr. Mijatovic, so could you again

2 please leave the courtroom with the usher and we'll see you in half an

3 hour, we will resume at 11.15.

4 [The witness stands down]

5 --- Recess taken at 10.45 a.m.

6 --- On resuming at 11.15 a.m.

7 [The witness takes the stand]

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila, do you have questions?

9 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Indeed, Your Honour.

10 Cross-examination by Mr. Fila:

11 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Mijatovic. I hope you're

12 strong enough to cope with me.

13 A. I'll do my best.

14 Q. Let me put it this way, when this nice gentleman across the way

15 from me will be examining you, you'll remember me with a great deal of

16 nostalgia.

17 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Can I have the usher's assistance,

18 please.

19 Q. I would like to hand a hard copy of this to you.

20 Mr. Mijatovic, yesterday you talked about the meetings that were

21 held at the MUP staff in Pristina. One was held back in 1998 and two in

22 1999, and these are the two that we will be discussing. I have some

23 documents ready for you to save your eyesight from staring at the screen

24 that I've been staring at for the last two years and my eyesight is going.

25 The first meeting is the meeting where you say General Obrad

1 Stevanovic turned up as well as Djordjevic. Do you remember the chiefs of

2 the secretariats being there?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. This is 6D798 just for the record. We'll not be needing it now.

5 Was one of the chiefs also at this meeting one called Ljubinko

6 Cvetic?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. I'll ask you the way we do back in our country a direct question:

9 Did anyone at this meeting - I'm talking about the persons who were there,

10 Obrad and Rodja - this meeting that you said occurred on the 22nd of July,

11 1998, that's what the transcript reflects, did either of those two mention

12 anything about a Joint Command being set up?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Did either of those two perhaps mention that the commander of this

15 Joint Command was Nikola Sainovic?

16 A. No, I don't remember that.

17 Q. At page 8077, OTP Witness Ljubinko Cvetic claims that either Obrad

18 or Rodoljub said that, that this Joint Command had been joined up, set up

19 and that Sainovic was its commander. Do you agree with that or do you not

20 agree?

21 A. No, if someone said it, then he should know who said it.

22 Q. The next thing I would like to ask you is this: Can I have P1898

23 [as interpreted], please. You have it over there, you have a hard copy of

24 that document. This is a meeting that was held with police leaders in

25 Kosovo on the 4th of April, 1999. Have you found that, sir?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Was Nikola Sainovic at that meeting?

3 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, 1989, 1989.

4 Q. Can you look at the document, please. I'm not sure if you've seen

5 this one before. My first question: When you look at the introduction,

6 the introductory part, those present, you will see that there's no

7 reference there to Nikola Sainovic as being present?

8 A. Yes, that's right.

9 Q. However, at page 4 of this record --

10 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Can we please see page 4 in English,

11 it's probably the same page in English.

12 Q. -- you can see that Sainovic arrived at this meeting. Do you

13 remember that? Do you remember Sainovic being there at the meeting? Was

14 he there from the start of the meeting? Did he arrive later? What do you

15 remember?

16 A. I don't remember this meeting because it's obviously the case that

17 I myself was not at the meeting. However, it's not there and I see a list

18 of those who attended and at the beginning of the record it would

19 certainly state that Mr. Sainovic was there. So the only conclusion that

20 we can draw is that he came later.

21 Q. Fine. Can we please now look at P1996. This is -- 1996, P1996.

22 Have you got that? Mr. Mijatovic, have you got that?

23 A. Yes, yes, yes, sure. I apologise.

24 Q. If -- look at this record, were you there?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Was Mr. Sainovic there?

2 A. Yes, and if you look at the record you can tell, both Mr. Sainovic

3 and I were present.

4 Q. Thank you very much. There's a lot there about what he said.

5 Thank God we can all read and thank God we can all read for ourselves.

6 There's no need for you to read it back to us, but can you please remember

7 why he was there and what he was saying --

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Is this document translated throughout or is it

9 only the first page that's been translated?

10 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Throughout.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

12 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] It's an OTP exhibit.

13 Do you want to look at the pages, Your Honour, with Sainovic's

14 contribution?

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Not particularly, Mr. Fila, unless you want to

16 direct our attention to them. So I was concerned that --

17 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] No, no, I'm just trying to hurry things

18 along and I don't want to bother you with things that are not strictly

19 necessary.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Please continue.

21 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Did Sainovic stay until the very end of that meeting?

23 A. Mr. Sainovic was at this meeting. He gave a speech to the SUP

24 officers who were there, and after this meeting, after General Lukic had

25 thanked him for participating in the work of the meeting, he was there to

1 greet the officers and to inform of them of certain things. But then

2 Mr. Sainovic left and the staff continued its work without Mr. Sainovic,

3 in his absence.

4 Q. Please go to pages 3 and 4 of the record. It is obvious - and I

5 suppose you agree with me - that Sainovic was talking about this

6 declaration by the supreme commander, this was a state directive and an

7 order from the supreme commander. Is this something that was published in

8 the Official Gazette, or rather, in a daily newspaper?

9 A. Yes, this was published in the Politika paper, maybe in other

10 papers too, but I knew about Politika.

11 Q. Were you familiar with this communique or declaration even before

12 Sainovic had brought it up?

13 A. Yes, we knew about this and we submitted this information to all

14 of our units in the field, so that they might be able to acquaint their

15 own members with this, since at the time it was very difficult to obtain

16 any of the daily papers. There wasn't that much information going around

17 and they were supposed to see that someone was actually following that

18 work. It was just to keep the police officers there informed.

19 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Can we please have 5D1289.

20 Q. You have a hard copy of that document, sir, in front of you. Can

21 you please have a look and tell us if this is the same thing that we have

22 been talking about.

23 A. Yes, that's the article.

24 Q. First of all, whose document is this? Who produced this first

25 page?

1 A. The document you mean?

2 Q. Yes.

3 A. This is a document by the Ministry of the Interior staff.

4 Q. Can you look at the date, please --

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cepic.

6 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] I would like to assist the Court.

7 This document is in e-court and the number is P2159, unless I'm mistaken.

8 I think we actually have a full translation of this document. My learned

9 friend Mr. Aleksic is better informed, and I think --

10 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] 4D406, that's the translation.

11 Q. As far as I can see this is a --

12 JUDGE BONOMY: You carry on, Mr. Fila; meanwhile, we'll try and

13 locate it on the system as 4D406. Please continue.

14 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]

15 Q. As we said, this is a document produced by the staff. As far as I

16 can see, you were the one who signed it, right?

17 A. Yes, I signed this on behalf of the staff leaders.

18 Q. And it has a Politika article attached to it, right?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. So Sainovic was telling you these things, but you were already

21 familiar with them because you had read the Politika article, right?

22 A. Yes, we had forwarded this article on the 6th of May and

23 Mr. Sainovic spoke on the 7th of May.

24 Q. If you look at Sainovic's speech in that document, would the

25 conclusion not be that actually he just -- he just told the same story

1 that you'd read about in the papers, right, and that you already knew

2 about?

3 A. Yes, we already knew about that.

4 Q. Would you agree with me that at both of these meetings that I

5 mentioned Sainovic was at one point present, he was involved in the work

6 of the staff, or rather, was not involved in the work of the staff in that

7 way. He gave political speeches; that was all he did, right?

8 A. Yes, that's right.

9 Q. I'm here to defend Mr. Sainovic from very serious accusations.

10 I'm not just swatting flies. The allegation is that at these meetings

11 Sainovic was conveying to you directives and issuing to you orders, not

12 giving political speeches, and it's not being alleged that he would simply

13 come and go.

14 A. No. As for these speeches made by politicians, those who had been

15 to Kosovo and Metohija, I never identified any orders or directives in

16 whatever they said. They are speeches. They would just go there. They

17 believed it was necessary to go there and see members of the police and

18 the army, because these were the people defending the country, to lend

19 them their support, and that's that. I never identified in his speeches

20 any orders or anything like that.

21 Q. This may strike you as a ridiculous question, but I'll still ask

22 it because I have to. Was Sainovic a member of your MUP staff or was he

23 perhaps one of the leaders in that body?

24 A. No, that was most certainly not the case.

25 Q. You were in Kosovo both in 1998 and 1999. You know that Sainovic

1 was the vice-president of the federal government, right?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Did the federal government have any powers over Serbia's MUP?

4 A. No. The minister of the interior of the Republic of Serbia

5 answered to the government and to the Assembly of the Republic of Serbia.

6 Q. All right. Another thing that a witness said here. You told us

7 yesterday about those maps from the MUP staff. I'm not sure what I should

8 call them, but you know what I mean, that you sent those maps to SUP

9 chiefs?

10 A. Not SUP chiefs, the commanders of those units who were involved in

11 anti-terrorist activities. That's what I said.

12 Q. What about SUP chiefs, did you ever send them any documents that

13 displayed the header "Joint Command" or any reference to a Joint Command?

14 A. I've never seen a document like that, nor did we ever send a

15 document like that.

16 Q. Thank you very much. I think you have just made it through my

17 examination.

18 A. Thank you very much. I hope that will continue to apply

19 throughout.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Fila.

21 Mr. Aleksic.

22 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

23 Cross-examination by Mr. Aleksic:

24 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Mijatovic.

25 A. Good morning.

1 Q. I will pick up where Mr. Fila left off just about explaining

2 something about exhibit numbers.

3 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Can we please bring back P2159, it's

4 an e-court document. I think this is the one we are looking at our screen

5 is 4D406, this is the English translation. P2159. There it is. Thank

6 you.

7 Q. Colonel, my learned friend Mr. Fila asked you a question, you said

8 that this was a document that you signed, of course. Can we just have

9 paragraph 1 of this document, please, and can you read it out loud. The

10 date is the 6th of May, 1999, isn't it?

11 A. Yes.

12 "Please find enclosed an article from the Politika daily relating

13 to the submission of reports to the president of the FRY by the head of

14 the MUP staff in Kosovo and Metohija, Major-General Sreten Lukic, and the

15 commander of the 3rd Army, Colonel-General Nebojsa Pavkovic. Familiarize

16 all members of the secretariat and PJP with this article and its

17 contents."

18 Q. Thank you, Colonel.

19 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Now can we please have 4D406 brought

20 up in e-court.

21 Q. And for you, Colonel, I actually have a hard copy.

22 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Can I, therefore, have the usher's

23 assistance because the print is very small and I think you will be better

24 able to help me with this if you actually get a hard copy to use.

25 Q. My learned friend Mr. Fila was asked you questions and in the

1 course of his examination you said that this was the article from Politika

2 that was at one point attached to that document of yours, right?

3 A. I didn't read that, but if I look at the title I would say that it

4 is consistent.

5 Q. If you look at the date as well, right?

6 A. Yes, the date too is consistent.

7 Q. Colonel, second column, paragraph 1.

8 A. The print is very small.

9 "While carrying out all the complex assignments, at the same time

10 security organs," this is very small. This is too small for me to read.

11 I can't see what it says.

12 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Can I please ask for the Serbian,

13 the B/C/S, to remain in e-court and for us to zoom in on the central

14 paragraph, the one in the middle. More, please, if possible -- no, no,

15 no. The top of the page and then down the middle. Further up, please.

16 Second column, second -- I don't know how to say this in English. Second,

17 second, and not first. All right. Further up. Up there. Thank you.

18 Q. Is this fine, Colonel?

19 A. Yes, I believe it should be.

20 Q. Can you please go ahead.

21 A. Shall I read it?

22 "While carrying out these complex tasks security organs at the

23 same time eliminated" -- my apologies. Again.

24 "While carrying out these complex tasks, security organs at the

25 same time eliminated many cases of violence, murder, theft, and other

1 crimes whereby they arrested hundreds of perpetrators whose crimes posed a

2 serious threat to the civilian population."

3 Q. Thank you very much, sir. I keep addressing you as colonel, sir,

4 and there may be a reason for that. In your statement paragraph 1 you

5 shared something with us about yourself, about your career. I would like

6 to ask you one thing, though, after this secondary school of internal

7 affairs, did you complete any other schools and which ones?

8 A. Yes, the military academy for ground forces.

9 Q. Thank you very much, Colonel, sir.

10 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please bring back Exhibit

11 4D421, page 1 is identical to page 1 in 6D237.

12 Q. As we have no translation for these remaining pages, I will be

13 handing you a hard copy. We will not be discussing this a lot. I just

14 want you to look at the totality of this document. It runs into six

15 pages. I have a single question and we will not be dealing with any

16 details.

17 Colonel, sir, page 1 has been translated. You told us already who

18 and when the ribbons and the instructions were sent to. What about page 2

19 and page 6, 6D237, the document in front of you, where can we find

20 specific instructions as to how police officers should be wearing --

21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The object is missing.

22 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. We have the plan for April in the first of these pages and the

24 last page bears instructions in relation to the month of June. Would I be

25 right in saying that in relation to both the instructions for April and

1 the instructions for June there is no reference in this plan to VJ members

2 wearing ribbons?

3 A. Yes, if you look at page 6 it says instructions for the police to

4 carry -- to wear these ribbons in June 1999, and the same thing is what we

5 see on the following page.

6 Q. For April, right?

7 A. Yes, yes.

8 Q. Thank you, Colonel, sir.

9 A. Let me just add this. We were in no position to send this to the

10 army. We were just sending this to our own units, and this is within the

11 police information system or reporting system. I'm not sure if the army

12 had those or not. I don't know, really, at a later stage I mean, not

13 April, not the first document. That's what we established. As for later,

14 I really don't know.

15 Q. But you said both yesterday and today that you did not go out into

16 the field and that you didn't know?

17 A. That's right, I didn't know.

18 Q. Thank you very much. My learned friend Mr. Lukic showed you 6D667

19 today.

20 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Can we please bring that up in our

21 e-court system.

22 Q. You discussed this document with Mr. Lukic. When was the first

23 time you saw this document, if you can remember?

24 A. As I was being proofed for my testimony here. I can't say for

25 certain that I'd never seen it before. I simply can't remember.

1 Q. Thank you. During your evidence today you mentioned something

2 that happened in Pec which practically gave rise to these ribbons being

3 brought over. Let me just tell you this: Witness Paunovic, who was

4 General Lukic's first witness at transcript page 21856 repeated the same

5 thing, said the same thing as you, as to what had given rise to this. But

6 he also said that this was the reason, and at that transcript page he says

7 that this was the reason that the PJP leaders devised a plan, whereas

8 today you said --

9 MR. LUKIC: That possibility was suggested to Mr. Paunovic and he

10 said "maybe." He didn't express his knowledge about this issue. And

11 exactly he answered to the question of Mr. Pavkovic's Defence. If his

12 words could be read, please.

13 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Page 21856.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Which day --

15 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] That was the 7th of February.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: No, I don't have the page numbers yet for the 7th

17 of February for some reason. I --

18 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] 21 --

19 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

20 JUDGE BONOMY: That's 7th February, 2007. It's 2008 we need.

21 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] 8th.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry?

23 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] 2008, this year, this year, last

24 week.

25 In fact, it was you, Your Honour, who asked him lines 5 to 8, and

1 the witness replied to your question in lines 9 to 20.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.

3 MR. HANNIS: And for completeness, Your Honour, you might want to

4 go up one more page at 21855, line 9, and there's an earlier discussion of

5 it and the specific reference to Perovic.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, on the face of it Mr. Aleksic's question

7 seems perfectly proper. Do you maintain your objection?

8 MR. LUKIC: I apologise. I don't.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

10 Please continue, Mr. Aleksic. You should put the question again.

11 Thank you.

12 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

13 Q. Colonel, Witness Paunovic testified and at this transcript page he

14 said that this incident in Pec had given rise to the PJP leaders deciding

15 that the police members should wear ribbons, and I'm asking you whether

16 you agree with this testimony. I'm not saying that the staff made that

17 decision.

18 A. Yes, yes, fine. I don't know what actually made this decision. I

19 know that people were marked wearing ribbons. Colonel Adamovic took care

20 of that in 1998; in 1999 it was Arsenijevic. I really can't tell you who

21 made those plans. In 1999 it was probably Arsenijevic, and in 1998 I

22 can't really be very specific. I don't know whether some of these plans

23 were also made at the staff level. But from this document that we are

24 looking at now I concluded on the basis of the title that this concerned

25 the marking of both the police units and the army units, or rather, the

1 personnel. And in the last paragraph it says that it should be verified

2 whether these soldiers and officers have replaced the ribbons and that led

3 me to conclude that this document was drafted by the army.

4 Q. Okay. Thank you, Colonel.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Aleksic, I'm sorry, I have no clear

6 recollection of this from earlier. Your question was cut off by

7 Mr. Lukic's intervention and you were contrasting what Paunovic said with

8 what was said by this witness earlier today. And you stopped or your

9 question was interrupted when you had said: "Whereas today you said ..."

10 Now, what was the -- what was it the witness said earlier that you

11 were dealing with?

12 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Precisely what the witness

13 repeated. The witness said: I don't know. I may have seen this document

14 before but I think I saw it for the first time during the proofing. But

15 on the basis of the last paragraph the witness concluded who might have

16 actually drafted the document. That's what the witness repeated again.

17 And now I asked this witness who drafted that document. I had asked that

18 of Mr. Paunovic and he had said that he didn't know.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, but the conclusion he gave earlier, was his

20 conclusion that it was drafted by the VJ or drafted by the MUP staff?

21 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] The Army of Yugoslavia.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: I now understand. Thank you. Please continue.

23 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

24 Could we please have in e-court Exhibit P1993.

25 Q. Colonel, you did say something about those meetings held at the

1 MUP staff, not this particular meeting but some other meetings, meetings

2 that were attended by high-ranking officials from the ministry. You

3 answered questions asked by Mr. Lukic and by Mr. Fila. If you don't have

4 a hard copy here in front of you, I can hand it to you. Perhaps it would

5 be easier for you to find your way around.

6 A. Yes, I would like you to do so, if possible.

7 Q. So this is a voluminous document. As far as I can see, you did

8 attend this meeting and it was also attended by the assistant minister of

9 the interior, General Obrad Stevanovic. What I would like you to focus on

10 is page 6 in Serbian, which would be page 13 in the English version, where

11 it says that people gathered there were addressed by assistant minister

12 General Obrad Stevanovic.

13 Colonel, I'm interested in what General Obrad Stevanovic is

14 saying, primarily item 1, the second sentence, or rather, the second

15 passage. Could you please read that?

16 A. "Now smaller-scale actions should be organized or plan dotted

17 closely linked actions in a number of small positions, places. Every SUP

18 and OUP, PJP detachment, in other words, will establish a priority list of

19 anti-terrorist actions with detailed plans which will be approved by the

20 staff."

21 Q. Thank you, Colonel. In your testimony today you answered

22 questions asked by Mr. Lukic and the Trial Chamber about the

23 resubordination and the problems that followed.

24 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please look at item 4

25 on this same page in Serbian, that would be page 14 in English, to see

1 what assistant minister General Stevanovic is saying as he addresses the

2 PJP commanders.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "The resubordination to the army

4 should be in line with the cooperation with good information being

5 provided from one side to another."

6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We did not have the text

7 when we started interpreting. We start from the beginning.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Resubordination to the VJ shall be

9 in the spirit of cooperation" --

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Just hold on until the interpreter catches up.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise.

12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter is reading: "Resubordination to VJ

13 shall be in the spirit of cooperation and good exchange of information in

14 the interest of the defence of the country and the anti-terrorist

15 struggle ..."

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Please continue, Mr. Mijatovic.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "With the proviso that we have to

18 know who is cooperating with the SUP and OPJP territories because a single

19 VJ brigade can cover the territory of three SUPs so it is necessary to

20 have all the details, to gather all the details for successful

21 cooperation."

22 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Thank you, Colonel. The date of this document is the 11th of May,

24 is that so?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. And these are the words of the highest-ranking MUP official both

2 according to his rank and to his post, he's the assistant minister?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And the decision on the resubordination or subordination, as you

5 term it, as far as I can remember, the first decision was issued as early

6 on the 18th or the 20th of April, if you know; if you don't, just say that

7 you don't know.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. So almost three weeks after the decision on the subordination of

10 the units and organs of the MUP, the highest-ranking official in the

11 field, the assistant minister, says that the resubordination should be in

12 the spirit of cooperation with good exchange of information. Am I right?

13 ?

14 A. Yes, that's what it says here, that's what he said. And I was

15 talking about the actual situation in the field. So there were no

16 problems in the carrying out of the anti-terrorist actions, the units

17 cooperated well, everyone commanded their units, there were problems in

18 other parts of the ministry, the ministry parts that dealt with other

19 tasks, not combat.

20 Q. Colonel, sir, please do not misunderstand me. I hear what you're

21 saying. I have no objections to your testimony. It's just that in the

22 course of this trial we've heard other testimony and I merely wanted you

23 to confirm what you've just confirmed, so thank you.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: I wonder if it's clear what he has confirmed.

25 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] That everyone should be in command

1 of their own units, if I understand what the witness has said, and that

2 the resubordination should be within the framework of cooperation and with

3 good exchange of information. This is quite different to what some

4 Prosecution witnesses have claimed in this trial.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may clarify, when I said that

6 everyone was in command of their own units, that meant that if a brigade

7 and a PJP detachment participated in an action, the detachment commander

8 commanded his detachment and the brigade commander commanded his brigade.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: But, Mr. Aleksic, that doesn't seem to be

10 consistent with Mr. Pavkovic's protesting that the MUP were refusing to be

11 resubordinated in terms of that order. But you're suggesting that's --

12 that on the 11th of May the MUP were doing what the VJ wanted. Is that

13 your position?

14 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] No, no, no, no, definitely that's

15 not the case. The witness said that he was not in the field and that

16 according to what he heard from his MUP colleagues, there had been some

17 problems, but he doesn't know what was happening in the field. So I asked

18 the witness to confirm what the assistant minister had actually said at

19 the meeting, as the highest-ranking official in the MUP. So we're not

20 talking about the MUP staff, we're talking about the assistant minister

21 because we've heard testimony -- I don't want to now go through those

22 arguments why the resubordination never happened and so on.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: What I don't understand in this is that

24 resubordination and cooperation are two entirely different concepts, are

25 they not?

1 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Absolutely. Absolutely.

2 [Trial Chamber confers]

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Before moving on, could we go back to page 13

4 again.

5 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] In B/C/S that would be - just a

6 moment, I apologise - that would be page 6.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Move that up to the foot of the -- thank you. Is

8 there more at the bottom of that? No. That's fine. Just stop there.

9 Mr. Mijatovic, there is paragraph if -- I think the B/C/S page is

10 different, is it? Is that the same page, Mr. Aleksic?

11 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the beginning of

12 General Stevanovic's address is at page 13 and it continues into page 14

13 in English, whereas in Serbian it's all on the same page.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, it's paragraph number 1 on that page,

15 Mr. Mijatovic, and you'll see reference to: "Every SUP and OPJP will

16 establish a priority list of anti-terrorist actions with detailed plans

17 which will be approved by the staff."

18 What does the reference to "the staff" refer to?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, according to what is recorded

20 here, the secretariats were supposed to organize independently on their

21 own those smaller-scale actions, arresting small terrorist groups, pushing

22 them back --

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, I understand that. It's -- what staff is

24 being referred to?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, probably the ministry staff

1 because it is not specified.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: So you're suggesting that this means that the SUPs

3 in Kosovo had to get approval from Belgrade for minor anti-terrorist

4 actions; is that the position?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From what General Stevanovic had

6 said, they had already received approval from the ministry leaders to

7 organize those smaller-scale actions and for those actions --

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, but --

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- they needed --

10 JUDGE BONOMY: They needed what?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They needed to draft their own plans

12 for those activities.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: And these were to -- and these were to be detailed

14 plans which will be approved by the staff. Now, what staff?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, probably the staff of the

16 Ministry of the Interior in Pristina but --

17 JUDGE BONOMY: That's the MUP staff for Kosovo?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The MUP staff in Kosovo. I don't

19 know what other staff you may have been referring to, but because he was

20 present there and because he didn't have any other address, I guess that's

21 why he said that those plans should be submitted to the MUP staff for

22 approval.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: So does this appear to be indicating that the MUP

24 staff for Kosovo actually does have an operational role, rather than a

25 simple reporting function, as you indicated yesterday?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I wouldn't say that it had an

2 operational role because the action was organized, planned, and

3 implemented by themselves. They were in control of the action, but

4 probably he wanted to have a look at the plans, that's probably what

5 General Stevanovic had in mind, to perhaps make some amendments, make some

6 suggestions regarding the plan, but it doesn't mean planning or

7 controlling or managing those smaller-scale actions on the part of the MUP

8 staff. That's not what it meant.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: But it would appear to suggest that these actions

10 could not go ahead without the approval of the MUP staff.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, probably that was -- that's

12 just the wording. The secretariats were independent, in accordance with

13 the regulations on their organization. They carried out their tasks and

14 work independently, but probably what this meant was Stevanovic wanted to

15 avoid any faults, any defects in the planning phase and he wanted to go

16 through it and perhaps make some suggestions, but this does not mean that

17 those actions were in any way controlled or managed. It's the same way in

18 which the commander of the Pristina Corps makes a proposal to the 3rd Army

19 commander for some action and then he gets an approval, and then the

20 Pristina Corps goes on to carry out this action. And the 3rd Army command

21 does not really control or manage this operation. I'm just giving this as

22 an example to you.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Mijatovic, my question and, no doubt, my mind

24 is much simpler than that. I asked you if it didn't appear to suggest

25 that these actions could not go ahead without the approval of the MUP

1 staff. And are you saying that they could, that the SUP chief could just

2 say, To hell with you, MUP staff, I'm going ahead with it even without

3 your approval? Is that what you're saying?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't remember. Maybe they

5 did submit some plan, but I do not remember that a single plan was

6 submitted to the staff --

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Mijatovic, please treat us with a bit of

8 respect. We're talking about the meaning of simple language, and it

9 either means that you need the approval of the MUP staff or you don't.

10 Are you saying to us you just don't know, there's no point in asking you?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But I really don't know.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

13 Mr. Aleksic.

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

15 Could we please call up in e-court 4D101.

16 Q. I think you have that, Witness, you discussed it with my colleague

17 Mr. Lukic yesterday. I think you have that document in front of you. You

18 have a hard copy I believe. Do you have it in front of you?

19 A. Yes, yes.

20 Q. Colonel, would you tell me when it was that you first saw this

21 document since you said yesterday - and I agree with you - this is a

22 document that General Pavkovic as corps commander sent to the commander of

23 the 3rd Army personally on the 23rd of July, 1998?

24 A. Yes, I saw this document while I was being proofed here for giving

25 evidence.

1 Q. Could you please look at page 2, the last sentence there.

2 A. Should I read it or what?

3 Q. No, no, no. I'm just going to ask you. Am I right if I say that

4 with this document General Pavkovic is precisely requesting what you said

5 a few moments ago, he's asking his superior for permission to use the

6 units of the Pristina Corps?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Thank you. Yesterday when you were talking to my colleague Branko

9 Lukic about this document, you said after that on page 64, lines 12

10 through 19 -- well, you said that Generals Stevanovic and Djordjevic came,

11 and you said that the two of them came in July and held a meeting at the

12 MUP staff - and my colleague Mr. Fila mentioned that - and that they then

13 informed you, the staff, about this adopted plan. Am I right? Is that

14 what you were saying yesterday?

15 A. They came with the intention of -- well, that meeting was attended

16 by the representatives of the army and the police, and they came to get

17 involved in the work of the members of the police, or rather, to take

18 measures to have this plan materialised in concerted action with the Army

19 of Yugoslavia.

20 Q. Thank you, Colonel.

21 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Could we please now call up in

22 e-court 4D377.

23 Q. I think that you haven't got it.

24 A. I don't.

25 Q. I'll give you a hard copy. This document was already shown here

1 in this courtroom, you probably haven't seen it before. This is an order

2 of the commander of the 3rd Army, General Samardzic, sent to General

3 Pavkovic in the month of May 1998. And I would kindly ask you to read

4 paragraph number 4 only of that order.

5 A. "Support forces of the MUP from the deployment sector of the units

6 using combat equipment from a distance in line with its characteristics.

7 Provide support only following the commander," I don't know if it says "of

8 all the MUP forces in Kosovo and Metohija and in Kosovo and Metohija,

9 pursuant to a decision" -- now, I don't know whether this is NS, is it

10 Chief of Staff "of the 3rd Army and commander of the Pristina Corps."

11 Q. Thank you, Colonel. So as far as you can see, as far as we can

12 see, before the staff was established, the MUP staff, it has to do with

13 the first, second, and third composition?

14 A. Yes, that's what the document says.

15 Q. Thank you. Okay.

16 Now I'm going to put some questions to you about your knowledge as

17 to what happened specifically on the ground before that. Do you know that

18 within the MUP during 1998 or 1999 there was a unit that was called the

19 mechanised brigade of the police?

20 A. What's the period?

21 Q. 1998 or 1999 or earlier on.

22 A. Earlier on, yes, whereas in 1998, as far as I can remember, this

23 unit and the 24th Detachment of the PJP from Pristina together established

24 one unit, and that was marked the 124th Intervention Brigade. As regards

25 this document that we discussed previously, there is something that caught

1 my attention. Support should be provided only following a request from

2 the commander of all the MUP forces in Kosovo and Metohija. I don't know

3 who this commander was of all these forces. There was no such person,

4 there was no such job, but there was no commander of all forces of the MUP

5 in Kosovo and Metohija because that would include the secretariats and the

6 PJPs.

7 Q. Okay. Thank you. Colonel, can you tell me whether you know how

8 many PJP detachments were present in Kosovo and Metohija in 1998 and 1999?

9 A. Well, I think that at different times there was a different number

10 involved. As far as I know, in some periods they were not complete,

11 combinations were made, because the PJPs had A and B formations, so two

12 companies from formation A and two companies from formation B. So I

13 cannot give a precise answer to that because, quite simply, I was not

14 following that at every moment how many people there were, so I mean I

15 couldn't even remember now after all this time.

16 Q. Thank you, Colonel. I think that you already spoke about that,

17 but I would like to ask you to repeat this. Who were they responsible to

18 or who were they subordinated to, the PJP detachments?

19 A. Every detachment is a separate unit and was headed by its

20 commander.

21 Q. And this commander of the detachment issued tasks and commanded

22 the detachment in combat activities?

23 A. I've already explained that. On the basis of the documents

24 received from the Pristina Corps, he organized the work of his unit in

25 these activities.

1 Q. But yesterday you said - as far as I can remember you repeated it

2 today as well - that from the corps you only received excerpts from

3 maps -- no, sorry, not you, they received it.

4 A. In 1998 until resubordination took place -- I mean, I'm

5 saying "subordination" because that is what the law says, it's the same

6 sense, the same meaning, subordination, resubordination, but that's what

7 the law says. So when I said about these orders, "naradjenje" "naredba,"

8 subordination, they received maps and later on they would get

9 orders, "zapovesti," and maps.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Aleksic, is your question who gave orders to

11 the PJP?

12 Can you answer that question, please, Mr. Mijatovic?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Is that it? I'll repeat once

14 again. Anti-terrorist activities were taking place in 1998 on the basis

15 of a plan that was adopted at top state level envisaging the participation

16 of police units and army units. The Pristina Corps planned these

17 activities for the units of the police as well. That plan was their basis

18 for conducting this planning, so it involved the police units too, they

19 submitted excerpts of maps, and that was the basis for action on the part

20 of PJP detachments.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: They had to obey the Pristina Corps; is that what

22 you're saying?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was their basis. That was the

24 basis for the commanders, the documents prepared by the Pristina Corps for

25 them to organize the work of their units, and they had control over their

1 units. I'm not saying that directly the Pristina Corps commanded them in

2 these activities or am I saying that I know who brought together these

3 activities in the field, from what particular place and who personally did

4 that, which commander or officer. I was not there, I was not in the

5 field.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Let's say they didn't turn up - we've had some

7 evidence of that on at least one occasion - who would they be answerable

8 to? Who would take action against the PJP unit for disobedience?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot recall any such situations,

10 although that I -- although I did hear that there was mention of something

11 like that here in this courtroom. As far as I know, there were no such

12 problems and all of that was resolved directly in the field between the

13 two commanders --

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, indulge me for a moment and just imagine that

15 that might happen. Take the hypothetical situation where it does. Who

16 would that -- who would be -- who would it be who would take action to

17 discipline the unit which did not turn up?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The staff did not have the authority

19 to take disciplinary measures; I said that yesterday. It did not have

20 that authority.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Nor did I. What I want to know is who did.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Disciplinary measures vis-a-vis

23 detachments of the PJPs could be taken by their officers from the original

24 secretariat that they had been sent from. Say a detachment from Nis had

25 been sent, they did something they were not supposed to do, it is their

1 officer, their ranking officer, from the secretariat that will take

2 disciplinary action.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Aleksic, please continue.

4 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

5 Q. Colonel, in relation to what you said just now, you said that

6 disciplinary punishment would be meted out against the members of the PJP

7 detachment by the head of their original SUP. What about PJP commanders,

8 is the chief of the original SUP in charge of him too or the SUP that they

9 were sent to as assistants?

10 A. The commander just like any other policeman from the PJP belongs

11 to a certain secretariat and is an employee of that secretariat, and if

12 there are disciplinary infractions then it is the chief of the mentioned

13 secretariat that will take action.

14 Q. Thank you for this clarification, Colonel. Since you said that

15 you graduated from the military academy of land forces of the army, do you

16 personally know that combat orders can be issued in writing and orally?

17 A. In principle, as far as I know, the army does it in writing.

18 Q. What about lower levels?

19 A. Well, at a lower level, it is possible to do it orally. For

20 instance, the platoon commander would issue his orders orally to squad

21 leaders.

22 Q. Colonel, do you know that combat orders for units are made two

23 levels down, in other words, army commander would issue orders to the

24 corps and combat group level. I don't know whether you know that from

25 your military education.

1 A. I'm not contesting that.

2 Q. Now I have to go back to something. You mentioned a plan, that

3 the plan was the basis for this. Let us not go back to it, but you said

4 yesterday that this plan was never received by the staff and that you

5 actually had never seen it, if I understood you correctly?

6 A. Yes, I did not see it and I assume that I would have seen it had

7 it come to the staff. I didn't see it, we didn't have it at the staff.

8 Q. Thank you. Could you please confirm once again, you said that you

9 did not attend any of the meetings where any plans were adopted at that

10 scale?

11 A. You're talking about the basic plan? No, no, that was done in

12 Belgrade at the level of the president of the state. I was not invited

13 and I didn't feel any need to be involved in that.

14 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. This was --

15 this completes my cross-examination.

16 Q. Thank you, Mr. Mijatovic.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Aleksic.

18 [Trial Chamber confers]

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cepic, you have cross-examination.

20 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

21 Cross-examination by Mr. Cepic:

22 Q. [Interpretation] Colonel, good afternoon. My name is Djuro

23 Cepic. I'm representing General Lazarevic.

24 A. Good afternoon.

25 Q. Colonel, I will pick up where my colleague Mr. Aleksic left off.

1 We were talking about a plan in a document you read yesterday that this

2 plan was dated the 9th of June; is that correct?

3 A. No.

4 Q. So what was the date of that plan?

5 A. That was the decision taken at the Supreme Defence Council, that

6 was taken on the 9th of June. The plan itself was made, according to what

7 we learned from the documents, in the first half of July. And on the 21st

8 of July it was adopted by the president of the republic, Mr. Milosevic,

9 that's what it says in the document of the Pristina Corps sent to the 3rd

10 Army.

11 Q. When was the first time that you saw this document from the

12 Pristina Corps?

13 A. As I was preparing for my -- for the Defence.

14 Q. The decision is dated the 9th of June; is that correct?

15 A. No -- oh, yes, no, the decision, I'm sorry, yes, the decision to

16 draft this plan.

17 Q. Yes, yes.

18 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have Exhibit P1505.

19 Q. And while we're waiting for this document to come up on our

20 screens, I think you have the hard copy in front of you, this is the

21 decision to establish the ministry staff. In your testimony yesterday you

22 said at page 53 of the transcript that the minister of the interior could

23 have taken part in taking this decision, and in fact that he did so, the

24 minister of the Republic of Serbia. Who was it at that time?

25 A. That was Vlajko Stojiljkovic.

1 Q. Thank you. Could we please look at the document on this -- on the

2 date on this document?

3 A. The 16th of June.

4 Q. How many days after the 9th of June is it?

5 A. It's seven days.

6 MR. CEPIC: [Previous translation continues]...

7 Q. [Interpretation] Colonel, could you please look at the last page

8 in this document. Who signed this document?

9 A. Vlajko Stojiljkovic.

10 Q. Thank you.

11 A. He issued this decision.

12 Q. Thank you. Colonel, in your evidence yesterday you said something

13 that you confirmed again today. You said that you had never seen the plan

14 to suppress terrorism.

15 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] And could we please look at 6D798.

16 Q. I would like to show it to you. Do you recognise this document?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Could you please tell me what is the date on this document?

19 A. The 22nd of July, 1998.

20 Q. We see here in the preamble the persons who actually attended the

21 meeting, and we can see that you were present, all the SUP chiefs, all the

22 commanders of the PJP detachments, the Generals Djordjevic, Stevanovic,

23 and others. Do you remember this meeting?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Could you please look at paragraph 3 or, more specifically, I

1 would like you to read it to see whether the translation is correct.

2 A. "Determining the tasks in relation to the implementation of the

3 global plan and further tasks -- and further task."

4 Q. Mr. Mijatovic, could you please explain to me what is the global

5 plan?

6 A. Well, I don't know whether this plan that was adopted on the 21st

7 of July at Mr. -- at President Milosevic's place, whether it was entitled

8 the global plan or whether somebody used this phrase and it was recorded

9 by the recording clerk, I can't say that, but the reference here is

10 definitely to that plan.

11 Q. Thank you very much for this clarification --

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Mijatovic, you're -- by this time you're number

13 two in the MUP staff; is that correct?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: General Lukic is number one and he's proposing --

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: -- an agenda and one of the items is defining tasks

18 in the implementation of the global plan. Are you saying to us that you

19 as number two do not know what he was talking about?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm saying that there may be -- may

21 have been a slip of the tongue or maybe the person -- the recording clerk

22 made a mistake. Now, whether this plan had this title or not, I don't

23 know. The only thing I know is that this was the plan that was devised to

24 suppress or to fight terrorism. Perhaps that was its title. I don't know

25 that.

1 [Trial Chamber confers]

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Mijatovic, we've become increasingly concerned

3 about the extent to which you are actually complying or attempting to

4 comply, rather, with the terms of the solemn undertaking you gave us to

5 give us the whole truth. We have power to take action in respect of

6 witnesses that we consider are not endeavouring to comply with the terms

7 of the solemn undertaking they gave. I warn you of that power now. I ask

8 you to reflect upon the answers that you've been giving so far, in spite

9 of our earlier warning to you that you ought to treat us with some respect

10 and recognise that we are individuals endowed with common sense.

11 We're going to break now for our lunch break, which will be for

12 one hour. I hope that that will give you time to reflect upon the

13 obligation you have to make full disclosure of your personal knowledge to

14 this Trial Chamber. Would you now please leave the courtroom with the

15 usher and we will see you again in one hour's time at quarter to 2.00.

16 [The witness stands down]

17 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.42 p.m.

18 --- On resuming at 1.44 p.m.

19 [The witness takes the stand]

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cepic, please --

21 MR. LUKIC: Excuse me.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

23 MR. LUKIC: I kindly ask you to listen to me for a few moments.

24 Maybe it's my mistake that I didn't have the document to show to this

25 witness, and trust me, this Defence would love to have that document. I

1 think that the Prosecution also tried to find the document. My explicit

2 instruction to this witness was, as to any other of our witnesses, is not

3 to guess, just to tell you what he knows. And as you know, during this

4 trial we used three different names for that plan. Our Defence does not

5 know the name of that document. We just found --

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a moment.

7 MR. LUKIC: Okay.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Mijatovic, would you leave the courtroom,

9 please, with the usher while I listen to what Mr. Lukic has to say.

10 [The witness stands down]

11 MR. LUKIC: As you could hear from this witness, he never saw the

12 document. He confirmed the contents, he confirmed that that's that plan,

13 but he never knew the real name. He never said that he was not aware of

14 the plan. He said that he does not know the exact name, and trust me this

15 Defence does not know that name. And I'm sure that the Prosecution cannot

16 tell you the exact name of the document because we are finding three

17 different names for that document during this trial.

18 So actually, I told you a few moments, and that was it.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: The question which was asked, Mr. Lukic, that

20 started this particular exchange, although what I said was not confined to

21 this: "Could you please explain to me what is the global plan?"

22 Now, he was at a meeting where Major-General Sreten Lukic, head of

23 the MUP staff in Pristina is recorded in minutes, which are MUP minutes,

24 as defining tasks in the implementation of the global plan and the

25 following task. And his answer to that question was: "I don't know

1 whether this plan that was adopted on the 21st, whether it was entitled

2 the global plan or whether somebody used this phrase. I can't say that,

3 but the reference here is definitely to that plan."

4 MR. LUKIC: Exactly. He does not know the name and he knows that

5 it's actually that plan. We used the term global plan, we used the term

6 five-phase plan, and we used the term plan for the combat against

7 terrorism. And we don't know the exact name. So he does not know if it's

8 really global plan. And you can see that the witness said: "But the

9 reference here is definitely to that plan," so he was -- he only couldn't

10 give you the name of the plan.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Well, I'll give him an opportunity when

12 he comes back in to amplify that answer before we proceed further with

13 Mr. Cepic.

14 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

16 MR. LUKIC: Before he enters, sorry, one thing. Mr. Mijatovic

17 really put a great deal of effort to go through as much as possible of our

18 documents. He read a lot. The fact is that at that time he couldn't

19 recognise some of the documents, he didn't remember, and he really tried

20 to prepare himself as much as possible. And trust me, he was our -- the

21 most diligent witness we have. So it's not that he didn't try to --

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Your experience --

23 MR. LUKIC: -- familiarize himself with everything.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, but your experience in preparing witnesses is

25 not a matter for us--

1 MR. LUKIC: I understand that.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: -- to have regard to, Mr. Lukic. We will judge the

3 witnesses according to what they say in court and all the evidence that

4 might have a bearing on what they say in court.

5 MR. LUKIC: But what I'm trying to tell you, he really tried to

6 prepare himself, and some things he wouldn't be able to give you.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: We'll allow him the opportunity to explain whatever

8 he wants to explain and we'll take account of the whole circumstances

9 surrounding his evidence. That's all we can do.

10 MR. LUKIC: Okay. Thank you, Your Honour.

11 [The witness takes the stand]

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Mijatovic, in the document which is on the

13 screen, there is reference to the agenda proposed by General Lukic, and

14 the third item is: "Defining tasks in the implementation of the global

15 plan and the following task."

16 Now, can you tell us in general the nature of the plan, please?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me say this again. I didn't see

18 the plan, I didn't see the substance of that plan, I didn't read it. But

19 what was mentioned was that police units should work with the VJ and be

20 involved in those activities, that they should prepare for that, and that

21 they would be given, as I said, more specific tasks in relation to each

22 action. That is what I remember globally speaking. I can't remember

23 every single word that was said, needless to say, but they were saying

24 that the units should prepare for the execution of those tasks.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cepic, please continue.

1 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

2 Q. [Interpretation] Colonel, sir, let's pick up where we left off.

3 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please have P1991 brought

4 up in e-court.

5 Q. Mr. Mijatovic, can you see the header of this document?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. What's this about? What is this document?

8 A. This is a record from the meeting of the staff with the minister

9 of interior of the Republic of Serbia, the chiefs of the secretariats from

10 Kosovo and Metohija.

11 Q. And the date?

12 A. The 21st of December, 1998.

13 Q. We see a list of those who attended the meeting, we see your name

14 there. You were there, right?

15 A. Yes, I was.

16 Q. What about the previous meeting and this meeting and all these

17 other meetings, not a single VJ person was there, right?

18 A. No, not at this one, not at the previous one.

19 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Can we please go to page 2 of the

20 B/C/S, it's page 3 in the English.

21 Q. Please look at the bottom of the page.

22 A. You mean the last paragraph?

23 Q. Yes, yes, where you see Obrad Stevanovic, I'm just looking at the

24 English to find the reference. It should be page 3 -- page 4.

25 Can you please read this paragraph Lieutenant-Colonel-General

1 Obrad Stevanovic asked the --

2 A. "SUP chiefs to report briefly on how plans to combat terrorism

3 were being implemented and to" --

4 Q. Thank you. That will do. Will you please tell us what plans

5 these would be?

6 A. What he probably had in mind was individual plans in relation to

7 the fundamental plan, individual plans and activities in individual

8 anti-terrorist actions.

9 Q. You mean plans up until the month of October, right?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Thank you. Can you tell me this, these plans were done only in

12 the MUP, right?

13 A. No. I said that it was based on that fundamental plan or basic

14 plan that the Pristina Corps made specific plans for specific actions, and

15 the MUP was receiving map extracts for their own units.

16 Q. Is that your testimony today?

17 A. Yes, yesterday and today.

18 MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues]... Shown the

19 time-period for which he is testifying. I'm not aware if he saw the date

20 and if he thinks it's something during the summer of 19 -- he should get a

21 time-frame.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cepic.

23 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may, my previous

24 question was about the time-period of all things, and the witness

25 confirmed that these were plans up until the month of October 1998.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, please continue.

2 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

3 Q. We're still on the same page. Can we please go to the last

4 paragraph on that page. In the Serbian this is page 4. Do you remember

5 who Bosko Petric was?

6 A. He was the chief of the Pristina SUP.

7 Q. Thank you. Can we please just go to the previous page, go back to

8 the previous page in the B/C/S, it's page 3, the top of the page. We have

9 it in the English. Here, have a look, the top of the page says Bosko

10 Petric briefly said that a plan was drawn up to combat terrorism and for

11 the most part it was being implemented. Can you tell me this was a

12 special MUP plan that the Pristina secretariat produced for their own

13 purposes?

14 A. Yes, the secretariat had the task of producing their own plans for

15 combatting terrorism; however, combatting terrorism did not just imply

16 individual actions.

17 Q. If I may, Colonel, just to hurry things along a little, this is

18 the only thing I want to know. These are plans that were done by the MUP

19 alone, a MUP body, right?

20 A. These were plans that were made by the secretariats, but it's not

21 about combat action of that kind only. There are a number of things one

22 can do, gathering intelligence on terrorist groups, on individuals, on

23 their whereabouts, on arresting them, and so on and so forth. So these

24 are the plans that this refers to, the plans made by the secretariats.

25 Q. And these plans made by the secretariats, this was something that

1 was the responsibility of the MUP and MUP alone?

2 A. Yes, the secretariats.

3 Q. The secretariats alone, sole responsibility?

4 A. Well, I can't say that there wasn't a local action, for example,

5 where a group needed to be blocked and crushed, I can't say that the army

6 was not involved, but this was not a plan that was produced by the corps

7 or the staff.

8 Q. I see. Thank you.

9 A. Because these are local actions.

10 Q. You remember the incident, I assume, in December 1998 when a

11 number of young men came to grief in the Panda cafe in Pec?

12 A. Yes, I remember that.

13 Q. After that brazen terrorist attack a MUP unit stepped in and

14 conducted a legitimate action to track down terrorists in the village of

15 Kapesnica, right?

16 A. I can't remember which secretariat, when and how implemented those

17 small-scale actions. I can't enter into any details here. On the other

18 hand, sure, they were working on combatting terrorism and there were

19 situations like that, but I can't remember any specific details simply

20 because I never saw their plans, I don't know where it was that they

21 carried them out. Maybe there were results mentioned in one of the

22 reports, I do allow for that, but I can't remember the name or the date or

23 where these actions were carried out.

24 Q. Of course you were receiving reports from all the detachments of

25 the secretariat of the interior, right?

1 A. No. I spoke about that yesterday. We were receiving daily,

2 regular, and interim reports from the secretariat. The detachments in the

3 course of an action -- I don't know who exactly they would be reporting

4 to, and if they were, I wasn't there, I wasn't out in the field, I was in

5 no position to monitor exactly what was going on and how they went about

6 that. After the completion of the anti-terrorist action, members of the

7 detachment were under an obligation to inform the local secretariat about

8 any occurrence or development that the secretariat would have had to act

9 on. It was sometimes the case that detachment commanders would inform the

10 MUP staff as well about the individual developments or if they had come up

11 against a problem. For example, they'd suffered losses, an action was

12 aborted for some reason, an action was never even launched, there were

13 people who were wounded, they needed help getting them to the hospital,

14 they needed beds to be made available at a hospital, perhaps some other

15 kind of problem, and so on and so forth.

16 Q. All right. This explains it at a lower level. So these were

17 small-scale actions and these were planned by the SUPs. Tell me about

18 actions of a broader scope in terms of anti-terrorist actions, who was it

19 that was planning these actions?

20 A. Well, again, such large-scale actions were based on the plan to

21 combat terrorism, and this is a plan that we had been referring to.

22 Q. So who did the planning on behalf of the MUP?

23 A. Again, extract maps for police units that were involved in those

24 actions were provided by the Pristina Corps. It was based on this that

25 unit commanders of both the military and the police would coordinate their

1 activities. The police commander was in charge of his unit, commanded his

2 unit, the army commander commanded his unit, they coordinated their

3 activities and actions were carried out. At least that's as far as I

4 know.

5 Q. Thank you very much. Maybe what I'm about to say next will jog

6 your memory a little bit.

7 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] I'd like page 6 in B/C/S to be

8 displayed of this same document that's in front of us; in English page 10,

9 please.

10 Q. So it's this same meeting when you were present. You see the

11 heading here. As I'm going down one, two, three, four, five, the fifth

12 bullet point, "Broader actions towards terrorist bases," could you please

13 read that out?

14 A. Yes. "Broader actions towards terrorist bases should be planned

15 by the ministry staff; however, the initiative should be with the

16 secretariats who should make preparations and compile recommendations of

17 the activity plan. All these plans should be based on the principles of a

18 police operation."

19 Q. Thank you. Mr. Mijatovic, you attended this meeting, didn't you?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And these are the words of Obrad Stevanovic, General Obrad

22 Stevanovic?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And you do not remember that the MUP in Pec and other places

25 carried out independent actions?

1 A. I cannot talk about plans and the timing involved, but they did

2 carry out actions, yes. That is within the plan of the general combat

3 against terrorism. What I explained a few moments ago, what it all --

4 what it includes.

5 Q. Colonel, you probably know that up until the beginning of the war,

6 or rather, the aggression against our country, the main task of the units

7 of the Army of Yugoslavia, or rather, of the Pristina Corps was the

8 protection of the state border from the spillover of terrorism from the

9 Republic of Albania and Republic of Macedonia; isn't that right?

10 A. I'm sorry, what period are we talking about?

11 Q. Up until the beginning of the war.

12 A. 1999?

13 Q. And 1998 too, the basic tasks.

14 A. Well, I don't know what the tasks of the army were. I didn't read

15 their orders, but the army is the one that defends the border. That's

16 right.

17 Q. So therefore you do not know how the use of fire and fire support

18 were approved to be given by the army to the MUP in 1998 and 1999?

19 A. I don't know how it was approved, down what chain it went, but I

20 know that both units took part in that struggle, or rather, in these

21 anti-terrorist actions on the basis of that plan. And now what the

22 procedure was, who wrote what to who, that, I really don't know.

23 Q. Now I am going to deal with the summer of 1998 and the activities

24 in suppressing terrorism in the territory of Kosovo and Metohija during a

25 period of a bit over two months. Tell me, Lieutenant-Colonel Adamovic,

1 was he operationally in charge of the MUP actions from the MUP staff in

2 1998?

3 A. In 1998 Adamovic did -- was not in charge of anyone in the MUP, he

4 was a member of the staff in Pristina.

5 Q. What was his duty?

6 A. He was in charge of operational affairs in the staff, partly he

7 worked on logistics, too, for the units and secretariats. He participated

8 in providing information, or rather, he provided information for the

9 planning of anti-terrorist activities to the Pristina Corps, he knew where

10 the units were, he followed that, he followed the problems they had, and

11 so on and so forth.

12 Q. Was he a military academy graduate?

13 A. Yes, he was.

14 Q. Who decided what MUP units would be?

15 A. I don't understand what you mean.

16 Q. For particular tasks.

17 A. It depended on the territory involved of secretariats, say

18 Kosovska Mitrovica or Prizren, then Adamovic knew what unit was there and

19 that that unit could then be used; however, it wasn't logical if the

20 action was taking place in the territory of Pec to send a PJP from

21 Mitrovica.

22 Q. For example, we have a problem in Mitrovica, and Adamovic thinks

23 that it is necessary to involve not only the local PJP company from

24 Mitrovica but also the PJP detachment. How does he decide which

25 detachment is supposed to take part in this action?

1 A. Well, he's not the one who decides. He's the one who provides

2 information what units are there in the area and which units can be used.

3 He cannot give information that a unit from Prizren can be used in the

4 territory -- if activities are taking place in Kosovska Mitrovica and

5 there is a detachment there already. There is no need for him to give

6 information for Prizren, there is nothing for him to decide there. The

7 unit is already in the area.

8 Q. Who knows where the MUP units are in the area? Who has this

9 information?

10 A. Well, we know that on the basis of the order on mobilisation from

11 the dispatch that came to the staff from the ministry.

12 Q. When did that dispatch arrive?

13 A. For every shift a separate one would arrive for every mobilisation

14 and every send-off. Everyone knew what unit was sent to the territory of

15 what secretariat.

16 Q. Who in the Ministry of the Interior issues this dispatch?

17 A. The minister or one of his co-workers whom he authorises.

18 Q. Who tours and inspects PJP units in the territory of Kosovo and

19 Metohija?

20 A. I don't know what kind of inspection you're talking about. I know

21 that I did not go out into the field, but I know when Generals Djordjevic

22 and Stevanovic were there they often went out into the field, but what

23 they did, what their tasks were, I really don't know. We did not inspect

24 the PJP in any way, we, the members of the staff.

25 Q. The detachments and secretariats, who did they send their reports

1 to in the MUP once an action was over?

2 A. Once an action was over, the detachments - and I've already said

3 this - informed the secretariat about certain events regarding which the

4 secretariat is supposed to take measures. When the secretariat acts in

5 relation to such and such an event, they compile a daily report, including

6 all other events, including that event that was reported by members of the

7 PJP. And then the SUP took action with regard to that, as they did in

8 respect of any other action. And this daily report was submitted to the

9 Ministry of the Interior and to the staff, along parallel lines.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Mijatovic, if an action by a PJP detachment

11 goes well and there's nothing to be done at the end of it, does that mean

12 there would be no obligation to report anything to the SUP?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the commander of the

14 detachment or the officer leading the detachment during that task quite

15 simply provides information that the action was over, that there were no

16 problems, and that there is no -- that there are no elements upon which

17 the secretariat should act. However, since logistically the detachments

18 relied on the secretariats in terms of being provided with food, water,

19 fuel, accommodation, and so on, they were always in contact.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: So does it come to this, that there always was a

21 report from the detachment to the SUP about their activity?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, he did not submit some kind of

23 detailed reports to the SUP, like what the military does, but he would

24 inform that the task was over, that he needed fuel, lubricants, spare

25 parts for a damaged vehicle, and so on. So since they needed logistics

1 support from them, they were always in contact.

2 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Do you know that in the MUP of the Republic of Serbia there is, or

4 rather, there was a set of instructions on the way in which internal

5 affairs will be regulated in the security sector?

6 A. Yes, yes, I'm aware of these instructions, and as for these

7 plans --

8 Q. [No interpretation].

9 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear Mr. Cepic.

10 MR. IVETIC: Intervene for the transcript, I believe at page 86,

11 line 19, the witness said in Serbian "borbeni izvjestaji," combat reports.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

13 Mr. Cepic, there seems to be an incomplete answer to your question

14 at line 24. Do you want to pose the question again or are you content

15 with what you have?

16 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Let's just go back to this, Colonel. The entire answer was not

18 recorded in the transcript, so I'm going to put the same question to you

19 yet again. Do you know that in the MUP there are instructions on the way

20 in which internal affairs are set up and organized in the security sector?

21 A. Well, there are such instructions, but whether that is the exact

22 name I cannot say, but there are instructions for measures to be taken in

23 this sector, yes.

24 Q. Is it correct that inter alia these instructions say that every

25 police station in its dossier inter alia has to have a list of members of

1 special police units, an in-depth plan of border security, a plan of

2 blockade of the area of the station, and other things?

3 A. To be quite frank, I was not involved in that particular line of

4 work; and as for all the things that the dossier of this sector should

5 include, I really cannot say. I was never commander or "komandir" of a

6 police station, I was never head of a sector, I did not apply these

7 instructions, so I really cannot talk about that.

8 Q. Yes, but you graduated from the military academy, like part of

9 your superior officers, like General Obrad Stevanovic and others; isn't

10 that right?

11 A. Yes, but this was not studied at the academy. This is pure police

12 work.

13 Q. In addition to your superior officers and the officers who were

14 commanders of the PJPs, almost all of them had graduated from the military

15 academy; isn't that right?

16 A. Well, not all of them.

17 Q. The one from Nis -- Mitrovic, Mitrovic, not; but Zivaljevic

18 Grekulevic, Prljevic?

19 A. Not Zivaljevic. Grekulevic I think the answer is yes; Prljevic

20 yes; I don't know about Stalevic.

21 Q. What about Brakovic?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Bosko Buha?

24 A. No, that's to the best of my knowledge. No, I mean I don't know

25 what the man graduated in, but as far as I know was in the academy.

1 Q. Josipovic?

2 A. I really cannot say about him either.

3 Q. Zinajic?

4 A. Again, I cannot say what kind of school he finished.

5 Q. We can agree that most of them had graduated from military

6 academies?

7 A. Well, I didn't do any counting like that and I cannot really say

8 something like that now.

9 Q. Yesterday and today you confirmed to us that you got excerpts from

10 maps from the corps and you passed that further on to PJP detachments. In

11 these excerpts one could not see the specific tasks of companies. It was

12 only PJP detachments that were marked, right?

13 A. Well, I didn't really pay much attention to these details, but it

14 is logical that if there is an excerpt in terms of how a unit should act,

15 one should be able to see the lower-ranking units there too, for as I

16 know, for two ranks down. If a plan is made on a map, if one provides the

17 deployment of the units, then as far as I know, it's done at two ranks

18 below as well. Perhaps I may have forgotten by now, but you cannot have

19 the detachment without the other units. You have the axis of movement,

20 the point of departure, the line to which they should come, et cetera.

21 Q. However, today you don't remember exactly what was marked there,

22 right?

23 A. Well, I've been saying that I did not see this in any detail.

24 Other people did that. I saw these excerpts for units, I mean I saw

25 people coming there to take that. But I know in principle what this

1 should contain. I do not rule out the possibility of having glanced at

2 some of them, but what particular units or detachments were involved, I

3 really cannot say. But for every unit when a task is given on the map

4 excerpts, one has to see the point of departure, the axis of activity, the

5 line that they should reach, and also, as I said, on the basis of that,

6 the commander of the detachment would elaborate his own task with his

7 lower-ranking officers. That is only natural. That is what any unit

8 does. Now, whether he drew maps there, wrote orders, "zapovesti," or not,

9 that I don't know. As far as I know, they did not have the technical

10 capacities to do that out in the field, but I don't rule out the

11 possibility that they were perhaps involved in some schematics.

12 Q. So the detachment commander issues an order to company commanders

13 in a written form or verbally, right?

14 A. Of course, those are his subordinate officers, aren't they?

15 Q. PJP company commanders issue orders to platoon commanders; that's

16 the next step, right?

17 A. Yes, a platoon commander must know where he's going, with what

18 unit, what the axis is, what direction, they must know all these things.

19 It's only natural and it's only logical to expect them to know this. This

20 is a natural thing.

21 Q. All right. Explain this. There's the map extract. There is no

22 signature, no stamp, right?

23 A. I don't remember that. As I said, I didn't make those myself, I

24 didn't study them in detail, I didn't adopt those, I didn't deliver those,

25 submit those; other people did that, but I know that those came and I know

1 based on what the police units took action. Therefore, I can't go into

2 any detail on this since I wasn't paying attention and I wasn't looking at

3 details.

4 Q. Do you not allow for the following possibility, marked on an

5 extract we see the 35th Detachment. Instead of the 35th, the 122nd

6 Intervention Brigade turns up.

7 A. I can't possibly comment on that. I was not aware of any such a

8 situation and I don't know what you're talking about. There is no logic

9 to it. If one unit is planned, that unit, then Adamovic says that the

10 unit can participate; and now instead of that unit you have a different

11 unit turning up with no replanning, no amendments to the plan, I don't

12 know. It's not that I can't allow for that possibility. I simply don't

13 know whether that was, in fact, done in practice.

14 Q. Let's assume this sort of situation occurs. You have a map

15 extract saying the 35th, the 35th PJP Detachment, and yet on the ground

16 instead of the 35th PJP Detachment, the 122nd Intervention Brigade shows

17 up. Who decides this?

18 A. It can't simply show up unless they received a map extract first.

19 Q. You are claiming that, aren't you?

20 A. No, I'm not claiming that, but I don't know if it's possible for a

21 detachment to go off on a mission if no mission has been received.

22 Q. Thank you. You say that PJP detachment commanders issue orders to

23 their subordinates, the subordinates in turn issue orders to their

24 subordinates, and so on and so forth. How does this chain work? Who

25 would sign a decision map for a company commander, for a detachment

1 commander?

2 A. A detachment commander -- I don't know how many times I've said

3 this already.

4 Q. We know that. I'm not asking you that. Answer this specific

5 question. Who signs a decision for the MUP forces and is a decision like

6 that signed?

7 A. There is no such decision in the staff because the detachments

8 that were involved were involved based on map extracts obtained from the

9 Pristina Corps for their use, for their involvement. No decision was made

10 by anyone else or signed on behalf of -- for detachment commanders as far

11 as the staff was concerned or the MUP generally speaking.

12 Q. So it is your evidence that they would go into actions where you

13 were not familiar with any orders or any signatures; one simply took

14 action on the ground. Is that what you're saying?

15 A. No, that's not what I was saying.

16 Q. You're an educated person, you're a graduate of the military

17 academy. You probably know that once an order, "zapovest," is received

18 and a decision on a map, this is a mere basis, this is groundwork, and one

19 must produce one's own order based on those, right?

20 A. Again, the detachment got extracts. Did the detachment commander

21 make an order, did the company commanders make their orders, I don't

22 know. I wasn't on the ground, I wasn't there, I couldn't see, I couldn't,

23 as they say, verify that. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't; the thing is

24 I don't know.

25 Q. All right. This detachment commander must do something else for

1 his subordinates. He must draft a decision map for two levels of command

2 down, and this map must then be approved by his superior officer, is that

3 right, is that the procedure? So your evidence is you don't know what

4 must be done?

5 A. This is probably the system used by the army, but it's not the one

6 used by the police.

7 Q. Can we therefore conclude that the systems used by the police on

8 the one hand and the army on the other were to a high degree different?

9 A. I'm not sure to what degree, but this happens to be one of the

10 differences, the one that we just discussed. Secondly, after an action

11 has been completed army units submit detailed combat reports and this did

12 not apply to PJP detachments.

13 My apologies to the interpreters.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Mijatovic, when these maps were sent by PJP --

15 sorry, by the Pristina Corps, were they always channelled through the

16 detachment commander or were such reports issued directly by the Pristina

17 corps to company commanders?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think, I can't say for sure, but I

19 don't think company commanders but detachment commanders, but I can't say

20 because I didn't do that, so I'm not sure how many maps there were. Such

21 maps, but PJP detachments, yes, and based on this the detachment commander

22 could then plan an order for his units; but I can't rule out the

23 possibility that these were issued in relation to companies as well. It's

24 just that I'm not in a position to claim that with certain knowledge.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Do you know for sure that these extract maps were,

1 in fact, sent to detachment commanders?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, they certainly weren't held

3 back in the staff. Once Arsenijevic got this or later he would forward

4 this to the units, because the unit could not go into action without

5 something like this because this is the basic document on which they base

6 their work, this is the initial document, if you like.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm sorry, I think I had missed that evidence

8 earlier. These were sent by the Pristina Corps to the MUP staff?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For the needs of PJP units.

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 JUDGE BONOMY: You referred there to Arsenijevic, but a bit

12 earlier in your evidence you were asked about Lieutenant-Colonel Adamovic,

13 I think. These extracts always went through Arsenijevic, did they?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That went through Adamovic, through

15 Adamovic for as long as he was there. He was there in 1998 and early

16 1999, up until the beginning of the air-strikes, and then he was hit

17 during the air-strikes and was sent back to the ministry and was replaced

18 by Arsenijevic. Arsenijevic was the man who replaced him on this job.

19 Therefore, these two persons were involved, one at an earlier stage and

20 the other at a later stage. I'm sure they would be in a position to

21 provide a lot more detail on this.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry, it was your understanding that these

23 documents had gone to the MUP staff, was it? That was the evidence of the

24 witness.

25 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] That wasn't my understanding and I

1 certainly don't accept that; however, I do have a number of questions

2 remaining that --

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Has there been evidence so far in the course of his

4 evidence that you recollect to that effect?

5 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Well, it was mentioned in chief. He

6 spoke about the extracts, and I think Mr. Lukic was examining the witness.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: And the evidence was that these were sent to the

8 MUP staff for Kosovo; is that the position?

9 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Yes.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Please continue, Mr. Cepic.

11 MR. IVETIC: If I can just intervene, I didn't want to interrupt

12 the exchange, but at page 93, line 4, again it was reports is in the

13 transcript but the witness said combat reports, "borbeni izvjestaji," in

14 Serbian.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

16 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Mr. Mijatovic, can we continue?

18 A. Sure.

19 Q. You're a graduate of the military academy, your experience is

20 considerable. In view of that, you'll probably agree with what I'm about

21 to suggest next. Were someone from MUP to receive a map extract like

22 that, this would constitute a basis for coordination and for concerted

23 action and it would facilitate the work of the MUP detachment in question

24 in terms of being better able to more efficiently plan their commitments

25 and activities, right?

1 A. Yes, that's what I've been saying so far. This is something that

2 was for detachment commanders as a basis which they could then use to plan

3 units [as interpreted] for their own subordinate units; likewise, another

4 commitment would be to establish coordination and cooperation with a VJ

5 unit commander to link up to plan this together and in an action each

6 would be in charge of their own respective units. I've said this a number

7 of times, haven't I?

8 Q. And the chains of command are entirely separate, aren't they?

9 A. Within units, yes, because everyone's in charge of their own unit.

10 Q. Of course you know that a map, as such - and this is something

11 that you testified about - must follow a written order. It's not an

12 independent document, a stand-alone document, is it?

13 A. I'm telling you what we got, I'm telling you what we forwarded to

14 our units; what it should be or must be is a different issue altogether.

15 Q. You spoke yesterday about subordination and you said that

16 following an order on resubordination -- on subordination you would

17 receive orders and maps, but not up until that point in time. This was

18 the second half of April, right, 1999?

19 A. Yes. This was from the time the order on resubordination was

20 adopted.

21 Q. Did you receive any order whatsoever from the interior minister

22 regarding subordination?

23 A. The VJ?

24 Q. No, you, the MUP.

25 A. Yes, but did we get an order from the minister to resubordinate

1 MUP units to the VJ?

2 Q. That's right.

3 A. No, at least none that I saw.

4 Q. What about the MUP staff or anyone from the Pristina MUP, did they

5 issue to anyone an order, as in "naradjenje," or an order as

6 in "zapovest," on subordination. Was any order, as in "naradjenje,"

7 issued to any detachment, any SUP, any police station?

8 A. No, not as far as I know. I don't think anybody could have done

9 that without the minister, bypassing the minister.

10 Q. Correct me if I'm wrong, yesterday you said that organs of the

11 interior, secretariats of the interior, you explained about the department

12 of the interior, you explained about the police stations, are these organs

13 of the interior?

14 A. No.

15 Q. What are they then?

16 A. Those are organizational units of the Ministry of the Interior.

17 The Ministry of the Interior is an organ, it's a state organ.

18 Q. Fine. All right. One thing you didn't say is what PJP units

19 were.

20 A. These are not organizational units of the ministry under the

21 organization rules; these are set up by a special decision taken by the

22 minister. And they operate, and I hope you know this, on the principle of

23 being assembled. When there's a need, then people from organizational

24 units from the ministry are taken away from their regular duties, a unit

25 is set up and then sent on a mission, and that's why it's no

1 organizational unit within the ministry, the detachment.

2 Q. SAJ and JSO, what about those?

3 A. SAJ is within the state security sector and I can't discuss that,

4 I simply don't know -- or rather, the JSO is. The SAJ, on the other hand,

5 as far as I remember, was established pursuant to an -- to a decision by

6 the minister, but it was a permanent set-up, a permanent unit. At one

7 point in time it was an organizational unit of the ministry, I think it

8 still is but I can't say because it's been a long time since I last looked

9 at the rules. It's a permanent set-up, it's a permanent unit and it

10 doesn't do anything else but their own jobs. Members of the PJP also

11 police and patrol certain areas, their stations commanders and assistants

12 and so on and so forth. Therefore, this is the manpower that is used to

13 set up a PJP along the principle of actually assembling them and pursuant

14 to a decision by the minister.

15 MR. CEPIC: Your Honour, we show an error in the transcript, page

16 97, line 22, not SAJ but JSO.

17 MR. IVETIC: And --

18 MR. CEPIC: First word -- okay. Thank you. I just received

19 information from my colleagues that there's a correction at the end of the

20 sentence.

21 MR. IVETIC: But, Your Honour, the point that I would make out is

22 that that's not what the witness said. The "or rather the JSO" is the

23 interpreter's comment I believe, because the witness was rather clear, as

24 Mr. Cepic points out, when answering the question that he was talking

25 about the JSO from the onset. So we need to have a clear delineation

1 between comments of the translators and what witnesses are actually

2 saying. Mr. Cepic is correct in bringing this error in denomination to

3 the attention of the Court.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: The JSO is the one that's within the state security

5 sector. Is that right?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you're asking me, then the answer

7 is yes.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: And you claim, Mr. Ivetic, that line -- page 97,

9 line 23 onwards is about the JSO?

10 MR. IVETIC: No, Your Honours, I claim that the statement, "Or

11 rather, the JSO is ..." is the interpreter's correction, not what the

12 witness said. The witness started the sentence saying: "The JSO is

13 within the state security sector," in line 22 --

14 JUDGE BONOMY: That's --

15 MR. IVETIC: He said, "I can't discuss that, I simply don't know."

16 And then that's where his answer about the JSO ends and the translator

17 clarifies the error earlier translation I believe. We can always have

18 that clarified by listening to the tape.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: I think that's clear.

20 Carry on, Mr. Cepic.

21 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation].

22 Q. Tell me, Colonel, the OPG, RPO --

23 A. Go ahead, ask me.

24 Q. OPG, RPOs, what kind of formations are we talking about, are they

25 permanent? Are they temporary?

1 A. As far as the RPO is concerned, that's the reserve police

2 departments, they were established before my arrival in Kosovo and

3 Metohija and they are composed of the reservists in the Ministry of the

4 Interior, or rather, the police and the reserve force of the Territorial

5 Defence units. These are temporary formations, and the reason why they

6 were established was to provide security to the civilian population in

7 built-up areas to protect them against terrorist acts.

8 As far as the OPG units are concerned, the OPG members are active

9 staff of the ministry, and when we're talking about Kosovo and Metohija

10 those formations were established sometime in late 1998, I believe, and

11 they had 10 to 15 men, maybe up to 20, they differed in size I think but

12 their strength would be something like that. And they comprised members

13 of the PJP units from the secretariats in Kosovo and Metohija. The reason

14 why they were set up was because in that period - and actually you

15 yourself mentioned the attack on the Panda cafe in Pec - the reason was

16 because the terrorist acts started to be carried out in urban areas, and

17 this posed a threat to the security in urban areas. And in order to

18 prevent any large-scale consequences, those operational pursuit groups

19 were established.

20 Q. Yeah, that's fine.

21 A. Well, I can give you the whole genesis of the very name, it hails

22 back to 1970s --

23 JUDGE BONOMY: You've more than answered the question.

24 Mr. Cepic, can we concentrate on what's in controversy.

25 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

1 Q. [Interpretation] In your testimony yesterday, Colonel, you did not

2 mention those formations. Am I right when I say that the JSO and the SAJ

3 and the PJP and the OPG are the manoeuvre component of the MUP?

4 A. Well, there is a difference when it comes to PJP. First of all,

5 OPGs are part of the PJP --

6 Q. Could you please just give me short answers so that we can move

7 through my questions fairly quickly. Can you tell me, is this the

8 manoeuvre segment of the MUP?

9 A. There are manoeuvre detachments, and not all detachments are

10 manoeuvre detachments. There are those detachments, but not all of them

11 are of that nature.

12 Q. The A variant of the PJP, SAJ, OPG, that would be the manoeuvre

13 detachments?

14 A. Yes, the A variant.

15 Q. So all the detachments, all the formations that I mentioned, they

16 belong to that set?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Thank you. In addition, each SUP had its own PJP units; is that

19 right?

20 A. All the PJP units were part of the secretariats, regardless of

21 where they were in Serbia, whether in Kosovo and Metohija, in Vojvodina,

22 or in Serbia proper. So all PJP members were at the same time members of

23 one of the secretariats.

24 Q. Yes, but in action we can see that a PJP company from Urosevac

25 would take part and some detachment from Nis or from the Serbian

1 hinterland, just to give you an example?

2 A. Well, I can't see where the problem is. A detachment was formed

3 from units from several secretariats. One secretariat would give one

4 company, the other one would give, let's say, four companies, depending on

5 their capabilities and strengths. So that in the Nis detachment not all

6 of the personnel would be from Nis or Uzice or Novi Sad. For example, the

7 Novi Sad company would comprise personnel --

8 Q. Let's stop there. We're making this too broad.

9 A. Well, I do apologise. I just wanted to explain.

10 Q. Am I right when I say that the combat control of the territory,

11 securing roads, axes and facilities and features, were also part of combat

12 activities that those units carried out, further blocking certain areas,

13 setting up ambushes, raids, and other tactical actions?

14 A. Well, I wouldn't be talking about combat control of the territory

15 because it is a military term, that is not a police term. But definitely

16 the police units did control the roads, the territory; after all, it is

17 its task to do so.

18 Q. Thank you. Did you attend any meetings attended by the MUP

19 leaders and the Army of Yugoslavia officers except for the one in the

20 summer of 1998?

21 A. I don't know what kind of meetings you're talking about of the

22 same kind.

23 Q. Of any kind.

24 A. Well, I don't remember any official meetings, but there would be

25 coordination, cooperation, but meetings of that kind as the one that we

1 discussed at the beginning, the anti-terrorist activities, I can't recall

2 any meetings of that kind.

3 Q. Could you please tell me, who do you report to when a policeman is

4 killed?

5 A. What do you mean, the staff?

6 Q. The staff and the unit from which this policeman was.

7 A. Well, if the policeman is killed and he belongs to a certain

8 detachment, then the secretariat and the staff get a report, and that

9 would be the urgent report that we were talking about, and the secretariat

10 then puts it into its daily report. There is an on-site investigation, if

11 possible, the public prosecutor is told about that and so is investigative

12 judge --

13 Q. Okay, okay.

14 A. Well, I do apologise. And the ministry also receives a report

15 through regular reporting channels and so does the staff.

16 Q. Who provides the food, ammunition, and all the other necessary

17 things for MUP units?

18 A. Well, as I've already said, from the point of view of logistics

19 the detachments relied on the secretariats in the territory. When they

20 came to carry out the tasks they brought all the ammunition they needed

21 with them, but if it happened that more ammunition is expended than was

22 expected, then additional quantities were procured through the ministry.

23 Q. Thank you.

24 MR. IVETIC: I intervene for the transcript. It might be due to

25 the intervention of Mr. Cepic in the middle of that answer which broke up

1 the answer, but lines 6 and 7 at page 103 do not accurately reflect what

2 the witness said. I don't know whether it's best to just have that

3 listened to, the tape, but we understood the witness to say that --

4 JUDGE BONOMY: [Microphone not activated].

5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Mijatovic, you were being asked about reports

7 and you said there was an on-site investigation, if possible, the

8 prosecutor is told, so is the investigative judge, and then you went on to

9 say who else received reports through regular reporting channels. Can you

10 remember that?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The secretariat that covered the

12 territory in question undertook measures within its jurisdiction to

13 process the incident. The investigative judge and the public prosecutor

14 were notified, an on-site investigation was carried out, and in the daily

15 report this incident is recorded, and this report is sent to the ministry

16 and to the staff. The staff in its turn in the daily reports that cover

17 everything that it received from the secretariat provides this report to

18 the ministry up its own line of reporting so that the ministry receives

19 reports from two sources.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: It seems to mean the same thing in the end, but

21 perhaps the last bit added something.

22 Mr. Cepic.

23 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

24 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, let me just follow up on this. If we

25 encountered this situation, the investigative judge of the regular

1 district court within whose jurisdiction this unfortunate accident

2 occurred and the public prosecutor, they go out on the scene.

3 A. Well, it's up to the judge to decide whether they want to go to

4 the scene or not. It sometimes happened that the investigative judge

5 would authorise the SUP to carry out the investigation, and then the

6 investigation would be done by the SUP itself; but it is the discretionary

7 right of the investigative judge to decide that.

8 Q. Could you tell me as far as the personnel of the Ministry of the

9 Interior are concerned, who regulates how they should go about performing

10 their work, what is the basis for the way in which those activities are

11 regulated?

12 A. The Ministry of the Interior personnel carry out their tasks on

13 the basis of the law and other regulations.

14 Q. The Law on Internal Affairs; is that correct?

15 A. Yes, the Law on Internal affairs, the rules on organization, the

16 rules on interpersonal relations, and there is a number of those rules. I

17 can't really remember all of them now.

18 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Could we please look at P1737, Article

19 7. [In English] Article 7, please. Could we have in English also,

20 please.

21 Q. [Interpretation] Well, we can see here that the minister, or

22 rather, could you please read Article 7 for me, please?

23 A. "The minister shall determine the manner in which the Ministry of

24 the Interior performs its duties and issue instructions for their

25 performance."

1 Q. And this is the key law as far as you're concerned?

2 A. What do you mean, the Law on Internal Affairs?

3 Q. Yes.

4 A. Well, yes, it says here that it's the minister who determines

5 that, but there is the rules on how the -- how this is to be carried out,

6 just as in the military you have Rules of Service.

7 Q. Yes, but this is a lower act than this one, the lower instrument?

8 A. Yes.

9 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please have P1992 [as

10 interpreted].

11 Q. My colleague Mr. Lukic showed you this document yesterday, but not

12 everything was read out. There is a sentence missing.

13 MR. CEPIC: Wrong document. P1990, please.

14 Q. [Interpretation] Do you recognise this document?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. What is it?

17 A. This is a meeting at the staff held by Minister Vlajko

18 Stojiljkovic with his associates and senior officers from the republican

19 state security sectors in Kosovo and Metohija.

20 Q. Thank you.

21 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Can we please get the lower half of

22 the page in B/C/S and page 2 in the English.

23 Q. Colonel, sir, you read this yesterday but you didn't read the

24 previous sentence. So can we start, please, that's the lower half of the

25 page, roughly speaking, it's about seven lines from the bottom up, the

1 first words are: "Has been elaborated, the plan for the public security

2 sector has been elaborated in order to prevent access by NATO to our

3 territory." And then on from there.

4 A. "The staff planned to carry out as soon as this was ordered three

5 actions to clear the terrain from the terrorists in the Podujevo,

6 Dragobilje, and Drenica areas or sectors.

7 Q. Thank you. That will do. Let's see first who was at this

8 meeting, was there anyone from the army who was present listed up there?

9 A. No.

10 Q. No one at all from the army?

11 A. No one.

12 Q. Fine. What is RJB, is this a military organization?

13 A. This is the public security sector and it's part of the ministry.

14 Q. You were saying that these actions were executed according to an

15 army plan, but we see no mention here of the army or indeed anyone

16 attending from the army. Would I be right in saying that all the SUP

17 chiefs and PJP and SAJ commanders attended this meeting?

18 A. Yes, you're right when you say that they will attend it, but

19 you're not right when you suggest what you did about the plan. The plan

20 that we discussed earlier was about taking action against the terrorists.

21 Plans for the elimination, or rather, anti-terrorist combat, so that's not

22 in relation to that, is it?

23 Q. Mr. Mijatovic, thankfully we can all read and we see what is

24 written there. Are you trying to tell us something that is both baseless

25 and illogical, would that be your evidence?

1 A. I'm telling you what it says.

2 Q. If you look closely at what it says --

3 A. So this is not about anti-terrorist activities. This is about

4 NATO.

5 Q. Can you please read the same sentence again.

6 A. "A plan has been elaborated on by the RJB in order to foil and

7 prevent NATO's access to our territory."

8 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Mijatovic.

9 Who made this plan in the RJB?

10 A. To be quite frank, I don't understand this sentence. I know that

11 there were defence plans, defence plans for the eventuality of war, and

12 this is something that's done by all the secretariats. The Ministry of

13 the Interior at its HQ also have their own defence plan, so the reference

14 was to all those plans together, but if this was a plan of the public

15 security sector, then that's fine.

16 Q. So all these activities make up a plan or the plan of the public

17 security sector, right?

18 A. I don't know which activities you mean. I'm talking about defence

19 plans.

20 Q. This is all within the framework of the MUP, right?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Thank you.

23 A. And there's a legal basis for that.

24 Q. Thank you. Thank you. Let's move on. Tell me about maintaining

25 public law and order, protecting persons and property, combatting

1 terrorism and crime, organizing the safe-guarding of vital facilities and

2 buildings, this was also something that happened to be the job of the MUP,

3 right?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Thank you. Likewise, it was the MUP that devised their own system

6 of command and their own communications system, right?

7 A. Well, in the MUP they don't use military terminology, they don't

8 say "command," they say lead, not commanding, leading. In each of the

9 ministries there's a special administration that deals with these issues,

10 setting up a communications system specifically. In the secretariats

11 these are termed departments or sectors, I'm not sure which.

12 Q. Thank you.

13 MR. CEPIC: Could we have fifth page in English, same document,

14 and the third page in B/C/S, please.

15 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mijatovic, same document. It's Minister

16 Vlajko Stojiljkovic taking the floor and his words are recorded here.

17 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have the lower half of

18 the page in the Serbian or the B/C/S. [In English] And the bottom of the

19 page in English also, please.

20 Q. [Interpretation] You see line 10 it says "work out a system ..."

21 Can you please read that.

22 A. Is this a document? Is this a meeting? Is this the record of a

23 meeting?

24 Q. It's the same one that I've been showing you.

25 A. I can't quite find this. All right.

1 "Work out a system of command and communications." Yes, the

2 minister used the term -- or at least that's what he was recorded as

3 saying, but this is not the established mode of communication within the

4 ministry, to use the term "command." We use the term "to lead."

5 Q. But that's how it reads, it reads command, right?

6 A. Yes, indeed, that's true. What I was saying is that we have

7 organizational units at the level of the ministry that deal with this kind

8 of issue.

9 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please have 6D269.

10 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: May I ask a question, please. I'd like to find

11 out from the witness what is the distinction between commanding and

12 leading.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I couldn't really draw a

14 distinction there or define a distinction. I'd never spent too much time

15 thinking about that, but the military used the term "command" and the MUP

16 used the term - how should I put this? - it's a bit softer in a way. As I

17 explained yesterday, all members of the police are authorised officials

18 and they must carry out tasks under the law without waiting for special

19 orders, as in "naradjenje," and I think that is the essence. A soldier

20 does nothing until such time as he has received an order. I think this is

21 the essential essence, as far as I understand, because "command" is a very

22 tough term, it's too unwieldy for police work.

23 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you very much.

24 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour, may I -- thank you.

25 Q. [Interpretation] Colonel, sir, can you please look at item 1 of

1 this document, update the defence plan. You see that, right?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Is this the defence plan that you talked about a while ago that

4 was done by the MUP in all the secretariats of their own?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Thank you.

7 MR. CEPIC: Could we have count 5 of this document, please.

8 Q. [Interpretation] If we look at this item, the Ministry of the

9 Interior selects essential locations, organization, and ways of

10 relocating; is that right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Thank you. Can you please look at item 6 now, passage. It

13 says: "Plan measures and carry out preparations for the physical security

14 of some buildings, persons," and so on. Who planned these measures,

15 security measures, for the safe-guarding persons, installations, and

16 facilities of special importance?

17 A. Each secretariat in relation to its own area.

18 Q. Thank you.

19 MR. CEPIC: Could we have count 11 of this document, please.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Can you please read the first sentence in item 11 --

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Just give us a moment.

24 MR. CEPIC: Sorry

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Just before we continue, it may be worth commenting

2 that this distinction that is sought to be made between the circumstances

3 in which a policeman might act without an order or direction and the

4 circumstances of a soldier who acts only on orders might have some

5 relevance to the responsibility of the police who, according to the

6 witness, act according to the law to comply with a direction made under

7 Articles 16 and 17 of the Law on Defence for resubordination. And we

8 would in due course appreciate the comments of parties on that.

9 Now, Mr. Cepic, you may continue.

10 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

11 Q. [Interpretation] Colonel, sir, while we still have item 11 in

12 front of us, can you please tell me this: Where were these command posts

13 with reserve positions selected and prepared?

14 A. There's no way I can know that. Each secretariat had its own

15 defence plan envisaging this.

16 Q. It says command posts, not posts for leading, right?

17 A. Yes, that's what it says, but I do have to explain, don't I? This

18 is the expression used because during a war this plan is followed, or

19 rather, the police units are envisaged in this plan and these police units

20 have their own commands. Therefore, this is for wartime circumstances.

21 Q. Oh, I see. Thank you. But one thing we don't have in the

22 transcript is the term police war units. Is that what you said?

23 A. It's in the plans of every secretariat, it's something that is

24 envisaged.

25 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Can we please look at item 16.

1 Q. You see item 16, right? It reads: "In the eventuality of an

2 aggression cooperate fully" --

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. There is no talk there of resubordination or subordination. It's

5 about cooperation, it's about exchanging information and so on and so

6 forth, right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Thank you.

9 A. Well, there's talk of the Law on Defence.

10 Q. I'm not asking you about the Law on Defence. We'll get to it

11 later. Mr. Mijatovic, can you please listen closely to my questions and

12 answer my questions and my questions alone?

13 A. That's fine.

14 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have P1100.

15 Q. Do you recognise the header --

16 MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues]... Your Honour, I

17 don't see this document on the list from the Lazarevic Defence team.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cepic.

19 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] I'm sure it is on one of the lists,

20 and my assistant will try to check this. I only have a single question in

21 relation to this document.

22 MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues]... then the question

23 I think can be posed.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, do you stand in your objection?

25 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, we got the same objections all the

1 time from the other side, so we do have --

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Were any of them sustained?

3 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Or did you simply back down?

5 MR. LUKIC: No, I didn't.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: No, no, but did they simply -- sorry, these

7 objections to you were sustained, were they?

8 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Without you withdrawing? All right.

10 Well, Mr. Cepic, deal with another one just now and you can direct

11 your attention to the notification tomorrow.

12 JUDGE CHOWHAN: Meanwhile I can ask a little question, that will

13 give you some relief.

14 While talking of the Ministry of Interior, you stated that the

15 minister laid the rules or regulations which would govern the Ministry of

16 the Interior, but then you said that this is subject to some general --

17 some general rules. What are those general rules? Are these the rules

18 which govern every ministry and is laid by a parliament or is there

19 something else? But I couldn't understand that.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I couldn't, probably an expert could

21 tell you more about that. I can talk more about -- well, what I mean is

22 this, there is the Law on Ministries, the Law on State administration, the

23 Law on Internal affairs and other laws, the Law on Criminal procedure and

24 so on and so forth and the ministry bases its work on that. The minister

25 who is part of the ministry adopts a book of rules or instructions

1 regulating this. For example, a lawyer in the organization of the

2 ministry, a book of rules on the work of the ministry, we saw that

3 yesterday - I'm very tired now already - the instructions on the informing

4 process. So he adopts these instructions based on the law. But I'm sure

5 an expert would be better placed to talk about this and would be far more

6 competent to answer your question.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Have you found the notification?

8 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may, my assistant

9 has just tracked it down, and the problem is there's a 0 missing in what

10 he wrote and we can show you a copy of that mail which he sent to all the

11 parties involved. When we gave notice of our list, there is a 0 missing

12 in relation to this document, it reads here P110 --

13 MR. LUKIC: We have the same mistake from the Prosecutor's side

14 and they notified us that they made a mistake, so we accept the

15 Prosecution's point, but not this way of dealing with the things. We

16 are ...

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry, you're maintaining your point, are you,

18 Mr. Lukic?

19 MR. LUKIC: Yes, I am.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: And you say that that's a course we followed

21 earlier in the case where there was a mistake of this nature, do you?

22 MR. LUKIC: -- this kind of mistake, but when we were late with

23 the announcement of the document, the objections were sustained. But if

24 there is a document with a number we received, then we checked that

25 document, not the document which has one 0 less in its number.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: [Microphone not activated].

2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the President, please.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: We have to finish now, so we'll tell you tomorrow.

4 Can you tell us what we might expect from you tomorrow?

5 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps half an hour, and

6 if I may, as far as the objection by my friend Branko Lukic is concerned,

7 I would like to say that my memory tells me otherwise as far as my own

8 objections were concerned and the way they were characterized. Thank you,

9 and I hope that Judge Kamenova is feeling better today.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Mijatovic, we have to break again until

11 tomorrow. Please bear in mind what I said to you about communication

12 between these hearings. Tomorrow our continued hearing is at 2.15 in

13 Courtroom I. Could you now please leave this court with the usher, and we

14 will see you tomorrow again at 2.15.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16 [The witness stands down]

17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.32 p.m.,

18 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 14th day of

19 February, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.

20

21

22

23

24

25