1 Tuesday, 1 April 2008

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

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

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning everyone. Judge Nosworthy is not

6 with us this morning. She is absent for urgent personal reasons. I hope

7 that she will be with us tomorrow. We have decided it is in the

8 interests of justice to continue in her absence.

9 Parties were notified that we would like to hear any submission

10 any party wishes to make on one issue which we will have to deal with in

11 private session, so for that purpose we will go into private session.

12 [Private session]

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 24627-24642 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 [Open session]

4 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ivetic, we hope that today you have a witness

6 for us.

7 MR. IVETIC: My colleague Mr. Lukic does. I don't know if

8 there's a [indiscernible] do we. We do have an outstanding issue with

9 some motions to amend some exhibits that are somewhat pressing as I

10 believe the next witness after our first witness -- and the first witness

11 also are covered by -- we do have -- we do have a document also for the

12 first witness that is covered by the motion to amend the 65 ter with

13 respect to that exhibit, the first witness being led by my colleague.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Which motion is it? Is it the eighth motion?

15 MR. IVETIC: Eighth, that's correct.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp, are you dealing with this witness?

17 MR. STAMP: Yes. Yes, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Have you seen the notice and have you been able to

19 identify the documents that might relate to these two witnesses?

20 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honour. In respect to the next witness,

21 the next two witnesses, we do not have objections to those documents,

22 notwithstanding that some are not translated and there are problems with

23 them, we do not have objections to the motion as filed. But there are

24 many other documents in the motion with respect to the succeeding

25 witnesses that we will express objections to those documents in due

1 course.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: How quickly do you think you will be able to do

3 that?

4 MR. STAMP: I think in respect to the succeeding witnesses, we

5 should be able to do that by tomorrow.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: So end of business tomorrow.

7 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Well --

9 [Trial Chamber confers]

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Is it easy for you, Mr. Ivetic, to list the new

11 documents that relate to the next two witnesses or is it going to have to

12 be done at the break?

13 MR. IVETIC: As far as the second witness is concerned, I can do

14 that. Hopefully my colleague can find the one for his witness.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Give us the numbers, please.

16 MR. IVETIC: The numbers for the second witness are -- the first

17 witness is 6D1615, and for the second witness that would be 6D1531 -- oh,

18 that was, pardon, that was -- 6D1608, 6D1609, 6D1610, 6D1611 and 6D112,

19 which was the one that was the untranslated one, would also be on that

20 but I do not intend to use that 6D112 as a exhibit in the direct

21 examination -- 6D1612. I apologise. An error on my part in the

22 enunciation of that exhibit. That I believe is the only one for the

23 second witness that is not translated based upon my recollection.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: So included in your list is 6D1531 or did you

25 change that?

1 MR. IVETIC: 6D153 [sic] is not included in the list.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: And the first witness to whom you refer is

3 Zivkovic; is that correct?

4 MR. IVETIC: That's correct.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: And the second one Furdulovic?

6 MR. IVETIC: That is correct, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, the Chamber will allow amendment of the 65

8 ter list of documents to include 6D1615, and then 1608 to 1612. We

9 shall, however, reserve determination of the rest of the application

10 pending receipt of the Prosecution filing.

11 The name of the next witness, then, Mr. Lukic, is?

12 MR. LUKIC: The name of the next witness is Mr. Zivkovic, Zoran

13 Zivkovic, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

15 [The witness entered court]

16 WITNESS: ZORAN ZIVKOVIC

17 [Witness answered through interpreter]

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, Mr. Zivkovic.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

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

21 speak the truth by reading aloud the document now being shown to you.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

23 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Please be seated.

25 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm sorry that we've kept you waiting, but we've

2 had a break last week and we had certain procedural issues to discuss

3 when we returned this morning. We've dealt with these as quickly as we

4 could, on your examination by Mr. Lukic will now begin.

5 Mr. Lukic.

6 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour, and it should be very short

7 one. For the start I would kindly ask help from the usher.

8 Examination by Mr. Lukic:

9 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Zivkovic, good morning.

10 A. Good morning.

11 Q. Can we start?

12 A. Yes, we can.

13 Q. Before you have a statement that you provided to the Defence of

14 Mr. Sreten Lukic. You can see it, can't you?

15 A. Yes, I can.

16 Q. Is this the statement that you provided to the Defence lawyers of

17 Mr. Lukic?

18 A. Yes, it is my statement, but there are some autographic mistakes

19 but they don't have an effect on the essence of the statement.

20 Q. Thank you very much. What about the contents, the contents of

21 the statement is before you. Does it correspond to what you said to the

22 Defence lawyers?

23 A. Yes, completely.

24 Q. If you were asked the same questions today, would you provide the

25 same answers?

1 A. Yes, because I gave the statement a few days ago. Nothing has

2 changed in the meantime. So my answers would be the same obviously.

3 Q. Thank you.

4 Now I would kindly ask the Trial Chamber to admit -- to admit the

5 statement under number 6D1607.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Can you give us an example of what you have

7 described as an autographic mistake?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For example, there's a spelling

9 mistake in a word where a T should be instead of a D. Some letters are

10 missing. So I was talking about spelling mistakes rather than anything

11 else. So this would be one of those spelling mistakes. Those are minor

12 spelling mistakes in the way the Serbian language is written, but they do

13 not have any effect on the essence of any of the sentences or my

14 statement as a whole.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: And are they all obvious?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. The statement will be admitted,

18 Mr. Lukic.

19 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

20 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Zivkovic, after the democratic changes in

21 the year 2000, what was your position?

22 A. From the beginning of November 2000 up to 18 March 2003 I was the

23 minister of the interior of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and then

24 as of the 18th of March, 2003, up to the 4th of March, 2004, I was the

25 prime minister of the government of Serbia.

1 Q. Thank you. Although we have it in your statement, I'm going to

2 ask you again. While you were the federal minister of the interior,

3 throughout that period did you ever hear of Sreten Lukic having been

4 involved in the perpetration of war crimes during the years 1998 to 1999

5 in Kosovo and Metohija?

6 A. No.

7 Q. As the prime minister of Serbia, did you cooperate with the

8 Ministry of Interior of Serbia?

9 A. Of course. That's part of the prime minister's job. And also

10 while I was the minister of the interior I, had close almost daily

11 cooperation with the Ministry of the Interior of Serbia.

12 Q. Thank you. As the prime minister of Serbia, did you come by

13 knowledge that Mr. Sreten Lukic had committed crimes in the relevant

14 period -- period in Kosovo and Metohija?

15 A. No.

16 Q. I promised that I would be brief, and indeed this is all that I

17 had for you today. Thank you.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Lukic.

19 Mr. Fila.

20 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] With the Court's leave.

21 Cross-examination by Mr. Fila:

22 Q. Mr. Zivkovic, I would like to ask you a question. First of all,

23 good morning and how have you?

24 A. Very well, thank you.

25 Q. In your CV and I'm personally aware of the fact that you were the

1 mayor of Nis during the NATO campaign, during the Merciful Angel. Do you

2 remember?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. I would kindly ask you to tell us briefly what does Nis comprise,

5 which cities that came under the NATO attack, under the NATO shelling,

6 and were there only military targets were targeted or were there also

7 civilian targets targeted?

8 A. Nis is a city which is either the second or third city in Serbia

9 with over 250.000 inhabitants. I was the mayor of Nis between January

10 1997 and September 2000, and also during the NATO aggression, also known

11 under the name Merciful Angel, Nis suffered the most during the NATO

12 campaign, and the military targets were just a smaller part of the

13 targets that were targeted in my city.

14 There were some 30 dead civilians as a result of the NATO

15 campaign that died as the result of the shelling of the city hospital,

16 the city marketplace, several neighbourhoods such as Duvaliste [phoen],

17 Slaka [phoen], Medosevac [phoen]. A lot of shells fell on the places

18 that had nothing whatsoever to do with the military. They were not

19 military targets.

20 Q. Nis, of course, is not in Kosovo and Metohija.

21 A. Nis is almost a hundred kilometres away from the administrative

22 borders of Kosovo or some 160 kilometres from Pristina.

23 Q. And the last question, Mr. Zivkovic: When you became the prime

24 minister after the democratic changes, you had contacts with a number of

25 persons from this Tribunal and generally speaking did anybody ever

1 explain to you what the reasons were for which the city hospital in Nis

2 and other civilian targets were targeted in Nis?

3 A. Obviously I --

4 MR. STAMP: I wish to object to that question. Certainly what

5 somebody from the Tribunal might have said to him about that is not

6 evidence that has a bearing on this case, and certainly there could be no

7 reliability about anything said by somebody from this Tribunal in respect

8 of targets of the campaign.

9 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I don't agree with that at all.

10 You're now trying to pass on us the statements from the fourth hand by

11 somebody who was not there, and I'm asking the prime minister of Serbia

12 what Ms. Del Ponte told him when he received her as the prime minister of

13 Serbia after the fall of Milosevic, after the tragic killing of Zoran

14 Djindjic. This person was the prime minister, the gentleman who is

15 sitting before us. He was the prime minister of Serbia and he's a very

16 competent person and he can answer that. Very, very competent person

17 indeed.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Your question was much more general than that,

19 though, Mr. Fila. It was you had contacts with persons from this

20 Tribunal. Are you talking about a specific contact with a specific

21 person?

22 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] In her book that we're all reading at

23 the moment, Mrs. Del Ponte said that he contacted with the prime

24 minister. I live in the country. I read the statements.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: We don't want to hear your evidence on this. What

1 I want to know is who does this question --

2 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] No, no.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: -- relate to? We need to know the date of the

4 meeting, who was involved and so on. So you need to build up the point

5 where we can then test the issue that's now been raised whether this is a

6 question that ought to be answered. So let's establish which meeting

7 we're talking about, where it was and when and in what context, and then

8 we'll see whether it might be relevant to the trial. A general did

9 anybody from the Tribunal give you a reason for NATO bombing of the city

10 hospital in Nis is not going to help us.

11 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I apologise. What I'm doing is

12 shooting in the dark. I don't know whether there were any meetings,

13 whether those persons exist. I'm trying to see whether there were any

14 such meetings, and in his capacity as the prime minister did he ever

15 receive such information. I don't know whether it was John, Richard, or

16 Carla Del Ponte or Mr. Stamp or somebody else. This is just my attempt

17 to see whether there were any such persons. If the answer is yes I will

18 continue putting questions. If the answer is no, then I will stop myself

19 there. So I cannot pinpoint any meetings at this point.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: In that case give us a moment, please.

21 [Trial Chamber confers]

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila, let's assume the answer to your question

23 eventually is yes and a reason is given to us. What's its relevance to

24 the trial?

25 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] When it comes to the precision that is

1 demanded from our people who were targeting targets in Kosovo, the NATO

2 has the most sophisticated systems that target hospitals, and it is

3 established that they did not violate any international laws when they

4 targeted civilians there. These were proclaimed collateral damages as

5 Jamie Shea said. So these are things that happened and if they happened

6 to the NATO, they could have happened to our army and the police as well.

7 They could also have made a mistake. So the value is how such things

8 come about, the so-called collateral damage and -- which was not found to

9 be a war crime.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila, the particular issue you've now

11 identified is not relevant to any issue of significance in this trial and

12 therefore we will not allow you to pursue that line of examination.

13 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Mr. Bakrac.

15 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I will also

16 be very brief.

17 Cross-examination by Mr. Bakrac:

18 Q. Mr. Zivkovic, good morning. I'm Mihajlo Bakrac and I represent

19 General Lazarevic in this case. I have just two questions for you. The

20 first one would be the following: You were first the minister of police

21 and then the prime minister and you obviously knew that after the

22 democratic changes General Lazarevic was the deputy chief of the General

23 Staff of the army of Yugoslavia who was Mr. Branko Krga for the army.

24 A. Yes, I'm familiar with that.

25 Q. From the point of view of democratic changes, the democratic

1 changes of the authorities, from the point of view of the new power and

2 you as the minister of police first and then the prime minister, what was

3 your view and what was the general opinion of General Lazarevic?

4 A. When I was of the minister of the interior the army was not the

5 priority of my activity or interest. When I was prime minister, I was

6 obviously abreast of all the developments in the state -- in the state,

7 and at that time I did not hear anything of General Lazarevic that would

8 be negative or bad. At one point he was the second or the third person

9 in the Serbian army which was a very high position, and I did not hear

10 anything negative or bad things about him.

11 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Zivkovic. This is all I wanted to hear

12 from you.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Bakrac.

14 Mr. Zivkovic, you'll now be cross-examined by the Prosecutor,

15 Mr. Stamp.

16 Mr. Stamp.

17 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honour.

18 Cross-examination by Mr. Stamp:

19 Q. Good morning, Mr. Zivkovic.

20 A. Good morning.

21 Q. When did you first have direct professional contact with

22 Mr. Lukic?

23 A. Personally when I congratulated him on his appointment of deputy

24 minister and chief of RJB sector in the MUP of Serbia. That was in late

25 January 2001.

1 Q. And when you were federal minister of interior affairs, were you

2 a member of the cabinet of the Serbian government of Prime Minister

3 Djindjic?

4 A. No, I wasn't a member of that cabinet. I was a minister within

5 the so-called federal government, and he was prime minister of Serbia.

6 Q. And as the minister within the so-called federal government, did

7 you have any formal responsibility for the MUP of Serbia?

8 A. Yes. According to the law on conducting interior affairs from

9 the competence of the federal administrative organs in force from 1975

10 until late December 2004, the federal MUP had quite a number of

11 competencies or powers that were linked to the MUP of Serbia.

12 In these contacts and these competencies that were overlapping

13 were defined in that particular law. As far as I remember, Article 7,

14 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, those articles set forth in detail the

15 competencies that federal MUP has over the MUP of Serbia.

16 Q. Did you have formal responsibility over the MUP -- I'll withdraw.

17 Did you have formal responsibility over the RJB of the Republic

18 of Serbia?

19 A. No command responsibility, naturally. However, the MUP of

20 Serbia, according to the law that I have mentioned, had duty to inform

21 the federal MUP about its work, and I would receive daily, weekly,

22 monthly, tri-month and annual reports on the work of the MUP of Serbia,

23 including the work of the RJB sector. Also, when it came to any

24 important matters that had a foreign element, international element in

25 the work of the police, then the federal MUP would have daily contact

1 with the MUP of Serbia concerning those issues.

2 In addition to that, I took part in consultations on the

3 appointment of leading people in the MUP of Serbia, and formally -- both

4 formally as the federal minister and politically, because those were

5 political appointees. And I was the second person in the democratic

6 party, and that was then the majority party in the government that was in

7 power after the fall of Slobodan Milosevic. And in that way I was

8 involved both in the discussions on eligibility of various appointees,

9 including the position of the chief of RJB to which Sreten Lukic was

10 appointed. Further on I followed his work --

11 Q. I think you're going a little bit beyond what I asked but thanks

12 nonetheless.

13 You said you -- in your statement, that is, that checks were made

14 in respect to Sreten Lukic of the ICTY. Who contacted who?

15 A. Those checks were conducted by the prime minister of Serbia who

16 at the time was Zoran Djindjic. He told me that at the time he had talks

17 with the Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte about Sreten Lukic and another two

18 candidates for two high positions within the Ministry of the Interior of

19 Serbia.

20 In addition, he informed me that he also spoke to officials from

21 Washington and London.

22 Q. I see.

23 A. And that this was aimed at establishing whether there were any

24 investigations ongoing against these people, because we as a new

25 democratic government did not want to fall into a trap whereby we could

1 appoint to important positions people who in their previous life and work

2 had committed any crimes.

3 Since we had no possibility to make such inquiries within our own

4 country because the previous regimes closed that -- closed off of that

5 information for us, and we as the opposition forces were unable to limit

6 ourselves just to the Serbian forces, it was believed that it would be

7 useful for us to make inquiries about people that we wanted to appoint to

8 high positions with those authorities who in the world were investigating

9 war crimes, and we didn't want to --

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Zivkovic, we really want know the facts. The

11 logic of doing this is obvious, and what Mr. Stamp I'm sure would much

12 rather hear, as would we, is when the meeting took place what the

13 questions were that were asked about Mr. Lukic. More detail of what you

14 were told. Are you able to give us more of that?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The meeting was held in late

16 January 2001, immediately after the cabinet of Serbia was established,

17 one day after that event. The meeting was called at the proposal of

18 prime Minister Djindjic, and it was attended by the minister of the

19 interior, Mr. Mihajlovic. I was there as the federal minister of the

20 interior and some other aides of Prime minister Djindjic were present.

21 We had consultations about whom to appoint to which position.

22 Mr. Djindjic said that he had personally consulted concerning Sreten

23 Lukic and another two policemen, that he consulted Carla Del Ponte on

24 that issue and that he was given a clear statement from her that no

25 investigations were pending against them or any proceedings. And that

1 was in January of 2001.

2 Later on after a visit to Washington, I think that it was in the

3 spring of 2002, President Djindjic told me that he had made the same

4 inquiries in Washington and was told that competent US authorities had no

5 information whatsoever about any investigations pending against Mr. Lukic

6 or the other persons.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Your statement goes much wider than that and

8 attributes the same position to NATO as well as the governments of

9 Britain, France, and Germany, not just the United States.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: So what's the source of that information?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In that period of time immediately

13 prior to the elections and following the elections Prime Minister

14 Djindjic took every opportunity when he contacted people from the

15 relevant countries who could be expected to have information about any

16 investigations ongoing against any potential perpetrators of war crimes.

17 So in his contacts with officials from Great Britain, France, Germany or

18 NATO, either he personally or aides from his cabinet attempted to make

19 inquiries about Sreten Lukic and the two other policemen with the

20 intention of averting precisely what happened unfortunately in 2003 when

21 the indictment against Mr. Lukic was made public.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp.

23 MR. STAMP:

24 Q. Before I proceed may I just ask you something about what you

25 said. You said, "We had no possibility of making such inquiries within

1 our country because the previous regime closed off of that information

2 from us."

3 What do you mean when you say, "The previous regime closed off

4 that information us"?

5 A. What I wanted to say was that there was no civilian control over

6 either the army or the police. So the parliamentary opposition members

7 who, for example, were members of the committee for defence and security

8 in the parliament could not get access to any relevant information

9 concerning the work of the army or the police. So we had no access to

10 any of the reports that military or police institutions submitted to the

11 parliament or the president. We were not able to go into their personnel

12 files, and we had no confidence in the information that was given to us

13 because that information was marginal and of no essential importance for

14 the work of the Ministry of the Defence and Ministry of the Interior.

15 I'm referring to the time period prior to democratic changes in October

16 of 2000.

17 Q. Subsequent to that when you became the minister of interior did

18 you have the possibility of doing your -- conducting your own inquiries?

19 A. Inquiries in what sense or investigations of what?

20 Q. Investigations in respect to these personnel or these people that

21 you wanted to appoint to high positions. What I really wanted to ask,

22 you said that you had no possibilities to make inquiries within a country

23 because the previous regime closed off that information.

24 I'm wondering if the situation remained the same, if information

25 was closed off to you when you became the minister.

1 A. Naturally not, but as I told you, we had our doubts about the

2 information that was made available to us by the former regime. So we

3 wanted to verify that information. The information that was provided to

4 us stated all -- only positive things about everybody who worked in the

5 army or the MUP, but that wasn't sufficient to us because we had

6 legitimate doubts about the veracity of that information and we wanted to

7 verify it. We wanted to verify it even in the sources outside of our

8 country. We wanted to make inquiries, and we wanted to be given a clear

9 answer as to whether any investigations were pending against those

10 people.

11 Q. Did you --

12 A. Some people from the police and the army had already been

13 indicted by this Tribunal and we wanted to see whether the people that we

14 wanted to appoint to important positions were also under some secret

15 investigation, because we didn't want to appoint to a high position a

16 person that was investigated or under investigation by this Tribunal.

17 Q. Did you at any time see any document in which anybody from this

18 Tribunal indicated that Sreten Lukic or any of the other accused were not

19 under investigation?

20 A. Are you asking me whether I saw any document indicating that

21 Sreten Lukic was under investigation? No.

22 Q. Did you see a document emanating from this Tribunal stating that

23 this Tribunal would not investigate Sreten Lukic?

24 A. Naturally I didn't, and such a document probably -- such a

25 document is not part of diplomatic correspondence. We were not looking

1 for proof that somebody would not be investigated. I don't think that

2 anybody in the world can issue such a document. On the other hand, we

3 made inquiries. We asked whether at that point in time any investigation

4 was ongoing and we were given a very clear answer to the negative.

5 Q. Well, you have told us that it was Djindjic, Prime Minister

6 Djindjic who did this and we can't ask him any questions. But in your

7 experience in dealing with the ICTY, were you ever told or did you become

8 aware of any practice in which the ICTY would inform Serbian government

9 of the targets that were under investigation?

10 A. Yes. Yes. Naturally I had several meetings, I think five or

11 six, with the then Prosecutor, contacts with her aides from The Hague,

12 with her associates who worked in Belgrade, and there were some

13 announcements, if I may call them that, that investigations were being

14 contemplated or conducted secretly under -- against certain people. And

15 that was also announced or mentioned in contacts with the officials from,

16 if I may call them that, great powers in the world.

17 Q. Now, when you said in your statement that the states, and I think

18 you said Britain, France, Germany, and through officials of NATO in

19 Brussels, you say that they gave their approval for Sreten Lukic to be

20 appointed chief the public service department. How was this approval

21 communicated? Was this communicated in writing or not?

22 A. We didn't seek consent from these individuals.

23 Q. You said in your statement, and I think you were asked by your

24 attorney and by the Court, if it was correct in substance and you said

25 yes, and I'm just quoting from your statement in which you've said checks

1 were made with official state organ, the state department, state organs

2 of Britain, France and Germany and through NATO organ in Brussels. After

3 these checks, these bodies gave their approval for Sreten Lukic to be

4 appointed chief of public security department.

5 I'm merely asking how was this communicated? Was there any

6 writing to that effect or not?

7 A. I have to explain --

8 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

9 A. -- what the statement says. One thing is to seek consent and

10 quite a different matter to seek information.

11 It says here that I'm aware that the late prime minister and his

12 aides contacted The Hague Tribunal seeking information as to whether

13 Sreten Lukic could be appointed. So that means that they sought

14 information whether he was under investigation, in which case we would

15 not have appointed him. And if he wasn't, we did appoint him. The same

16 applies to the officials from state department France, Germany, Great

17 Britain, and NATO. Those were not written documents.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Zivkovic, yes. You'll see that there is a

19 sentence referring to Great Britain, France, and Germany. Would you then

20 go to the next sentence, and would you read from your statement to read

21 exactly what your statement says. It starts, I think, with the words

22 "After these checks."

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. "After these checks approval

24 or consent was given from the above mentioned." This is a reference to

25 Djindjic, to the above mentioned. This is one of the spelling mistakes

1 that I referred to. The reference is Zoran Djindjic.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: We understand that but what's concerning Mr. Stamp

3 and is concerning us is the reference to consent or approval, and now

4 you're saying they didn't give consent or approval. It's that

5 contradiction that's the issue. You're saying you didn't seek consent or

6 approval and you didn't get it. All you were checking was whether they

7 were under investigation.

8 Now, that's not what you've actually said in your written

9 statement, and that's all Mr. Stamp is trying to clarify.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me phrase it very clearly. It

11 is stated very clearly in the text. We can just read it as it states

12 verbatim. This sentence that you just quoted, after these checks,

13 approval was given for him to be appointed. So after these checks, the

14 checks were made with The Hague Tribunal and other institutions by the

15 late Djindjic. Following these checks he gave the approval to appoint

16 Sreten Lukic to the position.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

18 Mr. Lukic, who translated this document?

19 MR. LUKIC: CLSS, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: And when was it submitted to them for translation?

21 MR. LUKIC: Give us one second. Last Wednesday.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Would you, Mr. Zivkovic, just read that sentence

23 again, please. Read it as it's actually been written. I know you claim

24 that there's a mistake into it, but just read what's been written.

25 THE WITNESS: Okay.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: And read it out to us, please.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Following these checks, the

3 approval was given by the above mentioned to appoint Sreten Lukic to the

4 position of chief of the public security sector, assistant minister of

5 the interior Dusan Mihajlovic, which suited -- or, rather, which

6 corresponds to the position in police -- as chief of police in the

7 Western countries, director of police, because it had been established

8 that there was no indication that he had ever participated in any crimes

9 or in intentional or malintentional activities."

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

11 Mr. Stamp.

12 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honour.

13 Q. Later on in your statement you said that --

14 MR. LUKIC: One second. As we are dealing with the language,

15 it's obvious here that it's used singular.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: It's been clarified.

17 MR. LUKIC: Okay. It's clarified, that's fine.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: There's not -- but it's been wrongly written in

19 the statement according to the witness's reading of it, and he has now

20 clarified --

21 MR. LUKIC: Gender is wrong, actually.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: But if you're referring in a sentence to the above

23 mentioned, you would expect it to refer to the most recently mentioned

24 and that is the states in question. So it's a misleading statement until

25 the witness has clarified it. He's now done so.

1 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

3 Mr. Stamp.

4 MR. STAMP:

5 Q. You said later on in your statement that the two military

6 generals, presumably these are Generals, Pavkovic and Lazarevic, were --

7 I'll just get the quote here. You said they were not within the

8 jurisdiction of the Republic of Serbia. Is that what you said in your

9 statement first? It's at paragraph 6. The third sentence.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. What do you mean when you said that they were not in the republic

12 of -- the jurisdiction of the Republic of Serbia?

13 A. At that time what we had in existence was the state union of

14 Serbia and Montenegro. The Ministry of Defence and the army of Serbia

15 and Montenegro fell under the competence of the council of ministers of

16 the state union of Serbia and Montenegro. It did not come under the

17 jurisdiction of the government or cabinet of Serbia. So in the formal

18 legal sense, any dealings with the generals could not be had by the

19 government of Serbia. Rather, that fell under the competence of the

20 council of ministers of the state union.

21 Q. So that does not mean that you did not know where they were. You

22 knew where they were.

23 A. Informally I knew where they were, naturally. They were in

24 Serbia, but in the legal sense I as prime minister or any organ of the

25 government of Serbia could not serve an indictment on them or arrest them

1 or do anything against them. That was the law in Serbia at the time.

2 They fell under the jurisdiction of the council of ministers of the state

3 union, because that country comprised of two entities, Serbia and

4 Montenegro at the time, and the defence of the country, including the

5 army, of course, fell under the competence of this high organ that

6 belonged to the state union.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Zivkovic, did you not regard yourself as

8 having an obligation to cooperate with the Prosecutor, or was that

9 another state entity's obligation in your opinion?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is clear that you are not

11 familiar with my activities and my political life. I personally and the

12 political party and the platform to which I belong fully supported the

13 cooperation with The Hague Tribunal. We declared that that was our

14 obligation both under domestic law and under international law and that

15 it was our moral obligation as well concerning everything that had taken

16 place in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. When I was prime

17 minister and minister our government delivered Slobodan Milosevic to this

18 Tribunal as well as several other accused. A large number of the accused

19 surrendered voluntarily during our rule, and we definitely cooperated

20 with The Hague Tribunal and received positive marks both from the

21 Prosecutor, president of the Tribunal and many other international

22 factors.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Let me ask you the more specific question then.

24 Would you read aloud the third sentence of paragraph 6.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The sentence starting "I told her

1 on that occasion"?

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "I told her on that occasion that

4 we could not arrest General Lukic, not because of the fear of police or

5 the public but because I, in January of 2001, when the checks were made

6 with the Western governments and their intelligence services including

7 the ICTY -- "

8 JUDGE BONOMY: I've misunderstood you. It's the previous

9 sentence.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right. "On that occasion at

11 the meeting I told her that out of those generals they, meaning the

12 cabinet, could only arrest the police General Sreten Lukic, that two

13 military generals were not within the competence of the Republic of

14 Serbia and that the fourth general, Vlastimir Djordjevic, was in Russia

15 and as a result could not be arrested either."

16 There was general realisation of the fact that Djordjevic was not

17 in Serbia. Even the Prosecutor knew as much. As for the other two

18 accused who were military generals --

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Could you just explain to me then the difference

20 between the position of Lukic and the position of the two generals. Why

21 could he be arrested and they could not?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because the police of Serbia, the

23 Ministry of the Interior of Serbia, that is, and its members and

24 General Lukic were within the competence of the state and judiciary

25 bodies of the Republic of Serbia, and I was its prime minister.

1 The two military generals, on the other hand, were within the

2 competence of the state union of Serbia and Montenegro. Let's call that

3 the federal --

4 JUDGE BONOMY: They were, yes, under their authority, but why

5 can't criminals, alleged criminals, who are in Serbia not be arrested by

6 the MUP of Serbia?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because their legal actions, i.e.,

8 the arrests are within the authority of the then military courts,

9 military prosecutors, military police, and when it came to arresting

10 members of the military starting from privates to generals, they were

11 those who had competence in that was the system that we were acting

12 within. I was not happy about the whole situation, but that was the

13 legal system that was in place and we had to comply with it.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Let's take an example. If General Mladic is in

15 Serbia at that time, would you say that there was no authority on the

16 part of the MUP of Serbia to arrest him at the request of Carla

17 Del Ponte?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course not. Of course not. He

19 was a fugitive hiding from The Hague Tribunal as every other fugitive.

20 He was not an active officer of the army of Yugoslavia at the time. If

21 he had been an active officer of the army of Yugoslavia, then it would be

22 the military police and the military prosecutor who would be in charge of

23 his arrest. But since he was just a mere civilian, then the police of

24 Serbia and the prosecutor's office of Serbia were in charge of arresting

25 him. That was within their purview.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: So the distinction is the fact that the person in

2 issue remains an active officer in the army.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct. And if I may add

4 to that, Mrs. Carla Del Ponte was familiar with our legal situation, and

5 she never requested from me to arrest the two generals. She conducted

6 conversations along those lines with people from the federal state, from

7 the union of the two states.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: And did you tell her that the two generals were in

9 Serbia?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course. It was a notorious fact

11 that they were in Serbia. They were occupying positions at the time.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: So you say that she knew they were -- she knew

13 that they were in Serbia, did she?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Is this a suitable time to interrupt, Mr. Stamp?

16 MR. STAMP: Yes.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: We have to have a break at this stage,

18 Mr. Zivkovic. While we have that break could you leave the courtroom,

19 please, with the usher, and we will resume at five minutes to 11.00.

20 --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.

21 --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp.

23 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honours.

24 Q. Did General Pavkovic remain in the army for the duration of your

25 tenure as prime minister?

1 A. No. I don't know exactly when --

2 Q. Okay. Well, we have it that General Pavkovic was -- his service

3 in the VJ was terminated on the 24th of June, 2002. Did General -- well,

4 do you recall that, his services terminated on the 24th of June, 2002, or

5 thereabouts?

6 A. I don't remember, obviously, because I did believe at one point

7 that he is served during my tenure, but now that you have jogged my

8 memory, I can remember that it was about that time that his service was

9 terminated indeed. And at that time I was not prime minister. I was not

10 the prime minister of Serbia. And I've already told you that at that

11 time when I was the minister of the interior of the Federal Republic of

12 Yugoslavia, the army was not one of my priorities. So it is possible

13 that there is good reason why I can't remember, why I couldn't

14 spontaneously remember when he stopped serving in the army.

15 Q. And General Lazarevic, can you recall that he -- his tenure in

16 the army of Yugoslavia ceased in August 2003?

17 A. No. No.

18 Q. Up until the time you demitted office in March, I think, 2004,

19 was General Lazarevic still a member of the army of Yugoslavia?

20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Bakrac.

22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could Mr. Stamp please

23 give us the foundation for the claim that General Lazarevic was no longer

24 in the army as of August 2003.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that's not necessary for the present

1 question. We're testing at the moment the recollection of the witness

2 who for reasons he's explained does not remember the detail of these

3 things.

4 Please continue, Mr. Stamp.

5 MR. STAMP: Yes. Thank you, Your Honours.

6 Q. Do you recall what when you demitted office in March 2004

7 General Lazarevic's tenure in the army of Yugoslavia had terminated?

8 A. As far as I can remember, he was still active in the army of

9 Yugoslavia at the time.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: For clarification for us who seem to be a bit in

11 the dark on who we're talking about in your statement, who are the two

12 generals in the army referred to in your -- paragraph 6 of your

13 statement?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Pavkovic and Lazarevic. They were

15 on the indictment together with Lukic and Djordjevic.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: And you're clear that Pavkovic was no longer

17 serving in the army at the time you had the meeting with Carla Del Ponte?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Whether I'm sure that Pavkovic was

19 in the army when I had the meeting? I demonstrated a little while ago

20 that I didn't know when his service was terminated, and I met with her in

21 October 2003, and the Prosecutor claims that Pavkovic's service was

22 terminated in the course of 2002.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, but you seem to be agreeing with him that

24 that was the case. The position's different with Lazarevic, but you seem

25 to be agreeing about the position on Pavkovic.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Based on what the Prosecutor has

2 just told me, I can agree with that information, but this is not

3 something that is part of my memory, if I may put it that way, obviously.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: But I understood a little while ago that you told

5 me that the reason Pavkovic couldn't be arrested in Serbia by the

6 authorities of Serbia was that he was still serving in the army.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: But surely you would check that before telling the

9 Prosecutor of the Tribunal that that was the position.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course. I did check with

11 lawyers, with the Minister of Justice, with my lawyers from my office. I

12 studied and checked the legal aspect of the indictment and the

13 cooperation with The Hague Tribunal, and I was told clear and loud that

14 in formal and legal sense the government of Serbia, its Ministry of

15 Interior, are competent to bring in the citizens of Serbia, all the

16 citizens save for the members of the military, because the federal union

17 was in charge of the latter.

18 At this point, I can't -- obviously I'm not sure until what time

19 Pavkovic's service lasted. There may have been another reason in play

20 there. As far as I can remember Lazarevic was in position at the time,

21 and there were absolutely formal reasons in existence for which I was

22 able to say to the Chief Prosecutor loud and clear that the two military

23 generals could not be arrested. And I repeat she knew it also, and she

24 never pursued the matter any further, and she did not insist on that in

25 that conversation with me.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Mr. Stamp.

2 MR. STAMP:

3 Q. Can you recall whether or not your government or the government

4 of which you were prime minister adopted a resolution not to extradite

5 the three generals who were in Serbia to The Hague and that this decision

6 was made while you were prime minister?

7 A. On the 23rd of October, a conclusion by the government of Serbia

8 was passed to the -- to the following effect: The arrest of

9 General Lukic would be contrary to the state interests and security of

10 the Republic of Serbia. That conclusion referred only to General Sreten

11 Lukic and did not apply to the three generals, because the other two, I

12 repeat, were beyond the jurisdiction, beyond the authority and

13 competencies of the government. Djordjevic was in Moscow at the time,

14 which was a notorious fact. Sreten Lukic was within the competency of

15 the government of Serbia, and on the 23rd of October, the conclusion was

16 passed by the Republic of Serbia. Lazarevic and Pavkovic, however, were

17 not within the competencies of the government of Serbia. I have that

18 conclusion. I can show it to you.

19 Q. And I'll ask you this one more time just whether you can recall,

20 search your memory, whether or not General Lazarevic was still a member

21 of the VJ when you demitted office in March 2004.

22 A. As far as I can remember, yes, but I repeat that was not the most

23 important thing in my life. And as I sit here today, I can't claim that

24 for sure. I can't be a hundred per cent sure of that.

25 Q. But you certainly would agree that during your tenure, up until

1 March 2004, none of these generals were sent to The Hague?

2 A. I absolutely agree with you on that.

3 Q. You mentioned the Prosecutor and the Security Council. Can you

4 not recall that in October 2003 the Prosecutor of this Tribunal reported

5 to the Security Council that Serbia was not fully cooperating with the

6 Tribunal?

7 A. I can't remember having mentioned the Security Council, but this

8 is of no essence. But it is possible that in October 2003 the Chief

9 Prosecutor reported to the Security Council about Serbia not cooperating

10 with The Hague Tribunal. This was the only such report on her part

11 during my tenure as -- as prime minister. The only report that spoke

12 about Serbia not cooperating, that is.

13 Q. And if we may move on. You refer at paragraph 8 of your

14 statement to -- to General Lukic - and I'd like to focus a little bit now

15 on General Lukic, General Lukic's involvement or his work. I think you

16 said he made an immeasurable contribution to cooperation. And one of the

17 events you referred to was the setting up of a working group to

18 investigate these mass graves that had been found in Serbia.

19 At the time when the mass graves were -- were revealed in 2001,

20 May 2001, was there not a massive public outcry of local and

21 international proportions in respect to the finding of mass graves or the

22 stories that there were mass graves?

23 A. You are bringing me back to the year 2001. My capabilities of

24 remembering the reactions of local and international community.

25 Obviously the revelation was horrific and the state bodies paid a lot of

1 attention to that. General Lukic himself, who a few days after the

2 information first appeared in public and after the investigation had been

3 launched by the competent judge, General Lukic established a task force

4 that investigated first and foremost the cold boxes in the Danube, then

5 mass graves in Petrovo Selo, Batajnica, and --

6 Q. We'll get to that, but you recall that there was something that

7 could be described as a media firestorm in respect to -- to the bodies

8 that were discovered or that were being investigated?

9 A. Yes. Yes.

10 Q. And the then Serbian minister of the interior ordered that a

11 working group be formed to investigate it, and that is Mr. Mihajlovic who

12 made that decision or issued that order.

13 A. Yes, in the general sense, whereas the implementation of that

14 order was conveyed via the competent chief of the sector of public

15 security. That was Sreten Lukic. That implied who would members of the

16 task force be, what means would be allocated to the task force, in other

17 words, all the technical aspects of the work of that task force.

18 Q. Of course you'll agree with me that General Lukic was obliged to

19 implement the order of minister Mihajlovic to set up that working group

20 or task force, weren't you?

21 A. Of course. Of course. In his position as chief of public

22 security sector you can't be creative. It is all about the

23 implementation of the orders issued by the politicians, and in this case

24 this was the minister of the interior.

25 Q. Indeed. If we could move on. You referred to and perhaps we

1 could deal with this very quickly, in paragraph 5 of your statement you

2 told us about what your investigations revealed about Sreten Lukic in

3 respect of Milan Lukic. Can I just ask you for some details in respect

4 of that? If you don't know, please tell us.

5 Sreten Lukic was -- is Milan Lukic's uncle. Is that what came to

6 your attention, or is that your knowledge?

7 A. I knew that they were related, but I did not know the specific

8 nature of that relation.

9 Q. Milan Lukic was arrested in the -- in 1993. Is that your

10 information?

11 A. It was either in 1993 or 1994. Most probably in 1993. If you

12 say so, that is.

13 Q. Very well. Thereabouts. And do you know how long he stayed in

14 custody?

15 A. No. I know he was in custody. I don't know for how long. This

16 happened 15 years ago, and at the time it -- I was not in a position to

17 follow the situation because I was almost outside the political life at

18 the time. I did not have a tenure, and I was not in a position to follow

19 the work of either the police or the judiciary.

20 Q. I just ask you, because you mentioned it in your statement, so

21 just to clarify one or two things about what you said in your statement.

22 Well, do you know the circumstances under which he was released?

23 A. Whatever we are saying about the arrest of Milan Lukic is the

24 information that I obtained during the scrutiny of Mr. Lukic. I learned

25 that from President Djindjic and Mr. Mihajlovic, and I heard the

1 information from them. As far as I can remember, he was released on

2 account of lack of evidence which means that at the time he was not tried

3 or convicted for the reasons for which he had been arrested. And this

4 was in either 1996 or 1997, the first trial. This is the information

5 that I obtained at the meeting when we spoke about Mr. Lukic's candidacy

6 to become assistant minister.

7 Q. Do you know that he was tried and sentenced in absentia?

8 A. In absentia? He was tried later, and I believe he was --

9 Q. In absentia.

10 A. -- convicted. Yes, in absentia. Yes.

11 Q. And he's still wanted for trial for those charges in Serbia -- or

12 he's still wanted for those charges in Serbia. Do you know that?

13 A. Are you saying that he's still wanted?

14 Q. I'm asking you --

15 A. As far as I know, he has been arrested in Argentina, and he has

16 been brought to this Tribunal.

17 Q. Right. But in respect to those charges we're talking about in

18 the 1990s when you say that he was released because there were -- there

19 was insufficient evidence, do you know that he was tried and sentenced in

20 absentia? He was not available for his trial because he had been

21 released.

22 A. Yes. I've already answered that.

23 Q. You said Lukic's brother -- sorry. Milan Lukic's -- you said, "I

24 even learned that Milan Lukic's brother Sreten -- threatened Sreten

25 Lukic." Did you learn the name of this brother and what happened to him,

1 what was done in respect to his threat to abduct the son of the police

2 chief?

3 A. His name is Gojko, and I don't know what was done in 1993 or 1994

4 against him when that threat was topical.

5 Q. Can we move and to paragraph 9 of your statement. You said that

6 there was in Southern Serbia a rebellion, a crisis, and -- well, you

7 described it as an armed revolt, I see in the translation. And --

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. It was resolved in a peaceful manner when Sreten Lukic and his

10 associates had the casting vote in the work of the police. And this is

11 the last sentence I'm referring to. What do you mean when you said

12 Sreten Lukic had the casting vote in the work of the police?

13 A. At the time he was director of the police and the chief of the

14 public security sector. He was at the top of the system of

15 decision-making in the Ministry of the Interior of Serbia under such

16 grave circumstances. We as the new democratic authorities were met with

17 that rebellion in the south of Serbia only a few weeks into our office.

18 That was the test of our abilities and capabilities --

19 Q. Yes.

20 A. -- to use the civilised ways of Europe of the 20th century,

21 whether we were capable of implementing a --

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Please help by answering the question that you've

23 been asked. What do you mean when you say "Sreten Lukic and his

24 associates had the casting vote in the work of the police"? That's how

25 it's been translated in English.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Since you asked me what I thought I

2 have just tried to tell you what I thought at the time. It's very

3 difficult to squeeze what a person thinks into just one short sentence.

4 He was at the top of the system --

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Perhaps you've not been clearly expressed. Could

6 you read aloud the last sentence of paragraph 9.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "This shows that the Ministry of

8 the Interior and the police headed by Sreten Lukic managed to solve the

9 crisis in south of Serbia in a peaceful way. Sreten Lukic and his

10 associates had decisive word in the work of the police at the time."

11 MR. STAMP:

12 Q. Very well --

13 JUDGE BONOMY: What does that mean?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can explain, but not in just one

15 sentence. This means that the police at the time --

16 JUDGE BONOMY: He was the chief of the police.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: So why wouldn't he have the decisive word?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you allow me to say a few

20 sentences that I will be able to explain. If you cut me short in

21 mid-sentence then I won't be able to do that.

22 Since the Serbian police had been in a similar situation ten

23 years prior to that, many of such situations had not been resolved in a

24 good way. This situation in the south of Serbia, however, was the first

25 situation that the police of Serbia managed to deal with in a good way,

1 in my view. And I'm talking about situations starting from 1991 to the

2 year 2000 and hence the big difference with regard to everything else

3 that happened before.

4 I know that it must be very difficult to comprehend from a

5 position of a well-regulated state, but in Serbia we had an absolute

6 power, the abuse of the police and the army on the part of Milosevic. We

7 he had war sanctions, shelling, and I totally appreciate that you cannot

8 comprehend why this is important, but in our position it was very

9 important. It was important to demonstrate that the Serb police could

10 deal with a major problem such was the armed rebellion of Albanians in

11 the south of Serbia in a very civilised, democratic way, in the fashion

12 of European democracies of the 20th Century.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Mr. Stamp.

14 MR. STAMP:

15 Q. And in the same vein you said in paragraph 11 words to the

16 effect, and I'm paraphrasing now without reading the entire paragraph,

17 that after the democratic changes, the facilitators of those changes were

18 involved in building trust between Serbs and Albanians.

19 I think you have already answered the question I was getting up

20 to but I will ask it specifically nonetheless. Prior to what you

21 described as the democratic changes, did the previous government, in your

22 opinion, take reasonable and practical steps to resolve the issues

23 between the Serbs and the Albanians peacefully and to build trust between

24 the two communities?

25 A. Absolutely not. This is one of the reasons why I became

1 politically active. Not just I but the entire opposition. We wanted to

2 bring down authorities that adopted unreasonable solutions not only for

3 their own people, all of their citizens, but also people in neighbouring

4 areas. Prior authorities did not do sufficient -- did not take

5 sufficient steps to find a peaceful solution to the problem.

6 Q. And you're aware that General Lukic was appointed head of the

7 police in Kosovo in 1998?

8 MR. LUKIC: Objection, Your Honour.

9 MR. STAMP: Withdrawn.

10 Q. You were aware that General Lukic was appointed head of MUP staff

11 for Kosovo in 1998?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And his role would be to promote and further the policy of the

14 then government, was it not?

15 MR. LUKIC: This -- objection. This calls for the conclusion.

16 MR. STAMP: Your Honour, he has been making --

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Are you suggesting that a man who became actively

18 involved in politics because of his view of the activities of the regime

19 at the time is not in a position to deal with this?

20 MR. LUKIC: But he should know the real function and functioning

21 of the MUP staff.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Which was, what, to counter the policy of the

23 government.

24 He's being asked a question about regularity of process in

25 general in the republic of Serbia. Now, surely he is in a position to

1 deal with that question. Thank you.

2 Now, please continue with the question, Mr. Stamp.

3 MR. STAMP: Yes.

4 Q. His role then would be to give effect to the policies of the

5 government at the time, wasn't it?

6 A. This is a very broad definition of the work of a state official.

7 A public servant has to work in the accordance with the law and to refuse

8 to carry out any orders that are contrary to the law.

9 Chief of police is not a demonstrator of the policies of a

10 government, any government. He has his own tasks.

11 If we were to accept that any chief of police is a representative

12 of his government, then all chiefs of police in Serbia ought to be

13 arrested, because the government absolutely implemented bad policies.

14 Naturally there were people in the Ministry of Interior that conducted

15 their work in an honourable and decent way and who were not part of the

16 authoritarian regime of Slobodan Milosevic. One of such people is Sreten

17 Lukic.

18 Q. Are you aware that for his work in Kosovo in 1999 he was promoted

19 in May 1999? Promoted by President Milosevic, as a matter of fact --

20 sorry, promoted by President Milutinovic.

21 A. I don't know. I don't know why he was promoted. My first

22 encounter with him was when he was Major-General Lukic. Now, as to why

23 he was promoted, I don't know that. I know that later on he was promoted

24 to the rank of major-general. That was in the government of Zoran

25 Djindjic, and that was because he was appointed to a position where that

1 particular rank was correspondent.

2 Q. Now, you're aware that the -- let me ask you this: Are you aware

3 that the indictment charging -- charging Slobodan Milosevic, who was

4 extradited here to this Tribunal, is, as far as Kosovo is concerned, for

5 all intents and purposes the same indictment on which General Lukic is

6 charged?

7 A. I know that Milosevic was indicted for Kosovo, and I know that

8 Lukic and the entire group were also indicted for Kosovo. Now, whether

9 those two indictments are identical, I don't know. I don't know whether

10 they're identical to every word, to every paragraph. I don't know. I'm

11 not a legal expert. I wasn't interested in comparing the indictment.

12 But from following the work of this Tribunal, I know that Milosevic was

13 indicted for Kosovo, for something that took place in Kosovo, and I know

14 that this group has also been indicted for Kosovo.

15 Q. You were not aware when you refused to extradite or to send

16 General Lukic here that he was charged with the same crimes in Kosovo

17 that Mr. Milosevic was charged for? You were not aware of that?

18 A. I personally never read the indictment that was given to me by

19 the Chief Prosecutor. I gave the papers back to her, the four

20 indictments, because they were not given to the right addressee, and I

21 was not the person in charge of communication with The Hague Tribunal.

22 Q. Yes, yes.

23 A. It was the National Council that was in charge of that.

24 I'm just trying to answer your question. I'm trying to say that

25 I did not read the indictment. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't deal with

1 things that I'm not competent for.

2 Q. So I take it that you were not aware they were charged with the

3 same crime in Kosovo. Is that so?

4 A. You can draw that conclusion.

5 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Your Honours. I have nothing

6 further.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Stamp.

8 Mr. Lukic -- sorry. Mr. Bakrac, if you're going to be asking

9 about the date of the termination of Mr. Lazarevic's position in the

10 army, we know what he said in his evidence. Is there -- we don't need

11 you to put a speculative question to the witness who doesn't know the

12 answer. If it's something else, however, that would be different.

13 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes. No, Your Honour. You're quite

14 right. Mr. Stamp suggested August of 2003. That was wrong. I was going

15 to put a document to the witness to refresh his memory --

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we know that Mr. Lazarevic said October,

17 2004. So whether that's right or wrong will be -- whether that's right

18 or wrong will be adjudicated upon in due course.

19 Mr. Lukic, re-examination.

20 MR. LUKIC: Pretty short one, Your Honour.

21 Re-examination by Mr. Lukic:

22 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning once again, Mr. Zivkovic. We're

23 approaching the end of this examination, but we need to clarify just a

24 few more things.

25 On page 29, line 19, you spoke about your participation in the

1 selection of Sreten Lukic and his appointment to the position of the

2 chief of RJB and the clearances that needed to be made before that. You

3 started a sentence and then you were interrupted. I will be reading in

4 English to make sure there is no interpretation mistakes. [In English]

5 "Further on I followed his work."

6 [Interpretation] It was interpreted wrong into Serbian. You said

7 in Serbian, "And further on I continued following his work." Is that

8 right?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. What were you going to say since you were interrupted?

11 A. Well, that's what I said in my statement, namely that I followed

12 the work of Mr. Lukic as well as the work of other high officials of MUP

13 of Serbia being the minister of the interior and later prime minister.

14 Based on everything that I could see following his work, I made a

15 conclusion that he was a very serious, very professional member of the

16 MUP who conducted his work in an honourable and honest way during those

17 three years. There was absolutely nothing negative that I could observe

18 in his work.

19 He was especially prominent in some actions such as the action

20 called Sablja or Saber that was introduced after Prime Minister Djindjic

21 was assassinated. That was the largest police action in the history of

22 Serbia and probably in the history of other European -- other police

23 forces in the European countries.

24 General Lukic personally arrested Zvezdan Jovanovic, who had

25 assassinated Prime Minister Djindjic. In the 40 days that the action

1 lasted, another 36 murders were solved, some political, some plain ones.

2 Following that action almost 4.000 criminal reports were filed

3 against some 40.000 perpetrators. Huge amounts of drugs, ammunition,

4 weapons, and other criminal tools were confiscated during that action.

5 That action was led both in the establishment terms but also in

6 terms of personality, the human approach, by General Lukic.

7 In addition to that, in the rebellion that took place in the

8 south of Serbia, the rebellion was resolved in such a case as to serve as

9 a model. They did not stop with the effort then. They created a

10 multi-ethnic police force as a guarantor that such similar examples would

11 not happen again. General Lukic was instrumental in creating

12 multi-ethnic police force.

13 As a member of the Nation Council for Cooperation with The Hague

14 Tribunal at the time when Mr. Svilanovic headed that council I was

15 familiar with the efforts of Serbian police aimed at collecting

16 information and sending information to the OTP, and I can tell you that

17 that work was conducted in a very efficient way. At the time, several

18 fugitives indicted by the ICTY were arrested. Those arrests were

19 conducted in a very professional, fully lawful way, and that was

20 acknowledged so.

21 Therefore, everything that surrounded the work of Sreten Lukic at

22 the time when I was his superior, if I may say so, indicated that he was

23 an excellent professional without anything that would compromise or put a

24 blemish on his career.

25 As a person who was highly positioned in the democratic party, as

1 the mayor of Nis, as a mayor -- as a member of the parliamentary

2 commission for security, I was in the position to receive indirect

3 information as to who had which role in the police, who acted in which

4 way, because at the time the police was our enemy, we being the

5 opposition. We had conflicts with the police. And as was established in

6 several sentences, members of police killed members of the opposition,

7 persecuted them. Therefore, I as a highly prominent member of the

8 opposition, I had occasion to receive various information about the work

9 of police, and I never received any negative information about the role

10 of Sreten Lukic. Therefore, the opposition never believed that he took

11 repressive measures against opposition or implemented the negative

12 policies of the then regime. Therefore, I'm deeply convinced to this day

13 that he is a model policeman.

14 Q. There's a mistake in the transcript. [In English] Correction in

15 the transcript on page 60, line 15. It says action against opposition or

16 implemented policies against the regime but probably it would be

17 corrected when the tape is reviewed.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: What do you say it should be, Mr. Lukic?

19 MR. LUKIC: That Mr. Lukic didn't implement the policies of the

20 regime, not against the regime and against the opposition.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm sure it will be reviewed in light of what

22 you've said. Thank you.

23 MR. LUKIC: Yes. Thank you.

24 Q. [Interpretation] You spoke about the action called Sablja or

25 Saber. What was the reason that the conclusion was adopted on the 23rd

1 of October that it would be contrary to the state interests of the

2 Republic of Serbia if Sreten Lukic were to be extradited?

3 A. May I answer?

4 MR. STAMP: Your Honour.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp.

6 MR. STAMP: This line of question, the line of questions about

7 Operation Saber and -- and in the previous which was just an invitation

8 to the witness to make a speech, they do not arise as matters being

9 clarified from cross-examination.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: The question of the resolution and the conclusion,

11 rather, did arise in your cross-examination.

12 MR. STAMP: The question is prefaced by --

13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Mr. Stamp, please.

14 MR. STAMP: As he said at the beginning of this question you

15 spoke about that action called, and he names the action.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

17 MR. STAMP: Now, this is either leading the witness or referring

18 the witness to something that does not arise.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, what do you say about that?

20 MR. LUKIC: I can rephrase the question.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, the question is what follows the first

22 sentence, is it not? You may ask the question --

23 MR. LUKIC: Yes, yes.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: So, Mr. Zivkovic, the question is what was the

25 reason that the conclusion on the 23rd of October was adopted.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The conclusion was proposed by the

2 Ministry of the Interior based on the information of the security agency.

3 Both BIA and MUP agreed that the arrest of General Lukic would cause

4 unrest in the state. Not only within the police but also among the

5 population, and that his arrest would have a negative effect on

6 combatting crime, but also on the cooperation with The Hague Tribunal,

7 because he was one of the prominent figures in that cooperation.

8 Those were the main reasons. I have the document here and I can

9 read it out to you.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Maybe I'm not understanding something clearly

11 here. In your statement you say that you told the Prosecutor of this

12 Tribunal that you could not arrest Lukic not out of fear of the reaction

13 of the police or the public but because when checks were made earlier

14 there was nothing against him. That's a different -- that's a different

15 reason. In fact, it's saying the very opposite on the face of it. Am I

16 misunderstanding something?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. You misunderstood me. I did

18 say that in addition to the fact that his arrest would unsettle the

19 public and the police, the decision to have him extradited wasn't based

20 just on that. It was also based on the fact that at the time when he was

21 appointed Mrs. Del Ponte was personally turned to with the question as to

22 whether there had been any investigations pending against him, and she

23 said no. That was one of the reasons, additional reasons why I said that

24 we would not be able to extradite Sreten Lukic.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Let me stop you there, because it's important we

1 focus clearly.

2 Could you look at paragraph 6 of the statement and read the

3 fourth sentence. Read it aloud to us.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's very difficult to see which

5 one is the fourth sentence.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, after the reference to Djordjevic being in

7 Russia.

8 THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm. Okay. [Interpretation] "I told her then

9 that we could not arrest Sreten Lukic not out of the fear of the reaction

10 of the police or the public but because I, in January 2001, when the

11 checks were made with the Western governments and their intelligence

12 services, including the ICTY, and the reply --

13 JUDGE BONOMY: That's sufficient. Thank you. No doubt Mr. Lukic

14 may try a bit more to clarify this.

15 Mr. Lukic.

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We will attempt to clarify that, Your

17 Honour. I think that you started to explain that.

18 Q. When you were saying this to Carla Del Ponte, did you have in

19 mind the conclusions from the bodies --

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Don't answer that.

21 Please, Mr. Lukic, no leading questions in re-examination. We've

22 already had your examination of the evidence weakened a little in

23 re-examination by the nature of -- or the introduction to that question

24 about the reason for not arresting Lukic. And this is the same topic,

25 it's a very important one. So open questions only, please, otherwise the

1 answer will not be of assistance to us.

2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation.

3 Q. When you replied to Mrs. Del Ponte, what did you have in mind

4 when you said this to her?

5 A. The conversation with Mrs. Del Ponte took place on the 20th of

6 October, 2003. I have told you what I said to her at the time and what

7 were my reasons for believing that we would not be able to extradite

8 Lukic.

9 The conclusion of the government was adopted on the 23rd of

10 October. That is to say, three days later. And the conclusion of the

11 government was not my formulation, no. It was a proposal submitted by

12 the Ministry of the Interior which I supported, naturally, but there is

13 this difference. The ministry gave the formal reasons why Lukic could

14 not be extradited. The law defining the cooperation with The Hague

15 Tribunal, I think in Article 6, states that the council of ministers of

16 the state union, that is to say the governments of the member republics,

17 when establishing that cooperation would endanger the security in the

18 country could alert The Hague Tribunal about that, and it was based on

19 that that the government conclusion was adopted.

20 Naturally the indictment against Lukic unsettled both the police

21 and the public, and those were two legitimate reasons for that

22 conclusion, but in addition to them there is this additional reason which

23 I pointed out back on the 20th of October, that reason being that after

24 all the checks had been made the Tribunal clearly stated that there was

25 no investigation pending against Lukic.

1 In the almost three years from the time when a decision was made

2 on appointing Lukic until the 20th of October, 2003, Carla Del Ponte,

3 even though she met with a lot of people in Serbia at some 15 meetings,

4 never uttered any complaint or objection about the fact that Lukic was

5 appointed to that position. The fact that that indictment was issued on

6 the 2nd of October looked like something that was done in hindsight,

7 because Lukic would not have been appointed to that position had we been

8 told that there was a investigation pending against him.

9 In addition to other high officials of MUP were inquired about,

10 and we were told about all three of them that no investigation was

11 pending against them. Therefore, under the circumstances it was quite

12 natural for us to appoint him as a professional to that position, and it

13 was quite abnormal for the Chief Prosecutor to come three years later and

14 to say that he had been indicted when nothing had changed in the meantime

15 in terms of the facts that were available to her. Because I asked her

16 what had changed in these three years, and she told me he was chief of

17 police in Kosovo in 1998. And I told her, "Well, I know that. The whole

18 world knows that, and you knew that back in 2001 when you told us that no

19 investigation was spending against him."

20 Q. Mr. Zivkovic, we will now turn to another topic. You spoke about

21 establishing a working group or a task force.

22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we have 6D91 brought up on the

23 screen, please.

24 MR. STAMP: Your Honour, before of we proceed down this avenue,

25 perhaps he can tell us what the purpose of it is. Is it something that

1 arose in cross-examination?

2 JUDGE BONOMY: The issue of who actually established it was

3 raised by you, and the exact role of Mr. Lukic was raised by you, and if

4 that can be clarified then that would be of assistance to us. If it

5 requires reference to a document and that somehow or other prejudices

6 you, you will be given another opportunity to come back on the matter.

7 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

9 MR. LUKIC:

10 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Zivkovic, a question was put to you about

11 who had formally established this task force, and we here have an

12 announcement, a communique, a public announcement that was made by the

13 MUP of Serbia, a press release.

14 Did you know at the time that the chief of the public security

15 sector, and it was Mr. Lukic at the time in that office.

16 MR. STAMP: That's surely going to be another leading question.

17 MR. LUKIC: I'm asking if he was aware at that time.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Just please no exchanges across the courtroom.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Was --

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a moment. I'm just trying to be clear about

21 this point.

22 Mr. Stamp, I missed your intervention, as did the court reporter.

23 What was it?

24 MR. STAMP: I was referring to the formulation of the question

25 and indicating that it certainly appeared to be a leading question or the

1 beginnings of a leading question.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: I think for once it's not one that's going to

3 cause any significant damage.

4 But it's dangerous territory, Mr. Lukic, to be prompting the

5 witness unless it's a pure formality. It looks as though at the moment

6 that's what is involved in this instance, but please be cautious in case

7 the evidence that results is devalued.

8 MR. LUKIC: What I wanted to ask this witness, Your Honour, is

9 whether he was aware of the real force behind this working group. If he

10 wasn't aware at the time, then I would be satisfied.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, but putting this press release and then

12 stating his position and so on doesn't help you to get a clear piece of

13 evidence that's plainly from his recollection.

14 MR. LUKIC: I'll move on.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. Thank you.

16 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

17 Q. [Interpretation] Let's move on, Mr. Zivkovic, and I'm drawing my

18 re-examination to an end.

19 In answer to Prosecutor's question on page 50, line 21, you spoke

20 about the release of Milan Lukic from custody. At that time were you

21 aware of the fact, or are you aware of that fact today, that Milan Lukic

22 was released from custody by the police or the investigating judge? Who

23 was it? Do you know?

24 A. It's a self-evident question. It is the investigating judge who

25 remands a person in custody and releases that same person. It is the

1 technical service of the prison who obviously releases the person but it

2 is the investigating judge who releases the order.

3 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Mr. Zivkovic, for testifying on behalf of

4 Mr. Sreten Lukic's defence.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

6 MR. LUKIC: Sorry I have to intervene. Page 68, line 3. It says

7 it is the technical service of the prison who obviously releases the

8 person, but it is the investigating judge who releases the order. I

9 think that the witness mentioned police as a technical service in this

10 matter.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Would you explain again, Mr. Zivkovic, what you

12 said? You said it was self-evident who released Milan Lukic and any

13 other accused. Could you explain the roles again?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. An order is issued by

15 the investigating judge for a person to be remanded in custody. And then

16 the investigating judge again issues a decision to release the person,

17 but the decision is implemented by the police. The police is in charge

18 of bringing the person in and releasing the person. When it comes to the

19 decision on remanding the person in custody and on the term of that

20 remand in custody it is up to the investigating judge to decide that. In

21 other words, it is not the police that may decide on who will be kept in

22 prison and for how long.

23 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, 68, 20. The police is in charge of

24 bringing the person in, in, and releasing the person, it's absolutely not

25 correct, and that's not what the witness said.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: And what do you say he said?

2 MR. LUKIC: The police has nothing to do with releasing the

3 person, any person from the prison, and prison is not under the police at

4 all. It's under the Ministry of Justice and police has nothing to do

5 with prisoners.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, Mr. Zivkovic, we have an English statement

7 from you on the transcript that the police is in charge of bringing the

8 person in and releasing the person. Is that an accurate translation of

9 what you said?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no, no, no.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: What did you say?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said it is the investigating

13 judge who issues an order on remanding a person in custody.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: We know that. All we're interested in is what you

15 said about the practical implementation of that order.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And I said explicitly that the

17 police cannot release anybody from prison. That's on the one. On the

18 two, the police on the order of the Judge arrests a person and brings

19 them to prison, but they don't release the person from the prison. A

20 person may be released from prison upon the decision of the investigating

21 judge, and the police has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: So who physically deals with the release of the

23 person?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If the person is in custody the

25 physical release is carried out by the guards of the prison upon the --

1 the order of the investigating judge, and the guards are part of the

2 Ministry of Justice, not of the Ministry of the Interior.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

4 Anything further, Mr. Lukic?

5 MR. LUKIC: No, Your Honour. Thank you.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Zivkovic. That completes your

7 evidence. Thank you for coming here to give evidence. You may now leave

8 the courtroom with the usher.

9 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

10 [The witness withdrew]

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ivetic.

12 MR. IVETIC: Our next witness is Mr. Dragan Furdulovic.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

14 [The witness entered court]

15 WITNESS: DRAGAN FURDULOVIC

16 [Witness answered through interpreter]

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Good day, Mr. Furdulovic.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good day.

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

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

21 you.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

23 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Please be seated. You will now be

25 examined by Mr. Ivetic on behalf of Mr. Lukic.

1 Mr. Ivetic.

2 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.

3 Examination by Mr. Ivetic:

4 Q. Good day, Mr. Furdulovic. Mr. Furdulovic, did you give a written

5 statement to the members of the Defence team of Sreten Lukic?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Thank you. If I could ask the usher's assistance I have a hard

8 copy of that statement which is 6D1605 which I would ask also to be

9 pulled up on e-court.

10 And, sir, once you receive this document, I would merely ask you

11 to review the same and tell us if this is in fact the written statement

12 that you tendered to the Defence team of Sreten Lukic.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And if I could first of all direct your attention to paragraph 1

15 of the statement. Do you have any revisions or clarifications with

16 respect to this paragraph of the statement?

17 A. Yes. I'm currently an advisor to the assistant of the minister

18 and chief of department of interior control with the police, and my

19 occupation is the main police advisor.

20 Q. Thank you, sir. Now, if we could move on to the next paragraph.

21 Do you have any clarifications or corrections with respect to that

22 paragraph of this written statement?

23 A. Yes. In the second paragraph I would like to correct the

24 following: The date when I was transferred from the position of the

25 chief of the department of market inspection in the ministry, instead of

1 1997, it should read 2000. The year should be 2000.

2 Q. Thank you. And now this is an item for which -- well, if we look

3 at -- if we look at paragraph 8, in the last sentence of the English

4 translation of paragraph 8 of your statement, the abbreviation or acronym

5 CZ is said to stand for the central gaol. Is that in fact what you

6 intended to mean here by using the acronym CZ?

7 A. The abbreviations CZ stands for the workers of the civilian

8 protection.

9 Q. Thank you. And now if we could turn to paragraph 10 of the

10 statement. Do you have any directions or clarifications with respect to

11 that paragraph of this written statement?

12 A. Yes. In the sentence which reads: "At that time I reported

13 directly," after the word "reported" a word should be added and that word

14 should read "The Prosecutor."

15 Q. Thank you. Now, apart from the correction cited today, does this

16 written statement accurately reflect your words as given to the members

17 of the Lukic Defence team on these topics?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And if I were to ask you questions today on these same topics

20 under oath, would your answers be the same as those reflected in this

21 written statement subject to the corrections that you've made here today?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Thank you.

24 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I would at this time move for Exhibit

25 6D1605 the written statement of Mr. Furdulovic to be accepted into

1 evidence.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

3 MR. IVETIC:

4 Q. Now, sir, I would like to pose some additional questions of you

5 relating to the topics of your statement and otherwise. First of all, if

6 you could look at paragraph 8 of the same, which I think was on the

7 previous page in the B/C/S, and the measures undertaken by the MUP of

8 Serbia following the discovery of the ID documents for the Berisa family

9 during the 2001 Batajnica examinations and particularly the --

10 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Ivetic is kindly requested to slow down.

11 Thank you.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ivetic, sorry, high speed in ordinary

13 circumstances is to be encouraged. Here, if you can just slow a little

14 and go into seventh gear.

15 MR. IVETIC: I will do my best, Your Honour. You know I

16 sometimes have difficulty doing that, especially if I'm reading.

17 Q. If I could begin again, sir. At paragraph 8 of your statement,

18 and in particular where you describe the measures undertaken by the MUP

19 of Serbia to uncover the crime of murder against the Berisa family

20 following the discovery of ID documents during the 2001 Batajnica

21 exhumations, and the question I have for you is how would you describe

22 Sreten Lukic's activities relative to this MUP investigation?

23 A. The role of Sreten Lukic as the chief of the public security

24 sector in this concrete case reflected in his constant agreement to

25 approve interviews with all members of the security sector for whom we

1 believed as a task force that interviews should be conducted and

2 information collected in view of revealing details of the Berisa family

3 murder. At the same time, the role of Sreten Lukic was to enable us an

4 insight into the complete documentation that might be of use to us in our

5 further police investigation and especially documents issued by the

6 Krusevac SUP, the Prizren SUP of the Suva Reka police OUP. His role was

7 also to provide logistical support in this case and in all the other

8 cases, all the logistical support that we needed in order to carry out

9 certain operative actions in a timely and efficient fashion.

10 Q. And if -- if we could take a moment to call up Exhibit 6D1608.

11 And while we're waiting for that document to come up on the screen, sir,

12 I would ask the question that you will have to consider once the document

13 comes up and that is if you recognise this document and what can you tell

14 us in relation to this document that is now up on the screen before you?

15 A. Yes. I recognise the document. This is a document issued by the

16 administration for fighting organised crime that I compiled on the 22nd

17 of March, 2002. In the left corner you can see my initials, DF. The

18 document was sent to the assistant minister, to General Colonel Sreten

19 Lukic, head of the public security sector.

20 In this document we inform him that we act upon the order of the

21 Prosecutor in Belgrade and that we collect information in order to reveal

22 the details of the Berisa family murder. We hereby ask for his approval

23 to approve interview with Radojko Repanovic, the commander of the police

24 station in Suva Reka at a certain time, all in accordance with our plan

25 of activities.

1 In the left lower corner we see the signature of the chief of my

2 administration given that I was at the time a member of the department

3 for fighting organised crime with the police.

4 Q. Thank you. And we see the name Sreten Lukic and a signature in

5 the upper right. What did this part of the document mean, technically

6 speaking, or in an authoritative sense to you in terms of your

7 investigation?

8 A. This was a customary way of addressing the chief of sector when

9 we sought approval to interview all members of the sector regardless of

10 their rank, position, and duties they were involved in.

11 We see that General Sreten Lukic signed the document personally,

12 and his signature meant for us that we could carry out interviews with

13 the aforementioned policemen without any obstructions. And it is also

14 the signal to the policemen that he had to reply to our invitation and to

15 come for this interview at the given time.

16 Q. Thank you, Mr. Furdulovic. I apologise for the pause. I'm just

17 waiting for the translation and the transcript to catch up to us.

18 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I see we're also at the point for the

19 last break. If it assists the Court and the translators, we could do

20 that at this time.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Okay. Mr. Furdulovic, we have to have a break at

22 this stage. That will be for half an hour. Would you please leave the

23 courtroom with the usher and we'll see you again at 10 minutes to 1.00.

24 --- Recess taken at 12.20 p.m.

25 --- On resuming at 12.55 p.m.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ivetic.

2 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.

3 Q. Mr. Furdulovic, before the break we were looking at 6D1608, which

4 is still up on the screen, relating to the request for an informative

5 conversation with Repanovic Radojko. Did you in fact as part of your

6 investigation conduct such an informative conversation or interview with

7 the named person and if so to whom would the results of that -- of that

8 conversation have been sent?

9 A. We conducted the interview at a different time with Radojko

10 Repanovic. We took his statement and recorded it, and we forwarded this

11 record of the statement to the district public prosecutor in Belgrade.

12 Q. Just waiting for the translation and transcript again, sir. Did

13 you take point in time have to inform Assistant Minister Lukic or ask for

14 his further permission or authorisation to forward the gathered material

15 to the appropriate prosecutor's office?

16 A. No.

17 Q. All right. Now, if we look at 6D1609, and if I can ask you to

18 review this document and tell us if you recognise the same and what you

19 can tell us about the circumstances of this document.

20 A. Again, this is a document issued by the administration for

21 fighting organised crime. It was drafted in March 2002 by myself

22 personally, which is confirmed by my initials, DF. It was sent to

23 General Lukic as the head of the public security sector. He is hereby

24 informed that we are acting upon the public prosecutor in order to

25 elucidate the murder of the Berisa family, and we're asking for his

1 consent for an interview to be conducted with a policeman Ramiz Papic

2 from the Sjenica OUP. In the right upper corner I notice the signature

3 of General Lukic showing that he gave us his consent to interview the

4 aforementioned policemen.

5 Q. And again did you in fact proceed with the conduct of an

6 informative discussion or interview, and did you send those results off

7 to some other entity or body?

8 A. We took Ramiz Papic's statement and recorded it, and we forwarded

9 the record of that statement to the prosecutor in Belgrade, to the

10 district public prosecutor in Belgrade.

11 Q. Document related to this investigation as a sample. If we could

12 look at 6D1610, dated November of 2002. Is this tied to the same

13 investigation, and is this document one that came about in a similar

14 procedure as you've described for the previous two documents?

15 A. Yes. This is about the murder of the Berisa family. Again

16 General Lukic's consent was requested and received to carry out

17 interviews with four members of the public security sector. Those were

18 all officers, one a captain, another lieutenant, a colonel lieutenant,

19 and a warrant officer.

20 Q. And can you tell us in total how many persons you conducted such

21 informative interviews with and how many statements you recorded in the

22 matter before forwarding the same to the prosecutors in the Berisa case

23 for the murder that occurred in Suva Reka.

24 A. In total we interviewed 38 persons as a result of which we had 44

25 records and statements. We took a statement of each and every one of

1 them but with a number of policemen we had several interviews. All the

2 statements that were recorded were forwarded to the district public

3 prosecutor in Belgrade.

4 Q. And you mentioned you talked with a number of individuals and a

5 number of policemen. Was every -- did -- strike that.

6 Were any requests for your investigation to speak with any

7 members of the RJB ever declined by Sreten Lukic? Was consent ever

8 declined for any individual that was the -- a person of interest to speak

9 with as part of your investigation in this particular proceeding?

10 A. Whenever we issued a request to interview any member of the

11 public security sector we received Mr. Lukic's consent to proceed.

12 Q. Thank you. And before moving on, was the scope and extent of

13 your investigation limited to just interviewing policemen?

14 A. Within the scope of our planned activities leading to the

15 elucidation of the crime we interviewed about 25 policemen, if my memory

16 serves me right. One of -- member of the sector of public security, a

17 number of citizens, civilians, and a number of members of the civilian

18 protection. So these were the people that we interviewed within the

19 scope of that investigation.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ivetic, is that an accurate reflection of that

21 answer in line 14, one member of the sector of public security?

22 MR. IVETIC: State security I believe is what the witness said.

23 We can -- let me just ask him. Might as well ask him to clarify.

24 Q. Sir, you're recorded as saying that one member of the sector of

25 public security was interviewed. Am I correct -- well, is that what you

1 said and can you clarify that for us? Who in fact is the one individual

2 from the specific sector that was interviewed?

3 A. Yes. I said that for all the members of the public security

4 sector we received consent from General Lukic. When we drafted a total

5 of 44 interviews, we had an interview by Milorad Nisovic who was the

6 state security sector member. This is the first document that pointed to

7 certain facts with regard to this crime.

8 Q. And with respect to that state security member, was that --

9 strike that.

10 With respect to the state security member, would the request for

11 an interview have been submitted to Mr. Lukic as head of the RJB or to

12 someone else?

13 A. No. Mr. Lukic did not receive our request to interview this

14 member of the state security sector.

15 Q. Now, do you know how long was this investigation period

16 approximately, and how did Mr. Lukic act towards the investigation? That

17 is to say, did he hinder it in any way?

18 A. Our police investigation lasted from the moment when the mass

19 grave in Batajnica was opened and when a certain number of ID documents

20 were found on the 36 exhumed bodies. That was in 2001. And the

21 investigation lasted until the year 2003.

22 Not for a single moment did General Lukic hinder our plans.

23 Whenever we had a request for an interview, he would give his consent,

24 and he would also allow us to take over documents that we were interested

25 in that were in the possession of any of the units of the public security

1 sector.

2 Q. Thank you. And if we can move along then. In paragraph 10 you

3 discussed the Bitiqi matter, and you're recorded as using the

4 terminology: "His policemen." Could you explain what you meant by that

5 term?

6 A. In the police jargon his policemen or my policemen means that

7 either I, or him in this case, were these policemens' supervising

8 officer.

9 Q. In reference to the time period when the investigation was

10 ongoing or to some other time period?

11 A. It refers to the time period of the investigation, when the

12 investigation was conducted.

13 Q. And if we could look at 6D1611. If you could take a moment to

14 look at this document and let us know if this document is known to you

15 and what additional comments you can make on the same, particularly if in

16 fact in the Bitiqi case the same procedure that you've described for us

17 here was followed with respect to conducting the investigation and

18 seeking and receiving consent from the head of the RJB, Mr. Lukic.

19 A. This document issued by the department fighting organised crime

20 shows a similar principle of addressing General Lukic in order to seek

21 his consent to carry out certain actions in order to elucidate the

22 brothers Bitiqi murders. We asked for his consent to carry out

23 interviews of six policemen of whom some were high-ranking officers of

24 the MUP, in high positions at the time. For example, the deputy chief of

25 the police administration, lieutenant general, the commander of the

1 Gendarmerie, the chief of the Prokuplje SUP, the chief of training in the

2 command of the Gendarmerie and also in the right-hand side could I see

3 the signature of General Lukic giving us his consent to carry out

4 interviews with the aforementioned policemen.

5 Q. Thank you. And in the course of the investigation into this

6 matter as conducted by your element of the MUP, did you experience or

7 witness any obstruction on the part of Sreten Lukic with regards to this

8 investigation?

9 A. We were not obstructed by General Lukic in any of the phases of

10 our investigation work.

11 Q. Did the MUP of the Republic of Serbia, in addition to the

12 activities we have thus far been discussing and which are also -- go

13 further in your statement, did the MUP also undertake any activities

14 relative to witnesses or victims for these any of these investigations

15 based on the request of judicial organs during the tenure of Sreten Lukic

16 as head of the RJB?

17 A. We had several requests in the course of our police investigation

18 to extend particular measures of protection to certain individuals. One

19 of them came from District Court in Belgrade, which -- and there was also

20 a request from the fund for humanitarian law to provide particular

21 measures for seven witnesses and peoples who suffered damages in Podujevo

22 in 1997 when about 19 citizens had been killed. Before the District

23 Court in Belgrade there was an investigation against -- against Sasa

24 Cvejtan and we were requested to provide special security measures from

25 the entry of persons from (redacted) into the territory of Serbia during

1 their testimony before the court, during their stay in the district

2 prison where the line-up was organised and until the moment when these

3 persons left the territory of Serbia.

4 We had special requests from the fund for humanitarian rights in

5 order to carry out these special measures.

6 Q. And how would you describe the role of Mr. Lukic with respect to

7 these requests for providing these security measures for the witnesses

8 who were coming for this criminal proceeding?

9 A. The application of special security measures meant that these

10 persons, from the moment they crossed into the territory of Serbia were

11 provided special protection measures. For that portion the border police

12 was in charge and that was an organisational unit within the public

13 security sector. That is -- it is well known that General Lukic was the

14 chief of the public security sector. None of these measures could have

15 been implemented without his direct approval.

16 Q. Thank you. Now, with regard to all of the foregoing

17 investigations that we have discussed here orally and the investigations

18 that are -- that are set forth also in your written statement, did you

19 ever come across any credible information tending to suggest that Sreten

20 Lukic was involved in either war crimes or the covering up of war crimes?

21 A. I was involved in investigations from May 2001 until the 1st of

22 February, 2004, when I assumed a different position, and I never heard

23 nor did I ever receive any kind of information indicating that Sreten

24 Lukic took part in any way in any war crimes.

25 Q. Thank you. Now, if we can move on to a different but related

1 topic. In the course of your work in performing investigations as we

2 have discussed here, did you have occasion to personally be involved in

3 any informative talks or interviews of a person -- of a policeman by the

4 name of Bozidar Protic?

5 A. Yes. I conducted an interview with him together with my chief

6 head of the task force, Captain Dragan Karleusa, and on the orders of

7 Mr. Karleusa.

8 Q. And -- sorry, just waiting for the transcript again. Based on

9 your personal knowledge how many times did you or someone from your

10 service undertake to talk or interview Mr. Protic regarding his knowledge

11 of the mass graves and the matters arising therefrom?

12 A. We conducted an interview with Mr. Protic several times. I

13 remember that in June we talked to him at least five times. I

14 interviewed him together with Captain Karleusa.

15 As far as I remember, we drafted one Official Note dated the 4th

16 of June, 2001. The reason why Official Notes were not drawn following

17 each interview was that Mr. Protic frequently gave confused and

18 incomplete statements. He kept changing certain information. He

19 couldn't recollect how the corpses were brought in, using what routes.

20 He was dissatisfied with his son's situation because he was employed. He

21 was also dissatisfied with his housing, which wasn't resolved.

22 In addition to that, in 2002 I had occasion as chief of the

23 operations team of MUP to organise an interview with Bozidar Protic and

24 to tell him that the OTP investigators would interview him. And also

25 there was a summons from the District Court in Belgrade. That is to say

1 we told him that he was -- it was his duty to respond to the summons and

2 provide a statement, even though he kept evading that.

3 Q. If I can ask you to clarify one point. You're recorded at page

4 83, lines 14 through 16, of the statement as saying that Mr. Protic

5 frequently gave confused and incomplete statements. He kept changing

6 certain information.

7 Was there in fact even -- strike that.

8 Were there -- were there occasions when the information given by

9 Mr. Protic, when checked, was found to be incorrect?

10 MR. STAMP: Your Honour, that is not a proper question.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp.

12 MR. STAMP: Sorry. It's a leading question. That is just

13 answering the question in the way it is put.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ivetic.

15 MR. IVETIC: I'm asking the witness to -- I believe I have a

16 basis for asking further question for -- asking for particular

17 circumstances.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: It is a leading question. It's very easy to ask a

19 much more general and open question about the information. So we will

20 sustain that objection.

21 MR. IVETIC:

22 Q. Did you have occasion to check -- well, did you have occasion to

23 check any of the information provided by Mr. Protic in the course of your

24 interviews through independent means?

25 A. I wish to reiterate that we did not speak with Mr. Protic until

1 June of 2001, whereas our activities had begun on the 8th of May, 2001.

2 That means that Bozidar Protic was not the only source of our

3 investigative work. We did not always rely on his information. In fact,

4 I remember that on the 14th of June, I personally opened the mass grave

5 in Petrovo Selo. Protic was with me, as was the Prosecutor and

6 investigative judge. We used machinery, and Protic could not remember

7 the exact location of the pits. We tried to locate the pit several times

8 and finally succeeded.

9 In our view, he on that occasion proved once again that he wasn't

10 a reliable source of information.

11 Q. In the course of your discussions with Mr. Protic, did he at any

12 time ever mention Mr. Sreten Lukic in any sense or regard as to mass

13 graves or to the transport of bodies from Kosovo and Metohija?

14 A. No, never.

15 Q. Thank you. Now, can you highlight for us any differences or any

16 unique nature of your activities as a working group in the period before

17 the implementation of any law regulating cooperation with the ICTY and

18 the relevant state organs with jurisdiction over such matters?

19 MR. STAMP: Your Honour, I just object to this question for

20 vagueness. One cannot ascertain having a look at this question whether

21 or not it is intended to elicit evidence which is relevant to the issues

22 before the Court.

23 MR. IVETIC: And if I ask a more specific question I'd be

24 leading, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm having difficulty understanding the question,

1 Mr. Ivetic. Try again, please.

2 MR. IVETIC: All right.

3 Q. Could you highlight for us, sir -- now, let me back up. Do you

4 know, sir, when the law regulating cooperation with the ICTY entered into

5 force on the territory of the -- I believe it was then a state union of

6 Serbia and Montenegro, including the Republic of Serbia.

7 A. In April of 2002.

8 Q. And -- and based upon your testimony you've -- some of the

9 investigative work that you performed pre-dated that. Could you

10 highlight for us the bases for your investigative work prior to the

11 entering into force of the law on cooperation with the ICTY? That is to

12 say, was there cooperation with the ICTY on behalf of the MUP of the

13 Republic of Serbia prior to this law entering into full force and effect?

14 A. Our activities aimed at investigating war crimes commenced with

15 the establishment of the working group on the 8th of May, 2001. We

16 worked on a certain number of cases based on a specific task that was

17 given to us in the decision issued by the minister, based on our own

18 initiative at the request of the competent prosecutors and courts.

19 The working group in the beginning encountered a number of

20 problems. However, once the law on cooperation with The Hague Tribunal

21 was adopted in 2002 as well as the law on organisation and competence of

22 state organs in the proceedings concerning war crimes which was in 2003,

23 our work entered the second phase, because these laws regulated the duty

24 both of individuals and state organs concerning provision of available

25 documentation and responding to summons and giving statements regardless

1 of the capacity in which they did so.

2 As for the duty which was regulated by the law on cooperation

3 with the Hague Tribunal, we implemented that by establishing an

4 operations team at the level of the ministry. It is from that time that

5 direct cooperation was established with the Tribunal's office in

6 Belgrade, and from that time on it was our priority to respond as quickly

7 as possible to any requests given by The Hague Tribunal.

8 In the first period of time when we functioned as a working group

9 until these laws were passed, we had unlimited support of the Minister of

10 the Interior Mr. Mihajlovic, chief of public security sector

11 General Lukic, and other officials from the ministry, which came to be

12 appointed after democratic changes in 2001.

13 The result of our work in this first period of time was that our

14 cases were tried before the judiciary, and a huge hindrance to us and to

15 our work was that we could not conduct police investigations in the

16 territory of Kosovo and Metohija even though at that time we had already

17 established cooperation with UNMIK. We had had several meetings where we

18 exchanged information concerning particular events. However, at that

19 time that cooperation did not yield any results.

20 In that period of time, we had particularly good contacts with

21 Dejan Mihov, head of the ICTY office in Belgrade, who received from us

22 information about all of the requests sent to The Hague Tribunal and

23 received from them. We informed Dejan Mihov about all of that, and he

24 was quite happy with our work at the time and said so publicly.

25 Q. Thank you, Mr. Furdulovic, for your time.

1 I have no further questions in direct examination for this

2 witness, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.

4 You'll now be cross-examined, Mr. Furdulovic, by the Prosecutor

5 Mr. Stamp.

6 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honours.

7 Cross-examination by Mr. Stamp:

8 Q. Who first told you about the mass grave at Batajnica, or told the

9 working group about the mass graves at Batajnica?

10 A. The information on Batajnica was conveyed to me by my boss,

11 Captain Dragan Karleusa. I was given a task by him to go to Kladovo.

12 And I don't know who gave that information to him.

13 Q. And do you know how the working group came to be aware that there

14 were pits with corpses in Petrovo Selo?

15 A. From the 12th until the 15th of May I personally interviewed more

16 than 30 individuals in the territory of Negotin and Kladovo. We wrote

17 about 23 Official Notes. Based on those interviews, we obtained

18 information indicating that corpses had been transported.

19 As for the particular information about the pit in Petrovo Selo,

20 that was provided by Bozidar Protic.

21 Q. Did you interview any other drivers or people who transported

22 bodies from Kosovo to Serbia?

23 A. Yes. I apologise.

24 Q. Who were the other drivers who transported from Kosovo to Serbia

25 that you interviewed?

1 A. Yes. We talked to other drivers as well. I remember now that we

2 talked to the driver called Ursuljanovic. I believe that he was the

3 driver of the chief of the Bor SUP, Golubovic. I can't remember other

4 names because it's ban long time.

5 Q. Did -- is the name that you gave us Ursuljanovic?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Did you take a statement from him?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. That statement is part of the work product of the task force that

10 you were part of?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Where did he take bodies from according to his statement?

13 A. I can't give you any details about what he provided in his

14 statement, but as far as I remember, he took the truck with corpses from

15 Tekija towards Belgrade to Batajnica specifically. That's all I can

16 remember.

17 Q. So he took a truck, according to the information he gave you,

18 with bodies from a place in Serbia to Batajnica?

19 A. As far as I remember, yes. I just can't be certain whether he

20 took it all the way to Batajnica or somewhere in the vicinity.

21 Q. Do you know how many drivers who transported bodies you took

22 statements from? You said one is Protic. One is Ursuljanovic. How many

23 more?

24 A. I'm not aware of that. I can't remember. But at any rate, all

25 of the statements taken were forwarded to the district prosecutor in

1 Negotin, interviews from -- records on all interviews.

2 Q. Yes. You seem to indicate to me that you spoke with other

3 drivers. You're saying you can't recall that now?

4 A. I can't remember their names, but it's true that we talked to

5 other drivers as well.

6 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... how many --

7 A. When I say "drivers" -- I can't be certain, but when I say

8 "drivers," that doesn't mean that all of the drivers drove corpses.

9 Q. That's what I asked you, how many persons who transported corpses

10 you or your working group spoke with.

11 A. I can't be certain. I can't be positive about that, but all

12 statements are in the case file.

13 Q. Can you tell us about how many?

14 A. I don't know. I can't say.

15 Q. Do you remember Ursuljanovic's first name or given name?

16 A. I'm not quite sure.

17 Q. Did you take a statement personally?

18 A. I'm not sure, because the working group changed. That is to say

19 all of us were in the working group, but depending on the tasks that

20 needed to be performed people were added to it. At any rate, the head of

21 the working group was Captain Dragan Karleusa. He was informed about

22 everything, and he was the one who decided on the composition of the

23 working group.

24 Q. But were you involved at any stage in taking that statement from

25 him?

1 A. I can't remember specifically whether it was myself or some other

2 member of the working group, but I know that a statement was taken from

3 Ursuljanovic.

4 Q. Can you repeat that name, please? I think we have it

5 Ursuljanovic. Is that the name of the person?

6 A. Ursuljanovic.

7 Q. So the given same is Ursul. Is that ...

8 A. No, his last name is Urusuljanovic.

9 Q. I see. Now, did he tell you who instructed him to go and collect

10 the bodies?

11 A. I don't know. I've already told you that.

12 Q. You don't know if he told you who told him to go and collect the

13 bodies?

14 A. I don't know. I can't be certain because it's been six years.

15 Q. Now, wasn't it Protic who told you first -- well, let me ask you

16 in an open way. Can you recall whether or not it was Protic who told you

17 about the bodies at Batajnica?

18 A. I don't have that information.

19 Q. When you were involved in taking a statement from Protic in 2002,

20 can you recall if he told you that he was given a number, a Belgrade

21 number, and he was instructed to call that number to get instructions as

22 to where to take the bodies?

23 A. Right now I can't remember the details from the statement given

24 by Protic. I told you at the outset that it wasn't myself who took a

25 statement from him in 2002 but, rather, members of the operations team,

1 and I ordered the head of the operations team to take a statement from

2 him in the appropriate form and to have him respond to the summons given

3 by the OTP investigators and by the District Court in Belgrade. So I

4 can't provide any further information about the content of his statement.

5 Q. The pits that Protic took you to at Petrovo Selo, were they on or

6 in a MUP compound?

7 A. No.

8 Q. I see in paragraph 9 of your statement you said it was near the

9 MUP training centre in Petrovo Selo.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. The pits were not on premises that was under the control of the

12 MUP?

13 A. I can't give you that information. All I know is that those pits

14 were not within the compound of the MUP training centre in Petrovo Selo.

15 Q. Okay. So you don't know whether it was on premises controlled by

16 the MUP. But did you have to drive through the MUP training centre in

17 Petrovo Selo to get to where these pits were if you were travelling by

18 vehicle?

19 A. One doesn't need to go through the centre of that place. There's

20 another road that one can take to go straight to the pits.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp, I wonder if we could return to this

22 tomorrow and we could interrupt you at this stage.

23 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Because I also understood that you should be able

25 to clarify the position in relation to the eighth motion to amend the 65

1 ter list. Are you able to tell us about that?

2 MR. STAMP: I thought I would have been -- I thought the

3 indication was that it would be tomorrow. I think had I --

4 JUDGE BONOMY: No, informally later Mr. Hannis indicated that he

5 should be able to do so before today's -- close of today's proceeding.

6 MR. STAMP: I could not point directly --

7 JUDGE BONOMY: You haven't heard any more.

8 MR. STAMP: I know that most of them, many of them we would

9 object to for a variety of reason but I could not identify the individual

10 exhibits just now.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: What we can do, then, at the moment is deal with

12 the ninth motion. There is no objection from the Prosecution, we

13 understand, to that motion to amend the 65 ter list, so we will grant it.

14 So far as the eighth motion is concerned, we do expect to hear

15 later this afternoon -- sorry, Mr. Stamp.

16 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honours.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: We expect we shall hear later this afternoon

18 rather than tomorrow and, therefore, we should be able to indicate

19 informally what the decision will be, possibly even file a decision but

20 certainly give you a statement at least of that decision tomorrow morning

21 first thing.

22 Mr. Furdulovic, I'm afraid we have to bring our proceedings for

23 the day to an end at this stage because another case occupies this

24 courtroom this afternoon. That means you will have to return here

25 tomorrow morning at 9.00 to continue your evidence.

1 Meanwhile, between now and then, it is absolutely vital you have

2 no communication with anybody at all about any aspect of the evidence

3 relating to this case.

4 Now, would you please leave the courtroom with the usher, and we

5 will see you tomorrow at 9.00.

6 [The witness stands down]

7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,

8 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 2nd day of

9 April, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25