1 Thursday, 17 April 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, everyone.
6 We shall now continue with the evidence of Professor Simonovic.
7 [The witness entered court]
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, Professor.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Morning, Your Honour. Good
10 morning, Your Honours. Good morning to all in the courtroom.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: [Previous translation continues]... continue,
12 Mr. Lukic.
13 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 WITNESS: BRANISLAV SIMONOVIC [Resumed]
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 Examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]
17 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning to you, too, Professor Simonovic.
18 A. Good morning.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have in e-court
20 6D1305 for the Serbian version and P1072 for the English version, please.
21 Q. Professor --
22 MR. LUKIC: We have English version of P1072, so I kindly ask to
23 have that English version on the left screen.
24 Q. [Interpretation] We see it now. What are these rules like in
25 relation to the police?
1 A. Well, this is the basic rule book in view of the police, the
2 rules on the internal organization of the Ministry of the Interior, that
3 is to say that each and every ministry has a rule book of its own and
4 these rules are passed by the government, adopted by the government
5 within a term prescribed by the law. Within the field of the interior,
6 the Ministry of the Interior, the minister adopted this and the
7 Government of the Republic of Serbia
8 procedure, and these rules constituted a basis for the internal
9 organization and the work of the police. In addition to this rule book,
10 there are other documents that support it.
11 Q. Thank you. Article 7 now, please, paragraphs 1 and 2, page 9 in
12 e-court in Serbian and in English page 10 in e-court. What can be seen
13 from Article 7, Professor?
14 A. Well, you can see the heading, what is set is the joint purview
15 of the organizational units. So that is the title of the chapter.
16 Article 7 deals with the organizational units within the ministry,
17 primarily the two departments of public security and state security; and
18 another thing that is referred to are the administrations that are within
19 the seat of the ministry. This only has to do with public security,
20 whereas state security has its own rule book which resembles this one to
21 a large degree and there are some differences too in terms of
22 organization. Article 7 shows that a department, or rather, the
23 department of public security and the administrations within it are
24 responsible for the situation for which they were established. So the
25 crime police administration for crime matters, then the police
1 administration for police matters, and so on and so forth. So these
2 departments and administrations are responsible for their own line of
3 work and they set the organizational process down the line of work within
4 the ministry from the administration to a particular police station or
5 police unit that on the ground carries out certain lawful activities.
6 Q. Just a moment, please.
7 A. I am sorry, I've been speaking too fast. Sorry.
8 Q. What you said concerning unity or singleness was not included.
9 A. Very well. Departments and administrations within their lines of
10 work ensure the unity of internal organizational and working processes
11 within the entire system and the field for which the administration was
12 established starting from the headquarters or seat all the way down to
13 the last organizational unit at local level, or particular units, police
14 units, that act on the basis of these rules. The essence of this is that
15 this unity of the organizational and work process goes all the way down
16 from the seat of the MUP downwards, that is, and it involves a series of
17 activities and tasks that have to be carried out by the administration,
18 like control, supervision, different levels of planning, and a series of
19 activities that are prescribed in these articles and that constitute the
20 essence of the internal process of work, which means that this article
21 defines the interconnectedness and the unity of work of the
22 administrations that are organized within the ministry.
23 Q. Thank you. In view of this article and the other regulations,
24 the staff of the MUP in Kosovo and Metohija, did it have authority to
25 plan, organization, and be in charge of the work and organization of
1 organizational units? Could something like that happen on the ground?
2 A. The staff had not been envisaged within the system, it was
3 envisaged within a document that could not change the relations that are
4 defined in these rules, not only in this article but in a series of other
5 articles regulating the work of the administrations in the ministry as a
7 Q. Thank you. Please look at subparagraph 3 of this article now,
9 A. Very well.
10 Q. What does it speak about, paragraph 3?
11 A. It says on the basis of the tasks that are envisaged in the
12 previous article, the administrations and departments, each in its own
13 line of work, ensure the interrelatedness and coordination work of
14 respective internal organizational units, these are organizational units
15 in the headquarters, like administrations, divisions within them and so
16 on, secretariats, these are organizational units out in the field,
17 secretariats, there were 33 of them in all of Serbia and then in Kosovo
18 there were seven of them. And within these secretariats there are
19 departments of internal affairs, police stations, and some special police
20 units. The point is that this should ensure the unity of all these
21 systems and subsystems within legal regulations pertaining to the
22 Ministry of the Interior in Serbia
23 Q. In this system is there scope for a body on the flanks that would
24 deal only with seven secretariats? Is there a place for the MUP staff
25 for an independent link-up of the seven secretariats within the system?
1 A. The MUP staff is not mentioned in this document, so it is not
2 part of the system, the system of responsibility, the system of control.
3 So therefore, it could not carry out the task that it was -- that was
4 given to it in the decision on establishing the task. The system of
5 organization had to be changed on both sides, the one that has to be
6 adopted by the government. It was mission impossible at the time, so the
7 staff therefore could not carry out what it wanted to carry out, what was
8 given to it as a task. The best law and organization are a science, and
9 that is telling proof of that. Nothing can come to life, it is not part
10 of the system. If it is a foreign body, it will not be able to carry out
11 the functions that it is supposed to carry out. I think this is the
12 biggest mistake made by those who planned the work of the staff.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness please
14 be asked to speak slower. Thank you.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Simonovic, you will need --
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please go ahead.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: -- to try harder to speak for slowly; otherwise,
18 things that you say will be missed and that will not be of assistance to
19 anyone. I know you've declared your intention a number of times, but you
20 really need to give effect to it, please.
21 Mr. Lukic.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now we need Article 12, in the
24 Serbian version it's page 10 and in English it's page 12.
25 Q. What does Article 12 of these rules refer to, please, Professor?
1 Just take it slowly.
2 A. Article 12 says that secretariats of the interior, all 33 of
3 them, carry out all tasks within the sphere of activity of the ministry
4 as established in these rules and shall be responsible for the security
5 situation in the area for which they had been established within the
6 ministry and within the administrations within the ministry. So in
7 subparagraph 2 of this article it says that secretariats of the interior
8 organize the work and management of departments of the interior and
9 police stations within these secretariats, and that they are responsible
10 for the work and functioning of these organizational units within the
11 secretariats, they are responsible precisely to the ministry.
12 Q. Now I would like to ask you something about the position of the
13 staff within the chain of the MUP, and that pertains to chapter 9 of your
14 expert report. I would like to ask you what regulations established the
15 basic lines of information and reporting between the basic and area
16 organizational units within the public security sector?
17 A. On the basis of the system that is derived from these rules,
18 instructions on information reporting were adopted. These instructions
19 entail a system of reporting and information within the ministry. It is
20 of interest to note that there is no mention of the MUP staff within
21 these instructions. These instructions envisage different forms of
22 information and their essence is based on the following. The chain of
23 information moves upwards as far as secretariats are concerned
24 information from internal organizational units within the secretariats,
25 that is to say police stations, police departments, moving towards the
1 secretariat, the chief of the secretariat, and then to the operations
2 centre in the Ministry of the Interior. Now, what was done in terms of
3 the implementation of this document? On the basis of my studies, I only
4 came to the conclusion that the only thing that could function on the
5 basis of this was that after these rules another document was adopted,
6 the one that we looked at yesterday, that was included in the system.
7 Q. Just a moment, Professor.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have in e-court
9 Exhibit P1044.
10 Q. You go on, Professor.
11 A. May I? So this document - this is the document that's in front
12 of me right now - it defines organizational units that exist, that is to
13 say secretariats, and within the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic
14 of Serbia
15 Q. Now we're going to look at page 3.
16 A. Yes, yes.
17 Q. Just a moment, please. Please go on.
18 A. Now, within this document, within item 5, what is envisaged
19 within the system -- I mean it's an amendment to these instructions on
20 information and reporting. Secretariats of the interior in Pristina,
21 Kosovska Mitrovica, Urosevac, Gnjilane, Djakovica, Pec, and Prizren, that
22 is to say the secretariats in the territory of Kosovo
23 the same time to the ministry and the ministry staff in Pristina. That
24 was indeed carried through, and it became part of the system and it did
25 function. Any other request based on the decision to establish the staff
1 would require a change of the system itself, but it's easier to change
2 the system in the field of information than in the field of control
3 responsibility because that requires a change of the overall system. Can
4 I just put a question? Can this be interpreted, all of this that I've
5 been saying now? Can you follow what it is that I've been saying -- very
6 well. I have explain this if Their Honours wish me to do so, why this
7 was included.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: What is the date of this document?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes --
10 MR. LUKIC: It's from 1996, I know that. It's 19th of April,
12 JUDGE BONOMY: So it's prior to any of these documents in
13 relation to the MUP staff?
14 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. May I be allowed to say
16 something, Your Honours? Instruction on information and reporting was
17 enacted in December 1994, which means that this document is 1996, two
18 years later, and it introduced into -- changes into the system of
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Very well. Thank you.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And now may we have the last page of
23 that document, please, on e-court.
24 Q. You were telling us a moment ago about the upward trend, the SUP
25 obligation to inform the staff, and this portion speaks of the downward
1 line, from top to bottom issuing orders. So what can we see here if we
2 look at paragraph 5 on that last page, and it is under Roman III?
3 A. If we look at point 5 in the Roman III area it says the
4 following: "When an organizational unit from the ministry main office,"
5 so the main office we're talking about now, and it is the administration
6 of the crime police, for instance, the police administration or any other
7 administration for that matter, "spends dispatches downwards, it
8 addresses them in one of the following ways: Giving instructions under
9 1, SUP to all, 1 to 33," and then underneath that we have staff of the
10 ministry of Pristina. So this is introduced as an auxiliary, secondary
11 body to be informed on the flanks.
12 And now number 2: "SUP, the secretariat, the police station,"
13 and so on and so forth, to all. So this part of the task could take
14 effect because they were introduced into the actual system, and it
15 indicates that, in fact, the staff of the ministry that is stipulated
16 here underneath the SUP in that line, down that line - and you can see
17 that visually on this document - is not just form but substance, a
18 reflection of the substance.
19 Q. Yes. Thank you. Now let's go back for a moment --
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Just -- this is still the 1996 document; is that
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, and it was in force at the
23 material time, the time we're discussing now. All the documents that we
24 studied in dealing with this subject matter were regulated in this way
25 and titled this way, that is to say at the beginning of the document in
1 the upper left-hand corner you -- the heading would show this because
2 that's how the system was established with slight exceptions here and
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
5 Mr. Lukic.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
7 So may I now have a look at the combined document on the e-court
8 6D1305 of the page numbers, or rather the first one - the second one is
9 P1072 in the Serbian version -- it says here that both versions are the
10 same, so on the Serbian is page 9 and the English is page 9 and we need
11 to look at Article 8.
12 Q. [Interpretation] Professor, what does Article 8 address of the
13 rules governing internal organization and establishment?
14 MR. LUKIC: Next page in English, it must be 10.
15 Q. [Interpretation] Yes, go ahead, but just slowly, please.
16 A. This article, or rather, in paragraph 1 it states that within
17 this unified process of work or integrated work process defined by the
18 previous article, Article 7, the departments, the department of public
19 security here, shall perform tasks relating to programming, organization,
20 management or governance, and promotion or improvement of the work in the
21 area of internal affairs as standardised in the entire ministry. So this
22 is, in fact, an attempt as opposed to para 2; to be more precise, in
23 defining this internal unity in the sense of organization and the work
24 process as defined compared to the administrations and organizational
25 units such as the secretariats.
1 Q. And what does paragraph 2 tell us?
2 A. Paragraph 2 says that within the ministry, within the departments
3 within whose composition they are, for example, the crime police
4 administration, shall be immediately involved and engaged in carrying out
5 security and other tasks from the purview of the ministry on the
6 territory of the republic where this engagement is deemed necessary for
7 the complete and timely implementation of tasks. So this provides for
8 the fact that in addition to the internal organization of management and
9 leadership by the departments down towards the secretariats, the
10 administrations within the departments themselves and their professionals
11 can be immediately involved in the execution of certain tasks if security
12 reasons demand it.
13 May I go on to explain?
14 Q. Now, from the central office the man goes down into the field and
15 manages there?
16 A. I'm a crime professor, and I know when a serious crime is
17 committed then from the administration of the crime department
18 professionals are sent from the area of detection, crime detection, on
19 site they are included in the operative work and the on-site
20 investigation to uncover the unknown perpetrator or perpetrators. So
21 they work directly together with the local professionals and experts,
22 that is to say the employees of the ministry within the frameworks of the
23 secretariat, to resolve certain security problems. And this model in
25 down to the chain of command and management within the frameworks of the
1 ministries, which means if the problem occurs, for example, in the
2 traffic security area, if there's a serious railway accident or aeroplane
3 accident, then the work of the -- workers of the ministry from the
4 administration dealing with traffic security go on the spot in the field,
5 and the same is applied if other crimes are concerned. They go down to
6 help the uniformed policemen, down to the police station. So this is a
7 system that functioned at that time but it is quite outside the MUP
9 Q. Professor, let's not expand the subject, let's look at P1593, we
10 don't have to have it on e-court --
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Perhaps it's a translation issue. I don't
12 understand what you've just said at the end of your answer. The last
13 sentence has been translated as: "So this is a system that functioned at
14 that time but it is quite outside the MUP staff."
15 I didn't dream that it was within the MUP staff, but what
16 prompted you to say that?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No -- well, I don't know whether I
18 was clear enough, made myself clear enough. What I wanted to say is
19 this, that the system existed always before the staffs were established,
20 it still exists today and it is a system which within this internal
21 organization linked to the departments and territorial units and so on,
22 it's a system that exists inside. And the MUP staff had nothing, had no
23 relations with the way in which this functioned in the sense that it did
24 not act along this line of tasks and this was not provided for by the
25 rules and the rule book. I'm not sure whether there was all translated
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Which MUP staff are you referring to? I mean, if
3 it's the whole of Serbia
4 about the MUP staff in Belgrade
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, it's like this. In Belgrade
6 there is no MUP staff. What exists in Belgrade is the Ministry of the
7 Interior. Within the frameworks of that ministry there are two
8 departments; within each department you have administrations. So the
9 staff MUP only existed at that time in Pristina, now the staff that we're
10 referring to here. Am I being clearer now? So this Belgrade you have
11 the MUP, the Ministry of the Interior, with its administrations.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. We see here that in Kosovo and Metohija there was
15 General Obrad Stevanovic or Gvozden Gagic present. Now, where was their
16 base in Kosovo and Metohija?
17 A. Well, the picture I'm looking at on my screen is probably not
18 related to what you were saying, this is probably a mistake, but it
19 doesn't matter. As a crime professor, which I am, there's no problem
20 when Gagic is in Kosovo and I heard what he said over the internet, that
21 he went to Kosovo, he was sent there by his administration, crime police
22 administration, to perform certain tasks linked to the registry and
23 introducing changes into how crimes were recorded because the electronic
24 system was established.
25 Q. And what was the legal grounds for his stay in Kosovo?
1 A. Article 8.
2 Q. And what about Obrad Stevanovic?
3 A. The same, which means that they had the right to become directly
5 Q. Thank you.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers kindly speak one at a time.
7 Thank you.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. The MUP staff, could it have any influence on the work of the
10 seat of the MUP and the administration when they were engaged directly in
11 the field in Kosovo and Metohija?
12 A. Well, this system, the system that was established by this --
13 these rules, first of all, bearing in mind Articles 7 and 8, but other
14 articles too which define the tasks, rights, and duties and authorisation
15 of each individual administration, these are other articles that I'm
16 referring to, they clearly define this system of direct engagement so
17 that the MUP staff couldn't be included in this system because it wasn't
18 provided for in the beginning, it was outside this system of management
19 and leadership, and that is something, if you organize legal norms within
20 the police force, you will find that that is indubitably so.
21 Q. Thank you. I think we should return now to Article 12, para 1
22 and 2. It is page 10 in the Serbian and page 12 in the English.
23 You've already talked about this article.
24 A. May I ask for the Serbian version to be placed on e-court. Thank
1 Q. Now, tell us who organizes the work of the police station.
2 A. Article 12 of these rules within the frameworks of Sava 2
3 prescribes that the secretariats in conformity with provisions 7 to 11 of
4 these rules dealing with united organization within the MUP and
5 management and leadership, that is to say the secretariats organized on
6 the basis of those articles, the work that is to be done and the
7 management of the departments of the interior, and the police stations
8 within the municipalities and shall be responsible for their work. That
9 means that this article regulates this system of control and organization
10 established within the MUP and it is brought down to the level of the
11 secretariats and then further down from the secretariats towards the
12 internal organizational units such as police stations, police
13 departments, and so on, but based on exactly the same principles. And
14 this can be seen in Articles 7 to 11. We were looking at Articles 10 and
15 11 earlier on, or rather, we dealt with Article 7, that's what we
16 analysed. I'm sorry.
17 Q. Thank you. Let's move on. We now need to look at Article 9,
18 paras 1 and 2, page 9 of the Serbian and 11 of the English. And we're
19 now talk about defence planning which is chapter 8 of your report and in
20 fact we're going to be dealing with chapters 8 and 9 mostly today. What
21 does Article 9 provide for?
22 A. Article 9 of these rules provides for the following, that the
23 departments -- that the basic tasks of the departments is that they shall
24 be responsible for organizing some imminent war preparations; that is to
25 say they carry out the regulations, but regulations in emergency
1 situations, they inform the organs of the republic and cooperate with
2 other organs and organizations, of course within the frameworks of the
3 law. Now, when we deal with defence and speak of defence preparations --
4 are you able to follow me, Your Honours? Are you following me?
5 Q. Yes. We now need to look at page 14 --
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Why do you ask that?
7 MR. LUKIC: He asked me that question all the time because he
8 speaks too fast all the time.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that's not a problem for us, that's a
10 problem for interpreters. And if things are omitted, then only you and
11 your witness will be responsible for that, Mr. Lukic.
12 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: But Article 9 is referred to briefly in the
15 MR. LUKIC: We need Article 15 in connection with that.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: It's also referred to.
17 MR. LUKIC: We just want to clarify a few points. In Serbian
18 it's 14 -- page 14, in English it's Article 14, now it's difference in
19 between these two acts. In English we need Article 14 on page 14.
20 Q. [Interpretation] Professor, can you see Article 15?
21 A. Yes, I can see Article 15.
22 Q. From that can we see which administration within the department
23 was in charge of defence?
24 A. From this we can clearly see that the question of the country's
25 defence within the frameworks of the system of the Ministry of the
1 Interior is given over to the police administration --
2 MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... Article 14 in
3 Serbian, Article 15.
4 Q. [Interpretation] Please continue.
5 A. Within the frameworks of this article we have prescribed the
6 tasks, duties, and rights of the police administration which are
7 manifold, but for what we're discussing here it is important to note -- I
8 have page 12 in front of me now, paragraph 2 of that law and that is not
9 quite right, it should be the next page bearing in mind the text that I'm
10 looking at now in Serbian.
11 Q. We need the next page in English.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: No -- well, the English -- you have the page in
13 English. You've got Article 14 in English, the last paragraph. Is that
14 not what you're looking for? The department for defence matters.
15 MR. LUKIC: In English should be Article 14.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. Well, we've got it.
17 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: And we've got the last paragraph. It's mentioned
19 in the report, we know what it says. What is it you want to add to it?
20 MR. LUKIC: I want to connect it with the paragraph 4-0, 40.
21 Q. [Interpretation] Let us conclude with this, Professor. This
22 administration, does it draft plans?
23 A. Yes. This administration drafts a plan of the defence of the
24 republic under the competency of the ministry and this is its exclusive
1 Q. Let us have a look at Article 40. In English -- actually, it is
2 Article 39, this being page 44; in the Serbian it is Article 40, page 36.
3 Professor, are plans made within the SUP, defence plans and who's
4 responsible for those?
5 A. Within the framework of this article, the obligation to draft
6 plans is sent downwards according -- following professional lines from
7 the administration of the police to the secretariats and the departments
8 of the police in the area of secretariats, which are tasked with
9 conducting preparations for the defence of secretariats in case of an
10 imminent threat of war. It is stated that a department within any
11 secretariat needs to establish organization and manning strength in case
12 of an imminent threat of danger within the framework of the secretariat,
13 the organized security measures, et cetera, so the obligation is set
15 Q. Studying laws and bylaws, did you ever come across the MUP staff
16 being a part of the defence system within the framework of the MUP?
17 A. The staff was not part of the system of defence of preparations.
18 If I may continue I would say that -- well, let's go back to the level of
19 administrations. Within the administration of the police, departments
20 are formed; within those departments, we have sections immediately tasked
21 with defensive preparations. For example, in the penultimate paragraph
22 of the article which defines the tasks and authorities of the police
23 administration, it is stated that within the framework of departments for
24 PJP units reserve forces should be formed, within the PJP units and the
25 reserve forces. Within those departments, sections are formed. Under 1,
1 section for PJP units; under 2, section for defensive preparations; under
2 3, section for the reserve force. And then within the framework of the
3 departments of the police within secretariats, based on the systemization
4 of job posts and the law on the systemization of job posts, what is
5 foreseen is a job post for an officer tasked with these tasks, defence
6 preparations, reserve forces, and the training of the police in the
7 mentioned situations.
8 Q. Thank you. A question or two about the planning within the MUP,
9 it is in the same chapter. Let us go to Article 61 of the rule book on
10 internal organization of the MUP --
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Just before you do, just to be clear. It's not
12 obvious in the English that's on the screen, but where is the reference
13 to PJP?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in the document I have
15 which was in force at the time within the framework of the police
16 administration --
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Professor, we have Article 40 on the screen. Tell us what
19 article refers to PJP, what article in your rules.
20 A. If I may have a moment to find that piece of text.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you were referring in your answer to the
22 penultimate paragraph of the article which defines the tasks and
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, yes.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Under the section --
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- it's part of that penultimate
3 JUDGE BONOMY: -- of Article 40?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is a part of Article 15, Article
5 15, which regulates --
6 JUDGE BONOMY: How did we get to Article 15, Mr. Lukic? I'm
7 trying to follow this. It's in your interests that I follow it, and at
8 the moment I'm lost, I'm afraid. Maybe it's only me --
9 MR. LUKIC: It's not only you --
10 JUDGE BONOMY: -- but I'm one of three that count.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Professor, how did we arrive at Article 15? Why did you go back?
13 A. Because His Honour asked me where PJP units are mentioned. I
14 said that --
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Let me stop you there. In your last answer you
16 were referring to what you described as the penultimate paragraph of the
17 article, now what article is that? That's where I lost my way.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well. Your Honour, I had in
19 mind Article 15 of the rules --
20 JUDGE BONOMY: That wasn't because I asked you something,
21 Mr. Simonovic. You decided to go there. So let's go back and rewind and
22 let's try to understand what you're saying.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Concerning defensive planning --
25 A. Yes. Can we go back --
1 Q. Defensive planning --
2 A. Article 61.
3 Q. What is foreseen by Article 15, why did you mention the PJP?
4 A. Within Article 15, in the penultimate paragraph, it is foreseen
5 that within the framework of the police administration and within the
6 department for the PJP and the reserve forces, a separate department be
7 formed which should comprise sections, these being the section for the
8 PJP units, the section for defensive preparations, and the section for
9 the reserve force.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, thank you.
11 Can we have Article 15 then on the screen, please, and are we
12 talking about the English 15, Mr. Lukic, or did it bear a different
13 number in the previous --
14 MR. LUKIC: It's -- in English it's 14.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
16 MR. LUKIC: It's page 14 in English --
17 JUDGE BONOMY: And we saw it before, I think.
18 MR. LUKIC: Yes, yes. I would rather -- only if you have
19 something to ask.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: I want now to go to the second-last paragraph of
21 that in English, of Article 14 in English.
22 It seems to be the third-last paragraph in the English. It talks
23 about the police department consisting of the following, and included in
24 that is the section for special police units. Is that what you're
25 referring to, Mr. Simonovic?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, that is what I
2 was talking about. I was trying to say that within that administration
3 there were sections --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Departments.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- including such sections as the
6 section for defence preparation, the section for the PJP units, and as
7 part of the same section it is called the section for the PJP and reserve
8 force, and we were talking about defence preparations --
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Is the section for special police units, or PJP,
10 is that an organizational unit of the ministry?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the department for the
12 PJP and reserve forces is an internal organizational unit, which is a
13 part of the police administration, as part of the headquarters and the
14 public security sector. We have the basic organizational structures,
15 each containing its own internal organizational units. This is one such
16 internal organizational units. Perhaps I needn't go to the law which
17 regulates that per se.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
19 Back to you, Mr. Lukic.
20 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Q. [Interpretation] Professor Simonovic, let us move on to Article
22 61, it concerns planning. In the B/C/S it is 61; in the English it is
23 62, page 61. In the B/C/S Article 61, page 46.
24 A. The title of the article -- all right.
25 Q. Please continue slowly.
1 A. In the article -- in the title of Article 61 in chapter 7 it says
2 the way of programming and planning of tasks within the framework of the
3 Ministry of Internal Affairs, such a planning system is defined. Within
4 that system it is prescribed that the ministry puts forth programmes --
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Just stop there.
6 Now, this is all set out in the report, Mr. Lukic. Is there some
7 particular point that's to be made in addition to what's in the report?
8 MR. LUKIC: [Microphone not activated]
9 I just wanted to move to connect with the document P1239, so this
10 was just an introductory --
11 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Well, we understand what Article 61
13 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
14 Can we now have P1239 on the screens.
15 Q. [Interpretation] Let us move on, Professor.
16 A. Before us we have instructions on the organization,
17 implementation of the law enforcement activities in the security sector.
18 This is an amendment to the rules and it was in force during the material
19 time. It regulates the way police tasks should be carried out in the
20 security sector, which means at the level of police stations and lower.
21 This instruction directs the police force to how they should conduct
22 themselves at the basic territorial units, these being the municipal and
23 town units in keeping with the instructions.
24 Q. Very well.
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In English we need page 10, in the
1 B/C/S page 11.
2 Q. Explain to us briefly these paragraphs -- rather, articles,
3 Articles 29, 30, and 31.
4 A. Articles 29, 30, and 31 fall under the title Roman numeral V,
5 planning, organizing, guiding and controlling work in the sector. In
6 this chapter we have the system of planning, organization, directing, and
7 control of the work of the police described as part of the sector. It is
8 stated for that part of activities the secretariats are tasked to execute
9 them alongside the police stations. In paragraph 30 it says the -- the
10 planning, organizing, guiding, and controlling of work in the sector
11 shall be carried out at the level of secretariats. In the following
12 paragraph it says the commander of the police station and/or traffic
13 police station shall be responsible for those.
14 Q. Article 26 in the English it is the previous page and I believe
15 in the English [as interpreted] it also begins on the previous page.
16 Professor, Article 26.
17 A. I don't see that.
18 Q. Do you have it in hard copy?
19 A. I see it on the screen now. Could we please see Article 26. In
20 Article 6 it says: "In discharging his duties in the sector, the sector
21 leader shall undertake the following," and what follows are the tasks.
22 Task number 1: "Directly discharge work and tasks in the sector,"
23 meaning that he plans, organizes, and directs work, extends professional
24 assistance, directly assigns tasks and controls the performance of duties
25 by the policemen. It is at the lowest level, the sectoral level. Then
1 under 2 --
2 Q. Let us stop you. We will not go into any other sub-articles. I
3 would like to go to Article 8 at page 4 in the Serbian, page 3 in the
4 English. What can we see in Article 8?
5 A. In Article 8 we can see that at the level of the sector
6 integrated law enforcement work shall be ensured; the same is applied to
7 the level of the ministry at the level of administrations and then
8 secretariats. The integration of law enforcement work is the issue at
9 hand, in particular the planning, guidance, coordination, and control
10 responsibility of the discharge of duty. The entire planning system is
11 defined from top to bottom per organizational units. In practice it
12 means that the sector leader at the level of a police station, as you
13 know within any given police station there are several sectors, that
14 particular sector leader needs to coordinate and guide the work of his
15 policemen having in mind the specific security-related issues on the one
16 hand and on the other hand keeping in mind the principles forwarded to
17 him by the MUP. Such plans are adopted by the police station commander.
18 Then in turn, the police station commander's plans that have to do with
19 the station itself are adopted by the chief of the secretariat. One
20 needs to say another thing here. In addition to sector leaders as well
21 as police station commanders adopting plans for the work of the uniformed
22 police in the sector, within each sector there is an analyst, a person
23 collecting information and analysing, putting together a uniform plan for
24 the police station. The traffic police department makes their own plans
25 per traffic police sectors. On the other hand, the crime police
1 department or -- and other departments within the secretariat also create
2 their own plans following the same principles. These are general
3 principles received from the ministry, in keeping with the specific
4 security-related issues, they in turn try to make their own operational
5 plans to cover those. Based on those plans at the level of secretariats
6 we have operational plans for that particular month or an annual plan.
7 Such plans are then adopted by the ministry as a general rule. Then each
8 of the professional line plans need to be adopted by the professional
9 lines in the ministry itself. What does it mean? A plan drafted by a
10 police station commander. In addition to the chief of the secretariat,
11 it also needs to be received by the police administration. As for the
12 department of the crime police in their plan, it has to be approved by
13 the chief of the secretariat as well as the police -- crime police
14 administration in Belgrade
15 contains no staff.
16 Q. Professor, now I'd like to move on to the way in which
17 organizational units are controlled. 6D1305 is the document we need in
18 Serbian and P1074 in the English version. In English we need page 59,
19 Article 56; and in the Serbian version page 45, Article 54. Professor,
20 it's going to show up in English as well, but let's not waste any time.
21 Here it is. We have Article 56 in the English version. Tell us, please,
22 about Article 56 in the Serbian version, what does it prescribe?
23 A. Within chapter 6, under the heading: Mode of management of
24 organizational units, this defines the tasks that are included in the
25 articles that follow. It prescribed the principles of management and
1 control within the Ministry of the Interior. Within Article 56 it says:
2 "Departments, "resor," shall be managed by chiefs of departments, "resor"
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Is there a question you need to ask about this,
5 Mr. Lukic? It's set out in plain English in front of us.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Mr. Simonovic, within the system of control within the MUP of the
8 Republic of Serbia
10 A. For this task to be carried through, as far as control,
11 management, is concerned, first and foremost the staff would have had to
12 have been envisaged as an organizational units and it should have the
13 powers of an organizational unit; number 2, it would have to be contained
14 in Article 54, that's the system.
15 Q. Thank you. Let's look at Article 58 now. In the Serbian version
16 page 46 and in English we need Article 59 on page 60. Do these rules
17 envisage a system of managing organizational units?
18 A. Yes, these rules do envisage a system of managing organizational
20 Q. Do we see that in Article 58?
21 A. In Article 58 what is defined are the tasks of the chief of the
22 secretariat. In this way the system of management or control was brought
23 down to the secretariat level and further down. The chief of secretariat
24 is the number one person in the secretariat within the area for which the
25 secretariat was established in accordance with the Law on the Interior,
1 that is the law on --
2 Q. Please don't read.
3 A. Do you know why this is important? I have to explain. In
4 accordance with the Law on The state Administration and this is internal
5 organization relations within work and so on, it is important to see who
6 is in charge of the secretariat. So this entire system of secretariats,
7 not only from the point of view of police work, but from the point of
8 view of property law relations, employment law relations, and so on, all
9 of that is in the hands of the chief of the secretariat.
10 Q. At that level, is there place for a MUP staff in Kosovo for it to
11 take part in some forms of control?
12 A. Well, that would have had to be prescribed by this rule book.
13 The system would have had to be changed. I told you at the very outset,
14 the system had to be changed at the level of parallel information, that
15 is the way it had to be handled, that is the only thing that will could
16 be carried through in practice, however, it was not possible here because
17 the chief of secretariat is not responsible for his secretariat, for his
18 employees, who, to the ministry --
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
20 Mr. Lukic, there's a limit to the number of times you can say the
21 same thing. The witness is now pointing out to you, he said it at the
22 outset, he said it in his report, there's no room for a MUP staff in
23 Kosovo within the structure --
24 MR. LUKIC: In different areas, we have comment, we have
25 reporting, we have planning, so we have to clarify all these things.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well. But I can tell you that I'm much more
2 interested at this stage in knowing what the whole purpose of the MUP
3 staff for Kosovo was according to the witness, but no doubt eventually
4 we'll get there.
5 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, may I continue?
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Professor, were these regulations in force in Kosovo and Metohija
9 at the given point in time?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now I'd like to ask you something about the relationship between
12 the staff and the PJP, that is the last section in chapter 8 and in
13 chapter 9 of the report, dealing with the rules again. In the English
14 version we need Article 14, page 13; and now we're moving on to Article
15 15 on page 13 in the Serbian, the one that we had to jump to from Article
16 40. I cannot see it -- I see it in English, though.
17 Article 15, what administration does it deal with?
18 A. The police administration regulating the uniformed police.
19 Q. Thank you. In 1998 and 1999 who headed the police
21 A. As far as I know, Obrad Stevanovic, that's a fact.
22 Q. Very well. We said that the police administration is in charge
23 of uniformed police. Was the PJP part of that?
24 A. Absolutely, they were uniformed police and they were within the
25 police administration, as is stated here in this article, where tasks in
1 relation to that are spelled out.
2 Q. This police administration, does it draft certain documents
3 related to PJP?
4 A. Yes. This police administration does create a series of
5 documents that have to do with different aspects of PJP units.
6 Q. All right, it's all enumerated so --
7 A. Yes, yes, in this article.
8 Q. Yet you said in this administration has certain departments?
9 A. Yes, certain departments that are further subdivided into
10 sections. We've already talked about that.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, just one moment. You're referring to
12 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the report. Now, I don't think I've got a chapter
13 9. Chapter 8 is the internal organization of the Ministry of the
14 Interior. Is there another -- is it the chapter on the MUP staff that's
15 number 9?
16 MR. LUKIC: It could be my mistake. I'll check it.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a second, maybe it's page 83. Yeah, it may
18 be it's just not got a number, but on page 83 there is a section headed:
19 "The Republic of Serbia Ministry of the Interior staff for the prevention
20 of terrorism" --
21 MR. LUKIC: It was left on the previous page, the number 9,
22 only --
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Oh, yes, I see it.
24 MR. LUKIC: Sorry.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry. Thank you.
1 Now, can I ask just one question on this. Did I not read
2 somewhere that the PJP were not necessarily what we understand as police
3 officers? They might be people working in the fire service and from
4 other sections of the ministry? Or am I confusing your report with
5 something else?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I answer? May I?
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You are right, Your Honour, you
9 observed this correctly. In the decision on the establishment of PJP
10 units and in the foundations for the establishment of PJP units, it is
11 stated that when PJP units are being established, within them, if
12 necessary, specialists can be involved from other lines of work in order
13 to make it possible to have work carried out in a comprehensive manner.
14 For example, policemen from the administration of the crime police can be
15 attached to them; for example, those who are from the fire section or,
16 say, the legal affairs department. The Belgrade PJP, since it was rather
17 big, it had an inspector for legality within it, in order to ensure
18 comprehensive functioning; and that is stated in the document on their
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
21 Mr. Lukic.
22 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. [Interpretation] P1507, please, could we see that now. This is a
24 decision on the establishment of PJMs, or rather, PJPs later. Professor,
25 who adopted this decision?
1 A. This is the way it was. This decision was adopted by the
2 minister of the interior.
3 Q. Very well. Now, tell us when did this happen?
4 A. This decision was adopted in 1993.
5 Q. The 1st of August, right?
6 A. Yes, the 1st of August, 1993.
7 Q. In paragraph 2 what does it say? Who can use the PJP?
8 A. In Article -- in paragraph 2, subparagraph 2 of this decision
9 says that putting PJP on the ready, bringing them together, and engaging
10 PJM in terms of carrying out tasks from subparagraph 1 of this paragraph
11 shall be carried out in accordance with an order of the minister if the
12 minister does provide authorisation for this --
13 Q. [No interpretation]
14 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the question, it
15 overlapped with the answer.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: You overlapped, Mr. Lukic.
17 MR. LUKIC: Sorry.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Your question has been --
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation].
20 Q. What does point 7 tell us? It's probably the next page in
21 English and in Serbian.
22 Yes. Tell us who commands the PJP.
23 A. This is the way it is. The PJP commander commands the PJP, as
24 envisaged by the document on job specifications within the ministry. So
25 there is a position entitled the commander of the PJP.
1 Q. Just a moment. At what level?
2 A. The level -- I am sorry. The level of assistant minister, it
3 corresponds to the level of assistant minister.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Can I again clarify something. The P1072, the
6 English version of the rules, what is the year that that was adopted,
7 Mr. Lukic?
8 MR. LUKIC: 1994.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, that's where Article 15, or as it was then
10 14, appears?
11 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, in the other version.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Professor, in the previous rules was there the
13 equivalent of Article 15 prior to 1994?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I did not really
15 understand your question. Could you please try to clarify it for me.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, rule number or Article 15 of the rules is
17 the one you drew our attention to which dealt with the special police
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well. Yes, I understand.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: But the copy we're working on is from 1994. Did
21 that rule exist in an earlier set of rules? And the reason I'm asking
22 you is that the document we're now looking at was adopted on the 1st of
23 August, 1993, so it predates the rules that we are looking at. So I want
24 to know what is the authority under which the PJP was established if it
25 was not under Article 15.
1 MR. LUKIC: We can clarify that, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it's under Article 6 according to this.
3 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: But that makes it an organizational unit, does it
6 MR. LUKIC: Not always.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Professor -- we need page 1 in both versions, the introductory
10 part - and could you please explain to us whether the PJP is an
11 organizational unit; and if so -- or rather, if not, why was Article 6 of
12 the rules on internal organization applied?
13 A. Excellent question. When speaking of organizational units within
14 the Ministry of the Interior, the basic article is Article 6 of the law
15 of the Ministry of the Interior, which envisages that the minister can
16 organize, establish, organizational units, or rather, rules defining
17 them. Within the rules in Articles 2 and further on the organizational
18 units are defined within the Ministry of the Interior starting with
19 administrations down to secretariats and further on. However, in Article
20 6 of the rules on the internal organization of the Ministry of the
21 Interior, the possibility was left for establishing organizational units
22 by a decision to be made by the minister, a ministerial decision, which
23 was not envisaged within these secretariats and administrations and their
24 internal organizational units. What is prescribed then is that it is
25 only the minister who can, through his own decision, through an
1 individual decision establish these -- these special units or
2 organizational units that are not within this system. On the basis of
3 this Article 6, the minister established anti-terrorist SAJ. What was it
4 now -- what did it stand for? The special unit for anti-terrorist
5 operations, yes, yes.
6 Now, how can we conclude out of these units established by the
7 minister which ones are organizational units and which ones are not?
8 Well, we can come to that conclusion on the basis of the document on
9 staffing in the Ministry of the Interior, which envisages the staffing of
10 the SAJ with exact positions, the commander, the assistant commander, the
11 number of members --
12 Q. Do slow down.
13 A. Should I repeat this? I do apologise once again. I really have
14 to keep myself under control.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Are you saying -- it's a much simpler question.
16 If something's established under Article 6 is it essentially an
17 organizational unit or can it be something else?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, basically, but that is the
19 specific feature of legal analysis. You can have an organizational unit,
20 it can be that or not --
21 JUDGE BONOMY: But we've had -- you see, we've had witnesses in
22 this case who have told us that the PJP were not an organizational unit
23 of the MUP, and that's why I'm asking you the question as an expert.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, no problem. I'll try
25 and answer that question --
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it sounded like a problem, Mr. Simonovic.
2 Just give me a simple answer, if you can. What's your opinion? Just
3 tell me your opinion.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's like this. When it comes to
5 PJP, when we're dealing with PJP, that was not an organizational unit
6 because in principle it rallied these people around and not in the
7 staffing rules --
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Let me stop you there. In that case could it
9 properly be established under Article 6?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could the PJP -- I understand.
11 Now, in view of that, that the PJP rallied people within the frameworks
12 of the administration of the police department, the departments and
13 sections were formed, but it's just that part within the ministry which
14 was in charge of planning --
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Is there not a yes or no answer to that? I
16 mean --
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Should there be another article or is it a mistake that it's
19 number 6?
20 A. I think that this number 6 can lead to misunderstanding --
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Let me complete my questioning. It's quite
22 inappropriate for that sort of prompting to come. I'm trying to
23 establish directly with the witness what his opinion is about whether the
24 PJP is an organizational unit, and he's now told me it's not. I thought
25 a little while ago he told me it was, but I need to check the transcript
1 for that.
2 Now, what I'm really trying to establish is whether Article 15 of
3 the 1994 rules was actually introduced afterwards to rectify a situation
4 which had been created by this document, P1507. Is that what it looks
5 like, Mr. Simonovic?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour, I'm absolutely
7 certain that those rules were in force at that time.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, in that case no doubt you can make
9 appropriate researches at a break and clarify the position for us later.
10 Let's continue with Mr. Lukic's examination.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. When we were discussing the establishment of the PJP, I think
13 that we also discussed whether it could be established pursuant to
14 Article 6 or not. Was there any happier solution except for it be
15 established pursuant to Article 6 in your opinion? We don't say it was a
16 mistake; we're just asking whether there could have been a happier
18 A. I'm not quite sure whether we understand each other and I
19 wouldn't like to speak off the top of my head, so that's the problem I'm
20 having just now.
21 Q. Never mind, let's move on. In this document let us look at
22 points 4 and 5. Who could have determined the composition and the way in
23 which PJP members were recruited?
24 A. It's like this: The PJP was replenished or recruited by people
25 from the uniformed composition within the frameworks of the secretariat.
1 The principle for recruitment of the PJP was that within the frameworks
2 of the secretariat lists of units were compiled in -- which included
3 policemen who were regularly employed and the reserve police force, and
4 the PJP units were formed within the frameworks of the secretariat based
5 on the principle -- well, that means on the basis of this list,
6 establishment list. And then we had units where members were rallied,
7 not like the SAJ or JSO. So all the legal authorisations for policemen
8 included in PJP units were realized within the frameworks of the
9 secretariat, within the frameworks of which they realized their working
10 status; and that is why these PJP detachments were not organizational
11 units because if, for example, a policeman would carry out a
12 misdemeanour, he would be held responsible to his secretariat because he
13 drew up his labour relations within the frameworks of the secretariat and
14 not PJP, as opposed to people in the SAJ who concluded their labour
15 relations within the SAJ and was responsible to the commission and
16 command of the SAJ. And that is the basic distinction based on this
17 Article 6, that is to say units who had the character of organizational
18 units and others which did not, and I think that is quite clear.
19 Q. Thank you. Let's now take a look at the next page in both the
20 English and Serbian versions. We need to look at point 7. As I said,
21 let's look at point 7 which we can see on our screens which states who
22 commands the engagement composition. Well, anyway, who prescribes all
23 this? Who is it who prescribes all this? Who has the authority to
24 prescribe this?
25 A. This was prescribed by the minister; he enacted or compiled this
1 document. And how the document was to be acted upon. So the minister or
2 the person that he designated, a person designated by the minister, and
3 in principle the chain of command was from the commander of the PJP and
4 we said that the PJP commander, the position of the PJP commander was
5 established by an act on the staffing specifications of jobs within the
6 ministry. Therefore, the chain of command goes from the minister through
7 the head of the department to the command of the PJP as staffing
8 commanders dictated.
9 Q. Now we need 6D411 --
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Just hold this document for a moment. The members
11 of the PJP were paid extra when required to act; is that correct?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, from this document and also
13 from the basic premises on the establishment of PJP, which is the next
14 document, we can see that they had some coefficient, some additional,
15 additional sum to their salary, and it says -- it stipulates what that
16 coefficient was. It was -- it's on the last page, in fact, found on the
17 last page of document 6D411 --
18 JUDGE BONOMY: And who paid it to them?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I assume that payment went through
20 the personal incomes paid out at the level of the ministry as a whole.
21 Nobody else could have paid them.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, but were they paid by their own SUP or were
23 they paid in some other way?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm quite certain in
25 what I'm going to tell you next. The police at that time in Serbia
1 today was strictly hierarchically structured. Therefore, bearing in mind
2 that hierarchy I'm sure that it wasn't the SUP that paid them, but it
3 came from the MUP, a higher instance.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Who paid them their regular salary?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the same thing, they all
6 received money from the MUP, the MUP paid them.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Thank you.
8 Mr. Lukic.
9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. [Interpretation] Now let's move on to 6D411, please, and we see
11 that we have a document before us entitled: "Basic principles for
12 forming special police units of the Ministry of the Interior of the
13 Republic of Serbia
14 and it is the 1st of August, 1993, and we need to look at page 3 under V,
15 control and command. Can you see that, Professor? And I'd like to ask
16 you something in that regard. Who is it who can mobilise PJP units, who
17 has the authority to do that?
18 A. In this article it specifically says or it gives an explanation
19 that the recruitment of PJP can only be ordered by the minister of the
20 interior or an official authorised by him, and then it says a special PJP
21 unit shall be commanded by the commander through commanders of
22 detachments and officers of lower establishment units. I apologise for
23 being so fast. So let me repeat. Sentence 2 says: "The PJP units shall
24 be commanded by the PJP commander," that is to say the work established
25 within the systemizational staffing specifications through commanders
1 of detachments and officers --
2 Q. So the PJP commander cannot mobilise the PJP himself; would that
3 be correct?
4 A. Well, he would need an initial act prescribing that from the
6 Q. Thank you. Now let's just see -- not to go into e-court. Who
7 orders the mobilisation of the reserve police force?
8 A. Well, mobilisation of the reserve police force is determined by
9 the minister.
10 Q. As reference 6D132, point 2. We don't have to have it up on
12 A. As I said, the implementation of mobilisation, let that be
14 Q. Have you found it in the documents, acts, bylaws, and so on, that
15 the PJP was commanded by the staff or chief -- the chief person of the
16 staff or in the MUP of Kosovo?
17 A. Based on this normative system that we're discussing now and
18 organisationally speaking, it's quite clear that the chain of command is
19 definitely defined, conditionally speaking the chain of command. In this
20 chain the staff of the MUP for Kosovo is not mentioned.
21 Q. At that time the staff was in existence, was it not?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Thank you. I'd now like to go on and ask you something else
24 about the relationship between the staff and the SAJ. Once again it is
25 to be found in chapters 8 and 9. We need 6D1355 to be called up on
1 e-court, and we're going to add to that, or rather, we're going to add
2 confusion -- the confusion surrounding Article 6 because you see here
3 that it is on the basis of the same document and the same article that
4 the SAJ was established just like the PJP?
5 A. Yes, but with an essential difference which provides me with the
6 answer to your question, and that is this. May I go on? May I continue?
7 If in the first document -- well, the document we were discussing a
8 moment ago, we were looking at a moment ago, special decision on the
9 establishment of special PJP units refers to Article 6 on internal
10 organization, whereas the decision to establish and determine the SAJ
11 refers to Article 6, para 2 of the Law on Internal Affairs which defines
12 the organizational units. So that article of the law governing internal
13 affairs gives the minister the authorisation to pass a decision to form
14 organizational units in addition to those stipulated in para 1. And only
15 then we come to Article 6, para 1 of the Law on Internal Organization.
16 So that is an essential point which, as far as I'm concerned, express --
17 explains the difference between the legal status of the SAJ and the PJP
18 units in addition to what we've already said.
19 Q. And who passed this decision?
20 A. This decision was passed by the minister of the interior, just
21 like the other one.
22 Q. And did the SAJ have a commander and deputy commander?
23 A. Yes, the SAJ also had a commander, deputy commander, and that
24 structure well the SAJ was an organizational unit, that is to say a
25 member of the Ministry of the Interior would conclude a contract on
1 employment in the SAJ but he could not do the same for the PJP.
2 Q. Thank you. I'd now like to ask you something about the role of
3 the staff in relation to the status and sanctioning of policemen, and
4 linked to the status -- linked to status. The staff of the MUP of
5 Pristina, or rather, before that let me ask you something else or linked
6 to the SAJ. Did you find that the staff of the MUP of Pristina commanded
7 and managed and led the special anti-terrorist unit?
8 A. The staff of the MUP in Pristina was not able to control the
9 special anti-terrorist unit because, first of all, SAJ was an
10 organizational unit, that's the first point, there was no staff.
11 Q. But now we've gone back to the SAJ -- what was SAJ linked to
13 A. SAJ was linked to the minister, linked up to the minister, or
14 rather, the public section or department.
15 Q. All right. Now can we have a look at the first page of that
16 document, please.
17 A. Yes, SAJ was linked to the public security department, not to the
18 administration, directly to the department, not the police
19 administration. Its line, the chain, went from the chief of the
20 department, which can be seen in para 1 of this document onwards.
21 Q. Thank you. This document has not been translated, so would you
22 read out point 1 for us, please, but slowly.
23 A. "Special anti-terrorist units are formed as separate units
24 within the public security sector of the Ministry of the Interior of the
25 Republic of Serbia
1 Pristina)," which means that the SAJ was a unified organization with its
2 respective parts in Belgrade
3 one unit, one whole, falling under the same command, regulated by the
4 same act.
5 Q. Thank you. Let us move on to the role of the staff in relation
6 to the status and disciplining of policemen. The MUP staff in Pristina,
7 did it have the authority to engage policemen in Kosovo and Metohija?
8 A. The authorisation --
9 Q. While you're responding we will need to have a look at P1737.
10 A. The authorisation to deploy policemen was held by the minister or
11 another official authorised by him pursuant to Article 72 of the Law on
12 Interior. That law, in its Article 72, prescribes a possibility --
13 MR. LUKIC: In English it's page 21.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It envisaged a possibility to send
15 ministry workers to other organizational units even if it was against
16 their consent, if required by the security situation. I have that in
17 front of me. The Ministry of the Interior can send, et cetera. The
18 essence is that it has a direct link to the law on the state officials'
19 work. That law empowers the officials of the ministry to be able to
20 deploy workers of the ministry to other organizational units of the
21 ministry without their consent for a period ranging between one month
22 to -- up to a whole year. That was the legal basis, to introduce Article
23 72 as part of the Law on the Interior. And then pursuant to that
24 article, certain employees of the Ministry of the Interior were sent to
25 perform tasks in Kosovo. However, Article 72 does not refer to the
1 members of the PJP because they were deployed according to the
2 establishment lists following a different legal reasoning.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Can you tell us what is the authority for
4 assigning employees of organizational units -- well, what is an employee
5 of an organizational unit? Does that include the chief of the
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour --
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Does the term "employee of organizational unit"
9 include the chief and the deputy chief of any administration or
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. The answer is
12 defined by the law. Legally speaking we can distinguish elected
13 officials in ministries, according to the constitution, the assembly
14 could elect the minister, the prime minister, and ministers --
15 JUDGE BONOMY: [Previous translation continues] ... General
16 Lukic was - what was he? - the deputy chief of the SUP in Belgrade before
17 he was in Kosovo. Now, was he an employee of an organizational unit at
18 that time?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] His status was that of an employee.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: What is the authority of sending him to work in
23 something that is not an organizational unit in another part of the
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He was sent based -- well, in the
1 decision I saw it says pursuant to Article 72 of the Law on Internal
2 Affairs, that was the legal basis when the minister enacted that
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, is that wrong then? There's no -- that is
5 not a proper legal foundation; is that your position?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, the legal basis seems to be
7 fine. Under the law it is clear.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, what was the other organizational unit he
9 was being sent to?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would have to refer to Article
11 72, excuse me. Let us see what the law says.
12 Article 72 states: "The minister of the interior may assign
13 employees of organizational units to perform official duties in certain
14 organizational units in other parts of the territory of the republic
15 until posts in such organizational units have been filled."
16 I understand your question. Yes, that was a mistake. When I say
17 "a mistake," it means that the MUP staff was not defined as an
18 organizational unit; however, there was no other legal basis. Let us
19 have a look at Article 16 of the Law on Labour Relations in state bodies
20 and what it says. Your Honour, Article 16 of the Law on Labour
21 Relations, should I wait for it to be shown on the screen or should I
22 read it out loud in order to save time?
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Just tell us what it says.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Article 16 of the law it says,
25 this is the Law on Labour Relations and State Bodies, it is the basic law
1 for this regulation.
2 "Employees of state bodies can be sent to other state bodies
3 without their consent due to an increased volume of work if the officials
4 heading those organs agree on such a transfer."
5 Item 3 is interesting. The employee mentioned in item 1 of this
6 article can exercise his or her rights and duties pertaining to labour
7 relations with the initial organ, and thus you are correct. It was a
8 mistake because the MUP staff was not an organizational unit, not a state
10 JUDGE BONOMY: That's one way of looking at it. What you've just
11 identified compounds the problem because if there is a proper legal way
12 of sending Mr. Lukic to serve in a non-organizational unit and it's not
13 used and the presumption in law would be that everything in an
14 administration is done properly, then that would suggest that he was
15 being sent to an organizational unit.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Microphone not activated]
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Just, Mr. Lukic, please don't intervene when I'm
18 having a discussion with the witness.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is all clear to
20 me. You are completely right. The law says what it says; that is clear.
21 However, that does not qualify the MUP staff as an organizational unit
22 due to everything we've discussed --
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Is there a legal principle in the -- or was there
24 at the time, in 1999 -- sorry, we're talking about -- yeah, 1998, say,
25 was there a legal principle in Serbia
1 a properly organized administration things are done properly.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Such a principle applied the way
3 you defined it did not exist. However, one can draw a conclusion as to
4 the intention, the idea was in place in terms of organising the
5 administration and this is one of the elementary principles of
6 administrations. There were articles referring to that situation.
7 However, you pin-pointed this exactly. It is a legal shortcoming. As a
8 lawyer, I cannot dispute that. However, the fact of this person's sent
9 to that place does not make that body an organizational unit. The mere
10 act of deploying that person there does not make it so, and this can be
11 seen from the wartime [as interpreted] record of Mr. Lukic and everything
12 that we are about to look into, but you are correct. I hand it to you,
13 you pin-pointed it directly, it was a mistake, a gap.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, Mr. Lukic, where are we in your examination?
15 MR. LUKIC: Close to the end.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Professor, we need to have a break at this stage.
17 While we have that break could you please leave the courtroom with the
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well, Your Honour. Thank you.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: And we will resume in half an hour and that will
21 be at 20 minutes past 11.00.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 --- Recess taken at 10.51 a.m.
24 --- On resuming at 11.23 a.m.
25 [The witness takes the stand]
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.
2 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, before we continue, I just want to make
3 one correction. Transcript page 48, line 2, it's recorded wartime record
4 of Mr. Lukic, and expert said work record of Mr. Lukic or work book
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah. Thank you.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Professor, may we continue?
9 A. We may.
10 Q. Article 72 that we discussed, does it describe and define
11 organizational units as opposed to units which are not organizational
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Tell us what is the main purpose of this article.
15 A. That's the beauty of the legal science. We can try and interpret
16 this article so as to try and get to the gist of it. The basic idea of
17 the article is for the ministry, or rather, the administrations of any
18 given ministry can send their employees to other posts within the same
19 ministry without their consent.
20 Q. That will suffice. Let us please have 6D1360 next.
21 MR. LUKIC: We sent the translation of this document this
22 morning, but it's not in the system yet but the Prosecution should have
24 Q. [Interpretation] Professor, since as you usually like to say, are
25 you following me, I'm going to ask the same.
1 A. I am following.
2 Q. What is this about?
3 A. This is a work record, work log. It doesn't say who it belongs
4 to, but we have the unique identification number, based on that we can
5 see who it belongs to.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please go to page 3 of the
7 document -- page 2, first, page 2.
8 Q. Can we see who it belongs to?
9 A. This page reveals that this workbook belongs to Sreten Lukic. We
10 see his level of education, place of birth, and on the right-hand we see
11 the exams passed and so on.
12 Q. Let's go to page 3 next. I would like you to tell us the
13 following. The two entries in the middle, 7052 and 2243, what do these
14 refer to?
15 A. It tells us a lot. Let us try and clear up a few things. To me
16 as a lawyer this is crystal clear. The middle entry it says the title
17 and seat of company or institution at which one is employed. We can see
18 that this person worked with the SUP of Belgrade as of the 1st of August.
19 I can't tell what year it is exactly, I think it's 1987, the 1st of
20 August, right. And then the last date is when the employment ceased. We
21 can see here what organizational unit the aforementioned person worked
22 in, that is, where the person began working, where the person was when he
23 ended working, et cetera, et cetera. It applies across Serbia.
24 Q. What about 2243?
25 A. The entry 2243 it says that the aforementioned person began
1 working with the SUP of Belgrade
2 of January, 1992, the employment ceased on the 15th of July, 1999
3 person worked with the Ministry of the Interior in Belgrade within this
5 Q. What about the last entry?
6 A. The Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia
7 of July, 1999. This means that on that date the person started working
8 with that unit, that is, the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of
10 Q. It seems obvious --
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry, please continue, Mr. Lukic.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. In this work record there is no mention of the MUP staff. What
14 does that tell you?
15 A. That shows that the person was sent to the MUP staff and that it
16 exercised its work duties and obligation in the or with the
17 organizational unit he was sent from. He was a SUP Belgrade worker
18 during the year when he was there. This is in keeping with the Law on
19 Labour Relations and State Bodies. May I explain one thing further so as
20 not to waste any time later. If we look at the work record of a person
21 employed with the SAJ, then we would be able to see under name and seat
22 of the organization it would read SAJ since it was an organizational unit
23 as well as with the dates when the employment began and ceased.
24 Q. Thank you very much.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, Professor, does this document mean that
1 Mr. Lukic is still engaged by the MUP?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, formally, legally speaking,
3 the date of employment was the 15th of July, 1999, and there is no date
4 in the last column. Legally speaking, we come across the problem we
5 encountered before, and that is the imperfection of the work of the
6 administration. First of all, it is not possible that he's still
7 employed because he's been outside the MUP for a number of years and
8 there must be a decision on the termination of his employment.
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Could another explanation be that this is -- that had been
11 photocopied before his employment was terminated?
12 A. Yes, absolutely, sir, certainly.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Have you researched the question whether he's
14 still engaged by the MUP?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have not researched
16 that question.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Thank you.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But I am certain that he is no
19 longer a MUP employ. It is not possible and I believe it is
20 indisputable. This was probably copied before the last entry was made.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: So would there have to be a decision terminating
22 his engagement?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely so, in keeping with the
24 rules and the law, such a decision should exist. It was probably in
25 existence but it is not recorded here since this is just a photocopy.
1 I'm quite sure that in the original work record you have that but we
2 can't see it here.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: One of the things that your report says is that
4 when a person leaves the service of the MUP he is no longer entitled to
5 use his rank.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is absolutely correct, that is
7 in keeping with the Law on Ranks.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Virtually everyone here calls him General Lukic.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly, Your Honour, you are
10 quite right. He is no longer a general. In keeping with the Law on --
11 well, there are two laws here, one on the rank and the other on the
12 function. Once a person terminates his employment, that person no longer
13 has the right to use the rank, it is not the army where you can retain
14 your rank, but right now he's an ordinary citizen --
15 JUDGE BONOMY: I understand that. The fact that it happens,
16 though, led to me asking the question whether perhaps he is still engaged
17 by the MUP and therefore entitled to that rank --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly not.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.
20 Mr. Lukic.
21 MR. LUKIC: Maybe you noticed, Your Honour, that I always address
22 him Mr. Lukic. Only when we talk about that time when something has to
23 be clarified we say "general," maybe people wouldn't know who -- there
24 are many Lukics, as you can see.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. I'd like to ask you, Professor, is it customary and do you know
3 on the basis of what provisional bodies, commissions, are established
4 within state organs, within the state administration?
5 A. Yes, yes. A possibility is envisaged within state administration
6 organs to establish provisional bodies, temporary bodies. When speaking
7 about such bodies and commissions that are established within the
8 Ministry of the Interior, they are envisaged in Article 11 of the rules
9 on the internal organization of the Ministry of the Interior. I am
10 sorry, Article 10. In Article 10 it says that the chief of the
11 department or the chief of the secretariat can establish standing or
12 provisional staffs, commissions, working groups, and other working bodies
13 within the ministry or department in order to look into certain matters
14 from the line of work of the department and also, when necessary, in
15 order to carry out certain complex tasks so required to be carried out by
16 people who are specialised in particular organizational units."
17 Q. Thank you. So there is this possibility and also within other
18 state organs too?
19 A. Absolutely, that was the idea, to have the state administration
20 be as flexible as possible so that they can resolve different tasks.
21 Q. Did you ever see that the MUP staff in Pristina had the authority
22 to appoint policemen in Kosovo and Metohija, or rather, deploy them?
23 A. The MUP staff in Pristina did not have the right to appoint or
24 deploy policemen in Kosovo; that is to say they did not have the legal
25 possibility of changing one's employment status because that fell under
1 the purview of the organizational units involved. When we're talking
2 about the secretariat we're talking about the chief of secretariat; when
3 we're talking about the MUP, then the level is the chief of department --
4 well, there are different variants but this would be my basic answer.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: There's -- this isn't the basis you -- or are you
7 saying this is the basis for the establishment of the MUP staff? You're
8 not saying that?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon. Your Honour,
10 are you asking me this question?
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah. This is a provision that you say deals with
12 the appointment of ad hoc bodies, working groups, commissions. Now, are
13 you suggesting that that's the proper basis, legal basis, for the
14 establishment of the MUP staff?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the way it is. The MUP
16 staff was not based on this article. Other articles were invoked;
17 however, other bodies were based on this article because it was the chief
18 of the department that had established them.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: So where are we going on this in relation to the
20 MUP staff, Mr. Lukic?
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Professor, Article 43, paragraph 1, from Article 69 of the Law on
23 State Administration.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Article 7 of the Law on Internal Affairs.
1 A. May I?
2 Q. You see that that is mentioned as the basis for the establishment
3 of the staff dated the 16th of June, 1998?
4 A. Yes, yes, well this is the way it was. When -- well, how shall I
5 put this? The staff -- well, a body that did not have the status of an
6 organizational unit, then -- then -- then he invoked the Law on State
7 Administration, which gives the minister the right to be in charge of the
8 work of a specific ministry, that is to say to make decisions that have
9 to do with carrying out particular affairs within that ministry, and then
10 also he invoked Article 7 on the Law on Internal Affairs that says:
11 "The minister prescribes the way in which work will be carried
12 out within the Ministry of the Interior and provides instructions as to
13 how this work is to be carried out."
14 So this is all the work that has to do with some other matters
15 that go beyond the organizational units. As a legal line we have
16 Articles 23 of the Law on Ministries and Article 43 on the Law on State
17 Administration which authorises the minister to do that. If necessary we
18 can analyse these articles or whatever you say.
19 Q. [No interpretation]
20 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear Mr. Lukic.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, start again, please, you overlapped
22 with the answer.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. For the time being I don't want to go into it any further unless
25 Your Honour wants the Professor to explain these provisions further.
1 A. Your Honour, I'm prepared to do so.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: That's not necessary if Mr. Lukic does not want to
3 explore it. I'm perfectly capable of reading articles for myself.
4 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. As you looked at the documentation did you form an opinion of
6 your own as to whether the MUP staff in Pristina had the authority to
7 discipline any policeman in Kosovo and Metohija?
8 A. No dilemma about that because the system of disciplinary
9 punishment is in its basic elements regulated by the Law on Internal
10 Affairs, and it is spelled out more specifically in the decree on
11 disciplinary responsibility of persons employed in the ministry. Then
12 there is another line involved and that is -- there is another
13 instruction, rather -- or rather, there is another solution -- or rather,
14 a document, we look at it yesterday, it regulates this question in a
15 situation when there is a state of war --
16 Q. [No interpretation]
17 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter does not hear Mr. Lukic.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is clearly defined. It is
19 clear that the leader of the organizational unit can, can, as a
20 first-instance decision prescribe a sanction -- or rather, mete out
21 disciplinary punishment for less- or more-serious infractions within his
22 organizational unit. The second-instance is different, that involves a
23 disciplinary court.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. The only problem I have with your answer is that you said that
1 you looked at that yesterday?
2 A. Yes -- well, sorry, I mean I'm totally -- well, yeah. This is
3 something that is so well-known to me because I've been dealing with the
4 analysis of these legal norms for months now, so it's all so clear to me
5 and these are general matters.
6 Q. In your view, 6D464. What we have here is a document in which
7 the chief of the secretariat in Pristina addresses the Ministry of the
8 Interior of the Republic of Serbia
9 their approval to have a misdemeanour report filed against a policeman.
10 In your work did you come across such a case that the MUP staff could ask
11 for approval to file a misdemeanour report against any policeman in
12 Kosovo and Metohija?
13 A. The answer to that question is perfectly clear because all of
14 these questions have to do with establishing responsibility for starting
15 disciplinary proceedings and within the system of organizational units --
16 well, that is where it was. So it is only the head of an organizational
17 unit that can propose the initiation of such proceedings as far as
18 disciplinary responsibility is concerned. As for misdemeanours and that
19 responsibility, for a while there was a rule that was in force in Serbia
20 that the head of an organizational unit has to send a request that was
21 called approval along the line of work within the ministry to file a
22 misdemeanour report or a criminal report. The underlying idea of this
23 document that did perhaps have this clumsy title was that -- it wasn't
24 that the ministry was supposed to give its approval or not give its
25 approval. The idea as carried through in practice meant that within the
1 ministry there should be a uniform system of information with regard to
2 persons from this system of the ministry that had committed crimes,
3 misdemeanours, or disciplinary infractions. Approval was always given,
4 absolutely, it was always allowed. In this specific case the chief of
5 the secretariat would file a request to have misdemeanour proceedings
6 initiated before the court that it has jurisdiction from the point of
7 view of a territory.
8 Q. Thank you. Could the MUP staff provide this kind of approval --
9 just say yes or no.
10 A. No, no, that's for sure, no, it couldn't.
11 Q. 6D1339, please. The next document has not been translated, but I
12 can ask you even without that whether the MUP staff in Kosovo and
13 Metohija could ask approval for starting criminal proceedings, for filing
14 a criminal report, rather, I am sorry.
15 A. The situation is absolutely the same as in the case of
17 Q. Just say yes or no.
18 A. The answer is no.
19 Q. We're getting close to the end. 1D680, could that please be
20 called up. We're going to need page 2 in both versions, please.
21 Professor, what we have before us is a proposal of the minister of the
22 interior to the president of the Republic of Serbia
23 Mr. Sreten Lukic. Could you please tell us whether this document shows
24 whether this is a regular promotion or an extraordinary promotion,
25 fast-track promotion, and on the basis of what regulations can this be
2 A. That's clear. In the first paragraph of this document the
3 minister invokes Article 6 of the Law on Ranks of the Ministry of the
4 Interior. Article 6 of the law envisages regular promotions. In
5 Articles 7 and 8 certain requirements are stated, and Article 10 provides
6 for extraordinary promotions, so it is not Article 10, it is Article 6
7 that is referred to here.
8 Q. Thank you. How would you characterize the document that is
9 written for regular promotions? Is it a constituent or a declarative
11 A. As far as this kind of a document is concerned, well, it is a
12 document which, in fact -- well, conditionally speaking, it is hard to
13 distinguish this way but to have certain conditions met in the view of
14 the minister that a particular person had met the requirements for
15 regular promotion in accordance with the law.
16 Q. Thank you. My last question that His Honour Judge Bonomy
17 insisted upon as well --
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Just before you move to that, you will see the
19 final paragraph of that document which referred to Mr. Lukic excelling in
20 successful command and control of the MUP units engaged in the prevention
21 of terrorism in Kosovo. Can you tell us which MUP units these were?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm waiting for the translation.
23 Here it is. It's clear, Your Honour. The question is quite proper. The
24 arguments presented in paragraph 3 really do not hold water. That is the
25 difference between what exists in practice and what is written. As I've
1 explained so far, he could not engage in command and control. This is a
2 brilliant example of what formalism means in law without a base, without
3 grounds, without a foundation. Your Honours, I'm sure as a lawyer and a
4 person who tries to see beyond that and to see organization -- maybe this
5 was the 13th of May or some other occasion or on account of the bombing,
6 but he could not engage in command and control in view of the system.
7 That is what is quite clear within that system. We can adopt any norm
8 whatsoever, but if it's not part of the system, if it cannot live in that
9 context, then it is just a letter on paper and that is so clear to me.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: So in light of that were you able to establish why
11 in fact he was promoted?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the basis of studying this
13 document it is more than clear that this is a regular promotion, it is
14 not an extraordinary promotion. Now, why he was promoted, the 13th of
15 May, this is an appropriate occasion, the 13th of May. So the proposal
16 was made on the 11th of May, 1999, when the bombing of Serbia was
17 underway. I was in Serbia
18 50 people every week and this was on television. It was ridiculous to
19 me. That shows to me a state that does not have a strength of its own
20 and then it gives decorations.
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. But these are -- this is a regular promotion?
23 A. Yes, regular in his case, but I'm telling you there were a lot of
24 documents, officers -- generals, et cetera --
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Please slow down.
1 And, Mr. Lukic, this is the last time I will warn you --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm so sorry, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: -- this is the last time I will warn you not to
4 interfere when I am asking questions of a witness and getting answers
5 from him. It's happened three times in the course of this evidence
7 Now, what I'm trying to understand here is why a letter has a
8 justification for promotion. Now, are you saying you don't need a
9 justification to promote somebody?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this document would
11 have been perfect from a legal point of view had it only contained the
12 first paragraph in accordance with the law and regular proceedings and by
13 an authorised official in terms of proposals such as the minister is.
14 That would have been perfect from a legal point of view and it would have
15 been sufficient. The third paragraph shouldn't have been there, speaking
16 from a legal point of view.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: So in your opinion why is the third paragraph
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mean -- I think it's superfluous
20 and incorrect. My entire expertise and my appearance before this Court
21 has been an attempt to explanation this organization that he could not
22 exercise command and control over units of the Ministry of the Interior
23 because this was a different system, a different line.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: My question is simple: Why in your opinion is it
25 there? Or don't you know?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I could not explain -- I
2 cannot give a rational reason.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Thank you.
4 Mr. Lukic.
5 MR. LUKIC: I do apologise, Your Honour. I was on my feet, so I
6 was under the impression that I am leading the witness.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Professor, we have another area to get through, and His Honour
10 Judge Bonomy mentioned this at the beginning. In your opinion, what did
11 the staff do, the staff of MUP, in Kosovo and Metohija? In reviewing the
12 documents and listening to certain testimony did you gain an impression
13 of that? Did you come to a conclusion? Which tasks did the staff in
14 Kosovo and Metohija actually perform? And that would be my last
16 A. Well, on the basis of everything that I studied thus far, the
17 legal norms, the system itself, the individual decisions and I came
18 across and the documents that I looked at and so on and so forth, it is
19 without a doubt that that staff of the MUP within the system as far as
20 I'm concerned could undertake a process of informing vertically upwards
21 and downwards during a period of time, and that was because it was
22 introduced into the system of informing, having in mind the document we
23 studied yesterday. So that was the only systemic line or chain where it
24 could have functioned within that framework. Outside that, realistically
25 viewed, it could have been an auxiliary body dealing with logistics, for
1 example, or training or things like that, some sort of communication.
2 But it could not have been in the system of control and command and
3 planning because those were other systems, other lines, other chains.
4 Q. Thank you, Professor. That would be all as far as my Defence
5 team is concerned.
6 A. Thank you, too.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, Professor, do I rightly understand that these
8 are things you say it could have done but you haven't studied what it
9 actually did?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, what the MUP
11 staff - we're talking about the MUP staff, not the MUP itself, the MUP
12 staff we're talking about, right?
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because those are two different
15 things. Well, on the basis of an analysis of the documents and the
16 system, I'm absolutely certain that within the frameworks of that
17 particular system the MUP staff could only have been within the area of
18 information, bearing in mind the decision we looked at yesterday about
19 flank information and what we could explain. But it wasn't in the
20 system. When I say that I mean planning, I mean management, I mean
21 organization, and everything set out in that decision pursuant to
22 establishment, whereas the system as a whole did not change.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
24 Any cross-examination by any Defence counsel?
25 You will now be cross-examined by the Prosecutor, Mr. Stamp.
1 Mr. Stamp.
2 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Cross-examination by Mr. Stamp:
4 Q. Can I just ask you a little bit about yourself, Professor. In
5 1999 where were you working at? I can't make out exactly where you were
6 from your CV.
7 A. Mr. Prosecutor, in the course of 1999, that period, I was
8 employed at the Faculty of Law in Kragujevac as a professor on the
9 subject of crime, criminal science. Now, in 1999 as well I was professor
10 of criminal science at the Faculty of Law in Belgrade.
11 Q. Very well.
12 A. So that -- during the war period I went to Belgrade to hold
13 classes there because tuition was ongoing during that time and so were
14 the examinations.
15 Q. Thank you. Have you ever worked in the MUP?
16 A. I was never an employee of the MUP; however, I worked on several
17 projects after the changes in Serbia
18 which had to do with police reform. So I'm one of the founders of
19 community policy [as interpreted] in Serbia. I wrote a book about that,
20 I was member of certain commissions working on the project in my own
21 town, the town of Kragujevac
23 MR. STAMP: I see --
24 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, there's a -- I think a transcript or
25 translation issue at page 17, line 13, I believe he said community
1 policing not policy.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Community policing, yes, that's
3 your term and your model and you're well-acquainted with that, I believe.
4 It's a different concept for the police than it was in 1998 and 1999. So
5 the police in Serbia
7 MR. STAMP:
8 Q. Okay. I see or I saw from your CV that you have published in the
9 area of what you call criminalistics and criminal trials especially
10 interviews of accused. Prior to preparing this report did you publish
11 any work in respect to the structure and organization of the MUP in
13 A. Well, I wrote about the organization of the police within the
14 frameworks of my book, in my book, where I deal with the problem of
15 community policing and support work to that book. And within that the
16 organization of MUP, both in Serbia
17 the former Yugoslavia
18 try and draw certain conclusions and make certain proposals. So the
19 answer is I dealt with the problem of the organization of policing in
20 Kosovo, organization illegally [as interpreted] and so on.
21 MR. STAMP: Could we have a look at P1505.
22 MR. LUKIC: We have to correct this one as well, 66, 10, says
23 organizationally, legally, and so on. He definitely didn't say
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not say illegally, no.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Professor, your last answer says, but your CV
3 doesn't disclose this, that you dealt with the problem of the
4 organization of policing in Kosovo. Have you dealt with that
5 specifically as a separate matter or do you mean simply that you've dealt
6 with policing in Serbia
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I dealt with that
8 within the frameworks of police work in Serbia, that is to say this
9 police work in Serbia
10 throughout the territory of Serbia
11 applied, the same system of organization and responsibility. There was
12 no difference, and that is something I dealt with, bearing in mind the
13 knowledge that was necessary to promote the police to, introduce the
14 community policing system as it exists elsewhere in the world. So I
15 looked at its implementation through the projects that I was involved in.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
17 Mr. Stamp.
18 MR. STAMP: Do we have 1505?
19 Q. And while we're looking at it, I'd like to go to the part of the
20 report where you deal with it specifically, that is page 85 in English, I
21 think that's page 149 in B/C/S.
22 A. What page did you say in Serbian, please?
23 Q. 149.
24 A. Yes, go ahead, I've found it.
25 Q. Well, I must confess that when I read this paragraph I did not
1 understand you to be saying that this order of the minister, P1505, was
2 an order that was impossible to implement, as you have put it here today
3 or yesterday, what you described as a mission impossible. Indeed,
4 without reading everything you said about it on that page, I --
5 A. Would you like me to --
6 Q. -- will just read one part and ask you a question. This is the
7 first paragraph of page 85 in English, and the penultimate sentence
9 "Also, there was a provision which enabled the head of the staff
10 to request that other ministry employees be assigned to the staff. Such
11 assignment was possible pursuant to Article 72 of the Law on Internal
12 Affairs. These illegal provisions made it impossible to assign employees
13 to duties from one organization of unit in the Ministry of the Interior
14 to another in any part of the Republic of Serbia
15 unique or special option. These were regular options envisaged by the
16 Law on Internal Affairs."
17 And the proceeding sentences in that paragraph led me to the view
18 that you're saying that this order that you have before you, 1505, was
19 not impossible to implement but was, in fact, implemented. So I would
20 ask you first: Did you in your report say that order 1505 was impossible
21 to implement and where, if so, did you say so?
22 A. Do you wish me to answer now? The entire analysis of this
23 document in a way leads to that conclusion; however, on page, for
24 example, 149 in the Serbian version, paragraph 3, paragraph 3 of that
25 page, says the following. And we're talking about the decision by which
1 the staff was established. It says: "The substance of this decision
2 lies in the fact that none of the organizational units at the seat of the
3 ministry in Belgrade
4 in Kosovo and Metohija, and none of the organizational units attached to
5 them of the ministry in Kosovo and Metohija did not lose with the
6 formation of the staff any part of its competence and authorities."
7 So it is clear from that that you can draw the conclusion that I
8 made orally. That's right, isn't it.
9 Q. You mean in saying that none of the organizational units lost any
10 part of their responsibilities, it follows logically that the minister's
11 order was, therefore, impossible to implement. Very well, that is your
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. The following sentence after the part you just read: "The staff
15 was only an admission to the already-existing organizational structure
16 and horizontal and vertical lines of command established by the acts of
17 internal organization of the ministry and the RDB in the ministry and not
18 in any way a substitute that broke, changed, or altered internal
19 organizational structures and lines of command.
20 Professor, weren't you saying that the staff was an
21 organizational form that complemented the structure that existed in
22 Kosovo at the time; is that what you were saying in your report?
23 A. I do apologise, but let's take it this way. The MUP staff was
24 not an organizational unit and was not within the system, whereas the
25 system existed outside the system defined by law and the rules and the
1 norms emanating from the rules. Now, with the formation or -- with this
2 decision not a single authorisation or duty or assignment of the other
3 organizational units was taken away from them and handed over to the
4 staff and they had to say that 100 per cent of the authority that the
5 secretariat in Pristina had, for example, 10 per cent or 20 per cent is
6 handed over to the MUP staff; MUP staff, no, that was not the case. What
7 I'm certain of without entering into the system or what did not enter
8 into the system was the dispatch of the alleged information of the MUP
9 staff, but this takes nothing away from others in Kosovo, it just adds a
10 new obligation because of certain strategic goals having to do with the
11 question of analysis. So nothing was taken away from anybody. You can't
12 say you have 100 per cent without taking away something from someone
13 else, the system of rights, responsibilities, that's the problem, and
14 that's why I say I stand by that.
15 Q. I'm not sure I understand your answer, but when you say that the
16 staff was an addition to the already-existing organizational structure
17 and horizontal and vertical lines of command established by the acts on
18 internal organization, what do you mean if not that the staff was
19 complementing the structure that already existed in Kosovo?
20 A. But the staff was not complementary, it was outside that existing
21 structure, like an auxiliary body, an addition, and that emanates from
22 the entire system that was established by the rules governing the
23 internal organization of -- for the area of internal affairs. So that
24 must be clear to one and all. Law and legal matters depend on logic,
25 it's mathematics, you can measure it, and that is why law is a science.
1 Q. I see. In the previous page of your report of the English
2 version here, you refer -- and this is page 84, first paragraph which
3 deals with 6D1368, an order --
4 A. Can you tell me what the page is in Serbian so that I'm able to
5 follow, Mr. Prosecutor.
6 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
7 A. Which paragraph, which sentence, please?
8 Q. I think the paragraph -- it's one paragraph in that page I
9 think -- or the first page of that page, 147 --
10 A. It's what's the sentence?
11 Q. It's at footnote 441.
12 A. Footnote -- it's footnote 446 and 448 in my version, but I'll go
13 back to 441. 441 is on page 146 of the Serbian, but I found that.
14 Q. I see, it goes from 146 to 147. And it refers to a decree on the
15 establishment of the ministry staff in Kosovo on the 11th of June, 1999
16 which for the record is 6D1368. And --
17 A. Could you provide me with that document, please, I would like to
18 see it.
19 MR. STAMP: Can we have 6D1368 in e-court, please.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Have I been given the document? Is
21 it in front of me? Is this what I'm looking at? The 5th of April, 1996
22 that's what I have.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Just hold on and it will appear before you on the
24 screen in a moment.
25 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
1 MR. STAMP: I may have a hard copy.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: A copy will be printed, Mr. Stamp. Apparently
3 there's a problem with e-court.
4 Now you're ...
5 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
6 MR. STAMP:
7 Q. You have it there now? This is a decision establishing the MUP
8 staff for Kosovo of the 5th of April, 1996 [sic].
9 A. Yes, I have it.
10 Q. And you look at paragraph 2.
11 A. Yes, in item 2 it says: "The task of the staff is to" --
12 Q. You don't need to read it. Just have a look at it and paragraph
13 3. In paragraph 3 it will indicate that it can issue orders and control
14 the work in progress. And if you look at the end of it --
15 A. I see that.
16 Q. -- you will see that this was issued by the assistant minister
17 Djordjevic, the 11th of June, 1997. I'm sorry, if I said 1996 before.
18 A. And your question is --
19 MR. LUKIC: One second. I'm sorry for interrupting just now, but
20 I don't think that we have this number or the number is wrong, 6D1368 is
21 not on the list of the exhibits we used with this witness.
22 MR. STAMP: I think it is.
23 MR. LUKIC: It's not.
24 MR. STAMP: Or -- well, even if it is not on the list it ought to
25 have been on the list. This is a document --
1 MR. LUKIC: It's a different matter, it ought to be. It's not on
2 the list.
3 MR. STAMP: It's referred to in footnote 441 of the report that's
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Footnote 441 deals with another document -- oh,
6 sorry, 441.
7 MR. STAMP: 441.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: 11th of June, 1997.
9 MR. STAMP: Yes. If you look at the signature section of the
10 document you will see --
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
12 It's in the report, Mr. Lukic.
13 MR. LUKIC: Okay. Thank you.
14 MR. STAMP: Yeah.
15 Q. Now, this is -- this decree giving the MUP staff the status and
16 these powers in 1996, are you also saying -- in 1997, I'm sorry - that
17 this one was impossible to implement, a mission impossible?
18 A. I understand your question very well. I will try to provide you
19 with an answer, a logical one, and I'll try to explain my view of the
20 situation following the analysis I carried out. We are lawyers. There
21 is no dilemma that each individual document needs to be implemented. The
22 systemic regulation needs to be changed. It is one of the basic
23 principles any legal system operates on.
24 Q. Can I ask you to pause here. We'll get to the explanations --
25 A. Very well.
1 Q. -- and legal and scientific explanations shortly. But could you
2 just tell me first if it is your opinion that this which has similar
3 tasks to the order of June 1998 and similar powers to the order of June
4 1998 that you said were impossible to implement, if you also opine that
5 this was also impossible to implement, the one before you now.
6 A. That document is an individual decision and it doesn't change the
7 system. It was made by the chief of the sector, not the minister. The
8 organization and functioning of the ministry is something that is
9 regulated by the minister pursuant to various laws that I may refer you
10 to. That means that no individual decision on the part of the chief of
11 sector which is at the lower level than the minister could change the
12 systemic document put into force by the minister, such as the rules, and
13 it also needs to be approved by the government in keeping with the
14 regulations I mentioned yesterday. It is a decree --
15 Q. I just want a simple answer to the question. I take it your
16 answer is in respect to this order, the 11th of June, 1999 -- 1997, was
17 also impossible to implement; is that what you are saying?
18 A. Yes, but the times were different and it wasn't felt so much.
19 Q. Okay. In the next page, page 147 in Serbian and it's same page
20 in English, page 84, you also deal with the next decree which renewed
21 the -- or which re-established the ministry staff in Pristina, the decree
22 of the 15th of May, 1998
23 up now? This is another decision of Assistant Minister Djordjevic. And
24 if you look at the mandate or the task at page 2 -- at item 2 you'll see
25 that it's pretty much similar to the later order of the minister in June,
1 except that it now incorporates the suppression of terrorism. I just
2 want to know, are you saying now that this order is also -- was also
3 impossible to implement?
4 A. Esteemed Prosecutor, this decision was made pursuant to Article 2
5 on the rules of internal organization. If we refer to Article 10, we see
6 there that the minister of the chief of secretariat can establish
7 individual certain bodies, commissions, or working groups in order to
8 analyse individual areas and tasks pursuant to a minister's approval. It
9 is of even less legal validity --
10 Q. Sorry. Before we get to that, I -- really, what I want to find
11 out is whether or not over the years, 1997, 1998, 1999, the minister of
12 interior and the deputy minister kept making orders establishing a staff
13 which were impossible to implement. So I just want to know if you're
14 saying if this one also was impossible to implement.
15 A. I would like to be able to convey to you something that I'm
16 absolutely certain of as an expert who dealt with the police in a
17 professional manner. If we analyse this document we can see that it was
18 made on the 15th of May, 1998, approximately one month after the decision
19 by the minister. This decision was made by the chief of the SUP. There
20 is another decision one month prior to that made by the chief of the
21 sector --
22 Q. Sorry.
23 A. Excuse me.
24 Q. I hear your answer to include a statement that this decision is
25 made by the chief of the SUP. You may be --
1 A. Excuse me, the chief of the public security sector, that's the
2 person who signed the document --
3 Q. Now, before you --
4 A. -- the person before the minister.
5 Q. I think question I'm asking you is capable of a yes, affirmative,
6 or no, negative, answer. Is this document --
7 A. If you put a specific question, I'll answer it with a yes or no.
8 Q. Was impossible to implement, this order of June 1998?
9 A. Do you have in mind the decision made by the chief of the sector,
10 Djordjevic? I don't see the date. I think it was in May.
11 Q. Yes. 15th of May, 1998.
12 A. Isn't it clear that a month later there was, or rather, that this
13 decision was a month later than the original one. Had it not been for
14 the first one, this would not have been able to be implemented. The
15 situation is getting more complex, the paper trail can longer no reflect
16 the situation in the field, and that's it, that's the essence. Legal
17 norms should be viewed within the social context. Three decisions are
18 made within a single month and it is a clear indication that papers could
19 not resolve the issue.
20 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
21 A. Law requires normative analysis, formal analysis --
22 Q. You know, I really am not understanding what you are saying. Are
23 you saying there is no point in looking at these orders, paper doesn't --
24 the orders made by the minister and by the chief of the public security
25 department don't matter?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Okay. Can you tell me, please, whether or not this is your
3 opinion that this order before you was also impossible to implement?
4 A. The proof that it could not is that there another decision made a
5 month later.
6 Q. Very well. So your answer is no. Let's just look at the one
7 made a month later. This is P1505, which is what you deal with in -- at
8 page 85 in English, page 149 in B/C/S, of the report.
9 MR. IVETIC: Just one moment, Your Honour, Mr. Stamp I believe is
10 misstating the testimony of the witness when he says your answer is no.
11 When the question is: Was it also impossible? I believe the answer of
12 the witness was yes and it's [indiscernible] based on the fact that there
13 was a second one a month later. So I think Mr. Stamp is misstating
14 the --
15 JUDGE BONOMY: I disagree with you, Mr. Ivetic; I agree with
16 Mr. Stamp. But since you highlight confusion perhaps we can go back to
17 the witness and see if he will give a simple, straightforward answer to a
18 simple, straightforward question.
19 Was P1251 as at the date it was passes impossible to implement,
20 yes or no?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean the document passed in May
22 by the chief of the sector?
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's the one. No, because a
25 month later another document was passed. Had the first one been able to
1 be implemented the other one would have been necessary.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: So the answer is no, Mr. Ivetic.
3 Are we agreed on that now?
4 MR. IVETIC: I belive not still, Your Honour. When the answer
5 is saying was is it impossible, and he's saying that it could not be
6 implemented, that means that it is impossible. I mean in Serbian it is
7 very clear. I don't see how to simplify things any further. He's been
8 very --
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Just read the sentence. Had the first one been
10 able to be implemented the other one would have been, and I think the
11 answer was unnecessarily, has been translated as necessary.
12 MR. IVETIC: Unnecessary, correct. So the answer is that, Yes,
13 it was impossible. It again goes to the original question --
14 JUDGE BONOMY: And that's what Mr. Stamp was reflecting in his --
15 MR. IVETIC: You said the answer was, No, there was no
16 impossible. That is why I rose to my feet because I think now that we're
17 on the same page that's the answer of the witness but at line number 20
18 Mr. Stamp interpreted this same answer as being no that it was not
19 impossible. That is a very clear issue.
20 MR. STAMP: It was not possible, but I think we're on the same
21 page, we understand --
22 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.
23 Mr. Simonovic, when you're asked to give a yes or no answer, and
24 that is possible, please do so because counsel can ask you supplementary
25 questions to clarify the situation.
1 Now, Mr. Stamp, please continue.
2 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. So we get back to P1505, the minister's order of the 16th of June
4 1998. And I'd like you to look at paragraph 6 thereof. He revokes the
5 order I just showed you and goes on or -- and also re-establishes the
6 staff. Now, if you look at the first sentence after he names the members
7 of the staff, he says:
8 "The expanded staff shall also include chiefs of the secretariats
9 for internal affairs. And branches of the RDB, RDB in the autonomous
10 province of Kosovo
11 Will you agree with me -- would you --
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Just be patient, Mr. Simonovic, a question will be
14 MR. STAMP:
15 Q. Would you agree with me that the chief of the public sector
16 department, the RJB, would not have been empowered to expand the role of
17 the staff to include RDB, that is something that the minister himself
18 would need to do?
19 A. That is clear, you are right. I agree.
20 Q. Well, would you agree -- I think you have said so in you report
21 that the fundamental difference between this order and the previous one
22 is that it expanded the role of the MUP staff Pristina to include the
24 A. Want an explanation?
25 Q. Well, if -- is that something you agree with, that the effect of
1 this would be to expand the role of the MUP staff to include the RDB?
2 A. First of all, again we're going back to the rules, but it is
3 necessary to change the rules. But if we look at this decision and if we
4 analyse the decision it's quite clear. See, it is called the decision to
5 establish a ministerial staff for the suppression of terrorism; that is
6 to say that it has a broader name than the other decisions. Now, if we
7 were to carry out an analysis we would have to agree that in order to
8 suppress terrorism successfully it is necessary to establish a level of
9 cooperation between the RDB and the RJB since terrorism is followed
10 through the RDB and the RJB. That is generally known. Therefore, this
11 name, the name of this decision is so broad. However, let's look at it
12 this way. We can look at it systematically and formally. If we were to
13 look at this -- are you following me?
14 Q. Yes, yes, yes, but I think you have answered --
15 A. Should I go on?
16 Q. I was really asked you about the expansion of the
17 responsibilities of the staff to include the RDB, and I think you agree
18 with me that that would require the intervention of the minister. Can we
19 look at P1811 --
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Before going on. Do you accept that the
21 document --
22 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
23 JUDGE BONOMY: -- do you accept that the document in June revoked
24 the one in May?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sure, I agree.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
2 Mr. Stamp.
3 MR. STAMP:
4 Q. If we look at 1811 quickly, it's 31 May 1999, an order of the
5 minister on the establishment on the staff. And I think you -- not I
6 think. You said at page 157 -- 151 of your report, page 86, second
7 paragraph of the English in respect to this document, P1811, which I
8 think is there before you, that the tasks set out remains unchanged from
9 the previous decree. The question is: Are you saying again that as late
10 as May 1999 the minister was still issuing these orders which were
11 impossible to implement?
12 A. Yes. May I explain?
13 Q. Please.
14 A. These documents show that attempts were made through paperwork,
15 the form, but the situation was so complex that the ministry could not
16 deal with the problem of terrorism, only within or with its own system.
17 That's why in June 1998 at the Supreme Defence Council a decision was
18 made that five-stage plans on the suppression of terrorism should be put
19 into practice. The minister did not know of that session and that
20 decision of the Supreme Defence Council at the moment when he passed the
21 act of the 16th of June. When the decision was made by the Supreme
22 Defence Council, this being the highest legal act, it could no longer be
23 implemented because a plan adopted at a higher level was supposed to be
24 implemented, the five-stage plan, which also envisaged attempts at
25 coordination and joint action on the part of the ministry -- the police
1 and the army in Kosovo at the time. This was another reason due to which
2 the problem of terrorism in Kosovo could not only be resolved through the
3 activities of the Ministry of the Interior and its staff. It contributed
4 further to the argument, stating that the individual decision which was
5 analysed here could not be implemented in practice because other norms
6 and activities were underway.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: What -- the question you were asked was about May
8 1999. What's this answer got to do with the situation in May 1999?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Your Honour. There's no
10 dilemma. This decision that was made in May 1999, it simply copied the
11 tasks that had been adopted a year before that. They could not have been
12 applied then, a year earlier, and they couldn't be applied earlier
13 because the system was -- now what else is interesting?
14 JUDGE BONOMY: But if in 1999 this was still happening how could
15 something have done by the Supreme Defence Council in 1998 explain any of
16 it, including what was happening in 1998 as well as 1999?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In 1999, in May, it's the 31st of
18 May, what is underway is the bombing of Serbia, NATO is bombing Serbia
19 and what happened happened. So by virtue of that fact, legal
20 perfectionism could not be enforced, I mean that is my explanation for
21 this kind of thing. There is yet another matter there that is of
22 interest. The tasks of the staff are completely the same, in the
23 decision from a year before that and this one from May 1999. However,
24 the composition of the staff is not the same. My understanding, as I
25 studied the subject, was that the professional structure of the officers
1 involved was not the same. So the question is: How can you simply copy
2 the same tasks for people who belong to a different kind of police
3 profession or different kinds? There is another thing we haven't
4 mentioned. In order to implement some voluminous and complex tasks,
5 irrespective of the system of organization of legal norms, as far as I
6 can see here and as far as I managed to understand -- I beg your pardon.
7 On the basis of this entire case, on this staff there was always between
8 7 and 12 people. Do you think that 7 or 12 people can do all of those
9 things that were placed under their jurisdiction? There is another thing
10 that can be looked at as a counterpart. The provincial secretariat of
11 the MUP had about 1.000 people, a personnel of 1.000. I don't know about
12 the staff of the Pristina Corps. And to give such tasks to seven men, I
13 mean really, the only explanation I can give is that paper can take
14 anything. I'm an expert, I am trying to go into the core of the matter,
15 to use this logic to the very end, to have the Court see it that way, and
16 I want that with all my heart because it is crystal clear to me.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Logic won't answer the problems that are posed by
18 these documents, Professor. We need to get to the heart of the matter
19 and that's where expertise is usually of particular assistance.
20 Anyway, we will develop that in the afternoon. It's now time to
21 break again. That break will be for an hour, so would you please --
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: -- leave the courtroom with the usher and we'll
24 see you at quarter to 2.00.
25 [The witness stands down]
1 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.45 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 2.17 p.m.
3 [The witness takes the stand]
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp.
5 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honours.
6 Q. Professor, you said in your evidence and in your report that the
7 authority to deploy the special police units, in particular the PJP, was
8 vested in the minister of interior or his duly appointed designate. And
9 you also said - let me go straight to it - at page 150 of your report in
10 B/C/S, page 86 in English, first paragraph of page 86 in English, and I
11 could just read the part I want to focus on.
12 "In other words, the minister assigned the staff only with
13 specific tasks from the scope of his own authorisations. He also kept
14 all these authorisations. He delegated them to the staff but did not
15 transfer them to the staff. The minister could not reduce the
16 ministerial power that pursuant to the constitution and law belongs to
17 the minister."
18 Now, is there any law you're aware of that prevented the minister
19 from delegating to the staff - to use your word, delegate - the authority
20 to deploy the PJP?
21 A. As far as I understood your question, the minister wasn't
22 absolutely free to do so, he must behave within the frameworks of the
23 authorisations prescribed governing the interior functioning of the MUP.
24 The minister had the right to bring in the rules, but the rules had to be
25 adopted by the government and the government could change it. So
1 ministerial authority was restricted in that sense. He is only a part of
2 the government. He cannot add -- act outside of the policy of his
3 government or change arbitrarily the rules or transfer authority to
4 others. I can stipulate the laws that bear that out if need be.
5 Q. When you say the minister delegate his -- certain authorisations
6 to the staff, what authorisations did he delegate to the staff?
7 A. If we analyse what he delegated to the staff, then we have to
8 start out from looking at what he could realistically designate to the
9 staff, what it was in realistic terms that the staff could do, bearing in
10 mind the decision and bearing in mind what could be realistically put
11 into practice. So it's only in the field of information that the staff
12 was able to be part of an auxiliary link in the chain, but not more than
13 that. The staff could not bring in decisions, plan, organize, manage,
14 that was within the frameworks of another system. So, in fact, the
15 minister could not designate that to someone else without changing the
16 rules and to change the rules the government had to approve this, so
17 that's the crux of the matter.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: This -- you asked a simple question, Mr. Stamp.
19 Are you departing from that question?
20 MR. STAMP: No, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, if you're not then perhaps you would ask it
22 again and ask the witness to answer it clearly.
23 MR. STAMP:
24 Q. Can you clearly and simply just tell us what authorisations you
25 are speaking of that were delegated by the minister to the staff?
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Well -- no, that's not what I understood your
2 question to be. Your question related to the PJP. Are you wanting a
3 wider --
4 MR. STAMP: Sorry --
5 JUDGE BONOMY: -- are you wanting to deal with a wider issue or
6 do you want to deal with the PJP?
7 MR. STAMP: The question I'm dealing with, and I'll get back to
8 the PJP, is in respect to his statement that the minister delegated
9 certain authorisations to the staff.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. That's fine. But please note that the
11 earlier question about the PJP was not answered.
12 MR. STAMP:
13 Q. Can you just focus on that. Do you know what or can you tell us
14 simply what authorisations you are referring to here that were delegated
15 to the staff?
16 A. Well, in simple terms, the decisions that could be implemented in
17 practice. So the minister had the idea -- well, of what he wrote, in
18 fact; however, that was not applicable. So where's the problem there?
19 There's another point here. The minister is a political personage, and
20 as a political figure he doesn't need to know the rules governing
21 internal organization, but he has his cabinet, his secretaries that
22 explain that to him and they will say, Mr. Minister this can go ahead,
23 this cannot. So I think we should not blame the minister as a political
24 personage but the secretariat, the cabinet, offices that should have
25 said, Mr. Minister, you cannot do that, you have to change the rules
1 first, and that is no simple matter. So I think that would be the best
2 answer to your question.
3 Q. So you really don't know of any authorisation that he delegated
4 to the staff? You weren't referring to any specific authorisations when
5 you wrote what I just read from your report?
6 A. Well, I wasn't thinking -- well, when I wrote the report I had
7 the organization of the MUP and the system and these decisions and
8 individual decisions, that's what I had at my disposal. So outside that
9 there was nothing, those were my frameworks, my purview, because you have
10 to start out from the system, the legal system defined by the rules.
11 That's the starting point for all considerations.
12 Q. Going back to the earlier question, what legal provision, do you
13 know of any, that would prevent the minister --
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. -- from designating the chief of the MUP staff as someone who
16 could deploy the SUP -- sorry, the PJPs?
17 A. I do apologise, but I have to give this some thought, take a
18 while to consider it. What did you say? Did the minister have the right
19 to authorise -- what was it -- some other person, that is to say the
20 chief of a particular department, to be in command of the PJP. Was that
21 your question is that what you were asking?
22 Q. Today you were shown two documents in which the minister
23 established these special police units, the PJP, and you were asked who
24 could deploy them and you referred to the documents and said the minister
25 could or somebody duly authorised by him could deploy them. I'm asking
1 you what would have stopped him, what could have prevented him, from
2 giving that authority to the chief of the MUP staff Kosovo?
3 A. Now I'm trying to -- well, I seem to be understanding your
4 question better now. This is the matter in hand. The PJP was
5 established on the basis of an individual decision, and the MUP staff was
6 also established on the basis of an individual decision; however, the
7 organization of the MUP, something I talked about in response to
8 questions from the Defence counsel, was a system at a higher level and
9 the rules governing internal organization. So the minister couldn't
10 designate more authorities to the staff without taking away some
11 authority from someone else beforehand. So that is the crux of the
13 Q. I'm not sure -- so do you know of any provision or any rule that
14 stopped the minister from designating -- from designating the chief of
15 the MUP staff Kosovo as somebody who could deploy the PJP and the other
16 special police units?
17 A. Well, something that was absolutely certain was that he had to
18 change the rules, and the rules are above the minister because they were
19 adopted by the government. So that's quite logical.
20 Q. Okay.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp pointed out to you that this morning you
22 said the minister could command the PJP or he could authorise someone to
23 command the PJP. You agree with that, do you?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do agree.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, why could the minister not authorise
1 Mr. Lukic to command the PJP is the question. Never mind whether he's
2 the head of the MUP staff for Kosovo or anywhere else. Why could he not
3 nominate Mr. Lukic to command the PJP?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand your question now. He
5 could nominate Mr. Lukic to command the PJP but there had to be a
6 decision whereby he was appointing him, nominating him a commander,
7 otherwise it could have been some other person. So there must be a
8 decision whereby a police official is nominated commander of the PJP in
9 conformity with the staff specifications within the ministry. But as far
10 as I know, this wasn't the decision. He appointed him as being Chief of
11 Staff, where this other matter was regulated by the rules and the
12 decision on establishment.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp.
14 MR. STAMP:
15 Q. Is it not possible that the special police units, including the
16 PJP, had a dual responsibility to their commander as well as to the MUP
18 A. On the basis of the provisions that I studied which represent the
19 basis, the groundwork, for formulating the Ministry of the Interior,
20 certainly there was no dual command, that is to say in the police there
21 is no term "command," but organization and management. So under
22 management it was under the police administration and the PJP commander.
23 So that job position was defined in that way on the basis of the staffing
24 specifications, which means that Mr. Lukic wasn't appointed as being
25 commander of the PJP, he was appointed to another function. So that
1 Mr. Lukic didn't have authorisation and authority to exert command over
2 something that was not defined by the minister unless a separate decision
3 was taken, and I don't have that document.
4 Q. General Lukic when asked about the operations of the MUP staff
5 vis-a-vis the PJPs -- and Mr. Lukic actually I should say, he said, and I
6 quote: "The special police units, PJP, had dual responsibility, one to
7 the commander of the PJP units and the other to the Chief of Staff."
8 Just for the record that's P948 at page 53.
9 Now, having regard to that statement by General Lukic I ask you
10 again: Is it not possible that there could be dual responsibility for
11 the work of the PJP vested in its commander and also the chairman of the
12 MUP staff?
13 A. Mr. Stamp, things are quite clear to me. Legally looking at the
14 matter there could not have been a dual command unless regulated by the
15 system. But the fact that Mr. -- what General Lukic said, who is
16 Mr. Lukic today, what he said, well that's easily explained to me. It is
17 a matter of psychology. Do you want me to go on and explain or --
18 Q. Yes, please.
19 A. -- is what I've said enough.
20 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
21 A. You want me to explain it and go into the whole story into the
22 matter. Well, there's something that's quite clear to me.
23 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... briefly and clearly, what
24 in it is a matter of psychology why he would say that?
25 A. Well, reading many statements given by many people that he met, I
1 understood it that they wished to attributed greater -- to boost their
2 image more than the system allowed them, and then they were either
3 unsuccessful or they told some stories which legally speaking don't stand
4 from the aspects of the system.
5 Q. Who told stories?
6 A. Well, studying the documents that I had access to in preparing
7 for my testimony in the various minutes, records, and so on, I saw that
8 individual officers and policemen made certain statements which were not
9 in harmony with the legal system, lending themselves more weight than the
10 law would allow for, and then there was certain statements that I came
11 across, which legally speaking don't have any coverage in the law and the
12 system of organization within the Ministry of the Interior.
13 Q. Is that what you are saying General Lukic --
14 A. That's how I explain it.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: So you're attributing that attitude to Mr. Lukic.
16 Have you ever met him?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Me? You're asking me, Your Honour?
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps two or three times I
20 happened to be in the same room with Mr. Lukic, after the year 2000 when
21 for some six months or maybe a little longer I happened to work in the
22 MUP in a working group for the reform of the police --
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Did -- have you met him also here?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I just saw him in 2000 at a
25 couple of meetings where I was one of the participants.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Did you have access to the record of his interview
2 by the Prosecution here?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, I did not, I did not read
4 that interview, no. I did not read the interview.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp.
6 MR. STAMP:
7 Q. General Obrad Stevanovic testified in the Milosevic case that he
8 was not in charge of the PJP in 1999.
9 A. What's the question?
10 Q. Well, were you shown or were you aware that he said that?
11 A. No, no -- that he said what?
12 Q. That he was not in charge of the PJP in 1999.
13 A. No, I didn't hear any statement to that effect, either statement,
14 in fact.
15 Q. Very well.
16 A. May I be allowed to say something and try and help you out,
17 Mr. Stamp?
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, if you can tell us who was the commander of
19 the PJP in 1999 that would be helpful.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do not know who was
21 the commander in 1992 [sic], perhaps it was Obrad Stevanovic --
22 JUDGE BONOMY: No, no, no. I don't know why it came over as
23 1992. I said 1999.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I apologise, I misspoke, 1999.
25 But there's something else that I seem to feel is important here in this
1 context. May I be allowed to say what that is?
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, let's hear what you think is important.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my opinion what is important is
4 this. It doesn't matter whether, for example, Lukic or Obrad Stevanovic
5 was the commander in 1999, that is easily established on a basis of the
6 analysis of the system and all the rest of it. The substance of the
7 matter is that the problems took place in the base, the base, that is in
8 the implementation of specific actions which were based on principles
9 just like in these proceedings. So it doesn't matter who was in command.
10 What I believe is important is the following, whether the person in
11 command ordered certain things which would be unacceptable --
12 JUDGE BONOMY: These are matters for us and not for you, with
13 respect, Professor. But since you say that --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I apologise then, yes.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: -- it is easily established on an analysis of the
16 system who was in command of the PJP, why is it you can't tell us the
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour, as far as I know
19 it is a generally known fact that General Obrad Stevanovic was commander
20 of the PJP, as far as I know. Again, I'm just saying, I really have to
21 say that I haven't seen his documents, I haven't seen his decision of
22 appointment, but as a lawyer, since I don't know that, since I haven't
23 seen the decision on his appointment, I should say that I don't know.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: In preparing your report were you not concerned to
25 identify who was in command of the PJP?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, to be quite frank, what I was
2 trying to do was to understand the essence of the functioning of the
3 Ministry of the Interior and to link that up to the analysis of the
4 functioning of the system at a higher level. The system, the
5 constitution, I thought that was more important, I thought that was my
6 basic task, not what individual was in which individual position. It was
7 important for me to see how positions functioned, not what persons were
8 in what positions. You can establish these matters of fact if you are
9 interested in them. I was interested in the processes, in the legality
10 of it, the authority vested in ...
11 JUDGE BONOMY: What we hope for from experts is that they are so
12 steeped in their subject that they don't need to go into a study of the
13 detailed provisions, they're so familiar with them that they can then
14 look more broadly at the way in which these were operating in a
15 particular situation and express their opinion. That's why you're being
16 asked these questions that you don't seem to have an answer to.
17 Mr. Stamp.
18 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. I know you have said that you didn't see or you weren't told
20 about what General Obradovic said -- General Stevanovic said, General
21 Obrad Stevanovic said, but you have offered an explanation as to why
22 Mr. Lukic said what he said. Do you have any opinion as to why
23 General Stevanovic would deny that he was commander or in charge of the
24 PJP in 1999?
25 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour --
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. --
2 MR. LUKIC: -- first of all, he never read his statement, it was
3 presented partially to this witness and he should speculate definitely at
4 this point.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry, he should, there's a word missing I didn't
7 MR. LUKIC: He would definitely speculate if he answers this
8 question, why General Stevanovic would deny.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
10 Mr. Stamp, is there likely to be an answer that could be more
11 than speculation?
12 MR. STAMP: I think he, as an expert, is capable of saying
13 whether or not he can offer an opinion based on what he knows about the
14 circumstances surrounding the command of the PJP or whether or not he
15 would need to speculate in terms of the question.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, Mr. Simonovic, bearing in mind that you do
17 have a belief at least about who was the commander of the PJP, do you
18 consider yourself able to express an opinion as to why General Stevanovic
19 would deny in his evidence here on oath in another case that he was the
20 commander of the PJP in 1999? And if you feel you cannot express an
21 opinion, please say so.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I cannot answer that
23 question because it goes beyond my framework.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It would be speculation.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp.
2 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. Could we bring back 1D680. The document that you were asked
4 about by both Mr. Lukic and also the Court, and while it's coming up can
5 I ask you: How many ranks are there in the police force more senior to
6 lieutenant-general, the rank to which general -- or Mr. Lukic was
7 promoted to in 1999?
8 A. I am not sure about the answer, but I think that there is no
9 higher rank than colonel-general.
10 Q. Now, in making -- in making or reporting on the Law of Ranks, is
11 that something that you as an expert should be familiar with, what are
12 the available ranks to which General Lukic could be promoted?
13 A. Well, if General Lukic was a major-general, is that right, then
14 he could only have been promoted one rank up.
15 Q. At page 44 of your report you said --
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Where in the hierarchy does the rank
17 lieutenant-general come?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, these are ranks of general,
19 so it is ranks that were given within the Ministry of the Interior.
20 There are no other ranks. So General Lukic, at that time General Lukic,
21 had one of these ranks of general.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Let's move on, Mr. Stamp. It would appear the
23 witness does not know the ranks.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm a university professor.
25 MR. STAMP:
1 Q. Right. And, Professor, the first time you have really written
2 about the MUP staff - am I not right - or done a study on the MUP staff
3 specifically is this report, isn't it?
4 A. I wrote this report that is in front of us when I was asked by
5 the Defence lawyers to do that.
6 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
7 A. And I --
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Just answer the question you've been asked.
9 Listen carefully and answer the question. Is this the first time you've
10 written a study on the MUP staff?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was the first time that I wrote
12 a study on the MUP staff, but before that I wrote studies about the
13 police system in Serbia
14 part of the system.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, what have you written beyond the subject of
16 community policing about the operation of the police in Serbia?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wrote a large number of papers
18 that deal with different aspects of community policing and also aspects
19 of traditional policing and police work, and in addition to that I dealt
20 with the application of crime methods and other fields of criminal law.
21 I wrote a textbook called: "Criminal Science."
22 JUDGE BONOMY: But we're not studying in this particular
23 situation criminal law or criminalistics. We are studying administrative
24 law at the moment. Now, is that a field in which you claim expertise?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My special field is -- well, I've
1 been dealing with the police, and within that the organization of the
2 police, and the organization of the police cannot be researched without
3 analysing the organization of government and constitutional law. And
4 that is why I started from an analysis of constitutional law and then
5 administrative law and then I came to the legal provisions regarding the
6 police. Perhaps that's why it's as voluminous as it is. So we're going
7 back to the subject that we started dealing with yesterday. In order to
8 understand the police you have to understand administrative law and the
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
11 Mr. Stamp.
12 MR. STAMP:
13 Q. Can I just ask the question again without -- please listen to it.
14 Have you written any study devoted specifically to the structure of the
15 police in Kosovo before this report?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Just look at -- if we could move on, page 48 of your report,
18 which is page 80, I think, in B/C/S, 48 in English. This is the last
19 question on this. You said at the end of the section, which is the first
20 paragraph of page 48, that Mr. Lukic's direct superior when he was in
22 major-general. What are the ranks between major and major-general?
23 A. Above major there is lieutenant-colonel, then colonel, then
25 Q. Okay. So you would agree with me that it should be three ranks
2 A. Yes. Yes, esteemed colleague, yes.
3 Q. You have the law there in front of you where the -- I think I see
4 where the various ranks are set out; is that so?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. I see.
7 A. Yes -- well, not in front of me but inter alia I studied the Law
8 on Ranks in the Ministry of the Interior. I don't have it right in front
9 of me now.
10 Q. Now, you have in front of you this document that you were shown
11 earlier by learned counsel and you were asked about the last paragraph,
12 in which you said it was unnecessary. But my question is this: In
13 making a recommendation for a promotion to one of the higher ranks of
14 general, does the minister not have an obligation to set out the reasons
15 why he makes the recommendation?
16 A. I understand the question, it is fully clear to me. Since this
17 was a regular promotion -- I never wrote a document on promotion, sir,
18 but as far as regular promotion is concerned I assume that the head of
19 state has to trust the minister and his proposal. Now let us go to a
20 legal level in general terms. Every decision has to have a rationale,
21 that is a general, legal principle, a principle of law, isn't it --
22 Q. Very well --
23 A. -- I know what you mean.
24 Q. I just -- but you could tell me quickly. I mean, I don't want to
25 spend too long on this. Is the minister obliged to give reasons on -- in
1 making his recommendation?
2 A. Well, the law does not stipulate that, especially when it is a
3 regular promotion, and this was a regular promotion. However, the
4 question can be put in this way, of legal technical perfectionism. In
5 that case there should be reasons provided, but certainly not this way,
6 bearing in mind what it was that we had discussed.
7 Q. Now -- well, you see the reasons the minister has given, that in
8 the past year Lukic has excelled in successful command and control of MUP
9 units engaged in the prevention of terrorism in Kosovo and Metohija. Is
10 it your evidence that the minister was deliberately misrepresenting to
11 the president the role of Mr. Lukic in Kosovo?
12 A. I am just claiming that what that statement of reasons says could
13 not have been correct in view of the entire story that is derived from
14 the very logic of things and my expertise, or rather, I tried to catch
15 this logic of the law and the rules because -- I mean, he did not have
16 that authority. The system was different. Why the minister wrote that
17 when he sent a letter, this letter, to the president of the country I
18 really cannot say. In my view that would not be right. But on the other
19 hand the legal requirements were met for the promotion, it is a regular
20 promotion, not an extraordinary one, the occasion was there, the police
21 holiday, it was a war situation that needed a boost of morale, if I
22 understood things properly, and as many decorations as possible needed to
23 be handed out and that would be about it.
24 Q. If we could move on to another topic. You wrote a little bit
25 paramilitaries. Were you made aware of evidence that a paramilitary
1 volunteer group called the Skorpions was incorporated into the reserves
2 of the SAJ in March 1999?
3 A. I think that I could not give a meritorious answer to that
4 question. The only thing I know is that the SAJ was established in
5 accordance with the law, and the only thing I know is that in the police
6 there were no paramilitary units. It is so regulated by law. I am not
7 sufficiently familiar with this specific case in order to give a proper
8 answer, it would involve speculation.
9 Q. Very well. But if there was this group, the paramilitary group
10 Skorpions, incorporated in the SAJ, would it not mean that in many cases
11 the law was floated by those in command of the MUP?
12 MR. IVETIC: If I can ask for counsel, since he said about
13 evidence, I'd like to find out what evidence that is. If he could cite
14 to the evidence because the only one I remember is Mr. Stoparic, who came
15 here and said he was a former member of the Skorpions and reservist of
16 the police. What evidence is Mr. Stamp talking about here, I don't
17 recall any on the record.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp.
19 MR. STAMP: The evidence of Goran Stoparic, both in testimony
20 and --
21 MR. IVETIC: His witness statement says former members of the
22 Skorpions and in his testimony here he said he was a reservist of the
23 police and is proud of that fact. So I would like to see the exact
24 reference that you're referring to when you cite something as grandiose
25 as stating that a group, a paramilitary group, the Skorpions was
1 incorporated into the SAJ. Where is that positive evidence in this
3 JUDGE BONOMY: There is a broader issue here, Mr. Stamp, which is
4 the witness has said that there were no paramilitary units in the police.
5 Now, it's -- is it not possible for you to ask the question whether the
6 acceptance of any would therefore amount to a flagrant breach of the
7 regulations without getting personal on this particular topic.
8 MR. STAMP: I would respectfully put the question in precise
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, well please do that.
11 MR. STAMP:
12 Q. Wouldn't the acceptance of paramilitary groups or volunteers be a
13 flagrant breach of the law as it was in Kosovo in 1999?
14 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, he's gone back to the same issue, as
15 it was in Kosovo 1999 cannot be part of this question. It's the same
16 objectionable question as the last one. He can ask the first part of it
17 but not the last part of it.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: We repel that objection.
19 Please continue, Mr. Stamp.
20 MR. STAMP:
21 Q. You heard the question, professor, can you?
22 A. The system of legal norms and regulations regulating the work of
23 the police did not envisage any inclusion of paramilitary units into the
24 police system. When it comes to volunteers, they could be included into
25 larger units in the sense of volunteer units. As for the Skorpions, I
1 cannot tell you anything precisely because I'm not familiar with the
2 facts; however, I'm absolutely positive that the legal regulation
3 regulating the conduct of the police only envisaged inclusions of police
4 members who are either active-duty officers or reserve police officers
5 and no one else. That's what I can tell you as to your question. The
6 rest would be in the realm of speculation and I suppose this is the
7 answer to your question.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I don't think you can avoid answering the
9 question. What you say about volunteers is consistent with a great deal
10 of evidence we've had here, but the question also extended to
11 paramilitary units and you say that the regulations did not envisage the
12 inclusion of paramilitary units. The question, however, is whether the
13 inclusion of any paramilitary unit would be contrary to the laws
14 governing the operation of the MUP. Now, what is the answer to that
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My answer is clear. Including
17 paramilitary units would be against the regulation that existed in the
18 MUP at the time regulating the functioning of the Ministry of the
19 Interior. Such regulation did not envisage that paramilitary units can
20 be included, only the reserve police force was referred to.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp.
22 MR. STAMP:
23 Q. Do you know of a provision that enables the police authorities to
24 include or recruit volunteers into the police force -- volunteer units I
25 should ask.
1 A. The law envisages that the reserve force of the Ministry of the
2 Interior can be utilised, it is prescribed in the Law on Internal
3 Affairs, Article 28 as well as 27, that's what the law says.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: I should have made it clear -- in fact, I may have
5 misrepresented the evidence earlier. The evidence in the case indicates
6 that volunteers were accepted into, in the general term, Serb forces. It
7 would be wrong of me to say there was much evidence in relation to the
8 police on that subject because I can't remember.
9 Mr. Stamp.
10 MR. STAMP: May I just have a moment.
11 [Prosecution counsel confer]
12 MR. STAMP:
13 Q. Can we look at page 44 of the statement, and I wish to ask just
14 two questions about what you said in regard to ID cards -- sorry, it's
15 page 74 in your copy, and I am directing you to the part in the vicinity
16 of footnote 254 and this is page 44 in the English. You said:
17 "The law -- or the 1996 law on Yugoslav citizens' passports
18 modernised this provision ..."
19 So the first question I want to ask you, isn't it the Law on
20 Travel Documents you are talking about? Do you know of a law on Yugoslav
21 citizens' passports?
22 A. I am familiar with that law. Concerning that issue the essence
23 is that the identity card --
24 Q. Before we get to that, what is the law called? Isn't it
25 called -- and I just want to know for the record, isn't it called the Law
1 on Travel Documents? Could we bring P1833 --
2 A. Yes, yes.
3 Q. Oh, your answer is yes. So it's not the law on Yugoslav
4 citizens' passports, it's the Law on Travel Documents?
5 A. Yes, the Law on Travel Documents of Yugoslav citizens, that's the
6 title of the law in the Official Gazette published in Belgrade, 1996, the
7 19th of July.
8 Q. I just wanted to clarify that.
9 JUDGE CHOWHAN: I'm sorry to intervene. Now, we've heard of this
10 even earlier. Does it also include laws on passport or travel documents
11 would be different? I think I need a clarification.
12 MR. STAMP: From me, Your Honour, or --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Travel documents include passports;
14 however, there were also identity cards. The essence is that the
15 constitution of both the FRY and Serbia
16 guaranteed the freedom to move and leave the Republic of Serbia
17 me, being in possession of a travel document or identity card was not a
18 precondition used to determine whether one is a Yugoslav citizen or not.
19 The proof of citizenship lay with a number of other documents, such as
20 the birth registers, citizens registers, marriage registers, and based on
21 those travel documents, passports, and identity cards were issued. The
22 basic documents are the citizens registers as well as birth registers.
23 If one possesses an identity card or a passport or if those were taken
24 away --
25 JUDGE CHOWHAN: I was just trying to find out the law on the
1 travel documents because there are documents for travelling purposes to
2 the neighbouring countries where you don't need a passport. Does that
3 law include that as well and it also includes the passport -- that is
4 where it also includes the passport or the passport has a separate law
5 and travel document law is different? That's the only thing I wanted for
6 my own knowledge.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know the answer to your question
8 because I am from Negotin which is a border town in Serbia. In addition
9 to the passport we also had permissions to cross borders and move in the
10 border belt between two states. These were licences, permissions, not
11 passports per se. And this covered the entire border area of the former
13 JUDGE CHOWHAN: [Previous translation continues] ... passports
14 plus those documents, this is the only thing you have to say?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
16 MR. STAMP:
17 Q. Okay. So the Law on Travel Documents you said enabled Yugoslav
18 citizens to cross the border even if they didn't have travel documents.
19 And you said: "The only obligation was to verify whether the person was
20 a Yugoslav citizen or not." So the question is this --
21 A. I didn't say so. I said that when one is entering a country,
22 being in possession of a passport was not a precondition to be able to
23 enter. They could prove in other ways that they were Yugoslav or Serbian
24 citizens, or rather, the FRY at the time. When leaving the country under
25 the then-law they had to show a passport or the licence to move in the
1 border belt in order to leave the country. That is what the law
3 Q. Well, look at your report at page 1 -- page 74 in B/C/S, page 44
4 in English, at footnote 254. I'll read it.
5 "In other words, the 1996 Law on Travel Documents," which is what
6 it should be, "modernises provisions so that any Yugoslav citizen has the
7 right to leave and return to the country at any time, irrespective of the
8 fact that he/she does not have a passport when crossing the border. Of
9 course the only obligation was to verify as to whether the person was a
10 Yugoslav citizen or not."
11 The question is simply this: If people were forced -- well,
12 let's use a neutral word. If masses of people left the country for a
13 different reason, would it not be at least helpful in proving their
14 identity and that they were Yugoslav citizens if they had ID cards so
15 that they could return?
16 A. Well, the identity card is only used for internal processes and
17 in order to prove one's identity. It is not the passport that is used
18 for that. The only document used to prove one's identity when leaving
19 the country and spending time abroad as well as enjoying certain rights
20 with our embassies and missions was the passport.
21 Q. Yes, but you are saying the passport was not necessary to cross
22 the border. I'm just asking you this simply. If a Yugoslav citizen
23 wanted to return to the country and needed to prove that he was a
24 Yugoslav citizen and also prove his identity, wouldn't an ID card help?
25 A. Perhaps I don't need to go to that article since the answer is
1 clear, but it says here that citizens can enter the country but only
2 after his or her identity has been established.
3 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
4 A. In order to establish that person's identity an ID card would be
5 of assistance, yes.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 A. But that is not the only way. We have the citizens registers,
8 birth registers, those were the basic documents, and the documents you
9 are referring to are issued against those.
10 Q. Well --
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Did you mean to say that a Yugoslav citizen could
12 leave and return to the country at any time without -- even without a
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The law regulated it in such a way
15 that a Yugoslav citizen when leaving a country needs to show his or her
16 passport. Exceptionally Yugoslav citizens can enter the country even
17 without a passport --
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, please --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What the legislator had in mind --
20 JUDGE BONOMY: In that case we better get you to read a sentence
21 from your report. Now, in the paragraph in front of you in English it's
22 maybe 15 or 16 lines into the paragraph and it's -- the sentence says:
23 "In other words, the 1996 law on Yugoslav citizens' passports modernised
24 this provision ..."
25 Now, can you read that sentence aloud, please.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me locate that first, please.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: The sentence ends with footnote 254.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just a moment, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: It's the page on the screen. You'll see footnote
5 254 at the very top of the screen. So we need to come down the page a
6 little --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see 254 --
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Oh we need to go back to page 73, is it.
9 MR. STAMP: It's 74 in his copy.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, but I think we need to go back one.
11 MR. STAMP: Yes, right, 73 to 74.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: So can we go back.
13 Now would you read the sentence that begins on the second-last
14 line I think on that page.
15 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, we have the wrong page, it's 482, we
16 have to have 73.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Is that it?
18 MR. LUKIC: On the top of the page I think it should be number
20 JUDGE BONOMY: 73.
21 Now, go to the very bottom. Right.
22 Now, could you read the last sentence on that page, please, read
23 it aloud -- on the screen -- just look at the screen, please --
24 Mr. Simonovic, please look at the screen in front of you. Read the last
25 sentence at the bottom of the page.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand, Your Honour.
2 "In other words, the Law on Travel Documents of Yugoslav citizens
3 of 1996 modernised this provision in the sense that every person who was
4 a Yugoslav citizen had the right at any moment to leave the country and
5 return into the country" -- now I have to move to the next page.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, and read the next -- the beginning of the
7 next page, yeah.
8 MR. LUKIC: This is the wrong page.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: No, we've gone a page too far. There we are.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 " -- and to return to the country irrespective of the fact that
12 at the moment when crossing the border he or she was not in possession of
13 a travel document."
14 I understand the question. One thing is indisputable here.
15 According to the regulations and in my experience, this citizen would
16 have to show a passport when leaving the country. When returning to the
17 country, he or she would be allowed into the country even without a
18 passport if they can prove that they are Yugoslav citizens or, that is,
19 the citizens of the FRY.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: So you're saying that in practice this law was not
21 observed; is that the position?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I'm trying to say that the
23 citizen under law when leaving the country had to show a passport.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: But that's not what the sentence says, that's not
25 what you're sentence telling us what the law is says.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The rationale of the text was
2 that --
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Never mind the rationale. Just tell us whether
4 you've read it accurately -- you've understood it accurately or have you
5 made a mistake in your report.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I want to say this,
7 the citizen under the then-regulation and the current regulation had to
8 show a travel document not an ID, when leaving the country. When
9 entering the country they need to show a travel document; if they don't
10 have one, they can prove what their identity is by other means in order
11 to gain access to the country.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp.
13 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honours.
14 Q. I think you agreed with me that one means would be the ID card.
15 You said at the beginning of page 75 of the statement, same -- the
16 same -- page 44 in the English version, that these ID cards were
17 technologically obsolete and of little use. If that is the case can I
18 ask you why it is that the president of Serbia in the crisis of a war
19 passed a law widening the scope of application of the Law on ID cards,
20 lowering the age for mandatory possession of ID cards?
21 A. Esteemed colleague, Mr. Stamp, in order to answer your question I
22 would probably have to speculate as to why at the time -- I presume that
23 provision -- or rather, the Law on Identity Cards during the time of war
24 was put into force in order to --
25 Q. Very well, if you need to speculate, let's abandon that question.
1 You wrote a lot in the beginning of your report about -- about
2 the president of the Serbia
3 president of Serbia
4 constitutional law of Serbia
5 A. Esteemed colleague, Mr. Prosecutor, I do not believe myself to be
6 an expert in constitutional law --
7 Q. I see --
8 A. -- that area should be covered by my esteemed colleague
9 Professor Markovic.
10 Q. Therefore, I will not ask you any questions about that. When I
11 look at your CV there is one thing I wanted to ask you. You have in it
12 that you wrote a paper on tactical ways of gaining -- of confession by
13 strategy by relevant influence on emotions. Do you know if that paper is
14 available in English?
15 A. Esteemed colleague, can you refer to the exact title of the
17 Q. I think I just did, this is 6D669, that is your curriculum vitae,
18 and in e-court it's page 5, and it says here in English that you
19 published a paper entitled: "Tactical ways of gaining of confession by
20 strategy of relevant influence on emotions ."
21 Do you know where one could find a copy of that paper in English?
22 A. Esteemed colleague, unfortunately there is no translation in
23 English, but I am ready to have it translated at my expense and forwarded
24 to you by mail.
25 Q. Very well.
1 A. What does the paper concern? There are different tactics of
2 gaining confessions and influencing emotions.
3 Q. I will ask Mr. Lukic to follow-up on that.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: There's another one on gaining a confession based
5 on artfulness, Mr. Stamp, perhaps you might wish that one as well.
6 MR. STAMP: Indeed.
7 Q. Those papers are not in English you said?
8 A. Unfortunately, I don't have it in English, but I can send it to
9 you. These are strategies used all over the world in criminal science.
10 I cited the procedures and rules used by the police when using different
11 methods to gain confessions. They are used by all police forces of the
12 world in the United States, in -- by your police, in Serbia as well, and
13 as a professor of criminal science that is what my research was about.
14 Q. Okay. Thank you very much, Professor.
15 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Your Honours. I have nothing
16 further in cross-examination.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, esteemed colleague,
18 Mr. Stamp.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: You have re-examination, Mr. Lukic, do you? Not
20 at the moment, but do you have re-examination?
21 MR. LUKIC: I have five minutes.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: We also have some questions. Just give me a
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Can I ask if it is possible - this is a question
1 for the interpreters - whether it is possible to continue for about -- it
2 could be anything up to half an hour.
3 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters say yes.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well.
5 If we do that, Judge Chowhan cannot stay with us because of
6 urgent personal reasons, and therefore we will retire just now and we
7 will return shortly to the bench. Just, please, everyone stay where they
8 are while we re-arrange the court.
9 --- Break taken at 3.29 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 3.34 p.m.
11 Questioned by the Court:
12 JUDGE BONOMY: I have a few questions for you, Professor. The
13 first of these relates to an early part of your report, in English it's
14 page 26, it's immediately after a heading: "Position of internal affairs
15 organs in the country's defence system."
16 MR. STAMP: If I could maybe it's page 42 --
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you --
18 MR. STAMP: -- on his copy, and I don't know perhaps a reference
19 to the footnote might also help him to find it.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, indeed, there isn't -- but it's immediately
21 before footnote 165.
22 Now, if -- we recognise that you do not hold yourself out as an
23 expert in constitutional law, but at the beginning of that section you
24 say: "After the Law on Defence had come into effect competent federal
25 organs took over the activities performed by defence organs in member
1 republic" -- do you have it?
2 A. May I answer, Your Honour?
3 JUDGE BONOMY: [Microphone not activated]
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Judge Bonomy, please.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: You say that: "After the Law on Defence had come
6 into effect competent federal organs took over the activities performed
7 by defence organs in member republics," and you say then, "in the
8 Republic of Serbia
9 organs of the Republic of Serbia
10 Now, my question for you is this: Are you saying that the
11 Republic of Serbia
12 A. No, Your Honour. This is the way it was. The Republic of Serbia
13 did not have a Ministry of Defence. A ministry -- the Ministry of
14 Defence was abolished through this decision on ministries but --
15 JUDGE BONOMY: I understand that, but between 1991 and the
16 passing of the FRY constitution in 1992, was there, in fact, a Ministry
17 of Defence? Simple question, yes or no.
18 A. Yes, abolished later.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: What did it do?
20 A. Well, the Ministry of Defence at that time dealt with all matters
21 related to defence, but then this field of work moved on to federal
22 level. So in this observed period in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
23 there was no Ministry of Defence that it was at the level of the member
24 republics. There is only the Federal Ministry of Defence governed by the
25 Law on Defence and the Law on the Army.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: So during that period did the Ministry of Defence
2 of the Republic of Serbia
3 A. I'm sorry, what was it that you said, the Ministry of Defence --
4 no, no, no. That's never the way it was in that system. This goes
5 beyond -- I mean if I can put it that way, beyond my police expert
6 knowledge. But, as far as I know it was always the federal organs that
7 were in charge of the army, always. As far as the republican level
8 probably there was some jurisdiction in terms of territorial defence --
9 or rather, the area organs that later on moved on to the Federal Ministry
10 of Defence. But as I've been saying to you, I'm not an expert in these
11 fields, so I wouldn't dare -- it does not include the period of my
13 JUDGE BONOMY: But one of the things you do in this document is
14 highlight, as we have already had highlighted in the case, the fairly
15 modest role that the constitution gave to the president of the Republic
16 of Serbia
17 A. Yes, Your Honour. That's the way this role was realistically
18 Professor Ratko Markovic explained that very well in his report -- I can
19 elaborate on that, but I guess there's no need to. I agree.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: I want to ask you a specific question. Why or
21 how -- I think is the question. How was it that Slobodan Milosevic came
22 to be so powerful when he was president of the Republic of Serbia
23 president's powers are as limited as you say?
24 A. Your Honour, this is a field of constitutional law and it's a
25 political question. I cannot respond to that question, I cannot give an
1 expert's response, I cannot even answer it as a lawyer, and I really
2 wouldn't want to make a mistake and I wouldn't want to be saying things I
3 don't know.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, do you dispute that between 1992 and 1997 he
5 was a very powerful man in the Republic of Serbia
7 A. No, I'm not disputing that, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
9 You've said something about the border police. They were, in
10 your evidence and indeed in other evidence we've had, answerable to the
11 border police administration in the Ministry of the Interior in Belgrade
12 Why is it that controlling the border of Yugoslavia was not a federal
14 A. Your Honour, that is a question that is better put to a
15 constitutional law expert than to me, but I think that the question is
16 quite logical. But I'm not an expert in that.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: In 1998 and 1999 was there a Federal Ministry of
18 the Interior?
19 A. As far as I know, this ministry did exist but its authority was
20 not such that it could significantly affect the work of the police at
21 that time in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I did not deal with
22 this question. I tried to go into the essence of police work in Serbia
23 I know that they dealt in international cooperation, cooperation with
24 Interpol and the like.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Did you inquire into who -- or, sorry, how the
1 members of the MUP staff were paid while they were serving on the MUP
3 A. Your Honour, I cannot answer that question. There were many
4 witnesses who were on that MUP staff who could have answered that
5 question much better than I can because they were members of that staff.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Your report is 6D668. You've had it before you
7 while giving your evidence. As a result of the questions that you've
8 been asked so far, is there any element or aspect of your report that you
9 wish to alter?
10 A. I have understood your question, Your Honour. Perhaps if I were
11 to change something in this report, I think that the sentence that we
12 discussed a few moments ago is not very precise when I said that somebody
13 could leave the country and come back without documents. As far as I
14 know, he or she has to show a document before leaving the country. When
15 entering the document one has to show -- I beg your pardon, a passport.
16 So there is this exceptional possibility of someone entering the country
17 even without a passport because possession of a passport and possession
18 of a personal identity card is not a constituent part of the citizenship
19 of Serbia
20 essence of the matter, not to have it reduced to paperwork. That is what
21 we discussed and then I realized that that was a weakness, or rather, I
22 realized that the wording was not right and that it was not clear enough.
23 Your Honour, I'm quite sure that the basis of this report, the basis of
24 this report -- I mean, what I'm trying to say is all the basic things are
25 right because I studied the system of organization for a long time, and I
1 really stand by this expert opinion of mine with regard to all the
2 questions that we discussed today, the system, organization, planning,
3 and so on, I really stand by that. I tried to present my logical
4 evidence during the course of the day today, and I'm sure that that is
5 the truth that I wish to present to this Court with the best of
6 intentions as an expert and without any idea or any wish to have anyone
7 not be answerable for what they did. I tried to be fully logical and I
8 wanted to have maximum cooperation with you on every fact leading to the
9 truth. The truth was primary for me in terms of the realization of these
10 legal norms.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
12 Anything arising from that for you, Mr. Stamp?
13 MR. STAMP: No, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, re-examination?
15 MR. LUKIC: Very short one, Your Honour.
16 Please can we have P1505 on the screen.
17 Re-examination by Mr. Lukic:
18 Q. [Interpretation] Professor, this is a decision to establish a
19 ministerial staff, this is the document we began with and we shall
20 conclude with it as well. Let us look at the last page, please.
21 Professor, the last sentence of the last page reads: "Send this decision
22 to the head, deputy head, and members of the staff as well as to the
23 minister's office."
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Going through the exhibits and other documents that were at your
1 disposal, did you ever find any proof that the then-General Sreten Lukic
2 ever received this decision?
3 A. No --
4 MR. STAMP: Well ...
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Should I reply? I didn't come
6 across any proof, but I'm wondering what that proof would be.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Let us move on. What do you mean what proof, what kind of proof?
9 A. Well, it would probably mean that had he received it, it would
10 have been registered in the log, such as the one we have at the
11 university, for example.
12 Q. Or to sign the decision itself.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. In the course of your work, since it says here members of the
15 staff, did you also come across any evidence that any members of the
16 staff got this decision?
17 A. When researching this case --
18 MR. STAMP: Your Honour, I object to the --
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, the -- first of all, to establish relevance
20 for this you'll need to establish what research he carried out into that
21 particular question and then we'll see where we're going. Is this a
22 matter he was asked to research?
23 MR. LUKIC: Actually not, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, Mr. Lukic.
25 MR. LUKIC: I just tried and that was everything I had for the
2 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you, Professor, thank you for your
3 testimony before this Tribunal.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Professor Simonovic, that completes your evidence.
5 Thank you for coming to assist us. You may now leave the courtroom with
6 the usher.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I wanted to thank you
8 and your colleagues for your patience and desire to go and analyse the
9 legal regulations referred to in order to arrive at a truth. Thank you
11 JUDGE BONOMY: You're the first one to thank me for my patience,
12 Mr. Simonovic.
13 [The witness withdrew]
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we'll come tomorrow if you have a witness
15 for us, Mr. Lukic.
16 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour -- yes, Your Honour. We are in constant
17 contact with Mr. Kovacevic, who was here and left because of illness, and
18 we are not able to bring this witness back and even -- we don't want to
19 propose the videolink because his doctor specifically said he cannot
21 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Okay.
22 MR. LUKIC: And the only witness we have left is 6D-1, coming
23 on -- tomorrow afternoon, half past 2.00. So we don't have a witness for
25 JUDGE BONOMY: So --
1 MR. LUKIC: And the last witness would be and the only one, 6D-1.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: On Monday?
3 MR. LUKIC: On Monday.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: And the estimated time for that would be?
5 MR. IVETIC: An hour and a half to two hours. She will be live
6 because we won't have time to do a statement within the 48-hour rule.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: And, Mr. Sepenuk, on the question of handwriting,
8 is there likely to be that evidence next week?
9 MR. SEPENUK: We expect three witnesses next week, Your Honour,
10 Dusan Mladenovski, who's a very, very short witness and Dr. Fruits.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah.
12 MR. SEPENUK: And Professor Jokic.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: And Aleksic is a problem, is he?
14 MR. SEPENUK: I believe so, yes, Your Honour. Frankly I don't
15 think there would be time for him in any event.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah. Very well.
17 MR. STAMP: I don't know if they could indicate the order. We
18 are a little bit stretched especially in respect to Dr. Fruits.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Are you asking that he be the last witness?
20 MR. STAMP: Yes.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Can you accommodate that, Mr. Sepenuk?
22 MR. SEPENUK: I think we can, Your Honour, yes.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well.
24 So 9.00 on Monday in this courtroom.
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.55 p.m.
1 to be reconvened on Monday, the 21st day of
2 April, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.