1 Friday, 14 September 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 2.19 p.m.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon.

7 We may have some technical difficulties with the computers, it

8 appears, and therefore we may have to have some inconvenience and delay if

9 they arise. Let us hope that that does not present a significant problem.

10 It, of course, delayed our commencement this afternoon.

11 It has been pointed out that while we received oral submissions

12 during this week in respect of the motion concerning a witness

13 contemplated by the Prosecution next week, Ms. Cakar, with a view to

14 protective measures, that the Chamber did not announce its decision at the

15 time that it dealt with another similar motion. We will correct that now

16 so the position is clear when the witness is called next week.

17 In the Chamber's view, it would not be open to it or appropriate

18 in the circumstances for protective measures to be granted in respect of

19 this witness. I won't go into detail in respect of the reasons. In

20 summary, the reasons offered in justification do not, in the view of the

21 Chamber, come within the scope of the Rule that would allow protective

22 measures to be granted; and, of course, in construing that Rule, the

23 Chamber has to maintain a balance between the basic procedure and its

24 guarantee whereby the proceedings of this Tribunal are public against the

25 interests of a particular individual and of justice in allowing in very

1 special circumstances a witness to be able to be heard with protective

2 measures which limits the public nature of the proceedings.

3 So in the circumstances in this case, the Chamber will not grant

4 protective measures as sought.

5 So we now continue with the evidence of the witness.

6 Ms. Residovic.

7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

8 JUDGE PARKER: May I just remind the witness before you commence

9 that the affirmation made at the beginning of your evidence still applies.

10 Yes, Ms. Residovic.

11 WITNESS: ZORAN JOVANOVSKI [Resumed]

12 [Witness answered through interpreter]

13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, before I continue

14 questioning the witness, the Defence has a new binder with documents. We

15 would like to disseminate those so we do not interrupt the session, the

16 examination, so we do not interrupt the examination later on.

17 So I would like to ask the court usher to provide the rest of the

18 documents to the Court Chamber, the Prosecution and the witness. Of

19 course, since the number of the document is quite large, I would -- I will

20 say that maybe we will show only 10 percent of these documents, and the

21 rest of the documents are a basis for questioning.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Can we say, Ms. Residovic, that the Chamber, in its

23 years of sitting in cases, has never before had such a volume of documents

24 for one witness. I hope it does not become the pattern for future

25 witnesses.

1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, perhaps that will

2 happen in the future, but I think for several of the witnesses you could

3 hear, the Defence was in a situation -- such a situation that we will to

4 look at all available documents and this will, of course be very rare, but

5 it happens.

6 Thank you very much.

7 Cross-examination by Ms. Residovic: [Continued]

8 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, General. You remember when you

9 told me yesterday that you know that after the events in Bitola. There

10 were arrests and criminal prosecution of larger number of individuals. As

11 you have said yourself there were about 100 individuals?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. I would like to look at the document at tab 97.

14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, before I start

15 asking questions about this, this is a list of individuals who -- who have

16 had criminal reports filed against them. Since we -- when we were asking

17 [indiscernible] a previous witness, we submitted his statement for

18 identification 1D125 for identification. I would like to say, bearing in

19 mind your decision from yesterday, I would like to submit this document

20 for identification so that the Defence can obtain the criminal reports

21 that are listed there.

22 Q. Did you find this document?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. In this response, you can see that two lists of individuals are

25 listed.

1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. I'm told that this

2 document is not under the number that I gave.

3 In order not to keep waiting on this, when we find the right

4 number I'll come back to this question. I apologise.

5 Q. General, you said that in the solving of the crisis all measures

6 were undertaken in order to solve the crisis in a peaceful manner, yet, on

7 the other hand, there were military and police measures in order to

8 counter the attacks of the diversionary terrorist groups. Is that

9 correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. You have also mentioned that you have yourself, as a member of the

12 posebna, you were put under the command of the military in the course of a

13 joint military police operation. Is that correct?

14 A. Not just in one. On many occasions.

15 Q. General, General Risto Galevski also took the witness stand in

16 front of this Court. He also testified about the manner of commanding in

17 these cases, and you have yourself talked about it on the first day of

18 your appearance in front of the Court.

19 Since in the course of the re-examination of the witness, in the

20 opinion of the Defence, there was a need to put forward additional

21 questions to the General. I would like to look at the document at --

22 beyond the table 86.

23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to say right away, Your

24 Honours, we do not propose to put this document as evidence, but I would

25 like to ask a few questions. This is document 65 ter, which is in page --

1 which is at tab 86A and has the number 65 ter 1D604, page, the Macedonian

2 version is 1D5457, and the English one is 1D5460.

3 Q. On the 18th of July, Risto Galevski, was asked by the Defence of

4 Ljube Boskoski the following question. And this is what he has answered.

5 I'm quoting the parts of the transcript.

6 "Question: So when your police forces, regardless whether those

7 were the Tigers or the posebna unit, when they participated in the

8 fightings against Tetovo, Vaksince and other areas, then basically they

9 were acting upon the single command of the army. Is that correct?"

10 This is the transcript for July 18th on page 3750.

11 To that question, I answer the following:

12 "Practically I couldn't say it was so, but together with the

13 military command we used to sit together and work jointly. Also, the

14 question remained open who is superior to whom and who commands to whom."

15 This was said on page 3750 of the transcript during the

16 re-examination of the Prosecution, on several questions asked upon the

17 Prosecution are answered in the following manner.

18 "Question: Yesterday on page 3750 from the transcript, you also

19 explained that -- that during combat operations carried out by the police

20 and the army in 2001, the question remained open who is superior to whom

21 and who commands whom. Do you remember explaining that to the Chamber?

22 "Answer: I think I said it and I will repeat it now. There was a

23 dilemma within the state leadership while those of us from the Defence

24 leadership we did not have any problem and we did not care about who is in

25 charge of what. We were just interested how to do our job professionally.

1 "Question: Okay. So but in a practical sense, during those joint

2 operations the police commanders retained some level of common authority

3 over the police in their units.

4 "Answer: I don't understand you. Who were the ones that had

5 command authority?

6 "Question: I'm sorry. So during those joint operations in which

7 both army units and police units were involved, police commanders,

8 commanders of the police units, retained some level of command authority

9 over the police officers in their units.

10 "Answer: Yes, of course.

11 "Question: For example, the police commanders that participated in

12 those joint operations could have still disciplined their subordinates for

13 infractions or misconduct. Would that -- would it be appropriate to say

14 that?

15 "Answer: Yes, of course they could."

16 This is the transcript from July 19th, 2007, pages 3831 to 3832.

17 Asked by the Defence to clarify what I thought, what -- by giving

18 the aforementioned answers those shown?

19 JUDGE PARKER: Might I interrupt you at that point. Are you now

20 moving to something that has occurred out of Court since this witness gave

21 evidence?

22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I wish to put an

23 opinion to the witness and to see whether he agrees with it or not. And I

24 would just propose that this is marked for identification and possibly as

25 92 bis statement would be then sent to the Court at the time when the

1 Defence leads its evidence.

2 JUDGE PARKER: I'm wanting to be clear: Are you now moving to some

3 discussion that you have had with a witness who was here after that

4 witness completed his evidence about the content of his evidence.

5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. We sent him a

6 telegramme asking him to explain to us his position regarding the pages

7 that I just indicated here.

8 JUDGE PARKER: And you want to put his answer to this witness?

9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I want to ask this witness who had

10 stated previously that he was subordinated to the army structures to see

11 whether that reply is correct, whether this is how it was done in the

12 practice.

13 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber has been discussing what is

14 contemplated and let me put to you our position very simply and clearly.

15 You may certainly ask of this witness his position about the

16 matter.

17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18 JUDGE PARKER: You cannot put to this witness what has been said

19 out of court since evidence was given by a witness. You may put to this

20 Court what the witness has said in court, but not what has been said since

21 then out of court.

22 If there is some basis upon which you believe that the Chamber

23 should now hear that witness again about some aspect of his evidence, you

24 will need to move or leave to re-call that witness. And that is whether

25 it was a witness for the Prosecution or your own. The witness, having

1 given evidence, having been cross-examined on it, having completed his

2 evidence, the only way that that evidence is be supplemented or varied is

3 if you persuade the Chamber that the witness should be re-called. And

4 certainly you may not, in a second-hand way, put to other witnesses what

5 that witness has since said about his evidence.

6 Is that clear enough?

7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Completely clear. Thank you very

8 much.

9 Q. General, considering that you were subordinated to the army units,

10 could you tell me whether it is correct that at that moment you received

11 the orders from the army superiors who were effectively your superiors

12 during that time?

13 A. As a commander of the eastern posebna unit in the crisis region

14 where we operated, Kumanovo and Tetovo, before any operation we would sit

15 down with the military commanders. We would agree on the procedures on

16 the way in which we would act, how the army will act, how the police would

17 act. Actually, orders were issued to both the police and the army.

18 I, as the responsible superior officer for the posebna unit,

19 communicated those joint, those agreed orders at the level of platoon

20 commanders and the unit commanders, and they then issued commands to their

21 soldiers.

22 I wish to clarify that at the joint meetings orders were issued

23 that were executed by the operational commanders who had the direct

24 command over the police officers.

25 Q. In that joint agreement where you were present, considering the

1 unit you have command, was the final order issued by a military commander

2 or someone else?

3 A. The last word belonged to the military commander, who kept a

4 military log with the deployment of the army and the police forces.

5 Q. Thank you. Now my question is: Is it correct that you, the

6 police officers, continued being in -- within the Ministry of Interior

7 although, within that specific operation, you were ultimately subordinated

8 to the orders of the army commander?

9 A. Yes, of course.

10 Q. And if a member of the police, during that operation, would do

11 something unauthorised or illegal, regardless of whether it is a criminal

12 or disciplinary offence, would it be correct that then the military

13 commander, who is in charge of that operation, would have the duty to

14 produce an information about that and to inform the subordinate -- the

15 superior police officer?

16 A. Yes. That was taken care of at the morning meetings. And we also

17 had evening meetings, where it was presented what has done -- and what

18 needs to be done in the time to come. If any of the police officers would

19 violate any rule or if they abused their powers, that was presented at

20 those meetings and then appropriate measures were taken against those in

21 proportion to the offence that has been committed.

22 Q. So for a police member who participates in the operation where

23 they are subordinated to the army commander it is the army commander who

24 would need to inform the superior police officer about that, regardless of

25 whether it would be a unit commander, under-secretary of the police or any

1 other subordinate police officer?

2 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, superior police

3 officer.

4 A. Yes.

5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. And if I understood you well, then this superior officer would

7 make measures as described by the police rules. Is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. But if the army commander would fail to inform the police superior

10 officer, then of course the police superior officer would not know or

11 would not be able to undertake any activities. Is that correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Very well. Thank you.

14 You also stated that the president of the state is the supreme

15 commander, commander in chief of the Armed Forces pursuant to the

16 constitution and the law and that he did perform his duties during the

17 crisis.

18 If I remember well, you stated yesterday that in that capacity of

19 his the president of the republic could have ordered the use of police

20 forces and placed them under the command of the army. Was I able to

21 understand your answer of yesterday well?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Is it correct, General, that the president of the Republic as

24 commander in chief, was able to order performance of a joint operation and

25 to decide the way in which these operations, this action would be

1 commanded?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Could the president, according to his legal powers, issue that

4 order, order on taking the command over that action to the police forces

5 as well?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. We spoke earlier that the president declared invalid the decision

8 of the minister about the demobilisation of the reserve forces, so if I

9 state that you are aware that not only president could have, but that he

10 actually did issue orders by which he issued activation of the police

11 forces would this correspond to the practice that you were aware of, the

12 practice of 2001?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And the president, as the Commander-in-Chief, was able to issue

15 orders in writing, orally, or via messenger?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. If I were to say that it was within his legal and constitutional

18 powers that he, as the Commander-in-Chief is able to undertake the command

19 of some action personally if that is his decision, then you could agree

20 with me, that this was also possible?

21 A. It is not a customary practice that the president would be in

22 command, but the president has the right to decide whether he personally

23 would take command or issue an order to somebody else to command.

24 Q. Thank you very much.

25 After the signing of the Ohrid Framework Agreement, you, together,

1 with the representatives of the international community, started working

2 on the return of the population, especially return of the police to the

3 former crisis areas. Is that correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. That plan for return meant taking full control over the territory

6 comprised by the crisis and also enabling the police to perform all its

7 legally prescribed duties. Is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. So only after the police was able to return to these areas that

10 would be the guarantee for the safe return and life of the citizens that

11 were displaced during the crisis. Is that correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. That plan involved three stages, or three levels of return,

14 depending on the degree of security risk in that area. Is that correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. You personally, General, worked with the representatives of the

17 international community, especially the OSCE on the plan for the return of

18 the security forces. Is that correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to ask now that a

21 video is shown. The transcript of that video is in tab 163, and that is

22 Exhibit P276.

23 The sound is not activated.

24 [Videotape played]

25 "THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] Police General Risto Galevski went

1 into some detail to spell out the plan to employ the security forces to

2 re-establish complete control of the territory of the Republic of

3 Macedonia. The plan is intended to enable the safe return and

4 comprehensive security of all citizens, freedom of movement and

5 realisation of all human rights and freedoms. The plan was jointly

6 prepared by the General Staff of the Macedonian Army, the Ministry of the

7 Interior, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the international community.

8 In the first stage of this plan the security forces will reenter the

9 villages with the lowest level of risk. In the Skopje area these are

10 Gorno and Dolno Mojance, Orlance and Ljuboten; in the Kumanovo region,

11 Vaksince and Lojane; in the Tetovo area Lesok, Tearce, Slatino, Varvara,

12 Brezno, Dobroste, Odri, Jelosnik, Prsovce, Otusiste and Glogji. And in

13 the Gostivar area: the settlements of Gorna and Dolna Banjica as well as

14 Pozarane village.

15 Galevski explained that there had not been any military operations

16 in the settlements but they were under security risks due to the presence

17 of the terrorists. The second stage would involve the Macedonian security

18 forces entering medium risk settlements; and the third phase would

19 re-enter settlements with the high level of risk. Special plans --

20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. General, in this video, you recognised the Minister Boskoski, the

22 director of public security Goran Mitevski and the under-secretary for

23 police Risto Galevski. Is that correct?

24 A. I did not see the video. I was only listening.

25 Q. So the video was not displayed on your screen?

1 A. No.

2 Q. I would like to ask for just a sequence of this movie to be

3 repeated so that I'm able to ask questions of this witness.

4 A. If this is not a problem, I could go look at it on another

5 monitor.

6 Q. Could you please just show the beginning.

7 [Videotape played]

8 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] It is fine now. Thank you.

9 Q. Were you able now to recognise in this video Minister Boskoski,

10 the director Goran Mitevski, and the under-secretary Risto Galevski?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Is it correct that this plan was presented as early as in

13 September 2001?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And as we heard from the elaboration that the under-secretary

16 presented here, Risto Galevski, at that time it was considered that the

17 security forces will enter Ljuboten in the first stage, considering that

18 Ljuboten is one of the places with the lowest level of risk, of security

19 risk. Is that correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Tell me, was Ljuboten entered in the first stage?

22 A. No. It was not entered.

23 Q. Is it correct that the security situation at Ljuboten village was

24 very difficult and that there was a resistance of the population to the

25 police entering the village, and there were new incidents developing so it

1 was necessary to change the plan. Is that correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. I would like to ask you now to look at the document in tab 164.

4 This is Exhibit 1D138. The page is 1D4333 in the English language and

5 1D4332 in Macedonian.

6 General, this is the annex to the general plan of the 23rd of

7 November, 2001. Does that annex already envisage a change --

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. -- about the return to certain places?

10 A. Yes, yes.

11 Q. Now Ljuboten is considered among the places that are at high

12 degree of security significance.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Did you develop maps in the preparation of this plan, and did the

15 maps have markings in colour that depicted the risk level or the high risk

16 under which certain settlements were?

17 A. Yes, I participated in that.

18 Q. I would like now that we show the map. That is 65 ter 1D605.

19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Since this map is quite large, it

20 is a bit difficult to open it in e-court, but we have this map also at the

21 chart here, the flip chart. So until the map -- the map opens on the

22 screen, maybe the witness might be able to explain on this map what were

23 the colours used to mark the places with certain degree of security

24 danger. We can now see it in the -- on the screen as well.

25 Q. Please tell us what colour was used to mark the most dangerous

1 places where it was most difficult to return the police there?

2 A. Green.

3 Q. Could you -- at the map that you see in front of you, are you able

4 to circle the places that are marked in green?

5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could you enlarge the map a little

6 bit? In the middle part of it. Could you please enlarge it a little bit

7 more?

8 Q. General, regardless that I don't see this map enlarged, would

9 you -- could you find the place of Ljuboten on this map?

10 A. I think this is the one.

11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could you please enlarge? We

12 can't see.

13 Q. So please mark -- you're marking them with red dots, but please

14 mark the green ones.

15 A. Well, Ljuboten is marked in green. That is the third stage.

16 Q. If that is the village of Ljuboten, do you recognise the greens?

17 I asked you to mark the green colours. Could you see the green colours?

18 A. Should I mark the green-coloured fields or ...

19 Q. The green ones, the most dangerous places.

20 A. [Marks]

21 Q. All right. Is the village of Ljuboten among these places as well?

22 Are you able to find it?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Where is the village of Ljuboten?

25 A. I think it's here.

1 Q. Could you put the number 1 next to it, please.

2 A. [Marks]

3 Q. So you said that you yourself participated in the preparation of

4 this map. Isn't it so?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And at the time of preparation of this map, Ljuboten was the place

7 with the highest degrees of risk for the return of the security forces.

8 Isn't it so?

9 A. Yes.

10 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I seek to tender

11 this map in evidence.

12 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

13 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D178, Your Honours.

14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. I would like to ask you now to look into the document in tab 166.

16 That is Exhibit 1D140. And it is in tab 166. Exhibit 1D140, page 1D4246.

17 That is not that exhibit. 1D140.

18 Q. General, this is the main plan for the return from December 2001.

19 And is that the final plan that marked Ljuboten as a place of the highest

20 degree of risk for the return of the security forces?

21 A. Yes.

22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if it is -- if it

23 would be possible to tender in evidence also a map that has not been

24 marked, as well as the one that was marked by the witness.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, it will be received.

1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the original map will be Exhibit

2 1D179.

3 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

4 Q. General, the reasons that Ljuboten was treated in this way is

5 because in and around Ljuboten, groups of the so-called ANA continued to

6 be seen there and the forces that continued to attack the army and the

7 police forces. Is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to ask now, with the

10 assistance of the usher, that a document is given to the counsel and to

11 the witness. This is a document that originates from NATO, and we

12 received this document from the Prosecutor.

13 Before the start of the session, we tried to put it in e-court,

14 and if it is uploaded, it is 1D1 --

15 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat the number.

16 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] 1D608.

17 Q. In the document, that was submitted to you - we only have this one

18 available in English - which comes from the Allied Press Information

19 Centre Skopje, light forces for southern Europe, the following is said.

20 "[In English] Terrorist attack army position near Ljuboten

21 summary. Yesterday late in the afternoon about ten Albanian terrorists

22 attacked the position of Macedonian army near the Skopje village of

23 Ljuboten. There are no injured soldiers. The army responded to the

24 attack. It is supposed that the terrorist group and the Macedonian from

25 Kosovo."

1 [Interpretation] General, are you aware about these facts about

2 the attack that happened in the beginning of December 2001?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Please now look at the document in tab 165. That is Exhibit

5 1D139. The page is N004-9830. And the English version is N004-9830-ET.

6 And as you can see, this is an information of the Ministry of

7 Interior from the 7th of December, 2001 about the security situation in

8 the crisis regions. And please now, if you turn to page 3, the Macedonian

9 number is N004-9832, while the English one is N004-9832-ET, and 9831-ET,

10 in fact. In the second paragraph in the Macedonian language and in the

11 last one in the English version, it is said -- the following is being

12 said: "In the Skopje region on 3rd of December 2001, in the area of the

13 village of Ljuboten at the locality Basinec and Kolash Mara, a group of

14 several armed persons attacked the positions of the army of the Republic

15 of Macedonia which attack was returned. The exchange of fire lasted until

16 the group withdrew into the first houses of the village of Ljuboten from

17 where they once again acted towards the Armed Forces. There are no

18 injured soldiers in the attack."

19 You recognise that this information of the Ministry of Interior

20 speaks about the same event that was mentioned in the information of NATO.

21 Is it correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I seek to tender

24 this NATO information, tender it as a Defence exhibit.

25 MR. SAXON: Objection, Your Honour.

1 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.

2 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, the Prosecution does not see how this

3 document produced by NATO, the media analysis section, advances any of the

4 issues that are relevant to this proceeding. This news report says that

5 there was an attack by a so-called group of terrorists against a

6 Macedonian army position near the village of Ljuboten. Nothing more than

7 that. We don't know how near or how far.

8 It then says that it is supposed that the terrorist group entered

9 Macedonia from Kosovo. So nor do we have any information that these

10 so-called terrorists came from the village of Ljuboten. Indeed, the

11 information in this report is exactly the opposite.

12 So the Prosecution doesn't see how this report is relevant to this

13 proceeding.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Do you also refer to the date?

15 MR. SAXON: Well, I -- it is certainly outside the time-period of

16 the indictment, Your Honour. I feel that some level of leeway can be

17 given to the -- to the Defence position that if there is information that

18 members of the NLA were present in Ljuboten even after the 12th of August

19 that could be relevant to these proceedings. But this is long after that

20 time.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.

22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I understand

23 well, the Prosecutor's case against our client, Mr. Boskoski, is that he

24 did not take measures to investigate and punish at least until May 2002.

25 And as far as I can see, December 2001 is within the time-frame of the

1 indictment that speaks about the responsibilities of Mr. Boskoski to

2 investigate and punish.

3 In respect to the second question, that is very relevant because

4 the witness said that the police forces were not able to even enter and

5 not even carry out police tasks in the village of Ljuboten because of the

6 severe security situation. This document exactly confirms a part of that

7 response.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE PARKER: Being in a generous mood on Friday, Ms. Residovic,

10 the Chamber will receive this document as having potentially some faint

11 relevance to the issue of armed conflict.

12 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D180, Your Honours.

13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

14 Q. Do you agree, General, that this process of the return of the

15 security forces in the crisis areas lasted for quite a long time and that

16 it would not -- it wasn't possible for it to go without the assistance and

17 the help of the NATO representatives and the representatives of the OSCE?

18 A. Yes. Later also the American Embassy got involved through the

19 ICITP programme. Also other international organisations were involved

20 there who helped in their own way.

21 Q. And do you agree with me if I were to say that in the first stage

22 that entrance with the presence of the NATO forces and the OSCE was just a

23 daily patrolling without the possibility to take any other police

24 activities in the village?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. And is it true that the first patrol with the assistance of the

2 Amber Fox, that is to say the NATO forces and the representatives of the

3 OSCE entered the village on the 2nd and 3rd of January in 2002, entered

4 the village of Ljuboten in order to just carry out a daily patrol through

5 the village?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And is it correct that regardless of the fact that the police

8 entered the village during that day, it was until very later that the

9 police was able to carry out its police duties in the village of Ljuboten

10 and also in the other villages in order to service summons to hear persons

11 detain persons, et cetera?

12 A. Yes, that's correct.

13 Q. I would like to ask you to look into the document in tab 172.

14 That is 65 ter 1D588, and the page is 1D5371, and the English page is

15 1D5372. It is 65 ter 1D588. It is in tab 172.

16 General, this is an OSCE document, and it is sent to the

17 General Mitevski, Goran Mitevski, and to General Zoran Jovanovski. Are

18 you the person who was the under-secretary of the uniformed police on the

19 4th of June, 2002?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. This NATO document -- I apologise, OSCE document discusses the

22 plan for the return to the normal performance of the police duties in

23 order to be able to -- in order for the police to be able to exercise all

24 its functions. Is that correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Does it mean, General, that until the 4th of June, 2002, the

2 police was still not able to perform its police duties normally in the

3 areas at risk?

4 A. Yes.

5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this now goes beyond

6 the period of the indictment, but I still seek to tender this document in

7 evidence, considering that it indicates whether the police was able to

8 perform its duties also beyond May 2002.

9 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

10 THE REGISTRAR: As 1D181, Your Honours.

11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. In relation to these issues that you discussed now, the issue of

13 freedom of movement and the issue of check-points can be mentioned.

14 Considering that you stated that you cooperated with the OSCE closely, is

15 it correct that the OSCE started objecting to the insufficiently quick

16 removal of check-points from some of the crisis regions. This happened in

17 the fall.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Is it correct, General, that actually the check-points given the

20 overall defence structure during the crisis were established in order to

21 prevent access of sabotage terrorist groups to the settlements and to the

22 places comprised by the crisis?

23 A. Yes. An assessment is made, a security assessment of a given

24 region, and then the locations where check-points will be installed are

25 determined. These check-points perform control of the movements of

1 citizens or they are placed at the locations where movements of such

2 terrorist groups, as you call them, are expected. So this is in

3 accordance with our plans.

4 Q. So is that correct that this basic security assessment of a given

5 region is performed by the police of that region, the units for internal

6 affairs, and for the regions comprised by sectors, then the assessment

7 would be made by sectors for internal affairs?

8 A. Yes. Every head of a sector together with the other superior

9 officers develops the plan and identifies the locations for the

10 check-points to be installed.

11 Q. I would like to ask you now to look at the document in tab 87.

12 That is 65 ter 1D562. 1D5149 is the page in Macedonian language, while

13 1D5152 is the page in English.

14 I said that they were in tab 87.

15 General, you see that this is a document issued by the department

16 of internal affairs, Cair, and it is actually an overview of the locations

17 where there is a possibility for the Albanian terrorists to emerge, and an

18 overview of the locations of vital importance that could be targeted in

19 the attacks at the area of the Cair municipality and the document was

20 issued on 26th of April, 2001. Is that correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Would you look now at the page 1D5151, and the English page is

23 1D5156.

24 And is it correct, General, that considering this assessment

25 performed by the department for internal affairs, Cair, an overview of the

1 check-points was made, check-points in the area of that municipality?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. I would like to ask you now to look at the document in tab 88.

4 That is 65 ter 1D563, the page is 1D5157, and the English page is 1D5160.

5 This document was generated before the previously mentioned

6 document, and as you can see, it was an addition to the plan for physical

7 and operational coverage as of April 2001. Is that correct?

8 A. Yes. This annex or these additions to the plan were produced by

9 the police station Mirkovci. That is within the Cair department. And it

10 covers the area going in depth towards the border.

11 Q. And if we look at the second page, which is 1D5158, and the

12 English version is at 1D5162, we see there that actually this annex of the

13 plan, as you mentioned, was produced by the Mirkovci police station, the

14 commander, and it was approved by the head for the sector for internal

15 affairs, Ljube Krstevski?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Does this example show that actually the check-points in the field

18 were identified on the basis of the assessment of the local police

19 stations and local police departments who were best able to know what is

20 the level of risk in their region?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And if we can agree on this, the minister did not participate and

23 the minister did not influence the identification of the check-points at a

24 given area. Is that correct?

25 A. Even if the minister wanted to the participate, the minister could

1 not cover all the regions; so, in no way had the minister participated in

2 the generation of these plans.

3 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I seek to tender

4 these two documents in evidence as Defence exhibits.

5 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 1D00562 will be Exhibit

7 1D182. 65 ter 1D00563 becomes Exhibit 1D183.

8 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Some time ago you mentioned that during the implementation of the

10 Ohrid Framework Agreement that the international community started to make

11 comments at one time why the check-points are not removed from the crisis

12 area. Is it true that these comments or -- that these comments of the

13 international community were primarily coming about the part populated

14 with Albanians?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. But is it correct that the entire plan for the return envisioned

17 gradual abolishment of the check-points, also having in mind both the

18 Albanian and the Macedonian population?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. I would like that we look into the document found in tab 131. It

21 is 65 ter 1D577. 1D5316 is the Macedonian page, while 1D5378 is the

22 English page.

23 This is a report from a meeting that the Minister Boskoski and

24 Director Mitevski had on 5th of September 2001 with the assistant of the

25 general secretary of NATO. Daniel Speckerd. Do you see that?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. At that meeting as it can be seen from paragraph 2, the minister

3 presented certain problems connected to the freedom of movement and was

4 informed that NATO is reviewing these issues in detail. If we look the

5 last paragraph of this page, the one before the last in Macedonian, we can

6 see that Minister Boskoski answers to certain comments that, allegedly,

7 the Lions and the posebna are at the check-points. And in respect to that

8 Minister Boskoski says the following: "The Minister Boskoski, expressed

9 the following with respect to what has been said, that there are members

10 of the reserve composition of the police at the check-points but not

11 members of the ESZ and the PEP.

12 That is the special tasks unit --

13 A. No, no, no. This is the special tasks unit. The special tasks

14 unit.

15 Q. Tigers or posebna?

16 A. Posebna.

17 Q. Regarding the attitude of the police, the Minister Boskoski stated

18 that: "All members of the MOI have been given Rules for acting of the

19 security forces and that anyone who breaches the authorisations will be

20 held responsible pursuant to the Law on the Interior."

21 At the next page the minister says: "Precisely because of the big

22 number of this information which are acknowledged about the behaviour of

23 the police, Minister Boskoski agreed that there be NATO representatives

24 who will be present at the check-points at all times and who will have a

25 clear picture of the situation at the check-points which is a good way of

1 persuading the international community and the NATO that all the

2 accusations in that respect are pure disinformation."

3 General, are you familiar with the fact that the minister proposed

4 and that NATO and the OSCE have accepted to gather with the police to be

5 present at the check-points in the crisis areas in order to avoid the

6 unsubstantiated accusations that were coming anonymously against a certain

7 number of police officers?

8 A. Yes. NATO has its own work methodology, and they were not present

9 with us at the check-points but they had their patrols that were

10 patrolling the area and they had certain periods where the -- where they

11 visited the check-points and where and when they exchanged information.

12 Q. Although the witness corrected me, I would like to say that I --

13 this ESZ abbreviation that I used in Macedonian, that I misinterpreted

14 that this is the Lions and not the Tigers. So this is the special tasks

15 unit.

16 Does that report show and confirm what you said yesterday that in

17 order to warn for a certain overstepping of authority by the police you

18 gave large authority both to the international community and, at the same

19 time, you distributed to all check-points and police stations rules about

20 how the rights of all persons should be observed?

21 A. Yes. We wanted to work publicly and transparently.

22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this exhibit as

23 Defence exhibit as well.

24 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

25 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D184, Your Honours.

1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Please now look at the document found in tab 132. That is 65 ter

3 1D578. 1D5320 is the page, while the English page is 1D5321.

4 General, this document was published on the 10th of December, 2001

5 in Macedonian and in English, and in Albanian. And is this also one of

6 the further measures that you undertook in order to accomplish what you,

7 as you responded to my question to do, to make the police as much

8 professional as possible and to protect the citizens?

9 A. Yes. This is one of the things that we did.

10 Q. I would like to ask you now to look at the documents found in tab

11 133. That is 65 ter 1D579, which is page 1D5322 in Macedonian, and 1D5326

12 in English.

13 This is the cover page about the police and human rights handbook

14 on -- handbook for the police. And if we look at the second page, 1D5323,

15 and 1D5327 in English, one can see that this publication was published in

16 2003. And now, please, look at page 1D5325, and English is 1D5328.

17 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, 29. 1D5329.

18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. And if you were able to find the document, that is a forward to

20 this publication, and it says: "The successful publishing of the first

21 2.000 copies of this handbook led to increase in the interest for the use

22 of the information entailed in it. Bearing this in mind, the Helsinski

23 Committee of Macedonia began a cooperation with the department for the

24 development of the police from the organisation for security and

25 cooperation in Europe and the Ministry of Interior for providing training

1 of the Macedonian police within the mandate for police training of the

2 OSCE, all with the aim of meeting the needs of the MOI with respect to the

3 human rights and the police training and the proposals of the committee

4 for prevention from torture."

5 General, is it obvious from this forward of this publication

6 published in January 2003, is it clearly visible from it that the -- that

7 the ministry has distributed 2.000 copies to -- copies about the basic

8 rights and duties that the police must protect in exercising their duties?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And let's just look at the document found in tab 134. That is 65

11 ter 1D544. The page is 1D4991, and the English page is 1D4992.

12 General, you spoke yesterday that -- you distributed to the police

13 officers and to the police stations notice about the rights of the

14 citizens. Is this one of the ways in which you tried to warn for any kind

15 of overstepping of authority of the police in cases when you were not able

16 to -- to prevent every specific case or to detect any overstepping of

17 authority made by certain police officers?

18 A. Yes. This information about the rights also refers to these

19 parties and the police officers, the parties to be informed about their

20 rights and the police officers who work with the parties to be warned that

21 the parties have the rights that are mentioned there within.

22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence would

23 seek to tender these exhibits in evidence.

24 MR. SAXON: Objection, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.

1 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, with respect to the document that is at

2 tab 133, police and human rights handbook on police training issued by the

3 Helsinki Committee on Human Rights in Macedonia, the Prosecution notes

4 that this document was published in January 2003, clearly long after the

5 period of our indictment, and it was published two months after the

6 accused, Mr. Boskoski, left his post as minister of the interior. So the

7 Prosecution doesn't see how this document will advance any of the

8 questions that are material to this case.

9 With respect to the document that is at tab 134, there is no

10 information put -- available to us as to when this particular notice was

11 created or distributed. And without that information, I don't see how

12 this particular document can be relevant either.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.

14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in connection to

15 this document in tab 133, we would like to indicate -- we only indicate to

16 the forward which speaks that this document have -- came after the

17 successful distribution of the previously published 2.000 copies. If

18 something has been published in January, in the previous 2.000 documents

19 were published before that, supported by the testimony of this witness

20 that is the time when Ljube Boskoski was in charge.

21 If we also look into the -- his conversation from 4th of

22 September, that the Minister Boskoski had with the representatives of the

23 international community, even at that time he informed the international

24 community that all the police officers were given a manual about human

25 rights. Out of these reasons, we think that this forward, because of its

1 content indicating about the measures taken by Mr. Boskoski should

2 admitted.

3 Regarding the last document at tab 134, the Defence was not able

4 to determine the date of publication of this document.

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 JUDGE PARKER: The document at 133 will be received in evidence on

7 the basis that it is, in a sense, a second printing of a document printed

8 within a time more relevant to these proceedings and the role of the

9 accused Mr. Boskoski.

10 The second document at tab 134 will not be received. It has no

11 time reference that would enable any determination of its relevance to the

12 issues in this case.

13 So the first document, the Helsinki Committee Report will be

14 received in evidence.

15 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we tendered also the

16 document in tab 132 that is dated 10th of December, 2002, and the

17 Prosecutor did not complain to it, so we would also seek to tender that

18 document.

19 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter number 1D00578 becomes

21 Exhibit 1D185. And 65 ter 1D00579 becomes 1D186.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Is that a convenient time?

23 We will adjourn until 20 past 4.00.

24 --- Recess taken at 3.51 p.m.

25 --- On resuming at 4.22 p.m.

1 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.

2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours.

3 Q. General, tell me, please, is the vicinity of Jezince village also

4 one of the locations that were under strong security risk?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. I would like to ask you to look at the document there tab 98.

7 That is 65 ter 446, N005-1552, and the English is the same number, just

8 with the ET appended.

9 This is, General, an information from the Ministry of the Interior

10 -- no, that is not the number. 65 ter 446. The number is N005-1552.

11 Yes.

12 This is an information to the information agency sent by the

13 Ministry of the Interior, and in the second paragraph it reads: "Yesterday

14 around the midnight in the vicinity of the village of Jezince, near the

15 place called Ciganski, Grobista, extremist terrorist groups armed with

16 automatic weapons attacked three security check-points at the Vratnica

17 reserve police station and at the entrance to the village of Jezince.

18 After that, part of the terrorist groups retreated to the other side of

19 border, towards Kosovo, Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia."

20 Do you see that?

21 A. I would like to correct you. It is not the reserve. It is the

22 reserve police station.

23 Q. Thank you. In the third paragraph from the bottom -- in the

24 second paragraph from the bottom it is stated: "In this information, once

25 again the MOI urges the population of both Macedonian and Albanian

1 nationalities to stay away of any provocation and to remain calm because

2 the Ministry of the Interior is undertaking all necessary measures to

3 maintain peace and in that way, we urge them to contribute to the

4 implementation of the President Trajkovski's peace plan."

5 My question first, General, is whether this information confirms

6 that the Ministry of Interior tried to resolve any problem in a peaceful

7 manner?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And the second question I have to ask you with regards to this is:

10 As you stated previously, but let's confirm it once again, that the

11 village of Jezince and this area was even later, so in the fall of 2001,

12 an area where the security situation was under significant risk?

13 A. Yes, the village of Jezince is located immediately next to the

14 border with Kosovo.

15 Q. And for the Macedonian security forces, especially for the police,

16 it was of particular importance to control that area so that it could

17 prevent entry of parts of terrorists groups from Kosovo into the Republic

18 of Macedonia. Is that correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And it was only the security reasons which were the basis for

21 maintaining the security check-points in that region, even later. So as

22 far as the third stage of -- of the removal of check-points?

23 A. If I may clarify. The regional road leading from Skopje to

24 Tetovo, after Jezince, there is a part where Macedonian population lives

25 that is Vratnica and because there is Macedonian population there, and the

1 regional road is there, the check-points were -- the check-points were

2 left until later there.

3 Q. The witness who testified before this Court and his consolidated

4 statement, as 92 bis statement is Exhibit 231.1. In his statement to the

5 Prosecutor on the 18th of February, 2006, and in London, in March 2006 as

6 well, on the 9th and 10th of March, stressed-- and that is Exhibit 236.1,

7 received under the 92 ter rule not 92 bis. And in this statement which he

8 gave to the investigator of the ICTY, Thomas Kuehnel, he asserted that

9 such things as removal or instalment of check-points were under the

10 competence of the minister.

11 I will read to you item 7 which reads: "I used to work at the

12 medium level in the Ministry of the Interior. I thought that the standard

13 operational decisions in a modern police department would need to be

14 issued by the minister who is focussed in the modern police systems on the

15 strategic decisions. The tension in the chain of command was exhibited

16 through the extreme rigidity and inflexibility by a part of the medium and

17 higher level of police administrators of medium level within the high

18 police leadership. Everyone was afraid of making decisions and everything

19 was left to the minister. For instance, there was a police check-point at

20 the village of Vratnica, near Tetovo, the presence -- the presence of this

21 check-point was quite dubious because the ethnic Albanian population

22 objected to its existence and its existence was in breach of the local

23 cease-fire agreement according to which both parties needed to withdraw

24 from the road Tetovo-Jezince. The OSCE advocated the removal of this

25 check-point, but the police, at the actual position where the check-point

1 was located, informed us that the minister decided that the check-point

2 must remain where it was, and it really was even strengthened."

3 General, tell me, was the minister personally ever deciding on

4 which check-point would be removed and which one will remain or did

5 this decision depend on, as you testified earlier, the security situation

6 in the respective region which was assessed by the local bodies as well

7 and it was also a component of the defence of the Republic of Macedonia?

8 A. The assessment of the security situation was the basis for the

9 establishment or abolishment of check-points. The minister could never

10 issue such decision whether to abolish or to establish any given

11 check-point.

12 Q. So in a situation or when the situation on the field so requires,

13 the police, in order to protect the entire population, the police, police

14 in general, and particularly the minister, could not decide whether a

15 check-point would continue existing or not?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Thank you very much. I have already stated that it was Exhibit

18 P236.1. And considering that I did not quote the paragraph from the

19 consolidated statement but rather from the statement that the investigator

20 took from the witness, I assumed the obligation to give you later the

21 exact paragraph in the consolidated statement of this witness.

22 General, since we saw several documents where it is clear that the

23 international community was involved, were you, in the police, absolutely

24 clear that could you not perform many of the tasks in the field without

25 cooperation or assistance of the international community?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And is it also correct that at the beginning, the international

3 community rendered full support to the efforts of the Macedonian

4 authorities?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Is it correct that at one point in time you felt that there was a

7 shift in the position of the international community, and that the level

8 of support that used to exist is not there anymore?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And you personally have been the representative of the ministry to

11 communicate with the international community on numerous occasions?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And I would like to ask you now to look at the document in tab

14 151. That is Exhibit 1D133. That is N005-1626 is the Macedonian page,

15 and N005-1626-ET is the English version.

16 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] And until we wait for the page to

17 be loaded, we found in the mean time the respective item in the

18 consolidated list; so I wish to state for the transcript that the

19 paragraph that I read was item 27, paragraph 27 of the consolidated

20 statement.

21 Apologise, 27 of the witness statement and considering that the

22 witness testified publicly, it was the witness Henry Bolton.

23 Q. You have in front of you, General, the information about the

24 meeting with the representatives for the KFOR, meeting at 19th of July,

25 2001. You were the representative of the ministry, you personally at

1 that meeting. Is that correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Is it correct that in that meeting as well, you expressed full

4 preparedness to cooperate with the NATO forces and you asked that the

5 process of disarmament starts, proposing that other international

6 organisations participate in it?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. The meeting with KFOR was important for you because it was

9 completely clear that the logistic support to the NLA groups comes from

10 Kosovo and that only with KFOR's assistance you will be able to repress

11 such terrorist attacks. Is that correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. General, we will now go on to a completely different topic, and

14 that refers -- the questions of the committee that my learned colleague

15 asked you about.

16 You -- in the beginning you were speaking about the competences of

17 the ministry. You said that the ministry is authorised to establish also

18 ad hoc committees. Do you remember that?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And the commission established by Hari Kostov in March 2003 which

21 you presided with, was also an ad hoc commission, right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And these committees were not able to carry out procedures that

24 are the competence of the outer bodies of the ministry of the interior, of

25 other standing bodies, especially not procedures that, according to the

1 law are in the hands of the Prosecutor's office, the courts, et cetera?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. As a professional in the police, as a president of that committee,

4 you -- it was clear to you that the police has no authority according to

5 the Macedonian laws to interview persons as witnesses. It is under the --

6 in its competences -- that is under the competence of the criminal police

7 and collect information from the citizens. Is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. The information that the police would gather in that way from the

10 citizens could serve to the police to gather other evidence that these

11 informations would indicate to, and could create conviction among the

12 police that there is a minimum amount of doubt in order to file a criminal

13 report. Is that correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. The information that the police was gathering in their regular

16 line of work, that information was also the information for the Prosecutor

17 in order to decide whether some facts mentioned in the criminal report are

18 sufficient to request initiation of a criminal procedure or to request

19 additional activities by the police. Is that correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. But -- however, this information were not -- could not be sent to

22 the court and could not be a basis for a court decision. Is that correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] In line 21, we should correct what

25 I asked. I asked, this information or statements were supposed to be put

1 aside from the court files and could not serve as a basis for a making

2 decisions by the court. The witness responded to that question.

3 My learned colleague the Prosecutor showed you a decision for the

4 establishment of the commission that you recognised and that is Exhibit

5 P379 MFI. Is that correct.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And you -- you confirmed that these are the tasks of the committee

8 that were established, that these tasks were broadly determined, and that

9 in your discussions with the minister you agreed that the commission would

10 carry out that part of the work that was -- that it was possible to do.

11 Is that correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. The decision did not prescribe the way of work of the commission

14 and in the commission, you agreed among yourselves how you are going to

15 carry out your work?

16 A. Yes. There's no rule how the commission would operate for any

17 commission. The commission itself is the body that will agree about the

18 manner in which they -- it will work.

19 Q. So the way of work or the procedure that you adhered to was not a

20 procedure set forth by the Law on Criminal Procedure, or by the collective

21 agreement about how a disciplinary procedure that was initiated. That was

22 a procedure that you agreed among yourself about how to carry out your

23 work?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And if I understood you well, you said that you called the persons

1 over the telephone or in writing?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Then you would interview those persons, but as far as I was able

4 to understand, that interview was not conducted pursuant to the Law on

5 Criminal Procedure as well. Is that correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Could you clarify what "yes" means, was it conducted or was it not

8 conducted?

9 A. It was not conducted.

10 Q. According to the documentation that was shown to you by my

11 colleague the Prosecutor, we can only see -- we can see only one summons

12 to Johan Tarculovski for the second meeting of the commission whereby in

13 that summons it has been indicated to him that he can hire a lawyer and he

14 was warned that if he does not appear that he is going to be brought in.

15 Is that correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. No other person was called in such a manner, but mainly they were

18 called by telephone and with the regular written invitation, right?

19 A. The others were called only over the telephone.

20 Q. In the information produced out of the work of your commission

21 where an interview would be carried out, it would -- it wasn't written if

22 a person was warned about the rights that person has when interviewed. Is

23 my understanding that you did not warn those persons about any rights

24 correct?

25 A. Yes. The persons were not warned. Also, their rights were not

1 told to them.

2 Q. So you never told those persons that -- that they are not obliged

3 to speak at all. You never warned them that their statement might be used

4 in court. You never warned them that they are not obliged to answer any

5 of the questions that would incriminate them or their close relatives,

6 that would put them -- made them a subject of a criminal prosecution or

7 cause any material or moral damage to them nor you warned them about other

8 rights that must be mentioned in a criminal procedure?

9 A. We were not carrying out neither a criminal nor a misdemeanour

10 procedure. We only carried out some unofficial conversations, internal

11 conversations with those persons.

12 Q. As you explained, every commission as well as this one had a

13 representatives for the sector for analysis that kept minutes and on the

14 basis of those minutes an information was prepared. And that information

15 was also prepared by a person from the analytics department. Is that

16 correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. When I asked you yesterday in which way the information was sent

19 from the operational headquarters Ramno, you said that the headquarters

20 Ramno would review the information and that that information would be then

21 sent by the analytics sector to the minister. Was the same manner used

22 in this commission as well?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. So once you would review the composed information and you would

25 find no comments about them, then the member of the commission, that is to

1 say a member of the analytical department, would send the information to

2 the minister and would register it in the records of the sector for

3 analysis. Is that correct?

4 A. Exactly.

5 Q. So Mrs. Groseva, if I can say so, would be in a position to better

6 say what has been sent to the minister than you would be able to say or

7 that other members of the committee would be able to say. Is that

8 correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And if Mrs. Groseva testifying before this Court would say that it

11 was a normal practice and that happened also with your commission, that

12 she sent the minister only the information without the attachments, the

13 Official Notes, that some of the interviewed persons made, then that would

14 be different than what you said, and what do you say? Is it correct what

15 Mrs. Groseva said?

16 A. Yes. The minister only receives the final information, the final

17 version of the information or the minutes.

18 Q. And when you answered to the questions of my learned colleague

19 that the minister received also the Official Note, was that your

20 assumption or did you know that?

21 A. So from the meeting an Official Note might -- might be prepared, a

22 report, or minutes. That is a final document that has three names so to

23 say: Official Note, report or minutes it all depends on the person that

24 would make it, and the person who -- who would make it would title it in

25 certain way.

1 Q. And don't you think that Mrs. Groseva testifying before this Court

2 would make a mistake about what she used to send to the minister bearing

3 in mind that the sending of the document was her duty in the commission.

4 Do you think that she didn't make a mistake?

5 A. She didn't make a mistake.

6 Q. You also said that the commission was gathering information for

7 the minister, but in the tasks that you were given by the minister, it was

8 mentioned that you have to determine the responsibility of the persons.

9 Tell me, please, is it possible at all for your commission or for any

10 commission that was not set forth by a law or a general act to determine

11 some individuals' responsibility?

12 A. There's only one commission within the Ministry of Interior who

13 makes such inquiries. That is the disciplinary commission. The other

14 commissions have no authority about it at all.

15 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, have the right to

16 issue decisions.

17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. If I understood you well, you were especially not able to

19 determine anyone's criminal responsibility. Am I right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. The composition of the commission that was shown to you was such

22 that practically covered all the relevant parts of the Ministry of

23 Interior that act pursuant to the law and that by its line of organisation

24 from the lowest to the highest parts of the ministry were able to provide

25 the relevant documents and minutes to the ministry. Is that right?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And bearing in mind that composition of the commission, do you

3 think that the minister could rely that your commission would carry out

4 its tasks to the extent possible?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. You said you knew that in 2001 another commission was established

7 by Minister Boskoski. Is that right?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And that commission, as well as yours, was an ad hoc commission,

10 right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Its composition as obvious from that decision, contained the most

13 responsible officials of the Ministry of Interior and that is the bureau

14 for public security. That is to say, the director was there; the director

15 of the bureau, Goran Mitevski; the under-secretary for the police,

16 Risto Galevski; as well as the under-secretary for the criminal police,

17 Zivko Petrovski. Do you remember that?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. These persons were managing the most important parts of the

20 police. Is that correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And they had the opportunity, through the lines of their

23 management, from the sectors and department in the municipalities to

24 gather all the information that these public security bodies possessed.

25 Is that right?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. You already said that you have a very high opinion of these

3 persons. My current question is: Bearing in mind their position that

4 they had in the ministry and their professional and personal

5 characteristics, are those persons to which information the minister was

6 able to rely?

7 A. Yes, completely.

8 Q. In the -- the tasks of your commission mention that you have to

9 acquire all the documents and we saw that you asked for and you received

10 some documents. However, I'm interested whether you, during the time when

11 you worked in the commission, had the documents of the forensics

12 department that it made in August 2001?

13 A. We didn't have them as a commission, but they were available.

14 Q. As a commission, you made no inspection of the expertise of the

15 found and seized weapons that was made in the forensics department of the

16 ministry.

17 In respect to that, I would like to ask you whether, in 2001, in

18 the Ministry of Interior --

19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, the transcript did

20 not record the answer of the witness -- of the witness to my previous

21 question. The witness answered yes, but I can repeat my question.

22 Q. So I asked you whether you, as a commission, reviewed and had in

23 mind the expertise that was produced on the found and seized weapons at

24 that time.

25 A. We did not have.

1 Q. Thank you very much. General, I'd like to ask you now, whether

2 you, and bearing in mind that you worked in the uniformed police, and

3 maybe you know this, did you have automatic rifles of Chinese production

4 in 2001?

5 A. Whether -- could you repeat, please?

6 Q. Whether the Ministry of the Interior, that is the police officers

7 who were issued with those weapons, did you have rifles of Chinese made?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Did you have, in 2001, automatic rifles Thompson of 45-millimetres

10 calibre?

11 A. Not within our armament.

12 Q. Did you have magazines for automatic rifles of Chinese make with

13 24 bullets?

14 A. We had no armament of Chinese make.

15 Q. Did you have bullets of 45 millimetres calibre for the Thompson

16 submachine-gun?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Thank you. So if the analysis of weapons in your police forensics

19 would state that such weapons did not exist within the Ministry of

20 Interior, you also corroborate this, that such weapons did not exist

21 there?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. You, when working in the committee, did not have the documents

24 that the department for internal affairs and the sector for internal

25 affairs, Skopje, produced upon the request of the court and submitted to

1 the prosecutor and the court. Is that correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. My colleague asked you to -- asked me to ask you whether you had

4 ammunition 7 times 62 of Chinese or Albanian make?

5 A. No.

6 Q. And maybe in order to have it completely clear, which weapons and

7 which ammunition did you use?

8 A. The --

9 Q. The transcript reads only 62. This is 7.62.

10 Could you tell us what weapons and what ammunition, I mean, what

11 rifles you had at the time, if you remember?

12 A. The automatic rifles were produced in what is now Serbia.

13 Actually, the former Yugoslavia, the Zastava factory. Also, we had

14 ammunition from the same factory, from Prvi Partizan Uzice and recently

15 from the Samakov [phoen] factory in Macedonia.

16 Q. Thank you. General, did you have or could you have had documents

17 that the Prosecutor's office and the courts had available in 2001?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Did you obtain or were you submitted some documents from the

20 international organisations that were present at that time in Skopje, or

21 in Republic of Macedonia, rather?

22 A. No, nothing was submitted to us.

23 Q. In your method of work that you agreed, was it agreed that the

24 commission members are not authorised to communicate the findings of the

25 commission to other bodies and to the general public before the

1 information, the final information, is submitted to the minister?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. As you explained answering to my colleague the Prosecutor, you

4 invited quite a number of people to be interviewed. And as the

5 documentation stands and also as it can be seen from the information that

6 was produced, the first meeting of the committee took place on the 5th of

7 May, 2003. Is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And the information was produced on the 6th, as far as I remember.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. The commission member, Tanja Groseva, was not at that time

12 meeting. Is that correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Another person sat for her, another representative of the

15 analytics department, although that person was not the committee member.

16 Is that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. In the first meeting, according to that report, Gjorgji Mitrov,

19 Zivko Gacovski, Johan Tarculovski, and Goce Ralevski were invited. Is

20 that correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. The first three persons, Gjorgji Mitrov, Zivko Gacovski and

23 Johan Tarculovski were members of the MOI, while Goce Ralevski was not a

24 MOI member?

25 A. Zivko Gacovski was an employee of the Ministry of Interior as

1 well.

2 Q. Yes, what I said was that only Goce Ralevski was not a MOI member?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Goce Ralevski was an employee of the parliament of the Republic of

5 Macedonia. Is that correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And out of all these persons invited, only Johan Tarculovski wrote

8 an Official Note in his own hand. Is that correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Tell me, General, is it correct that on the 28th of May, the

11 second meeting of the committee, you were not in attendance?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And no other persons were interviewed during that meeting, only

14 some documents were reviewed?

15 A. If this is what the minutes read, that I was not in attendance,

16 then I was not in attendance.

17 Q. I would like to ask that the witness is shown that document of the

18 28th. That is, I would like to ask that the witness please be shown on

19 the screen Exhibit P435, marked for identification.

20 You see this report now, General. In this information, in

21 paragraph 3, it is stated that: "Responding to a telegramme from SVR

22 Skopje a report was received, that over the aforementioned period of time

23 in the area of Ljuboten village, the members of the active and the reserve

24 forces of the SVR Skopje, police station Cair and the police station

25 Mirkovci, were engaged at the check-points of Chinese wall, Straista, and

1 Buzalak, check-points that were in operation before."

2 It further states that: "On the 12th of August 2001, at about

3 1600 hours, in order to block the road between Ljuboten to Ljubotenski

4 road and Cair the SVR Skopje established two platoons: One platoon of SVR

5 Skopje and another from the Rapid Intervention Unit Lions. They had the

6 task to provide conditions for safe transport of citizens who were leaving

7 Ljuboten village and were on their way to Skopje, and they were gathered

8 at the Buzalak location."

9 General, General Risto Galevski gave evidence before this Court on

10 the page 3766 to 3767 of the transcript. He stated the following: "[In

11 English] When you learned in the afternoon that hundreds of villagers of

12 Ljuboten were walking towards Skopje and that several thousand citizens

13 from the neighbouring villages and Skopje were walking towards Radishani

14 and that there had already been rather chaotic, that the citizens started

15 turning cars over, that this was already known that there were injured

16 among the villagers leaving the village, you then, as you testified, tried

17 and in consultation with Bliznakovski, with Mitevski, and also in

18 consultation with the minister, decided to sent to the site the posebna

19 unit. Is that correct?"

20 The answer was, Yes, it is correct.

21 "[In English] As far as you know, one part of posebna was then

22 deployed towards Radishani and Butel in order to create a tampon zone

23 between the thousands of citizens and villagers from Ljuboten and in order

24 to protect the police stations that these citizens do not enter the police

25 station. Is that correct?"

1 [Interpretation] The answer was, Exactly.

2 "[In English] And you believe that through these efforts the

3 police managed to prevent unforeseeable consequences that could have

4 occurred on that day. Is that correct?

5 Yes. Maybe we did not arrive in time to completely prevent

6 contacts between the civilian population. They had already occurred to

7 the extent that they did occurred but we prevented an incident of

8 unforeseeable consequences that we did.

9 [Interpretation] The question.

10 [In English] So you already had an information that some of the

11 villagers from Ljuboten were injured in the clash with a crowd and that

12 some of these -- or one of these people was offered medical care in a

13 hospital?"

14 [Interpretation] The reply was: [In English] This is precisely why

15 we have sent the posebna unit.

16 [Interpretation] General, in his statement Goran Georgievski

17 about whom you stated that in August 2001 he was the head of posebna

18 units, in his statement dated the 5th of December, 2003, which he gave to

19 the investigator Thomas Kuehnel, he stated the following in the paragraph

20 18: "[In English] On Sunday, 12th of August, between 15 and 16 hours, the

21 under-secretary of police, General Risto Galevski called me and ordered me

22 to send one platoon of the posebna police unit to the Cair police station.

23 The order was to secure the Cair police station from the inside.

24 Risto Galevski told me that certain events have taken place in Ljuboten

25 and that different sorts of events could be expected from the population

1 in Cair."

2 [Interpretation] General, do you see a discrepancy between what is

3 written in this telegramme sent by the SVR Skopje and this testimony?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Could you tell me what is your knowledge, since you were the

6 deputy to Mr. Galevski at the time, is it correct that the posebna unit

7 was sent and that at that time as you testified yesterday, the Lions did

8 not exist at all?

9 A. Yes. At that time, the posebna unit from Skopje was the one to

10 intervene, and it is also correct that the Lions had not been established

11 yet.

12 Q. On the second page of this information, and that is N006-55025 in

13 Macedonian, because the English version is still not -- oh, it is

14 uploaded, but we haven't received it. But I will read it in Macedonian.

15 "The commander of the anti-terrorist unit sent an information

16 that over that period of time no members of that unit were employed. The

17 then Rapid Intervention Unit Lavovi, the former Rapid Intervention Unit

18 Lavovi because that unit had not been established then yet."

19 Do you see this?

20 A. Yes, I see it now.

21 Q. And this information, from the commander of the unit for

22 anti-terrorist activities correspond to what you knew then at August 2001.

23 Is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And the commander of the anti-terrorist unit is actually

1 Goran Georgievski who actually received the order from Risto Galevski to

2 send the platoon of posebna. Is that correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. The next meeting that you had was in November 2003, and you then

5 interviewed Johan Tarculovski and Zoran Jovanovski, Bucuk. Is that

6 correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. That was the occasion when it was Johan Tarculovski only who was

9 issued the caution that he can use an attorney and that he will be brought

10 in if he does not respond to this invitation, and you never cautioned him

11 about any other right then. Is that correct?

12 A. As far as I remember, Mr. Tarculovski had left the Ministry of

13 Interior then, and this is why he needed to be invited by a summons and he

14 was issued then the caution.

15 Q. But you did not inform him about the rights about which you need

16 to inform a person against whom there is a criminal procedure or a

17 disciplinary procedure initiated?

18 A. I think that this is in the summons that he needs to come to be

19 interviewed, and we did not caution him about other rights.

20 Q. From the 12th until the 25th of November, as we can read in your

21 information of 25th of November, apart from Johan Tarculovski you also

22 interviewed Bucuk, Zoran Jovanovski, also Miodrag Stojanovski,

23 Ljube Krstevski, Vanco Ginovski, Vladimir Cagorovic, Ljupco Bliznakovski,

24 Pero Stojanovski, Trajce Kuzmanovski, and Radojko Lozanovski. These are

25 the persons mentioned in your information dated 25th of November.

1 Since it might be easier for us to work with the document, let's

2 look at the number. That is 379, MFI but it is marked as 285. So Exhibit

3 P379, MFI, while 65 ter number of the Prosecutor is 285.6.

4 You see this information. Is that the last information that your

5 commission produced?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. General, Johan Tarculovski was interviewed three times, actually

8 twice, and the third time he wrote an Official Note in his own hand. Did

9 you see that these three statements are completely different and

10 absolutely contradictory to one another?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. In the first information dated 6th of May, if I reframe what it

13 says, he stated that the minister Ljube Boskoski sent him to Ljuboten. Do

14 you remember that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. In his Official Note that he wrote on the same date when he was

17 interviewed before the commission, he stated that the information that

18 Xhavid Asani was in the village he heard from the villagers and he did not

19 mention Ljube Boskoski at all. Is that correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. In the third statement, the one he gave on the 12th of November,

22 2003, he stated that he had made an arrangement with his buddies to go to

23 the village. Do you remember that? This would be a rather free reframing

24 of his ... Do you remember that?

25 MR. SAXON: Your Honour.

1 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.

2 MR. SAXON: I don't believe anywhere in the statement of

3 Johan Tarculovski of the 12th of November that is part of this exhibit,

4 Mr. Tarculovski refers to his buddies or friends. I believe a more

5 accurate description would be that Mr. Tarculovski said he chose the

6 persons who would accompany him to Ljuboten. He did not describe them in

7 any more personal way.

8 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I will then quote from the

9 statement.

10 Q. He stated that he came to Ljuboten upon his own motion because he

11 wanted to come and he did not receive an order from anyone to go to

12 Ljuboten village. And he stated that the persons who were at Ljuboten --

13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, and he stated that he

14 decided not to disclose the names of those who were at Ljuboten.

15 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Is that correct, is this now what is written in your information?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. General, you're a professional police officer. Did you trust any

19 of these statements?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Could any conclusion be drawn on the basis of these statements,

22 and particularly any reliable conclusion on whether Johan was there and

23 with whom?

24 MR. SAXON: Objection, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Saxon.

1 MR. SAXON: This is really a question for the Trial Chamber, not

2 for this witness.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.

4 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm requesting

5 witness's opinion, whether he was able to draw a conclusion, and I know

6 that this is the task for the Chamber once all evidence are presented,

7 that the Chamber will decide about this fact, as well as on any other

8 fact.

9 [Trial Chamber confers]

10 JUDGE PARKER: We are not inclined to allow the question in that

11 form which calls on the witness to be conjecturing about a matter which is

12 for this Chamber in the end to determine.

13 You may, if you wanted to, ask the witness whether in fact the

14 commission reached conclusions about the presence of Mr. Tarculovski and

15 with whom, but not go into this witness's opinion whether something was

16 reliable or not. If that helps.

17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18 Q. General, as a commission, and you as a president of the

19 commission, on the basis of this information that were given to you by

20 Johan Tarculovski were you able to determine whether Johan Tarculovski was

21 in the village at all and with whom?

22 A. Not only from Johan's statements but also from the statements of

23 other persons that were not employed in the ministry and were called for

24 interview. As a commission we were not able to conclude what exactly took

25 place there. Therefore, we wrote a final report to the minister that you

1 have in your files and we told the minister that it would be the best to

2 review decide on this case in an -- according to the professional manners,

3 that is to say, by the bodies that are authorised to initiate certain

4 procedures, criminal or misdemeanour procedures.

5 Q. As a president of the commission, General, or as a commission were

6 you able to conclude whether Ljube Boskoski had any connection with

7 Johan Tarculovski in respect to the Ljuboten issue?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Tell me, please, since in these statements and I will freely

10 interpret them now, the statement of Johan Tarculovski is included, that

11 the minister authorised him to freely select the people and to arm -- and

12 take arms. As a president of the commission and as a person who was a

13 close associate to the minister, were you able to conclude whether the

14 information that you received --

15 MR. SAXON: Your Honour.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Saxon.

17 MR. SAXON: The form of that question combines the witness's role

18 as a president of -- as the commission but also his status as a close

19 associate to the minister, and so effectively is again asking the

20 witness's personal opinion on this matter.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, I agree.

22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. General, were you able to reach any conclusion about the other

24 facts regarding Minister Boskoski?

25 JUDGE PARKER: By "you," you mean the commission.

1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, commission.

2 That was one of the tasks of the commission, Your Honours. I,

3 therefore, ask about the commission.

4 JUDGE PARKER: Just making clear. Your question was were you

5 able.

6 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, okay. Yeah.

7 JUDGE PARKER: We're interested in the commission, not this

8 individual.

9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

10 Q. Was the commission able to make a conclusion any fact regarding

11 Ljube Boskoski about which Johan Tarculovski or other people spoke?

12 A. No.

13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, maybe it is a right

14 time now.

15 JUDGE PARKER: We will have the second break and resume at five

16 past 6.00.

17 --- Recess taken at 5.36 p.m.

18 --- On resuming at 6.07 p.m.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.

20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

21 I put a document to the witness in tab 28.

22 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel repeat the number, please.

23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Behind tab 98. I put to the

24 witness a document number 65 ter 446 relating the village of Jezince, and

25 after that I put to him part of the statement of Henry Bolton about the

1 same area. So I would like the Chamber, since I failed to seek to tender

2 it, I would seek to tender this document now as Defence exhibit.

3 JUDGE PARKER: I haven't turned back to find it. I see there's no

4 objection, so it will be received.

5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D187, Your Honours.

6 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. General, based on the facts that you established, was the

8 commission able to ascertain that some person has -- some person has

9 committed a murder in the village of Ljuboten?

10 A. It was not possible.

11 Q. Based on the documents and interviews that you had, was the

12 commission able to ascertain what were the persons present in the village

13 of Ljuboten?

14 A. It was not possible.

15 Q. Was the commission, based on the evidence and interviews that you

16 had, able to ascertain whether a certain specific individual set on fire

17 some house in Ljuboten?

18 A. It was not possible.

19 Q. Was the commission, based on the facts acquired, able to ascertain

20 whether certain police officers mistreated some persons that were brought

21 in, in the police stations?

22 A. It was not possible.

23 Q. Was the commission, based on the facts acquired, able to ascertain

24 whether some police officer at the check-points mistreated some person?

25 A. It was not possible.

1 Q. Thank you very much.

2 General, you said that you had a decision of Minister Boskoski of

3 the 13th of August, 2001 about the setting up of the first commission and

4 you had the report of the first commission.

5 My question is the following. Did only you had that report or was

6 that report available to the other members of the commission?

7 A. I apologise, could you please explain what commission are you

8 referring to.

9 Q. The decision in the report of the commission established by the

10 Minister Boskoski. You said that you had -- that at the time when the

11 second commission was operational that you had, I'm interested whether the

12 other members of the commission also was -- were in the possession of that

13 report or not?

14 A. They have only read it and they didn't have it in hard copy.

15 Q. Was Minister Hari Kostov who assigned the task to you --

16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, did Minister Hari

17 Kostov have that report created by the commission of Ljube Boskoski?

18 A. Yes.

19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. You said that on several occasions that you spoke with the

21 minister about the work of your commission. I'm interested to know

22 whether the minister gave you a task to review and examine the work of the

23 first commission or he told you -- he told you not to do that part of the

24 work or maybe he gave you some third task?

25 A. We did not have the task to review the work of the first

1 commission, and he also did not indicate that we should analyse the work

2 of the second commission.

3 Q. In the statement given to the OTP investigator, General

4 Goran Mitevski stated that at the time of the work of your commission have

5 met you and that he offered himself to come and be interviewed and he

6 volunteered to give you other information. Do you remember meeting

7 General Mitevski, and him offering you to -- to provide you with certain

8 relevant information to give the relevant information to the commission?

9 A. Yes. And we assessed that there is no need to do it.

10 Q. You assessed that there is no need to interview him because of the

11 fact that the minister told you that you should not pay attention to the

12 work of the first commission, right?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Was that the reason that you did not call also other members of

15 the commission to acquire certain facts of them or some evidence that they

16 had available?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. General, if the police, already on 12th of August, in the

19 afternoon hours, informed the investigating judge that they have

20 information that there are killed persons in the village, in your opinion,

21 would the police complete its task with it?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Is it correct that after such an information, the further decision

24 would be in the hands of the investigating judge?

25 A. Yes. And he is the one who heads all the investigative actions.

1 Q. And in that situation, the police would only be able to assist the

2 judge and to carry out the tasks assigned to it by the judge?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. General, in the second commission, did you bear in mind the report

5 of the investigating judge, of the prosecutor, of the forensic pathologist

6 from the Skopje sector, whereby it is clearly shown that these bodies made

7 an effort to enter the village of Ljuboten on the 12th and the 14th?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Did you know, General, that the investigating judge and the

10 investigating team that he established was not able to enter the village?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Would you agree with me, General, that without the on-site

13 inspection it was not possible to examine the truthfulness of the

14 information about the -- about the killed persons, about their number,

15 about their capacity, about the way circumstances and causes of that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Is it true, General, that the impossibility to determine those

18 facts is -- was in fact an insufficient grounds for the police to file a

19 criminal report against a known or unknown perpetrator?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And is it correct, General, that -- that is also regulated with

22 the rules for work of the bodies of the Ministry of Interior?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And if I may conclude, that means that the police -- in order for

25 the police to file a criminal report, it had to acquire sufficient

1 reliable evidence to establish a doubt that a person has committed an act

2 that is a criminal act?

3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, suspicion, not doubt.

4 A. Yes.

5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Bearing in mind that the prosecutor and the court have already

7 been informed, you already said that the further competence and initiative

8 was in the hands of the investigating judge and the prosecutor, was that

9 the legal -- the lawful practice -- the legal practice in the Republic of

10 Macedonia?

11 A. Yes, that is a legal obligation.

12 Q. Do you agree, General, that after the crime scene does not exist

13 anymore because it has been changed with the burial of the killed persons,

14 that the only way, in order to examine the mentioned relevant facts was to

15 make an exhumation and to carry out a post-mortem of the buried killed

16 persons?

17 A. The only way to -- to find out about the persons that have been

18 buried was an exhumation.

19 Q. Bearing in mind your professional experience, are you aware that

20 the Law on Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Macedonia, an order or --

21 an exhumation can also -- may also be ordered by an investigating judge

22 upon a proposal of the prosecutor?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. At the time, when in April 2002, when the post-mortem and the

25 exhumation was carried out in the village of Ljuboten, you were at the

1 position of the under-secretary in the Ministry of Interior. Is that

2 correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. In the decision that appoints you to the second commission, the

5 minister indicated that you should bear in mind the findings of the

6 forensic medicine institute, that is to say, the post-mortem findings. Do

7 you remember that?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. That was an important fact for any body that would examine the

10 issue of the Ljuboten events. Is that right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Were you aware that after the report of the first commission, and

13 based on suggestions derived from it, the exhumation and post-mortem was

14 proposed by Minister Boskoski and that proposal was prepared also for

15 the -- and was sent to the prosecutor and to the court by Goran Mitevski

16 as director of the bureau for public security?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Please look at the document at tab 118. That is Exhibit 1D33,

19 page -- okay, we can see it.

20 Given that you had the information of the first commission, you

21 know that the first commission finished its work and filed the information

22 on 4th of September, 2001?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. From this proposal, you can see that already on the 7th of

25 September 2001, the Ministry of Interior, to the public prosecutor and the

1 investigating judge on duty from the Skopje Court II filed a proposal for

2 exhumation with a post-mortem?

3 A. [No interpretation]

4 Q. Please now look in the document in tab 119.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. That is Exhibit P55. The page is N002-1146-003, and the English

7 version is ET, N002-1148-N002-1148-1.

8 General, you see this is an act of the public prosecutor's office

9 dated 10th of September, 2001. Isn't it so?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Would you agree with me that the ministry promptly after the

12 commission finished its work initiated a proposal on undertaking an

13 exhumation and post-mortem?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And that the prosecutor's office promptly after that proposal also

16 reacted and proposed to the court to undertake certain investigating

17 actions.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. In paragraph 2 of this proposal, it is obvious -- it is visible

20 that the public prosecutor's office in relation to this case acting

21 pursuant to Article 148, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure

22 and upon the written initiative of the Ministry of Interior, composed this

23 proposal?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Do you agree with me that in this way -- actually, the

1 prosecutor's office has shown that the proposal of the ministry was

2 accepted as an initiative because the ministry itself is not able to file

3 a proposal. Is that correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. In the work of the commission, were you in any way familiar that

6 the investigating judge, immediately after receiving this proposal, took

7 measures in order to carry out that investigating activity of exhumation

8 and post-mortem?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Did you gather that data in the performance of your duty or did

11 you receive that data from the commission members or was it that you

12 learned that information only afterwards?

13 A. We learned about them afterwards.

14 Q. Did the commission member, Besim Ramicevic, ever informed you -

15 not you personally but the commission - that he was personally informed in

16 the first steps of this initiative that was necessary to undertake other

17 actions by the court?

18 A. He did not inform me, myself, and he did not inform the commission

19 members.

20 Q. Could you please look at the document in tab 120. That is Exhibit

21 1D63, page, Macedonian, is N005-0754, and the English is N005-0754-ET.

22 General, this is the Official Note that was submitted, as you can

23 see here from the title, by Simeon Zidrovski and Besim Ramicevic. Do you

24 see this?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. The Official Note was composed on the 18th of September, 2001, and

2 it deals with the meeting of the 14th of September, 2001, at the premises

3 of the forensics medicine and criminology institute. There was a

4 consultation meeting initiated by the investigating judge of the Basic

5 Court Skopje II, Mr. Dragan Nikolovski. In relation with actions

6 undertaken according to the Article 244 of the Law on Criminal Procedure,

7 the exhumation and the post-mortem of the persons killed in the village of

8 Ljuboten in the course of the military operation that underwent in that

9 region.

10 Do you conclude from this that, on the basis of the initiative

11 that came from the Ministry of Interior, the only possible legal procedure

12 was undertaken, that of exhumation and post-mortem?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. If you look now at the final paragraph of this Official Note on

15 the first page, it reads here: "Dr. Aleksej Duma, expressed a

16 preparedness to perform the exhumation and autopsy following a previously

17 received order from the investigating judge indicating that, in order to

18 avoid any subsequent distortion of the autopsy result of the buried

19 remains in the village of Ljuboten, he will arrange for supervisors to be

20 present during the investigation, namely, competent individuals from the

21 Skopje office of the ICTY."

22 Do you agree with me that from the very start, the persons who

23 should have been involved in the exhumation and the post-mortem, were very

24 transparent and wished to avoid any misunderstanding, so they immediately

25 involved the representatives of the International Tribunal?

1 A. Yes, I agree with this.

2 Q. As you stated that you did not research the work of the first

3 committee, you probably did not take into consideration all documents that

4 that committee reviewed.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. What does the yes mean? Did you take into consideration or did

7 you not take?

8 A. No, we did not take documents into consideration. We did not look

9 at them.

10 Q. So you did not know at all which actions were requested by the

11 investigating judge for the police to perform and in what way and in what

12 circumstances the police performed those tasks, regardless of whether it

13 was department of internal affairs, Cair, sector for internal affairs,

14 Skopje, or the ministry. You did not know that. Is that correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Considering that the exhumation was performed during your term as

17 an under-secretary, was it clear to you then that the international

18 community was involved in the carrying out of the exhumation and the

19 post-mortem and also were the representatives of the International

20 Tribunal?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Could we please now look at the document in tab 126. That is

23 Exhibit P55, and the page is N002-1146-029, and the English version is it

24 at ET N002-1175-N002-1175-1.

25 And while we're waiting for the document to be loaded, was it

1 completely clear to you then that the exhumation in the village of

2 Ljuboten could not have been performed without the assistance and the

3 presence of the international community representatives?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. This is a document that you see here, document produced by the

6 basic public prosecutor's office on the 18th of March, 2002, that was sent

7 to the Basic Court Skopje, to the investigative judge Dragan Nikolovski,

8 and it is -- it deals with further specifying the exhumation order.

9 The first paragraph reads: "Regarding the initiative of the MOI,

10 the directorate for public security number 10-33282, dated 7th of

11 September, 2001, to the title XXRO number 1098/01, dated 10th of

12 September, 2001, in accordance with Article 148, paragraph 1 of the Law on

13 Criminal Procedure a proposal was submitted regarding an undertaking

14 certain investigation actions exhumation, from Article 244 of the Law on

15 Criminal Procedure in order to examine and perform post-mortem of the

16 bodies of unknown persons buried at the local cemetery in the village of

17 Ljuboten to determine their identity, cause of death, time of death, the

18 circumstances under which they met their death, since it was impossible to

19 be done on the 13th and 14th of August, 2001, due to the well-known

20 reasons the on-site inspection by the competent bodies was impossible."

21 Do you see, General, that this request to indicate further details

22 regarding the post-mortem order the basic public prosecutor's office

23 indicates that the entire procedure was initiated from -- was based on the

24 initiative of the Ministry of Interior?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Can I say, could you agree with me on this, that when submitting

2 this initiative, the minister and the ministry did more than the legal

3 obligations were for them, and they started the procedure that was

4 necessary --

5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.

6 MR. SAXON: I think we are, again, asking this witness to draw a

7 conclusion that is really for this Chamber at the end of the day.

8 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I asked whether he

9 could agree with me.

10 JUDGE PARKER: That doesn't help the problem. You're asking him

11 whether the ministry and the minister complied with their legal

12 obligations or did more than their legal obligations.

13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Very well.

14 JUDGE PARKER: That is a legal issue, yes.

15 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.

16 Q. You already stated that you did not have the task to research or

17 investigate the work of the first committee.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Did you learn later that actually the minister immediately

20 informed the coordination body of the government about all findings

21 related to the Ljuboten events?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Did you, during the work of the committee or later, learn that the

24 information that the first committee produced, after it was submitted to

25 the minister, was forwarded to the government of the Republic of Macedonia

1 and that the government of the Republic of Macedonia reviewed that

2 information?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And is this the proper way for a minister to inform the government

5 about a very important issue that is within the realm of his competences,

6 to inform the government whose member the minister is?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Did you at any later time, if you had not reviewed the documents

9 produced by the first committee, did you learn that the minister informed

10 the government later again, in November 2001?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. When we spoke about the initiative for exhumation and post-mortem

13 and for -- and about information that there are dead bodies buried in the

14 village of Ljuboten, you stated that the police performed the task that it

15 had under the law by doing this.

16 Could you agree with me, General, if I say that after an

17 information about an event that could be suspicious is received, the

18 prosecutor is then the body or the person who decides on the further

19 measures that need to be undertaken?

20 A. Yes, that is so.

21 Q. I will ask you now to look at the document in tab 101. That is

22 Exhibit P46. The page is 0463-8774-044. I think we already have the

23 document on the display.

24 General, you see that this is the document by the Ministry of

25 Interior, Cair department. Is that correct?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And it was signed by the head of the department of internal

3 affairs, Cair, Ljube Krstevski. Is that correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And it is sent to the basic public prosecutor's office, Skopje.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. The correspondence stated that the prosecutor's office is sent

8 analysis of fire-arm residue and the Official Note, number 537. Is that

9 correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. What is written here as subject is also seen in the contents of

12 this letter sent by Ljube Krstevski.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. I would like to ask you now to turn to the document in tab 102.

15 That is Exhibit P261, and the page is N005-1134, the English

16 N005-1134-N005-1135-ET.

17 It is again an act issued by the department for internal affairs,

18 Cair, and at the remittal you see that this is the Official Note number

19 537. Is that correct? It is in tab 102.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And this is precisely the Official Note that we saw mentioned in

22 the previous document, that it was sent to the basic public prosecutor's

23 office, Skopje. Is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. This note contains information and findings about the death of

1 Atulla Qaili.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Do you agree with me, General, that at the moment when the police

4 informed the prosecutor's office about the death of a given individual

5 that then, pursuant to the authorities vested in the prosecutor, the

6 prosecutor was the person who needed to either carry out an investigation

7 themselves or request the police to carry out the actions aiming at

8 obtaining the additional information necessary for the prosecutor?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. I would like to ask you now -- I would like to show you a part of

11 the statement of the municipal prosecutor, Jovan Serafimovski, that is 65

12 ter 1D227, N002-2018. This is a statement that is available in the

13 English language only.

14 So 65 ter 1D227. This is the first page of the statement that the

15 prosecutor, Jovan Serafimovski, made on the 19th and 20th of December to

16 the investigator of the ICTY.

17 Now I would like to show you the page 1D2454, paragraph 7. The

18 Prosecutor states the follow: "[In English] In the request to conduct an

19 investigation submitted on 14 August 2001, the name of Atulla Qani is

20 mentioned. It was my obligation to ascertain the cause of death. I asked

21 the investigative judge to inquire about this. We found out that

22 Qani Atulla was injured during the clash with the police and army in

23 Ljuboten. I was informed from the media that the police and army were

24 there. I don't know which unit were there. I never receive information

25 like this. I didn't ask for information like this."

1 [Interpretation] Do you agree, General, with this, that it was

2 actually the prosecutor, when he received this information, the one who

3 had the duty to investigate it?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. When -- when the information about the death of a certain person

6 reached the investigating judge, and not only about the death, about

7 anything that would indicate that there is a suspicion a crime has been

8 committed, then you agree me, then, this would be the duty for the

9 investigating judge, to verify the facts and to inform the public

10 prosecutor about it?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. I would like to ask that 65 ter 1D547 be shown, page 1D5002, and

13 in the English version is 1D4996. And that is the statement of the judge,

14 Jovan Lazarevski, who made the statement on the 14th and the 19th of

15 September, 2004, to the investigator and the Prosecutor of the ICTY.

16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, 2005.

17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. I would like to ask now to move to page 2, 1D5003, and paragraph 4

19 in it, and the English page is 1D4998.

20 The judge, Lazarevski, says the following: "As an investigating

21 judge, pursuant to the law, I have the duty to safeguard the rights of the

22 accused. For instance, the accused has the right to an attorney, the

23 right to give a statement or refuse to give a statement, the right to call

24 witnesses in his defence and the right to propose exculpatory evidence.

25 The investigating judge is neutral, and if during the questioning of a

1 defendant, information arises suggesting that the accused is innocent, the

2 investigating judge must investigate those. As part of my office, I can

3 ask for additional investigation or request additional evidence. Also, I

4 can recommend that the investigation is terminated and the case be dropped

5 if the evidence supports that decision. However, if I terminate the

6 investigation and the public prosecutor disagrees with my decision, he or

7 she can file an appeal against my decision."

8 Do you agree, General, that this is the legal obligation and the

9 right for the investigating judge?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. I would like to ask you now to look at the paragraph 9 at the page

12 1D5004 and the English page is 1D4999. And in this paragraph, the judge

13 Lazarevski states the following: "It is quite possible that the

14 investigation carried out into the events at Ljuboten was insufficient.

15 In a normal situation, you should investigate both sides to a conflict.

16 But in the case of Ljuboten, only the detained persons who were arrested

17 at Ljuboten were investigated. The investigation suggested by the public

18 prosecutor was carried out but no investigation was carried out into the

19 actions of the Macedonian authorities at Ljuboten as it would have

20 happened in normal circumstances. In my personal opinion, it is possible

21 that this was an omission. Also witnesses were not heard because that was

22 not suggested by the public prosecutor, so this was also probably an

23 omission. In this case, due to certain security concerns, the

24 investigating judge could -- was not able to carry out a full

25 investigation. What happened in 2001 was madness which will pass."

1 Do you agree with me, General, that what the judge Lazarevski says

2 indicates that he had certain duties, obligations, and possibly omissions

3 as well as omissions of the public prosecutor?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Is it correct that the Ministry of Interior could not influence

6 the way in which the public prosecutor's office and the courts act. It

7 could not have any type of influence?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Thank you very much.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Is that a convenient break, do you think,

11 Ms. Residovic?

12 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honours, maybe this

13 would be the right time because I have another topic to move on to, so...

14 JUDGE PARKER: Very well.

15 We adjourn now, resume on Monday at 2.15.

16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.59 p.m.,

17 to be reconvened on Monday, the 17th day of

18 September, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25