1 Monday, 29 October 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.11 a.m.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning.
6 The Chamber was delayed coming in as had it to give consideration
7 to another matter. I'm sorry for the delay.
8 There is no witness. Are counsel wanting to move anything before
9 the witness comes in or raise any matter?
10 Mr. Mettraux.
11 MR. METTRAUX: Good morning, Your Honours. We're grateful for the
12 time that Your Honour is allocating us for this matter.
13 The Defence would wish to make a number of submissions in relation
14 to issues of disclosure. We'd wish to make the submissions in the same
15 spirit that we did the last time around, and, again, we will underline
16 that we do not wish this to be perceived as an attack on our colleagues of
17 the Prosecution.
18 We wish to underline, however that what we believe to be
19 violations of disclosure obligations Your Honour are very serious indeed
20 in this case.
21 In the last three weeks, the Defence has received a large quantity
22 of new disclosure. Many of those were received as a result of particular
23 requests made by the Defence to receive particular document which he had
24 reason to believe that the Prosecution might have in its possession.
25 Other documents came to the Defence as a result of Your Honour's order of
1 a few weeks ago.
2 Your Honour, so that the Chamber is aware of the type and scope of
3 the problem in relation to this matter, I would like to give a sample of
4 the material which the Prosecution has disclosed to the Defence in the
5 past three weeks.
6 One category of documents consist of, I believe, eight new
7 investigator's notes taken by Mr. Howard Tucker. I would wish to point
8 out that the notes were disclosed to the Defence after the witness had
9 finished his testimony.
10 A second category of disclosure, Your Honour, is an investigator
11 note of a person called Mr. Colakovic. The reason we mention this note in
12 particular, Your Honour, is that the Defence had sought to obtain any
13 record of interview which related to this person and a number of other
14 persons. And, for a year or so, the Prosecution told the Defence that no
15 such note existed. This note, Your Honour, was taken in the presence of
16 current investigator, Mr. Thomas Kuehnel.
17 Another note, Your Honour, which has been recently disclosed to
18 the Defence is a further investigator's notes taken from former
19 Prosecution witness, Mr. Isni Ali, and, again, the document was disclosed
20 after the termination of this witness's evidence.
21 In addition, Your Honour - and I wish to be fair on that point -
22 the document itself is not particularly relevant and would not have been
23 particularly relevant to the evidence, we believe, and the
24 cross-examination of this witness. A concern, however, is that three
25 documents were apparently given by the witness to the Prosecution in the
1 course of this interview, and those documents have apparently gone
3 Another matter, Your Honour, which -- or another document which
4 had gone missing for a long time is an investigator note or the record of
5 interviews of a person, whose name at this stage I would prefer not to
6 mention, but who was a former security person of the president of the
7 Republic of Macedonia, Mr. Trajkovski.
8 As with the note of Mr. Colakovic, Defence had specifically
9 requested to be provided with a record of any interviews or contact with
10 that person for more than a year, we believe; and during that period, the
11 Prosecution gave us the indication that no such record existed.
12 The Defence persisted, however, with its request; and in the past
13 three weeks, I believe, the Prosecution finally indicated to the Defence
14 that there had indeed been such a meeting and a interview, but that the
15 records of this meeting and interview have been lost.
16 The matter is particularly serious, Your Honour, we submit, in
17 relation to this witness, who we believe could have given important
18 evidence in relation to the issue of control of the operation. In
19 particular, the Prosecution was unable to indicate to the Defence which
20 documents, if any, had been shown to this particular person. This person
21 also, Your Honour, we indicate for the record was interviewed again by
22 Mr. Kuehnel.
23 Another note or statement that has gone missing is that of a
24 journalist of the BBC, we believe, or the guardian, Mr. Nicholas Wood, who
25 from other statements, Your Honour, and other pieces of evidence appears
1 to have visited the village of Ljuboten on the 14th of August of 2001.
2 The Defence in this case has been denied the benefit of that evidence
3 since the statement appears to have gone missing.
4 We believe that the statement of that witness, in view of the fact
5 that he visited the village on the 14th, could have been relevant to at
6 least three Prosecution witnesses and possibly many more.
7 The Defence was also provided an additional two investigator's
8 notes, again taken by Mr. Kuehnel, of Mr. Hutsch, a former Prosecution
9 witness. Those, again, were received at the specific request and
10 insistence of the Defence. I wish to indicate, however, that those
11 additional two investigator's notes received, relating to Mr. Hutsch, were
12 received in the middle of cross-examination so that the Defence was, in
13 fact, in a position to use them.
14 Your Honour, another document which the Defence received in the
15 course of the last few weeks is a statement from a person called
16 Mr. Camlovski, Viktor, who in his statement gives a indication, inter
17 alia, that Judge Pancevski, an investigative judge which Your Honour would
18 remember from having mentioned a number of time, was in fact investigating
19 the allegation of mistreatment the detainees at the time.
20 This, again, Your Honour, we believe is evidence that could and
21 possibly should have been put through a number of Prosecution witnesses,
22 in particular, Mr. Tucker or Dr. Jakovski.
23 Another category of material and documents which the Defence has
24 received in the course of the last weeks concerns a number of documents
25 and investigator's notes that pertain to allegations of serious crimes
1 committed in and around the area of Matejce, Your Honour. Your Honour
2 will recall that Matejce is the area which was within the so-called zone
3 of responsibility of the 114th Brigade of the NLA, the zone of
4 responsibility of Mr. Bushi. That material, Your Honour, was received,
5 again, after the departure of that witness.
6 In the course of the last week, Your Honour, we have also received
7 an additional note which has been prepared and taken from the note itself
8 apparently by Mr. Bezruchenko himself from a former member of the army of
9 the Republic of Macedonia. That note records, inter alia, the --
10 according to that person in any case, the presence of NLA in the village
11 of Ljuboten. This note was taken in the year 2004 and had not been
12 received by the Defence.
13 Your Honour will also remember that, in his evidence,
14 Mr. Bezruchenko indicated that he did not take personally interview, but
15 that he would do so through the investigator. The note suggests that he
16 alone was doing this interview.
17 In the course of the past few days, the Defence has received a
18 further set of disclosure in the form of a letter of the Prosecution which
19 contained excerpts from documents, unidentified documents, which appear to
20 be communications to and from the Prosecution, or records in any case, of
21 meetings between representatives of the Prosecution and representatives of
22 the local Macedonian judiciary.
23 This document, Your Honour, is, again, relevant to the issue of
24 the competence, to investigate the events of Ljuboten. In particular,
25 there is a reference of a meeting between a representative of the Office
1 of the Prosecutor and Judge Nikolovski, who was in charge of the
2 investigation, who insisted at that time that certain material and certain
3 result should be sent back to the local judicial authorities whom he says
4 are competent to investigate these events.
5 An additional set of material, Your Honour, is made of a
6 miscellaneous group of statement and investigator's notes prepared or
7 received by Mr. Kuehnel. Again, Your Honour, those were received at the
8 insistence of the Defence on the basis that it should have in its
9 possession all material prepared by this particular person who appears on
10 the list of Prosecution witnesses.
11 A last group of documents, Your Honour, pertain to the proposed
12 future witness, Mr. -- not knowing whether he is protected or not, Your
13 Honour, he is an NLA commander who is due to appear in this case.
14 Your Honour, this is, in essence, the -- if not the extent, at
15 least a good summary of the material which we have received in the past
16 few weeks. The Defence submits that the prejudice which is suffered in
17 this case is self-evident. This material, Your Honour, should have been
18 disclosed in many case many years ago and in any case many months ago.
19 The failure of the Prosecutor to disclose those documents to the
20 Defence has prevented the Defence to investigate a number of these matter,
21 if it had considered it to be necessary. It has also denied the Defence a
22 opportunity, where appropriate and necessary, to test some of that
23 material through cross-examination where relevant an appropriate.
24 The Defence has also had to spend a great amount of time, Your
25 Honour, in the past few weeks reviewing this material and establishing
1 whether any of it could still be used through existing or forthcoming
2 witnesses. We submit, Your Honour, that the Chamber itself could suffer
3 as a result of this failure, to the extent that you would be denied
4 potentially relevant material in these proceedings.
5 Your Honour, we believe that the disclosure system relies heavily
6 on the due diligence of the Prosecution, and Your Honours have made that
7 point quite clearly in the past. The Defence should not be required, nor
8 expected, to chase the Prosecution to ensure that material that is
9 relevant to these proceedings is in fact disclosed.
10 Your Honour, we believe that if the Chamber were minded to grant a
11 remedy in this matter, this should be a stringent one that would be
12 commensurate with what we say is a serious violations of the Prosecution's
13 disclosure obligation. It should be one that would be capable of
14 repairing or compensating the prejudice caused to the Defence. We submit,
15 Your Honour, that the recalling of witnesses at this stage would not be an
16 appropriate mechanism. It would only prolong the trial unnecessarily and
17 in effect punish the defendants.
18 The Defence will make a number of submissions as far as remedies
19 are concerned, which the Chamber may find of assistance. Concerning the
20 material which pertains to the forthcoming NLA commander, first, the
21 Defence would wish to indicate that at this stage it reserves its right to
22 ask that the commencement of the cross-examination of this witness be
23 postponed or delayed should the Defence need more time to review this
25 Considering also that the breach of those duties directly involves
1 in many respect, and in large part, the fault of the investigator in this
2 case, Mr. Kuehnel, the Defence submits that the Prosecution should not be
3 permitted to call this person as a witness in this case.
4 Concerning the material which pertains to crimes committed in the
5 Matejce region, mostly in the form of investigator's notes taken by the
6 Office of the Prosecutor, the Defence submits that the Chamber could take
7 this failure into account when assessing the weight of the evidence, if
8 any, to be given to the evidence of Mr. Bushi.
9 Concerning, Your Honour, the material that pertains more
10 specifically to Mr. Tucker, in particular the various notes and records
11 that were provided recently to the Defence, we believe that one solution,
12 or one matter which we will pursue and which at this stage doesn't require
13 the intervention of the Chamber, would be for the Defence to submit a
14 number of agreed facts based on the content of several of those notes,
15 which we will submit to the Prosecution for their agreement. Should the
16 Prosecution refuse or decline to agree with certain of these facts
17 proposed fact, the Defence would come back to the Chamber, if necessary.
18 Finally, Your Honour, concerning the material which has been
19 misplaces or lost, at this stage the Defence would prefer to reserve its
20 rights, consider whether there is any alternative course for the Defence
21 to repair this matter, and perhaps, if necessary, come back to the Chamber
22 for further submissions.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Mettraux.
24 Mr. Apostolski.
25 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
1 I completely support the submission of my colleague Mr. Mettraux.
2 In the interests of time, I wouldn't like to repeat it.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much.
4 Mr. Saxon.
5 MR. SAXON: Thank you.
6 Your Honours, one bit of disclosure that my colleagues neglected
7 to inform the Trial Chamber about was that last week the Prosecution
8 disclosed some important exculpatory material related to the structure of
9 the NLA which had been released by a Rule 70 provider a week ago Monday;
10 and the same day that permission was provided to the Prosecution, this
11 material was provided to the Defence.
12 The Prosecution's request to -- to the provider for permission to
13 disclose this material was made last April, but it was not until Monday
14 that the provider finally provided some clearance to the Prosecution.
15 Your Honour, most of the material that my colleague has mentioned
16 the Prosecution has described in its submissions of 15 October 2007, the
17 Prosecution's submissions pursuant to Rule 67 (C) concerning its review of
18 material in its possession. And the Prosecution provided thesis
19 submissions as it was coming to a close for the review, which it performed
20 pursuant to Trial Chamber's order, I believe, of the 24th of September.
21 I'm not specifically sure about that.
22 Your Honour, my colleague mentioned a particular missing record of
23 interview with a journalist, Mr. Nicholas Wood, and that missing record is
24 noted in the Prosecution's written submissions. The Prosecution has been
25 investigating what happened at that meeting and where any such records
1 might be, and that task was been complicated by the fact by the person who
2 led that meeting now lives and works in Cambodia; however, last week,
3 contact was made with that person and that person indicated that that
4 meeting with the journalist, Mr. Wood, was apparently an introductory
5 meeting, a get-to-know-you meeting, to see if there would be any basis for
6 further contact.
7 Therefore, according to the person in Cambodia, that is why there
8 is no record of interview or notes of a meeting or a statement; however,
9 that person who is now working in Cambodia asked for a few more days in
10 order for time to check his records, to make sure that his memory is
12 Your Honour, with respect to the claims by my learned colleagues
13 that they are prejudiced by the recent disclosures of Prosecution, the
14 Prosecution does not accept the fact that there is self-evident prejudice
15 caused to the Defence. We are now still in the Prosecution's case in
16 chief. There is time for the Defence to investigate information
17 contained in these materials. Their case has not yet begun and will not
18 begin for sometime yet.
19 With respect to the Defence's ability to test this information or
20 material through cross-examination, the Chamber already informed the
21 Defence back in September that if the Defence felt it needed to do
22 additional cross-examination on this material, it could make an
23 application to recall one or more witnesses. Defence has not done that,
24 but I assume that remedy to the Defence is still available.
25 With respect to investigator notes recently disclosed that have
1 been drafted by Mr. Howard Tucker - and these were notes that were found
2 and disclosed after Mr. Tucker finished his testimony - these notes were
3 not located previously because they had been saved on the personal drive
4 of a former employee of the Prosecution, and that's why they had not been
5 found before. We found these notes after we -- we did a search that we
6 had been directed to do by the Trial Chamber.
7 With respect to these investigator's notes by Mr. Howard Tucker,
8 the Prosecution has repeatedly told the Defence that it would be willing
9 to either recall Mr. Tucker and/or admit these investigator's notes, as
10 they are as exhibits, as Defence exhibits, or both, if necessary.
11 With respect to the request to delay the cross-examination of the
12 witness who follows Mr. Bezruchenko, the Prosecution submits any further
13 delay would be unwarranted and certainly would not be warranted based on
14 the Prosecution's recent disclosures. These recent disclosures, to the
15 best of my knowledge - I could be wrong - I don't believe they refer to
16 the next witness, who is Mr. Ostreni, and the Defence certainly has time
17 to review this material and use it during their cross-examination as they
18 see fit. Indeed, the testimony of Mr. Ostreni has already been delayed
19 repeatedly to give the Defence time to pursue further material that they
20 might use for cross-examination.
21 Your Honour, the suggestion, that these lapses in the
22 Prosecution's disclosure work are largely due to mistakes by Mr. Kuehnel,
23 is simply unfair. Has Mr. Kuehnel made some mistakes? Yes, he has and
24 the Prosecution has acknowledged those mistakes. However, Your Honour, as
25 the Appeals Chamber has noted, compliance with our disclosure obligations,
1 obviously, it is important and we do take that seriously, but it is also,
2 at times, a difficult burden.
3 I have made mistakes, as you know, with respect to disclosure of
4 relevant material, and there are simply sometimes mistakes that are made
5 due to technical lapses or because of the lapse of time or the change over
6 of personnel. But to cast a large part of the blame on one of the
7 Prosecution's witnesses, and a very professional investigator, is simply
8 not fair and not correct.
9 With respect to the suggestion of submitting agreed facts
10 vis-a-vis the investigator 8th's notes of Mr. Tucker, again, in the
11 Prosecution's submission, it would make much more sense either to recall
12 Mr. Tucker and have him cross-examined on these investigator's notes or to
13 simply admit the investigator's notes themselves, and the Trial Chamber
14 may determine whatever legal or factual conclusions it desires based on
15 the content of this material.
16 That's all I have, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Anything further, Mr. Mettraux.
18 MR. METTRAUX: No, Your Honour. Thank you.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber will reflect upon the matters that have
21 been raised. In the meantime, we should continue with other issues.
22 Is there any other matter before the witness is brought back in;
23 if not, we'll have the witness.
24 [The witness entered court]
25 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Bezruchenko, welcome back.
1 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE PARKER: We're sorry that other matters have delays us until
3 now. May I remind you of the affirmation that you made which still
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE PARKER: And now your questioning continues.
7 Mr. Mettraux.
8 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you very much Your Honour.
9 WITNESS: VIKTOR BEZRUCHENKO [Resumed]
10 Cross-examination by Mr. Mettraux: [Continued]
11 Q. Good morning, Mr. Bezruchenko.
12 A. Good morning, Mr. Mettraux.
13 Q. Before we move forward, we'll move backwards a little bit to an
14 issue that we discussed together last week.
15 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown what is Exhibit
16 P232, please. It's under seal, Your Honour.
17 Q. Do you recall, Mr. Bezruchenko, that I asked you last week whether
18 you had seen that particular document in the course of your investigation,
19 and you responded that you believed that -- or you did not think so. Do
20 you recall saying that?
21 MR. METTRAUX: It is page 6692, 6693, and also 6697, 6698 of the
23 THE WITNESS: I am afraid what I actually said, Mr. Mettraux, was
24 that I saw a number of similar documents, but not necessarily this one.
25 But having said that, well, it does not necessarily mean that this is not
1 the document which I have not seen. Probably I have seen it; probably I
2 have not. I just said that I had seen lots of documents of this kind.
3 MR. METTRAUX:
4 Q. And, then, at page 6698 of the transcript that was on the 23rd of
5 October of 2007, I asked you this: "Are you aware, Mr. Bezruchenko,
6 whether your office and your colleagues made any efforts to verify whether
7 the individuals which are mentioned by names in this particular document,
8 as having received weapons in the Cair police station on the 11th of
9 August, had in fact become de jure members of the MOI? Are you aware of
11 And your answer was "No."
12 Do you recall that?
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 Q. And then there was an exchange between Mr. Saxon and myself about
15 the relevance of this. Do you recall that?
16 A. Yes, I recall that, sir. And if I may add at this point, I said
17 that the document was dated 11 August 2001.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 A. But I think that the relevant section of my report which deals
20 with the events of Ljuboten, well, actually covers three days --
21 Q. But do you agree, Mr. Bezruchenko --
22 A. -- not including August 11.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 Do you agree, Mr. Bezruchenko, that what you told the Chamber
25 about your absence of knowledge of the verifications being made in
1 relation to the people mentioned on this document was not true. Do you
2 agree with that?
3 A. Not necessarily. As I said, I probably have seen this document or
4 maybe not. I'm not sure. But to give you a definitive answer, "yes" or
5 "no" would be difficult.
6 Q. Sorry, Mr. Bezruchenko. I have gone one step further from you
7 seeing the document. When I asked whether you knew of the verifications
8 that were being carried out by your office and whether you were aware of
9 those efforts being made, your answer was "no."
10 What I'm telling you now, Mr. Bezruchenko, is that, in fact, you
11 knew very well what efforts were being made to verify the names mentioned
12 on this document. Do you agree with that?
13 A. Well, I know that efforts were being made regarding certain names
14 of suspects who might have taken a role in the events of Ljuboten. That's
15 right. But whether this particular name was there or not, I simply cannot
17 Q. Well, what you told the Chamber last week, Mr. Bezruchenko, was
18 gravely wrong because you yourself took part in the verification. Is that
20 A. I don't quite understand what you mean by "verification," sir.
21 There were a number of interviews done, I guess, and some of the
22 interviews may have involved this particular person; but as I say, I
23 simply don't remember.
24 Q. And what the result of those verification, which you said you were
25 not aware of last week, were in fact damaging to your case. Is that
1 correct, Mr. Bezruchenko?
2 A. Well, I did not make such assessments, and I don't think I was
3 really qualified to make such assessments.
4 MR. METTRAUX: Well, I will ask the registry to go to page 6 of
5 that document. That would be N000-5189-ET-006. I believe that -- thank
6 you very much. That's the correct page.
7 Q. Mr. Bezruchenko, can you see the name on top of that document a
8 person called Ljupco Savov? Can you see that?
9 A. Yes, I can see this name.
10 Q. And the receipt underneath reads -- regards or concerns that
11 person. Do you agree?
12 A. Yes, I can see that.
13 Q. Do you recall meeting that person, Mr. Bezruchenko?
14 A. I think I do.
15 Q. And do you recall that you, in fact, met that person in the course
16 of a formal interview to which you participated?
17 A. I'm not entirely certain. The name is a little unusual;
18 therefore, I think I remember it. But if I ever met this person, that
19 must have been in the course of a interview, probably.
20 Q. And the course of the interview to which you participated with
21 Mr. Ljupco Savov was for the purpose of verifying whether that person had,
22 in fact, become a de jure member of the MOI and whether he had been in the
23 village of Ljuboten on the 10, 11, or 12th August of 2001. Is that
25 A. I don't think this is specifically correct, Mr. Mettraux. My
1 interpretation of this fact would be a little bit different. I would
2 rather say that he was interviewed in a number of broad issues related to
3 the events of Ljuboten.
4 Q. And do you recall, Mr. Bezruchenko, now that your memory has been
5 refreshed, that you were present during that interview. Is it correct?
6 A. I think I was there, yes.
7 MR. METTRAUX: Can the witness be shown what is Rule 65 ter 1D857,
9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The interpreters kindly ask
10 the witness and the counsel to pause between questions and answers. We
11 really have difficulty in interpreting. We don't have time to pronounce,
12 and there is overlapping sometimes.
13 MR. METTRAUX:
14 Q. Mr. Bezruchenko, we're being asked to pause again between
15 questions and answers.
16 A. Yes, sir.
17 Q. Mr. Bezruchenko, do you recognise this investigator's note as
18 having or as being the investigator's notes of Mr. Savov Ljupco, and it
19 was taken on the 21st ever April of 2004. Is that correct?
20 A. Yes, that's right.
21 Q. And among those present is yourself, Viktor Bezruchenko. Is that
23 A. Yes, that's right.
24 MR. METTRAUX: If the registry could scroll down a little bit in
25 this document.
1 Q. I'd like to focus on the section of the interview which says:
2 "Purpose of Interview," and I will read it out to you: "The above person
3 is on the list of civilians that received weapons, uniforms, and
4 ammunition at Cair police station either as volunteers or regular
5 army/police reservists in August 2001.
6 "On that course, Savov might be one of the potential participants
7 present in Ljubanci or Ljuboten village in the period from 10th of August,
8 2001, until 12th of August," it should be 2001.
9 Can you see that?
10 A. Yes, I can see that.
11 Q. And will you agree that was indeed the purpose of the interview.
12 Is that correct?
13 A. I would imagine so.
14 MR. METTRAUX: And if the registry can focus or enlarge somewhat
15 the bottom of the page, please, at paragraph 3.
16 Q. Mr. Bezruchenko, I will read out to you what the record says on
17 this matter. It says that: "After ten or 15 days in July 2001, I again
18 came to Bit Pazar police station, together with, last name unknown,
19 Ljupco. We were sent from Bit Pazar police station to Cair police
20 station. The time was about 17, 18 p.m. There were about 15, 20
21 civilians already there waiting also for uniforms and weapons," and then
22 he goes on.
23 MR. METTRAUX: And if we can turn the page, please.
24 Q. In the last part of paragraph 3, he said: "The policeman asked me
25 if I have a criminal background. I gave the policeman negative answer
1 because I have no criminal records in Macedonia.
2 Paragraph 4, it reads like this: "The policeman was not checking
3 if it is true or not what I have told him about my criminal background. I
4 have got dark green uniform, not camouflage, with a patch on one shoulder.
5 I think it was combination of green and yellow colours written police.
6 The shape of the patch, I think, looked like a triangle."
7 Just stopping there for a second, Mr. Bezruchenko. Do you agree
8 that the patch that Mr. Savov is describing here is the same as the patch
9 or the picture of the patches that you showed -- that your office showed
10 to a number of witnesses in this particular case? Do you agree with
12 Q. It would appear so for from the description.
13 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, for the record, this would be Exhibit
14 P35 and P15, 1-5.
15 Then, if you could turn to paragraph 6, if the registry could
16 scroll down a bit.
17 Q. Mr. Savov told you this: "After receiving uniforms and weapons,
18 the policeman asked both of us to give him our phone numbers just to let
19 us know whether it will be something. I did not receive any
20 identification card of reserve police officer from the Ministry of
22 Then: "I left the police station with weapon, ammunition and
23 uniform, and I came back home."
24 Then at paragraph 8, it say this: "Sometimes at the end of August
25 2001, I think it was on 23rd or 25th of August, I have received a phone
1 call and a man voice introducing as a policeman from Cair police station
2 told me to bring back to the Cair police station uniform, weapon. And
3 ammunition. I brought it there at the same day, and I signed the handing
4 over document."
5 Then, at paragraph 9, it says this: "I have never been activated
6 as a volunteer reservist."
7 Can you see that?
8 A. Yes, I can see that.
9 Q. Do you agree, Mr. Bezruchenko, that contrary to what you told this
10 Chamber last week, you in fact took a direct and personal part in the
11 interview of the people who appeared on this document, with a view to
12 ascertain whether they had become de jure members of MOI and whether they
13 had been in the village of Ljuboten on the 10, 11, or 12th of August?
14 A. Well, in fact I never said anything like this. What I said was
15 that I was, indeed, involved in a number of interviews, with various
16 people, including the suspects.
17 Q. But you what you also said, you will recall, Mr. Bezruchenko, is
18 that you were not aware of any verification being made as to whether any
19 of those people had become de jure members of the MOI. Do you recall
20 saying that?
21 A. I recalling saying that I was involved in a number of interviews
22 on a broad range of issues related to suspects of the events in Ljuboten.
23 This is what I said, not necessarily giving individuals you are now
24 ascribing to me, sir.
25 Q. And do you agree with the proposition, sir, that this particular
1 as secretary of your work - and I will come back to other aspects - had
2 nothing to do with military analysis? Do you agree with that?
3 A. Not necessarily.
4 Q. Are you suggesting, Mr. Bezruchenko, that this, your involvement
5 in the interview of that person, falls within the definition of military
6 analysis as given by you to the Office of the Prosecutor in your evidence
7 in chief?
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The interpreters would like
9 to ask the witness and counsel not to overlap.
10 A. [Previous translation continues] ... issues related to military
11 matters. Obviously, their statements speaks of such things as weapons,
12 uniforms, ammunition. So I don't really see any reason for not being -- I
13 mean, I really don't see any reason for not being involved in analysis of
14 these kind of things.
15 MR. METTRAUX: Can the witness please what is shown Rule 65 ter
16 1D554.1, please.
17 Q. And before it appears, Mr. Bezruchenko, is that correct that you
18 and your office -- well, let me ask you this: Are you aware of the that
19 your office sought to verify whether a number of other individuals, not
20 just Mr. Savov, but a number of other individuals had in fact become de
21 jure members of the MOI and whether they had been in the village of
22 Ljuboten at the relevant time? I'm talking of people who appear on this
23 or other similar lists.
24 A. Well, I know that the investigation was going on and was
25 focussing, obviously, on various possible suspects, probably including
1 these people as well.
2 Q. Well, before we go further, let me show you this particular
3 document, Mr. Bezruchenko.
4 This is a letter from the Defence sent to the Macedonian
5 authorities; and on this particular document, the Defence sought to obtain
6 information whether any of the persons in this document had -- including
7 Mr. Savov Ljupco, as you can see at number 4, whether any of those people
8 had received a salary from the MOI during the period 1st August through 30
9 September of 2001. Can you see that?
10 A. This is the document with subject, "Request for data"?
11 Q. That's correct.
12 A. Yes, I can see this document.
13 Q. And can you see that the specific requests made by the Defence
14 concerns eight individuals who are the same eight individuals who are
15 mentioned on the previous documents that you showed you. Do you recognise
16 those names, including Mr. Savov?
17 A. Yes, this name is here.
18 Q. And do you recognise the other names that are on this list?
19 A. I think two or three, perhaps, yeah.
20 Q. And do you agree that those names are the same names as those
21 which appeared on the previous document that I showed you, that is.
22 A. It would appear so.
23 Q. And do you agree that the request made by the Defence was to the
24 effect that it wished to receive information whether these eight people
25 received salary from the MOI during the period 1st August, 2001, to 30th
1 September, 2001. Do you agree?
2 A. It would appear so, sir, but this is the first time I actually
3 ever see this document.
4 Q. Well, let me show you another document then.
5 MR. METTRAUX: That's Rule 65 ter 1D554.2.
6 Q. As you can see, Mr. Bezruchenko, this is a letter written by the
7 Cabinet of the State Secretary within the Ministry of Interior of the
8 Republic of Macedonia. It is dated the 5th of June of 2007, and this is
9 sent to a colleague from the Defence team of Mr. Boskoski.
10 It is, in fact, a response to the previous letter that I have
11 shown you, and I'd like to read to you the content of that letter. It
12 says this: "With respect to your request on whether the listed persons in
13 your request have received salary from the MOI, during the period of 1st
14 August 2001 to 30 September 2001, we inform you that those persons are not
15 listed on the salary lists of the Ministry; and, until this day, they have
16 not received salary in the MOI in any period."
17 It is signed by the State Secretary, Mr. Djuclevski [phoen]. Can
18 you see that?
19 A. I can see that.
20 Q. And, in fact, Mr. Bezruchenko, you will agree that this
21 information, perhaps not to the complete extent that it would apply to the
22 eight persons, but the fact that many of the people listed in this
23 document and other similar documents had never become de jure member of
24 the MOI, you were aware of that fact. Is that correct?
25 A. Not really. Let me put it this way: This is the first time I see
1 this document. I don't really think I saw it before. And, secondly, as I
2 say, my focus as a military analyst was not really focussed on this
3 particular issue. There were other issues that were in the focus of my
5 Q. But, Mr. Bezruchenko, you have just indicated to the Trial Chamber
6 that the interview of Mr. Savov failed, you say, straight within the
7 compass of your duties as a military analyst. Are you saying that, in
8 fact, this issue falls beyond the realm of your competence of a military
10 A. No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is there is was many
11 issues that I was dealing with, primarily issues related to the conflict,
12 as well as weapons, ammunition, and other matters, but I don't remember
13 seeing this document.
14 Q. But let me ask my question again, Mr. Bezruchenko, and forget this
15 particular document for a moment. Is that correct that result or as part
16 of your work for the Office of the Prosecutor, you became aware of similar
17 information; namely, to the effect that a number of individuals who
18 appeared on this particular list of receipts, which I have shown you, and
19 other similar lists had never become de jure members of the MOI? Do you
20 agree with that?
21 A. No, not in those specific terms that you describe.
22 Q. Well, Mr. Bezruchenko, let's be quite clear about that. Is that
23 correct that you personally took part in a number of interviews which
24 related to that particular issue? Do you agree with that?
25 A. I took part in a number of interviews which related to the events
1 which took place in Ljuboten in August 2001?
2 Q. Do you agree, Mr. Bezruchenko, that you took part, in particular,
3 in the interview of a number of people who are listed on this document I
4 have shown you, as well as other similar documents where their name
5 appear? Do you agree with that?
6 A. I agree that I was involved in a number of interviews. That's
8 Q. I'd like you to answer the question, Mr. Bezruchenko, more
9 specifically in relation to people whose name mentioned on the document
10 that I have shown you and other similar documents. Do you agree you did
11 attend such interviews?
12 A. As I mentioned, I was involved in a number of interviews.
13 Q. Including of people whose name appear on the lists that I have
14 shown you and other similar listings. Do you agree, Mr. Bezruchenko?
15 A. Yes, some of them.
16 Q. And as part of those interview, Mr. Bezruchenko, you became aware
17 of the fact that a number of them had, in fact, never become de jure
18 members of the MOI. Do you agree with that?
19 A. It would appear that some of them said so.
20 Q. And a number of them, following those interviews, you also became
21 aware of the fact that they had not been in the village of Ljuboten during
22 the relevant weekend. Is that correct?
23 A. It would appear that some of them said so.
24 MR. METTRAUX: Can the witness please be shown what is exhibit
25 P31 -- I'm sorry P231. It's under seal, Your Honour.
1 Q. Mr. Bezruchenko, do you have that list in front of you on your
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. And do you recognise that list?
5 A. Well, I don't think I have seen this document before.
6 Q. Well, Mr. Bezruchenko, do you agree that, or is it within your
7 knowledge perhaps, that this document was prepared by a person known by
8 the pseudonym M-053.
9 A. As I mentioned previously, Mr. Mettraux, with all my due respect,
10 I don't think I actually saw this document before.
11 Q. Well, let's look at its content then, Mr. Bezruchenko.
12 MR. METTRAUX: If the --
13 Q. Would you look through the list of names that appear on the first
14 page and indicate whether you know any of the persons who appear on that
15 first page.
16 A. Well, I am not certain, but I think I remember somebody by name
17 Milosevski, which is number 8 on the list. This would be the person.
18 Well, the others, I'm not certain.
19 Q. Isn't that correct, Mr. Bezruchenko, that you also know the person
20 under number 9.
21 A. Perhaps, probably, if he was interviewed in the course of a
22 interview at which I was present, perhaps.
23 MR. METTRAUX: Can the registry please turn to the next page.
24 Q. Do you recognise any name that is familiar to you on this page,
25 Mr. Bezruchenko?
1 A. No, not really. I simply don't remember.
2 MR. METTRAUX: Can the registry please turn to the next page.
3 Q. Do you recognise any name that is familiar to you on this page,
4 Mr. Bezruchenko?
5 A. I think number 20 and number 21, if I recall correctly.
6 Q. And those, again, would be persons that you interviewed. Is that
8 A. Yes.
9 MR. METTRAUX: Can the registry please turn to the next page.
10 Your Honour, I mentioned M-053. My precious assistant indicated
11 it is, in fact, M-084.
12 Q. I will ask you the same question, Mr. Bezruchenko. Do you
13 recognise any name on that particular page.
14 A. Perhaps the third name from -- sorry, the second name from the
16 Q. And that would Mr. Milosevski Samdaj [phoen]. Is that correct?
17 A. Yes, that's right.
18 Q. And that is, again, someone whom you interviewed. Is that
20 A. Well, it would appear to me, yes.
21 MR. METTRAUX: Can the registry please turn to the next page.
22 Q. Do you recognise any name of persons whom you know on this
23 particular page, Mr. Bezruchenko?
24 A. Well, I'm not sure, but I think possibly could be the second and
25 third names.
1 Q. So Mr. Vanco Conjkovski and Mr. Boris Kostencovksi. Is that
3 A. Well, as I say, I could only definitely say it after I saw my
4 notes or the notes of the investigator who was doing this interview.
5 Q. Well, while we're here, let me ask you this: Did you keep any
6 notes of these interviews which you conducted or took part in?
7 A. I did sometimes.
8 MR. METTRAUX: Can the registry please turn to the next page.
9 Q. Do you know of any person whose name would be familiar to you on
10 that page?
11 A. I'm not sure. Maybe the last name.
12 Q. That would be Ljupco Stojanovski. Would that be correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. METTRAUX: Can the registry please turn to the next page.
15 Q. Do you know the person whose named on this page, Mr. Bezruchenko?
16 A. I don't think so.
17 MR. METTRAUX: Can the registry please turn to the next page.
18 Q. Do you know the name of either of these people?
19 A. I don't think so.
20 Q. I'll ask you the question already, but I'll ask you specifically
21 about one particular witness who you have interviewed. Do you recall
22 interviewing or taking part in the interview of Mr. Sladinovski Zoran,
23 whose name appear on this list?
24 A. The name seems to be familiar.
25 Q. And do you recall that he was asked questions about his
1 whereabouts in -- during the relevant period of 10 to 12 August and also
2 about the receipt of a rifle or semi-automatic rifle and rounds of
3 ammunition. Do you recall that?
4 A. Well, as you mentioned, the name seems to be familiar, but I
5 cannot really be certain. But he probably was asked these questions.
6 Q. And that would be the same for the others. Is that correct?
7 A. Yeah.
8 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown what is Rule 65
9 ter 1D939, please.
10 Q. Before I ask you to look into the document, Mr. Bezruchenko, do
11 you recall how many people on that list of 40 were interviewed by the
12 Office of the Prosecutor? Is the number known to you?
13 A. No, it is not. I don't know.
14 Q. Do you know, of all those whom you've interviewed, how many turned
15 out to be not members of the MOI? Are you aware of that?
16 A. No, I don't know that.
17 Q. Well, let's look at the document which you have in front of you.
18 This is a statement taken by the Defence team of Mr. Boskoski, and it is a
19 statement of Mr. Popovski Gjoko. And as you can see from paragraph 2,
20 Mr. Gjoko work in the Ministry of Interior in the sector for financial,
21 material, technical, and logical matters with the deputy assistant
23 And, paragraph 3, Mr. Gjoko indicates that: "From the Defence, I
24 was given a list of 40 persons, stipulated in the request of information
25 submitted to the MOI."
1 MR. METTRAUX: And simply for the record, the list itself is the
2 third page of that document.
3 Q. And he say this is: "I was asked to check whether the listed
4 persons, from August 1st, 2001 until September 30, 2001 year, were members
5 of the regular or reserve structure of the police and whether they
6 received salaries in the mentioned periods from MOI."
7 And he says: "I am signing and submitting the list as appendix to
8 this statement."
9 Then at paragraph 5, he say this is: "I made insight in the MOI's
10 archive and in the sector for finances in MOI. After the conducted check
11 in the records of deployed members of the reserve structure of the police
12 for the above mentioned period, I concluded that larger part of the
13 persons whose names are stipulated in the statement were not members of
14 the deployed reserve police members, and they not recorded on the salary
15 list in MOI. And, so far, they have not received payment from MOI in any
17 And then he goes on to add this: "After the conducted check, I
18 have established that eight of the mentioned persons were engaged in MOI
19 as members of the reserve structure and received salaries for the period
20 from August 1st, 2001 until September 20th, 2001, as follows," and there
21 is at list of knows names.
22 And then in paragraph 7, he says: For two persons from mentioned
23 list - and that is for Kostencovski Bozin Zoran and Ovcazski Mirko Kirco -
24 I could not find at all information in the registration record. If I could
25 have at disposal the unique personal identification numbers from these
1 persons, I could give information for them as well."
2 Do you agree, Mr. Bezruchenko, that on the basis of this
3 statement, and on the basis at least of the verifications that were made
4 by this person within the archive and records of the Ministry of Interior,
5 only eight of the 40 persons who appeared on the document that I have
6 shown to you a moment ago in fact became de jure member of the MOI? Do
7 you agree with that?
8 A. I must say, Mr. Mettraux, this is the first time I actually see
9 this document, and it probably require little bit longer for me to
10 actually ascertain the significance and value of this document. So just
11 to answer this question you directly "yes" or "no" flatly, I simply am not
12 in a position to do so.
13 Q. Well, at this stage, Mr. Bezruchenko, I will just ask you to
14 confirm whether that is what the document suggests. Do you agree with
16 A. It appears that the document suggests an investigation into this
17 matter was apparently made, and, apparently, some names have been
18 identified as belonging to the people who were in -- on the payroll on
19 Ministry of Interior, between August 1st and September 20th, 2001.
20 Q. And do you agree that these people account for eight of the 40
21 which with mentioned on the list that I showed you before? Do you agree
22 with that?
23 A. Well, I think that a more proper investigation should be made in
24 each particular case. There would be name sakes. It could be the case of
25 wrong identify it.
1 Q. But simply to move on, Mr. Beruchenko, do you agree at least
2 that's what the document says?
3 A. Well, I am afraid I cannot offer all my comments on this point,
4 Mr. Mettraux.
5 Q. Well, let me ask you this then: Do you agree as part of your own
6 investigation, and you have indicated already, You, the Office of the
7 Prosecutor, in your own investigation had already realised or come to the
8 realisation that a number of these individuals, including Mr. Savov, had
9 not become de jure member of the police? Do you agree with that.
10 A. Well, Mr. Mettraux, as I mentioned previously, this is the first
11 time I see this document, and this document is dated September 2007. I
12 don't think that in September 2007 I was really working on identification
13 of anyone who was involved in the events of Ljuboten because my report was
14 practically done at that time.
15 Q. Thank you for that, Mr. Bezruchenko. I'll move on to ask you a
16 few more questions about what you say your position and role in the Office
17 of the Prosecutor has been since you were first employed, and I will ask
18 you this first: Do you recall being asked by Mr. Saxon to define your
19 role and duty as a military analyst on behalf of the Office of the
20 Prosecutor, do you remember, on the 4th of October?
21 A. Yes, I do.
22 Q. And you described it in the following terms to the Chamber, and
23 That's at page 6055: "Essentially, this position entails providing
24 military dimension to organisations, individuals, and events related to a
25 armed conflict or a war."
1 Then, you added the following: "Well, essentially that means that
2 military -- I'm doing military analysis which covers or may cover such
3 areas as structure and armament of the armies or warring parties involved
4 in the conflict. They are organisations, factions, command and control
5 issues, strategy, tactics, operations on the ground, and such functional
6 issues as operations, logistics, security, finance, training, and so on."
7 And that's still the 4th of October, 2007, page 6055.
8 Do you recall giving that description?
9 A. Yes. I remember this description, and I also remember that
10 actually you suggested that I should stop reading from the -- from my
11 folder and you just cut me short.
12 Q. Is that correct that, in terms of responsibilities and duties,
13 Mr. Bezruchenko, the role of military analyst, such as you are, and the
14 role of an investigator would be different? Do you agree with that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you agree that an investigator with the Office of the
17 Prosecutor would, for instance, look for documents and evidence that could
18 be relevant to the charges that it would interview or take part in
19 interviews of witnesses, and that he would be in touch with the local
20 authorities as might be relevant to the investigation? Do you agree with
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And the investigator of the Office of the Prosecutor would also be
24 the one competent to send requests for assistance or requests for material
25 on behalf of the Office of the Prosecutor. Is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And it's also the role of the investigator to seize material where
3 necessary and appropriate on behalf of the office. Is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And it's also the role of the investigator to review material
6 obtained as a result of investigation or requests for information. Is
7 that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And you also agree that one of the practical differences between
10 an investigator of the Office of the Prosecutor and a military analyst, by
11 reason of their different role, is that an investigator cannot be called
12 as an expert witness, but that sometimes a military analyst can. Do you
13 agree with that?
14 A. Well, I don't think I can entirely agree with that because I know
15 of instances when investigators were also called in the role of witnesses.
16 Q. That's correct, Mr. Bezruchenko. But you agree that never has an
17 investigator been called as a expert on behalf of the Prosecutor, or do
18 you know of any such incidents?
19 A. I don't know of such incidents.
20 Q. And do you agree, Mr. Bezruchenko, that, in fact, you were always
21 much more to the investigation team of the Office of the Prosecutor than a
22 military analyst. Do you agree with that?
23 A. Well, I was performing my functions as military analyst to the
24 best of my knowledge and to the best of my job description.
25 Q. Mr. Bezruchenko, I would not wish the question asked here to be
1 perceived as a criticism of the way in which you conducted your duties,
2 but do you agree that you did much more for that investigation than just
3 being a military analyst as you described to Mr. Saxon? Do you agree with
5 A. Could you please qualify your question, Mr. Mettraux.
6 Q. Do you agree, Mr. Bezruchenko, that you took a full part in the
7 investigation and preparation of this case for trial?
8 A. I was involved in a number of interviews, and they was asking my
9 opinion on a number of issues. That's right.
10 Q. Well, let's take it one step at a time then.
11 Do you agree that you took part, as you just indicated, in the
12 interviews of many potential Prosecution witnesses in the course of the
14 A. I was involved in a number of interviews.
15 Q. Are you able, Mr. Bezruchenko, to state, approximately, how many
16 interviews you believe you were involved in?
17 A. Not too many; perhaps about a dozen.
18 Q. Well, would about 30 be more accurate, Mr. Bezruchenko?
19 A. About 30? Well, maybe about 20, but 30 would be a little bit of
20 an exaggeration, I'm afraid.
21 Q. Well, would 25, then, be about right?
22 A. I simply cannot tell, because it really requires an exact
23 counting; but, approximately, about 20 I would say.
24 Q. Do you recall interviewing Mr. Isovski Saso.
25 A. I was present at this interview.
1 Q. Do you recall Mr. Cvetenovski Zoran?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And you were present during his interview?
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. And so with Mr. Nikolovski Kiro?
6 A. I'm not sure, probably.
7 Q. Bushi Nazim?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. (redacted)?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Georgievski Lazar?
12 A. Probably.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The interpreters and the
14 transcript kindly ask you to pause between question and answer.
15 MR. METTRAUX: I apologise.
16 Q. Ivanovski Milos?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Jurisic Mario?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Kopacev Blazo?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Tastanovski Mileslav?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Despodov Mitre?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. The second interview of Jurisic Mario. Is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Teofilovski Slavco?
4 A. Not sure.
5 Q. Draznarski Darko [phoen]?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Pavlov Ferdo.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We kindly ask you, once
9 again, to pause between question and answer.
10 MR. METTRAUX:
11 Q. Ostreni Gzim.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Aliti Rafiz?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Ahmeti Ali?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. General Mitrovski?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. One interview with Mr. Suat Saliu?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Mr. Steven Schwartz?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Mr. Stevo Pandorovski?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And the other persons who you have indicated on the list of 40
1 persons that we've gone through. Is that correct?
2 A. Some of them.
3 Q. Is that correct that some of those people whom you've interviewed,
4 or the interview of which you've attended, have later become Prosecution
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Is it also correct that during those interviews, you personally
8 asked many questions of the witnesses? Do you agree with that?
9 A. Well, the questions were directed through the investigator and
10 under his supervision.
11 Q. Is that correct, Mr. Bezruchenko, that the questions that you
12 asked were put directly to the witness and directly answered by the
13 witness, too. Do you agree with that?
14 A. Well, as I mentioned, Mr. Mettraux, the questions were directed to
15 the witness since he was the person interviewed, but they directed through
16 the investigator.
17 Q. And when you suggest that they were directed through the
18 investigator, Mr. Bezruchenko, what do you suggest exactly?
19 A. Well, that during the interview, the investigator would actually
20 ask the questions which were discussing with him.
21 Q. Are you suggesting, Mr. Bezruchenko, that your questions were then
22 asked on your behalf by the investigator?
23 A. Sometimes.
24 MR. METTRAUX: Would that be a convenient time, Your Honour?
25 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
1 We resume at 11.00.
2 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
6 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. Mr. Bezruchenko, when we break, we were discussing the questioning
8 by you of witnesses, and the indication that you gave that you would do
9 that through the investigator. That's page 37, line 3 to 5.
10 MR. METTRAUX: Can the registry please bring up what is Rule 65
11 ter 1D936, please.
12 Q. Mr. Bezruchenko, are you familiar with this record? This is a
13 record of a interview conducted by the Office of the Prosecutor with
14 Mr. Sokol Mitrovski, and it's dated the 1st of August, 2004?
15 A. Yes, I am.
16 MR. METTRAUX: Could the registry please turn to page 26 of that
17 document. That would be 1D00-794, and if the registry to focus on the
18 bottom of the page, please.
19 Q. If you could look at the last three line of that page first,
20 Mr. Bezruchenko, it is in the course of the interview. It has already
21 been 45 pages or so, and then are you recorded as saying this: "Can I ask
22 a question?"
23 And the investigator, Mr. Kuehnel, says: "Please, please. Go
25 And then yourself, you say: "I have about ten questions."
1 MR. METTRAUX: And if the registry could turn to the next page.
2 Q. And, there, Mr. Bezruchenko, as you can see, you are asking a
3 number of questions of Mr. Mitrovski. Can you see that?
4 A. Yes, that's right.
5 Q. And do you agree that those questions are asked directly by you
6 and answered directly to you by Mr. Mitrovski. Is that correct?
7 A. Well, the way it worked usually as follows: Normally, my
8 questions would refer to various matters which really needed to be
9 specified or qualified, because the investigator would normally have a
10 limited knowledge of certain military matters, and I always asked his
11 permission to ask a question or not.
12 If he believed that this was question was relevant for the
13 investigation, and his line of questioning in fact, he would actually
14 agree with me. If he believed it was not the case, then he would disagree
15 with me. So, basically, it was all done in line with his decisions.
16 Q. Well, let me ask you the question, again: Do you agree that the
17 questions asked by you directly to the witness and that the witness
18 answers directly to you. Do you agree?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you go also that Mr. Kuehnel is not being asked at every turn
21 of the way for every one of your question, whether he agrees or not with
22 your question, the flow is just going between you and Mr. Mitrovksi? Do
23 you agree?
24 A. It was going on among the three of us, since we are all three were
25 equally involved.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The interpreters kindly ask
2 you, once again, to pause between question and answer. It is very
3 important for our work and the work the transcript to be accurate.
4 MR. METTRAUX: My apologies to the interpreters.
5 Can the registry scroll down a bit to the bottom of page.
6 Q. Do you agree that on that page, Mr. Bezruchenko, there is no
7 involvement whatsoever of Mr. Kuehnel?
8 A. Well, it I would appear so, perhaps because it was a discussion of
9 strictly specific military matters.
10 MR. METTRAUX: Can the registry please turn to the next page.
11 Q. And, there, do you agree that your questioning of Mr. Mitrovski
12 just goes on and, again, no involvement of Mr. Kuehnel. Do you agree?
13 MR. METTRAUX: The registry can scroll down the page.
14 Q. Do you agree, Mr. Bezruchenko?
15 A. Yes.
16 MR. METTRAUX: Can the registry please turn the page.
17 Q. And do you agree that, again, your questioning of Mr. Mitrovski
18 just goes on, and there's still no involvement and no questioning or
19 intervention of Mr. Kuehnel? Do you agree?
20 A. I think this is something which should be regarded perhaps in a
21 somewhat broader context. As you probably noted, Mr. Mettraux, my
22 questions came at the very end of the interview, and they were limited to
23 strictly military matters. In fact, most part of the interview was taken
24 up by the questions of the investigator. I had only about ten questions.
25 Q. Well, that's not quite right, Mr. Bezruchenko. This line of
1 questioning is to be found at page 46 -- this particular line of
2 questioning between page 46 and 57 of a record of interview that is 111
3 pages long, so you're right in the middle.
4 MR. METTRAUX: But I will ask the registry to turn to the next
5 page, please.
6 Q. And do agree that your questioning and interviewing of
7 Mr. Mitrovski, again, just goes on questions and after questions without
8 the involvement or the intervention of Mr. Kuehnel.
9 A. Well, I don't really think can I comment on that anymore. As I
10 said, I was involved in the interview; and whenever the subject was
11 related to any particular military matter, well, I asked Mr. Kuehnel's
12 permission and I could ask my own questions.
13 Q. But do you agree, Mr. Bezruchenko, that you were not a single a
14 time, apart from the first question, asking for the permission of
15 Mr. Kuehnel. The interview between you and Mr. Mitrovski goes on without
16 any involvement of Mr. Kuehnel at this stage? Do you agree with that?
17 A. I can't say that. Mr. Kuehnel was involved in the entirety of
18 this interview.
19 MR. METTRAUX: Can the registry please turn to the next page.
20 Q. Do you agree that, again, the questioning just goes on between you
21 and Mitrovski for mother page, and there is no involvement of
22 Mr. Kuehnel? Do you agree with that?
23 A. I can say this: This record of interview which is going on. On
24 this particular page now, there is probably not the involvement of
25 Mr. Kuehnel. So what?
1 MR. METTRAUX: Can we turn to the next page, please.
2 Q. And, again, if you can look at this particular page of that
3 transcript, do you agree that the interview between you and Mr. Mitrovski
4 just goes on, and no involvement of Mr. Kuehnel? Is that right?
5 A. It was not a interview between me and Mr. Mitrovski. It was an
6 interview between Mr. Mitrovski, Mr. Kuehnel, and with Mr. Bezruchenko
8 MR. METTRAUX: Can we please turn to the next page of that
10 Q. Do you agree, Mr. Bezruchenko, that, again, on this page, the
11 questions only come from you and the answers from the witness Mitrovski,
12 and that will there is, again, no involvement and no question put by
13 Mr. Kuehnel? Do you agree with that?
14 A. I don't think this is the question which is really appropriate me
15 to answer, Mr. Mettraux. You can probably ask this question of
16 Mr. Kuehnel.
17 Q. Well, at this stage, I will ask you, Mr. Bezruchenko, to answer
18 this question. Is that correct that on this particular page of the record
19 of interview - that's page 53 - there's a list of questions asked by you
20 and a list of answer from Mr. Mitrovski, and no involvement of
21 Mr. Kuehnel. Do you agree with that?
22 A. On this particular page, yes, that would appear so?
23 MR. METTRAUX: And if the registry can turn to the next page,
25 Q. And if you look at the top of that page first, can you see that
1 Mr. Kuehnel is now asking his first question in seven or eight pages. Can
2 you see that?
3 A. Yes, I see his comment.
4 Q. And can you see that the rest of the page continues with questions
5 asked by you and answered directly from the witness. Can you see that?
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. METTRAUX: If we can turn to the next page, please.
8 Q. Do you agree that still goes on the next page of the transcript.
9 This is you requesting questions, the witness answering, and no
10 involvement of Mr. Kuehnel? Is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. METTRAUX: If we can go to the next page, please.
13 Q. And, again, as with the previous ten or so pages, this is you
14 asking question of the witness and him answering to you, without
15 involvement of Mr. Kuehnel. Is that correct?
16 A. Well, this would appear so.
17 MR. METTRAUX: And if we can to the next page.
18 Q. Do you agree that still is the case, until the point where you
19 suggest to take a break. Can you see that?
20 A. Yes. In fact, sometimes it would really take a long time to get
21 the appropriate answer to a question. So whenever there was an exchange
22 going on, well, it would probably cover a few pages, maybe even a few
23 dozen pages, to get the appropriate answer to a appropriate question.
24 Q. But do you agree that what we've just seen, Mr. Bezruchenko, in
25 fact, is you interviewing the witness? Do you agree with that?
1 A. Not really. I was asking some specific questions in the course of
2 the interview; and if there was a requirement to specify a question with
3 another question, this is what I had to do.
4 Q. And do you agree that asking questions in the course of an
5 interview would qualify as conducting a interview or interviewing? Do you
6 agree with that?
7 A. Not really. I don't think it would amount to that.
8 Q. Do you agree that you were asked questions of Mr. Mitrovski in
9 several other parts of the record of interview at a later stage in
10 particular in the record? Do you agree?
11 A. Some questions were asked.
12 Q. And you continued asking those questions all through the interview
13 up to its very end. Do you agree with that?
14 A. Well, since this was the interview about most military matters,
15 and we were in fact in full agreement with the investigator -- with the
16 investigator on this issue, some of the questions were suggested by me to
18 Q. Well, the questions were not just suggested by you. Is that
19 correct, Mr. Bezruchenko. They were asked by you. Is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And is that also correct that you asked questions of other
22 witnesses whom were interviewed by the Office of the Prosecutor. Is that
24 A. Well, not necessarily. I don't understand what you mean.
25 Q. Do you agree that as you did with Mr. Mitrovski, which is to ask
1 questions of him, you did the same thing with other witnesses that were
2 interviewed by the Office of the Prosecutor? Do you agree?
3 A. Well, as I mentioned previously, I was involved in the other
4 interviews, yes.
5 Q. And as part of this involvement, you asked questions of witnesses.
6 Is that correct?
7 A. Well, through the investigator.
8 Q. And when you mean "through the investigator," you mean, again,
9 that you asked the question directly with the investigator present. Is
10 that correct?
11 A. I mean that I always asked the investigator's permission to ask
12 this or that question.
13 Q. And do you agree that when that happened, you asked the question
14 directly of the witness. Is that correct?
15 A. Well, normally, I would ask the investigator whether he would like
16 to ask this or that question; and if he said, "Yes, you can go ahead," I
17 just went ahead.
18 Q. But, in that particular instance which we've just gone through,
19 Mr. Bezruchenko, do you agree that you did not do that. You did not ask
20 Mr. Kuehnel whether you could ask that or that question. You just went
21 ahead and asked them. Is that correct?
22 A. No. Because you cannot really make the conclusion on the face
23 value of one record, Mr. Mettraux, because when there is a dialogue going
24 on, there is much more than is remained on paper. There are gestures,
25 there are suggestions, and there was a lively discussion. So if there was
1 at any point a desire on the part of anyone to interrupt, that's what I
2 was doing. That happens, sir.
3 Q. Do you recall asking questions of, among other people, Mr. Mitre
5 A. Yes.
6 MR. METTRAUX: Can the witness please be shown Rule 65 ter 2D293,
8 Q. Do you recognise the document as the record of interview of
9 Mr. Despodov Mitrevski, on the 31st of July, 2004?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And do you recall being present during that interview?
12 A. That's right.
13 MR. METTRAUX: Can the registry please turn to page 24 of that
14 document. It is 2D02-1691.
15 Q. If you look at the top of the page, there is Mr. Kuehnel asking a
16 question. Can you see that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And then there's Mr. Despodov answering. Can you see that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And then there 's a question of you: "Have you seen something?
21 This is something, for instance, the brigades in the Skopje Defence
22 command, including the 1st Guardist Brigade."
23 Can you see that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And then Mr. Kuehnel says, for the record, that Mr. Despodov is
1 shown a particular document. Can you see that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Do you agree there that you didn't ask Mr. Kuehnel for his
4 permission to ask questions? Do you agree with that?
5 A. I don't remember that actually, in this specific case. I may very
6 well have asked him because what you see in the brackets here as
7 indiscernible might actually be my question to Mr. Kuehnel, and I would
8 also like to draw your attention, Mr. Mettraux, to the fact that this
9 record is not official record.
10 Q. Well, I'm grateful for that specification, Mr. Bezruchenko, but do
11 you agree that the thing you were asking Mr. Despodov whether he had seen
12 or not, as is clear from the clarification given by Mr. Kuehnel, is in
13 fact a document from the 11th of June of 2001? Do you agree with that?
14 A. Yes. In the process of the interview, Mr. Despodov was shown a
15 number of documents?
16 Q. And if you go down that page, you will see that you carry on with
17 your questioning. Is that correct?
18 A. Probably, in the specification of the very first question asked.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The interpreters kindly ask
20 you, once again, to pause between question and answer.
21 THE WITNESS: [Previous translation continues] ... thank you.
22 MR. METTRAUX:
23 Q. And you can see, again, that there is it no involvement here of
24 Mr. Kuehnel in your questioning of Mr. Despodov. Is that correct?
25 A. Well, apparently not.
1 MR. METTRAUX: Can the registry turn to the next page, please.
2 Q. And as you can see, Mr. Bezruchenko, or would you agree that you
3 just went on asking your questions to Mr. Despodov without asking for any
4 permission or agreement on the part of Mr. Kuehnel? Do you agree with
6 A. I don't agree with that, Mr. Mettraux, because I simply don't
7 remember. In fact, this agreement could have been reached with
8 Mr. Kuehnel at the very beginning of the interview, and it does not
9 necessarily mean that I would have to ask permission for each and every
10 question, each and every time.
11 Q. I see. If we go down the page, you will see there Mr. Kuehnel
12 appears in the middle of the page, and he notes for the record that the
13 witness, Mr. Despodov, is shown a copy of a map. Is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And you just carry on with your question of Mr. Despodov. Is that
17 A. It appears so.
18 MR. METTRAUX: Can the registry go to the next page, please.
19 Q. And do you agree that the questioning of you of Mr. Despodov just
20 goes on, and that Mr. Kuehnel intervenes, only at one point, not to allow
21 a question, but simply to indicate that a particular marking should be
22 made on the map can you see that?
23 A. That's right. The reason for that being the fact that this map
24 was a military map with military symbols and specifications which required
25 special attention and knowledge of certain details.
1 Q. And do you agree that as far as questioning is concerned, you just
2 go on asking your question of Mr. Despodov. Is that correct?
3 A. Yeah, in specification of the previous question.
4 MR. METTRAUX: And if we turn to the next page, please.
5 Q. Do you agree that your questioning of Mr. Despodov just goes on
6 uninterrupted by Mr. Kuehnel? Do you agree with that?
7 A. Well, what I was looking for at this point, apparently, was the
8 description of positions of the battalion, and, of course, such a question
9 would really be broken down in a big number of smaller questions to
10 clarify certain points.
11 Q. And the only involvement of Mr. Kuehnel is to record for the
12 transcript the fact that the witness was shown a map and that he made a
13 marking on it. Is that correct?
14 A. If you are discussing, if you are discussing such a complex
15 document as a map, or, for that matter, some other military document, you
16 would not normally limit your questions to one, because this is simply
17 something which requires a lot of time, lot of attention, and a lot of
19 Q. So if I understand your answer properly, you would ask as many
20 questions as you sought relevant for your own purposes. Is that correct?
21 A. I would ask as many questions as would be deemed appropriate by
22 the investigator.
23 Q. And you agree that at no point during this questioning did
24 Mr. Kuehnel seek to stop you from asking questions. Do you agree with
1 A. Well, I don't see at this particular page.
2 MR. METTRAUX: Well, perhaps we can turn to the next page then.
3 Q. Do you agree that the questioning of you of Mr. Despodov just go
4 on, you asking questions, Mr. Despodov answering them, and no involvement
5 of Mr. Kuehnel. Do you agree with that?
6 A. Well, I asked some questions, that's right.
7 Q. And there was no involvement of Mr. Kuehnel. Is that correct?
8 A. I cannot really tell it from Mr. Kuehnel, Mr. Mettraux.
9 Q. Do you agree that nothing he could have said is recorded, in any
10 case, on the transcript of that interview?
11 A. Well, as I said, this is not an official transcript.
12 MR. METTRAUX: Can the registry please turn to the next page.
13 Q. And, again, Mr. Bezruchenko, do you agree that the questioning of
14 Mr. Despodov just goes on. You ask questions, he answers, and there is no
15 involvement of Mr. Kuehnel. Is that correct?
16 A. It would appear so.
17 MR. METTRAUX: Can we turn to the next page.
18 Q. Do you agree that the same pattern here, you asking questions,
19 Mr. Despodov answering them, no involvement of Mr. Kuehnel. Do you agree?
20 A. Specific questions, yes.
21 Q. Well, no questions at all. Do you agree there is no one question
22 asked by Mr. Kuehnel?
23 A. Well, as I mentioned before, Mr. Mettraux, I cannot really tell
24 what were the intentions of Mr. Kuehnel at that point of time.
25 MR. METTRAUX: Can we turn to the next page.
1 Q. Do you agree that, again, this is the same thing: You asking
2 questions, Mr. Despodov is answering them, and there is no recorded trace
3 of Mr. Kuehnel. Do you agree with that?
4 A. I think we were discussing the various types of weapons at this
5 point of time.
6 Q. I'm grateful for that, Mr. Bezruchenko, but do you agree what is
7 happening here answer is you asking questions, conducting the interview
8 with Mr. Despodov, and Mr. Despodov answering your questions. Is that
10 A. I was asking specific questions relating to specific weapons.
11 Q. And do you agree that there is no involvement of Mr. Kuehnel on
12 that particular page. Do you agree?
13 A. As would appear from this unofficial record, no.
14 MR. METTRAUX: Can we turn to the next page, please.
15 Q. And, again, do you agree that it's the same thing on this page,
16 page 32 of the record. You asking questions, Mr. Despodov answers, and
17 there is no involvement of Mr. Kuehnel. Is that correct?
18 A. No. It doesn't appear to be any comments made by Mr. Kuehnel, not
19 that I see.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 MR. METTRAUX: And if we can turn to the next page.
22 Q. Do you agree with that this is, again, the same pattern? You just
23 go on asking questions of Mr. Despodov, he answers, and at the end of the
24 page, there is a comment that will appear only at the bottom of the page
25 from Mr. Kuehnel? Do you agree with that?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Who notes that the matter which you were asking questions will be
3 elaborated later. Is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. METTRAUX: And if we can turn to the next page.
6 Q. Do you agree that you continue to ask your questions without
7 asking for prior consent or otherwise of Mr. Kuehnel. Is that correct?
8 A. I think the question was different from the previous one as
9 Mr. Kuehnel suggested.
10 Q. But do you agree that you just go on asking your questions from
11 Mr. Despodov. Is that correct?
12 A. Specifying questions, that's right.
13 Q. And Mr. Kuehnel is not waiving or vetoing any of those questions.
14 Is that correct?
15 A. It would appear so.
16 Q. And at the end, at line 17, do you agree that at some stage you
17 say: "Okay. Thank you," and at this stage, Mr. Kuehnel starts asking
18 questions again? Do you agree with that?
19 A. Yes, that's right.
20 Q. And so do you agree that what you did, Mr. Bezruchenko, during
21 this lengthy questioning was, in fact, to conduct the interview of
22 Mr. Despodov in relation to a number of matters which you say are relevant
23 to the case. Is that correct?
24 A. You are probably aware of the fact, Mr. Mettraux, that
25 Mr. Despodov was, in fact, a major in the Macedonian army, and he
1 possessed certain highly specialised knowledge about military matters
2 which were related to the case. The reason of my being involved in this
3 interview was exactly this very reason, and I don't think that anyone
4 except for a military man could actually produce any sensible picture of
5 this interview.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 And, effectively, what you were doing by asking those questions,
8 which you believed to be relevant to military matter, is to conduct the
9 interview insofar as it pertained to those particular matters. Do you
10 agree with that?
11 A. Insofar as it pertained to military matter, I was asking some
12 specific questions of military matters. That's right.
13 Q. Do you agree --
14 MR. METTRAUX: And just for the registry, the document may be
15 taken off of the screen now.
16 Q. Do you agree that another thing which you did for the Office of
17 the Prosecutor, in addition to your involvement in the interview of
18 witnesses, was to request information and material from the Macedonian
19 authorities on behalf of the Office of the Prosecutor? Do you agree with
21 A. I think I was involved in various assessments of various documents
22 which might be required, and I was asked my views and my opinions on a
23 number of such documents.
24 Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Bezruchenko, but I wasn't asking about any analysis
25 of any document. The question was to the effect of whether you, in fact,
1 requested certain information, material, or documents from the Macedonian
2 authorities on behalf of the Office of the Prosecutor?
3 A. Whether I did so, well, I don't actually remember if this is the
4 case. But I remember we had a number of discussions with various
5 Macedonian officials and, of course, various documents were discussed, and
6 I might have asked them for some of those documents.
7 Q. And do you agree that some of those documents, which you, in fact,
8 asked of the Macedonian authorities, had nothing to do with the alleged
9 armed conflict and a lot to do about your case against Mr. Boskoski. Do
10 you agree with that?
11 A. Well, not necessarily. It could be both.
12 Q. Well, I will ask you: Do you recall asking for documents which --
13 from the Macedonian authorities which were not of the military sort but,
14 in fact, directly related to Mr. Boskoski. Do you recall making such a
16 A. If you specifically mention such a document, I probably could give
17 you an answer, Mr. Mettraux.
18 MR. METTRAUX: Can the witness please be shown what is Rule 65 ter
19 1D525, please.
20 Q. Can you see the document on your screen, Mr. Bezruchenko?
21 A. Yes, I can.
22 Q. And can you remember seeing that document in the course of the
23 investigation of this case?
24 A. I think I have this -- I think I have seen this document.
25 MR. METTRAUX: And if we can stay for a second on the top of the
1 document first.
2 Q. Do you agree that it's a document that comes from the Ministry of
3 Interior of the Republic of Macedonia, and that it is dated the 12 --
4 sorry, I think the 1st of December of 2003. Is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And the title of the document is "To the Office of the
7 International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Skopje," and
8 the subject is "Submission of information and documentation in relation to
9 the request from the Office of the Prosecutor."
10 Is that correct?
11 A. That's right.
12 Q. And simply to put it in context, I'd like to read the first two
13 paragraphs of that document. It says this: "The Office of the Prosecutor
14 of the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague had submitted a
15 request," and there's a number, "to the government of Republic of
16 Macedonia to provide information and documentation related to cases that
17 were given to the competence of the Tribunal."
18 It goes on to say: "In connection to the received request, the
19 Ministry of Interior within the frame of its competence and in order to
20 completely reply to the submitted request had conducted an inspection of
21 the available documentation with its organisational units; and during
22 this, the following information and documentation are being provided,
23 which we submit to you as an attachment to this letter, one by one, in
24 items as they were mentioned in the request."
25 As you can see, there follows a number of pieces of information
1 which were requested of the Macedonian authorities by the Office of the
2 Prosecutor. Is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 MR. METTRAUX: And if we can turn to the second page, please, this
5 would be 1D00-4770, please.
6 Q. You can see that the list of answers to your requests just goes
7 on. Is that correct?
8 A. It is not really my request.
9 Q. Sorry, the requests of your office, Mr. Bezruchenko. Is that
11 A. It's the request, to be more precise, of the Office of the
12 Prosecutor, Mr. Mettraux; not of the office of military analysts.
13 MR. METTRAUX: Well, then, can the registry turn to the next page,
15 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The interpreters would
16 kindly like to ask the witness and counsel to slow down and pause between
17 questions and answers.
18 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
19 MR. METTRAUX: I apologise.
20 Q. Mr. Bezruchenko, can you locate number 27 on this document?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. I will draw your attention the paragraph that immediately follows.
23 It says this: "Related to the request sent by Mr. Viktor Bezruchenko for
24 providing additional annex of the decision number 16.1-3526/1, dated 26 of
25 June of 2001, signed by the Minister of the Interior of that time,
1 Mr. Ljube Boskoski, for establishing the special units of the Ministry of
2 Interior, we inform you that these kind of annexes do not exist, which
3 leads us to a conclusion that these were most probably never completed."
4 Do you agree with that contrary to what you just said a moment ago
5 that the request, at least in some respects, was not the request of the
6 military analyst but that of the Office of the Prosecutor. In fact, that
7 particular request for the annex to a document signed by Minister Boskoski
8 was sent by you. Is that correct?
9 A. Well, in fact, I have to see this particular document which
10 mentions my request, to make sure that it was really sent by me. But I
11 cannot really agree with you that this document, which we see at the
12 screen now, was drafted by somebody in the office of the military
13 analysis, or, for that matter, in the military analyst team.
14 Q. Mr. Bezruchenko, is it your evidence that you did not send this
15 particular request to the Macedonian authorities, and that they could just
16 be wrong about that fact in their own letter?
17 A. For this matter, as I mentioned, Mr. Mettraux, I have to see this
18 specific document which you are referring to.
19 Q. Isn't that correct, Mr. Bezruchenko, that this was not your only
20 contact which you had with the Macedonian authorities in relation to the
21 investigation of the case against Mr. Boskoski?
22 A. I had various contacts with Macedonian authorities.
23 Q. And is that correct, Mr. Bezruchenko, that you were never just a
24 military analyst, as you seek to portray yourself, but you, in fact, were
25 a contact person and a representative of the Office of the Prosecutor in
1 various contacts which you had with the Macedonian authorities. Do you
2 agree with that?
3 A. To make a statement like this, you would really have to produce
4 something like a job description for the post of representative to the
5 Macedonian authorities.
6 Q. Sorry, perhaps my question was unclear. But do you agree,
7 Mr. Bezruchenko, that you received -- to give you a example, you received
8 communications from the Macedonian authorities which were directed to you
9 personally as representative of the Office of the Prosecutor. Do you
10 agree with that?
11 A. I don't remember receiving any communication from the Macedonian
12 authorities addressed to me personally. If you could kindly show such a
13 communication to me, Mr. Mettraux, perhaps I could tell you if this is the
14 case or not.
15 MR. METTRAUX: Can the witness please be shown Rule 65 ter 840,
16 please. It has ERN 1D00-7438, and the Macedonian equivalent would be
18 Q. Do you recognise this document, Mr. Bezruchenko? It comes from
19 the disclosure of the Office of the Prosecutor.
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 Q. And do you agree that this is a letter from the Ministry of
22 Defence of the Republic of Macedonia, more specifically the Cabinet of the
23 Minister of Defence, and that it is dated July the 8th of 2004. Is that
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And if you go down the document, you will see addressed to the
2 Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the
3 former Yugoslavia, and it's addressed specifically to Mr. Viktor
4 Bezruchenko, Military Intelligence Analyst, Office of the Prosecutor. Do
5 you agree with that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. So does that help refresh your memory that, in fact, you received
8 communications directly from the Macedonian authorities as representative
9 of the Office of the Prosecutor?
10 A. I can only say that have I received this particular communication.
11 Q. Mr. Bezruchenko, is your evidence that this is the only such
12 communication that you received, or are you saying that you cannot
13 remember whether there was any other?
14 A. I cannot remember if there were any other; but if I received any,
15 that probably was a exception rather than a general rule, because I
16 just -- I have seen this one, for sure, but I just cannot remember if I
17 saw anything else like this.
18 Q. Well, first, let's look at the content of that document. It says
19 this, and it's a response to a specific request: "Attached, and on the
20 basis of the official request from the Office of the Prosecutor of the
21 ICTY, you will find the requested information for the following
22 individuals," and then there's a list of names. Is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And if you --
25 MR. METTRAUX: If the registry can please turn to the next page.
1 Q. You'll agree that the information which was sought of the
2 Macedonian authority, and more specifically of the Ministry of Defence was
3 a number of phone numbers of a number of members of the army. Is that
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And do you recall making that particular request for this
7 information, Mr. Bezruchenko?
8 A. Not really. What I remember was that there was a discussion that
9 certain members of the Macedonian army should be interviewed and we should
10 try to draw a list of such persons.
11 Q. And the effort conducted to locate those people by obtaining their
12 telephone numbers and contact details was led by you. Is that correct?
13 A. Not really.
14 Q. But you agree that you were the one requesting those contacts,
15 those telephone numbers, and the one to whom they were sent by the
16 authorities. Do you agree with that?
17 A. Well, as I mentioned, this request was probably drawn on the basis
18 of the information which was in possession of our team, including myself,
19 and related to the members of the Macedonian army which could be
20 interviewed in connection with this case.
21 Q. But you will agree, Mr. Bezruchenko, that a request to obtain
22 telephone numbers or contact details of potential witnesses has nothing to
23 do with military analysis? Do you agree with that?
24 A. I cannot agree with that.
25 Q. So you -- it is your evidence, Mr. Bezruchenko, that a request to
1 obtain contact details with a view to interview a particular person would
2 fall within the realm of your role as a military analyst. Is that your
4 A. What I'm suggesting, Mr. Mettraux, is that there is no evidence to
5 suggest that I drafted this document. There is no signature which I affix
6 to this document, and these are military men in whose interviews I would
7 probably be involved at some stage.
8 Q. Do you agree that the reality, Mr. Bezruchenko, is that from the
9 very early stage of the investigation against Mr. Boskoski, you, and then
10 Mr. Raatikainen, later Mr. Kuehnel, were in charge of this investigation.
11 Do you agree with that?
12 A. I could not be described, I'm afraid, as somebody who was this
13 charge, Mr. Mettraux, for simple reason that I had no executive function.
14 Q. Do you agree, Mr. Bezruchenko, that your role within the team of
15 the Prosecutor just evolved as the need arose for a new actions or new
16 roles for yourself. Do you agree with that?
17 A. In order to answer this question, Mr. Mettraux, I really have to
18 know what you imply by my original role and what do you actually mean by
19 saying it evolved.
20 Q. Let me ask you this first: Do you agree that you and
21 Mr. Raatikainen, when Mr. Raatikainen was still the team leader, were
22 presented to the Macedonian authorities as the two contact person
23 competent to deal with this particular case? Do you agree with that?
24 A. I don't really understand what you mean, Mr. Mettraux, if you
25 could produce perhaps specific document.
1 Q. Let me ask the question first, and perhaps I will try to make it
2 clearer to you: Do you agree that representations were made by your
3 office to the Macedonian authorities to the effect that you and team
4 leader Matti Raatikainen were legitimate contact persons of the Office of
5 the Prosecutor in relation to this investigation? Do you agree with that?
6 A. Perhaps, but it really depends on what you mean. I don't remember
7 any verbal statements of this kind, but this is what I can say at this
9 MR. METTRAUX: Can the witness please be shown what is Rule 65 ter
10 1D435, please.
11 Q. Mr. Bezruchenko, do you recognise this as being a so-called RFA or
12 request for assistance from the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY to
13 the government of the Republic of Macedonia? Do you agree?
14 A. Could you please kindly scroll the page a little bit and could you
15 please go to the next page.
16 Q. No. We'll stay on this page for the moment Mr. Bezruchenko. Can
17 you please answer the question first.
18 JUDGE PARKER: I would think that Mr. Bezruchenko should be able
19 to look at the notes before being committed to answer, if he wishes.
20 MR. METTRAUX: Very well, Your Honour. This would be 1D00-4018,
22 THE WITNESS: Yes. I can see this page.
23 MR. METTRAUX: And if we can go back to the first page, please.
24 Q. Do you agree, Mr. Bezruchenko, that this is a request for
25 assistance from the Office of the Prosecutor to the ICTY to the government
1 of the Republic of Macedonia?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And, as you may have seen from the second page, this would be
4 dated November sometime, I believe the 2nd of November of 2004. Is that
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And the information which is sought and the assistance which is
8 sought from the Macedonian authority concerns, inter alia, a permission to
9 be granted to interview Mr. Goran Stojkov, is that correct, who is in
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And simply for the record, Mr. Stojkov was at some stage the
13 commander of the Lions unit. Is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And the request also relate to a report dated 12 of August 2001
16 signed or prepared by (redacted). Is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And it also concerns phone records and information which you
19 describe in paragraph 2 to 4 of that document. Is that correct?
20 MR. METTRAUX: And perhaps we can turn to the next page.
21 Q. Do you agree that that is also what it relates to?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And it also relates to a request for transcript of particular
24 phone calls of members of the NLA or Albanian individuals in or around
25 Ljuboten between 7 to 12 of August, 2001. Is that correct?
1 A. It is described as phone record information.
2 Q. And you agree that's that one of the requests that is being made
3 in this letter?
4 A. I would rather read this letter as one complete request to this
5 various items on it.
6 Q. And do you agree that further down, on the second page, the
7 indication is given by the then senior trial attorney in this case that
8 any questions concerning this request may be addressed either to
9 Mr. Raatikainen, the team leader, or to yourself, Mr. Bezruchenko? Do you
10 agree with that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So do you agree that, at least as far as this document is
13 concerned, you were being presented to the Macedonian authorities as a
14 competent interlocutor in relation to the matters dealt with in this
15 letter? Do you agree with that?
16 A. I would imagine that my name was mentioned in this letter because,
17 among other things, it addresses the issues of the documents in relation
18 to (redacted), a captain in the Macedonian army.
19 Q. But do you agree that what the letter says is that any questions
20 concerning this request may be addressed to you? Do you agree with that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And do you agree that this letter suggests that you were
23 represented to the Macedonian authorities as a valid and competent
24 interlocutor on behalf of the OTP, to answer any questions as might be
25 relevant to this particular set of requests. Is that correct?
1 A. Not necessarily, Mr. Mettraux. I don't think that this letter
2 specifically describes my role in those terms which you have just
3 presented, a valid and competent interlocutor. It only says that any
4 questions related to this letter can be addressed to me; that is, I am
5 serving just as a point of contact.
6 Q. Well, do you agree also, Mr. Bezruchenko, that you have had
7 several meetings with the Macedonian authorities as regard the
8 investigation and preparation of this case?
9 A. I was involved in some meetings that were held between the Office
10 of the Prosecutor and Macedonian authorities.
11 Q. And you will agree, I hope, that several of those meetings had, in
12 fact, nothing to do with the military matters. Do you agree with that?
13 A. I simply don't remember.
14 Q. Do you agree, Mr. Bezruchenko, that you took part in a number of
15 meetings with or on behalf of the Office of the Prosecutor that related
16 specifically to investigative aspects of this case which were not military
17 in nature? Can you recall that?
18 A. We must be more specific about this Mr. Mettraux.
19 Q. Do you, recall, for instance, Mr. Bezruchenko, attending a meeting
20 at which the subject of discussion was a security agency called Kometa?
21 A. Maybe, but I have to see the appropriate document.
22 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown Rule 65 ter
23 1D935, please. That is 1D00-7907, and 7905 in the original.
24 Q. Do you have that document in front of you, Mr. Bezruchenko?
25 A. Yes, I do.
1 Q. And can you recall seeing that document in the course of the
3 A. I'm not sure.
4 Q. Well, we'll go through this page in any case, if you permit.
5 You agree that this is a document that comes from the Republic of
6 Macedonia, more specifically from the Ministry of Interior, and it's dated
7 the 30th of April of 2004? Is that correct?
8 A. That's right.
9 Q. And it is sent, again, to the office of the ICTY in Skopje through
10 Mr. Andrzej Szydlik. Is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The interpreters would,
13 again, kindly like to ask the witness and counsel to pause between
14 questions and answers, please.
15 MR. METTRAUX: Again, my apologies.
16 Q. And do you go that the subject is a submission of information and
17 documentation in relation to the request from the Office of the
18 Prosecutor. Is that right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And, in the next paragraph, the number of that particular request
21 is mentioned. Is that correct?
22 A. I see only the first page of this document, Mr. Mettraux.
23 Q. Yes. I'm drawing your attention to the first paragraph, where it
24 says that the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY in The Hague had
25 submitted a request number MAR/TO7/MAC-00060-A. Can you see that?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And if you can go further down to a paragraph which starts with
3 the word "In connection to the requested information."
4 Can you see that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And I will read that paragraph to you: "In connection to the
7 requested information and documentation included in the items 1 and 7,
8 related to the private 'agency for security of properties and persons
9 Kometa,' as well as providing issued orders by the Minister of the
10 Interior of that time, Ljube Boskoski, these are still not provided."
11 It goes on to say: "The reasons for this were explained to
12 Mr. William Smith and Mr. Viktor Bezruchenko at the meeting on 27 April
13 2004. The additionally provided information and documentation would be
14 submitted to you."
15 Can you see that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And does that help refresh your memory about this particular
18 meeting that you and Mr. Smith had with the Macedonian authorities on the
19 27th of April of 2004?
20 A. I think we had this meeting, but I'm afraid this document is taken
21 a little bit out of the context of the meeting, or at least the paragraph
22 which you are referring to does not cover the meeting in its entirety,
23 Mr. Mettraux.
24 Q. But do you agree that this particular meeting, in any case, had to
25 do with, inter alia, the Kometa agency and a number of orders said to have
1 been issued by then Minister Boskoski?
2 A. It would appear so, but apparently there were many issues
3 discussed at this particular meeting, and the meeting was not was
4 necessarily limited to this issue only.
5 Q. Do you agree, Mr. Bezruchenko, that among the other things which
6 you also did on behalf of the Office of the Prosecutor is to seize
7 material on behalf of the Office of the Prosecutor? Do you agree with
9 A. Some of it.
10 Q. And that would include, inter alia, some of the material which
11 you've used for the purpose of preparing your report. Is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And there's another part of your evidence which I would like to go
14 back to, this time in relation to your report.
15 Do you recall that last week, when we discussed a particular
16 aspect of your report, we had a lengthy discussion about what is termed in
17 the introduction of your report, "A military integrated narrative of the
18 events of Ljuboten." Do you recall that exchange?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, it was at page 6751 to 6754 on the
21 23rd of October of 2007.
22 Q. And, at that point, I had asked whether you could recall whether
23 or not you had been or that part of your report had been added at a later
24 stage. Do you recall me asking you that?
25 A. Yes. But I don't think you specified at which particular stage it
1 was allegedly added and what you specifically meant by being added.
2 Q. But do you recall your answer to the effect that that was not the
3 case and that in fact that particular aspect of your report had been part
4 of the original plan of the report? That's page 6754. Do you agree with
6 A. Yes. It was originally planned that the events in Ljuboten should
7 also be reflected in my report, among other things.
8 Q. Isn't that correct, in fact, Mr. Bezruchenko, that this particular
9 aspect of your report was asked of you much later, when the Prosecution
10 thought it important to put before the Chamber a complete version of what
11 it perceived to be the events of Ljuboten of the 10th, 11, and 12th of
12 August of 2001?
13 A. It is not correct, Mr. Mettraux, because I cannot really tell you
14 who was thinking what at various stages of time. What I am telling you
15 though, which I mentioned previously, the plan to cover events in Ljuboten
16 were the original part of the plan for the entire report.
17 Q. Is it correct that, in particular, Mr. Bezruchenko, you had not
18 been tasked with the responsibility to examine documents and material
19 which pertain to the actions of the NLA in or around the village of
20 Ljuboten on the 10, 11, and 12th of August of 2001?
21 A. I think I was -- I think I was not specifically tasked to provide
22 the description of the NLA actions, but, in fact, the integrated military
23 chain of events implies that the actions of both parties was supposed to
24 be reflected in this particular section of the report.
25 Q. Is that correct that this request on the part of your colleagues
1 to integrate, if you want, that aspect of the evidence was made not in the
2 original plan as you had said, but at a later stage. Is that correct?
3 A. I don't think there was any specific request of this nature. I
4 mean the request to cover the NLA, or rather, a request to add the part of
5 the report covering the NLA actions. But as I mentioned, it was my
6 purpose from the very start to provide the balanced picture of what had
7 happened in Ljuboten relying on all sources available, including those of
8 the NLA and the Macedonian army.
9 MR. METTRAUX: Can the witness please be shown Rule 65 ter 1D906,
11 Q. Mr. Bezruchenko, what will appear in front of you is the record of
12 your proofing notes with the Office of the Prosecutor on the 30th of
13 September of 2007. Can you see that?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And I will ask to you look at paragraph 2 of that particular
16 document, and I will read it out for you. It says this: "Originally, I
17 was not tasked to examine documents and materials pertaining to the
18 actions of the NLA in and around the village of Ljuboten on 10, 11, and 12
19 August 2001. However, in the interest of completeness, I also reviewed
20 such materials and described them in my report and in the addendum to my
22 Do you agree that, in fact, Mr. Bezruchenko, that particular
23 aspect of your report was, as you told your colleague in the proofing
24 session, was not originally part of your task. Is that correct?
25 A. As I have just mentioned, Mr. Mettraux - and I think this
1 particular paragraph fully reflects what I previously said - I was not
2 tasked to examine documents and materials pertaining to the actions of the
3 NLA; but, as I emphasised already, for the sake of balance and
4 completeness, I also reviewed such materials.
5 Q. And just to be clear, this came later, as a result of a further
6 tasking by your colleagues, Mr. Bezruchenko. Is that correct?
7 A. Not really. I was just reviewing these documents as they were
8 coming up.
9 Q. So, just so that the evidence or the record is clear on that
10 point, Mr. Bezruchenko, your evidence is that, whereas you were tasked --
11 were given a task originally, you did not review or examine documents and
12 material pertaining to the actions of the NLA in and around the village of
13 Ljuboten on 10, to 12 August, but that you decided at a later stage of
14 your own device to do so yourself for the sake of completeness. Is that
15 your evidence?
16 A. This that would be a more or less fair representation of what I
17 said. Well, as you may have mentioned, sir, the role of analyst is to
18 provide an objective picture of what was happening, which is certainly
19 impossible to present without reviewing all possible range of documents
20 available to you.
21 Q. And I think we have touched upon this issue already,
22 Mr. Bezruchenko, but is it correct that all of the information which I
23 used in this particular part of your report, the narrative about what you
24 say took place in or around Ljuboten on the 10 to 12 of August, you
25 received as part of your employment and work with the Office of the
1 Prosecutor? Is that correct?
2 A. Well, at all times I was and still have been a member of the
3 Office of the Prosecutor.
4 Q. And it is in that context that you received the material which you
5 used with a view to prepare that particular part of your report. Is that
7 A. Which context do you mean Mr. Mettraux?
8 Q. I refer specifically to that part of your report called, "A
9 military narrative -- or military integrated narrative of the events of
11 A. I'm sorry, Mr. Mettraux. I don't really understand your question.
12 Q. Well, let me put it differently then, Mr. Bezruchenko.
13 Do you agree that all of the material that you used for the
14 purpose of preparing that part of your report was obtained through the
15 Office of the Prosecutor and by the Office of the Prosecutor? Do you
17 A. All the material was obtained the through the Office of the
19 Q. And your access to that material was made possible by the fact
20 that you were an employee of that office. Is that correct?
21 A. Well, I think it would be impossible otherwise.
22 Q. So, looking at from the other way around, there is no material
23 which you received or information which you used in relation to that part
24 of your report which you received outside of your employment with the
25 Office of the Prosecutor. Is that right?
1 A. I don't really see what you mean, Mr. Mettraux. Perhaps you would
2 like to refer to a specific document.
3 Q. Well, perhaps I should make the question clearer that may help
4 you, Mr. Bezruchenko.
5 There is no one document which you obtain for the purpose of
6 preparing that part of the report that you obtained in a capacity other
7 than as a military analyst. Is that correct?
8 A. I'm afraid not.
9 Q. Just so that the record is clear, you agree it is correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Is it correct, Mr. Bezruchenko, also that you helped the
12 Prosecution team by doing a number of translations of documents for them.
13 Is that correct?
14 A. Not necessarily translations as such. Well, I used to make some
15 summaries of certain documents.
16 Q. But do you agree that there is also a number of translations which
17 you did to be provided to your colleagues, to have access to information
18 which they would not otherwise be able to access, by translating orders,
19 for instance?
20 A. There were some drafts which I made, not official; but, mostly, I
21 think there these were summaries, summaries of various books.
22 Q. And do you agree, again, that the activities of translator do not
23 fall within the realm of the competencies of a military analyst, as you
24 described them to Mr. Saxon? Do you agree with that?
25 A. Perhaps not, Mr. Mettraux, but you cannot really prevent a person
1 from thinking and speaking other languages.
2 Q. And another matter which you undertook on behalf of the
3 Prosecutor, and you indicated already, is to review collections of
4 documents. Is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And you also selected documents which you considered to be or
7 could be relevant to this particular case. Is that correct?
8 A. We must have received a lot of documents, of course, and they were
9 all initially reviewed and some of them were selected.
10 Q. And they were selected by you. Is that correct?
11 A. Some of them, mostly military documents.
12 Q. And is that correct that all through the pre-trial phase, but also
13 since the beginning of that trial, you have continued to work as a full
14 member of the Prosecution team. Is that correct?
15 A. I'm the member of the military intelligence unit -- sorry, member
16 of the military analysis unit.
17 Q. But you are also a member of the Prosecution team who -- which is
18 competent to try the case against Mr. Boskoski and Tarculovski. Is that
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And you are also being treated as such, for example, as far as
22 training is concerned. Is that correct?
23 A. Which specific training you're implying, Mr. Mettraux.
24 Q. Is that correct that you received training together with other
25 members of the team of the Office of the Prosecutor? Is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Is that also correct that all through these proceedings, and in
3 particular since the beginning of this trial, you have continued to
4 provide advice and assistance to this Prosecution team?
5 A. I was assigned on this case a long time ago, Mr. Mettraux, as I
6 mentioned; and, occasionally, I was asked for my opinion and advice.
7 Q. Including during the course of the trial. Is that correct,
8 Mr. Bezruchenko?
9 A. I cannot really tell for certain. I think, yes, there were some
10 instances like this.
11 Q. And, just so that the record is clear, Mr. Bezruchenko, since the
12 beginning of the trial, in this case, have you been involved if any other
13 case on behalf of the Office of the Prosecutor?
14 A. Since this trial began?
15 Q. Yes, please.
16 A. Well, I was doing various ad hoc tasks as asked by my colleagues
17 in the military analysis team.
18 Q. But you will agree that the bulk of your activities since the
19 beginning of this case have been to assist and to provide assistance as is
20 needed in relation to this case. Is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And you did that, in particular, together or with the assistance
23 of Mr. Kuehnel. Is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And do you recall I had asked you a particular question last week
1 in relation to assistance which you were asked to provide by colleagues in
2 relation to particular court filings and in relation to particular
3 proposed exhibits. Do you recall our exchange?
4 A. I remember your question.
5 Q. And do you recall that at the time you had asked me to indicate
6 specifically to you the two documents, and the documents were not
7 available, to me in any case, at the time? Do you recall that?
8 A. I recall that you were saying that you would come back to this
9 issue later.
10 Q. Well, I'd like to come back to it now, Mr. Bezruchenko.
11 Is it correct that, in relation to a particular first exchange of
12 letter between the parties, then a formal application by the Office of the
13 Prosecutor, you were asked to provide advice and support to assist the
14 Prosecution identifying the relevance or otherwise of particular exhibit
15 which were sought to be tendered by the Prosecution?
16 A. I'm afraid we, again, have to be specific, Mr. Mettraux. From
17 your general description, it is very difficult for me to understand what
18 exactly you mean. I would kindly ask to you present me a specific
19 document, details, dates, and facts.
20 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown Rule 65 ter
21 1D736, please.
22 Q. Mr. Bezruchenko, I'll just go through the letter with you for a
24 It's a letter from the senior trial attorney in this case. It's
25 dated 26th of February of 2007, and it is directed to the lead counsel for
1 Mr. Boskoski, and it is a response to the letter of the Defence of 4th of
2 February of 2007. Is that correct?
3 A. If I may ask, Mr. Mettraux, who is the signatory of this letter?
4 Q. If you can go to the bottom, Mr. Bezruchenko, it is signed by
5 Mr. Daniel Saxon, Senior Trial Attorney. Can you see that?
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. METTRAUX: And if we can go back up to the top of the page
9 Q. Well, first, I will ask you this: Had you seen that letter
10 before, Mr. Bezruchenko.
11 A. No, I don't think I had seen it.
12 Q. To assist you here, if can you read the first sentence of that
13 document, it says that: "The purpose of this letter is to respond to your
14 letter to the Prosecution dated 4 February 2007, in which you asked the
15 Prosecution to clarify the relevance of two separate groups of exhibits."
16 And the letter says that "attached hereto are two spreadsheets."
17 MR. METTRAUX: And if we can turn to the next page, please.
18 Q. Mr. Bezruchenko, this is an excerpt from the spreadsheets which
19 were provided to us by the Office of the Prosecutor in response to our
20 request for a indication of relevance.
21 MR. METTRAUX: And if I could ask the registry to scroll down a
22 little bit to the bottom of the page, thank you, and to focus on what is
23 number 796 it is quite small. Thank you.
24 Q. And can you see the -- Mr. Bezruchenko, the left column 796 refers
25 to the Rule 65 ter exhibit number; the next column refers to the date of
1 the document; the next column concerns a short description and date of the
2 document; the next column is the original ERN; the next column is the
3 alleged relevance of the document.
4 MR. METTRAUX: And if we can go a few columns further, please.
5 Thank you.
6 Q. There's a annotation which is being made "ask Viktor, print ERN,
7 and translate."
8 Do you recall being asked by colleagues specifically to provide
9 information about this document Mr. Bezruchenko?
10 A. Can you please go back to the document's name, Mr. Mettraux.
11 Q. Certainly.
12 MR. METTRAUX: If the registry can go back to the left. Thank
14 A. I think there was a question about this document, sir.
15 Q. And do you recall whether your colleagues also asked you questions
16 about other documents, Mr. Bezruchenko, that were part of this attempt by
17 the Prosecution to tender documents from the bar table?
18 A. I don't, Mr. Mettraux.
19 MR. METTRAUX: Can we please turn to the next page, and if the
20 registry could please focus on number 802, that would be the third line.
21 Thank you.
22 Q. Mr. Bezruchenko, again, this is the same sort of Excel table. It
23 starts with the 65 ter number, the date of the document, a short
24 description, then the ERN number.
25 It is 03, I apologise, Mr. Bezruchenko, 03 not 02.
1 Then, there is the original ERN, the relevance.
2 MR. METTRAUX: And if we can scroll it further to the left.
3 Q. Again, do you see the same comment, "ask Viktor, print ERN, and
5 Do you recall being asked about this particular document
6 Mr. Bezruchenko?
7 A. Can you please go back to the document itself.
8 Q. It would be number 803.
9 A. I think I was asked.
10 Q. And can you recall now that you were asked also about a number of
11 other documents, in particular documents that were put forward as
12 supporting material for your expert report? Do you recall that?
13 A. Well, as I said, there were instances when I was asked to provide
14 my views an opinion of certain documents.
15 Q. Is that correct that, in the course of this trial, you were also
16 asked for your assistance and support by your colleague in relation to the
17 preparation of a number of witnesses? Is that correct?
18 A. During the trial?
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. Specifically in relation to witnesses?
21 Q. That's correct.
22 A. I'm not sure. But if you could give me a example, perhaps I could
23 give you a answer.
24 Q. Well, is it correct, for instance, that you were asked for your
25 assistance or help with a view to prepare a number of, quote/unquote,
1 "military witnesses"? Is that correct?
2 A. I'm sorry. What do you mean to prepare a number of witnesses.
3 Q. Is it correct that you were asked to provide assistance to prepare
4 the examination-in-chief of, for instance, of Mr. Mitre Despodov? Is that
6 A. I would put it slightly differently, Mr. Mettraux. I wasn't
7 really asked to prepare a examination of anyone. I was probably asked to
8 select certain documents which could be used during this examination.
9 Q. And you did the same, isn't it, for Mr. Djurisic? Is that
11 A. I possibly did.
12 Q. And for Witness M-051. Is that correct?
13 A. I'm not sure.
14 Q. Are you not sure because you can't remember the name of the
16 A. I cannot remember the name of the person.
17 MR. METTRAUX: Could we go into private session, Your Honour, for
18 a second?
19 JUDGE PARKER: Private.
20 [Private session]
2 [Open session]
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
4 MR. METTRAUX:
5 Q. Is it correct, Mr. Bezruchenko, that you provided assistance of
6 the sort just described by you, in particular in the form of
7 identification of particular document for the examination of Mr. M-051?
8 Is that correct?
9 A. Well, regarding this particular witness, I still am not sure, but
10 that could be the case.
11 Q. Is it correct, Mr. Bezruchenko, that all through this case from
12 its investigation onwards, you were a multi-tasked member of the Office of
13 the Prosecutor; sometimes an investigator, sometimes a contact person,
14 sometimes a military analyst, sometimes an investigator, sometimes a
15 translator, and now a witness? Do you agree with that?
16 A. I can only agree to the fact, Mr. Mettraux, that under the legal
17 terms of my job description, my current title is military analyst.
18 Q. Well, I'd like to turn now then to a different subject,
19 Mr. Bezruchenko, one that we have already touched upon briefly at the
20 beginning of the examination, and that, in particular, relates to the
21 president of the Republic of Macedonia, Mr. Trajkovski.
22 Do you recall being shown by Mr. Saxon a number of orders and
23 decisions signed by the president -- the then president, Mr. Trajkovski?
24 A. Yes.
25 JUDGE PARKER: I'm wondering, Mr. Mettraux, whether you are moving
1 on to a lengthy or a short topic.
2 MR. METTRAUX: I'm afraid it might be a lengthy, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE PARKER: In that case, it is probably in everybody's
4 interests to have the break now.
5 Can the Chamber observe, Mr. Mettraux, that increasingly your
6 questioning has become somewhat repetitive; and in the Chamber's view, it
7 is becoming unnecessarily so. In simply language, we've got your
9 MR. METTRAUX: Well, I can reassure the Chamber on that comment,
10 Your Honour. I'm moving on to a completely different subject which
11 hopefully will avoid any repetition.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Mettraux.
13 We adjourn now. It would be convenient when we resume if the
14 witness waited outside for a few moments before we coming in, as we want
15 to deal with a matter raised earlier today.
16 [Witness stands down]
17 --- Recess taken at 12.27 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 1.24 p.m.
19 JUDGE PARKER: We resume late because there was a need apparently
20 for medical consultation during the break.
21 The Chamber would deal with the motion moved this morning by
22 counsel for both Defences who raise a number of issues involving failures
23 by the Prosecution to meet its disclosure obligations.
24 In particular, it is advanced that there have been many new
25 disclosures by the Prosecution in the last three weeks, including
1 disclosure of notes the made by investigators within interviewing various
2 persons over the years since 2001. Some of these are said to have been
3 disclosed in consequence of specific Defence request and some as the
4 consequence of the order Chamber made earlier this month.
5 In some cases, it is said that before the recent disclosure, the
6 Prosecution had earlier advised that no such document or note of interview
7 existed. In some cases, it is said that the disclosure was made too late
8 to enable the material that is now disclosed to be used in
9 cross-examination of a witness or witnesses, to whom the disclosed
10 material was relevant.
11 The delays in disclosure are also said to have presented any or
12 adequate investigation by the Defence and to have impaired the conduct of
13 the cases of the accused.
14 In particular, while the Defences do not seek to have any
15 Prosecution witnesses recalled for further cross-examination, it is
16 submitted that the extent and nature of the failures of disclosure calls
17 for significant action to ensure the fairness of the trial and to
18 adequately reflect the concern of the Chamber at the degree of failure by
19 the Prosecution in this case.
20 Specifically, the Defences seek to reserve the possible need to
21 delay the start of the evidence of a significant Prosecution witness,
22 Mr. Ostreni, and submit that the Chamber should not allow the Prosecution
23 to call an investigator, Mr. Kuehnel, whom it is contented is largely
24 responsible for the failures to disclose.
25 It is further contended that the failures to disclose should be
1 taken into account at the end of the trial in assessing the Prosecution
3 The Prosecution in response submits that most matters raised by
4 the Defences were dealt with in its submissions of the 15th of October,
5 relating to the decision of the Chamber regarding disclosure that has been
6 given earlier this months.
7 The Prosecution also had delayed in dealing with the Defence
8 request for disclosure of notes of one interview with a BBC journalist, as
9 it had no record of such a interview or notes; and, therefore, it sought
10 information from a former employee who has now advised that the meeting in
11 question was merely introductory and specific notes or statements were not
12 made, although the Chamber notes that that situation is still being
13 checked by the former employee.
14 The Prosecution contends that most disclosures in recent weeks
15 arose from the matters raised in connection with the motion of the
16 Defences earlier this month, and as a consequence, or, I should say, as a
17 consequence of the specific orders of the Chamber made at that time. In
18 particular, this led to the finding of notes of one former employee of the
19 Prosecution, which have been found on the personal computer drive of that
20 employee and of which there had been no other record.
21 Having been discovered, full disclosure has been made of these
22 notes, and the Prosecution has proposed to the Defences that this former
23 employee should be recalled or, by agreement, his notes admitted in
24 evidence, but neither of these proposal versus been taken up.
25 The Prosecution submits that this should be adequate to deal with
1 these investigator's notes; otherwise, the Prosecution submits there has
2 been no significant prejudice to the Defences, and the Prosecution notes,
3 in particular, that it is not proposed that any witness be recalled.
4 The Prosecution further submits that there is no justification for
5 delaying the evidence of Mr. Ostreni, and that there has been sufficient
6 notice for cross-examination purposes concerning that witness.
7 The Prosecution submits that there is no proper basis for the
8 contention that Mr. Kuehnel should be considered seriously at fault, while
9 it accepts he has erred in some matters. It is not fair, it is said, to
10 seek to cast a large part of the blame on him.
11 In the Chamber's view, the submissions of the Defences seek to
12 make too much of what has occurred and its consequences for the Defences
13 of the two accused, while not detracting from importance of proper ad
14 timely disclosure.
15 Having regard to what has been relied on before the Chamber, in
16 its view, first, there is no adequate justification demonstrated for
17 delaying the commencement of the evidence of Mr. Ostreni.
18 Secondly, the circumstances relied on do not establish any serious
19 fault or wanton neglect or failure by Mr. Kuehnel, such as might justify
20 the significant step of refusing to receive his evidence. Failures of
21 disclosure for which he bears some responsibility may be explored in
23 Thirdly, the Defence should be given -- should give further
24 consideration to the Prosecution proposal to re-call Mr. Tucker or to
25 admit his notes in evidence.
1 Fourthly, and otherwise, if by a failure of timely disclosure,
2 either of the Defences consider that they have been adversely affected in
3 the cross-examination of a witness, the re-call of that witness for
4 further cross-examination should be moved, and any such motion would be
5 considered on its merits relative to each such witness.
6 The Chamber accepts and leaves open the prospect that a failure to
7 make proper and timely disclosure may well be a matter it considers
8 relevant to the weight to be given to particular evidence in due course.
9 In the Chamber's present assessment of the interests of justice,
10 in the present circumstances, the matters which we have identified will be
11 adequate to deal with the disclosure deficiencies that have occurred and
12 to ensure that each of the accused has a fair trial.
13 For those reason, the oral motions of the two accused will not be
15 We should have the witness.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 [The witness entered court]
18 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Bezruchenko, due to circumstances beyond
19 everybody's control, it was necessary for a medical examination to be
20 conducted, which has delayed our resumption.
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Mr. Mettraux, you are left with less than ten
23 minutes. Is that practical?
24 MS. METTRAUX: I think there is a number of general matters which
25 we could through Mr. Bezruchenko.
1 Q. Mr. Bezruchenko, you will recall I was asking or refreshing your
2 memory in relation to a numbering of questions which were asked you of in
3 relation to a numbering of orders and decisions signed by the president of
4 the time, which was shown to you by Mr. Saxon in your evidence in chief.
5 Do you recall.
6 A. I remember we had the discussion.
7 Q. And do you recall that several of those orders or decisions had to
8 do with particular operations? Do you recall that?
9 A. Yes, that's right.
10 Q. And several of them were referred to as anti-terrorist operations.
11 Is that correct?
12 A. Yes, I think some of them were.
13 Q. And the president, in some of those decisions, Mr. Bezruchenko,
14 referred specifically to the NLA as terrorists or as a terrorist group.
15 Can you recall that?
16 A. If you produce the specific document, I would be able to confirm
17 or deny it.
18 Q. Very well. I mean, at this stage, there will be no need for that.
19 I will ask you this, then: Do you agree that the president at
20 that time, Mr. Trajkovski, interpreted his constitutional powers as
21 commander in chief quite broadly? Do you agree with that?
22 A. Well, I don't think I'm in a position to agree or to deny that,
23 Mr. Trajkovski [sic], since I simply was not present in Mr. Trajkovski's
24 office at the time. But as would appear to me from analysis of the
25 documents, well, he made certain decisions in pursuit of certain of his
1 constitutional powers, or at least as what was to be believed to be his
2 constitutional powers.
3 Q. Well, let me perhaps specify my question, then: Do you agree, for
4 instance, that under Macedonian law as was applicable in the year 2001.
5 The president could only order the partially mobilisation of force, after
6 consulting with parliament? Do you agree with that?
7 A. I believe under the -- with respect to Macedonian legislation as
8 it stood in the year 2000, the Armed Forces can be used in a war situation
9 which would, in its term, require the parliament to make an appropriate
11 Q. Well, I'm grateful for that, Mr. Bezruchenko, and is it correct
12 that, in fact, Mr. Trajkovski, president at the time, ordered the partial
13 mobilisation of the arm forced without consulting the parliament?
14 A. Yes. This would appear from the analysis of a number of
16 Q. Is it also correct, Mr. Bezruchenko, that according to the law as
17 was applicable at the time, the president was required to exercise his
18 command authority over the Armed Forces through and via the Ministry of
19 Defence. Is that correct?
20 A. It depends which law you're talking about, Mr. Mettraux.
21 Q. I'm referring specifically to the Law on Defence, Mr. Bezruchenko.
22 A. You're perfectly aware, Mr. Mettraux, that there were two Laws on
24 Q. Well, I would like to show you the new law.
25 MR. METTRAUX: And, perhaps, for assistance, I will ask the
1 registry to bring up what is Exhibit 1D98, please.
2 Q. Mr. Bezruchenko, do you recognise that Law on Defence as the
3 so-called New Law on Defence, which was adopted on the 1st of June of
5 A. Yes.
6 MR. METTRAUX: And with the registry's assistance, I'd like to go
7 what is page N002-2797, please.
8 Q. And, Mr. Bezruchenko, I'd like to draw your attention, in
9 particular, to Article 28 of that law. Do you have it in front of you?
10 A. Not in full. I think --
11 Q. If we will turn the page, Mr. Bezruchenko, when we reached bottom
12 of that page, this would be the next page, but I will read it out to you.
13 The title of that provision is "Command in the Armed Forces," and it's
14 Article 28 of the New Law.
15 It says this: "The President of the Republic is Supreme Commander
16 of the Armed Forces.
17 "The President of the Republic carries out command through the
18 Ministry of Defence in accordance with the Constitution and this Law."
19 Can you see that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So can you agree that, according to the Law on Defence, the
22 authority of the president to command the Armed Forces was to be exercised
23 through the Minister of Defence? Do you agree with that?
24 A. That's right.
25 Q. But you would also agree that, from a number of documents that you
1 have reviewed in the preparation of your report or in your other
2 capacities, that the president would, in fact, give orders or render
3 decisions to the army directly without going through the Ministry of
4 Defence? Is that correct?
5 A. Not really. The document which I have seen appear to have a
6 common tendency, to suggest that, in fact, the president was giving the
7 orders to the Minister only in certainly relations, namely, the
8 moblisation matters; whereas, the orders related to actual operations were
9 given to the Chief of General Staff and sometimes also to the Minister of
11 Q. Thank you for that, Mr. Bezruchenko. Is it correct that on a
12 number of occasions, and you've outlined it correctly, when it relates to
13 actual operations, the president would also sometimes go directly to the
14 army, without going through the Ministry of Defence, as he was required?
15 Do you agree with that, that there are a number of orders and
16 decisions which reflect that fact?
17 A. Well, I would say that, in fact, the president would go to the
18 Chief of General Staff, but not as you put it, "the army directly,"
19 because the army directly would probably need, Mr. Mettraux, a more
20 detailed qualification.
21 Q. Well, perhaps I'll ask to you have a look at a particular document
22 which may assist you.
23 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, it is in tab 24 of the Prosecution
24 binder of documents shown to Mr. Bezruchenko, and I believe it is Exhibit
1 Q. Do you recognise that document, Mr. Bezruchenko, as one of the
2 documents that was shown to you by the Office of the Prosecutor in your
4 A. Yes, I think so.
5 Q. And do you agree that it is named,"A resolution," dated the 5th of
6 August 2001, and it is signed by the president of the Republic of
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And do you agree also that it is dispatched or sent to the army of
10 the Republic of Macedonia for completion of operation. Is that correct?
11 A. My interpretation of this document would be somewhat different.
12 Paragraph 1, in fact, states the mission of the army, but it does
13 not necessarily say that the decision is actually sent to the army, as you
14 put it.
15 If you read carefully paragraph 3, it would be perhaps correct to
16 draw a conclusion that the document was actually sent to the General Staff
17 of the Army of the Republic of Macedonia.
18 Q. And is it correct, Mr. Bezruchenko, if you look at the bottom of
19 the page, that this document is dispatched to the Cabinet of the President
20 of the Republic and to the army headquarters, but not to the Ministry of
21 Defence? Do you agree with that?
22 A. We should differentiate between army headquarters and General
23 Staff, Mr. Mettraux. These are two different things, and, in fact, I
24 don't what you mean exactly by "the army headquarters." This is one point
25 that I would like to make.
1 The second point I would like to make is that I actually did not
2 see the addresses of this document from the way it is now presented on the
4 Q. Yes, I apologise, Mr. Bezruchenko.
5 MR. METTRAUX: Could the registry assist briefly by showing the
6 bottom of the page to Mr. Bezruchenko, both in the original and in the
7 Macedonian. Thank you.
8 Q. Do you agree, Mr. Bezruchenko, that this document is dispatched to
9 the Cabinet of the President of the Republic of Macedonia and to the army
10 headquarters, but not to the Ministry of Defence?
11 A. No, I don't, Mr. Mettraux, because in the Macedonian version of
12 this document, the second line under dispatch to, or rather, delivered to
13 should be translated as General Staff, because GS, the abbreviation in
14 military terms, mean General Staff, not army headquarters.
15 Q. Do you agree, in any case, that this document has not been
16 dispatched to the Ministry of Defence? Is that correct?
17 A. Apparently not.
18 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, would that be a convenient time?
19 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Mettraux.
20 We adjourn, to resume tomorrow at 9.00.
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,
22 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 30th day of
23 October, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.