1 Friday, 1 February 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. It is ominous that the witness is
6 not here.
7 Mr. Saxon, there's something that you wish to raise.
8 MR. SAXON: I hope it's not too ominous, Your Honour; it's simply
9 a procedural matter.
12 (redacted) who, as Your Honours
13 know, is obviously a very important witness in this case, and that
14 evidence is obviously relevant to the credibility of that witness.
15 Your Honour, there have been discussions --
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE PARKER: It's being suggested that we may need a closed
19 MR. SAXON: I apologise, Your Honour, you're absolutely right.
20 It's my lapse.
21 JUDGE PARKER: I'm not right, a more alert Judge than me is right.
22 I'm afraid we need a redaction, and to be in closed session for
23 the moment.
24 [Private session]
11 Pages 8761-8763 redacted. Private session.
25 [Open session]
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
3 MR. METTRAUX: We would have a short application to make, but
4 we're mindful of the time as well. We're wondering whether it may be the
5 best use of time if we were to try to finish the witness first perhaps,
6 and then to make the application later. And while the witness is coming,
7 I would simply bring to your attention the fact that we have also
8 disclosed the provisions which we understand to be relevant to the
9 evidence of (redacted). We would simply indicate that those are the
10 provisions which we, the Defence, understand to be relevant, since
11 Ms. Residovic has indicated we have been unable to communicate with
12 (redacted) because of her travel.
13 We will communicate with (redacted) to verify whether those are,
14 indeed, the provisions which are relevant to her testimony when she
15 arrives in Skopje, and I'm being told that we are not yet in open session.
16 JUDGE PARKER: We are now in open session. The blind may be put
18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] If you allow me, Your Honours, to
19 redact the name of the witness. Thank you.
20 JUDGE PARKER: I don't think that witness is the subject of any
21 protection order, unless I'm mistaken.
22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we go to closed session,
23 Your Honours.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Private.
25 [Private session]
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
24 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
25 WITNESS: SOFIJA GALEVA-PETROVSKA [Resumed]
1 [Witness answered through interpreter]
2 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Saxon.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 Cross-examination by Mr. Saxon:
5 Q. Good morning, Mrs. Galeva. My name is Dan Saxon. I'm a
6 attorney. I'm originally from the city of Boston in the United States,
7 and I respect the Office of the Prosecutor in this case. I have some
8 questions for you.
9 First of all, you started working for the Ministry of Interior in
10 April of 2002, is that right, that's correct?
11 A. Officially as of the 1st of April, 2002.
12 Q. And prior to that, you worked as a lawyer for a private company,
13 and, as well as, you also had your own law office in the town of Strumica.
14 That's right?
15 A. Yes. This is the period from 1996 to 1998, when the law office
16 was opened, up until 2002, when I went to the Ministry of Interior.
17 Q. And Strumica is a town in the south-eastern corner of Macedonia
18 relatively close to the borders of Bulgaria and Greece?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And what kind of cases did you handle in your private law practice
21 in Strumica?
22 A. Mostly civil cases and economic cases.
23 Q. Prior to formally beginning your work in the Ministry of Interior
24 in April of 2002, had you ever worked as a police officer?
25 A. Could you please repeat your question? What is the period you're
1 referring to?
2 Q. Prior to your employment in the Ministry of Interior, prior to the
3 start of your employment, had you ever worked as a police officer?
4 A. Up until my official employment of 1st of April, 2002, from the
5 period from closing my law firm, I carried out -- I came to Skopje to the
6 ministry on occasion, in view of the fact that as of the end of December,
7 2001, the procedure began for my employment.
8 This was a formal procedure for approval and securing financial
9 means for that workplace. This is why my official beginning started when
10 the financial resources were secured in April of 2002.
11 Q. Yes. I understand that. That's very clear. I'm sorry, perhaps
12 my question wasn't clear. I'll ask it another way.
13 Prior to even beginning your contacts with the Ministry of
14 Interior in December 2001, had you ever worked as a police officer at any
15 point in your life?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Had you ever worked as some sort of a crime inspector?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Had you ever received any specialised forensic training?
20 A. In this period of time, no; the period prior to my coming to
22 Q. Had you ever been trained as a prosecutor prior to the time you
23 came to Skopje?
24 A. There was no specific training, but the exam which was a condition
25 for opening a law firm which was at the same time a condition to work as a
1 judge, and a prosecutor was in -- was in that context relevant, but there
2 was no particular training.
3 Q. And, similarly, up until the time you came to Skopje, you had not
4 received any particular training as an investigating judge?
5 A. No special training, no.
6 Q. I'd like to ask you a few questions about your apprenticeship in
7 the Ministry of Interior.
8 It's my understanding you worked as an apprentice in the sector
9 for Interpol for about two months, in April and May 2002. That's right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And as an apprentice in the Interpol sector, you were given an
12 introduction to different jobs and areas of work in that sector?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So, for example, you learned about the process of issuing warrants
15 on persons; you learned about the procedures for examining the origin of
16 cars that were imported in Macedonia from abroad; as well as some other
17 areas of work of the Interpol sector. Is that right?
18 A. Yes, this is correct.
19 Q. But -- and then later on, a bit later on, in mid-April, you also
20 accepted the proposal of Spasen Sofevski, the head of the crime police
21 department, to follow the exhumation procedures in Ljuboten. Have I got
22 that straight?
23 A. Yes. The first call was made by the head of the criminal police,
24 Spasen Sofevski.
25 Q. You mentioned that after that first conversation with Mr. Sofevski
1 that you -- you had several conversations with Mr. Uslinkovski from the
2 sector for forensics at that time, because around that time the
3 exhumations in Ljuboten village were going on. Is that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. But just so that we understand you, did you ever personally
6 observe the exhumations as they occurred in Ljuboten? Did you go to the
7 cemetery and observe the work?
8 A. No. I was never personally present there. This was following the
9 process of exhumation, which meant conversations, not going to the place
10 of exhumation.
11 Q. Okay. And after the exhumations, there were certain autopsies
12 carried out in the Forensic Institute. Did you personally observe any of
13 these autopsies?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Okay. And then, on the 1st of June, 2002, you took up the
16 position of state advisor within the cabinet of the minister. That's
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And that was quite a large promotion from the position of
20 apprentice, wasn't it?
21 A. The status apprentice was a phase I had to go through, because
22 this is a formal procedure. It is regulated by legal and internal acts of
23 the ministry. But in view of my previous work experience, this was the
24 condition for obtaining that particular work position.
25 Q. Okay. Well, would it be fair to say that during your two months
1 of work as an apprentice in the sector for Interpol, you made a very
2 favourable impression on your colleagues?
3 A. Most probably this is so. If it had been differently, surely
4 the -- there would not have been an evaluation or proposal for direct
5 superiors in this sector and the unit which was part of the sector where I
6 was to be called to do work in addition to the one I was doing.
7 Q. I'm sure during that time you demonstrated then strong
8 professional qualities during your apprenticeship?
9 A. I presume this is so. This is what I was told.
10 Q. You demonstrated that you were a diligent and dedicated
12 A. This is what my superiors said.
13 Q. That you're organised and meticulous?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. You're good at making and keeping records?
16 A. Yes, among other things.
17 Q. And, of course, you needed all these skills and qualities
18 previously to run your own successful law practice in Strumica, right?
19 A. Of course.
20 Q. Moving on to a different topic, you mentioned, yesterday, you
21 explained that after the elections in Autumn of 2002, a new Minister of
22 the Interior came in. That was Mr. Hari Kostov, wasn't it?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And he, Mr. Kostov, replaced Ljube Boskoski?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Yesterday, you explained that with the coming of a new minister --
2 or of that new minister, Mr. Kostov, many transfers were made in the
3 Ministry of Interior and many employees were deployed to different
4 positions. And you also testified that other colleagues like Goran
5 Mitevski, who had been the head of the public security bureau, left the
6 ministry altogether. And you explained that at that point you left your
7 position as state advisor in the minister's cabinet on the 1st of
8 November, 2002, and you took annual leave then for several months.
9 Have I got that correct?
10 A. Yes. With the coming of the new government, there was a -- there
11 were many transfers, many employees were redeployed. This was also with
12 the director for the -- the bureau for public security, Mr. Mitevski. He
13 voluntarily left the ministry. I was allowed to stay for a while, for a
14 new workplace to be found for me, with the explanation and excuse that an
15 adequate workplace for me has not been found yet; and, therefore, it would
16 be well advised that I wait for a while or take a holiday and that I would
17 be called in.
18 Q. Okay. Well, at that time, in November of 2002, and even before
19 that time, when a new minister entered office in Macedonia, that new
20 minister tended to prefer to fill posts in the ministry, if possible, with
21 members of his own political party or other trusted political colleagues.
22 Would that be a fair statement?
23 A. Well, if I can be concrete about talking about this period, with
24 the coming of the new minister, the office of the minister was completely
25 changed. Also, decisions were issued about numerous redeployment of
1 workers from their current to other work positions.
2 However, it is not to be excluded that some people remain because
3 of their professional qualifications but surely not at that moment, after
4 a certain period of time; and once this mistake, if I'm allowed to say, is
5 seen and was then remedied. But it was after a certain period of time and
6 not at that given moment.
7 Q. That's fine. I understand that. But the underlying reason for
8 these many transfers and deployments, isn't it, is that the new minister
9 tends to prefer to fill his or her important positions with persons who
10 belong to his or her own political party. Isn't that right?
11 A. Most frequently and most often, yes.
12 Q. What was Hari Kostov's political party? Do you recall?
13 A. Social Democratic Unit of Macedonia.
14 Q. Ljube Boskoski, at that time, he was a member of VRMO-DPMNE. Is
15 that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. You mention that you were allowed to stay for a while. Were you
18 also a member of VRMO-DPMNE?
19 A. Yes. On 1st of November, 2002 - I already mentioned this - I was
20 told to leave the office and to wait a certain period of time until I was
21 called in again and until an adequate work position was found for me where
22 I could be deployed. On a number of occasions, I did this by myself. I
23 made an attempt to meet with these people, I wrote to them; and, at the
24 end of March, 2003, I succeeded in having such a meeting. It was with the
25 then state secretary in the ministry and the director for public security.
1 I was given a new contract.
2 Q. Would it be fair to say, Mrs. Galeva, that one of the reasons why
3 you were selected to be a state advisor to the minister in 2002 was
4 because you were also a member of -- of his political party. Do you think
5 that played a role in the minister's decision?
6 A. I think that it had a role but not the decisive role. This was
7 not the decisive issue.
8 Q. If we can, can we return to the events of April 2002. Yesterday,
9 you described a meeting that you had with the director for public
10 security, Goran Mitevski, and Minister Boskoski in late April 2002. And
11 you explained that at that meeting you and Mr. Mitevski and Mr. Boskoski
12 discussed your work to date regarding the Ljuboten case.
13 Do you recall that testimony that you gave yesterday?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And you explained to the Trial Chamber that at that meeting,
16 Minister Boskoski told you that he wanted you to become fully engaged on
17 the Ljuboten case and take a new work position in the office of the
18 minister. Is that right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And, eventually, a woman named Katica Jovanovska, who was an
21 analyst working in the sector for analysis and research in the Ministry of
22 Interior, was called into that meeting. Is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And Ms. Jovanovska, you understood at that time, had been
25 compiling information about the events in Ljuboten?
1 A. Those information were primarily of an analytical nature because
2 she used to work as an analyst in the sector for analysis and research
3 within the ministry, and she was in charge in collecting all those
4 analytical information that were produced within that sector. And she was
5 charged to produce a comprehensive information that would deal with the
6 Ljuboten case exclusively, but she failed to complete that task. She
7 started with it, but there was no ending to the task, until she left the
9 Q. Okay. Well, you have just explained that. So Ms. Jovanovska left
10 the Ministry of Interior, took up her new post as a judge, without
11 providing you with the final version of the information and analysis that
12 she had compiled?
13 A. Yes. Yes. Regarding the information, well, I did receive some
14 notes and other working materials. I'm now speaking specifically about
15 the information. She was tasked with producing that, and I had not
16 received that information, while I had received some notes and other
17 materials continuously, all up to the day when she left the ministry.
18 Q. When you spoke with Ms. Jovanovska's superior in the sector for
19 analytics and research, the woman named Vasilka, Ms. Vasilka explained to
20 you that Ms. Jovanovska had not handed over this final version of the
21 information prior to leaving the Ministry of Interior. That's right?
22 A. Yes, that's correct.
23 Q. So, effectively then, you were unable to acquire that final
25 A. Yes. I made efforts; however, nobody knew where that information
1 was, and it was not included in the handing over of cases, which means
2 that there was never a finalisation to it.
3 Q. Mrs. Galeva, did you call Katica Jovanovska in her new workplace
4 as a judge and ask her for these materials?
5 A. Yes. Immediately after she left, I asked her what happens in the
6 future, whether she left anything that she had intended to give to me.
7 She said that she simply left. "I gave you everything I had," she said,
8 "and if there's something else, my colleagues from the same sector will
9 continue working on it. If there's anything, they will continue
10 forwarding materials to you." And I also thought that this information
11 would be comprised by this.
12 Q. So Ms. Jovanovska declined to give you any additional information
13 or any final version. Is that correct?
14 A. I'm speaking about the final version; otherwise, the
15 information -- I had seen the initial version of it, but that was a text
16 written on computer heavily edited in handwriting. There were many
17 corrections on the initial text, and it was an information that was
18 finished halfway. I had seen it. I had an insight into it, but I had not
19 received the final version; although, I, of course, received other
20 information other than this one.
21 Q. Do you think Mrs. Jovanovska is responsible for losing the final
23 A. I can't speak about it. I don't know whether she had lost it or
24 what is the reason why she failed to hand it over or complete it. She
25 herself would be the best witness to that.
1 Q. Are you suggesting at all that Ms. Jovanovska took some material
2 with her when she left the Ministry of Interior?
3 A. I heard about it, but I haven't seen anything of the sort, so I
4 could not make such assertions with certainty.
5 Q. You say you heard about it. What did you hear about this?
6 A. Specifically about that information?
7 Q. About the possibility that Ms. Jovanovska took some of these
8 materials with her when she left the Ministry of Interior.
9 A. As I told you already, I had just heard rumours regarding this.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. She did not admit anything of the sort. There were no reliable
12 assertions about this. These were only rumours that certain files were
13 missing, certain documents were missing, and that there was a guess that
14 that information was among those.
15 Q. Can you tell us who told those rumours to you, or whom?
16 A. Those rumours were heard. I can't say precisely names of persons.
17 I have heard it from several persons. My only official interview was with
18 Vasilka who was one of the heads of the sector for analysis and research,
19 and I asked her to provide me some information or some data related to
20 that document and the preparation. And I told you also what was the
21 answer that I received from her. All the rest were rumours that were in
22 circulation among the colleagues.
23 Q. And, of course, you're aware that the woman known as Vasilka, one
24 of the heads of the analytical sector, you're aware that she passed away
25 last year, aren't you?
1 A. Yes. Unfortunately, yes.
2 Q. Yesterday, you mentioned, moving a little bit further in time, you
3 mention that several days after your initial meeting with Minister
4 Boskoski, you met with Director Goran Mitevski "because he was tasked with
5 giving" a copy of all the materials that his investigative committee had
6 gathered to you.
7 Do you remember that testimony?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Just so that the record is clear, it was Minister Boskoski who had
10 tasked Mr. Mitevski to give you a copy of all the materials collected by
11 Mr. Mitevski's 2001 committee. Isn't that right?
12 A. Yes, it was like that.
13 Q. Okay. I'd like to move to a new topic, the scope of your job
14 with respect to the Ljuboten case.
15 Yesterday, my colleague, Ms. Residovic, asked you to explain what
16 was your principle task with respect to the Ljuboten case. And you
17 explained that your job was to - and I'm going to break it down into two
18 bites - first of all, collect the comprehensive material, which the
19 Ministry of Interior had pertaining to the Ljuboten case without going
20 into detailed analysis or preparing any kinds of reports; and then,
21 secondly, you said strictly collection of material in one place, that is,
22 to place these materials that you collected in a chronological order in
23 one place, and then to hand these materials to the directors of public
24 security, the sector for counter-intelligence, and to Minister Boskoski.
25 Have I paraphrased your testimony correctly?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. First of all, I'd like to ask you if you can help us
3 understand, please. What did you understand at that time by the term
4 "Ljuboten case"? What was the Ljuboten case?
5 A. I knew about the Ljuboten case previously only through the media,
6 because I came to work in the Ministry of Interior much later, after the
7 end of that case. So the only thing I could learn was what the media
9 Once I was invited for the conversation with the head of the crime
10 police in the MOI, and he presented his thinking and at the same time the
11 proposal that I would tackle monitoring this case. He elaborated broadly
12 on the case and, of course, the exhumation was going on, so that every day
13 that event was present in the media and in the TV details about the case.
14 Actually, only that the procedure was going on without presenting any
16 Q. Well, let me perhaps ask a more specific question.
17 By the "Ljuboten case," did you understand that to mean the events
18 inside the village of Ljuboten on the 12th of August, 2001?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And the fact that certain persons died inside the village of
21 Ljuboten on 12 August 2001. Was that, for you, the Ljuboten case?
22 A. Yes. Specifically, that it was an event where some individuals
23 have lost their lives. That was all of the initial information until I
24 started collecting the materials.
25 Q. Okay. And during the course of your work, during that spring and
1 summer of 2002, did your understanding of what the phrase "the Ljuboten
2 case" meant, did that change at all?
3 A. What I knew before was a lot less. I had very meager information
4 before that. Of course, when I started collecting the materials, I
5 arrived at numerous information, numerous acts; and when I studied them,
6 when I collected them, of course I learned much more.
7 Q. But is it true to say that the work that you did during that
8 summer of 2002, it focussed on the events inside Ljuboten from 12th of
9 August, 2001?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So then your work did not include, for example, gathering
12 information about the treatment of persons who had been detained at
13 check-points near Ljuboten?
14 A. The bulk of the material -- materials I gathered, of course,
15 contained other information, other acts. But I will emphasise again, they
16 pertained exclusively to event. Of course, there were materials dealing
17 with a broader period of time, but, still, the purpose, the intention was
18 to arrive at that event. So they started within a time-period before the
19 12th of August, but only with the intention to arrive at the 12th, to see
20 what were the preparatory activities, what took place before that, and
21 what finally took place on that critical date.
22 Q. And, again, just so that our record is clear, when you use the
23 phrase "that event," you're referring to the event or events that took
24 place inside the village of Ljuboten on the 12th of August. Is that
1 A. I'm speaking about an "event" since that was the notion, the term
2 used, the event. And this is why I'm using it.
3 Q. I understand that, but I'm just trying to be clear that the
4 definition that I gave you accurately describes what you mean by that
5 event. That's all.
6 I'm sorry. I don't think we could hear your response.
7 A. Could you please repeat the question.
8 Q. When you use the phrase "that event," you are simply referring to
9 what happened in Ljuboten on the 12th of August, 2001. Is that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So your work, in 2002, did not include gathering information about
12 the treatment of persons, for example, in police stations around the
13 Skopje area, persons who had been detained in or near the village of
15 A. I will say, again, I worked on that event only, but in the
16 materials that I received, that I gathered, a period before and after the
17 event was comprised as well. So there were some other material there as
18 well, apart from this.
19 Q. All right. Just to simplify the matter a bit. Your task, if I
20 understand it, was to collect materials or information that the Ministry
21 of Interior already had in some form and put it in one place, one
22 location, in chronological order. Is that right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And a large part of your work about the Ljuboten event involved
25 having discussions with persons who you described yesterday as persons in
1 leading positions who might be able to answer questions related to the
2 Ljuboten event. Is that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. I'd like to show you a document, if I can.
5 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I believe we have some binders with some
6 documents that might make it easier for the parties to follow along, if
7 they could be distributed, and we have a copy for the witness as well.
8 Q. Mrs. Galeva, if you could please turn to tab number 2 in that
9 binder, you'll see there's some numbers with gray tabs. And if you could
10 turn to tab number 2.
11 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, this is Exhibit P73. It is the decision
12 to establish a commission to consider the circumstances and analyse the
13 activities undertaken by the security forces of the Ministry of Internal
14 Affairs to repel the armed attacks by terrorist groups on the 12th of
15 August, 2001 in the village of Ljuboten.
16 Q. Are you with me, Mrs. Galeva?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And you'll see this is a decision dated 13th of August, 2001. I
19 think you're familiar with it, and signed by then Minister Boskoski. And
20 further down in the page, paragraph 2, it says that the commission has the
21 task to review the circumstances and analyse the activities undertaken by
22 the security forces of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to repel the armed
23 attacks of terrorist groups on 12 August 2001 in the village of
25 Have you seen that?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. If you could turn to what is tab 3, Mrs. Galeva.
3 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, this will be Exhibit P378.
4 Q. And, Mrs. Galeva, you'll see, when you get to the Macedonian
5 version, that this is the report of the commission that Minister Boskoski
6 had established on the 13th of August, 2001. The report is dated
7 4 September 2001.
8 And we see on the first page, again, the subject is, "An
9 examination of the circumstances and an analysis of the activities
10 undertaken by the security forces for the Ministry of Interior to repulse
11 armed attacks by terrorist groups on 12 August 2001."
12 Are you with me?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. If you could take a look, please, at what is, in the English
15 version, the last paragraph of page 1. I believe it is it on page two of
16 the Macedonian version, Mrs. Galeva.
17 If you turn to page 2, you'll see a paragraph starting with: "In
18 order to carry out ..."
19 Do you see that paragraph?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And that paragraph reads: "In order to carry out an inclusive
22 analysis of all aspects of the circumstances in which the events took
23 place, as well as an expert evaluation of the manner in which the
24 activities that particular day were implemented, a comprehensive review of
25 the chronology of the events was carried out with a professional review of
1 the regulative stability of this type of activity, on the basis of which
2 the Commission affirms the following."
3 Have you followed me in that paragraph?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. It would be fair to say, wouldn't it, that, really, your task in
6 2002 and the task of the 2001 committee headed by Goran Mitevski were
7 actually quite similar, weren't they?
8 A. Similar. However, my task was to gather materials, and his task
9 was to analyse the gathered materials. There is a difference here.
10 Q. Well, would it be fair to say that before you can analyse
11 materials, you have to gather them first? Would you agree with that?
12 A. Of course. You need to gather them, yes.
13 Q. And then, of course, when you gather them, you'd want to review
14 the chronology of the events, right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. If we can turn, please, to the bottom of page 4 in the
17 English version; and, Mrs. Galeva, this will be the bottom of page 5 in
18 the Macedonian version, please.
19 If you see at the bottom of page 5, you see auto paragraph with
20 the word "opinion" over it, do you see that, one page back? Do you see a
21 paragraph at the bottom, and it has the word "opinion" over it?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Then maybe I can ask the usher assistance to help you.
24 MR. SAXON: If I can show the usher this. Mr. Usher, I think I
25 could show you. It's here.
1 We are still on tab 3, the report of the 2001 commission.
2 Q. The first paragraph of this opinion reads the following: "The
3 activities which were carried out by the security forces of the Ministry
4 of Interior to repulse the armed attacks of the terrorist groups on
5 12 August 2001, in the village of Ljuboten-Skopje, were well-founded,
6 justified, and properly undertaken, yet there is evidently a slight
7 tolerable degree of individual overstepping of the boundaries of the
8 prescribed powers, carried out by a small number of members of the
9 Ministry of Interior, who actively participated in the event."
10 Were you able to follow with me?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, you had received a copy of this report from Goran Mitevski
13 when you began your work on the Ljuboten event. Isn't that right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. When you spoke with the persons in leading positions from the
16 Ministry of Interior who might be able to answer questions about the
17 Ljuboten event, did you ask any of them to give you a list of the names of
18 the members of the Ministry of Interior who participated in the events in
20 A. Yes, I requested that. However, there was no such list, despite
21 the fact that the information produced by the commission noted this, and
22 there were some conjectures that the MOI members had participated in the
23 event. However, despite the efforts to obtain data on any such persons,
24 such data was not received.
25 So it was never ascertained, it was never proven that specific
1 persons had participated on that date.
2 Q. Well, but this report, signed by three very high-ranking members
3 of the Ministry of Interior, referred to a small number of members of the
4 Ministry of Interior who overstepped, if we can say, the boundaries of
5 their powers on the 12th of August in Ljuboten.
6 How could such an opinion be written without knowing who those
7 persons are and what they did?
8 A. There were very many accusations, speculations in the public that
9 was ever present in the media. It was rumoured that the members of the
10 MOI of the police forces had participated in that event and that they
11 perpetrated that overstepping of boundaries of power. And for that
12 reason, when preparing the information, the committee had included such
13 paragraph. However, all the way until the end, nothing of that was
14 proven, nothing was ascertained.
15 Such efforts were constantly made to find the participants in
16 order to hold them responsible, if that was needed; but despite the huge
17 efforts on the part of the crime police department, on the part of the
18 sector for internal affairs under the command of which they were under the
19 competence of which they were, still no names were given.
20 Q. So if I understand your evidence correctly, then this opinion, at
21 least in part, is based on rumours. Is that what you're saying?
22 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that this
24 is not a question that can be asked of the witness because she did not
25 prepare this report. We can ask her what she later could find out. But
1 the basis on which the commission prepared the report, we had here witness
2 Galevski and these were questions that could be put to him.
3 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I asked the witness how or whether she
4 had tried to find the members of the Ministry of Interior who were
5 described in general terms in the opinion of this report. And the
6 witness -- and I asked the witness, well, without speaking to such persons
7 or identifying them, how could this opinion be written, and the witness
8 responded, well, there were rumours about this participation.
9 So I think my -- I think my question, then, is a correct follow-up
10 question. I want to know if the witness believes that rumours, the use of
11 rumours then played an effect in this report.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE PARKER: Please continue, Mr. Saxon.
14 MR. SAXON:
15 Q. I'll repeat my question, Mrs. Galeva. Is it your evidence that
16 this report of the 2001 committee headed by Goran Mitevski was based
17 partly on rumours?
18 A. Because in view of the fact that nothing is proved and there were
19 many accusations about the participation of security forces in this event,
20 there was no time to prove all this, and it was inevitable that this
21 information need to be prepared. This is the reason why this clause was
22 introduced, that it was possible to exist.
23 Therefore, this is a conditional phrase. It exists as a
24 possibility, which means that it leaves room for further investigation and
25 proof that this is indeed what happened.
1 Q. I want to read you a part of this paragraph, again, Mrs. Galeva.
2 It says this: "Yet there is evidently a slight tolerable degree of
3 individual overstepping of the boundaries of the prescribed powers carried
4 out by a small number of members of the Ministry of Interior who actively
5 participated in the event."
6 Tell us, please, where do you see a conditional phrase in what
7 I've just read to you?
8 A. As I said, there were rumours. It was being said that members of
9 security forces had taken part in this event. We must not forget the fact
10 that there were security forces check-points there and in a -- and
11 understand conditions of intensive armed attacks by members of the
12 National Liberation Army.
13 If there have been a direct attack of those check-points, reaction
14 would say have been necessary. This is what leaves room to be further
15 investigated which was impossible due to time restrictions. It was
16 impossible to establish all of this in such a limited time-frame, so that
17 with certainty one can claim whether something happened or not.
18 This is -- I believe that this is a phrase based on this, what
19 might or might not have happened. I do not exclude -- it does not exclude
20 the possibility of either one or the other happening; however, this is a
21 given statement without confirmation.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm very carefully
24 listening to the questions of my learned colleague and the answers, and I
25 think there is a misunderstanding between them. I'm looking at the
1 Macedonian text and the English translation, because the word in the
2 Macedonian text is what the witness is talking about. In the English, it
3 is the one which my learned colleague is talking about.
4 I would ask, if possible, to read in the Macedonian this segment
5 in particular, so that the interpreters can interpret it because the
6 report states -- it was: "The occurrence of presence was note," while the
7 translation says: "It is evident that something is established," while
8 the Macedonian version says to the contrary.
9 Perhaps the witness can now read this text in the Macedonian
10 language, so that the interpreters can interpret it directly, because this
11 is something completely different whether something is recorded or made --
12 or made evident.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
14 It seems that there is a possibility of some difference in
15 Ms. Residovic's view between what is in the Macedonian text and the
16 English translation. I take it it's in the opinion. Perhaps the witness
17 might be read the Macedonian text, and we can follow the interpretation
18 that comes.
19 MR. SAXON:
20 Q. Mrs. Galeva, could you please read the first paragraph of the
21 opinion in your language, please.
22 A. "The activities undertaken on behalf of the security forces of the
23 Ministry of Interior for repelling the armed attacks of terrorist groups
24 on day 12 August 2001 in the village of Ljuboten-Skopje are based,
25 justified, and rightly undertaken whereby the presence of tolerant
1 level -- negligible tolerable level of individuals swaying from the
2 borders of regulated authorisations had been noted, carried out by a small
3 number of members of the Ministry of Interior which actively took part in
4 the event and case."
5 Q. Thank you.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE PARKER: What is the difference to which you were drawing
8 attention, Ms. Residovic?
9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, these words "whereby
10 the occurrence is noted."
11 These are now translated "as noted." While the English
12 translation of the text, it reads: [In English] "There is evidently a
13 slight ..."
14 [Interpretation] I do not know whether this has been checked or
15 not by what the witness is explaining to the Prosecutor, or is the
16 Prosecutor said that this is evident. If something is evident, the
17 presumption of the Prosecution is, and this is something he always
18 reiterate, is that this is being established. This is where the
19 misunderstanding is occurring.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Ms. Residovic.
21 I'm trying to grasp the point you were making. You identified the
22 particular passage. I think we must leave it to Mr. Saxon and the witness
23 to pursue that if they choose or if Mr. Saxon chooses to.
24 Thank you.
25 MR. SAXON: I would simply like -- in the English translation that
1 we have of the document, the word "is" is used. And that is, in the
2 Prosecution's submission, the significant point here.
3 I will move on.
4 Q. Mrs. Galeva, did you speak with Goran Mitevski about who these
5 persons from the Ministry of Interior who actively participated in the
6 Ljuboten event were?
7 A. I have had discussions with Mr. Goran Mitevski. However, he told
8 me that, as of the first moment, it is being taken into account and an
9 investigation is being made as to who these persons were who -- and this
10 was done by the operative services, the intelligence services who were in
11 charge of carrying this out and doing this. Mostly information was being
12 sought by -- from Mr. Petre Stojanovski, head and assistant of crime
13 police in the sector for internal affairs of the city of Skopje, and
14 through OVR, unit of internal affairs, Cair.
15 Also, information were requested from the sector of internal
16 control at the ministry, where in any event in the case of such deviation
17 or overstepping, a report had to be made against a concrete person so as
18 to enable the procedure, necessary procedure to be taken, which can be led
19 in the ministry.
20 Q. Mrs. Galeva, would it be fair to summarize your last response by
21 saying that Mr. Mitevski was not able to provide you with the names of the
22 members of the Ministry of Interior who participated in the Ljuboten
23 event? He did not have those names.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Do you think if you had spoke to the members of the Ministry of
1 Internal Affairs who were present in Ljuboten on the 12th of August, 2001
2 those individuals would have been able to clarify whether the persons who
3 died at Ljuboten were civilians or not?
4 A. I would ask you to repeat the question, please.
5 Q. If you had the opportunity to speak with the members of the
6 Ministry of Internal Affairs who took part in the Ljuboten event on the
7 12th of August, 2001, those persons would have been able to clarify
8 whether the persons who died at Ljuboten were civilians. Isn't that
10 A. In this regard, I had exclusively and for the most part contacts
11 with the forensics unit at the ministry because this body was exclusively
12 in charge to follow this process; and, of course, the best information
13 could be obtained from there. Throughout there whole period of time, I
14 was in contact with them, I had meetings with them; and, of course, I
15 gathered some information.
16 Q. Mrs. Galeva, that's all fine but I need you to answer the question
17 that I asked you. I asked you a very different question.
18 If you had the opportunity to speak with the members of the
19 Ministry of Internal Affairs who participated in the Ljuboten event, do
20 you think those persons would have been able to clarify the circumstances
21 in which people died at Ljuboten, or whether they were civilians or not?
22 A. I had discussions with many persons who, at that time, were in
23 senior positions at the ministry; in particular, I will go back to
24 Mr. Petre Stojanovski, with whom I spoke at length, because, as the first
25 person of crime police in the internal affairs unit at the city of Skopje,
1 he was in the best position to provide me with information about this.
2 From what he was able to learn, true facts about persons who took
3 part in this event could not be established. Major efforts were put in to
4 establish who these persons might be. This was done through the unit of
5 internal affairs, Cair, through police stations, persons who went at the
6 site, but it was not possible to get accurate information.
7 Q. Mrs. Galeva, didn't the 2001 commission that was led by Goran
8 Mitevski compile the same materials that were tasked to compile?
9 A. The commission was set up immediately after the event. It was set
10 up by a decision of the minister of the 13th of August, 2001. It was
11 tasked to collect everything that pertained to that event with a
12 chronological overview line given that should have been part of this
13 information to be submitted to the minister. It was tasked to gather
14 material in support of the information that was to be prepared for the
15 minister, but it was not only this commission.
16 There were other commissions, working groups, that dealt with this
17 case also and including the commission which I was a part of, and we were
18 all tasked with our own tasks to gather material that can assist in giving
19 answers to some issues which, at that time, created major dilemmas.
20 Q. Well, I'm going to come back to that. But part of the materials
21 that you put in chronological order for review by the minister in the
22 summer of 2002 were the same materials that had been collected by the 2001
23 commission. Isn't that right?
24 A. One part, yes; but not all of it. Only a part.
25 Q. All right. A moment ago you told us that the 2001 commission was
1 not the only commission, and you said "there were other commissions,
2 working groups that dealt with this case also, including the commission
3 which I was a part of."
4 Can you tell us, please, what were these other commissions and
5 working groups that addressed the Ljuboten event?
6 A. This was the commission which I already mentioned set up with the
7 decision of the minister immediately after the event. It was presided by
8 Mr. Goran Mitevski; then a commission on war crimes chaired by Mr. Apostol
9 Stojanovski that worked on basis of complaint by injured parties; then the
10 commission on accusations made by the Albanians as to their attitude of
11 police forces towards them.
12 There was unofficial working group without a decision that
13 included Katica Jovanovska prior to my coming, and there was Jordan Arsov,
14 a former judge, as an outside associate. So there were many such
15 commissions, working groups. In addition, there were concrete tasks,
16 concrete authorisations to gather material. It was not left strictly to
17 these commissions to deal with these issues. Rather, a large group of
18 people was engaged that should also deal with this case, so as to gather
19 material that could be of significance of establishing the facts.
20 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I'm conscious of the time. Would this be
21 the appropriate moment to take the break?
22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Saxon.
23 We will have the first break now and resume at five past.
24 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 11.06 a.m.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
2 MR. SAXON:
3 Q. Mrs. Galeva, before we took the break, in your last response, you
4 mentioned that there was what you referred to as an unofficial working
5 group without a decision that included Katica Jovanovska that was working
6 on the Ljuboten event. Then you mentioned there was a former judge as an
7 outside associate."
8 Can you help us understand, please, what was this unofficial
9 working group that included Ms. Jovanovska and who created this unofficial
10 working group and what was it tasked to do?
11 A. In addition to the commissions that were involved, working with
12 the decision of the minister, there were also other working groups that
13 were working without a written decision about their tasks. They were
14 simply told by their direct superiors that they should deal with this
15 matter. Specifically, Mrs. Katica Jovanovska, in view of the fact that
16 she was then working as an analyst at the sector of analysis and research
17 at the MOI, was tasked to obtain, follow, and put in one file all
18 materials that pertained to the conflict as a whole and, in particular, to
19 the case of Ljuboten.
20 There was also the outside associate for legal associate as an
21 advisor for legal issues, Jordan Arsov, an outside associate, a former
22 judge. He also followed these events and gave guidelines; as well as
23 Pavle Manov [phoen], also an outside associate, that also worked on this
24 issue. But I believe on the Ljuboten case, it was more Katica Jovanovska
25 and Jordan Arsov that worked on this matter until I came.
1 Q. And who directed this outside legal advisor, Jordan Arsov, to work
2 on the Ljuboten case.
3 A. This was certainly decided at a collegium of the minister and that
4 was the decision of the advisors to the minister, that such person should
5 be retained to work around this case. But he had some other tasks as
6 well, and those were run in parallel. This was one of the tasks, one of
7 the duties, and it concerned only following the information that came to
8 the sector of analysis and research. And I believe that the aim was that
9 he and Katica Jovanovska would gather the information, discuss them, and
10 then organise them in a binder.
11 Q. And so, if I understand you, the advisors of Minister Boskoski,
12 the members of his collegium, they recommended to the minister that
13 Mr. Jordan Arsov perform this task, provide this assistance?
14 A. I stress, again, his assistance was to follow all the analytical
15 information together with Mrs. Katica Jovanovska; otherwise --
16 Q. Mrs. Galeva, I'm sorry. Maybe you didn't understand my question.
17 My question was very simple. It's your evidence, then, that the advisors
18 of Minister Boskoski, the members of his collegium, recommended to the
19 minister that Mr. Jordan Arsov provide some assistance on the Ljuboten
20 matter. Is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. And, then, was it Minister Boskoski who then arranged to
23 have Mr. Arsov provide his particular assistance?
24 A. I wasn't present during the event, when he was invited, the time
25 and place when he was invited by the minister. And whether that was a
1 one-on-one meeting with the minister or whether that was on a collegium
2 that took place regularly in the minister's office, the minister and his
3 advisors would participate. Certainly, he was invited during that time,
4 and this task was given to him, among other tasks.
5 Q. And where would we find any report written by Mr. Arsov with
6 respect to the work that he did?
7 A. There is no written report, as there is no written report from the
8 work of Mrs. Jovanovska. I'm saying again: that was a task force or a
9 working group that dealt exclusively with analytical information,
10 gathering of all analytical information pertaining to this period that
11 was compiled at the sector for analysis and research within the
13 Part of those information were then handed over to me; and, of
14 course, they were included in the materials that was later given to the
16 Q. If we can move on to another topic, please.
17 Mrs. Galeva, I'd like to turn your mind, please, to the subject of
18 the sector of the Ministry of Interior for counter-intelligence. The
19 abbreviation that you used yesterday, UBK.
20 Yesterday, during your testimony, you explained that the -- that
21 the main aspects of the UBK -- excuse me, the main aspects of the work of
22 the UBK, are, among others, to follow persons, to obtain information, and
23 to intercept telephone conversations.
24 Do you recall that testimony?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. To do that kind of work normally requires a lot of people and
2 resources, doesn't it?
3 A. It should.
4 Q. And it will also require a lot of skill and professional
5 experience on the part of the members of the UBK who are doing that work.
6 Is that right?
7 A. Certainly.
8 Q. If the members of the -- if the UBK, the sector for
9 counter-intelligence, needed to identify police officers who participated
10 in an operation, the members of the UBK could find that information,
11 couldn't they?
12 A. Yes, that is one of the ways.
13 Q. I'd like to turn to another topic, because you mentioned yesterday
14 that after you began your work collecting materials regarding the Ljuboten
15 event, you -- you explained that on many such occasions you spoke with
16 Minister Boskoski about the progress of your work. Am I correct in
17 assuming you're talking about discussions that took place during the
18 summer of 2002; June, July, August?
19 A. Of course. After I started working on that, after I received the
20 decision to be deployed in the cabinet of the minister, certainly the
21 minister was interested to learn what stage has the procedure reached and
22 what have I managed to find.
23 And we had discussions or those were questions asked at collegiums
24 before a broader audience or also during informal one-on-one decisions, if
25 the minister considered that appropriate. So he would be informed about
1 the state of the matters.
2 Q. And you mentioned that there was a lot of speculation about the
3 Ljuboten events in the media at the time, particularly after the
4 exhumation, and Minister Boskoski wanted to get to the truth as soon as
6 A. [No verbal response]
7 Q. You need to make it a verbal response; I'm sorry.
8 A. Yes, that is correct. There were many speculations in the public
9 related to the Ljuboten event. There were allegations that that was an
10 armed attack where members of the security forces of the Ministry of
11 Interior took part; that the outcome of that was, among other things, a
12 murder of civilians; and that those were speculations present in the
13 public. To an overly large extent, there were criticisms coming from
14 Human Rights Watch. There were recommendations to the government. So the
15 minister demonstrated really significant interest to investigate and
16 examine all this over the briefest time possible, and this is why such
17 efforts were made to establish committees, to establish official and
18 unofficial groups, to gather all available materials that the services in
19 the ministries had, in order to provide many answers related to the event,
20 to see what was actually taking place there.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 A. And, of course --
23 Q. That's clear. Just to simplify this, a lot of the speculation in
24 the media took place in the months after the exhumations and the autopsies
25 were carried out in the spring of 2002.
1 A. There were speculations always.
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. But those were the same speculations that were present before the
4 start of the actual procedure, as well as afterwards, since no results
5 were present to the public from the post-mortem.
6 Q. Well, then, the exhumations and the autopsies that were performed
7 in April 2002 did not really clarify the facts about what had happened in
8 Ljuboten on the 12th of August, 2001, did they?
9 A. Well, there was no final report. I'm saying, in the Ministry of
10 Interior, there was no final report; otherwise, there was a final report
11 on the part of the Forensics Medicine Institute that was communicated to
12 our justice system bodies; and after that, it was communicated to the
14 I spoke at that time with the head of the forensics police in the
15 MOI. That was the only service that participated in that process, and I
16 gathered some information from them, also some findings from the professor
17 from the director of the Forensic Institute, Dr. Aleksej Duma. And from
18 the discussions with them, many interesting conclusions were drawn.
19 Otherwise, the expertise itself, the expert report on the materials
20 gathered, was brought to an independent institute, independent laboratory
21 that is located here in the Netherlands.
22 Q. Mrs. Galeva --
23 A. That was --
24 Q. Can you tell us which -- in which of the reports of the Forensic
25 Institute for which of the exhumations or autopsies we would find these
1 many interesting conclusions?
2 A. Would you please repeat the question?
3 Q. Well, in your last response, you said from your discussions with
4 people, such as the head of the Forensic Institute, Dr. Duma, many
5 interesting conclusions were drawn. And I just wanted to ask you, if you
6 can tell us specifically, in which of the reports of the Forensic
7 Institute we would find these "many interesting conclusions," or the
8 conclusions that you found interesting?
9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that this
12 question is unfounded in -- from the answer of the witness, because as far
13 as can I see, in line 20 of page 40, the witness says that there were
14 discussions with them, many interesting conclusions were drawn. And the
15 question was from what materials, so I think that this should be the
16 direction that my learned colleague should take.
17 JUDGE PARKER: I'm sure, Ms. Residovic, that the witness will be
18 very well able to make it clear, if that is the case.
19 MR. SAXON:
20 Q. Mrs. Galeva, do you want me to repeat the question?
21 A. I understood the question, but I think that I had already answer
22 it previously. So, I'm stressing once again: I did not read that from
23 any report. What I'm saying is on the basis of the discussions that I had
24 with the head of the forensics police, Mr. Uslinkovski; and the director
25 of the Forensic Medicine Institute, Aleksej Duma; and some time later,
1 also with are the investigating judge who was chairing the entire
2 procedure, Mr. Dragan Nikolovski.
3 So it is only on the basis of discussions.
4 Q. If I understood your evidence from yesterday, Minister Boskoski
5 encouraged you to work quickly, to do as much as you could and as fast as
6 you could. Is that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And that's because Mr. Boskoski wanted to know the truth.
9 A. Of course.
10 Q. And you informed him, during your discussions, about how had you
11 spoken with, what had you done, and Mr. Boskoski gave you his full
13 A. He was always kept informed. He wanted to be informed how far the
14 procedure has gone. He wanted to know about all things that were taking
15 place, what contacts I had, what materials I was gathering. So he had a
16 special interest in that, and he stressed always that it should be
17 finalised as soon as possible.
18 Q. And, given Mr. Boskoski's special interest, when appropriate, he
19 also gave you instructions to speak with particular heads of sectors or
20 units who might be able to give you an answer about particular issues.
21 Isn't that right?
22 A. Maybe that was mentioned during some discussions, but I primarily
23 relied on the discussions with the other senior officers and I was already
24 knowledgeable about issues. So I knew myself whom among the senior
25 officers I could address and who could provide answers to me.
1 Q. I just want to read to you a bit of a response that you gave
2 yesterday to my colleague, Ms. Residovic, in response to one of her
3 questions about your discussions with Minister Boskoski. This is on page
4 8704 of the transcript.
5 You said: "As for special instructions, he," that's Minister
6 Boskoski, "he let me know that a certain head of a sector of a unit could
7 also give an answer to certain issues. So he gave me a kind of
8 instructions, sort of to direct my activities, so I would not sway too
9 much in this matter."
10 Is that correct?
11 A. Yes. I told you that he had mentioned something of the sort
12 during the discussions.
13 Q. Did Minister Boskoski ever instruct you to speak with a man named
14 Johan Tarculovski?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Did Minister Boskoski ever instruct you to speak with a man who
17 owned a security company called Kometa?
18 A. No.
19 Q. A man named Zoran Jovanovski who had the nickname Bucuk. Did the
20 minister of suggest that you speak with that man?
21 A. Zoran Jovanovski was then in the police department when I came to
22 work for the Ministry of Interior, if he is the person that you're
23 referring to.
24 Q. I'm sorry, Mrs. Galeva, and it is a very easier confusion. I'm
25 talking about a man with the same name, the exact same name, because both
1 that -- both those names are common in Macedonia. But the man who -- the
2 man with the name Zoran Jovanovski, his nickname was Bucuk. He ran a
3 security company known as Kometa. Did Minister Boskoski ever suggest that
4 you speak with that gentleman?
5 A. No, no. It was never mentioned.
6 Q. Did Minister Boskoski ever suggest that you speak with a man known
7 as Kunta?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Two brothers with the last name Janevski.
10 MR. SAXON: Mr. Apostolski is on his feet, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE PARKER: I know that but I was waiting for you to finish
12 your line of questioning.
13 Mr. Apostolski.
14 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I object to this
15 manner of examining the witness. I believe that it would be fair to first
16 ask the witness whether she knows those individuals, and then to start
17 asking such questions.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Apostolski, but I think that this is
19 it a matter that can be left with Mr. Saxon.
20 MR. SAXON:
21 Q. I'll repeat my question, Mrs. Galeva. Did Minister Boskoski ever
22 instruct you to speak with a man known as Kunta?
23 A. No.
24 Q. How about two brothers with the last name Janev or Janevski?
25 A. No.
1 Q. You mentioned yesterday - turning to another topic now - you
2 provided some testimony about the report that the organisation Human
3 Rights Watch issued about the Ljuboten event. Do you recall that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did you ever discuss the Human Rights Watch report with Minister
7 A. That was on the same date when I was first invited to the
8 minister's office, to the office of Mr. Ljube Boskoski, and let's not go
9 back to the entire conversation. On that same date, Katica Jovanovska was
10 invited, because she was tasked with giving the materials that she had
11 already gathered to me. Among the other materials, the analytical
12 information that I had mentioned already, was also the report of Human
13 Rights Watch; and then we had some brief discussions and brief comments
14 around this report, or maybe later during other meetings that we had.
15 Q. Can you recall what comments, if any, Minister Boskoski gave
16 regarding the Human Rights Watch report?
17 A. Yes, I remember. I just can't say precisely whether it was on the
18 same date or during one of the subsequent meetings, yes. And when
19 commenting on this report, he said that it was full of unfounded,
20 uncorroborated matters; and, of course, anyone could allege anything
21 before the public. Anything could be put on paper.
22 But having in mind our legal system and the presumption of
23 innocence, until you prove that something was perpetrated, until you prove
24 the responsibility and culpability on the part of the accused person,
25 there is no accusation. The person is free, and they were really
1 unfounded and uncorroborated allegations.
2 This is why he was greatly interested in denying all the
3 allegations contained in the report and prove the opposite. This is why
4 he was in such a hurry to resolve the entire case as soon as possible and
5 to resolve all dilemmas, to provide many answers to the questions raised
6 within that. Since in the materials that I gathered later, there were a
7 lot of contradictions, huge discrepancies within certain details of
8 specific data.
9 Q. You have explained that yesterday. Thank you.
10 Mrs. Galeva, if you could please turn to what is tab 4 in the
11 binder in front of you, please.
12 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, this will be Exhibit P355. It should be
13 in your binder.
14 Q. And, Mrs. Galeva, I hope you a Macedonian translation of this
15 document. It's a news report from the BBC dated the 27th of August, 2001,
16 and the headline is: Macedonia's interior minister rejects human rights
18 Do you see that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And the article begins where Minister Boskoski is denying claims
21 that were apparently put in a new report by Human Rights Watch related to
22 the events in Ljuboten. And sort of in the middle of the page, we see a
23 sentence that says: "I vigorously reject the accusations."
24 Do you see that, Mrs. Galeva?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And there the Minister is quoted. First, he said there were no
2 grounds for the claims, just above that.
3 Then he is quoted as saying: "I vigorously reject the accusations
4 against the interior ministry and against the regular and the reserve
5 police forces, which have demonstrated unprecedented courage in defending
6 Macedonia's sovereignty and territorial integrity in the past six months."
7 Are you following with me?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And then he says: "I view the accusations issued by Human Rights
10 Watch as a classic act of framing the interior minister."
11 And then below that, we see a sentence that says: "He," and that
12 would be Mr. Boskoski, "said his purpose was to defend the Macedonian
13 people's national interests and that he no intention to justify his
15 Do you see that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And then in the last line, Minister Boskoski is quoted from the
18 radio as saying: "If there exists any evidence, I am prepared to account
19 for it; although, all this is out of the question."
20 Have you been following with me?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Wasn't one of the interests of Minister Boskoski in collecting
23 information about the Ljuboten event was to protect what he perceived to
24 be the Macedonian people's national interest?
25 A. Could you please ask the question again? I apologise.
1 Q. Sure. Well, you've explained that Minister Boskoski had a special
2 interest in collecting all information within the ministry related to the
3 Ljuboten event and that Minister Boskoski was anxious to get to the truth
4 as soon as possible.
5 Wasn't one of the motives of Minister Boskoski to put, as he is
6 quoted here, "to defend the national interest of the Macedonian people"?
7 A. Of course.
8 Q. And in this matter, would it be fair to say that within the
9 minister's cabinet, at least by 2002, there was a perception that the
10 report of Human Rights Watch was damaging to the national interest of the
11 Macedonian people; wasn't it?
12 A. There was such atmosphere that such comments were really annoying
13 and tasteless. Since they were unfounded and uncorroborated, of course
14 they hurt you.
15 Q. The comments made by Human Rights Watch?
16 A. Yes, yes.
17 Q. And it was also an objective of Ljube Boskoski to protect the
18 reputation of the Macedonian police, wasn't it?
19 A. Certainly.
20 Q. In fact, it was one of Minister Boskoski's objectives to protect
21 the reputation of the entire Ministry of Interior, wasn't it?
22 A. Yes. But, still, the possibility was not precluded. If there
23 were issues that go against the reputation of the police in general, as a
24 whole, of course he would react. Of course, as the leader of that
25 ministry, he found the reputation important. But if something was done to
1 jeopardise that, he would certainly react.
2 Q. And, for example, one of Minister Boskoski's reaction was to set
3 up a commission on the 13th of August, 2001, to investigate the Ljuboten
4 event, right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Can you turn, please, to tab 6 in your binder.
7 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, this is Exhibit P356.
8 Q. And I see do you not have a Macedonian translation. I will read a
9 portion of this article to you.
10 It's from the New York Times, from September 2001, and the
11 headline says: "Report says Macedonians killed civilians in revenge."
12 It describes the report of Human Rights Watch that was to be
13 issued on the same day as this article appeared in this newspaper, and it
14 refers to some of the details and allegations contained in the Human
15 Rights Watch report. It refers to several comments that Minister Boskoski
16 made in reaction to the Human Rights Watch report.
17 And, at one point, about halfway down the page, on the right hand
18 column, the article says: "He," that is Mr. Boskoski, "he also attacked
19 Human Rights Watch which investigated the incident, calling it 'an
20 international mercenary organisation.'"
21 Mrs. Galeva, did you ever hear Minister Boskoski use that term in
22 reference to Human Rights Watch.
23 A. In my presence, in the presence of other colleagues on all of our
24 joint meetings and collegia, a statement of this kind I have not heard.
25 As I said, I heard that there were many contradictory sentences within,
1 many statements, accusations which are unsustainable and uncorroborated.
2 This was his comment for the most part regarding their report.
3 Q. You're somewhat familiar with Human Rights Watch because part of
4 your task was to review their report and ascertain whether the allegations
5 were correct. Do you believe that Human Rights Watch is an international
6 mercenary organisation?
7 A. I would not like to give my personal opinion on this.
8 Q. I'm asking for it.
9 A. According to what I'm able to see so far and my experience in
10 preparing this material, primarily I was able to read really some who
11 horrific things which really sounded quite incredible to me. With time,
12 by gathering all of the material, by obtaining altogether different
13 information from that contained in this report, I gathered that there is a
14 very large gap, which led me to a position to think that they are
15 providing this information.
16 The reasons for this and why they are doing this or not, they are
17 best to judge. It is not mine to judge. I know that there was great
18 differences and some unsubstantiated and uncorroborated matters within.
19 Q. I'm sorry, Mrs. Galeva. In the English transcript, you're quoted
20 as saying: "I gathered that there is a very large gap, which led me to a
21 position to think that they are providing this information."
22 But I think --
23 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Misinformation or
25 MR. SAXON: Okay. Thank you.
1 Q. Okay. What did Ljube Boskoski say to you about this Tribunal and
2 its investigation into the events in Ljuboten?
3 A. In regards to The Hague Tribunal, from the very start, he was
4 interested to be -- gather the material as quickly as possible that would
5 be of use to the Tribunal. This is a Tribunal that should reach the last
6 decision. We are on the other side. We are the ministry that should make
7 available all material available and at its disposal from all professional
8 services in the ministry. That will be for the benefit for reaching this
9 decision, in order to establish a true, factual situation, supported by
10 arguments and facts that will corroborate this.
11 This is why he requested in all of these procedures that -- or
12 procedures that went in our country at that time to include
13 representatives from The Hague Tribunal. I can be specific, especially in
14 the process of exhumation which was one of the most important ones. There
15 was insistence that this not be left only to our services, that it involve
16 the active participation of supervisors from The Hague Tribunal in Skopje
17 in order to avoid any possible manipulation in future.
18 Q. You said Minister Boskoski said he wanted to gather the material
19 as quickly as possible that would be of use to this Tribunal. So that was
20 in the spring and summer of 2002, wasn't it?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Because, at that time, the Prosecutor of this Tribunal had
23 asserted her primacy over the Ljuboten case. Isn't that right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. I'd like to move to a different topic now.
1 You mentioned in your testimony yesterday that you had a number of
2 meetings and/or even telephone discussions with persons who might be able
3 to provide you with information related to the Ljuboten event; for
4 example, you mentioned the man, the head of the crime technique sector of
5 the police, Mr. Uslinkovski, and that had you several meetings with him.
6 Do you recall your testimony?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And, as you described yesterday, Mr. Uslinkovski gave you
9 information related to the persons who were exhumed at Ljuboten and then
10 who subsequently were subjected to an autopsy, right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And those discussion -- that discussion or those discussions with
13 Mr. Uslinkovski must have been important discussions, isn't that right,
14 with respect to your work?
15 A. Of course.
16 Q. And you explained -- if I understood your testimony from
17 yesterday, you explained that Mr. Uslinkovski -- that the discussions with
18 Mr. Uslinkovski led you to meet with Professor Duma, the head of the
19 Forensic Institute. Is that right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You -- you had several meetings with Professor Duma, and you
22 explained that Professor Duma confirmed what Mr. Uslinkovski had told you.
23 That's right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So, again, those would have been important meetings with respect
1 to the work that you were doing.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And your conversations with Professor Duma led you to speak with
4 the investigating judge at the time, Mr. Dragan Nikolovski, right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And from Judge Nikolovski, you received similar information to the
7 information that was provided to you by Mr. Uslinkovski and Professor
8 Duma, right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And so, again, those discussions with professor -- I'm sorry, your
11 discussion with Judge Nikolovski also would have been an important meeting
12 for your work.
13 A. This is correct.
14 Q. You also telephoned Mr. Ljube Krstevski but he declined to assist
15 you, right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. That must have been a disappointment to you, but obviously it was
18 a significant conversation for you because you remember it very well. Is
19 that right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Where did you record the information that you received in these
22 important discussions with Mr. Uslinkovski, Professor Duma,
23 Judge Nikolovski, and Ljube Krstevski? Where can we find the record of
24 these discussions?
25 A. There are no minutes because most often these were
1 person-to-person meetings, and it was customary not to take minutes on the
2 collegia. All I can say, for myself personally, on each meeting, I took
3 personal notes, text for all issues that were raised and for all answers
4 that I received with each of these persons.
5 Q. And where can we find your personal notes of these meetings?
6 A. These were personal notes that I took at the time. I remember at
7 the end, when I handed over the material to the public prosecutor general,
8 once the whole material was gathered, all of these notes were contained
9 and were part of this material.
10 Q. And these were materials that were eventually destined to be sent
11 to this Tribunal. Isn't that right?
12 A. Yes. This is what the public prosecutor general told me.
13 Q. So, if members of this Tribunal were to review the material that
14 was provided to this Tribunal by the government of Macedonia in 2002,
15 surely they will find your personal notes of these important discussions,
17 A. It should be; although, there are also other evidence to this --
18 to this extent. What I remember surely is remembered by the other persons
19 with whom I had conversations with, and they can confirm this in their
21 Q. That may be, but I'm asking you about your notes or whatever
22 records you may have created.
23 You mentioned earlier today that one of your professional
24 strengths was the ability to make and keep good records. Why is it that
25 you didn't make minutes of these very important conversations that you
2 A. In the Ministry of Interior, for meetings held, minutes are held
3 exclusively by the analysts. This is not something that I can do or
4 anyone else in a different work position. All my notes from all the
5 conversations I had were, for the most part, talking points from these
6 meetings, the most important points, questions or answers.
7 These were not official minutes. This is not something that was
8 under my competence to do. This was done exclusively by analysts at the
10 Q. You became a lawyer, and you graduated as a lawyer, was it 1993?
11 A. Yes, 1993.
12 Q. And are you suggesting that, with all of your experience by 2002,
13 you were unable to create minutes of the -- or some other record of the
14 conversations that you had?
15 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, misleading of the
16 witness. The witness said that it was not her task, not that she was not
17 in a position to do so.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
19 Carry on, Mr. Saxon.
20 MR. SAXON:
21 Q. Can you answer my question, please, Mrs. Galeva?
22 A. As I already emphasised, in the ministry, the task for taking
23 minutes is assigned to a person employed as analyst. All other records,
24 of course, can be led by anyone else within the framework of the work they
25 carried out; but these were not obligatory, nor were they official
2 Q. Mrs. Galeva, when you went to speak to these important
3 individuals, Professor Duma, Judge Nikolovski, Mr. Uslinkovski, you didn't
4 bring an analyst with you, did you?
5 A. No, never.
6 Q. So, then, the only person from the side of the Ministry of
7 Interior who could have created a record of these conversations, could
8 have physically created a record, was you, right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And just to understand you, you had been given what was for
11 Minister Boskoski a very important task, wasn't it, to get to the truth
12 about the Ljuboten event?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And in your prior law practice, your work as an apprentice,
15 wouldn't you always try to keep full and accurate records of any aspect of
16 your important tasks?
17 A. Of course, I had some records; but I will emphasise, once again,
18 in this specific case, it was not obligatory to lead official reports
19 because this was not an official commission, rather, a working group, with
20 tasks and obligation assigned by authorisation of the minister.
21 If it had been a commission or another working body, then, surely,
22 there would have to have been some written records or written acts,
23 results which would have been the result of the activities of this
24 commission or working group.
25 However, since this is something altogether different - I'm
1 clarifying now - such records were not mandatory. Whether I kept my own
2 records or not, that was really my personal business, a matter of my
3 personal belief, without anyone tasking me or authorising me to do this work.
4 Q. You say that this was not an official commission, but you had been
5 tasked by the Minister of the Interior to clarify or try to clarify the
6 truth about an important event in which people had died. Are you saying
7 this was not official part of the duties -- or part of the official duties
8 of the Ministry of Interior?
9 A. There was a working group, yes. Official in the sense that it was
10 not made official in a -- with a written document. In a way, the minister
11 had the authorisation to do this in written and in oral form. In view of
12 the fact that the situation was really critical and it was expected to
13 achieve the final results as soon as possible that will disclose the
14 truth, these working groups, several working groups and commissions were
15 formed. A lot of other employees of the MOI were engaged that dealt with
16 the Ljuboten case.
17 Q. Just so that I'm sure that I understand you, are you making a
18 distinction within the work of the Ministry of Interior between the -- the
19 work of a working group and the work of an official commission? Does the
20 work of an official commission have some higher level of authority or
21 formality than the work of a working group?
22 A. No. This is a matter of procedure. The commission is set up with
23 a decision in written form; while working group, as I clarified, can be
24 set up with the oral authorisation. Their competencies and their
25 importance are on equal footing. There is no difference.
1 Q. Okay. Well, then, with respect to the working group that you were
2 participating in, in 2002, there was no reason why minutes of important
3 meetings that were part of the work of that working group could not have
4 been created, right?
5 A. I would not agree.
6 Q. Judge Nikolovski told you that "the law provided that the
7 investigating judge not provide information in writing to the Ministry of
9 Do you recall that part of your evidence?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Tell us, please, what law makes that prohibition? Where can we
12 find that law?
13 A. I do not know this. This is not a matter in my scope of work.
14 Q. I'd like to move to another topic now, please.
15 You mentioned yesterday that, at one point during your work, you
16 telephoned Ljube Krstevski and attempted to initiate contact with him,
17 and you testified yesterday that Mr. Krstevski refused to cooperate with
18 you. Do you recall that evidence?
19 A. I recall.
20 Q. Can we assume that you reported Mr. Krstevski's response to
21 Minister Boskoski?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And what was Minister Boskoski's response to that information?
24 A. Briefly only, I informed the minister, Mr. Ljube Boskoski, that
25 Mr. Ljube Krstevski, despite my efforts to have a meeting with him,
1 refused that proposal and that he had a very brief excuse, saying that
2 what he knew about the event and all the written materials that he had, he
3 had already communicated and that he could not say more than that. And,
4 of course, I communicated this to Mr. Ljube Boskoski. What happened
5 further, I don't know.
6 Q. Mrs. Galeva, I'd like you to ask [sic] the question that I asked
7 you -- excuse me, we're all tired.
8 I'd like to you answer the question that I asked you. My question
9 was: What was Minister Boskoski's response to this information that you
10 gave him about your communication with Ljube Krstevski?
11 A. Simply, he was surprised with the answer that I communicated to
12 him, and he told me to not take any initiative in this respect and to
13 leave it to him.
14 Q. And are you aware of any other measures or actions that
15 Mr. Boskoski took after that, with respect to obtaining the cooperation of
16 Mr. Krstevski?
17 A. I am aware only that the head of the criminal police force the
18 city of Skopje regularly, on a daily basis, communicated with Mr. Ljube
19 Krstevski. Whether the initiative for that came from the minister or not,
20 I'm really not aware.
21 Q. Did you ask Mr. Boskoski to order Mr. Krstevski to cooperate with
23 A. No.
24 Q. Any reason why not?
25 A. He already gave me the answer, that everything that was needed
1 would be undertaken by him, that I should not take any further initiative,
2 to leave it to him. And I expected that he would tell me anything if he
3 needed -- if he considered it needed. Because he never told me anything,
4 I didn't take any further action.
5 Q. But when you continued not to receive any response from
6 Mr. Krstevski, did you bring up the matter again with Minister Boskoski?
7 A. I did not raise that issue ever again with Mr. -- but then I had
8 regular contacts with the assistant for criminal police, Mr. Lube
9 Stojanovski, who was on a daily basis in communication with the head of
10 the department for internal affairs, Ljube Krstevski. So this is how I
11 received a large number of information from him.
12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The interpreters did not
13 get the name in line 60, 1, where the witness did not raise the issue with
14 Mr., and we could not get the name.
15 MR. SAXON:
16 Q. We need to clarify something in the interpretation, Mrs. Galeva.
17 At the start of your last answer, you're quoted as saying: "I did not
18 raise that issue ever again with Mr...." and then the interpreters didn't
19 hear the name. I believe I heard you say "Mr. Boskoski." Is that right?
20 A. Yes. With the minister, yes.
21 Q. Did you report to director of the public security bureau, Goran
22 Mitevski, the fact that Ljube Krstevski had declined to cooperate with
24 A. Yes. Immediately afterwards, I informed the director.
25 Q. And what was Mr. Mitevski's response?
1 A. That he would confer with the minister, and they would decide what
2 activities to take next.
3 Q. So you didn't ask Goran Mitevski to order Mr. Krstevski to
4 cooperate with you?
5 A. I just informed him and I awaited for his response, and he told
6 me, "Leave it to me. I will confer, I will discuss the issue with the
7 minister, and then we will see what strategy we will employ."
8 Q. Did you ever hear back from Goran Mitevski about this matter
10 A. No, never.
11 Q. I'd like to discuss a different topic with you, if I may.
12 You mentioned yesterday, in your testimony, you gave the Trial
13 Chamber some information about a man named Atulla Qaili who died shortly
14 after the event in Ljuboten. I'm just trying to understand your evidence.
15 Did you actually read certain written records pertaining to
16 Mr. Atulla Qaili in the course of your work in 2002?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And did you report what you learned about Mr. Qaili to Minister
20 A. I don't remember if I spoke to the minister about this event. I
21 remember that I did discussion with the director, Mr. Goran Mitevski. And
22 I also discussed it, and he was the one who sent me to discuss it with Mr.
23 Petre Stojanovski.
24 Q. And, so, Goran Mitevski suggested that you speak to Petre
25 Stojanovski about the death of Atulla Qaili. Is that right?
1 A. Yes, among other information that he already told me orally, the
2 director. So we first had a discussion. He provided me with some
3 information related to the case, and then he told me that I should feel
4 free to discuss it with Mr. Petre Stojanovski, since this was in the area
5 cover by a police station in the OVR Cair and they were potentially able
6 to provide me with further useful information.
7 Q. And what else, if anything, did Goran Mitevski tell to you do to
8 ascertain how Atulla Qaili died or why he died?
9 A. As far as I remember, there was a document, an act that the person
10 was taken to a hospital. I believe that it was the city General Hospital;
11 that there was presence there of a judge; and that immediately after the
12 Ministry of Interior learned about it, they have informed the duty
13 prosecutor about the case.
14 After that, the prosecutor requested the ministry with an act to
15 establish the identity of that person, and, really, that was done within
16 the ministry, within the sector for police forensics. Such establishing
17 of identity was carried out on the basis of papillary lines, and it was
18 proven that this was the person.
19 Q. Thank you for that, but I don't think you actually answered my
21 My question was: In addition to suggesting that you speak with
22 Petre Stojanovski, what else, if anything, did Goran Mitevski suggest to
23 you that you could do to learn how Mr. Qaili had died. Did Mr. Mitevski
24 give you any other suggestions?
25 A. That request, that act was sent from the ministry to the
1 prosecutor's office, stating that we had such a case, that we had a case
2 of a person who died at the hospital; and, after that, the prosecutor
3 requested to carry out an expert report to establish the identity on the
4 basis of papillary lines. Those were the basic acts that I had in my
5 folder, and I discussed them with the director, Goran Mitevski, and with
6 Petre Stojanovski. I discussed those issues when the identity of the
7 person was really ascertained. Those were, really, as far as I remember,
8 several acts related to that person.
9 Q. I understand that. That's very clear. But those acts, request
10 for expert report, to establish the identity on the basis of papillary
11 line, et cetera, those acts were produced, those written documents, they
12 were produced back in August of 2001.
13 What I'm trying to understand is, in the spring and summer of
14 2002, when you spoke with Goran Mitevski about your work on the Ljuboten
15 event and he suggested to you that you speak with Petre Stojanovski with
16 regard to the death of Atulla Qaili; that's very clear.
17 My question is simply: Did Goran Mitevski give you any other
18 suggestions at that time, in 2002, as to where you might find information
19 about the cause or the circumstances of the death of Atulla Qaili. That's
21 If the answer is no, that's fine. We just need an answer.
22 A. As far as I remember, I believe that that case, as well as other
23 cases, was included in the procedure, and the outcome of the autopsy was
24 awaited, whether really there was a report on that person, among others.
25 Q. So you never became familiar with a report of an autopsy that was
1 done on Mr. -- on the body of Atulla Qaili in August of 2001. You never
2 became familiar with that report?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Did you ever visit Skopje City Hospital and ask to see the medical
5 records there related to persons who had been detained at Ljuboten?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Why not?
8 A. I believe that it was not necessary. I already had those
9 materials. That was a case that took place before I came to work for the
10 Ministry of Interior, and I believe that the materials that the ministry
11 had available were sufficient, that there was no need after such a long
12 time to go to the hospital and ask for any reports.
13 Q. Are you aware whether the Ministry of Interior, prior to your
14 employment, had obtained the medical records from Skopje City Hospital of
15 persons who had been detained at Ljuboten?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Yesterday, Mrs. Galeva, you provided some testimony about the
18 autopsies of persons who had been exhumed at the cemetery in Ljuboten,
19 and you told us that when the bodies were exhumed and then subsequently
20 autopsied, you said: "So they were wearing black T-shirts or camouflage
22 Do you remember that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Would it surprise you to learn that none of the autopsy reports or
25 examinations of clothing worn by the deceased persons indicate that an
1 individual was wearing camouflage?
2 A. That is really surprising, because I did not rely on a single
3 source. I had many sources. It would not be possible for all the sources
4 to differ so much. There were identical elements in the discussions that
5 I had with those persons before I received that report, and it was
6 impossible that I would receive such report.
7 MR. SAXON: And, Your Honour, for the record, I'm referring to
8 Exhibits P445 through P450, Exhibit P452, and Exhibit 1D74 and 1D77.
9 Q. You said you had many sources about this information that some
10 persons were wearing camouflage clothing. Can you tell us who the sources
12 A. Many sources, those that I had mentioned already. Those are the
13 sector, the department for police forensics within the MOI, where a team,
14 a numerous expert team composed of several persons. Experts, experts in
15 their respective areas, were involved in the investigation I discussed
16 with them. Then there was the director of the Forensic Institute,
17 Professor Aleksej Duma; the investigating judge, Dragan Nikolovski, who
18 was the main leader of the overall procedure of exhumation and autopsy of
19 those persons. So if one of them told me something, all the others
20 provided identical answers regarding all of these issues.
21 Q. So each of these persons who you just mentioned, they would
22 confirm that some of the one or more of the persons who were exhumed from
23 the cemetery in Ljuboten were wearing some kind of camouflage clothing.
24 Is that right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. You described, yesterday, a meeting that you attended in the late
2 summer of 2002, where members of the commission to investigate war crimes
3 were present, do you recall that bit of your testimony, and files were
4 discussed --
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. -- and documents were reviewed?
7 Help us understand something: Couldn't Minister Boskoski have
8 assigned the Ljuboten case to this commission that he already set up to
9 investigate war crimes?
10 A. As far as I understood, I had a single contact, a single meeting
11 with this committee. I could give you the description. They came to my
12 office. It was a large group. If there is a need, I will enumerate the
13 persons present.
14 Q. Mrs. Galeva, I need you to answer the question that I asked you.
15 My question was: Couldn't Minister Boskoski have assigned the Ljuboten
16 case to this commission that he already set up to investigate war crimes.
17 A. Not to that committee alone, because that committee dealt with
18 many other cases and not the Ljuboten case only.
19 Q. So there was a commission or a committee that dealt with the
20 Ljuboten case, among others. Is that right?
21 A. Specifically, this committee was dealing with war crimes?
22 Q. There was -- there was this committee for investigating war
23 crimes, and that committee dealt with the Ljuboten case, among others,
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And that committee was composed of a group of qualified
2 professionals, wasn't it?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. So why was it necessary, then, to start yet another project and
5 assign you the task of compiling information about the Ljuboten matter and
6 putting it in chronological order?
7 A. Because at that time there were several committees, several
8 working bodies; and, simply, there was a need to have all the materials
9 gathered by previous committees or the existing committees and working
10 bodies to have them entered into a single case file.
11 Q. All right. So part of your task was to take the materials related
12 to the Ljuboten event that had been gathered by the commission to
13 investigate war crimes and incorporate that material in the single case
14 file that you were building. Is that right?
15 A. For the committee dealing with war crimes, as I mentioned, I had
16 only one meeting with them. Maybe later, I would receive some materials
17 from them in different manner, through post or something.
18 But all the materials that they had produced on Ljuboten case,
19 they had the task to hand is over directly to Mr. Boskoski, to the
20 minister, not to me. They only informed me about their work.
21 Q. Very well, then. So does that mean that the case file that you
22 put together in chronological order related to the Ljuboten event did not
23 contain 100 percent of the materials available to the Ministry of
24 Interior, because there were some materials that the members of the
25 commission to investigate war crimes gave directly to Minister Boskoski.
1 Is that right?
2 A. I can feel free to state that the materials that I gathered was
3 100 percent of the materials that the ministry had available and that was
4 supposed to be communicated to the minister, Ljube Boskoski.
5 What the other commissions and committees did, specifically the
6 one on war crimes, was just one part of the materials that was, of course,
7 later handed over to Mr. Ljube Boskoski, and that was actually part of
8 what I had already gathered as a range of materials.
9 So many things contained in their report were also contents of the
10 materials that I had. There was absolutely no difference.
11 Q. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that.
12 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I see the time. Would this be an
13 appropriate time to take the second break?
14 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Saxon.
15 We will resume at 1.00.
16 --- Recess taken at 12.29 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 1.00 p.m.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Saxon.
19 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. Mrs. Galeva, yesterday, during your examination-in-chief, you
21 explained to the Trial Chamber that "once the police turns to the basic
22 public prosecutor's office or to the investigating judge, at the same
23 moment, the obligation of the police..." --
24 THE INTERPRETER: My apology.
25 MR. SAXON: I'm getting a little bit of interference but I'll
1 start over.
2 Q. You were asked a question yesterday about what happens when
3 members of the police report a crime to the public prosecutor; and at page
4 8747 of the transcript, you said this: "Of course, once the police turns
5 to the basic public prosecutor's office or to the investigating judge, at
6 the same moment, the obligation of the police on that case ceases.
7 "Then there is a transfer of the obligations towards the judicial
8 bodies; in this case, to the public prosecutor's office."
9 Do you remember that testimony?
10 A. [No verbal response]
11 Q. I'm sorry. We need a verbal response?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Can you just help us, please, where in the law or the laws of
14 Macedonia do you find support for that proposition?
15 A. I couldn't say with certainty.
16 Q. Can you say, roughly, where in the laws of Macedonia should one
17 look in a particular law or laws to find support for that proposition?
18 A. Roughly speaking, this is something that could be found in the
19 Law on Public Prosecutor or the Law on Criminal Procedure. This is my
20 opinion, but I am not sure, perhaps in another law as well.
21 Q. Yesterday, you also testified regarding the transparency of the
22 work of the Ministry of Interior with respect to the Ljuboten event, and
23 you said on page 8726 that: "From everything that I collected, all the
24 materials, all the interviews I conducted, I gathered the impression that
25 the work was completely transparent; nothing was hidden."
1 And then at the end of the same paragraph: "Nothing was hidden.
2 Everything was transparent, absolutely."
3 Do you remember that testimony?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. I'd like to ask you, if you could, please, maybe with the
6 assistance of the usher, to turn to tab 23 in your binder.
7 Actually, before do you that, before you do that, Mrs. Galeva,
8 before do you that, just for a minute, are you aware that in 2003 the
9 person who succeeded Ljube Boskoski as minister of the interior, Hari
10 Kostov, he established yet another commission to investigate the Ljuboten
11 event? Did you become aware of that at some point?
12 A. I had heard about this, but I have never seen, nor have I found --
13 nor did I found out whether such a commission did, in fact, exist or did
14 it do any work.
15 I was told that, with the coming of the new minister, the decision
16 for the previous commission is no longer in effect, which means that a new
17 commission would have to be set up. Whether this was actually done, this
18 is not something I know.
19 Q. Okay. Well, let -- I'm going to show you a couple of pieces of
20 the work of the commission that was set up by Hari Kostov in 2003.
21 If you turn to what is tab 23 in your binder.
22 MR. SAXON: And, Your Honours, the first document that you should
23 see in tab 23, is -- it is not part of Exhibit P379. It still has
24 Prosecution 65 ter number 285.24, because this was one of the documents
25 that, pursuant to your decision of 7 December of last year, was not
1 admitted into evidence.
2 Q. And, Mrs. Galeva, this is a report on a meeting of the 2003
3 commission that investigated the events in Ljuboten. It's dated the 6th
4 of May, 2003, and if you could turn, please, to page 2 in the Macedonian
6 MR. SAXON: For those following in English, it's the bottom of
7 page 1.
8 Q. Mrs. Galeva, if you look in the second paragraph of page 2 in your
9 language, you'll see a paragraph beginning with: "Johan Tarculovski."
10 Do you see that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And it says: "Johan Tarculovski played the main role in the
13 combat operations in Ljuboten village, and he said that while he was an
14 escort inspector with the security sector, the previous minister, Ljube
15 Boskoski, called him personally and gave him a verbal order to solve the
16 case, informing him that the suspect, Xhavid Hasani, was located in
17 Ljuboten village."
18 And then it says: "Tarculovski and the rest of the reservists
19 were issued weapons, semi-automatic rifles and pistols, at the CO KOB at
20 the order of the then minister, for which there are documents on the issue
21 and return of the items."
22 Then there are some more paragraphs that talk about the events
23 that occurred in the village of Ljuboten on the 12th of August.
24 Have you been following with me?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. My question for you is: In your discussions with Minister
2 Boskoski in the summer of 2002, did he mention any of this information to
4 A. [No interpretation]
5 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
6 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I believe that the witness
7 answered this previously. To a similar question, the witness answered
8 that the minister never mentioned Johan Tarculovski. Again, the witness
9 is being asked the same question. Even before I objected to this, the
10 witness had answered it.
11 JUDGE PARKER: This is going further than simply a name. This is
12 going to information.
13 Please carry on, Mr. Saxon.
14 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. If we could turn, please, to the next document in tab 3 [sic].
16 MR. SAXON: And, Your Honours, this should be Exhibit P379.02 -- I
17 apologise, it is --
18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] My apologies. There is no answer
19 of the witness prior to the previous question put to her.
20 MR. SAXON: In response to the previous question, Your Honours,
21 the witness answered "No."
22 JUDGE PARKER: Are you saying that that answer has not been
24 MR. SAXON: Yes. My colleague and I agree on that point.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. Thank you.
1 MR. SAXON:
2 Q. The next document in tab 23 is admitted Exhibit P379.01. It has
3 ERN N000-8922, and I would just like -- this was an Official Note written
4 by Johan Tarculovski in May of 2003.
5 Mrs. Galeva, I can actually see that you're not looking at the
6 document that you need to be looking at.
7 MR. SAXON: Can I have the usher's assistance again, please. It's
8 the second document in tab 23. It's only two paragraphs long.
9 Excuse me for a moment.
10 [Prosecution counsel confer]
11 MR. SAXON: Perhaps if the Macedonian version could be put object
12 on --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel, please.
14 MR. SAXON: I would like to ask for the assistance of the court
15 officer. If the Macedonian could be put on e-court because the
16 Macedonian version is apparently not in our binders. It's in Judge
17 Thelin's binder. Okay.
18 Q. If you can follow along with me, Mrs. Galeva, this is an Official
19 Note provided by Johan Tarculovski to the 2003 commission.
20 It says: "The investigation commission for Ljuboten village
21 called me. During the interview, I was asked about the way in which the
22 reservists were issued with weapons and about their arrival and billeting
23 and the course of operations.
24 "They were issued at weapons at PSOLO. The people who registered
25 for the reserve were volunteers. Since I was a local, I knew the terrain
1 and I headed toward Ljuboten together with the other men."
2 Mrs. Galeva, did any of the persons what you spoke with in the
3 Ministry of Interior about the Ljuboten event mention a group of
4 reservists who were armed at PSOLO and then subsequently entered Ljuboten
6 A. No.
7 Q. Did Minister Boskoski ever mention to you anything about a group
8 of reservists who were armed at PSOLO and then entered Ljuboten village
9 after that?
10 A. We did not speak about this. At least he did not say this in
11 front of me.
12 Q. Okay. I'd like to ask you to turn to a different document.
13 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, if we could turn, please, to what is
14 P379.02. It should be the following document in your binders. I'm
15 hopeful that Mrs. Galeva will have a Macedonian translation.
16 Q. Mrs. Galeva, this is a document entitled, "Minutes of a meeting of
17 the commission for inquiry into the events and incidents in Ljuboten
19 Do you see that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And it's dated 12 November 2003. And at the bottom of the page in
22 your version, Mrs. Galeva, you'll see a paragraph where it says: "In
23 reply to these questions Tarculovski first explained that he had been
24 called to the first meeting as an employee of the ministry although he was
25 now a civilian, having given notice to the Ministry of Interior. He said
1 that he had gone to Ljuboten of his own accord and will, that is to say,
2 nobody ordered him to go to Ljuboten. As for the persons who were in
3 Ljuboten with him, Tarculovski replied that he had decided to withhold
4 their names."
5 Do you see that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. It's dated 12 November 2003. At the bottom of the page in your
8 version, Mrs. Galeva, you'll see a paragraph where it says: "In reply to
9 these questions, Tarculovski first explained that he had been called to
10 the first meeting as an employee of the ministry; although, he was now a
11 civilian, having given notice to the Ministry of Interior.
12 "He said that he had gone to Ljuboten of his own accord and will;
13 that is to say, nobody ordered him to go to Ljuboten. As for the persons
14 who were in Ljuboten with him, Tarculovski replied that he had decided to
15 withhold their names."
16 Do you see that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Then if you turn to the next page in your version, please, you
19 will see: "Regarding the question on the manner in which weapons were
20 issued ..."
21 Do you see that paragraph?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. "... Tarculovski replied that he had received a call from the then
24 Minister of the Interior, who told him to collect the reserve force for
25 guarding vital state buildings."
1 Then later on in that paragraph: "Tarculovski explained further
2 that the then Minister of the Interior had personally ordered him to
3 select the men."
4 Do you see that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Then in the next paragraph: "Tarculovski replies that he been in
7 Ljuboten with a large group of men, more than 100."
8 Do you see that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Just so that the record is clear, did you ever speak with Johan
11 Tarculovski as part of your work?
12 A. I already said that I did not know Johan Tarculovski, which means
13 that I have not had any conversations with him.
14 Q. All right. And in your conversations with Ljube Boskoski, did he
15 give you any information about a group of reservists who he wanted to
16 guard vital state buildings?
17 A. Personally, the minister did not tell me about such a group of
18 reservists; but I know that from the very onset of the conflict in the
19 state, both regular and reserve forces were included as part of the
20 security forces of the ministry.
21 Q. Okay. Mrs. Galeva, can you turn, please, to what is tab 13 in
22 your binder.
23 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, this would be Rule 65 ter 1141. It's a
24 document that the Prosecution obtained after receiving the Rule 65 ter (G)
25 list of witnesses from the Defence.
1 Q. I don't believe we have a Macedonian translation, Mrs. Galeva, but
2 it's a document dated January --
3 A. Yes .
4 Q. It's a document dated January 19th, 2002, and it's a letter from
5 Human Rights Watch to Prime Minister Ljubco Georgievski. The purpose of
6 the letter is to complain about what Human Rights Watch refers to as "a
7 public campaign against the Macedonian Helsinki Committee for Human
8 Rights, and its president Mrs. Marijana Najcevska, saying that
9 Mrs. Najcevska and the Macedonian Helsinki Committee had become the
10 targets of intimidation and verbal assaults by cabinet members, media
11 outlets close to the government.
12 But then it says this in the second paragraph: "Particularly
13 worrying are the repeated public statements by the Minister of the
14 Interior Ljube Boskoski, who spoke to the press and appeared on two
15 television programmes to portray Ms. Najcevska as 'state enemy number 1.'"
16 Then it goes on to say that such attacks have been amplified public
17 television and TV and other government controlled media.
18 Would it be fair to say, Mrs. Galeva, if you know, that Ljube
19 Boskoski did not have a very high opinion of Human Rights Watch or the
20 Macedonian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights?
21 A. The case which I just heard about now, I'm not aware of and I
22 cannot comment about something I had not heard or seen.
23 Q. I'm not asking you to comment about this particular case. I'm
24 asking you to comment about what you know, what discussions you had in the
25 presence of Ljube Boskoski, during the time-period when you were working
1 in his cabinet.
2 My question is this: Ljube Boskoski did not have a very high
3 opinion of Human Rights Watch, did he?
4 A. I cannot say what his opinion was. I know that there were many
5 accusations made my Human Rights Watch and that he wanted to prove the
6 contrary and to refute such accusations.
7 Q. Do you know whether Ljube Boskoski had a negative opinion of the
8 Macedonian Chapter of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights?
9 A. I'm not aware of this.
10 Q. Mrs. Galeva, I'd like to put you that the work of the Ministry of
11 Interior to allegedly clarify the Ljuboten event was really not very
12 transparent, was it?
13 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I thought that my
15 learned colleague would continue the line of questioning about the
16 previous document, which was put before the witness. My apologies for
17 interrupting him now on another issue.
18 But in regards to the previous document, I wish to state that this
19 is a Human Rights Watch document. The Prosecution called Mr. Bouckaert
20 who testified before this Court in regards to this question, and it was
21 perhaps necessary to ask that witness these questions. I apologise again
22 for the interruption.
23 MR. SAXON: Just to clarify the record, Your Honour. Never mind,
24 Your Honour. I will move on.
25 Q. Let me go back to my last question, Mrs. Galeva. I'd like to put
1 to you the proposition that the work of the Ministry of the Interior to
2 allegedly clarify the Ljuboten event was really not very transparent, was
4 A. I don't agree. I believe it was transparent.
5 Q. Your work, Mrs. Galeva, was intended to protect the reputation of
6 Ljube Boskoski and the reputation of the Ministry of Interior, wasn't it?
7 A. Only to an extent, since the minister wanted to learn what had
8 happened, no matter the consequences. So if something had happened, if
9 some of the allegations were true, if part of those allegations were true,
10 he was determined to hold accountable all participants, if any
12 So his objective was not just to protect the reputation and the
13 standing of the ministry and its members, but it was completely the
14 opposite, to clarify and to disclose the truth. And if there was somebody
15 who should have been held accountable and responsible, then that the issue
16 should be resolved and that person be held accountable.
17 Q. And is it your testimony today that Minister Boskoski was even
18 determined to hold himself accountable for the event in Ljuboten?
19 A. As long as the opposite was not proven. He actually proved by
20 this that he had the intention that I had mentioned, to detect and to
21 clarify everything and to prove the responsibility. So he included
22 himself here as well.
23 Q. Mrs. Galeva, your work, rather than intended to provide the truth
24 about what happened at Ljuboten, was simply intended to collect incomplete
25 materials that were already in the possession of the Ministry of Internal
1 Affairs, in order to transfer them to The Hague Tribunal. Isn't that
3 A. No. That was just one part of the materials, a smaller part,
4 while the rest of the materials were gathered after I was tasked by the
5 minister. This is how a larger volume of materials was compiled, and
6 there you can find many issues through which you can give answers to many
7 questions related to the Ljuboten event.
8 Q. You already testified earlier today that you're aware that in May
9 of 2002, Carla Del Ponte, then the Prosecutor of this Tribunal, asserted
10 primacy over the Ljuboten case.
11 Are you also aware that several months of delays ensued after May
12 2002, while the Macedonian authorities declined to refer jurisdiction of
13 the Ljuboten case to this Tribunal, without a formal order of this
15 Are you aware of that?
16 A. I have heard about it, that there was some delay, but I didn't go
17 into the details of why was it done.
18 Q. Are you aware that on the 5th of September, 2002, Carla Del Ponte
19 made a formal request to this Tribunal for an order to Macedonia to defer
20 competence over the Ljuboten case from Macedonia to The Hague Tribunal?
21 Are you aware of that?
22 A. I have heard about that.
23 Q. Are you aware that The Hague Tribunal issued such an order of
24 deferral to the government of Macedonia on the 4th of October, 2002?
25 A. Yes. I can't remember the date.
1 MR. SAXON: And, Your Honour, I'm referring to information
2 contained in Exhibit 1D218. Additional information on this matter, Your
3 Honour, can be obtained in Exhibit P391.
4 Q. And, Mrs. Galeva, it was in June or July 2002 when you had your
5 meeting with Judge Nikolovski, and he told you that he could not provide
6 written materials to the Ministry of Interior. Isn't that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And isn't it right that all of your activities, collecting
9 information on the Ljuboten event from May to October 2002, were related
10 to the ongoing proceedings between The Hague Tribunal and the Macedonian
11 government over the issue of deferring jurisdiction over the Ljuboten
13 A. Could you please repeat the question? I apologise for this.
14 Q. Isn't it true that the real objective of your work was to prepare
15 the government of Macedonia to provide materials to The Hague Tribunal
16 once jurisdiction had been transferred from Macedonia to this Tribunal?
17 A. Maybe that was the purpose, but the activities and the initiative
18 came a lot sooner. The initiative came from the Minister of the Interior
19 before the other events and requests arrived, immediately after the event
20 has taken place. So there was still nothing. The minister already
21 demanded and initiated the procedure within the ministry before the
22 justice system bodies in our state, so that the procedure would be
23 instigated and an answer provided; and only afterwards, the Tribunal
24 submitted its request.
25 Q. Yes. We're familiar with the report that Mr. Boskoski's first
1 commission produced.
2 It's also true, isn't it, Mrs. Galeva, that could you have easily
3 produced minutes of important meetings and discussions that you had with
4 your work, regarding your work, couldn't you?
5 A. You are asking me again about the minutes, and I believe I already
6 provided an answer to that question.
7 Q. Okay. Thank you.
8 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, I have no further questions at this
9 time. Thank you very much.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Saxon.
11 Ms. Residovic, do you re-examine.
12 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I do --
13 JUDGE PARKER: Before you do, Mr. Apostolski, I assume you had no
14 questions of the witness; is that correct?
15 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, your guess was
16 right. I have no questions of this witness.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
18 Ms. Residovic.
19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours,
20 and I apologise for turning towards my colleague because, simply, I
21 thought that it was his turn.
22 JUDGE PARKER: He would have come before Mr. Saxon, and it was at
23 that point I made my assumption when Mr. Saxon stood to cross-examine.
24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 Re-examination by Ms. Residovic:
1 Q. [Interpretation] Mrs. Galeva, you remember that my learned
2 colleague, the Prosecutor, asked you about your experience in the police
3 before you were employed performing the jobs that you described before the
4 Chamber within the Ministry of Interior. Do you remember that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And you answered that you never worked as a police officer before
7 that. Do you remember that as well?
8 A. [No verbal response]
9 Q. But you answered that you had passed the bar exam, and I'm
10 interested whether it is necessary for a person who has passed a bar exam,
11 whether any additional training is needed for the person to become a
12 judge, so even an investigating judge by that token, a prosecutor,
13 attorney, or a Defence counsel for the most severe crimes.
14 Is the bar exam a sufficient basis for a lawyer in the Republic of
15 Macedonia to be able to perform all these duties?
16 A. The bar exam is the only prerequisite for an individual to be able
17 to engage there such activities, those that you have enumerated: Judge,
18 attorney, prosecutor, legal representative, et cetera.
19 Q. When you were given the task to collect all documents information
20 about the measures undertaken within the ministry in relation to the
21 Ljuboten case, my learned colleague asked you several questions about the
22 persons that you had conversations with. Do you remember that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And I would like to ask you the question: Since you stated that
25 you had conversations with Goran Mitevski, with Nikola Spasovski, Spasen
1 Sofevski, Miroslav Uslinkovski and Petre Stojanovski on numerous
2 occasions, tell me whether you are aware, do these persons that you have
3 enumerated have any police experience and what is their professional
4 standing within the ministry?
5 A. At that time, and all the way until the present time, for as long
6 as I'm with the ministry, of course they enjoy good standing and they are
7 considered professionals in their respective areas.
8 Q. Also, if you remember, my learned colleague, the Prosecutor, asked
9 you whether you have been a member of a political party; and if I remember
10 correctly, you affirmed that. You said that you were a member of the
11 VMRO, and you stated that this fact did not play a decisive role in your
13 Tell me, please, considering the fact that previously you were an
14 attorney, to what extent was that fact of importance or otherwise for your
15 employment at the jobs that you were performing?
16 A. I think this was decisive, my previously work experience.
17 Q. My learned colleague, the Prosecutor, asked you several questions
18 related to the report that you received from Katica Jovanovska. That was
19 the Human Rights Watch report. Do you remember that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Tell me, when you received this report, did you read it?
22 A. Of course.
23 Q. Did you see -- in that report, were you able to see a description
24 of the alleged events in and around the village, at the check-points and
25 the -- in police stations?
1 A. Yes, there were such descriptions.
2 Q. When you spoke about the fact that you were to collect information
3 about the Ljuboten case, my question is: To what extent did you
4 understand the Ljuboten case considering all circumstances that are
5 indicated in this report?
6 A. I did obtain a picture of about what had happened. This is a
7 picture, a depiction on the one hand. Of course, I needed to get a
8 picture on the other hand as well, in order to come to my own judgment
9 about what had happened.
10 Q. And, in all your efforts to arrive at the information from various
11 bodies, did you request information about all allegations contained in
12 this report, or did you request information just regarding certain
14 Did you attempt to clarify everything or just some of the answers
15 from the report?
16 A. I can say that this is all allegations. I was particularly
17 interested about the ones regarding the Ljuboten case, but also all other
18 events that would have allowed me to assess the reliability of what is
20 Q. When asked by my learned colleague, the Prosecutor, you answered
21 what was your understanding of the attitude of Mr. Boskoski when he spoke
22 about this report; and if I understood you correctly, both he and you
23 identified certain gaps, contradictory statements, and inaccuracies in the
25 So could you tell me, first of all, considering that in the report
1 itself the minister was mentioned, that he was standing on a balcony, and
2 that was in command of the action, did you hear the minister ever to say
3 that that information was accurate or that it was absolutely inaccurate,
4 or did he have any comments to such allegations from the report?
5 A. This was of special interest to me and this why I spoke about this
6 previously with other persons from the ministry and then with the
7 ministry, Ljube Boskoski, because he could best describe the event to me.
8 From that conversation, I understood that he was present for a
9 very short period of time, after the end of this whole event, in the
10 afternoon, that is to say, but that the purpose of his coming there was to
11 learn what had happened and what was happening.
12 I know that, as he told me, he was in contact with Mr. Ljube
13 Krstevski, the head of OVR Cair, and that he gave the instructions about
14 rescuing civilian population, because at that time, it was noted that
15 there was massive movement of the population living there from the other
16 villages. Due to fear and being afraid of a general conflict breaking
17 out, these instructions were given in order to rescue the population.
18 Q. Tell me, please, Mrs. Galeva, since the Prosecutor asked what were
19 the forces that were present at Ljuboten, if any, did you in the
20 discussions with the then under-secretary for police, Mr. Galevski,
21 discuss the notion of whether some police units were at Ljuboten?
22 A. Yes. We talked with General Galevski, and he told me that that
23 same day he was away from Skopje. He was travelling, I believe in Ohrid.
24 He received a telephone call from Vlada [phoen], I don't remember who
25 exactly, and that he was told that that there is a terrible situation,
1 that the security situation is disrupted in and around the village of
2 Ljuboten, and that measures need to be taken immediately in order to
3 rescue the population.
4 Then he activated all police units in that area to go and assist
5 of population, the same as the goal of the minister, to rescue the
6 population and to allow the people to return safely to their homes.
7 Q. So if I understood you correctly, you were interested in those
8 issues, and you learned that after the events the police was deployed to
9 rescue the population. Was that what you are you trying to explain now,
10 or was it my misunderstanding?
11 A. Yes, absolutely.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm mindful of the
14 time. I don't know whether to tender some documents now. I have an
15 additional half an hour for my re-direct, and it is obvious that the time
16 will not permit me to complete it today.
17 JUDGE PARKER: We adjourn now. We resume on Monday at 2.15, not
18 in this courtroom. I think in Courtroom I, but check the courtroom.
19 It will be necessary, I'm afraid, for you to continue your
20 evidence on Monday. So it will be a stay in The Hague over the weekend.
21 We now adjourn.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If this is necessary.
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,
24 To be reconvened on Monday, the 4th day of
25 February, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.