1 Monday, 18 February 2008

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

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

6 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon.

7 And good afternoon. May I remind you of the affirmation you made

8 at the beginning of your evidence which still applies.

9 WITNESS: VESNA DOREVSKA [Resumed]

10 [Witness answered through interpreter]

11 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa.

12 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Your Honours. Good afternoon.

13 Cross-examination by Ms. Issa: [Continued]

14 Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Dorevska [Realtime transcript read in error

15 "Mr. Stojanovski"].

16 A. Good afternoon.

17 Q. Ms. Dorevska, I believe on Friday we left off where I was about to

18 move to another topic. And I understand that it's your position,

19 Ms. Dorevska, that in order for something to have authority in law, then

20 it must be expressly stated in the legislation. Is that your position?

21 A. Yes, this is so.

22 Q. So if something is not expressly stated in the legislation, to put

23 it another way, then there is no authority for it in law, as far as you're

24 concerned?

25 A. Yes. Each obligation and task of the minister must be listed in

1 the law in question.

2 Q. Okay. If I can ask you - I don't know if you still have your

3 copy of the Law on Internal Affairs?

4 MS. ISSA: If I can have the first Prosecution binder distributed

5 at this point, Your Honours, please.

6 JUDGE PARKER: While that is occurring we might mention at line 10

7 of the first page I'm -- I believe you actually correctly referred to

8 Ms. Dorevska, but Mr. Stojanovski has come up as the witness.

9 MS. ISSA: Thank you for that, Your Honour.

10 Q. Now, if I can ask you, Ms. Dorevska, to please turn to tab 7 in

11 that binder, and you'll find a copy of the Law on Internal Affairs, which,

12 for the record is P86.

13 Do you see that there?

14 A. Yes, I see it.

15 Q. Thank you. Now, if we can go to please ERN page N000-8965.

16 That's in the English version. And if I can ask you to look at about the

17 middle of the page where it says Article 13, Ms. Dorevska.

18 Do you see that? Are you there?

19 A. Yes, I see it.

20 Q. Now, if we go to about the middle of the page we see that under

21 the heading of directorate for security and counter-intelligence, there

22 are a number of provisions. Is that right?

23 A. Yes, this is right.

24 Q. And Article 13 specifically refers to or describes the activities

25 that specifically relate to the security and counter-intelligence. Is

1 that correct?

2 A. Yes, this is correct.

3 Q. And below that, we see that at the very end of Article 13, it says

4 that the directorate is managed by a director, and that refers to the

5 directorate for security and counter-intelligence clearly. Is that right?

6 A. Yes, this is so.

7 Q. And then we see that Article 14, which is the Article that you

8 referred to in your examination-in-chief refers to the director, meaning

9 the director for security and counter-intelligence, as being independent

10 and carrying out the activities within the directorate and reporting to

11 the minister and the government of the Republic of Macedonia. Is that

12 correct?

13 A. Yes, this is correct.

14 Q. And just to clarify matters, if you please can turn to the

15 following page, we see that Article 17, which I believe you referred to in

16 your examination-in-chief, which deals with the supervisory matters

17 relating to the directorate and has the subheading of supervision over the

18 work of the directorate, now that actually refers to, once again, the

19 bureau of counter-intelligence. Is that right?

20 A. Yes, the bureau for security and counter-intelligence.

21 Q. So you would agree with me, Ms. Dorevska, that there is no

22 corresponding provision in the Law on Internal Affairs which specifically

23 refers to the bureau of public security in the same manner that we see

24 here in respect of the bureau of counter-intelligence and security. Is

25 that fair?

1 A. This is so. However, the reason is that the law was passed in

2 1995 when the bureau for public security was not set up as a body within

3 the ministry.

4 Q. Okay. And you've explained that in your examination-in-chief.

5 But there's no provision here, for example, which clearly sets out for the

6 bureau of the public security that, for instance, as it says in Article 17

7 that the parliament of the Republic of Macedonia is supervising the work

8 of the bureau, is there, and that there's a committee that -- that

9 takes -- that supervises that particular work, is there?

10 A. This is so. However, the parliament does not supervise the bureau

11 for public security even conditions such as these and in 2001, the

12 parliament through the commission only supervises the work for public

13 security, for security and counter-intelligence.

14 Q. So in 2001, the parliament did not supervise the work of the

15 bureau for public security, is that what you're saying?

16 A. There is no such provision because the parliament has a particular

17 commission which supervises only the work of the bureau for security and

18 counter-intelligence. There is no particular commission in the parliament

19 which supervises the work for the bureau for public security, which does

20 not mean that the parliament does not follow its work, however.

21 Q. Okay. Wouldn't you have expected, Ms. Dorevska, that in 2001,

22 that there have been an amendment, perhaps, to the Law on Internal Affairs

23 and to include the public bureau of security expressly if it was in fact

24 carrying out its work independently?

25 A. Yes, I agree with you that there should have been legal provisions

1 and there were initiatives in that direction in drafting these provisions,

2 regretfully, however, this was done somewhat later in about 2003 in the

3 same manner as listed here, vis-a-vis the work of the bureau for public

4 security.

5 Q. Okay. So the provisions, as you just indicated, for the bureau of

6 public security which state that the -- that it carries out its work

7 independently and answers to the government and minister was done in --

8 actually in 2003?

9 A. No, this is not so. In 2003, amendments were made to the Law on

10 Internal Affairs. However, in 2000, as I already said, the basic law was

11 passed for organisation and work of the bodies of state administration,

12 which set up the bureau for public security as a body within the ministry.

13 In this manner, it established the independence of the director. I also

14 that later in 2001, the rule book on organisation was passed which the

15 independence of the director was clearly indicated.

16 Q. Well, we'll get to the rule book in a moment, Ms. Dorevska. But

17 if it was the intention of the drafters to deal with the independence of

18 the director for the bureau of public security in the same way as the

19 bureau for counter-intelligence, for example, wouldn't you have expected

20 that an amendment would have been passed before 2003 to the Law on

21 Internal Affairs, because as you indicated that was lexis specialis law,

22 whereas the law on government and organisation of government bodies was a

23 systemic law?

24 A. Yes, this is so. However, as I said, there were attempts which

25 pertained not to just this segment but to other as well. While the

1 procedure for passing a law is more complex and lengthy due to these

2 reasons, the manner of work of the bureau for public security was resolved

3 in a different manner, through a by-law till the amendment of the law were

4 passed.

5 Q. And have we seen this by-law, what by-law are you referring to?

6 A. This is the rule book on the organisation and work of the ministry

7 of the interior.

8 Q. Okay. Well, let's go to that rule book. If I can ask you then to

9 turn to tab 2 of your binder. Now where does it say in that rule book,

10 Ms. Dorevska, that the director of the public security bureau carries out

11 its duties independently?

12 A. I apologise, it only states here that the minister is the director

13 while independence is listed in the organisation and work of the state

14 administration. I believe this is Article 50 of the law.

15 Q. And your referring to just for the record, the other law, the

16 systemic law that you referred to before, which is the law on organisation

17 and government bodies which would be P92. Is that what you're saying,

18 just to make it clear?

19 A. Yes, this is so. I see the law and the rule book on organisation

20 in correlation; I see them together.

21 Q. But you would agree with me, that although -- that Article 50 of

22 that other law refers to director of the ministry, it doesn't specifically

23 deal with the public security bureau, does it?

24 A. It is not so. It speaks of all directors in the bodies which are

25 part of the ministry. This is a general provision which all persons who

1 are directors in the bodies within the ministry.

2 Q. And why is it, Ms. Dorevska, that as you say, if attempts had been

3 made to harmonize the law on internal affairs with this other systemic

4 law, why was that -- why wasn't that done in 2001?

5 A. I already explained that efforts were made to prepare this.

6 However, there were many other provisions that needed to be amended in the

7 law. Let me just say that this law from 1995 and still in force today and

8 there are still some provisions which are not fully harmonised, however,

9 we're intensively working on this harmonization.

10 Q. So what you're saying is that there might be gaps, then, in the

11 law that are not entirely harmonised with the rules and regulations of

12 the -- of the law on internal affairs or the other rules and regulations

13 within the ministry. Is that fair?

14 A. Perhaps in certain case, yes, but the existence of a systemic law

15 which solves the problem of the independence of the director in this case

16 is sufficient, quite sufficient to provide him independence in his work.

17 Q. Except that there are no specific details with respect to the

18 supervisory matters as to the director, is there? There are no provisions

19 that deal with the supervisory matters of the director for public bureau

20 of security, is there?

21 A. There are provisions in the law on the organisation and work and

22 in the law on government which point to the fact that supervision of the

23 work of the ministry including the bodies within the ministry is carried

24 out by the government.

25 Q. But it also states that it's carried out by the minister, isn't

1 it?

2 A. In the sense of supervision of work, of course the minister has

3 the right to supervise over the work in that ministry.

4 Q. Okay. And if I can just move to another topic. Now if I can ask

5 you, Ms. Dorevska, while we're on 1D107 to turn to the very last page, the

6 organigram. And for the purposes of e-court, that would be 1D00-4415.

7 Now this organigram shows that the OVRs were under the authority

8 of the sectors or the SVRs. Is that correct?

9 A. The sections, the OVRs are organisational units which are part of

10 the sectors for internal affairs, the SVRs.

11 Q. Okay. And they fall under the authority of the sectors, isn't

12 that right?

13 A. Yes, this is so.

14 Q. And above the sectors, in the chain of command would come the two

15 heads of the police; the head of the uniformed police and the head of the

16 crime police. Is that right?

17 A. Yes. In the -- which relates to operative work.

18 Q. Okay. And if we can please then turn to 1D00-4414, we can turn to

19 that page that is right -- right before the last page in 1D107. And above

20 the head of the crime police and the head of the uniformed police is the

21 director for public safety bureau. Is that right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. If we look at the organigram, above that is the -- above the

24 director for the public security bureau is the minister. Is that right?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. And you mentioned in your testimony in your examination-in-chief,

2 you explained that parts of the crime police and the uniformed police

3 carry out the operative works, is that right, which are listed in

4 Article 1 of the Law on Internal Affairs?

5 A. Yes, this is right.

6 Q. And you described them quite broadly, you said that these

7 operative works are -- include the maintenance of public law and order,

8 control road and traffic and crime police. You said it includes criminal

9 procedure, prosecuting perpetrators of crime, everything that includes the

10 operative tasks as part of the work of the ministry. Right.

11 A. Not in the overall work of the ministry, but which -- work

12 regarding the work of the bureau for public security.

13 Q. Okay. So -- but what you're saying is that the operative work

14 ultimately is headed by the bureau for public security. Is that right?

15 A. Yes. The director for the bureau for public security is the first

16 person who has oversight over the operative work.

17 Q. So all of these 9.000 persons that you described within the

18 ministry, many of whom may be doing operative work, ultimately are

19 answerable to the director of the public bureau of security. Is that

20 right?

21 A. No, this is not so. Each employee is responsible before his

22 direct superior. That superior is answerable towards his direct superior

23 and so it goes up the chain of command to the director.

24 Q. Okay. So what you're saying is then the head of the OVR would be

25 answerable to the head of the SVR, or the sector, is that right?

1 A. This is so.

2 Q. And so, in turn, the head of the sector or SVR, may be answerable

3 to the department for crime police or the department for uniformed police.

4 Is that right?

5 A. In this case, this units have coordinative functions vis-a-vis the

6 SVR, when we're talking about carrying out operative functions.

7 Q. Okay. But what I asked you is whether the head of the SVR, sector

8 would be answerable to the head of the uniformed police or the head of the

9 crime police?

10 A. Directly, no.

11 Q. Didn't you say that the head of the SVR is normally answerable to

12 or linked to the head of the -- the crime police and the head of the

13 department for uniformed police?

14 A. Not answer directly. There is coordination in action. If we're

15 talking about the operative functions, of course, this is so. The

16 department for crime police and uniformed police in this case have a

17 function of coordination.

18 Q. Are they answerable to the head of the crime police and the

19 uniformed police indirectly then?

20 A. In a way, yes.

21 Q. Okay. Then who does the head of the SVR answer to?

22 A. More to the director of public security.

23 Q. So you're saying that the head of the SVR answers to -- answers

24 directly to the head of the public security? I'm just trying to

25 understand what you're saying.

1 A. Yes. Answers to the director and they're connected to the

2 department of uniformed police and crime police even with other

3 organisational forms which are part of the bureau and which are under the

4 direct authority of the minister, depending on the area that is in

5 question.

6 Q. And so the director is, as you told us at the outset of your

7 testimony, is responsible or answerable to the minister. Is that right?

8 A. Of course.

9 Q. Can the director of public security, Ms. Dorevska, carry out

10 operative tasks on his own?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Can the director investigate a criminal matter, for example, or

13 gather evidence or maybe even submit a report, a criminal report?

14 A. No, the director is an official and he coordinates the work within

15 the bureau for public security. This is -- this is why there are so many

16 other organisational units which carry out operative works. The role of

17 the director is to coordinate the work and to reach decisions when certain

18 coordinative activities are taken.

19 Q. Well, suppose the director was -- becomes aware of a crime, say,

20 for example, in the Bit Pazar police station. Can he then not file a

21 report or instruct, perhaps, the head of the OVR to investigate the

22 matter?

23 A. He cannot file a criminal report because there are operative

24 employees which have to gather data and information and prepare the

25 criminal report. If the director were to file criminal reports, then the

1 operative employees would have nothing to do.

2 Q. So are you saying then, Ms. Dorevska, that the director can never

3 file a criminal report?

4 A. I don't know of a situation when the director could have or could

5 have not filed a report, because I never dealt with operative functions.

6 However, I believe that his role is to organise, coordinate and guide the

7 work to indicate certain issues, while concrete supervisors and employees

8 in organisational units carry out the work for which they have contracts.

9 Q. Well, if I can then go to 65 ter 1155, please, in e-court. And if

10 I can ask you, Ms. Dorevska, to please turn to tab 29 in your binder.

11 Now, I'd like you to -- I can see that you're -- did you find that

12 tab?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Could you please look at the first page.

15 A. Yes, I see it.

16 Q. And I know you're flipping through the pages right now of the

17 report and I'm just going to ask you if you wouldn't mind, if we can just

18 do this slowly. If you can please look at the first page. It's a

19 criminal charge, which is dated the 24th of July, 2001, and it's from the

20 Ministry of Interior addressed to the public prosecutor. Do you see that?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And it's a criminal charge against Ali Ahmeti. We can see that on

23 the first page. Do you see that?

24 A. Yes, I see it.

25 Q. And if you turn the next page. It also charges Veliu Fazli. Do

1 you see that?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And on the third page and so on, we see that it's a charge against

4 Gezim Ostreni. Do you see that?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Now, these are members of the NLA, aren't they?

7 A. I don't know.

8 Q. Okay. Could you turn to the page that is marked N001-0778.

9 Now, you see this is a proposal to the basic public prosecution

10 against the suspects to appear to -- to charge them for the stated

11 criminal acts in this charge, and it's requesting a criminal procedure to

12 follow against them. Do you see that?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And if you can turn to the last page, please. Now this criminal

15 charge was brought by Goran Mitevski who was then director of the public

16 bureau of security, bureau of public security in 2001. Right?

17 A. Yes, that's right.

18 Q. So it is possible, Ms. Dorevska, then, for the director of the

19 bureau of public security to bring a criminal charge, isn't it?

20 A. I did not say expressly that the director cannot or must not file

21 a report. From the document I can see I can only conclude this is a

22 specific case, a large document and probably the services decided that it

23 would be the best for the director of the bureau as the first among the

24 operative officers to sign this document.

25 Q. And isn't it because that this is actually a charge against

1 members of the NLA leadership?

2 A. I don't think so.

3 Q. Have you never heard of members of the NLA leadership,

4 Ms. Dorevska?

5 A. I've heard, of course, of these individuals whose names I have

6 read here in this document.

7 Q. And you have heard of them in the context of them -- in the

8 context of the NLA. Is that fair?

9 A. I've heard, yes.

10 Q. So you know that this is a criminal charge brought against members

11 of the NLA leadership, which is brought by Goran Mitevski, right?

12 A. I haven't read this document so I can't know what is written

13 within it. We're just speaking of it as a legal document.

14 Q. Okay. But you looked at the names of the -- of the persons who

15 are suspects, who are charged. You said you recognised them and that

16 they're members of the NLA leadership. You do know that, don't you?

17 A. Some of them, of course, I've heard of, but I haven't read the

18 document fully and I haven't read the contents of this criminal report or

19 the reason why it was filed.

20 Q. Well, Ms. Dorevska, you just mentioned a moment ago that you --

21 that the director would bring a charge like this because it's an

22 important -- it was an important matter or a special matter, right?

23 A. This is just my conjecture. I really have no experience with

24 regards to filing criminal reports or bringing charges and with regards to

25 the operation of the bureau for public security from this aspect.

1 Q. But you were the head of the legal sector, Ms. Dorevska, how can

2 you not know when a director can bring a criminal charge?

3 A. The work of my sector is not related to the filing of criminal

4 reports at all.

5 Q. Wouldn't you be familiar as to the rules? I mean, you were just

6 telling us about the operative matters and who can bring criminal charges

7 and gather evidence.

8 A. Yes. But as a lawyer, of course, we do prepare or produce the

9 acts but we have no junction point with the operative functions and the

10 ways in which they are performed.

11 Q. Okay. Ms. Dorevska, given that the director was involved in such

12 an important matter and brought this charge himself, wouldn't you expect

13 that this is a matter that perhaps the minister would also be aware of?

14 A. I couldn't say whether he was aware, because I really don't know.

15 Q. But you're not suggesting that the minister wouldn't be involved

16 or at least aware of such an important charge being brought against

17 members of the NLA leadership, are you?

18 A. I will say again: I don't know what was the communication and I

19 don't know at all whether there were any reports sent to the minister and

20 I can't either confirm or deny.

21 Q. You mentioned a moment ago, Ms. Dorevska, that you don't know what

22 charges or what operative matters that a director might be involved in.

23 Wouldn't you give legal advice to directors? Wasn't that part of your

24 function?

25 A. No, that is not part of my work at all.

1 Q. Did you give legal advice to the minister?

2 A. Yes, in the area that I cover.

3 Q. Okay. So are there areas that perhaps a minister might be

4 involved in that you may not know about?

5 A. There might have been such areas, I don't know.

6 Q. Do you suppose, Ms. Dorevska, that the minister would be concerned

7 or would be involved in a matter that is -- that concerns the NLA

8 leadership?

9 A. I don't know.

10 Q. Ms. Dorevska, are aware of what matters the minister might be

11 involved in in relation to what you described as operative matters?

12 A. I'm not sure I understood your question well.

13 Q. Are you aware of what types of matters the minister might be

14 involved in when it comes to operative matters?

15 A. Certainly not with regards to operative matters. But with regards

16 to coordination and monitoring the affairs in the area of operative work,

17 as a minister, actually, he has the duty to be informed of that.

18 Q. So you agree, then, that the minister would have a duty to be

19 informed of matters that relate to operative tasks and to monitor and

20 coordinate those tasks. Is that right?

21 A. Of course the minister is a manager. He manages the ministry, and

22 he surely needs to be informed by the directors and the other senior

23 officers about the activities undertaken.

24 Q. And why is it important to have the minister -- to inform the

25 minister of these tasks?

1 A. Since he is the minister of the interior.

2 Q. Okay.

3 A. And a member --

4 Q. Continue, please.

5 A. And member of the government, and of course he has the duty to

6 inform the government about the matters in the area of internal affairs.

7 Q. And as minister he is responsible for these issues, isn't he?

8 A. In what sense of responsibility are we speaking?

9 Q. Well, you just said that he is the minister, he has to be informed

10 of the -- of operative tasks. He is involved in monitoring and

11 coordinating such tasks. He is responsible, ultimately, isn't he, as the

12 minister.

13 A. The Minister is a political figure and he has the political

14 responsibility.

15 Q. So you're saying that as the political figure, he still has to

16 involve himself in matters that are operative, because he represents the

17 ministry and he manages the ministry. Is that right?

18 A. But not to perform the operative functions, just to receive

19 information on what is going on in the area of operative work.

20 Q. Well, just a little while ago, Ms. Dorevska, you indicated that

21 you didn't think that the director could be involved in performing the

22 operative functions and yet we now see an example here with this criminal

23 charge where the director was in fact involved with such a function.

24 Isn't it possible that you just don't know whether the minister can be

25 involved in operative functions?

1 A. I know that the minister cannot and must not be involved in

2 operative functions. He should be informed of the operative matters that

3 the ministry is involved in.

4 Q. Does the minister ever issue instructions based on the information

5 that he receives?

6 A. In terms of operative activities or in general, instructions

7 related to the work of the ministry. What are you referring at?

8 Q. In terms of operative activities.

9 A. I really don't have any involvement in that, and I have never seen

10 any such type of instructions because, even if they existed, they do not

11 arrive to me.

12 Q. So it is possible, given that you just indicated you don't have

13 any involvement for the minister to issue instructions in relation to

14 operative functions, isn't it?

15 A. I have no involvement and I do not think that the minister has

16 issued any instructions in that sense.

17 Q. But you're speculating now, aren't you?

18 A. I can't speak of something that I'm not aware of.

19 Q. But you are speculating when you say that you don't think that the

20 minister could possibly be involved with such functions, aren't you?

21 A. I'm not speculating, I'm certain that the minister does not have

22 any operative functions and must not perform operative works because he is

23 a minister, he is a political figure and has a political responsibility.

24 He represents the ministry. He is not an operative worker.

25 Q. But can he not give instructions then to -- even if he doesn't

1 perform operative work himself, can he give instructions to others to

2 perform operative work?

3 A. In terms of a legal document, yes, he can issue instructions,

4 naturally.

5 Q. So when you say in terms of a legal document, can he, for example,

6 issue instructions to somebody to file a criminal charge against a -- a

7 particular suspect or suspects?

8 A. The instruction is a legal document regulating particular matters

9 that the law failed to regulate, so such document could not be issued by

10 the minister. If you are referring to consultations with the director

11 with the bureau for public security, if you're referring to that meaning

12 of instructions, yes, of course, there are such consultations.

13 Q. So it's possible then for the Minister to issue an instruction,

14 say, to the director of public security, to file a criminal charge.

15 A. As you pose the question it indicates the fact that the minister

16 could order the director to file a criminal report. On the contrary, the

17 director, or the individuals who are authorised for filing of criminal

18 reports, file them whenever the prerequisites for that are met. The

19 minister could not arrive at information with regards to any filing of

20 criminal reports without receiving the data from the services, the staff

21 that are working on that.

22 Q. Well, assuming that the Minister arrives at this information

23 because he receives it from the staff or he receives the information from

24 any other way, could he then instruct the director to file a criminal

25 report?

1 A. Perhaps he could talk to the director and establish or review all

2 elements with regards to any filing of a criminal report.

3 Q. And he could -- he could ask the director to file the report,

4 can't he?

5 A. No.

6 Q. What if this related to a matter that was of great importance

7 perhaps to the ministry? Can the minister not then request or ask the

8 director to file a criminal charge or -- or have the members of the

9 operative task staff investigate the matter?

10 A. These are matters that are most probably discussed at collegiums

11 in the more narrow circle when the directors and other responsible

12 officers inform the minister about the situation in a given area.

13 Q. Are you saying that you are not aware of these matters,

14 Ms. Dorevska?

15 A. No, I said these are collegiums in a more narrow circle. I have

16 never attended any of those.

17 Q. I see. So it is possible that at a collegium the minister may

18 instruct a director to, for example, investigate a criminal matter that

19 seems to be of importance to the ministry, isn't it?

20 A. Those would be conjecture. I could not give you an answer to

21 that.

22 Q. Okay.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.

24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I object to this

25 manner of examination because the Prosecutor, at least on seven or eight

1 occasions, asked the same question, having received an answer, and then is

2 suggesting to the witness that the witness is speculating, so I don't

3 think this kind of examination is in order and it surpasses the frameworks

4 of what it should entail.

5 Thank you.

6 JUDGE PARKER: I'm sorry Ms. Residovic, it's my impression that

7 the Prosecutor is trying to get final and clear answers and the reasons

8 for them from the witness and is -- when some of those answers were given,

9 put to the witness that the answer was based on conjecture. So I don't

10 see anything improper in what is being done in the cross-examination.

11 Please carry on, Ms. Issa.

12 MS. ISSA:

13 Q. Now, Ms. Dorevska, I'd like to you please turn to tab 44 in your

14 binder.

15 MS. ISSA: Actually, I may have to ask Madam Usher if she might

16 distribute the second binder, please.

17 Q. Now, Ms. Dorevska, this is an investigator note of a meeting

18 arranged by the Macedonian authorities in connection with the exhumation

19 project proposed for a site near the town of Tetovo. Are you aware of

20 that project?

21 A. Not at all.

22 Q. Okay. Now, we see here, according to this report, that the

23 president of the country was present at the meeting, that Goran Mitevski,

24 the director of the public security bureau was present at the meeting, and

25 that Ljube Boskoski, then minister of the interior was present as well.

1 A. Yes, I see the document.

2 Q. Well, not to go through the entirety of the document but there was

3 a heated discussion at the meeting. And if I could ask you to turn to

4 page 4, or the last page of that -- of this document, please. And if I

5 can ask to you look at the second paragraph of page 4 which begins with

6 the words: "He ordered," you see there that the president says to

7 Mr. Boskoski, this is in reference to the president, that: "He ordered

8 Mr. Boskoski to increase police patrols, to issue them armoured vehicles

9 and body armour immediately and for them (police) to commence operations

10 in the area tomorrow."

11 And then he stated to Mr. Boskoski: "Mr. Minister, you will issue

12 the police with all their powers now," and stated, "I am the president of

13 this country and that is that."

14 Ms. Dorevska, isn't the president in fact acknowledging the powers

15 that Ljube Boskoski had over the police in that statement?

16 A. I really don't know what document and what meeting is this about.

17 I'm reading what you just stated. I can see the sentence and probably

18 this is a strategic decision for the state.

19 Q. But in that decision, he is acknowledging that the minister has

20 power over the police to issue them with all their powers, isn't he?

21 A. The police has those powers, of course. In a meeting like this it

22 won't be the head of the sector of internal affairs who would attend this

23 meeting. The minister is part of the team. He received the order. I

24 already said that the president's order entails an obligation for the

25 minister. However, the minister, in order to carry out the obligation

1 will undertake measures within the ministry and will communicate those to

2 those who need to be the actual performers. As I can see, the director of

3 the bureau for public security was also attending the meeting.

4 Q. Yes. But the president had addressed Mr. Boskoski, Ms. Dorevska,

5 and my question was by saying to Mr. Boskoski that: You will issue the

6 police with all their powers, he is acknowledging that Minister Boskoski

7 has that authority to do so, isn't he?

8 A. No. In terms of coordination and performing a task. Certainly

9 following the hierarchy the president spoke to the minister and the

10 minister is responsible for the situation in the area that the ministry

11 covers. This does not mean that the minister will go to the field and

12 issue -- give the powers directly to the police.

13 Q. Well, if the public security bureau was independent, Ms. Dorevska,

14 and the director was present, as you noted at this meeting, why didn't the

15 president simply task the director with the -- that task, to issue the

16 powers to the police?

17 A. Since the bureau for public security is part of the ministry and

18 this is a body within the ministry. It is not an independent body, it is

19 a part of ministry. And all the things that are taking place need to go

20 through the ministry or actually through the minister.

21 Q. So even powers such as this and a matter of this importance would

22 have to go through the minister. Is that what you're saying?

23 A. Of course the minister needs to be informed when such strategic

24 decisions are taken and the actual carrying out of the tasks will be

25 transferred to those who are really in charge of performing the action.

1 Q. And it is the minister who would transfer those tasks to those who

2 are in charge of performing the action. Is that right?

3 A. No, this is not right, because these persons have original

4 authorisations which they can carry out or implement.

5 Q. Are you suggesting that in this instance, Ms. Dorevska, that the

6 president was merely informing Minister Boskoski of the strategic

7 decisions?

8 A. From this sentence, one can see that he gave the minister an

9 order. However, an order for operative services to undertake necessary

10 measures to that end, not the minister to transfer authorisations. The

11 police officers have their authorisations.

12 Q. Okay. So from this instance, we see that the minister can order

13 the police to carry out their powers, as they're authorised, to carry out

14 their operative tasks, right?

15 A. I said that the minister has the right to issue orders. This is

16 listed in the Law on the Organisation of work or bodies of state

17 administration and the Law on Internal Affairs.

18 Q. And he has a right to issue orders in relation to matters that are

19 set out in Article 1 of the Law on Internal Affairs, doesn't he?

20 A. Perhaps as a different manner of carrying out tasks, such as -- to

21 undertake certain activities but not transfer of authority, as you put it.

22 Q. Well, we don't have to use the word "transfer of authority," I

23 don't think I used that word. But he can order the police to carry out

24 their tasks, and in this case, their operative tasks, can't he?

25 A. Do you mean directly to call a policeman in the field to tell him

1 that he or she should do an operative task. Surely the minister does not

2 do this.

3 Q. Can he do it indirectly through the public bureau -- the director

4 of the public bureau -- bureau of public security?

5 A. Indirectly perhaps it is possible in a conversation with the

6 director, and in undertaking certain measure for them to agree on the

7 manner in which the activities will be carried out.

8 Q. But, clearly, Ms. Dorevska, what we see here doesn't relate to a

9 conversation, does it? It relates to instructions or orders, as an

10 example.

11 A. I said that this document is not known to me. We're now talking

12 about me -- about certain segments which you're pointing out to me.

13 Q. What if the minister and the director disagree on a matter,

14 Ms. Dorevska? Could the minister then instruct the director to instruct

15 others to carry out a certain task?

16 A. If this is within the law and authorisation of the police.

17 Q. And that would include matters such as matters that are listed,

18 the operative tasks that you referred to earlier in your testimony, that

19 are listed in Article 1 of the Law on Internal Affairs, couldn't they?

20 A. Of course the director and the minister are in communication.

21 They talk to each other and they come to an agreement about the

22 functioning of the ministry. The minister is responsible for the overall

23 work before the government, and before the parliament, if you will.

24 Q. But what if the minister and the director after they talk to each

25 other, as you put it, disagree? Couldn't then the minister instruct the

1 director to take a certain action that relates to operative tasks?

2 A. The director is a person who informs the minister whether the

3 preconditions for undertaking certain measures have been fulfilled or not

4 fulfilled. So if the director says that there are no conditions to that

5 end, then the minister will have to respect this.

6 Q. But what if the director say there are conditions to that end but

7 the director simply doesn't -- refuses to -- doesn't think that this

8 particular operative task should be carried out and the minister disagrees

9 with him? Doesn't the minister then have the last word?

10 A. If this is outside the legal provisions, then, of course, he would

11 not have the last word. In my previous testimony I said that the ministry

12 does not work according to the wish of the minister, but on the basis of

13 law.

14 Q. What if they are inside the legal provisions? Doesn't the

15 minister have the last word?

16 A. He can suggest to the director that if all conditions are met, he

17 can, in a conversation, point out that certain measures can be undertaken.

18 Q. Isn't it true, Ms. Dorevska, that the minister can actually

19 instruct the director to take certain measures, if he wished, because he

20 is answerable to the minister? Isn't that true?

21 A. No. Again, this is in the context of your previous question, and

22 the answer I gave you that the wishes of the minister are not a command

23 for the director.

24 Q. But if it falls inside the law, it's not just the wishes of the

25 minister, can't the minister instruct the director to carry out a certain

1 task within the law?

2 A. Of course they will agree on what they need to take further on, if

3 it's all within the law.

4 Q. Well, if it's within the law and the minister disagrees with the

5 director, isn't it true that the director then must do what the minister

6 asks or instructs?

7 A. I believe this is the same question again, and I think my answer

8 will be the same, the director and the minister must be coordinated:

9 Director to inform the minister for conditions fulfilled and the minister

10 in coordination with the director to decide about certain things.

11 Q. But you haven't answered my question, Ms. Dorevska, because my

12 question is, if the minister disagrees with the director on a matter that

13 is within the law, can he not instruct the director to carry out that

14 task?

15 A. If it's a strategic decision in question for which the government

16 previously elaborated and decided that it should be undertaken then the

17 minister is obliged to do something and perhaps in this context he can

18 give instructions, but, surely, under conditions when all pre-conditions

19 are fulfilled.

20 Q. Well, it's not -- what if it's not a strategic decision but it's a

21 task that is within the law, say the Law on Internal Affairs. Can the

22 minister not instruct the director to carry out that task? It's a simple

23 question.

24 A. Of course he could.

25 Q. Thank you.

1 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I am aware of the time.

2 JUDGE PARKER: We would normally go for another 15 minutes, if

3 that's convenient; if it's not, say so.

4 MS. ISSA: Certainly not. I was mistaken because it was the

5 afternoon session.

6 Q. Now in your examination-in-chief, Ms. Dorevska, just moving on to

7 another topic, you indicated that you saw several decisions, and some of

8 them had been made by previous ministers and then there were perhaps

9 amendments to those decisions or changes within those decisions, right?

10 A. Yes, legal documents. They're basic documents and amendments

11 which are passed by other ministers.

12 Q. So can one minister make changes to a decision made by a previous

13 minister?

14 A. Yes, he can do that.

15 Q. And can one minister then adopt the decision of the previous

16 minister?

17 A. I don't know what you mean when saying "then adopt."

18 Q. Let's just say there's a decision that a previous minister has

19 made, isn't it possible for one minister to subsequently adopt that

20 decision and carry out the tasks that the previous minister had decided

21 ought to be made?

22 A. Usually these are concrete decisions for transfer of

23 authorisations or other types of legal documents which a minister passes,

24 and which the ensuing minister cannot change, because they don't pertain

25 to concrete persons, but pertain to heads of units. But, again, here I'm

1 not speaking about legal documents; that is to say, operative documents.

2 Q. Can one minister cancel a decision made by a previous minister?

3 A. Depending on the decision in question. However, it does happen in

4 practice. There have been such cases.

5 Q. Okay. If I can ask you, Ms. Dorevska, to please turn to tab 86,

6 which is in the second binder. And that's 65 ter -- or, rather, Exhibit

7 1D112.

8 A. Apologies, can you tell me again where -- what we should be

9 looking at.

10 Q. Tab 86, please.

11 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Madam Usher.

12 Q. Now, what we see here, Ms. Dorevska, is a decision dated 7 March

13 2001, if you look at the top of the date -- of the document. And it's a

14 decision to form the headquarters of operative action Ramno. Do you see

15 that?

16 A. Yes, I see it.

17 Q. And that's a decision that was made by the previous minister,

18 Dosta Dimovska. Is that right?

19 A. Yes, we can see that from the signature on the document.

20 Q. So the previous minister under the laws had the power to create

21 this operative action that was connected to the headquarters of the

22 Ministry of Interior, right?

23 A. Each minister can form a commission of this kind.

24 Q. Well, it's not really referred to as a commission, is it?

25 A. Yes, a decision for setting up a headquarters.

1 Q. Okay. And if I can then ask you to go back to tab 22. And that's

2 P381 for the record for e-court, and that is in your first binder,

3 Ms. Dorevska.

4 Actually, you can probably leave that document open.

5 MS. ISSA: Perhaps if I can ask Madam Usher to assist the witness.

6 Q. Now do you see -- are you looking at P381, tab 22, Ms. Dorevska?

7 A. No, I'm not looking at that.

8 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Madam Usher.

9 Q. Now, if you look at that document, that's a document that also

10 says decision to form the operative action Ramno, and it's signed by

11 Minister Boskoski. Is that right?

12 A. Yes, this is so.

13 Q. And we see that in this document, the composition of the persons

14 who were assigned to this operation has been slightly changed, right?

15 And this is P381, for the record.

16 A. Yes, this is so.

17 Q. And in fact what Minister Boskoski has done is essentially changed

18 the composition and placed Goran Mitevski as the head of the operation

19 Ramno, right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Doesn't that mean --

22 MS. ISSA: I see that my friend is on her feet, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Well, your question is being formulated, so I think

24 we can interfere at this point.

25 Ms. Residovic.

1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, since the witness has

2 already given the answer, it is the headquarters or staff of operative

3 action, so it would be a good idea if the Prosecutor were to use the same

4 permanent "operative action," and not operation.

5 JUDGE PARKER: That may or may not suit the line of questioning,

6 but thank you for the suggestion.

7 MS. ISSA:

8 Q. Doesn't that mean, Ms. Dorevska, that Minister Boskoski accepted

9 and approved this decision, or adopted it?

10 A. The minister signed this decision, which means that he adopted

11 this decision.

12 Q. Okay. And then if we can --

13 MS. ISSA: Perhaps I'll move on to another area.

14 Q. Now, Ms. Dorevska, you've said at one point I believe in your

15 testimony, in your examination-in-chief, that the minister can issue

16 orders but only when there is an express authorisation granted by law or

17 another regulation. And you said this at transcript page 9407, for the

18 record.

19 Now, if we go to P92, which is the law on the government bodies.

20 I can tell you where it is momentarily. Tab 8 of the first binder,

21 please.

22 If you look at Article 55, Ms. Dorevska, just so that we're clear,

23 there is no reference to the term "express." There is -- no express

24 authorisation is required, according to this Article, is there?

25 A. However, if you read the last part, it says: When he so

1 authorised by law." The minister passes acts herein listed and other

2 types of regulations when so authorised by law.

3 Q. Okay. I see that. I just wanted to clarify that it doesn't say

4 that there has to be an express authorisation by law, does it?

5 A. This Article says just that, in order to issue an order, in a

6 written form, or, in order to bring an instruction, plan, or a rule book,

7 there must be an expressed authorisation by law.

8 Q. But the word "express," is not there, is it?

9 A. Yes. But authorisation established by law.

10 Q. But you haven't answered my question. The word "express" is not

11 there, is it?

12 A. The word "express" is not there. But the last part of the

13 sentence clearly indicates that this must be expressly list in the law.

14 Q. Okay. Thank you.

15 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I am aware of the time, and I think it

16 might be a convenient moment at this point.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, we'll have the adjournment now and continue at

18 a quarter past 4.00.

19 --- Recess taken at 3.43 p.m.

20 --- On resuming at 4.19 p.m.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Ms. Issa.

22 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Your Honour.

23 Q. Ms. Dorevska, in your examination-in-chief, we -- you looked at --

24 you referred to Article 6 of the Law on Internal Affairs. And if I can

25 ask -- perhaps we can go to that. It's at tab 7 in the first binder that

1 I gave you.

2 MS. ISSA: Thank you, Madam Usher.

3 Q. Now, in Article 6, as you can see, second paragraph refers to an

4 employee that must -- of the ministry must implement the orders of the

5 minister or the person authorised by him in connection with the functions

6 of the ministry. Right?

7 A. Right.

8 Q. Now, aren't the affairs or the listed -- the affairs that are

9 listed in Article 1 of the Law on Internal Affairs considered to be part

10 of the functions of the ministry?

11 A. Of the ministry.

12 Q. Yes. They are considered to be part of the functions of the

13 ministry. Is that correct?

14 A. Yes. Part of the functions of the ministry.

15 Q. Okay. And would you agree with me, Ms. Dorevska, that if a

16 superior gives an order and that order is followed or implemented, then

17 that's an indication of his authority over the persons he gave the order

18 to.

19 A. The persons have the duty to follow the orders. That is clearly

20 indicated in the Article and this Article pertains to the duties of the

21 employees.

22 Q. Okay. I appreciate that. But my question to you is if a superior

23 gives an order and that order is followed, then that is an indication of

24 the superior's authority over the persons he gave an order to, isn't it?

25 A. No. Those -- that authority belongs to his superior officer and

1 if a person acting upon an order of the minister, as you say in this case,

2 fails to perform the order, the direct superior has the duty to take

3 measures under that -- against such person.

4 Q. But that's not what I'm asking you, Ms. Dorevska. What I'm asking

5 you is, just in general terms, if a superior gives an order to an

6 individual, to a person, isn't that an indication of his authority over

7 that person?

8 A. Yes. The person has the duty to follow the order.

9 Q. And would you agree, Ms. Dorevska, that if a superior didn't think

10 that the order would be obeyed, that he wouldn't issue that order?

11 A. Of course the superior expects that the order would be obeyed.

12 Q. And would you agree that if a person receives an order and obeys

13 that order, it's because that person believed he a duty to follow the

14 order?

15 A. Yes. They have the duty, unless, as it is written in the Article

16 here, unless the following of the order would constitute a crime.

17 Q. Okay. Fair enough. In 2001, Ms. Dorevska, were you aware whether

18 Minister Boskoski checked the laws and regulations every time he issued an

19 order?

20 A. I believe that he did check. At any rate, the persons around him

21 had the duty to indicate what the legal aspects were when issuing any

22 order.

23 Q. So you're saying that persons around him which would include

24 perhaps yourself as one of the legal advisors, would have the duty to

25 indicate to him what the aspects were? He would check with persons around

1 him before he issued an order?

2 A. Of course they have the duty to do so. If the minister asked me

3 to prepare an order by which the employees will be prohibited travel

4 abroad over a certain period of time, I have the duty to indicate that

5 there is or there is no legal basis, ground for that. That is my duty as

6 a senior officer.

7 Q. Do you suppose that the minister in that stressful time, that

8 stressful time during the crisis in 2001, Ms. Dorevska, was thinking about

9 checking with his advisors about every order that he was to make and the

10 black letter law?

11 A. I believe that he did check.

12 Q. And what makes you say that?

13 A. Since nobody wishes to work in contravention to laws and

14 regulations.

15 Q. Do you know that he checked?

16 A. I don't know. I'm just surmising. He did check when working on

17 issues in my area. I can't say with certainty about other areas.

18 Q. And when you say issues in your area, you're referring

19 specifically to issues of drafting laws, for example, or personnel issues,

20 things of that nature, right?

21 A. For the most part, yes. With regards to the rights and duties of

22 the employees and the personnel matters, of course also in the area of

23 regulations since there were also laws that had been adopted precisely at

24 that period of time that we had drafted.

25 Q. So issues that are outside of that area, you wouldn't know whether

1 he checked or whether he was following the black letter law, would you?

2 A. In the area of operative work, I said I have no experience there.

3 I have not attended those collegiums, but I believe that this had been

4 done as the law and the constitution provide and that the director of the

5 bureau for public security always informed the minister about the

6 legislation in a given area.

7 Q. You say that you believe that this had been done. Are you, once

8 again, just surmising?

9 A. I said that I believed that it had been done, because whenever my

10 area was the issue at stake he did confer with me and I suppose that he

11 did that as well in the area of greatest importance for the work of the

12 ministry, especially areas such as operative work and undertaking certain

13 police actions.

14 Q. And that area, as you say, is considered to be one of the greatest

15 importance for the ministry, the operative work and the undertaking of

16 certain actions?

17 A. Most of the activities of the ministry are done through the two

18 bodies between the ministry, the public security and the state security.

19 This is also prescribed by the laws.

20 Q. And if -- and suppose I told you, Ms. Dorevska, that

21 Minister Boskoski issued an order to the head of the uniformed police,

22 Risto Galevski, ordering him to stop the police units, the special police

23 units from continuing their combat activities in Aracinovo. Would that be

24 an order that was within the competencies of the minister?

25 A. I don't know about any such order, and I could not comment on

1 that.

2 Q. What I'm asking you is whether that would be an order that is

3 within the competencies of the minister.

4 A. Yes. From the legal aspect, that the minister is able to issue

5 orders, yes.

6 Q. So the minister has the authority to issue orders for the

7 cessation of combat activities, right?

8 A. If that is a political decision and strategy of the government.

9 Q. Well, he, nevertheless, has the power to issue that order. Is

10 that right?

11 A. We saw already that the law provides that the minister has the

12 authority to issue order.

13 Q. Do you account for the possibility, Ms. Dorevska, that

14 Minister Boskoski in that complex time in 2001, that difficult, stressful

15 environment, may simply forego the normal procedures and perhaps issue an

16 order to a police unit on the ground?

17 A. I don't think so.

18 Q. Is that something you're -- is that, once again, something you're

19 surmising?

20 A. I said that I had nothing to do with the operative work and this

21 is my opinion, that I do not think, from what I know of his manner and

22 attitude of the minister.

23 Q. Okay. If I can ask you then, to, please, turn to 1D44, tab 9 in

24 your binder, please.

25 Now we have seen this document before, Ms. Dorevska. And if I can

1 refer you firstly to the last two paragraphs of the document. And that

2 deals with the -- with the command over the special tasks unit for the

3 Tigers, and what it says is: "During the past period, the special tasks

4 unit or certain parts of it were engaged for various types of tasks for

5 which the orders and the requests come in an oral form from more leading

6 workers at the MOI.

7 "For the purpose of maintaining the hierarchy and the chain of

8 command in the future for eventual engaging of the unit or parts of it,

9 our request is necessary in written form to be submitted to the minister

10 or the head of the department for police."

11 Do you see that?

12 A. Yes, I see it.

13 Q. And this is a letter, or document, that is signed by the

14 commander, by then commander of the Tiger unit, Captain Goran Zdravkovski,

15 right?

16 A. Yes, that's right.

17 Q. And if I can draw your attention then to the date of the document,

18 19 July 2001, at the very top in the left-hand corner. Do you see that?

19 A. Yes, I see it.

20 Q. And if you look at the top right-hand corner, there's a

21 handwritten note signed by Ljube Boskoski, dated 20 July 2001, the next

22 day. And what it says is: "I agree with your proposition that it should

23 be requested in writing, but the minister approves alternative oral order

24 from the minister in emergency situations."

25 Do you see that?

1 A. Yes, I see it.

2 Q. So Minister Boskoski was indicating that the procedures provided

3 for in the rules and regulations could be varied, right?

4 A. I really did not understand the question or there was something

5 wrong with the interpretation. I apologise for this.

6 Q. Well, I'll repeat my question.

7 Minister Boskoski was indicating that the procedures provided for

8 in the rules might be changed or varied, that there is some flexibility in

9 emergency situations, wasn't he?

10 A. The only thing this indicates is that the minister agrees with

11 what Mr. Zdravkovski offered in his letter, and this is during the period

12 when the special tasks unit was under the competence of the minister.

13 Q. Yes, I appreciate that. But I think this indicates a lot more

14 than what you've just said, doesn't it? Because he is saying that the

15 minister approves that: "I agree with the proposition that normally a

16 written request should be taken, or should be made, but the minister

17 approves that an alternative oral order from the minister can take place

18 in emergency situations."

19 Isn't that what he's saying?

20 A. Yes, that's right. But why couldn't he issue an oral order in

21 emergency situations? This is only normal.

22 Q. So it would be -- there is some room then for some flexibility and

23 doing things a little differently outside the normal times in emergency

24 situations, right?

25 A. Not only when the situation is out of the ordinary. There is such

1 a possibility in other situations because of the urgency of the matters.

2 Q. And particularly in 2001, when there was a greater -- there was a

3 greater need for flexibility because of the urgency of the situation it

4 would be normal for Minister Boskoski to react in the way that he did.

5 Isn't that right?

6 A. Yes. However, he had the authority to do it since he had the

7 direct superiority of approving deployment of the special tasks unit.

8 Whether this would be done in writing or orally in emergency situations is

9 irrelevant.

10 Q. And he also had the flexibility to do it, didn't he, as the

11 minister.

12 A. In this case, yes.

13 Q. And just staying with the same document for a moment, if I can

14 draw your attention, Ms. Dorevska, to perhaps the second paragraph in that

15 document it says: Because the minister has assigned certain authority to

16 the head of the department for police, the commander of the ESZ, which is

17 the Tiger unit, receives orders and tasks also from the head.

18 Do you see that?

19 A. Yes, I see it.

20 Q. So the minister can decide how much authority he wishes to assign

21 to the head of the uniformed police and how much authority he wishes to

22 retain. Isn't that right?

23 A. Whenever the minister has the source authority and in this case he

24 does have it, he can decide to transfer that to -- to delegate that to

25 another person. And if you look into the rule book on organisation, which

1 speaks of the competence of the minister over the special tasks force or

2 unit, there is a chapter that says in that certain situations, trainings

3 and drills, the special tasks unit is under the competence of the head of

4 police. This means that there has been a link here and it is not randomly

5 that the minister transferred this right or part of his authority, I can't

6 really say how big a part of his authority, to the head for police.

7 Q. Okay. Just picking up from your point, you said: In certain

8 situations such as training or drills, this document refers to a little

9 more than training and drills, doesn't it?

10 A. Yes. I only wished to indicate what the functional links and the

11 logics of delegating authority were, delegating to the head of the police

12 department.

13 Q. Now, you mentioned, Ms. Dorevska, earlier that the minister held

14 collegiums with his closest advisors, including Goran Mitevski, perhaps

15 Risto Galevski, and others, and that the purpose of that was to help keep

16 him informed of matters that were -- current matters that were happening

17 or that would impact on the ministry. Is that right?

18 A. The minister, pursuant to the rule book on organisation, organises

19 or convenes collegiums in a broader or more narrow composition. I myself

20 have been in attendance at collegiums in a broader composition and I know

21 that there have been others in a more narrow circle. And this is a way

22 for the minister to learn about the situation in the ministry. How else

23 would he learn than through collegiums with people at responsible

24 positions with the ministry.

25 Q. Okay. And he would hold these collegiums and determine whether he

1 wishes to have a broader or a more narrow collegium in order to keep

2 informed of matters that are within the ministry, right?

3 A. Yes, that's right.

4 Q. And you explained that it is within this context that the director

5 or the head of the bureau of public security may report to the minister

6 about matters that are occurring within the context within the ministry,

7 right?

8 A. Of course. That is his duty.

9 Q. And the director of the bureau for public security would receive

10 his information from his subordinates, such as Risto Galevski, right?

11 A. That's right.

12 Q. And the head of the uniformed police, such as Risto Galevski, may

13 receive that information from the sectors below them, right?

14 A. Of course.

15 Q. And they, in turn, would report that information up the chain of

16 command. Is that right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And depending on what the information related to, once it's

19 reported to the minister, the minister may make decisions about the work

20 of the ministry. Is that right?

21 A. The minister, together with the members of his collegium, and, if

22 necessary, with the government.

23 Q. Okay. And wouldn't the minister sometimes issue instructions or

24 taskings to, say, the director for the bureau of public security?

25 A. I apologise, I did not understand your question correctly.

1 Q. Perhaps that might be my fault. Wouldn't the minister, based on

2 the information that he is getting at the collegium, perhaps make

3 decisions and issue taskings to, for example, the director of the bureau

4 of public security?

5 A. Of course. On the basis of the analysis that has been made and

6 what has been agreed on the meeting and within the framework,

7 authorisation of the director, and all of this within the framework of the

8 laws and the constitution.

9 Q. And wouldn't the minister have the last word, as to what those

10 taskings might be?

11 A. I think this can only be the result of the analysis of the overall

12 situation.

13 Q. Okay. And ultimately, the result of the overall analysis of the

14 situation would end up with the minister. In other words, the minister

15 would ultimately decide after analysis of the situation, as to the

16 taskings that must be realised based on the information and the analysis

17 that he receives?

18 A. I think that where tasks are concerned, people who are responsible

19 for this will tell him about this, if all of this as a decision has been

20 reached previously. The minister cannot know what needs to be taken on

21 the ground. Can he hear about and analyse the overall situation and, in

22 accordance with the regulations to agree or not to agree to what has been

23 offered.

24 Q. And once he hears about and analyses the situation, if he

25 disagrees with a suggestion that was made perhaps by one of the members of

1 the collegium, he can ultimately make that decision, can't he?

2 A. If he assesses that this is a strategically wrong decision and

3 outside what the government does.

4 Q. Okay. Now, I'd like you to turn to tab 25 of the first binder.

5 MS. ISSA: And this is Exhibit 1D184 for the record.

6 Q. Now, you see here, Ms. Dorevska, and you can see it on your screen

7 as well, that this is a report from the meeting between the minister of

8 interior affairs, Ljube Boskoski, and the head of the public safety

9 bureau, Goran Mitevski, with Ambassador Daniel Speckhard who was the

10 assistant secretary-general of NATO, and it is dated 5 September 2001.

11 And we see here, you could look at the first page, that the minister has

12 some information about the manning of check-points which Mr. Speckhard

13 pointed out includes reservists and members of the Tiger unit. And if you

14 look at the very bottom of this report, the third paragraph from the

15 bottom, it says that Minister Boskoski expressed the following with

16 respect to what had been said, that there are members of the reserve

17 composition of the police at the check-points but not members of the Tiger

18 units and the PEP.

19 Now, Ms. Dorevska, wouldn't the minister have received that

20 information from down the chain of command?

21 A. I really do not know. This is a report of minutes of a meeting,

22 what has been said on that meeting, as to how he obtained the information,

23 I could not give you my comment on this.

24 Q. Well, how else would he obtain information about who is manning

25 the check-points?

1 A. Surely someone must have given him that information.

2 Q. And that information would have come from -- come up -- come from

3 up the chain of command from the police forces on the ground, right?

4 A. Most probably.

5 Q. And then we see here, Ms. Dorevska, that the minister made a

6 decision. And if you look at the very bottom of this report on the first

7 page, it says: "Precisely because of the big number of disinformation

8 which are acknowledged about the behaviour of the police,

9 Minister Boskoski agreed that there be a NATO representative who will be

10 present at the check-points at all times and who will have a clear picture

11 of the situation at the check-points."

12 And then it says: "Based on the acceptance of the idea that NATO

13 is present at the check-points in the country for placing technical

14 equipment, for registering the entire situation and for conducting of the

15 procedure for fast realisation, Minister Boskoski assigned the head of the

16 public safety bureau, Goran Mitevski, and General Aleksander Doncev to be

17 directly involved in the realisation."

18 Do you see that?

19 A. Yes, I see it.

20 Q. So Minister Boskoski made a decision and assigned the director of

21 the bureau for public safety regarding the manning of the check-points.

22 Basically he ordered Goran Mitevski to be in charge of this task, right?

23 A. Yes. In any event, I see this as a way that the director and

24 General Doncev be directly involved. That is to say, that they should

25 follow the situation directly and inform the minister so as the minister

1 could obtain proper information about the state of affairs.

2 Q. Well, the decision is that NATO or members of NATO is present at

3 the check-points, and it later then says that Minister Boskoski is

4 assigned or Minister Boskoski assigned Goran Mitevski and

5 General Aleksander Doncev to be involved in a realisation of this task.

6 It's a little more than remaining -- keeping informed of the

7 situation, isn't it?

8 A. I understand this as a situation where these persons are directly

9 authorised to be involved in the realisation so that the minister can

10 receive information directly from them.

11 Q. And he assigned them this task in order for him -- so that he can

12 continue monitoring the situation. Would that be fair?

13 A. The minister does not carry out this kind of monitoring. He has

14 to have all the information in regards to certain activities of broader

15 scale.

16 Q. Ms. Dorevska, is the subject of police check-points or the manning

17 of police check-points and who is deployed at those check-points, is that

18 expressly described in -- as one of the competencies of the minister in

19 the law?

20 A. No. Deployment of people -- the obligation of the minister in

21 this regard is to pass decisions for deployment of persons in specific

22 work tasks.

23 Q. And that would include the manning of check-points?

24 A. No. Persons who are directly in charge in the ground -- on the

25 ground will decide on this.

1 Q. But in this case, Minister Boskoski agreed that certain persons

2 are to be present at check-points, didn't he?

3 A. Yes. But most probably in terms of their number and the need of

4 certain persons being there, not in terms of concrete individuals with

5 concrete names.

6 Q. So what you're telling us is that Minister Boskoski can make

7 decisions as to the number of personnel and other decisions of that

8 nature, that impact on matters that are on the ground?

9 A. If there's a need to deploy persons from one to another

10 organisational unit or police officers from one to another police station,

11 the decision for deployment as a final decision is passed by the minister

12 of the interior with his signature.

13 Q. But is the manning of check-points considered to be an existing

14 work post or job position, Ms. Dorevska?

15 A. No.

16 Q. And doesn't the collective agreement that you had talked about

17 before specifically refer to the deployment of individuals to job

18 positions, to different job positions within an organisational unit?

19 A. Yes. It speaks of deployment.

20 Q. So that kind of deployment is different from this deployment,

21 isn't it?

22 A. In a way, yes.

23 Q. Okay. Ms. Dorevska, I'd like you to please turn to tab 37. And

24 that is P468.

25 Now you see here, Ms. Dorevska, this is a document --

1 MS. ISSA: I am sorry, Your Honour, I believe there might be a

2 technical problem. I'm not getting the English translation.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Well, I've only heard you speaking in English for a

4 little while. If there was anything being spoken in another language, it

5 has been not translated. But what do you think is missing?

6 MS. ISSA: I'm sorry I actually heard the --

7 JUDGE PARKER: There was just an interference in another language.

8 It's not a problem.

9 MS. ISSA: All right. Thank you.

10 Q. Ms. Dorevska, if we can then have a look at this document. It's a

11 telegram from the cabinet of the minister which is dated June -- 11 June

12 2001, signed by Ljube Boskoski to the sector Kocani, addressed to the

13 sector Kocani. And it says that: "In order to undertake security

14 measures in the territory of the Republic of Macedonia and the replacement

15 of police forces it is needed that on the 12th of June, 2001, 50 policemen

16 and their senior officer in charge be transferred to the military

17 barracks," and it has the name of the barracks in Kumanovo, "driven in

18 your vehicles."

19 Do you see that?

20 A. Yes, I see it.

21 Q. Now, as I understand it, Ms. Dorevska, you explained in your

22 testimony that when there is an order issued by the minister, or a

23 decision, that always at the top of the document, the legal grounds or the

24 basis for that order is marked. Do you remember that?

25 A. Yes, I remember.

1 Q. Now we don't see any reference to the legal grounds or basis for

2 this order, is there?

3 A. Yes. But this is a simple telegram.

4 Q. So the minister can actually issue an order by way of a telegram

5 and he doesn't have to issue an order following the formality of the

6 procedures that you described before. Is that right?

7 A. No. We don't have an order here. At least I don't see anywhere

8 on the text of the document where the minister says, "I order that 50

9 police officers be transferred." In this case, the minister informs three

10 services that 50 police officers should be transferred, and I see this

11 within the context of his right to deployment and the decision which was

12 previously passed by the bureau for public security.

13 Q. Well, if it's not an order, Ms. Dorevska, then what else is it?

14 A. As I said, according to what I see, this is an analysis done

15 previously and a decision passed previously, and this is a telegram, an

16 information to the sector of internal affairs in Kocani which should

17 undertake part of these obligations to the sector of finances and other

18 common affairs, which have to provide the arms, the ammunitions,

19 camouflage uniforms, and all else that falls under its responsibility and

20 to the sector of analytics and research.

21 Q. Why would the minister need to send out this information,

22 Ms. Dorevska, if you're suggesting that it's not an order and it is merely

23 something that was passed previously?

24 A. It's not an order at all. According to me, this should be signed

25 by the director for public security, perhaps he was absent at that time,

1 and it was signed by the minister of the interior, this means, carrying

2 out a decision previously passed.

3 Q. If it is carrying out a decision that had been previously passed,

4 then why would the minister need to send it?

5 A. In order to inform the persons who need to carry out this order

6 and to increase the importance of the obligation that needs to be carried

7 out.

8 Q. Well, if he is informing the persons to carry out this order, then

9 that makes it an order, doesn't it?

10 A. In a legal sense, this is not an order.

11 Q. Well, in a practical sense is it an order?

12 A. In a practical sense, it is an information about a previously

13 passed decision, as I said, because there may be a need for these 50

14 police officers to receive deployment decisions. Therefore, the

15 responsible persons will have to prepare a proposal and to state which 50

16 police officers are in question. Here the minister does not list the name

17 of the persons. He just speaks of the need of transfer of 50 police

18 officers. Surely he himself could not himself know the number of people

19 who will be necessary to carry out a certain activity.

20 Q. But in order for that activity to be carried out, for the 50

21 policemen to be transferred, it was necessary for the minister himself

22 to -- to send out this order, wasn't it?

23 A. Not in that sense in which you are saying.

24 Q. Well, then, why would he need to send out the order in the first

25 place, Ms. Dorevska? If it was a previously passed decision and the

1 commander of the -- of these policemen knew about this decision, why would

2 the minister himself need to send this out?

3 A. If I had prepared this document, then I could give you a decisive

4 answer on this question. However, we are speaking about a document

5 prepared by someone else. I told you my opinion and my viewpoint on this.

6 Q. But it plainly says, you would agree, Ms. Dorevska, that what the

7 minister is saying that in order to undertake security measures in the

8 area, replacement of police forces is necessary. And it plainly says that

9 50 policemen with their officer in charge, be transferred to the military

10 barracks. That's what he's instructing, isn't he?

11 A. This is correct. It is written clearly and then the activity is

12 so transferred to Mr. Sapalovski Mitko as it is written here. This is

13 something given to a person which he has to carry out now, something which

14 has previously been reached in the form of a decision.

15 Q. And in order for that decision to be carried out, the minister had

16 to send out this instruction, didn't he?

17 A. Yes. Looking at this document now, there's another matter which I

18 have noted. The sector of finances, another common affairs was under the

19 direct command of the minister. Perhaps this is the reason due to which

20 the minister signed this document, because the director of the bureau for

21 public security could not issue such a request to the sector of finance,

22 because he was not authorised to do so. Since we have three

23 organisational units in question here, I can see the only logic in this.

24 Q. So without the Minister's involvement and his instruction to these

25 sectors, is what you`re saying, then this order could not have passed. Is

1 that right?

2 A. Surely it could be carried out, but with one document we have

3 three organisational units which are differently positioned or encompassed

4 in this way. And I believe it was felt this was the most efficient way to

5 carry out what had been previously decided upon.

6 Q. How do you know, Ms. Dorevska, that the decision was previously

7 made? You've said that several times. How do you know that?

8 A. I can only assume because the minister cannot know the number of

9 police officers that are necessary to be transferred from one to another

10 work post.

11 Q. So you're assuming that on the basis of the information that the

12 minister was given this information. Is that what you're saying?

13 A. Yes, on the basis of the document which I am reading.

14 Q. You mentioned, Ms. Dorevska, that this order surely could be

15 carried out but with one document you have three organisational units

16 which are differently positioned or encompassed in this way, and the

17 minister has the authority to direct these organisational units, that, as

18 you point out, are referred to at the top of this document, right?

19 A. Yes. In a way, this is not an order. You always are saying the

20 same thing, that it is an order and I claim that it is not an order. It

21 is merely information and this is not management in question. We are --

22 we can see at the top of the documents that the minister is expressing a

23 need for the transfer of police officers to the sector of internal affairs

24 Kocani. The second part pertains to finances which is also very

25 important. And in this case only the minister can act on this, because no

1 one else can indicate anything to this sector.

2 Q. Without the minister's action then, is what you're saying,

3 Ms. Dorevska, then this decision would not have been carried out, would

4 it?

5 A. I believe that it would have been carried out, but that it would

6 have been necessary to have more documents and to have various people sign

7 these documents: One by the director of the public security and one by

8 the minister. I believe the assessment was with this one document it was

9 most efficient and the best way to carry out this.

10 Q. When you receive information of this nature, Ms. Dorevska, for

11 example, that is stated in this document, when you received it from your

12 superior, would you act on it?

13 A. I would act on it if it is within my authority to do so.

14 Q. Well, assuming it is within your authority to do so and your

15 superior gave you what you refer to here as information, then you would

16 act on it, wouldn't you?

17 A. I would act on it, yes.

18 Q. You also mentioned several times that you felt -- you think that

19 this is -- this telegram is perhaps the most efficient way of sending or

20 carrying out the decision. Why was it necessary in 2001 to act most

21 efficiently?

22 A. Because of the situation in which the country was found.

23 Q. So you're saying it was because of the complex security situation

24 that things had to be done perhaps much more quickly, more rapidly and

25 more flexibly?

1 A. Can it be otherwise in a situation such as we had in 2001?

2 Q. I'd like to move on to another topic.

3 Ms. Dorevska, you mentioned that, and obviously you knew

4 Minister Boskoski, you worked with him for some time, right?

5 A. Not for a very long period of time.

6 Q. But, nevertheless, you did work for him. He was your superior,

7 was he not?

8 A. Of course.

9 Q. Did Minister Boskoski know what his obligations and

10 responsibilities were as minister?

11 A. I think that he did know.

12 Q. Did he understand what his duties and obligations were, what his

13 authority was within the hierarchy or the chain of command within the

14 ministry?

15 A. I believe that this is a rather personal question that would deal

16 with Mr. Boskoski, to what extent he did or did not know about certain

17 issues. I couldn't really answer this question.

18 Q. Well, Ms. Dorevska, you have been telling us several times

19 throughout your testimony that you didn't think Minister Boskoski would do

20 certain -- would take certain actions or would do certain things. So it

21 appears that you -- you do know Minister Boskoski and his attitude and

22 his -- his understanding of what his duties are. Don't you?

23 A. That is right. I did mention this, but I connected it with my

24 work, and I know how he acted with regards to the matters that were within

25 the remit of my sector. He would ask whether something is viable or not

1 whether something can be done or it is something that cannot be done and

2 from this, I can draw the conclusion that he acted in the same way with

3 the heads of the other departments.

4 Q. So you're saying that you don't know what Minister Boskoski, what

5 activities and what -- what he's done outside of the remits of your

6 sector, right?

7 A. The things I haven't seen or heard, with regards to those, I can't

8 deny or otherwise.

9 Q. Did Minister Boskoski understand how much power and authority he

10 had to issue tasks to people within the ministry, as far as you're aware?

11 A. I believe that the word "power," "mokj," is a rather broad notion.

12 Mr. Boskoski knew what his duties were with regards to the employees and

13 the exercise of their rights.

14 Q. I'd like you to turn to tab 26 in the binder, please.

15 MS. ISSA: That's Exhibit 402, for the record.

16 Q. Did you know, Ms. Dorevska, that Minister Boskoski wrote a book

17 titled My Battle for Macedonia regarding his activities and the conflict

18 in 2001?

19 A. I've heard about it.

20 Q. Have you read this book?

21 A. No.

22 Q. I'd like you to turn to page 12, please.

23 MS. ISSA: And that is, for e-court purposes, N000-9618. I think

24 that's the Macedonian version, N000-9618.

25 Q. Do you have that there?

1 A. Yes, this is most probably it. Page 20.

2 Q. Page 12.

3 MS. ISSA: Perhaps if I can just ask Madam Registrar to assist to

4 find the page. It`s the page that corresponds to N000-9618 in the English

5 version.

6 Q. Perhaps I'll just read it out. From the bottom of page 12,

7 Minister Boskoski writes --

8 A. I apologise, but it reads here page 20. I can't really follow

9 what you're reading.

10 MS. ISSA: One moment, please.

11 [Prosecution counsel confer]

12 JUDGE PARKER: Just to add to your troubles, none of the Judges

13 have any of these pages.

14 MS. ISSA: Well, I apologise for that, Your Honours. I thought

15 those pages would make it into the binder. Apparently they haven't. But

16 hopefully we'll try and find them on e-court momentarily. If I might have

17 the Court's indulgence for a moment, please.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Would it be practical to have a break now and you

19 can find the pages and sort out the issue during the break?

20 MS. ISSA: Yes, Your Honour, perhaps that would be best.

21 JUDGE PARKER: We will do that and we will resume at five minutes

22 to 6.00.

23 --- Recess taken at 5.25 p.m.

24 --- On resuming at 5.55 p.m.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Issa.

1 MS. ISSA: Thank you for the indulgence, Your Honours.

2 Your Honours, if I might just begin by distributing the English

3 versions of P402 to Your Honours so that you now have it to add to your

4 binders. I apologise that it wasn't in there to begin with.

5 JUDGE THELIN: That's what we needed.

6 MS. ISSA:

7 Q. Now, Ms. Dorevska, I'd like to you to turn to your page number

8 N000-9618, and in the hard copy it would be page 12 -- rather, page 20.

9 And in the English version, it's page 12.

10 Now, this is how Minister Boskoski, and I'd like you to draw your

11 attention to the paragraph begins with: "From the manager post in the

12 office for security and counter-intelligence."

13 Do you see that?

14 A. No, I don't see it here. It is N000-9618 is the Macedonian

15 version.

16 Q. I'd like you to look at page 20 specifically, Ms. Dorevska.

17 A. Yes. This is now page 20.

18 Q. And do you see the paragraph that begins: "From the manager post

19 in the office for security and counter-intelligence."

20 A. Yes, I see it.

21 Q. All right. And that says: "From the manager post in the office

22 for security and counter-intelligence, I was promoted to the state

23 secretary at the Ministry of Interior. In that position, in the strictly

24 established police hierarchy, the obligations and responsibilities were

25 also bigger. The state escalated and the circumstances led to a

1 government reconstruction, where I was appointed minister of interior."

2 Do you see that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And then he continues, and he says: "The prime minister, who, on

5 several occasions publicly demanded a proclamation of a state of martial

6 law in the country in order to quickly, efficiently and professionally put

7 an end to the intruders, to which demand the president of the country did

8 not react, wanted a more sophisticated action in that situation by the

9 Macedonian security forces, which greatly depended on the MOI top

10 management."

11 Do you see that?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Wasn't the structure in the ministry exactly how Minister Boskoski

14 described it there, that there was a strict hierarchy within the ministry

15 and with the minister on the top of that hierarchy, and that the action by

16 Macedonian security forces depended on the MOI top management?

17 A. Of course. As a political figure and as someone who needs to

18 bring a strategic decision with regards -- or in accordance with the

19 government's position.

20 Q. I'd like you to then turn to your version of -- N000-9652 in the

21 Macedonian version, page 88; and in the English version, it's page 41 in

22 the hard copy. And the ERN number for the English is 9647.

23 Now, I draw your attention to about the middle of the page where

24 the paragraph begins with: "The talks were open and it was possible to

25 speak of all the problems faced by the citizens."

1 Do you see that?

2 A. Yes, I see it.

3 Q. And in about the middle of that paragraph it says: "I agreed to

4 meet them because I knew very well the problems they had and their fierce

5 pain, both in the soul and in heart. Being the minister of defence," and

6 I think that is an incorrect interpretation, should say the minister of

7 the interior, "I promised that the Macedonian security forces would do all

8 they're authorised to expel the terrorists from the occupied villages or

9 eliminate them."

10 Do you see that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. So Minister Boskoski saw himself as having sufficient power to do

13 everything in order -- to do everything he could to instruct or task the

14 security forces to expel the terrorists from the occupied villages. Is

15 that right?

16 A. It reads here precisely, everything within their power or within

17 their competences. This means everything within their competences and the

18 law, nothing more than that.

19 Q. Well, then I'd ask you to turn to N000-9644, page 72 in the

20 Macedonian version; and N000-9641, page 35 in the English version. And if

21 you look at the very bottom --

22 A. I apologise, I see only the English version. Page 72, yes, it's

23 fine now.

24 Q. Okay. Now, if you look at the very bottom of that page,

25 Ms. Dorevska, starting with the paragraph of: "I assure you there will be

1 no truce with terrorists."

2 Do you see that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And about the middle of that page it says: "Being the head of the

5 Ministry of Interior, I can guarantee the future of the state."

6 Do you see that?

7 A. No, I can't find it. Is it on the same page, on page 72?

8 Q. I believe it is, Ms. Dorevska. It should be in the middle of the

9 paragraph that begins: "I assure you will there will be no truce with

10 terrorists."

11 Do you see it now?

12 A. Yes, now I see it. It is in another page.

13 Q. All right. So it says: "Being the head of the Ministry of

14 Interior, I can guarantee the future of the state."

15 Is that how much power Minister Boskoski saw, or believed he had,

16 as far as you were aware?

17 A. I don't think that he thought he had the -- so great a power. I

18 believe that he said that he would invest all efforts to resolve the

19 situation in the state.

20 Q. Ms. Dorevska, at the outset of your testimony you said that you

21 didn't believe that Minister Boskoski went out in the field. Do you

22 remember that?

23 A. Yes. I said it, but maybe he went to the field to support the

24 people who were there. It is his duty to see where the police officers

25 are, to see whether they feel any needs and to also give them moral

1 support.

2 Q. Well, as minister of the interior who is -- who is, as you say,

3 following the law and -- and making decisions and taking activities within

4 his authority, is going out into the field with police during the course

5 of police operations or battles within the competencies of his -- his

6 competencies as minister?

7 A. I didn't say at all that I was aware of a situation where the

8 minister went to the field to participate in a police action. I said it

9 is possible that he had gone to field where police officers were stationed

10 during some period of time, to give them moral support, taking care about

11 their rights and obligations. Maybe they had certain needs that they

12 wanted to state to the minister. So within the scope of his competencies

13 he would work on improving the conditions of these people.

14 Q. And how -- why is it then at the very outset you said that you

15 believed he wouldn't have gone out or he didn't go out into the field?

16 A. You asked me whether he went into the field in terms of police

17 action, and I believe that the minister never participated in a police

18 action, this minister nor any other minister. But to go

19 to the field, to visit the people, that he is in a way the senior officer,

20 I believe that he has done that and I don't think that would be illegal.

21 Q. And where does say in the law, in the black letter law that can he

22 go out into the field?

23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise, but

24 there seems to be an error in line 21. Because he said that he never

25 participated in police stations whereas the -- what the witness said is in

1 police action, actions. So it should be actions, not station.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

3 MS. ISSA:

4 Q. Perhaps I can just repeat my question, Ms. Dorevska.

5 Where does it say in the black letter law that the minister can go

6 out into the field?

7 A. The black letter law never states that the minister can go to the

8 field but when we're speaking to the field we're referring to a broader

9 sense of that term. If a situation takes place or if a police action

10 takes place or there is an action where police officers are wounded or

11 have been killed, it is the moral duty of the minister to go visit them,

12 to see if there is any need to take certain action with regards to their

13 rights.

14 Q. Well, where does the law say that, that it is the moral duty of

15 the minister to go out and visit persons in the field to determine whether

16 they -- he can take certain actions with regards to their rights?

17 A. In my experience, I don't remember reading in a law ever a

18 provision speaking about the moral duties of a person.

19 Q. Are you suggesting then, Ms. Dorevska, that Minister Boskoski, if

20 he feels he has moral duty to take a certain action, then he simply can do

21 so with respect to matters that relate to the ministry without it being

22 expressly stated in the black letter law?

23 A. If it is a moral obligation and the rights of the people that he

24 is superior of, then certainly, yes. I'm not referring to the

25 Minister Boskoski only. I'm speaking about any minister. If such huge

1 situation takes place, or police actions, as they are carried even now, it

2 is the obligation, moral obligation of the minister to go and see what is

3 happening.

4 Q. What other kinds of obligations are there that are not covered by

5 the law, Ms. Dorevska?

6 A. I don't know such obligations. I'm speaking from a moral

7 standpoint.

8 Q. Well, what kind of moral obligations exist that wouldn't be

9 covered by the black letter law that the minister can -- can do or can

10 take decisions regarding.

11 A. I don't know about such obligations, but I do know that the

12 minister is morally responsible to visit the persons he heads at the time

13 when people of security forces are being killed and when persons -- and

14 these people may have certain needs regarding their rights within the

15 ministry and when, for a long time, they're at a given period or a given

16 place on the ground.

17 Q. Well, although what you're saying is not in the law, is it? You

18 believe that he has the right, the moral obligation to go out and visit

19 people in the field, although that is not the law, is it?

20 A. Yes. I believe when people resign due to moral reasons this is

21 not expressly stated in the law, but they feel that they will take on

22 their responsibility in this way, by undertaking the step of moral

23 responsibility.

24 Q. So can the minister determine what moral responsibility or

25 obligation he has and take a decision or perhaps issue an order as a

1 result of that moral responsibility?

2 A. The minister can go and visit police officers and the police

3 officers can give their comments about their engagement. Perhaps they

4 require additional food or they have other rights that need to be met and

5 this is an obligation on the part of the minister and then to try to

6 improve the conditions in which these people are in, but we must

7 differentiate between morality and obligation provided for by law, and I

8 think this is a very clear situation.

9 Q. But do all ministers have the same beliefs or the same -- what

10 they view as their moral obligations?

11 A. I believe all ministers, and I have worked with five ministers up

12 until now, there have been various situations and there has always been

13 this type of visits in circumstances which entailed larger events.

14 Q. Well, apart from the visits, what other moral obligations would a

15 minister have that would not be described in the law?

16 A. A visit in itself is not a moral obligation. A moral obligation

17 of the minister is to see what is happening with his people on the ground.

18 Q. And what other kinds of things can a minister do that are not

19 described in the law?

20 A. He can only do what is prescribed by law.

21 Q. But you just told us he can go out into the field and give moral

22 support and find out if his troops need more food, et cetera, and that's

23 his moral obligation which is not described in the law. So I'm asking you

24 what other types of things can he do that are not described in the law?

25 A. In addition to this morality aspect which I'm speaking about, I

1 don't know of anything else. Do you think that the minister would sit in

2 his office and follow events on television? Of course, under certain

3 circumstances morality leads him to go and see what is happening with the

4 police officers.

5 Q. And morality may lead him to make certain decisions and perhaps be

6 a little more flexible than what is written in the black letter law.

7 Right?

8 A. No.

9 Q. And Minister Boskoski, as you just pointed out, didn't just sit in

10 his office and watch television, did he?

11 A. I don't know, and I cannot respond to this question.

12 Q. Okay. So you`re saying you're not aware of his activities?

13 A. I don't know.

14 Q. I'd like you to turn to page 23 in the English version; page 46 in

15 the Macedonian; N000-9631 of P402.

16 Now, if I can ask you, Ms. Dorevska, to look at the paragraph that

17 begins with the words: "I immediately set off for Tetovo."

18 Do you see that?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And it says: "I immediately set off for Tetovo. I wanted to

21 acquaint myself with the situation on the very spot. This became a

22 regular practice for me, because I am a man who wants to observe the

23 situation up close, and the security situation in the Republic of

24 Macedonia at that time demanded that I be always with the Macedonian

25 defenders in the field, that is, in the immediate focus of events. There

1 where the hoots of bullets next to your own ears is a reality."

2 And then he talks about visiting Tetovo and in the following days:

3 "I visited the Lipkovo area. I was informed on the spot about everything

4 that was going on in the field."

5 Do you see that?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Doesn't that mean that Minister Boskoski was going out into the

8 field on a regular basis and getting his information outside of the

9 collegiums that you had described earlier?

10 A. These are sentences of a book which reflect a situation at a given

11 period of time, and I am expected to interpret them as legal documents.

12 However, there is one sentence which states: "I was informed on the spot

13 about the situation." I think that is a self-explanatory sentence. As

14 for the whole paragraph, I will give you my same response. Why the

15 minister should not go in the ground where many police officers are

16 located and to see what the situation is with those people which he

17 manages and leads.

18 Q. You didn't really answer my question. When you say sentences --

19 these are sentences of a book which reflects a situation in a given period

20 of time. You have to interpret them as legal documents. I mean, this was

21 a book written by Minister Boskoski himself. Why do you have to interpret

22 his book as a legal document?

23 A. Because I'm a lawyer.

24 Q. Okay. But this isn't a legal document, is it?

25 A. That's exactly why I made my comment.

1 Q. Why would have you to interpret the book as a legal document?

2 You're not an expert, are you?

3 A. This is exactly so.

4 Q. When you say this is exactly so, you agree that you're not an

5 expert, are you?

6 A. Not an expert, of course.

7 Q. Now, Ms. Dorevska, if I ask you, then, to look towards the bottom

8 of that same paragraph and it says: "I came back there after a few days

9 together with the manager of the public safety bureau, Goran Mitevski. I

10 familiarised the press with the MOI measures for achieving the priority

11 concern for the civilian population." And then he says: "The Macedonian

12 army and police will establish the constitutional and legal system on

13 every inch of the Macedonian land for which we shall do everything that is

14 necessary."

15 Do you see that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Does that seem to you, Ms. Dorevska, the kind of minister who

18 wanted a director to work on his tasks independently or was he the kind of

19 minister that liked having control over the ministry and its activities?

20 A. The director of the bureau is independent in carrying out his

21 tasks and this is the usual situation where the minister and the director

22 go together to a place. Here journalists are also mentioned, and you know

23 that statements about a certain situation are always given by the

24 minister. He is accountable before the government, the journalist, and at

25 the request of the parliament. How else can he obtain such information

1 unless he visits the places where the police officers are located?

2 Q. Well, didn't you earlier tell us, Ms. Dorevska, that he obtained

3 his information at the collegiums through his advisors and the director

4 through these meetings at the collegiums? Isn't that how you said that

5 was how the minister would obtain his information?

6 A. Yes, this is correct. But for undertaking certain measures and

7 from these sentences which I have read, this is not undertaking police

8 measures on the ground but getting information about the -- the state of

9 affairs, about the situation itself.

10 Q. But you never mentioned earlier, Ms. Dorevska, that he went out

11 into the field to get his information from police -- police operations or

12 police persons on the ground, did you?

13 A. I could not have mentioned it because I do not know. It is for

14 the first time that I have read these sentences from the book. I am

15 giving my comments in a way which I think logically derives from what is

16 written here.

17 Q. So your basically surmising or speculating on the basis of what

18 you're reading in the book. Is that what you're saying?

19 A. I'm not speculating at all, but I'm making the difference between

20 operative authorisations of the minister and visits of the minister on the

21 ground to see people who are there for days, weeks months.

22 Q. When Minister Boskoski, Ms. Dorevska, gave statements on

23 television, the people in the Ministry of Interior saw them -- saw him as

24 their superior, didn't they?

25 A. Of course. He is their superior. He is the first man of the

1 ministry. This is listed on -- in the law for the organisation and work

2 of the bodies of the state administration.

3 Q. And when Minister Boskoski went to the ground, to police

4 operations on the ground, or the battles, do you think he simply absorbed

5 information and gave no instructions?

6 A. I don't know about a situation such as this. I believe he spoke

7 with the police officers from what I am able to read here and that he was

8 acquainted of the situations they were facing and what they need.

9 Q. But that wasn't the question I asked you. I asked you when

10 Minister Boskoski went to the ground to police operations, to visit the

11 police on the ground, do you think he simply absorbed information without

12 giving any instructions?

13 A. I cannot respond to this question at all, because I didn't know

14 and I do not know what happened when the minister visited those places as

15 it is written here.

16 Q. Did you respect Minister Boskoski, Ms. Dorevska?

17 A. Of course.

18 Q. Would you consider Minister Boskoski a responsible person,

19 responsible minister?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Do you believe he was responsible in carrying out his duties?

22 A. Yes. And he carried them through.

23 Q. Did he always respect and follow the rules of the ministry?

24 A. I believe you already asked me this question, and I told you that

25 where my area is concerned, I cannot claim with certainty about other

1 areas, but with my area, this was so.

2 Q. I'd like you to turn 65 ter 1076. And in your binder, tab 41,

3 please.

4 Now, if you look at the very top of that document, this is

5 Minister Boskoski's personnel or employment record with the ministry,

6 isn't it?

7 A. This is the first page of a case file. Cover page.

8 Q. And the cover page refers to Ljube Boskoski.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And it comes from the sector for legal and personnel matters, your

11 sector, right?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And I would ask you if you could turn - perhaps with the

14 assistance of Madam Usher - to N006-6243.

15 Now that's a decision that is signed by you. Is that right,

16 Ms. Dorevska? It's a document that's signed by you?

17 A. Yes, this is so.

18 Q. And it's dated the 20th of June, 2003.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And it's addressed to Ljube Boskoski with an address, right?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And it says that: "The decision that was brought by the Ministry

23 of Interior with which you were rewarded with a fire-arm is annulled with

24 this decision which is attached herein."

25 Do you see that? I know you're looking through the other pages,

1 Ms. Dorevska. I'm just asking if you could look at this one page first,

2 please.

3 A. Yes, yes, it's fine, I see it.

4 Q. If you look at about the middle of the page it says: "Regarding

5 the stated, you are called to return the mentioned award to the Ministry

6 of Interior in the municipality of Kisela Voda to the check-point for

7 weapons in the working hours ..."

8 Do you see that?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And then you say: "In case the award was alienated, you should

11 pay for it in its monetary value." And it gives the -- a bank account

12 number.

13 Do you see that?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. So you informed Minister Boskoski after he left the ministry to

16 return the weapon that he had been awarded, right, as part of your duties?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. Then if we turn to --

19 MS. ISSA: If I can ask the assistance of Madam Usher once again.

20 Thank you.

21 Q. To -- actually, I'll turn to the next page which is N006-6244.

22 And that is the decision of annulment, isn't it? And in that -- right?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And in that decision it says that Ljube Boskoski is obligated to

25 return the given award in a period of 15 days from the day of the

1 decision, right?

2 A. This is right.

3 Q. And in the explanation below that it refers to Article 71 from the

4 Law on Internal Affairs, right?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And then, once again, it -- at the bottom of the document, it says

7 that if -- if the award was alienated, then he is obliged to pay the

8 monetary value for it, doesn't it?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And it's signed by Minister Hari Kostov, right?

11 A. This is right.

12 Q. And then if we turn to the following page, which is N006-6245,

13 it's dated 21st of August, 2003. It's a delivery note, right?

14 A. This is right.

15 Q. At the very bottom of the delivery note it says: "On 18 November,

16 2003, at 1700 hours, we met with Ljube Boskoski in front of the entrance

17 of his house on Georgi Skrizevski Street, number 23D, and after the named

18 person read the decision and comprehended its contents, he rejected to

19 receive it, the decision, and to sign up the delivery note."

20 Do you see that?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Then we see -- if you turn to N006-6250, or zero, I think you may

23 be able to see it on your screen, you see that that is another delivery

24 note that was dated 20th of August, 2003. Do you see that?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. And, once again, it says that the person rejected the receipt of

2 the decision, doesn't it?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And if I can then ask you to finally turn to N006-6242 --

5 MS. ISSA: Perhaps with the assistance of Madam Usher.

6 Q. Now, this is a letter from a commander of the police station

7 Centar, dated 25 November 2003, addressed to the Ministry of Interior,

8 sector for legal and personnel matters, which is your sector, right? And

9 it says that: "Attached to this file are the decisions concerning

10 Ljube Boskoski from Skopje. And we would like to send back to you and

11 would like to inform you that the named person, after reading these

12 decisions refused to receive them and said the following, to send them

13 back to the one who issued them to Hari Kostov."

14 Do you see that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. So, Ms. Dorevska, when Minister Boskoski left the ministry, he was

17 repeatedly asked to return the property of the ministry and he refused,

18 right?

19 A. This was not property of the ministry. This was a monetary award

20 and the minister, just as the other employees, received it on the basis on

21 Article 71 of the Law on Internal Affairs.

22 Q. Nevertheless, it was decision requiring him, obligating him to

23 return this monetary award after he left the ministry, right?

24 A. Yes. But I don't see anything illogical in the fact that he

25 rejected to sign the delivery note. The administrative procedure lists

1 the overall procedure of how an act is delivered and the person has the

2 right to reject to accept such a delivery note. Then it is stated how

3 this document can be submitted in a different manner.

4 What happened with the decision further on, I really do not know.

5 Q. Well, he didn't just reject to sign the delivery note,

6 Ms. Dorevska, as we saw in that last document he said to send them back to

7 the one who issued them, to Hari Kostov, didn't he?

8 A. It is true. This is what is written.

9 Q. So he refused to return the weapon that he was obligated to

10 return, didn't he?

11 A. He had the obligation on the basis of the decision annulling this,

12 but he received that pistol in a legal procedure and most probably his

13 assessment was that what the minister that followed did was not proper.

14 Q. My question to you was that he refused to follow his obligations.

15 He refused to return the weapon that he was obligated to return, right?

16 A. He refused to receive the decision annulling it.

17 Q. Well, do you know for a fact that he returned the weapon as he was

18 required?

19 A. No, I can't confirm that fact.

20 Q. And we just saw, Ms. Dorevska, that those decisions or the

21 delivery notes were sent to him back in August, right?

22 A. If this what is written here, then, yes.

23 Q. Well, we just looked at that. We just looked at those documents,

24 the delivery notes were sent to him in August, weren't they?

25 A. From the document I see here in front of me, I can see the date,

1 25th of November, 2003.

2 Q. That's the document, Ms. Dorevska, where the commander of the

3 police station Centar is informing the Ministry of Interior that

4 Ljube Boskoski refused to receive the decisions and to send them back to

5 the one who issued them, to Hari Kostov, right?

6 A. Yes. I saw the document now, the receipt note and this is in

7 August 2003.

8 Q. So if he had agreed to return the weapons, Ms. Dorevska, why would

9 it have been necessary for the commander of the police station Centar, two

10 months later in November to inform the Ministry of Interior that

11 Ljube Boskoski had not done so?

12 A. We're speaking again about the same notice. He never received the

13 decision. He refused to receive the decision. And the staff that were

14 serving the decision through the legally prescribed legal procedure, they

15 had the possibility to secure the service. Until someone has received the

16 decision, they could not receive it in a legal way, they could not really

17 follow the obligations that ensue from it.

18 Q. So by refusing to receive the decision, he was acting outside the

19 law, wasn't he?

20 A. No. The law provides obligation -- provisions on how the decision

21 can be served, in case the recipient refuses to receive it. Obviously the

22 police station commander did not know how to do it.

23 Q. Are you suggesting, Ms. Dorevska, that anyone in the ministry can

24 simply refuse to receive a decision and then that they would not be

25 obligated to follow that decision by the simple refusal of not receiving

1 it?

2 A. I think that you did not understand what I was saying. He has the

3 right to refuse the signing of the decision but there is a procedure that

4 then the services can follow and still serve the decision although it was

5 refused. I can't see that this procedure was followed here.

6 Q. According to the decision, however, Ms. Dorevska, he was obligated

7 and did not have the right to refuse to return the weapon, wasn't he?

8 A. I think that I repeated several times. He has the right to refuse

9 to sign the decision if he disagrees with it.

10 Q. And does he have the right to not return the weapon because he

11 didn't sign the decision?

12 A. If he has not been served the decision through the proper

13 procedure, then there is nothing on the basis of which he should act.

14 Q. Are you seriously suggesting, Ms. Dorevska, that he can simply

15 circumvent the rules and the -- his obligations by a mere refusal of

16 accepting a delivery note? Is that what you're saying?

17 A. No. I just wish to say that this is the usual procedure in the

18 ministry, and in all ministries in general. That people simply do not

19 want to sign the documents that they are served.

20 However, there are mechanisms, legally prescribed that need to be

21 followed and then the person is served the document as the law provides.

22 From this, I can see that he refused to sign the decision, which means

23 that he never received the decision. And then the services whether they

24 made efforts or failed to make efforts to follow their legal duties and

25 find a way to serve the decision, I can't comment on that.

1 Q. Well, clearly, they made efforts at least twice, didn't they?

2 A. Yes. But they needed to try also the way that is expressly

3 provided in the law. The law expressly provides the procedure when

4 somebody refuses to be served the decision.

5 Q. Ms. Dorevska, can a legal system function if citizens simply

6 refuse to receive decisions?

7 A. This is why the legal system, this is why the law has foreseen

8 such situations and regulated those, expressly and clearly. And there is

9 always a possibility to serve certain decision through the appropriate

10 procedure.

11 Q. What if the person continues to refuse despite the procedure?

12 A. I told you that this was expressly stated in the law on general

13 administrative procedure. Another attempt is made, the decision is left

14 at the door, the note is taken of the date when the note was or decision

15 was left at the door, and a conclusion is made that the service has been

16 made properly through this procedure.

17 Q. So once a decision is left at the door, then, then he would be --

18 at that point you're saying he would be obligated to return the weapon?

19 A. The moment of service is indicated in the receipt note respecting

20 the provisions of the law on general administrative procedure that I

21 mentioned. I can't clearly quote them now because I don't have the law in

22 front of me now.

23 MS. ISSA: I'd like to move on to another topic.

24 I'd like to now refer to a video P437, 65 ter 988, please.

25 [Videotape played]

1 MS. ISSA:

2 Q. Did you see that?

3 A. Of course.

4 Q. Ms. Dorevska, isn't Minister Boskoski taking responsibility as the

5 person at the very top of the hierarchy in the ministry regarding a matter

6 that took place on the ground? Doesn't he say here that, You know that

7 the minister of the interior never hides away from responsibility and if

8 those who were present at the exercise, that somebody was responsible and

9 I will take that because I am the commander of the Macedonian police, and

10 as minister, I am most accountable.

11 Isn't that what he says?

12 A. I believe that he did not say he was the commander of the

13 Macedonian police. I believe he said he was in command of Macedonian

14 police. This is an unfortunate incident that took place and I believe

15 that the statement of the minister was given immediately afterwards. I

16 believe that he was emotionally upset at that time and he his idea was to

17 protect people around him, his duty was to do everything to secure the

18 area where the event was taking place.

19 Q. And how is it that you -- on what basis do you say that he said

20 this or he was emotionally upset at the time and it was his idea to

21 protect the people at the time. On what basis do you say that?

22 A. I base this on the fact that we were all witnesses to this through

23 the TV. And very soon after this unfortunate incident where people were

24 killed, the minister gave his statement to the media; and obviously he

25 assumes the entire responsibility personally, although the responsibility

1 perhaps should have been sought elsewhere.

2 Q. But no one was killed in this instance, were they?

3 A. There were individuals seriously injured.

4 Q. Okay. And when he says he is in command of the Macedonian police,

5 he is taking responsibility for the police operations on the ground, isn't

6 he?

7 A. As far as I know, that was a drill or something, where the

8 minister, I suppose, stated his wish to participate. And the word

9 "command" in this context I understand exclusively within his legal

10 competences of managing the Ministry of Interior.

11 Q. So as the person who is the manager of the Ministry of Interior,

12 he is the highest in the hierarchy of the Ministry of Interior in that

13 chain of command. Isn't that right?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Well, you just said that in the context of using the word

16 "command" it means in the legal context that he was managing the Ministry

17 of Interior. Doesn't that refer to the hierarchy within the ministry?

18 A. There is a difference between managing and commanding.

19 Q. Well, according to Minister Boskoski, in his view, in his mind, he

20 had the legal competence to command the Macedonian police. Isn't that

21 what he's saying?

22 A. I will repeat: That was a statement in a perturbed moment, five

23 minutes after an unfortunate incident and the minister was giving a

24 statement to the media. I can't believe you can attach interpretation to

25 each and every word and not in the way that you wish to attach it to now.

1 Q. Wasn't he then saying that he was in charge of the Macedonian

2 police, as the minister?

3 A. The Minister is managing the Ministry of Interior. I believe that

4 this is indisputable.

5 Q. And as the person -- minister who manages the Ministry of

6 Interior, he is in charge of the ministry, which includes the police,

7 right?

8 A. Of course.

9 Q. Thank you.

10 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I take note of the time, and I do have a

11 little bit more to cover and I don't think I can cover it in the next two

12 minutes.

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE PARKER: What time would you estimate at this point that you

15 will need tomorrow?

16 MS. ISSA: Your Honour, I believe I should finish within the first

17 session.

18 JUDGE PARKER: I thought you said you had a little more to go.

19 MS. ISSA: I'm trying to be conservative, Your Honour. I'm hoping

20 that I'll finish well before the end of the first session, but I don't

21 wish to mis-estimate the time at this stage. Perhaps 45 minutes to an

22 hour.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE PARKER: We will adjourn for the evening. We resume

25 tomorrow at 2.15.

1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.57 p.m.,

2 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 19th day of

3 February, 2008 at 2.15 p.m.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25