1 Tuesday, 18 March 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.15 p.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon.
7 Good afternoon, sir. Would you please stand and read aloud the
8 affirmation that is shown to you now.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
10 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
11 WITNESS: IGOR DIMOVSKI
12 [Witness answered through interpreter]
13 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Please sit down.
14 Mr. Apostolski.
15 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
16 Examination by Mr. Apostolski:
17 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Witness Igor Dimovski.
18 A. Good afternoon.
19 Q. My name is Antonio Apostolski. Together with my colleague
20 Jasmina Zivkovic we are appear for the Defence of Mr. Johan Tarculovski.
21 We have met before, but I wish to introduce myself to you officially.
22 I wish to issue a caution to you. You and I both speak the same
23 language and we can understand one another easily. However, I would like
24 to ask you to wait for my questions and your answers to be interpreted
25 into several languages so that everybody in the courtroom is able to
1 follow what we're discussing.
2 Did you understand this?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do you remember that you have given two statements to the Defence
5 team of Mr. Johan Tarculovski?
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be
8 shown 2D698, 65 ter number 2D698, pages 4, 5, 6, and 7. The English
9 document is 2D07-0045.
10 Q. Is this your statement, the first one that you have given us?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Could the next page be shown to
13 the witness, please.
14 Could we move the Macedonian version a bit further up? And still
15 a bit further.
16 Q. Is this your signature here in the statement?
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Could we show the next page now,
19 please. The English version is 2D07-0061.
20 Q. Is this the second statement you have given to the Defence team?
21 A. Yes.
22 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Could we show the next page now,
24 Q. Is this the second statement that you gave us?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Thank you. Do you remember that the Court has sent an officer to
2 certify your statements?
3 A. Yes, I recall that.
4 Q. And these two statements were certified?
5 A. Yes, correctly.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I seek to tender
8 these two statements pursuant to Rule 92 bis in evidence.
9 JUDGE PARKER: The two statements will be received pursuant to
10 Rule 92 bis.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Rule 92 bis package with both statements will
12 become Exhibit 2D110, Your Honours.
13 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be
14 shown 65 ter 2D677. Could we please now show the next page.
15 Could we please now show the next page of this document.
16 Q. Is this a request that have you seen before?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Have you responded to this RFI of the Defence?
19 A. Yes, this is the request to which we have provided an answer.
20 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Could we please show the witness
21 the next page now.
22 Q. Is this the document which is the response to the request for
23 assistance made by the Tarculovski's Defence?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Was this document produced by you?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I seek to tender
4 into evidence this document that the witness recognised.
5 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
6 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 2D111, Your Honours.
7 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Mr. Dimovski, I have just one further question for you, and it
9 is, do you remember that ten days ago the Defence of
10 Mr. Johan Tarculovski has already requested you to run a query on entry
11 and exit of the -- into the Republic of Macedonia on the person
12 Franz-Josef Hutsch for July 2001.
13 A. Yes, this is correct.
14 Q. Did you run this query and what were the results of it?
15 A. I ran this query and in July 2001 there were no results of that.
16 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further
17 questions for this witness.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much.
19 Ms. Residovic, is there any ...
20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no questions
21 of this witness. Thank you.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
23 Ms. Regue.
24 Cross-examination by Ms. Regue:
25 MS. REGUE: Your Honours, I -- we have some binders for Your
1 Honours, the witness, and the Defence counsel.
2 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Dimovski. My name is Meritxell Regue, and
3 I'm appearing on behalf of the Prosecution, and I will be asking some
4 questions this afternoon.
5 A. Good afternoon.
6 Q. Mr. Dimovski, according to your statement, you are actually
7 holding the position of chief of the department for systems and technical
8 support at the IT sector of the Ministry of Interior, right?
9 A. Yes, that is correct.
10 Q. You were actually redeployed or appointed to that specific post
11 in 2007. Correct?
12 A. No. It was not again. It was not that I was redeployed. I was
13 appointed of the head of that unit for the first time then. Before that,
14 I have never been the head to that unit. I was only an officer with that
16 Q. So in 2007 you were appointed the head of that unit.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. What are the daily tasks that you perform as chief of your
19 department. Basically what do you do in a normal day of work?
20 A. That unit, as the name itself speaks, cares about the systemic
21 and technical support to all systems computer systems that are used in
22 the ministry, starting with maintenance of the network, maintenance of
23 servers and similar tasks. As a head, my task is to organise all those
24 things and coordinate them.
25 Q. So I take from your answer that have you never been working as an
1 officer at any of the border crossings in Macedonia or at the airport in
2 Skopje, right?
3 A. No, I have never worked there.
4 Q. Mr. Dimovski, you must be aware that the Blace border cross is
5 the border crossing that connects Kosovo with Macedonia, right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you must be aware that nowadays but also back in 2001 there
8 is a KFOR by-pass just near to this border crossing and actually through
9 this check-point KFOR and NATO personnel are allowed to cross the border
10 freely without having to show the passport and have their data recorded.
12 A. I have to say that I am not aware of this.
13 Q. And are you aware, perhaps, that sometimes together with these
14 KFOR or NATO personnel who are crossing this KFOR by-pass, diplomates or
15 journalists accompany them and of course their passports are not checked
16 or recorded either?
17 A. I am not aware of that.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski.
19 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] I apologise for interrupting.
20 But I wish to mention that the witness has answered this question
21 already, so I believe that the second question was unnecessary. But the
22 witness answered it already so now my point is moot.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
24 Carry on, please, Ms. Regue.
25 MS. REGUE:
1 Q. Mr. Dimovski, going back to your sector, in addition to compiling
2 data concerning the border crossing, meaning entries and departures, are
3 you also compiling date from other sectors? For example, immigration
4 matters or illegal trafficking?
5 A. We do not process them in our unit. They're processed -- my unit
6 specifically processes the queries related to border crossing points.
7 Within the sector, there is another unit which performs similar tasks for
8 other users.
9 Q. And, Mr. Dimovski, the computer system to record the entries into
10 Macedonia that you are using nowadays is basically the same that it was
11 used back in 2001, right?
12 A. Yes. For the most part, it is the same. In the last year, there
13 has been a new system introduced at several border crossing points.
14 Q. But basically the system, the computer system which the officers
15 who are working at the border crossings, introduce the data upon checking
16 the passport, this computer system is more or less the same, didn't
18 A. With regards to the new system, I -- I can't tell you much
19 because it is outside of the competence of our unit and our sector. But
20 with regards to the other border crossing points where the old system, if
21 I may call it so, is used, the work is done in the same fashion as in
23 So just for your information, the new system is something I'm not
24 familiar with, and simply it is outside of our remit. It has started
25 operating a year or so ago at several of the border crossing points.
1 Q. And, Mr. Dimovski, a person enter Macedonia back in 1999 or in
2 2000 and we ask you to check the records with regards to the entry of
3 that person, would you be able still to pull out that information right
4 now in your records?
5 A. Yes. All data that have ever been recorded in the computer
6 system are still kept and simply you can pull out this information.
7 Q. So well, basically my question is how long do you keep the data
8 that you introduce into the system?
9 A. We keep them from ever since we have kept such records. We have
10 never felt any need to erase any data, if this is what you are referring
11 to. Our task is to keep this data and take care that nothing happens to
12 them that is correct no data is lost.
13 Q. Now let me see if I understand correctly how the system work back
14 in 2001 and works nowadays with regards to the border crossing.
15 If someone wants to enter Macedonia, for example through a border
16 crossing, the officer who is working at that check-point will ask the
17 passport of that person, and -- well, or in the airport they will ask the
18 passport for that person, and then the officer will stamp the passport
19 and will indicate basically the border crossing that that person is
20 actually crossing and also the date, right? Is there something else that
21 the officer will indicate in the stamp?
22 A. That is the procedure run by the border police. The stamping and
23 such things, I can't give you an answer about those specifically. But
24 what I can tell you is the -- about is the procedure after that, when the
25 data from the passport are entered into the computer system.
1 Q. Okay. So then the officer who is working at the border crossing
2 will take from the passport the name and will take also the passport
3 number and will either introduce it directly into the computer or will
4 write it down and later on introduce it into the computer system that
5 that border crossing has, right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And then all this information, meaning the name and the passport
8 number, will go into this general national-wide database that you are
9 actually managing. Correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So if we want to know whether a person actually entered
12 Macedonia, like Mr. Apostolski asked you, whether Mr. Franz-Josef Hutsch
13 simply giving the name of this person enter Macedonia in this month, you
14 are able to go into your data system just type the name of that person
15 and you are able to provide a report, a record, about the entries of that
16 person, just knowing the name of that person, right?
17 A. Yes. Name, last name, passport number, you can run any of these
18 parameters, run a query according to any of these and then get a result.
19 Q. But even giving you only the name you were actually able to
20 locate the whereabouts of Mr. Hutsch, right?
21 A. Yes. It is sufficient in any database you can search by any of
22 the entities and you have the parameters, sometimes even the last name is
23 sufficient. The methods only what would the quality of data that you
24 then get as a result of that query.
25 Q. Mr. Dimovski, is it possible that back in 2001 or even nowadays
1 an officer at the border allows someone in without introducing the data
2 into the system, simply by stamping the passport but not introducing the
3 data into the system?
4 A. As far as I know, the officer can't work like that. But I can't
5 give you a precise answer. This is within the jurisdiction of the border
6 police, their principle of work and how these people at the border
7 crossing points should operate.
8 Q. But you wouldn't disregard this possibility, right, because you
9 have never been working there, right?
10 A. As far as I know, it is not possible for them to work like that
11 because the basis of the system is to check up the persons, check them
12 against so-called black lists. This is the first thing that happens
13 within the system, and then they are recorded into the entry and exit
14 records. The officer who would work like that would fail to run the
15 checkup, and I believe it is their duty to do it. It would be a sort of
16 a violation.
17 Q. But is it possible that this person who is trying to cross the
18 border doesn't have the passport with him or her, he or she only has the
19 national ID or a valid driving licence, would he or she still allowed to
20 cross the border? Of course without having the data entered into your
22 A. I couldn't answer this. I don't know. I believe that it is
23 necessary to have a passport to enter or exit. But this is still within
24 the competence of the border police, those rules. How can someone cross
25 the border?
1 Q. But, Mr. Dimovski, would you agree with me that it is possible
2 that this officer who is working at the border crossing enters into the
3 computer a wrong name or he misses or he enters a wrong digit in the
4 passport number, right?
5 A. I believe that it is possible mistakes can be made by anyone.
6 Q. Is it possible that this information recorded once it is into the
7 system, gets somehow lost due to IT problems. Macedonia wouldn't be the
8 first country that has some sort of IT crash or problem, Mr. Dimovski.
9 Would that be a possibility?
10 A. It is not possible that something like this happens because our
11 task is to maintain the systems and to make them available 24/7. So this
12 is what we take care of, whatever problem occurs it is our duty to repair
13 it and to make it possible for the border police to use those systems.
14 Q. But imagine that some of these mistakes that I mention or some
15 omissions or even some IT problems occur, then when your department is
16 producing the report, would you agree with me that it may not be correct,
17 right, if mistakes have been done before by the border crossing officer?
18 A. I don't know what mistakes you're discussing.
19 Q. For example, if the person didn't enter the right name or the
20 right family name.
21 A. If an accidental mistake has been made when entering the data,
22 sometimes it is possible that a mistake is made, but specifically if I
23 may answer about this specific case, the results we received of the query
24 we did not run the full name and last name. We used the opportunity and
25 we ran a queries using several of the letters in the last name, in order
1 to receive better quality results having in mind the probability of such
2 problems occurring and avoiding some accidental mistakes that might have
3 happened in the system, because such mistakes can happen.
4 I specifically, when running the query related to this request, I
5 ran all possible combinations because it was not in indicated what was
6 the last name and what was the first name out of that string, so
7 specifically I'm speaking now about Franz-Josef Hutsch, in the request it
8 was indicated to run the query related to that person, and the query was
9 run with all possible combinations that might occur in this case,
10 since ...
11 Q. But, Mr. Dimovski, are you not telling me that your system is
12 basically perfect that you actually have in your computer database every
13 single person who entered and left Macedonia through all the border
14 crossings through the airport ever since you started implementing your
15 system. You're not telling me that, right?
16 A. I can tell you this, no system is ideal. What I can tell you is
17 that for all data that have ever been entered we have not had a single
18 problem, and it is our task to keep the data safe and this is what we do,
19 the data that have been entered at the actual border crossing points.
20 Otherwise I don't think that anyone can say that an ideal system exists.
21 Q. Mr. Dimovski, if you could please go to the tab 5 of your binder.
22 It will be 65 ter 1241.
23 What you are seeing --
24 MS. REGUE: And if we could go please to the second page.
25 Q. What you can seeing, Mr. Dimovski, is a passport from a person of
1 the United States of America. And if we could please focus a little bit
2 more on the passport.
3 This passport belongs to a gentleman named Daniel Saxon, who was
4 born on the 9th of November, 1958, and then if we look at the lower left
5 side of the screen you see his passport number.
6 Do you see that, Mr. Dimovski?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. His passport number starts with 712, just we can keep that in
10 MS. REGUE: And if we could go to page 8 of the binder.
11 Q. Mr. Dimovski, for you, you have to look for the page which has in
12 the upper right side the number N006-7955.
13 If you have any problem, we can ask the usher. Okay.
14 Mr. Dimovski, I would like you to focus on the stamp which is in
15 the centre a bit towards the left. Do you see a stamp which is dated the
16 13th of January, 2008. Actually just below it reads: "Dolna Blace," and
17 we see an arrow pointing towards the right side. Mr. Dimovski, this
18 stamp indicates that this person entered Macedonia through the Blace
19 border on the 13th of January, 2008, right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Do you know the number 51, what it stands for?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Now, Mr. Dimovski, if you could go do tab 11 of your binder, and
24 it will be 65 ter 1244.1.
25 And, Mr. Dimovski, if we ask to your department for a report
1 about the entries in Macedonia of this gentleman in January 2001 [sic] we
2 will indeed get a report indicating that Mr. Daniel Saxon entered the
3 13th of January 2008 through the Blace border, right?
4 A. I have to say that this border crossing at this time has this new
5 system, which I mentioned at the beginning, which is not under our
6 competency. Therefore, this information is not in this archive. The
7 situation at present is such that the border crossing Dolna Blace enters
8 the data into a different system.
9 Q. And who is managing this data?
10 A. This is a different sector in the ministry, part of the DBK.
11 Q. But would you agree with me that this sector still is trying to
12 keep the records as accurate as possible, right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So the normal -- the normal course of events it will be that if
15 we ask to this other sector to provide a report about the entries of
16 Mr. Saxon in Macedonia in January 2001 [sic], we will get a report
17 indicating that he indeed entered on the 13th of January, 2001 through
18 the Blace border, right?
19 A. Yes, this is how it should be.
20 Q. Mr. Dimovski, we ask to the department of --
21 MS. REGUE: I see my learned colleague on his feet.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski.
23 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] My apologies for interrupting
24 Your Honours, but I see on the transcript that my learned colleague is
25 misleading the witness and is asking about Mr. Saxon and his entrance
1 into 2001. Previously I would like also to object to another matter.
2 The witness is here to testify about events in 2001 and not 2008, which
3 is outside the framework of the events. Therefore, I don't see the
4 relevance of these questions.
5 JUDGE PARKER: The relevance is self-evident. If the system
6 fails on one occasion it may have failed at another. So that part is not
7 a matter that needs to be pursued.
8 But you did or you are recorded as saying 2001.
9 MS. REGUE: That was my mistake, Your Honour. I meant 13
10 January 2008.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Perhaps you might clarify with the
12 witness that he is dealing with 2008.
13 MS. REGUE: Thanks Your Honour.
14 Q. Mr. Dimovski, so basically if we ask to this other sector that
15 you have mentioned to provide a report about the entries of Mr. Dan Saxon
16 in January 2008 we will get a report indicating that this gentleman
17 entered on the 13th of January, 2008, through the Blace border. Correct?
18 A. Yes. But I would like to say once again that we're speaking
19 about 2008 when we have a new system at Dolno Blace. I would like to
20 emphasise this once again, a new system which is not under the competence
21 of our sector. I presume that if you were to submit a request to the
22 other sector which manages the system that you will also receive a
23 response from them.
24 Q. We did ask for such a request, Mr. Dimovski. On the 17th of
25 January we ask to the public safety bureau to provide us with a report
1 with the entries of Mr. Saxon for the past two weeks and he provided --
2 the department, excuse me, provided us with the report that you have in
3 tab 11. If you are so kind to look at the document. Maybe the hard copy
4 will be better because the computer screen is a bit fuzzy.
5 Do you see, Mr. Dimovski, that this report -- this report
6 indicates that the person Daniel Saxon with actually the same date of
7 birth that we saw in the passport, the 9th of November, 1958, and then we
8 actually see his passport number on the upper -- sorry in the lower left
9 side of the document. Do you see that, Mr. Dimovski?
10 A. Yes, I see a report. If you mean this one.
11 Q. Yes, I mean this one. And maybe you don't remember but the
12 passport, but the passport number we saw before it was exactly the same
13 passport that we can see displayed in the lower left side of the
14 document. Do you see that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And if we could -- if you could, please, go to the second page,
17 Mr. Dimovski. We see that indeed Mr. Daniel Saxon we see his date of
18 birth from the USA, and then we see that he arrived through the Blace
19 border, and then we can see under travel date on the right side that he
20 entered on the 13th of January, 2008.
21 Do you see that, Mr. Dimovski?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. So, Mr. Dimovski, if the system works correctly, that would be
24 the kind of report that we -- that you actually, your department or this
25 other department who deals with the same issues will produce, right?
1 A. I really could not say anything about the other system, any more
2 specific informations about this system. You're asking me about
3 something which I cannot respond about. This is a system which is, after
4 all, in a different sector, maintained by other people and so forth.
5 Q. But would you agree with me that in the passport we saw that this
6 person entered the country on the 13th of January and then we ask for a
7 report and then the report confirms that this person entered the country
8 on the 13th of January, 2008. Would you agree with that, that the data
9 in this report is accurate?
10 A. Yes, this is what I see in the binder.
11 Q. Okay. So basically this report is accurate, considering what we
12 saw in the passport, right?
13 A. As far as I can see, yes.
14 Q. Okay. Mr. Dimovski, if you could please go to tab 6, which is 65
15 ter 1242.
16 You see, Mr. Dimovski, another passport of another gentleman for
17 the Federal Republic of Germany. And if we could go to page 3 in the
18 e-court system.
19 Here -- and, yeah, if we could please focus in the lower part of
20 the passport.
21 Here, Mr. Dimovski, we see a passport of a gentleman named
22 Thomas Kuehnel and we see his date of birth, the 4th of June 1965 and
23 then also on the lower left side we see his passport which is 9235 -- the
24 first four digits will be 9235, just to remind us. You see that, right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. If you could go, please, to page 6 and, Mr. Dimovski, for you --
2 your page will have the ERN number N006-7944 in the upper right side.
3 And then if you focus, Mr. Dimovski, on the right side of the
4 passport, do you see exactly the same stamp that we saw in the previous
5 gentleman, we see a stamp indicating that this person entered on the 13th
6 of January, 2008 through the Blace border, from Kosovo, into Macedonia.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And -- so, Mr. Dimovski, could you please kindly turn to tab 12,
10 which is 65 ter 1244.2.
11 We also ask, Mr. Dimovski, for a report for a record about the
12 entry of this person. We ask for these report on the 17th of January,
13 2008, and we ask about the entries of this gentleman, Mr. Thomas Kuehnel,
14 in Macedonia for the last two weeks of January 2008. And we obtained
15 this report.
16 Would you agree with me that his name Kuehnel doesn't appear
17 under last name? We see here a gentleman named Thomas Kuehl.
18 A. Could you please refer me to the page that I should be looking
20 Q. Yes, at the first page of the report. We asked for -- we ask,
21 Mr. Dimovski, a report about the entries of Mr. Thomas Kuehnel in
22 January 2008 into Macedonia, and we were provided with this report. We
23 particularly ask on the 17th of January for the entries of
24 Mr. Thomas Kuehnel for the previous two weeks of January 2008. And we
25 were provided, we were given with this report.
1 I'm asking you to look at the family name, at the last name of
2 the gentleman. Would you agree with me that this is not
3 Mr. Thomas Kuehnel. This is a gentleman named Kuehl?
4 A. I cannot see the difference in pronunciation, I can just tell you
5 the letters which I see in front of you. I presume you're trying to tell
6 me that they're different than in the passport?
7 Q. Well, if we saw that the date of birth of Mr. Thomas Kuehnel was
8 the 4th of June, 1965 and we see that this gentleman was born on another
9 date, do you see that?
10 A. Yes. If you mean 28 of January 1965, this is the dad which I'm
12 Q. And then if we look at the passport number which is in the lower
13 part of the document, do you recall that we said that the first digits
14 were 9235? Do you see that this passport doesn't start with these
16 A. I see.
17 Q. And if we could please go to the following page. We see,
18 Mr. Dimovski, that this gentleman, Mr. Kuehl, actually cross the Blace
19 border and the Tabanov border in 2007, but there is no mention of arrival
20 on the 13th of January, 2008. Do you see that, Mr. Dimovski?
21 A. I see a report here. It doesn't have this data. I don't know
22 what to say this to question.
23 Q. But, Mr. Dimovski, just looking at the report, do you see that
24 the person enter or arrive through the Blace border crossing on the 13th
25 of January, 2008? Do you see it somewhere in this page?
1 A. On the page which you are referring me to, I cannot see this.
2 But once again I would like to say that these are reports obtained from
3 another sector. I don't know how this sector works. If you believe that
4 there are some mistakes here, I cannot tell you why such mistakes
5 occurred. How could I respond to this?
6 Q. But, Mr. Dimovski, would you agree with me that the Ministry of
7 Interior and all its sectors is trying to implement accurate and correct
8 systems, right, in order to record properly all the entries and
9 departures into and from Macedonia, right, regarding its your sector or
10 another sector?
11 A. I can only speak about the manner of work of my sector. I cannot
12 speak about anything else, also about why these mistakes have been made,
13 whether they're mistakes. I don't -- I don't understand what is here in
14 the reports, why there's a different passport number and so forth.
15 Q. Well, Mr. Dimovski, just for the sake of completeness, if you
16 could please go to tab 7, which will be 65 ter 1241.1. Tab 7. You see a
17 boarding pass, right, do you see that Mr. Daniel Saxon actually flew on
18 the 13th of January from Amsterdam to Vienna and if you could please just
19 go to the second page also in e-court, you see that he took a flight,
20 flight 777, to Pristina in January, you see that, right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And if you could move to tab 8 and the second page, please of
23 tab 8 and also in e-court it will be 1242.1. 65 ter 1242.1.
24 Do you see, Mr. Dimovski, that the other gentleman Mr. Kuehnel
25 the one that we saw in the passport took the same flight from Vienna to
1 Pristina, flight 777 on the 13th of January, 2008. Do you see that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And in could you please go to tab 9 which is 65 ter 1243.1. And
4 you will find a Macedonian version in the second page, because, first,
5 you will have the English and the Macedonian will be after. It's tab 9,
6 Mr. Dimovski, and the second page for you.
7 Do you see the Macedonian version? It is a hotel bill. Do you
8 see, Mr. Dimovski, that Mr. Dan Saxon check into a hotel in Skopje on the
9 13th of January, 2008, and he say there for nine nights. Do you see
11 A. Yes, I see.
12 Q. And if we could go to tab 10 which is 65 ter 1243.2. And, again,
13 Mr. Dimovski, you have to look at the second page. You will find the
14 Macedonian version there. After the green -- exactly. After the green
16 Do you see it is 65 ter 1243.2.
17 Well, we can work in the hard copy. Mr. Dimovski, that
18 Mr. Thomas Kuehnel actually checking into a hotel on the 13 of
19 January 2001 [sic] and stay also nine nights until the 22nd of January,
20 2008 -- I'm sorry, I meant from the 13th of January until the 22nd of
21 January, 2008 in Skopje?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Mr. Dimovski, would you agree with me that these two gentlemen,
24 Mr. Saxon and Mr. Thomas Kuehnel, entered Macedonia together through the
25 Blace border crossing but the entry of the second person,
1 Mr. Thomas Kuehnel, did not make it into the computer system, into the
3 A. I can confirm that I saw, from the stamps, that they entered
4 Macedonia. I don't know how to confirm what is not listed here in the
6 Q. But you --
7 A. Perhaps --
8 Q. But you can confirm that you didn't see in the report that
9 Thomas Kuehnel entered Macedonia on the 13th of January?
10 A. I did not see specifically, but someone else made this report.
11 Maybe a mistake has been made other than what I'm able to see here, I'm
12 not able to add to this.
13 Q. Mr. Dimovski, I put to you that the computer system that the
14 Ministry of Interior had in place in 2001 to record the entries and
15 departures into and from Macedonia was not perfect and mistakes could
16 have happened and indeed still happen as we just saw.
17 MS. REGUE: Your Honours, I have no further questions.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you Ms. Regue.
19 MS. REGUE: My apologies, I will seek to tender a couple of
20 documents. I keep forgetting about that.
21 If I could tender the passport of investigator Thomas Kuehnel
22 which is 65 ter 1242.
23 JUDGE PARKER: That's a photocopy or a photograph of it.
24 MS. REGUE: It is a photocopy of the whole passport with the
25 stamp of the entry.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski.
2 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would object to
3 having this written exhibit being tendered and received into evidence
4 because the witness did not confirm this. It is not prepared by his
5 unit. This written document does not state -- my apologies, Your
7 Regarding the passport, I would like to object. It is
8 indisputable that this is the passport of Mr. Thomas Kuehnel but looking
9 through the passport we can note that he entered also into 2002 in the
10 Republic of Macedonia and therefore I feel that it would be more adequate
11 if a request be submitted for 2002, which is much closer to 2001.
12 Also I would like to point out that in the Republic of Macedonia
13 as of 2007 there is new law on recording entries in the Republic of
14 Macedonia, according to which not all persons entering Macedonia have to
15 be recorded.
16 MS. REGUE: [Previous translation continues] ...
17 JUDGE PARKER: We're dealing with a the question of the exhibit
18 that has been tendered at this point which is the photocopy of the
19 passport of Mr. Kuehnel; in particular, the record of what appears to be
20 an entry by him into Macedonia in 2008.
21 In that respect, we've heard your submissions, thank you,
22 Mr. Apostolski.
23 Ms. Residovic.
24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would also like
25 to object about the receipt of the exhibit referring to Mr. Kuehnel
1 having in mind that the report which our learned colleague has presented
2 does not pertain to this person at all and cannot be evidence about the
3 fact whether Mr. Kuehnel is entered into the records.
4 Therefore, the documents which were being offered, the name and
5 the last name and the number of the passport is different, and most
6 probably this unknown person did not enter Macedonia on the 13th of
7 January at all.
8 Due to these reasons, this document cannot serve as evidence
9 whether Mr. Kuehnel has been entered into the records or not.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Regue, on the point raised by Ms. Residovic.
11 MS. REGUE: Well, Your Honour, I think that this witness was
12 here -- well, I think there are two issues first the passport and then
13 the records of Thomas Kuehnel, and I'm seeking to tender both documents.
14 With regards to the records, Your Honour, here the point is
15 whether the Ministry of Interior and the department dealing with the
16 Ministry of Interior with the entries and departures is keeping accurate
17 records, and this witness has been called in order to testify about this
19 JUDGE PARKER: Well, this witness says he can't tell you anything
20 about a new system which he says now operates at this point of entry.
21 But, surely, the real point is, what is the evidence about the -- a
22 record of the entry of Mr. Kuehnel. Nothing that you have shown to the
23 witness deals with an entry of Mr. Kuehnel.
24 MS. REGUE: But, Your Honour, we actually request --
25 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, you're trying to give evidence now.
1 MS. REGUE: No, Your Honour. I'm not --
2 JUDGE PARKER: Where is the request?
3 MS. REGUE: I can actually --
4 JUDGE PARKER: You see the point?
5 MS. REGUE: Yes.
6 JUDGE PARKER: The only record here is dealing with another
7 gentleman on the face of it, a Mr. Kuehl.
8 MS. REGUE: Well, Your Honour, actually we do have the request
9 and maybe I fail to show it to the Trial Chamber, the request. If you
10 let me I will do it.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, I think you better seek leave to put that to
12 the witness.
13 MS. REGUE: Yes, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE PARKER: And have it identified.
15 MS. REGUE: And if we could go, please, to --
16 Q. Mr. Dimovski, if we could go please to tab 4 of your binder,
17 which is 65 ter 1240.
18 This is an investigator's note produced by an investigator of
19 this Tribunal about a meeting between counsel for Prosecution and two
20 investigators, and the director of the bureau for public security of the
21 Ministry of Interior.
22 And if -- if we look at the second full paragraph, Mr. Dimovski,
23 and I'm going to read it to you. It says and I quote: "Ljupco
24 Todorovski was asked if the records about the investigator Thomas Kuehnel
25 and STA Daniel Saxon could be also found in the Macedonian border police
1 database and Ljupco Todorovski said that it should be possible. Dan
2 Saxon asked Ljupco Todorovski if it's possible to check the information
3 in the border police database about entry, exit of Thomas Kuehnel and
4 Daniel Saxon within the last two weeks. Ljupco Todorovski said that it
5 could be done straight away while the meeting was ongoing. And Ljupco
6 Todorovski gave an order over the phone to someone to conduct such check
7 on the names of Thomas Kuehnel and Daniel Saxon. 15 minutes later while
8 the meeting was still ongoing, Ljupco Todorovski received a phone call
9 from the person who had conducted the checks on the given names," and a
10 bit further down it says:
11 "Dan Saxon entered the Republic of Macedonia on 13 January 2008
12 at around 1700 hours via the Blace border crossing point and there were
13 no records about the person with the name, Thomas Kuehnel. There was a
14 person with a slightly different name who visited Republic of Macedonia
15 in August 2007."
16 And then the note simply goes on saying that we requested for a
17 printed copy of the records, Your Honour, and I apologise for not putting
18 that in front of the Chamber.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski.
20 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise for
21 interfering with my learned colleague from the Prosecution but we have
22 here about investigator notes about a person Ljupco Todorovski who has
23 which has neither testified nor been called to testify nor any kind of
24 statement under the 22 [as interpreted] bis rule has been taken from him.
25 Therefore, I object to this kind and line of questioning.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
2 MS. REGUE: Your Honour, I think the point is like the
3 Prosecution requested to this gentleman to produce a report and this
4 gentleman holds a position in the Ministry of Interior.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
6 Mr. Dimovski, can I ask you, do you know Mr. Todorovski?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
8 JUDGE PARKER: And what is his position?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He is the head of public safety at
10 the Ministry of Interior.
11 JUDGE PARKER: And does that bureau have responsibility with
12 respect to recording any border crossings?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. He is the head of the bureau
14 for public security and I presume as a user, he requested from someone to
15 respond to the questions of the Prosecution. This is what I'm able to
16 see from this document that I'm looking at. He called someone by
17 telephone and requested from another person to carry out this request.
18 JUDGE PARKER: And you say that the crossing at Blace is now the
19 computer system there, is now managed by a section other than your own.
20 What is the section that looks after that crossing?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, this is correct. As far as I
22 know, perhaps I won't say the name correctly, but this is part of the
24 JUDGE PARKER: And what is the DBK?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the direction for security
1 and counter-intelligence. This is the abbreviation for this directorate.
2 Perhaps I'm not saying the name quite correctly, but this is not part of
3 the bureau for public security.
4 JUDGE PARKER: And is the DBK part of the Ministry of Interior?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
6 JUDGE PARKER: And your own section is part of the Ministry of
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE PARKER: Did I see you on your feet, Ms. Residovic.
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in addition to the
12 arguments which I previously presented about not receiving this document,
13 even the investigator notes that come from the director for public
14 security bureau is evident in the last paragraph that the director
15 Ljupco Todorovski requested that a written version be submitted. The
16 response about Mr. Thomas Kuehnel, the document, which our learned
17 colleague has submitted is not that version about Mr. Kuehnel.
18 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber will receive the passport and the
19 investigator's notes and the record of computer return.
20 Now that will make it a bit of a challenge for the ...
21 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 1242 which is a copy of Mr. Kuehnel's
22 passport will become exhibit P612; investigator' notes 65 ter 1240 will
23 become Exhibit P613; and the report will become Exhibit P614, Your
25 MS. REGUE: Your Honours, I apologise for taking your patience
1 but I just realised that when I put my last question to the witness I
2 didn't allow him to answer, and with Your Honours ...
3 JUDGE PARKER: I've forgotten what your last question was.
4 MS. REGUE: I was just putting to Mr. Dimovski that the computer
5 system in the Ministry of Interior back in 2001 to record the entries and
6 departures from Macedonia was not perfect and mistakes could indeed take
7 place --
8 JUDGE PARKER: I thought you had an answer to that much earlier.
9 MS. REGUE: Okay, I'm sorry, Your Honour, I thought that the last
10 one had not been answered.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Well, it may not have been, but the witness
12 frankly accepted that any system could be affected by error, as I think
13 even the Chamber would know.
14 MS. REGUE: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE PARKER: I would make it clear that the admission of these
16 documents is not an indication by the Chamber of the weight it would
17 attach to them. Each in combination appears to have potential relevance
18 to issues in this case, in particular, whether the system now in
19 operation, which is a system that is replacing that in operation in 2001,
20 is always correct in what it achieves, and to the extent that that may
21 have some relevance, the Chamber is prepared to receive what is here.
22 Now, is there any --
23 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
24 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski, I'm not sure whether there was any
25 other matter you wanted to raise in re-examination. I suspect not, but I
1 don't want to overlook you.
2 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I only have one
3 short question for the witness. The witness mentioned that there is an
4 new record, system of record keeping on several border crossings, and I
5 would like to ask the witness.
6 Re-examination by Mr. Apostolski:
7 Q. [Interpretation] If he knows of some more recent regulations in
8 this account?
9 A. Do you mean about the manner in which records are kept? I know
10 from discussions with a colleague by the name of Stojce Coklevski [phoen]
11 from the border police that a new law was passed in 2007 and it is being
12 implemented which clearly defines the exceptions of someone being
13 recorded into the system, but I am -- I do not know the law well. This
14 is the only information about it which I can share.
15 Q. Thank you very much.
16 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have no further
17 questions for this witness.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Apostolski.
20 Mr. Dimovski, you will be pleased to learn that was the extent of
21 the questions that --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters kindly ask for the microphone.
23 JUDGE PARKER: We wish to thank you for your attendance, and you,
24 of course, are now able to return to your normal activities. The court
25 officer will show you out.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
2 [The witness withdrew]
3 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski, is that the conclusion of the case
4 for your client, Mr. Tarculovski.
5 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have some
6 additional questions that I would like to deal with, and this would be
7 the end of the case of Mr. Tarculovski. We have three 92 bis statements,
8 and I have obtained some documents that the Chamber has requested from
9 me. When the expert Markovski on page 10902 confirmed that some by-laws
10 regulated the work of the General Staff, I wish to remind the Chamber
11 about it and with regards to the redirect of the expert Blagoja
12 Markovski, the Chamber has requested, on page 10903, to submit the by-law
13 dealing with the work of the General Staff of the army of the Republic of
14 Macedonia until the adoption of the new Law on Defence of 2001.
15 The Defence has secured those documents which are strict state
16 secret, and I will seek to tender them into evidence under seal.
17 Could the usher please help me? I have prepared binders.
18 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
19 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] The documents bear the numbers
20 65 ter 2D737. That is a document, decision on the organisation formation
21 and development of the army of the Republic of Macedonia. Date is 10
22 April 1992, issued on -- or passed on the basis of Article 15, points 4
23 and 5; and Article 132 of the Law on Defence of the Republic of Macedonia
24 of 15th of February, 1992, passed by the president, Kiro Gligorov.
25 Your Honours, this is an 19-page document and the Defence has
1 provided a draft translation of four pages. The first pages of the
2 document and the final page of the document. And the document has been
3 submitted to CLSS for translation.
4 If the chamber believes that it is necessary to translate all
5 pages, I would kindly request that they request that translation from the
6 CLSS, considering that this is a voluminous document. And, at the same
7 time I seek to tender this document into evidence, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE PARKER: The translation which you have provided, the pages
9 you've selected, are they the only ones that you see to be related in any
10 way to the General Staff?
11 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. And we
12 believe that one additional page would be needed. It is the final page.
13 JUDGE PARKER: And you said that had been translated as well?
14 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] It has been translated. You
15 have it in the hard copy, but that has not been uploaded into the
16 e-court, Your Honours, because we have received the translation this
17 morning. The hard copy that you have has the translation of the final
18 page. And I think that there is no need to translate the other pages.
19 That is the opinion of the Defence.
20 JUDGE PARKER: And what is the reference on the last page that
21 you think is relevant?
22 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] What is relevant is the
23 signature of the president, Kiro Gligorov.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. At the moment, I would indicate,
25 Mr. Apostolski, that the Chamber, first of all, thanks you for providing
1 this; and secondly, that if there are no other references to the General
2 Staff, we would not see need for any or more extensive translation. And
3 unless counsel for either of the other parties feels that there is some
4 particular need to translate some other part, the Chamber would be
5 content with what has been done.
6 So, with those words, we would receive this document and the
7 limited translation that is provided.
8 THE REGISTRAR: The document will become Exhibit 2D112, Your
10 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could the document
11 please be placed under seal, because this is a top state secret.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. Although I thought it had been replaced.
13 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] It has been replaced, Your
14 Honours, but just to be on the safe side and with regards to the
15 responsibility and obligations I assumed when I and my investigators
16 obtained this document, I'm making this proposal to be on the safe side.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Under seal it will be, Mr. Apostolski. You can
18 rest in peace.
19 Now, the second document.
20 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence has
21 also secured the document formation number 540.001 on the organisation of
22 the General Staff of the army of the Republic of Macedonia passed by the
23 president of the Republic of Macedonia, Kiro Gligorov, on the basis of
24 Article 15, paragraph 4 of the Law on Defence of 1992 which regulates in
25 detail the operation of the General Staff of the army of the Republic of
1 Macedonia. And this is a document, 65 ter 2D736, and what it is, is
2 again, highest level state secret. It has 33 pages. We have provided a
3 draft translation to eight of those, the first ones as well as the final
4 two pages.
5 And with regards to this document, Your Honours, considering that
6 this is, again, a voluminous document, the CLSS would translate it only
7 if the Chamber issues an order. But the Defence believes that these
8 pages that we have provided the draft translations of are sufficient.
9 And the organisational chart of the staff is enclosed within the
10 translated pages.
11 So I seek to tender this document into evidence, under seal, Your
13 JUDGE PARKER: I can't quickly see the date on which this
14 document came into force. Are you able to give that date?
15 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] The first page, Your Honour, you
16 can see year 1993, and the date is on the following page, in the left
17 corner. That is in the upper left corner. There is written vojno poste
18 [phoen], military post, 283, and the record number 80/44, and the date is
19 16th of July, 1993. And on that same page, we have the signature of the
20 president of the Republic of Macedonia, Kiro Gligorov, and the seal of
21 the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Macedonia, as well as the
22 signature of Colonel Spasa Kostadinovski, which certifies that the
23 document is reliable.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, we can find that in the Macedonian language.
25 It is not in any of the English translated pages but we can follow from
1 what you have said that the date indicated is the effective date. So
2 thank you for that, Mr. Apostolski, and that document will be received
3 under seal on the same basis as the previous document was received. That
4 is, that no further translation will be needed, unless other counsel see
5 reason for it.
6 THE REGISTRAR: The document will be received as Exhibit 2D113,
7 under seal, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Now you mentioned also you had three Rule 92 bis
10 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, Your Honours. I have
11 three 92 bis statements, and I would like to provide a brief summary of
12 those statement, but I see the time, Your Honours. Perhaps it should be
13 the convenient time, or should I start.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Perhaps we will adjourn now, have a break and
15 resume at a quarter past 4.00.
16 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
17 --- Recess taken at 3.43 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 4.15 p.m.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Apostolski.
20 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
21 I would now like to read a short segment of the 92 bis
22 statements. I will start with the statement of Ms. Vilma Trajkovska. 65
23 ter 2D699.
24 Mrs. Vilma Trajkovska is otherwise the wife of the late president
25 of the Republic of Macedonia, Mr. Boris Trajkovski. She says in 2002 in
1 regards to her personal security and the security of her children was in
2 the care of Mr. Johan Tarculovski. In regards to him, she says that this
3 is a good and honest person, that he carried out his duties responsibly
4 and conscientiously and he was always present with them or was in their
5 vicinity. He was never absent, and he was always watchful of the
6 environment, and he was always controlling nearby movements.
7 Mr. Johan Tarculovski carried out his duty not only in Skopje but
8 also outside of the countries in places where they were attending
9 privately or in an official capacity. He carried out his work on the
10 order of his superior, as well as in line with their wishes and needs.
11 His -- her husband and she personally were satisfied with his
12 forthcomingness, correct behaviour and demeanour, and responsible
13 attitude which was fully up to standard.
14 Your Honours, I would now like formally to tender this statement
15 of Ms. Vilma Trajkovska into evidence.
16 JUDGE PARKER: It will be admitted.
17 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 2D114, Your Honours.
18 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would now like
19 to read a short segment of the statement made by Mr. Blagoja Stojanovski.
20 This is 65 ter 2D697.
21 Mr. Blagoja Stojanovski has given two statements, and as a
22 summary of these two statement, I can say the following: In his
23 statements, when asked about the person Fatmir Kamberi, he responded that
24 he knew this person because he worked in the post office in Cair where he
25 was caught in the act of theft, having embezzled a large amount of money
1 and was dismissed from his work. The witness Blagoja Stojanovski knows
2 Mr. Kamberi very little having worked in the same post office. Perhaps
3 they stat next to each other in the post office, but they never sat
4 together outside the workplace in a restaurant or a cafe.
5 Your Honours, I would seek to tender this statement into
7 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
8 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 2D115, Your Honours.
9 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] I would now like to turn to the
10 statement given by Mr. Tadeus Jarcev. This is 65 ter 2D696.
11 In the period from 2000 to 2003, Mr. Tadeus Jarcev worked in the
12 security of president Boris Trajkovski and was charged for the security
13 of his family, his wife and his children. In that period working with
14 him was Mr. Johan Tarculovski.
15 During their joint time of service, he had gotten to know
16 Mr. Tarculovski well, and says, in regards to Mr. Tarculovski, that he is
17 a diligent, good and responsible person.
18 Mr. Johan Tarculovski was often commended by President
19 Boris Trajkovski, and the president had great confidence in
20 Mr. Tarculovski. They had no conflicts while working together.
21 Privately they were friends, so they were able to get to know each other
22 well. Further, he states that Mr. Johan Tarculovski is an exceptionally
23 and extraordinarily honest person, a good friend, respected by his
24 colleagues and friends.
25 Witness Jarcev and Mr. Tarculovski were in the detail of
1 Ms. Trajkovska when she have was travelling abroad in an official as well
2 as in private capacity. They cooperated well with foreign security
3 services when travelling abroad, and none of them ever issued any kind of
4 comments about the work of Mr. Jarcev and Tarculovski, or about their
6 Your Honours, I would now like to formally tender the statement
7 of Mr. Tadeus Jarcev into evidence.
8 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
9 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 2D116, Your Honours.
10 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with this, I'm
11 closing the case of Mr. Johan Tarculovski. Thank you for your patience,
12 yours as well as my colleagues from the Prosecution, and of the Defence
13 of Mr. Boskoski during the presentation of my Defence case.
14 JUDGE PARKER: We thank you, Mr. Apostolski, for the case you've
15 presented and the succinctness with which you have done so. And, of
16 course, you're closing of your case is subject to the decision by the
17 Tribunal of some outstanding motions.
18 I would mention that you have one motion dated the 11th of
19 March for the removal of two further witness names from the witness list.
20 The Chamber grants that motion today and will not publish a written
22 I would also mention that counsel for the other accused
23 Mr. Boskoski filed a motion on the 10th although it's actually received
24 in the registry on the 11th of March. It was a motion simply seeking
25 leave to replace translations of two present exhibits, 1D319 and 1D320,
1 with new agreed translations. That motion is granted today, and the
2 chamber will not publish written reasons.
3 There are two further motions. The motion of the Boskoski
4 Defence to amend its Rule 65 ter list and to admit exhibits from the bar
5 table which was filed on the 3rd of March. A decision will be delivered
6 in that in writing in the course of this week.
7 And there is also the question of the deferred decision in
8 respect of the admissibility of two recordings of intercepts. That
9 decision is expected to be delivered by the Chamber in writing in the
10 course of this week.
11 Is there any other outstanding issue which either Defence counsel
12 wishes to raise?
13 Mr. Apostolski.
14 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, today we made a
15 short brief submitted for -- short brief about bar table exhibits. A
16 very brief motion.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Well, I'm afraid I haven't seen that. I can't
18 promise you it will be delivered this week. It may be, but don't hold
19 your breath. It will be delivered as soon as possible.
20 Thank you for that.
21 Ms. Residovic.
22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, on several
23 occasions in front of this Trial Chamber we raised the issue of
24 translation. From Thursday till today the Defence of Mr. Boskoski was in
25 communication with our colleagues from the Prosecution, and we're now in
1 a situation to propose to the Trial Chamber that both sides continue in
2 this period of time to turn attention to the material mistakes,
3 substantial mistakes which may appear in the draft translations offered
4 by either of the two sides, and that we try to coordinate the texts,
5 after which these and such documents would be submitted to the Trial
6 Chamber as a replacement for the existing translations together with the
7 relevant documents.
8 We talked about this, taking into account the instructions which
9 you gave to us regarding the replaced documents Exhibits 319 and 320 and
10 also taking into account the fact that CLSS overburdened with work that
11 our time is short, and that the best way to avoid material mistakes which
12 would be, of course, also of importance for the Trial Chamber, is by
13 coordination and agreement between the two sides that we have a correct
14 translation and that in this fashion we submit this to the Trial Chamber
15 to be replaced for the existing documents.
16 In the moment or at the time that we're unable to agree on the
17 point that there is an mistake in translation, as you suggested in the
18 case of 1D319 and 1D320, we shall request the translation of this
19 documents from CLSS, from this short comment, the Defence of
20 Ljube Boskoski, Exhibits 1D83 [as interpreted], the Trial Chamber takes
21 into account that we have come to an understanding that the existing
22 draft -- my apology, I have been warned that I should speak more slowly
23 for the accuracy of the interpretation. Therefore we're talking about
24 Exhibit 1D183, after the Prosecution noted certain incorrect elements in
25 the translation of this document, the draft of the translation was
1 proposed by the Defence, the parties have come to an agreement to replace
2 the current draft translation with another translation which, in the
3 course of this week, will be uploaded to e-court.
4 Therefore, we ask for the Trial Chamber to approve this
6 Further, number 2, in regards to Exhibit P606.1, the Defence will
7 also, in regards to this document, continue our cooperation with the
8 Prosecution, and together we will look over the draft translation. In
9 the case of need of certain changes, such shall be up loaded in the
10 e-court system and we ask for the Trial Chamber to also approve this
12 In regards to Exhibit 1D107, the Defence is still waiting on a
13 revised translation from the CLSS, and we therefore ask the Trial Chamber
14 to approve the replacement of this translation at the moment when we do
15 receive this translation.
16 As for Exhibit P94, and this is an instruction on the manner and
17 charging of official weapons and special means of communication, on the
18 22nd of February, 2008, on page of the transcript 9931, the Defence has
19 pointed out to an incorrect translation of certain provisions of this
20 document and requested from CLSS to carry out a review, a check of this
21 translation. The Defence expects to receive the official translation and
22 we therefore ask of the Trial Chamber to replace the existing text with
23 the translation that we will receive from CLSS. In view of the fact that
24 Defence believes it important to avoid mistakes in translation of
25 essential exhibits and evidence -- and elements in certain evidence, we
1 will continue our cooperation with the Prosecution, and if, in certain
2 draft documents or in official documents undergo changes, then the
3 Defence will submit a special request for the replacement of these
4 documents with the new translation from the Trial Chamber.
5 These are some of the issues which we deem important to point out
6 prior to ending the trial proceedings, since we believe the issues of
7 translation to be of significance and importance both for the two parties
8 and for the Trial Chamber as well.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you Ms. Residovic.
10 Could I say that in respect of the agreed revised translation of
11 Exhibit 1D183, that will be substituted.
12 With respect to anticipated further revisions, the Chamber will
13 indicate that any translation which is revised and agreed by all three
14 parties will be substituted without need for a further formal motion from
15 the parties, as long as all three parties agree, and that is provided and
16 then there will then be a substitution ordered by the Chamber.
17 If there is a concern about a translation and no agreement is
18 reached, if the CLSS provides then a further revised translation at the
19 request of the party, that further revision by CLSS will be substituted
20 for the present one without a need for any further formal motion and an
21 order will be made by the Chamber for the substitution.
22 So agreement by all parties, or if there isn't agreement, a
23 further revision by CLSS. In either case, there will be a substitution
24 of the new translation.
25 If any other situation arises, it will need to be by way of a
1 formal motion and leave is granted to present such a formal motion as
2 long as it occurs before the final written briefs are filed.
3 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your
5 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
6 Mr. Saxon.
7 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honours.
8 Just following up on what my colleague Ms. Residovic just
9 explained to the Trial Chamber, you may recall, Your Honour Judge Parker
10 directed me to submit parts of what is Exhibit 1D00098 to CLSS for
11 revised translation. That is the so-called new Law on Defence from 2001.
12 And it's my understanding that CLSS has done part of the work
13 requested, and -- but still has a bit more left to do. We're hoping that
14 that work will be completed hopefully by Thursday, which is the last
15 official working day of this week, and if we do receive those revised
16 translations from CLSS, then with your leave, we will have the revised
17 Articles and chapters of that law uploaded into e-court.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Leave is granted.
19 Is there any matter that the Prosecution seeks to raise,
20 Mr. Saxon?
21 MR. SAXON: I think, for the moment, I will defer to
22 Ms. Residovic, because I believe she has a matter that she wishes to
24 JUDGE PARKER: Oh. I thought she had completed.
25 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I have been instructed by my colleagues
1 that, once again, I have forgotten a brief matter. It is administrative
2 but also related to translation.
3 We seek permission that a revised translation that was done for
4 Exhibit P00604 needs to be -- needs to replace the current translation.
5 So we would ask that the translation document with ID 2D08-1226 replace
6 what is now linked to that exhibit, which has ID 2D06-0503. And the
7 reason is because in the original English translation there was one page
8 that was uploaded twice so that needed to be corrected.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. That will be substituted.
10 Ms. Residovic, I'm sorry, I thought had you finished.
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, perhaps my
12 colleague is right, but I thought prior to presenting our joint proposal
13 of the Prosecution and the two Defence teams, we should note whether
14 there are certain issues related to Rule 85(A)(iii) the reply of the
15 Prosecution, or any evidence of the Trial Chamber. After this, I will
16 present the proposals on the issue of submitting of the final briefs.
17 This is an issue we discussed with the Prosecution, and we have a
18 proposal which we wish to put forth before the Trial Chamber.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE PARKER: We had not overlooked those matters. I was trying
21 to get out of the way any outstanding motions or issues, to have them
23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] At this moment, I have nothing to
24 add in regards to the issues which are ongoing. Thank you.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
1 Mr. Saxon, the issue now comes as to whether any further evidence
2 by way of rebuttal is being contemplated.
3 MR. SAXON: The answer to that question, Your Honour, is no.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE PARKER: I can inform counsel that the Chamber does not
7 propose to call evidence, although the prospect is tempting.
8 Now that brings us to the question of final briefs and oral
10 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may on behalf
11 of the parties, the Defences of both Mr. Tarculovski and Mr. Boskoski, to
12 make a proposal to the Chamber.
13 The parties reviewed all questions that are necessary to be
14 processed in the final written briefs, and we had in mind at that, that
15 until the moment a large number of witnesses have been heard and that the
16 transcript itself amounts to some 11.000 pages, that 1084 exhibits have
17 been received and if one has in mind the distributed evidence of large
18 court documents or other documents, then we have, in total 2040 exhibits
19 that both the Defence and the Prosecution need to process from the
20 aspects of the Defence case and the Prosecution case respectively in the
21 final written briefs and the Defence and the Prosecution agree that they
22 have yet to deal with the segment of work dealing with the detailed
23 overview of the most important documents, the translation issue also that
24 we discussed a moment ago, and also the Defence of Mr. Boskoski filed
25 many motions for corrections of the transcript, and we were officially
1 informed that the official substitutions of the transcript pages will be
2 made available to us within the next three weeks. These are all elements
3 that the parties took into consideration in order to propose to the
4 Chamber the time that the parties would say need to write their final
6 At the same time, we took care to select a time-period
7 sufficiently brief, in order to avoid further delay of this procedure.
8 Due to these reason, the Defence and the Prosecution propose that the
9 Chamber approves that the parties to the procedure have a period of six
10 weeks to produce their final briefs in writing. At the same time, the
11 Defence and the Prosecution state, in agreement, that they will not
12 request time for written response to the written motions made by the
13 other party, and that after filing the final briefs in writing, we seek
14 the Chamber to grant us leave to have ten days for [as interpreted] oral
15 presentation of our written arguments.
16 Your Honour, we also agreed that our colleague Mr. Saxon would
17 propose the way in which the oral presentation of written arguments of
18 both Prosecution and Defence will be made.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise there is a mistake.
21 Ten days until the oral presentation of our written arguments. This is
22 page 46, line 6.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Is that ten sitting days or ten days?
24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Ten days -- no, I apologise. Ten
25 days between the filing of our final briefs and until the day when we
1 will begin the presentation of our oral arguments. It was a mistake in
2 the transcript.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
5 Mr. Saxon.
6 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 The Prosecution would support the proposal that has been
8 communicated to you by Ms. Residovic. We hope that this proposal, on one
9 level actually, will save sometime for the Chamber, given the fact that
10 the parties would not intend to file written responses to each other's
11 final trial brief.
12 JUDGE PARKER: We have not allowed that in previous trials, let
13 me say, Mr. Saxon.
14 MR. SAXON: Well, then, I take it --
15 JUDGE PARKER: Responses have been dealt with in the course of
16 oral submissions which has saved yet another week or more. Yes.
17 MR. SAXON: Very well, Your Honour. I was not aware of that last
18 point. We would ask, again, then, that that same procedure be applied in
19 the case of this trial.
20 If the Trial Chamber, because of the needs of scheduling and
21 calendaring the starts of other trials cannot give the parties six weeks
22 in which to produce its final trial brief, we would ask that, at a
23 minimum four to five weeks be given, so that the parties can produce
24 their very best possible work in this complex trial.
25 The parties would propose, with respect to oral argument, that
1 the Prosecution be given a full court day, standard three sessions to
2 make its oral closing argument; and then the Defence be provided with a
3 full court day to make its closing arguments; and then on a third day,
4 half a day, half a court day, be provided to the Prosecution in the form
5 of an oral rebuttal and half a court day be provided to the Defence in
6 the form of an oral rejoinder.
7 That would be the proposal of the parties, with respect to the
8 scheduling of final arguments, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
10 Mr. Apostolski, is there anything you wish to add?
11 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] No, I have nothing further to
12 add, Your Honours. My learned colleague Residovic made a presentation on
13 my behalf as well, and I fully agree with what she said, and I support
15 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE PARKER: We thank the parties for their proposals and
18 considerations of the timetable for the final stages in court of this
19 trial. The trial has, of course, taken longer than originally
20 anticipated, and the Chamber is anxious, because of that, and because of
21 the desire to move on to other trials as quickly as possible, to keep to
22 the proper minimum, the time between now and the presentation of final
23 written briefs and the final oral arguments. Every week that is spent
24 while that process takes place is a week delay in the completion of this
1 We are also, though, very conscious of what counsel have put to
2 us, that if adequate time is left for this process of particularly
3 written submissions and then for the presentation of the final oral
4 arguments, that enables a more efficient final decision making process to
5 be undertaken by the Chamber, so that we can strike the right balance
6 between allowing adequate time and trying to finish the trial as quickly
7 as possible, we will be serving the interests of the accused men and the
8 interests of this Tribunal and those awaiting trial in enabling us to
9 work on -- move on to other work.
10 The Chamber, because of those reasons, is concerned that it will
11 be too long to allow what is proposed as a full six weeks for the
12 preparation of the final written briefs. In the view of the Chamber,
13 that work ought to be able to be accomplished in five weeks, and the
14 Chamber has that in mind.
15 Given the desirability of oral arguments being completed in --
16 within the one week and not with a weekend gap in the process, we
17 therefore have in mind ordering that the final written briefs of all
18 three parties should be filed in this Tribunal by Thursday, the 24th of
19 April, which is five weeks and two days from now, and that oral arguments
20 should commence on Tuesday, the 6th of May. We would propose that on
21 Tuesday, the 6th of May, the Prosecution should present its oral
22 argument. On Wednesday, the 7th of May, both Defences should present
23 their argument. Each Defence will be allowed a half of the sitting time,
24 unless by agreement between them, some other division of time is reached.
25 We will certainly fit in with any agreement between the two Defence teams
1 as to the division of time in final submissions. And then on Thursday,
2 the 8th of May, we would propose that half of the sitting time be allowed
3 for any rebuttal oral submissions of the Prosecution, and the other half
4 for any oral final rejoinder submissions of the Defence teams, once
5 again, either dividing that half day equally, or if they reach mutual
6 agreement according to that mutually agreed division.
7 Those arrangements go quite a long way to meeting what counsel
8 sought, and I hope it will be appreciated that the time we've allowed,
9 although less than is proposed, nevertheless ought to provide a
10 reasonable time for the work to be done adequately and properly so that
11 the cases of all three parties are properly presented in a way that
12 enables the Chamber to work efficiently towards its decision.
13 The Chamber would like to mention now as it is an appropriate
14 time, our appreciation of the of the efforts by counsel for all three
15 parties in the way they have been generally cooperative with each other
16 and with the chamber in the efficient presentation of their respective
17 cases and in dealing with the sorts of issues that arise from time to
18 time where opposing views have to be compromised and sensible
19 arrangements reached. The attitude generally displayed throughout the
20 trial to date has, we feel, assisted in the completion of the trial in
21 the time that it has, although longer than originally anticipated without
22 that spirit of sensible cooperation, it could have taken much longer than
23 we have managed. So the Chamber wishes to record and express its
24 appreciation for what has been done by the three counsel teams in this
1 We must now adjourn, and we do so with a view, then, to resuming
2 our deliberations on Tuesday, the 6th of May, when we commence final oral
3 arguments, and in the meantime we look forward to receiving, by Thursday,
4 the 24th of April, the written final briefs of all parties.
5 We now adjourn.
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.02 p.m.,
7 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 6th day of May,
8 2008, at 9.00 a.m.