1 Thursday, 7 May 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
5 [The witness takes the stand]
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon. If I could remind you,
7 Mr. Abrahams, the affirmation you made to tell the truth still applies.
8 Ms. Kravetz -- oh, I beg your pardon. How could I overlook the
9 fact that Mr. Djurdjic is nearly finished. Carry on, please,
10 Mr. Djurdjic.
11 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I will
12 comply with your wishes, but I don't know whether I will be able to do it
13 within the dead-lines that you set.
14 WITNESS: FREDERICK CRONIG ABRAHAMS [Resumed]
15 Cross-examination by Mr. Djurdjic: [Continued]
16 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Abrahams, good afternoon. Let me continue
17 from where we stopped yesterday. In your March 1999 statement, you speak
18 about an incident in the village of Vranic
19 that I corrected all the errors. That should be page 36 in the English
20 version in e-court of P738, that's the exhibit number. Mr. Abrahams --
21 excellent, well done.
22 At the end of the first paragraph, could you please read the
23 beginning of the sentence:
24 "The commander of the police in Vranic was named Miskovic ..."
25 Have you been able to find it?
1 A. Yes, I see it.
2 Q. Please look at it.
3 A. Yes, I read it.
4 Q. Mr. Abrahams, after you received information from the persons
5 that you interviewed, did you check or were you able to find, to locate,
6 Mr. Miskovic or Mr. Sipka?
7 A. I don't recall the research procedure at that point, but we did
8 not speak with Mr. Miskovic.
9 Q. And did you check whether there was any kind of a police unit in
10 the village of Vranic
11 A. Sorry, how did you -- I didn't understand the question. Did we
12 check whether there was police in the village of Vranic
13 station in Vranic?
14 Q. Mr. Abrahams, in this part of your statement you say that
15 Miskovic was the commander of the station in Vranic.
16 A. If I understand my statement it says that the villagers claimed
17 that -- no, I'm sorry, you're right.
18 "The villagers claimed that Sipka was involved in Orahovac. The
19 commander of the police in Vranic was named Miskovic" -- yes, that
20 information comes from the villagers.
21 Q. My question was whether you checked information, whether you
22 checked if there's any kind of police organisation, formal organisation,
23 in Vranic?
24 A. I don't recall at this point, no.
25 Q. Mr. Abrahams, did you go to Suva Reka - and you knew that there
1 was a police station there and an OUP - to check about Milan Sipka, he is
2 mentioned here as a police officer from Suva Reka, just to verify whether
3 this was indeed correct?
4 A. I have to refer to my notes to tell you exactly where and when I
5 went places in Kosovo, but I can tell you that we repeatedly tried to
6 obtained information from the various police stations around Kosovo and
7 were consistently rejected. We were told that no information would be
8 provided. I cannot tell you for sure without checking my notes whether I
9 approached the Suva Reka station on these dates in question.
10 Q. Mr. Abrahams, do you know why you're in The Hague before this
11 Tribunal now?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. I had a call from a friend, and he told me that you said 20 times
14 that you had to consult your notes. I didn't count myself but that's
15 what this friend of mine said. You are testifying here for the third
16 time and yet again you tell us that you have to consult your notes to
17 check. So you're not prepared to testify, and when are you going to do
18 it if you have to complete your testimony ? How come also that you are
19 able -- that you have total recall of what the villagers were telling you
20 and you cannot recall what the other side told you and anything that has
21 to do with the side?
22 It says in your statement that Miskovic was the owner of the Bos
23 Hotel. Did you go there and verify this information, who owned this
24 hotel, and did you go there to talk to the owner? Because it was quite
25 close to where you were, Suva Reka, and in fact it's the suburbs, in the
1 outskirts of Suva Reka.
2 A. All of our notes, by me and my colleagues involved in this work,
3 have been submitted to the Prosecutor's office and, to the best of my
4 knowledge, provided to you as Defence. So you are free to consult them.
5 I am more than willing to consult them, but my memory after ten years,
6 having covered in the interim five more wars, is, in fact, hazy when it
7 comes to specific incidents.
8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Abrahams. I did not receive any notes of yours
9 from the Prosecution, and I am convinced that the Prosecution would have
10 given it to me if they had been in their possession. But if the
11 Prosecution indeed has them, did you not have an opportunity to go
12 through them in preparation for your testimony? And can we then perhaps
13 postpone your testimony enabling you to consult your notes and then -- so
14 that you can then answer my questions?
15 A. My notes comprise more than ten different notebooks, and that's
16 just mine alone, not the notes of all my colleagues, so I have not had
17 the opportunity to review them in the depth required to answer some of
18 your questions.
19 Q. Mr. Abrahams, now we're no longer dealing with what the
20 Human Rights Watch produced. We're now talking about the statement that
21 you gave to the Prosecution as early as in 1999, so we are not talking
22 about whether you yourself interviewed the witness or not; we are now
23 talking about the statement that you yourself gave in 1999. So this has
24 nothing to do with your research or anything -- or it does, but only
25 because this is a statement that you gave in 1999 to an investigator of
1 the Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal.
2 A. I don't understand the question.
3 Q. Well, I'm asking you about what you said to the investigator, and
4 you told us at the beginning of your testimony that this is to the best
5 of your recollection - and you took the solemn oath that you would speak
6 the truth - and that's what I'm asking you about. So I'm not now -- not
7 talking about some work product that you could then say, I did not take
8 part in producing it; I'm talking about your own words, what you yourself
9 said in your statement. Perhaps it's the case that this is not your
10 personal knowledge, what you're saying in the statement. So please do
11 tell me if that is the case, and we'll move on.
12 A. Everything in the statement is a reflection of my personal
13 knowledge and experience and -- including the case you reference here for
15 Q. Please, personal knowledge is a very broad concept. Did you
16 personally interview the villagers of Vranic and what I just read out to
17 you or what you just read, is this the product of your interviews or not?
18 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honour --
19 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Kravetz.
20 MS. KRAVETZ: -- I believe this question has been put already to
21 the witness in several ways, and he has provided the information he's
22 able to provide on this topic. The question has been answered.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic, you are putting to the witness
24 passages in one of the statements that he has made. You are then seeking
25 to ask what he did further about a matter. For example, you've referred
1 to a passage that there is a police officer named Sipka from Suva Reka
2 mentioned and that there was a person by the name of Miskovic said to be
3 in charge of the police in Vranic. You're then asking the witness did he
4 personally check or did he personally go to a police station to confirm
5 information, et cetera. That is not something that's in his statement.
6 That is asking him whether he did something about a subject matter that
7 is mentioned in his statement. To that, the witness has said, I am not
8 able to remember clearly whether I did or I did not or whether one of my
9 colleagues may have done so. I would have to check the notes to give you
10 an answer to that.
11 Now, the witness has no way of anticipating what you are going to
12 ask about, and he is trying to remember events that are now many years
13 old, and therefore it would seem to me at least not unreasonable that the
14 witness is not able to remember consequential matters such as those that
15 you have asked about in the questions that I have heard you ask this
17 If it is that one of these issues is of such importance, it will
18 be necessary to make some arrangements for the witness to view his notes.
19 We know, he has told us earlier and he reminded us, that there are many
20 volumes, over ten notebooks of his own notes and there are his
21 colleagues' notes which are in addition. Now, the process of going
22 through those will inevitably take some time. For him to be able then to
23 refresh his memory whether a particular action was taken, such as going
24 to a police station to inquire about a particular subject or not.
25 I've spent a little time setting out what I perceive to be the
1 situation. You seem, from what some of the things you have said, to be
2 seeing it a little differently. But if you stand back and think, you may
3 realise that just to be asked now about particular actions so many years
4 ago, it's not surprising that the witness doesn't have a clear personal
5 recollection of each event. Some things, no doubt, he will remember;
6 others things, it is likely, he will not.
7 Now, you must decide, I'm afraid, whether one of these or some of
8 these or all of these subjects are so important that they warrant you
9 asking for the evidence of the witness to be deferred while he checks on
10 a particular issue. I could say that of the matters you've raised so
11 far, it's not apparent to me that any of them are so important as to
12 warrant that time and effort. It must be for you -- you know your case.
13 It must be for you to decide whether it is a matter of great significance
14 or not.
15 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. It is not
16 my intention to cause any delays to the examination of this witness to
17 enable him to go through his notes, but I want to lead the Chamber to
18 draw certain conclusions through my cross-examination of this witness. I
19 didn't want to cause any delays. I am clear with your instructions, and
20 I will continue my examinations, and I will be satisfied with the answers
21 that I receive in the hopes that the Trial Chamber will give them proper
23 Q. Mr. Abrahams, let us conclude this topic. In this trial, we
24 already clarified who Miskovic was through some witnesses from Suva Reka
25 and what he was, what kind of a job he had; but the reason why I ask you
1 this is because of the statement you gave.
2 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we now move to page 38 of
3 the English version.
4 Q. Mr. Abrahams, I'm interested in this paragraph that begins with
5 the words:
6 "On the 2nd of November Peter Bouckaert and I spoke with a man in
8 My question now is: Am I right if I say that the Defence cannot
9 do anything to verify this source?
10 A. This man requested anonymity from us; that's correct.
11 Q. Thank you. Now I would like to move on to the statement that you
12 gave in 2002, in January. Looking at this statement, I didn't see who
13 actually interviewed you. Could you please tell us how did you conduct
14 this interview on the 24th of January, 2002?
15 A. May I ask for the first page to be brought up.
16 Q. Just a moment. I'll give you the page reference. That's
17 number 9.
18 A. I'm not entirely certain. Again, I could obtain this
19 information, but I believe this statement was taken by two members of the
20 OTP. One is Milbert Shin and the other was Dan Saxon, but I would have
21 to check before being certain of that fact.
22 Q. Thank you. And where was this statement taken?
23 A. If I recall correctly, there was a dual process. It was
24 partially done in The Hague
25 mistaken, parts of the statement dealing with Kosovo's history were
1 written directly by me in New York
2 Q. Thank you, Mr. Abrahams. Now I would like to ask you first of
3 all not to get angry with me, but did you serve in the military? Did you
4 do any national service? Although I know that there is no national
5 service in the USA
6 A. No, I have not served in any military.
7 Q. Thank you. Am I right if I say that you don't have any formal
8 military training?
9 A. Training as a soldier or formally in the military, no, I do not.
10 Q. And kind of military education in the academia?
11 A. I've studied history, armed -- history of armed conflict and
12 military history as a part of my university studies.
13 Q. Yes, but did you attend any kind of a military school? Do you
14 have a degree, a post-graduate degree, in military science; or did you
15 attend any other course in this subject outside of your regular studies?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Thank you. Did you complete any kind of police schools or police
19 A. No.
20 Q. Did you receive any formal education in constitutional law?
21 A. I've taken courses in constitutional law and international law,
22 but I don't have a degree in any of those subjects.
23 Q. Thank you. And in the sphere of criminal law, did you attend any
24 courses, have any training?
25 A. Courses only in relation to international humanitarian law and
1 laws of war, war crimes, but not on domestic criminal law.
2 Q. Thank you. Mr. Abrahams, could you please tell me, what is the
3 lowest post in the Human Rights Watch organisation, the first one above
4 the interns?
5 A. That would be what we call an associate, which is a largely
6 administrative position.
7 Q. I apologise. I wasn't specific enough. I'm only talking about
8 the research segment of the Human Rights Watch and what follows after
9 that, drafting of reports, publication of reports, so not the
10 administration, not financial services, nothing of that sort. To cut a
11 long story short, I can see that in 1995 or 1996 you became a researcher.
12 After you completed your traineeship in the Human Rights Watch, what was
13 your job title?
14 A. Researcher.
15 Q. And how long did you remain in that post?
16 A. From 1995 to 1999 I was researcher, and then I became senior
18 Q. Thank you. And are you a senior researcher now, or do you have
19 some other job title?
20 A. My official title is senior emergencies researcher.
21 Q. Thank you. And let me ask you just one more question: Can you
22 tell us -- can you explain to us what does it mean to edit a report?
23 A. The editing process is a review and vetting procedure, whereby
24 first the divisional director - in this case the Europe and Central Asia
25 director - and then the programme director review the material for
1 accuracy, consistency, and force of argument. And in this process it is
2 common and normal for the editors or the reviewers to return the document
3 with questions, questions such as: How do you know this? Can we find
4 more proof for this? Are there arguments against this? Did you speak to
5 this person or that person? And finally, the last reviewer is from the
6 legal office, which is looking at it from the perspective of the law in
7 two ways. First is are our arguments appropriately framed with regards
8 to human rights and international humanitarian law; and secondly, will
9 there be legal issues for the organisation regarding libel and other
10 matters related to publication of the report.
11 Q. Thank you. Where were you born, Mr. Abrahams?
12 A. New York City.
13 Q. Thank you. Do you feel attached to the cultural heritage of the
14 United States of America?
15 A. To some aspects of it, yes; to other aspects, less.
16 Q. Thank you. Tell me, where were you in 1974?
17 A. Well, at that time I would have been 7 years old, so in school in
18 New York City.
19 Q. Thank you. Have you ever read the SFRY constitution?
20 A. From cover to cover, no; but sections of it, yes.
21 Q. Can you tell us what sort of criteria were you guided by in
22 deciding which portions to read and which not to read?
23 A. I am not an expert on the constitution of the SFRY. My interest
24 in the matter was to understand the context of the Kosovo conflict, and
25 in particular the status of Kosovo within Yugoslavia. I have a basic
1 understanding, but in no sense do I portray myself as an expert on that
3 Q. Thank you, Mr. Abrahams. I do not want to touch upon the fact
4 whether this really then refers to all the other constitutions in
5 addition to the SFRY constitution to that of Serbia and others that are
6 relevant for our trial.
7 A. I didn't perceive a question in that statement.
8 Q. Were I to put a question to you now in respect of each and every
9 one of these constitutions, would the answer be the same? That is what I
10 meant. I wanted to avoid putting superfluous questions to you.
11 A. I am not an expert in constitutional law or specific
12 constitutions, SFRY's or otherwise.
13 Q. Thank you. In your statement you refer to the autonomous
14 province. Do you know when it was that Kosovo and Metohija were
15 conferred the status of an autonomous province?
16 A. I believe it was in 1974 as well as Vojvodina.
17 Q. Did it enjoy status of an autonomous province before that point?
18 A. I'm not sure. I don't believe so, no, but I'm not sure.
19 Q. Have you read the FNRY constitution dating back to 1963?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Thank you. Have you read the constitutional amendments dating
22 back to 1967, 1968, and 1971?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Thank you. Can you tell me, What was the constitution which
25 abolished the autonomy of Kosovo and Metohija?
1 A. No. My understanding is there were changes to the constitution,
2 but I don't have more detail than that.
3 Q. Thank you. Let me ask you this: Do you know the difference
4 between a republic and an autonomous province?
5 A. Well, in general a republic would be on a higher level than an
6 autonomous province with regards to self-setting standards and a degree
7 of independence; but with regards to Yugoslavia, the autonomy granted to
8 Kosovo and Yugoslavia
9 representation in the Federal Presidency, they had parliaments, separate
10 legislatures. They were able to set their own policy with regards to
11 education and so forth.
12 Q. Thank you. Am I right if I say that the United States of America
13 constitute a federation?
14 A. It's not usually referred to as such, but it is a degree of a
15 federation, yes.
16 Q. Thank you. The SFRY was also a federation, was it not?
17 A. Indeed.
18 Q. In the US
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. Thank you. How many republics did the SFRY have which formed the
23 A. In what period? We're speaking after 1974?
24 Q. I'm referring -- well, let's say after 1974 because that's what
25 you are aware of. How many republics formed the Federation then -- or
1 let me not plague you with this if you can't remember the exact number,
2 let's move on. Were the republics in fact states which formed the
3 Federation of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia
4 A. First there were six republics plus the two autonomous provinces,
5 Vojvodina and Kosovo. And these provinces -- excuse me, these republics
6 did enjoy many of the same rights as the states have in the
7 United States, perhaps not to such a great degree, but they did have
8 their own governments and independent institutions to a degree -- also
9 taking into consideration the dominant role of the communist party at
10 that time.
11 Q. Right. We don't have time to debate the position of the
12 Human Rights Watch and the communist democracies. But let me ask you
13 this: You keep referring to Kosovo, Metohija, Vojvodina, they were part
14 of which republics? What were they part of in Yugoslavia?
15 A. I believe both were autonomous provinces within the
16 Republic of Serbia
17 Q. Thank you. In your research did you come across a time when for
18 the first time the issue was raised of Kosovo needing to become a
20 A. Sorry, just re-reading the question. The issue of Kosovo's
21 status has been of -- has been discussed since my first entry into Kosovo
22 in 1995, and it remains a hot topic to this day.
23 Q. Tell me if you don't remember or you don't know, when was -- when
24 was it that for the first time in your research you came across a demand
25 having been put forward for Kosovo to become a republic?
1 A. In 1995 there were Kosovo Albanians who wanted Kosovo to become a
2 republic at that time within Yugoslavia
3 evolve into independence from Yugoslavia
4 those were individuals. At that time, not aware of formal calls from
5 political groups. That came later -- that came later -- no, I'm sorry --
6 I stand corrected. I stand corrected. There were calls from 19 -- yes,
7 I apologise. From 1990, from 1990 there were calls for Kosovo's
8 independence. I apologise. If not before, perhaps even 1989/1988. Yes,
9 that's correct.
10 Q. Thank you. Can you tell me, What was the enactment which
11 abolished the status of an autonomous province for Kosovo and Metohija
12 and Vojvodina -- or I apologise, you've answered that a while back. I
13 withdraw the question.
14 Let me ask you this: Did the constitution of the
15 Republic of Serbia maintain the equal status of autonomous provinces of
16 Vojvodina on the one hand and Kosovo and Metohija within the
17 Republic of Serbia?
18 A. I apologise, I'm re-reading because I'm not understanding
19 precisely. At what period are you speaking of? Which Constitution of
20 Serbia, because there were changes to the constitution. If you're asking
21 whether Kosovo and Vojvodina had equal status, then my understanding is
22 yes they did have equal status.
23 Q. I'm referring to the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia. I'm
24 sure that you as an expert will see the difference that I'm trying to
25 make when I refer to the SFRY constitution and the Constitution of the
1 Republic of Serbia -- or rather, the FRY constitution and the
2 Constitution of the Republic of Serbia.
3 A. I'm an expert in human rights and international humanitarian law,
4 but I am not an expert in constitutions. Nevertheless, I do know the
5 difference between the FRY constitution and the Serbian constitution. I
6 just don't understand your question.
7 Q. Thank you. Mr. Abrahams, you say in your statement that on two
8 occasions or perhaps on more occasions you were employed in the
9 Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal as an investigator. You spoke
10 to Mr. Rugova, you had an interview with him in November of 2002; am I
11 right -- 2001.
12 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter isn't sure.
13 THE WITNESS: I did interview Mr. Rugova for this Tribunal, that
14 is correct. I'd have to check the statement for the precise date, but I
15 believe it was September, October, or November 2001.
16 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Thank you. Before that, as an investigator again, you spoke to
18 Witness Haxhiu Baton and you wrote a statement from him in August 2001?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. Thank you. On the 24th of January, 2002, you yourself gave a
21 statement as a witness; and the statement we've been discussing is
22 precisely the one, the one that was formed and bears the date of the
23 24th of February, 2002; am I right?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. And this statement contains a section where you speak of the
1 historical background of Kosovo; is that right?
2 A. That's right.
3 Q. Thank you. Let me ask you this: In all your reports or texts
4 whenever you speak of the Republic of Serbia or the
5 Socialist Republic of Serbia and when you want to refer to its autonomous
6 province of Kosovo, you always refer to it only as Kosovo, whereas its
7 proper title was the autonomous province of Kosovo
8 know what Metohija means?
9 A. I don't know the direct English translation, but I know that it
10 is formally referred to as Kosovo and Metohija in the Serbian language.
11 But our terminology is consistent with the region, whereby we never
12 called Serbia
13 never call Yugoslavia
14 simply Yugoslavia
15 matters of expediency, we shortened the name. And at least
16 "Under Orders" has a short section in the beginning describing our
18 Q. Thank you. Which source did you use in drawing the conclusion
19 that in 1989 there was police oppression over someone?
20 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honour, could we please have a reference to
21 the passage in this statement that my colleague is referring to, please.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic.
23 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I'm referring to the historical
24 background. I'll find it now. I didn't think it was in dispute. Very
25 well. Let's move on.
1 Q. Where did you get this from, that on the 23rd of March the
2 Kosovo Assembly, while the Serb police forces were surrounding the area,
3 carried the proposed amendments to the constitution?
4 A. These are background matters for our reports. They are context
5 and history. They are not the results of our on-the-ground field
6 investigations which involve interviews with witnesses and examinations
7 of crime scenes. This information is collected from media sources,
8 historical accounts, academic reports, and so on that talk about the
9 history of Kosovo and the country.
10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Abrahams. Would your answer be the same in
11 relation to the situation in the field of education as it existed in
12 1991 and 1992?
13 A. To an extent; however, my information about education in Kosovo
14 was buttressed by my personal research in 1996 and the previous visit in
15 1995 because the conditions for Albanian language education in those
16 years were the same as in 1991 and 1992. So I had historical records
17 plus my own observations.
18 Q. Thank you. Mr. Rugova and Mr. Haxhiu, did they hold views that
19 were opposite to yours? I'm asking you this because you interviewed them
20 as a researcher -- or as an investigator.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.
22 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure how to answer that question. There
23 were many topics that we didn't discuss. They were presenting their
24 views and experiences relevant to the case, at that time mostly the
25 Milosevic trial. And we didn't discuss views or opinions but rather
1 facts and experiences.
2 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Is the following piece of information accurate that 16.000 Serb
4 refugees that fled from Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1996 were settled in
5 Kosovo and Metohija?
6 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honour, I'm sorry to interrupt again, but I
7 see my learned colleague is reading from a document. I would appreciate
8 if we could have a reference to which document he is referring to and if
9 it's a witness statement the indication of the page. I would also
10 appreciate it if my learned colleague, when citing the statement, could
11 use the language that's in the statement so that it could be put to the
12 witness in the same terms that's in the statement. Thank you.
13 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Yes. In fact, my notes contain
14 parts of the witness's 2002 statement, Madam Kravetz, and it is the
15 statement that contains these pieces of information that -- and this is
16 something that I thought was not in dispute, that -- the statement in
17 fact does state that in 1996 16.000 Serbs from Bosnia and Croatia
18 in Kosovo. I merely wanted to learn what his source was, and that's at
19 page 15 of his statement.
20 THE WITNESS: I would have to check my records. I apologise for
21 that. I do not recall at this moment the source for that information,
22 but I am certain that there was a process of a state policy of trying to
23 re-settle Serbs from Bosnia-Herzegovina as well as from Albania
24 was a Serbian community in Albania
25 re-settle in Kosovo during that time. On the Albanian side I know
1 because I've spoken with some of them.
2 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Thank you. Mr. Abrahams, I'd like to know your sources about the
4 forming of the KLA.
5 A. My knowledge about the KLA formation comes from various sources,
6 multiple sources. Throughout my time as a researcher in Kosovo, I also
7 encountered and interacted with the Kosovo Liberation Army, as we do with
8 the government and armed forces around the world, armed groups around the
9 world. We communicate and try and obtain information from them and
10 engage in advocacy to improve their behaviour with regards to
11 international humanitarian law.
12 In addition to that, I have been and still am working on a book
13 about the history of Albania
15 individuals who were involved in the KLA.
16 Q. On the issue of the history of the Republic of Albania
17 to the members of the KLA to get information on that matter?
18 A. The book has a chapter about Kosovo because it's a modern
19 history, and in that context I interviewed some founders and members of
20 the KLA.
21 Q. The KLA or FARK?
22 A. KLA, although FARK is mentioned also in the book.
23 Q. Thank you. Now let me move on to this brochure that you
24 produced, "Under Orders." Please tell me, it was published in
25 October 2001; am I correct?
1 A. The report "Under Orders" was published in October 2001, yes.
2 Q. Thank you. Am I right when I say that you are listed as the
3 project coordinator?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Thank you. We talked about the researchers and data gathering.
6 Now I would like to move on to the part -- the chapter where it says that
7 the historical and political background of this report is based on the
8 previous writings of many associates of the Human Rights Watch who
9 started --
10 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the counsel please
11 slow down when reading.
12 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Mr. Abrahams, your name is not here.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The last portion of the
15 question was not interpreted. The witness did not hear it.
16 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Let me read again - and I
17 apologise for reading too fast - the chapter: "The Historical and
18 Political Background" of this report is based on the research and
19 publications of many current and former employees of the
20 Human Rights Watch who started working in Kosovo in 1990. Ken Anderson,
21 Jeri Laber, Ivana Nizich, Vlatka Mihailovic, Julie Mertes, Gordana Igric,
22 and Peter Bouckaert. Your name is not listed here, Mr. Abrahams, among
23 the authors of the historical and political background; am I right?
24 A. You are right.
25 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Sir, could we please have P741 up
1 on our screens, but I will read.
2 Q. This is a brochure of yours. Its title is: "Human Rights
3 Violations in Kosovo" or "Humanitarian Law Violations in Kosovo."
4 And you are listed as the author of the report and some parts
5 were authored by Elizabeth Andersen. Additional research was carried out
6 by Peter Bouckaert, Sahr Muhamed Ally, Suzanne Nossel, and Redmond; is
7 that correct?
8 A. I would have to see the page in question, but I take your word
9 for it, that is correct.
10 Q. Thank you. I take your word, Mr. Abrahams. Now this part where
11 it says that it was written by Fred Abrahams, researcher, does it mean
12 that you also carried out the research on which this is based?
13 A. Yes, that's correct.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. I just need to find
16 the document that I need.
17 Q. Mr. Abrahams - that's Exhibit 755 - this is your work. The title
18 is: "Village destroyed, war crimes in Kosovo."
19 Am I right when I say that on page 1, paragraph 2 -- yes, front
20 page just in -- before the abstract you say:
21 "To protect against possible revenge, the Human Rights Watch used
22 initials and pseudonyms for witnesses whose statements appear in this
24 A. I don't see that reference on the screen.
25 Q. It's just above "summary."
1 "In order to protect individuals from possible reprisals ..."
2 A. Yes, I see that section.
3 Q. Is it correct what it says here?
4 A. When this report was published, we had reason to fear for the
5 security of the interviewees. I do have the full names of all of the
6 individuals, and I now believe that this fear no longer exists and would
7 be willing to provide the names after a consultation with my notes, so
8 long -- so long as none of those individuals had requested anonymity.
9 And even if they did request anonymity, I am willing to approach them and
10 ask now whether they are willing to lift that condition.
11 Q. Thank you. And just one more thing, just one more question -- I
12 can't find the document, but -- it's: "Kosovo: Rape as a weapon of
13 'ethnic cleansing.'"
14 Am I right when I say that you authored this report and that two
15 of your associates carried out the research and that it is stated in this
16 document. It's document 386, it's a 65 ter document. But I would like
17 to have the Serbian version too.
18 THE REGISTRAR: This document, Your Honours, was assigned
19 P00757 MFI
20 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] It's at the end of the document --
21 or could you please go to page 2 first. Just let me see if it's at the
22 beginning or perhaps it's at the end, page 65. Yes -- no, could we then
23 please have page 65.
24 I'm sorry, sir. That's page 41. My associate has just told me.
25 No, it's not -- well, it doesn't matter.
1 Q. Mr. Abrahams, well this was my last question and this document
2 has already been admitted into evidence and it is listed there. So,
3 Mr. Abrahams, I don't have any further questions for you.
4 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you very much
5 for your patience. This completes my examination of this witness.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Djurdjic.
7 Ms. Kravetz.
8 MS. KRAVETZ: Thank you, Your Honour, I have a couple of
9 questions, and I hope we complete before the next break.
10 Re-examination by Ms. Kravetz:
11 Q. Mr. Abrahams, yesterday during the course of cross-examination by
12 my learned colleague you were asked a question relating to events in
13 Kosovo in 1999, and this is at transcript page 4050. Specifically you
14 were asked whether -- why the state of Serbia and the state of Yugoslavia
15 as affluent as it was would shell villages without there being any
16 fighting and that this should happen over and over again, and you
17 responded that you could not comment as to the affluence of the Serbian
18 or Yugoslav state but that you did document a pattern of indiscriminate
19 fire into villages. Could you please explain what you meant when you
20 said yesterday that you had documented a pattern of indiscriminate fire
21 into villages in 1998.
22 A. In 1998 and early 1999 conducted the five research missions and
23 through interviews with villagers, mostly we were in the villages, the
24 conflict was not at that time in the main cities, villagers told us about
25 a very common practice which was the -- that their homes, their area,
1 would be surrounded by the army and the area would be shelled and the
2 villagers would then flee into the nearby woods or out of the inhabited
3 area, after which the ground forces of the police would -- would enter.
4 So we heard this story consistently. The details were different,
5 but it seemed to us to emerge as a pattern, as a standard operating
6 procedure that we saw again and again. And I can't tell you exactly how
7 many villages, but definitely enough to suggest a pattern which is not to
8 say that there was no KLA presence in those villages. In many of them,
9 there very well may have been. In some of them there definitely were.
10 That's not to say the KLA did not exist and wasn't fighting. In some of
11 those areas they definitely were.
12 Q. Thank you for clarifying that. I want to move now to a different
13 topic. Yesterday you were asked about a series of letters of inquiry
14 that were sent by Human Rights Watch in -- on 20th July, 1998.
15 MS. KRAVETZ: If we could have Exhibit 747 up on the screen.
16 Q. Now, this is one of the letters that you have seen earlier in
17 your testimony, and it is addressed to the secretary of information,
18 Mr. Aleksandar Vucic. If we could please see page 2 of this letter. It
19 is the cover page. Now if we could scroll down below the signature,
21 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Djurdjic.
22 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I only showed the
23 exhibits that were shown by Ms. Kravetz to the witness. I did not show
24 this to the witness.
25 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honours, my learned colleague asked extensive
1 questions on these letters of inquiry that were sent on 20th July, 1998.
2 It is true that he showed the letter sent to Mr. Stojiljkovic and also to
3 the Yugoslav Army. This is one of those letters, and I believe the line
4 of questioning that my learned colleague conducted yesterday allows me to
5 show this document.
6 JUDGE PARKER: That would be our view as well, Ms. Kravetz.
7 MS. KRAVETZ: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Now, if we could zoom in below the signature of
9 Ms. Holly Cartner.
10 Q. We see there are several entities that are all CC'd. If you
11 could read the list that appears below the signature.
12 A. Yugoslav secretary of information, Yugoslav minister of the
13 interior, Serbian minister of the interior.
14 Q. Now, based on what you're able to see on this letter, would all
15 these persons have received a copy of the letter that had been addressed
16 to the Serbian secretary of information, Mr. Vucic?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Could you explain why Human Rights Watch would send a letter to
19 the secretary of information and also CC all these different persons in
20 this type of letter of inquiry.
21 A. For non-governmental organisations such as Human Rights Watch,
22 the secretary of information or Ministry of Information is the common
23 interlocutor. So requests or communications are sent to this office,
24 with the expectation and understanding that they are distributed to the
25 responsible officials within the government, but in this case,
1 apparently, we also sent letters or copies of the letter directly to the
2 ministries concerned.
3 Q. Now, you were asked several questions yesterday about the mailing
4 list used by Human Rights Watch to distribute its reports, press
5 communiques, and other types of advocacy papers. To the best of your
6 recollection in 1998 and 1999, did this mailing list include the
7 Serbian Ministry of the Interior, the MUP, Serbian MUP?
8 A. Yes, it did.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MS. KRAVETZ: Those or my questions, Your Honour. I have no
11 further questions for this witness.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Ms. Kravetz.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Abrahams, you'll be pleased to know that that
15 concludes the questions. The Chamber is grateful that you have once
16 again been able to spend time in The Hague and to assist us in this
17 trial. We have your various statements as well as your actual testimony
18 which we will consider in due course. We thank you and of course you may
19 now return to your normal activities.
20 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honours.
21 [The witness withdrew]
22 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Kravetz.
23 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honour, before we move on to the next witness,
24 there are a number of exhibits -- I believe there were three that were
25 marked for identification at the beginning of this witness's testimony.
1 I just wanted to inquire with the Court whether we would be required to
2 make any further submissions, either orally or in writing, with regard to
3 those exhibits before Your Honours.
4 JUDGE PARKER: I don't think we at the moment see reason for
5 further submissions. We will be considering those submissions and coming
6 down with a decision quite shortly. Thank you.
7 MS. KRAVETZ: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Now, the question arises whether as a matter of
9 practical convenience we should spend nine minutes with a new witness or
10 adjourn now for the first break and commence with the new witness on our
12 MS. KRAVETZ: It is our preference if we could adjourn now and
13 commence with the witness after the break. I would like to indicate and
14 I presume Your Honours have seen that Mr. Hannis is in court here today.
15 He's exceptionally here. He will be standing in for Mr. Stamp and will
16 be leading the next witness in chief. Thank you.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Well, we welcome back, actually, Mr. Hannis.
18 We will therefore adjourn now for half an hour and resume at five
19 minutes past 4.00.
20 --- Recess taken at 3.38 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 4.07 p.m.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Hannis.
23 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour. Our next witness will be
24 Zarko Brakovic.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
1 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, he's what I refer to as a combination
2 witness. We have a 92 ter statement we intend to use, but I also intend
3 to lead him live on some matters as well.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon. Would you please read aloud the
6 affirmation that is shown to you now.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon. I solemnly declare
8 that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
9 WITNESS: ZARKO BRAKOVIC
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 JUDGE PARKER: Please sit down.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Hannis has some questions for you.
14 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours.
15 Examination by Mr. Hannis:
16 Q. Good afternoon, sir. My name is Tom Hannis. I'm a senior trial
17 attorney, a Prosecutor here at The Hague. We haven't met before;
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. I know you dealt some with Mr. Stamp before in preparing for your
21 testimony; but he's not available today, and I'm filling in for him. I'd
22 like to begin by talking about a statement that you gave to the OTP in
23 May of 2004.
24 MR. HANNIS: And, Your Honours, with your permission what I'd
25 like to do is I have a binder with B/C/S copies, hard copies, of his
1 statement as well as some of the exhibits I intend to ask him about. I
2 know we'll be using e-court as well, but sometimes I find it quicker to
3 go through some documents if he has a hard copy available. And if
4 there's no objection from Mr. Djurdjic I would ask if the usher could
5 hand this to the witness now.
6 JUDGE PARKER: That can be done, yes.
7 MR. HANNIS: Thank you very much.
8 Q. And, sir, I don't know how you would like to be addressed.
9 Should I call you "mister," or should I call you "general"? I understand
10 you're still active duty in the MUP.
11 A. I don't mind either way. It's up to you really.
12 Q. All right, thank you. Well I'll call you general. Do you recall
13 having given that statement in May of 2004?
14 A. Yes, I do.
15 Q. And that is 65 ter 05190 for the record.
16 Did you have a chance to read it and review it before coming to
18 A. Yes, I did.
19 Q. And I understand from my colleague Mr. Stamp that when you did
20 review it, I think earlier this week on Sunday, that you had some changes
21 or corrections that you wished to make; is that right?
22 A. Well, they are, in fact, only some technical details and
24 Q. Well, perhaps we can go through those before I ask you to confirm
25 your statement, and I guess the easiest way for me to do this is I will
1 look at the notes that Mr. Stamp made and ask if you can correct that. I
2 know the first corrections you wanted to make had to do with your career
3 details, which are on page 2 of the English. And you wanted to make some
4 corrections concerning the dates. Do you recall what those were now?
5 A. Between 1993 and 1994 I was the commander of the police station
6 in Podujevo. From 1994 through to March of 1995 I was the -- I commanded
7 the PJP unit in Pristina, but under six months I think it was. From 1995
8 to 2000, head of the police division of the Pristina SUP. Alongside
9 that, from 1997 to 2001 - unless I'm mistaken - I was the commander of
10 the 24th PJP Detachment, which later became the
11 124th Intervention Brigade.
12 In 2001 deputy chief of the gendarmerie or deputy head, it
13 doesn't make a difference, really. Under promotions and commendations,
14 from 1988 to 1995 I was an independent inspector. I would also like to
15 add that I completed the home affairs secondary school, the police
16 secondary school, and that I was credited with highest marks, and I was
17 the best cadet of my class. And in 1994 I was awarded a pistol from the
18 Ministry of the -- by the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
19 In 1996 I received a pecuniary prize from the minister. From
20 February 1999 I became a lieutenant-colonel. I was specially promoted a
22 Q. When you say you were specially promoted, what did that mean?
23 Ahead of time?
24 A. Yes. It was an early promotion, though not much ahead of what
25 would have been the regular promotion. Let me also add that in 2001 I
1 received a pecuniary reward from the minister of the interior, and in
2 2003, also from the then-minister of the interior, I received a ducat
3 which is also a sort of an award that is normally given by the minister.
4 And unless I'm mistaken, these are all the corrections I have to make.
5 Q. Okay. I had some notes that there were some additional ones that
6 I'll ask you about. In paragraph 9 of your statement you indicated to
7 Mr. Stamp that there was a change you wanted to make about when the
8 24th Detachment was increased in size and transformed to the 124th. Do
9 you recall what that was?
10 A. Yes, the statement says that the 24th Detachment of the PJP
11 increased in size in 1998 to deal with the developing security crisis in
12 Kosovo, and with this increase it became known as the
13 124th Intervention Brigade. The only comment I made was that I do not
14 think that this was the reason behind this change. It -- either what we
15 were discussing was misconstrued or what I wanted to say was
16 misinterpreted. In page -- in paragraph 11 we also found a linguistic
17 error. It says OPG. In Serbian that means the operational sweep group,
18 whereas I was told that in the English translation, the way it is
19 written, it says something else; and I think that what I meant or had in
20 mind was much better. I think in English it was some sort of a clean-up
21 that was involved.
22 Q. I think what you had indicated was that in the B/C/S the Serbian
23 word for sweep is not included, but I will tell you that in the English
24 version the OPG is translated as operational sweep groups. So it seems
25 like the English is correct and there was just a Serbian word missing.
1 Is that correct?
2 A. Well, not. You see, there's a difference. A clean-up operation
3 implies quite something else than the sweep operation implies. A sweep
4 operation is an operation aimed at searching an area. A clean-up means
5 something else.
6 Q. There's nothing in the English about clean-up. It only has
7 sweep. Is that what you want?
8 MR. HANNIS: I see Mr. Djurdjic on his feet, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Djurdjic.
10 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] If I may be of assistance, I
11 was -- I received in the interpretation that Mr. Stamp [sic] had said
12 operational search groups or investigating groups. I think that they
13 might have caused the problem. The other term "ciscenje" or clean-up was
14 also used. I know what the OPG means in Serbian. I don't know what the
15 English translation should be, but definitely not -- it should not
16 involve investigation or anything of the sort, as was said that
17 Mr. Stamp [sic] had referred to it.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Hannis, I don't know whether the matter's any
19 clearer to you.
20 MR. HANNIS: No. I think I understand. The English word is
21 "sweep" and I think that's consistent with what the witness and
22 Mr. Djurdjic believe it should be, and I -- that's my position. And I
23 would also indicate that Mr. Stamp is not here, and Mr. Stamp hasn't said
24 anything yet today.
25 JUDGE PARKER: For the moment we'll take it in English as sweep.
1 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. General, is there anything else in the statement that you wanted
3 to change or bring attention to the Judges today?
4 A. In principle, no, I don't think that there's anything else.
5 Q. Okay --
6 A. I suppose that we will be discussing these matters in the course
7 of my testimony, and then we might come across certain issues that can be
8 left as they are at present but will be explained in our discussions;
10 Q. Yes. One point I wanted to make now, though, are you satisfied
11 and can you confirm to the Court that with those changes that we just
12 went through that your written statement is accurate and that you would
13 answer the questions that were put to you then in the same way today if
14 you were asked the same questions?
15 A. Well, in principle, yes. Again, as I said, with certain
16 explanations because some of the statements herein are quite short and
17 perhaps require additional explanation.
18 Q. All right. Thank you.
19 MR. HANNIS: With that, Your Honour, I would like to tender 5190
20 at this time.
21 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
22 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
23 THE REGISTRAR: That will be assigned P00759, Your Honours.
24 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
25 And I understand it's the procedure, Your Honour, in this court
1 at this time for me to read a brief summary of what the statement is
2 about, if I may do so. Thank you.
3 In 1999 the witness was the commander of the 24th PJP Detachment,
4 later the 124th Intervention Brigade, and the head of the police
5 department of the Pristina SUP
6 structure in Kosovo. He describes the organisational structure of PJP
7 units, describing their uniforms, equipment, modalities of intervention,
8 and operations, with a particular focus on the 24th Detachment, then
9 124th Intervention Brigade.
10 He also describes how anti-terrorist operations were conducted in
11 1999, whereby the PJP units involved were under the operational command
12 of the VJ for the specific operation. He specifies that in general all
13 anti-terrorist operations were planned by the VJ which would issue the
14 combat orders and plan of the operation. He describes the coordination
15 between the VJ and the MUP, PJP, for combat operations.
16 The witness occasionally participated to meetings of the MUP
17 staff in Kosovo and will testify to visits to Kosovo by
18 General Obrad Stevanovic and General Vlastimir Djordjevic in 1999. He
19 will also testify to the VJ headquarter in the Grand Hotel in Pristina
20 during the war.
21 Q. Now, General, if I may, can you tell us -- we have your written
22 statement, the Judges have that information, so I'm going to go to some
23 particular points. What position did you hold in 1998?
24 A. If you'll allow me to just make two points before answering your
25 question because this may be important for my subsequent testimony. It
1 is common knowledge that the events that I am supposed to testify about
2 today happened more than ten years ago. The documentation that I had and
3 which could have proved useful to me for my preparation for today
4 perished in the bombing of the Secretariat of the Interior in Pristina
5 where I used to work. I think the bombing happened on the
6 29th of March, 1999. In the meantime, I was engaged in a similar
7 assignment, though not equal in scale or scope. I wish to tell you that
8 I will do my best to recall all the relevant events and incidents that
9 will be of interest for the Chamber.
10 Can you please repeat your question now.
11 Q. Yes. Can you tell us what position you held within the MUP
12 beginning from 1998.
13 A. In 1999, I was the chief of the police department of the
14 Pristina Secretariat of the Interior. As I said, concurrently I held the
15 position of a commander of what was at the time the
16 124th Intervention Brigade.
17 Q. And in 1998?
18 A. The same as above. If we're talking about the early 1998, I was
19 the commander of the 24th Detachment unless I'm mistaken.
20 Q. Okay. And can you explain for us what was the
21 24th PJP Detachment?
22 A. The 24th PJP Detachment was one of the units, one of the special
23 police units of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia
24 It was one of several PJP units.
25 Q. And the 24th was located in Pristina, Kosovo?
1 A. No. It was not stationed in Pristina, rather, it was composed of
2 members of the police from the Secretariat of the Interior from the area
3 of Kosovo. It was not a standing unit. It was an ad hoc unit composed
4 of members of the regular police forces which would when necessary come
5 together and form the ad hoc 24th Detachment.
6 Q. And in 1998 approximately how many members were there in the
7 24th PJP Detachment?
8 A. I wouldn't be able to tell you exactly, roughly 850. Again, I
9 have to emphasize that I can't be quite precise in the figure.
10 Q. I understand. I will take it that for numbers and dates that
11 sometimes you may just be giving us your best approximation because we're
12 talking about ten years ago. Of those 800 or 850, approximately, PJP
13 members, do you have an idea of what percentage of them came from your
14 Pristina SUP
15 help with that?
16 A. Well, from the Pristina Secretariat of the Interior, there were
17 two companies of the total of eight companies. So seven Secretariat of
18 the Interior in Kosovo and Metohija, they existed there, and six provided
19 one company and the Pristina secretariat provided two companies because
20 it was the largest one. And now I can't really give you the percentage
21 in regarding the regular standing personnel strength.
22 Q. Okay. I understand you were the commander of the 24th Detachment
23 in 1998; is that right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Can you tell the Judges when you were made the commander and by
1 whom, how did that happen?
2 A. Well, if I am not mistaken, if my memory serves me right, I was
3 appointed the commander of this detachment in 1997. I was preceded by my
4 late colleague Jovica Milancic. And when he died a few months later, the
5 then-chief of the Pristina SUP
6 recommended that I should be appointed detachment commander because the
7 Pristina Secretariat of the Interior was the secretariat from whose ranks
8 commanders were appointed to the post of -- as detachment commanders.
9 And this is why I was put on the personnel list because in order to be a
10 member or an officer in the PJP, you didn't have to have a written
11 decision to that effect because there was a decision to the defect that
12 once you were put on the establishment list you became a member. I think
13 it was in 1997.
14 Q. And prior to becoming named the commander, had you been just a
15 regular member of the PJP; and if so, for how long?
16 A. Could you please repeat your question. I didn't really
17 understand it.
18 Q. Before you got named the commander in 1997, had you been just a
19 regular PJP member not holding a command position; and if so, for how
21 A. Well, I was a member of the PJP from the very time when it was
22 established in 1993 I think, but between 1995 and 1997 I was not a
23 member, but in the period before that I was, from 1993 in other words.
24 Q. Okay. Thank you. One thing I'm not clear on is as commander of
25 the PJP, the 24th Detachment, I understand that was an ad hoc body, you
1 also had your regular job in the Pristina SUP as head of the police
2 department; correct?
3 A. Absolutely.
4 Q. Okay. And in your job in the Pristina SUP as head of the police
5 department, who was your boss, your immediate superior, is that the chief
6 of the SUP
7 A. In the secretariat where I was the chief of the department, my
8 superior was the chief of the secretariat. And the secretariat in
9 Pristina - let's take that as an example - had about 13 departments. So
10 I was one of the 13 department chiefs from various segments. And let me
11 add here, while I was the detachment commander, I could not have at the
12 same time served as the department chief. It's logical. So it was
13 physically impossible for me to perform both those duties.
14 Q. So how did that work? When you became detachment commander you
15 didn't do any work anymore as head of the police department during that
17 A. Well, I've already said that the 24th Detachment was an ad hoc
18 unit. It was not a standing unit, and it performed tasks from that
19 sphere. So when I did jobs that had to do with the 24th Detachment, I
20 did not at the same time act as the department chief.
21 Q. Okay. I think I understand now. So -- but when the 24th was not
22 actively engaged in anything, then you were doing your regular job;
24 A. That's right.
25 Q. Okay. In 1998, the 24th PJP detachment became the
1 124th Intervention Brigade. Do you recall approximately when that
2 occurred? I think we'll look at a document in a little bit.
3 A. Yes. I think it was in June 1998.
4 Q. Okay. And in 1998 and 1999 can you tell us who was the head of
5 the SUP
6 changes during that time, but can you tell us beginning in 1998 who was
7 the chief of the Pristina SUP
8 A. The chief of the Pristina SUP was Colonel Bosko Petric. If my
9 memory serves me right, I think that in April it was
10 Colonel Bogoljub Janicevic who was appointed the chief. Before that he
11 served as the chief of the Urosevac SUP.
12 Q. Do you know why Colonel Petric was replaced?
13 A. Well, it was not the nature of my job to know that at the time,
14 but I did not see this as his removal from office because he was sent
15 from the Uzice secretariat there, he was seconded there. And once the --
16 his secondment expired, he simply went back to his original job. I think
17 there is even a limitation under the law for the time that one can stay
18 away from one's original unit.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic.
20 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, thank you very
21 much. The witness responded, but I do not like the way that Mr. Hannis
22 is phrasing his questions because the witness never did say that Colonel
23 Petric was removed from office. And the way that question was asked was:
24 "Do you know why Colonel Petric was removed from office in April," and I
25 think these are very important issues and this is not just a question of
1 linguistic nuance. Thank you.
2 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, if I may, my question was:
3 "Do you know Colonel Petric was replaced?"
4 The witness's statement paragraph 1 says:
5 "... Colonel Bosko Petric until the end of April 1999 when he was
6 replaced ..."
7 I'm using the exact words in the witness's statement.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Hannis. Carry on.
9 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
10 Q. Now, when you were acting as commander of the PJP detachment and
11 later the intervention brigade, in that role, when it was active and
12 engaged, who was your superior? Who did you report to for purposes of
13 activities of the PJP unit?
14 A. What period are you talking about, and what tasks do you have in
16 Q. Well, 1998 and 1999 is the time-period, and I'm talking about any
17 time when the PJP was formed to carry out a task so that you would be
18 working as detachment commander instead of working at your regular job as
19 head of the police department.
20 A. Well, in 1998 and 1999 we were mostly deployed in
21 Kosovo and Metohija. My superior command, so to speak, at that time as
22 regards those activities was the MUP staff which was established in
23 Pristina, so for those activities, because according to a decision, the
24 relevant decision, they were responsible for that, and they were in
1 Q. Was there a particular individual in the MUP staff that you were
2 responsible to or that you reported to concerning activities of your
3 PJP unit?
4 A. Well, if you're talking about anti-terrorist actions that we
5 conducted in that period, I said that we carried out those missions for
6 the most part in accordance with the pre-existing plans that we received,
7 and we acted in accordance with those plans. So as far as I know, the
8 format, the contents, and all the other aspects of those plans, I think
9 that it was all done and produced by the military command.
10 And as regards the reporting following those actions, the reports
11 were submitted by the command of the unit that I was in the field with
12 and I was subordinate - I think that's the correct term. And now, as for
13 notification, I informed the MUP staff whenever somebody called to
14 inquire about the goings-on, what was happening, and so on.
15 Q. And who would that MUP staff member be? Was it always the same
16 person or different people?
17 A. Well, it was not always the same person. It would be some
18 officer from the staff.
19 Q. Do you remember any of the names of those persons from the MUP
20 staff that you dealt with?
21 A. Well, I think it was Dusko Adamovic, Miroslav Mijatovic -- well,
22 I can't now recall, but probably other people too.
23 Q. And you've described the PJP unit that you commanded as being an
24 ad hoc body that was not a standing unit that came together and got
25 active as needed. Can you explain to the Judges the process, how that
1 worked. Who decided when your detachment or brigade was going to be
2 needed? Do you know who made that decision and -- well, answer that
3 first, please.
4 A. Well, I don't know who planned those activities. I assume --
5 well, since the documents were produced in terms of their format and
6 contents in the way that it was done in the military; so I assume that
7 the information about the MUP units, the independent MUP units, was
8 submitted by somebody from the staff. Now, as for my unit, I couldn't
9 really give you an answer. It was probably somebody -- well, in
10 accordance with the procedure that I've already outlined.
11 Q. Well, how would you become informed that your unit was going to
12 be required to do a task? Wasn't there somebody in MUP who told you
13 about that?
14 A. Well, usually we would receive our task and the documents that we
15 needed to carry out the task.
16 Q. From whom?
17 A. Well, it was either some of the officers from the staff or we
18 would receive this in the field at those briefings that we had together
19 with the army personnel in the course of the preparations for the task.
20 But from the beginning of the war, the whole procedure became more
22 Q. In what way did it become more complex with the beginning of the
24 A. Well, it became more complex because the building where the staff
25 headquarters was located, the secretariat headquarters, was hit by bombs
1 and the staff was moving all the time. So when we were summoned to
2 attend a meeting, we never knew where the meeting would be held. We went
3 then to the secretariat headquarters, took the documents, and then we
4 went to talk to the military people, and we would do all the preparations
5 that were necessary, including reconnaissance and so on.
6 Q. I assume that in 1999 after March 24th when the bombing started,
7 that your PJP or your intervention brigade was engaged full time, every
8 day, throughout the end of the war; is that correct?
9 A. No.
10 Q. So what percentage of the time was your PJP unit active during
11 the months of the war?
12 A. Well, if I may be allowed to say this, I said that
13 124th Intervention Brigade consisted of eight companies, and it was never
14 deployed in its full composition, at full strength, the eight companies.
15 Mostly there would be only four or five companies from the
16 Pristina secretariat, Urosevac, and Gnjilane secretariats, and maybe a
17 company here and there that was unengaged at the time or that was based
18 in the territory where the mission was to be carried out.
19 Other companies were used by other PJP detachments, so one or two
20 companies. So at that time, I did not know whether they were actually
21 engaged in any kind of mission because they were not under any obligation
22 to report to me. They performed their tasks in accordance with the plans
23 that they had received. So I was only in charge of coordinating the
24 companies that were under the plan envisaged as participating in a
25 mission and for the specific mission that I was appointed the head of the
1 unit for. So I could not give you a percentage. But I assume that there
2 were quite a few occasions when the unit was engaged and deployed.
3 Q. Okay. If you can help me out, I'm a little unclear then about
4 your role as commander of the 124th Intervention Brigade. I think you
5 told us before there were -- is it correct there were eight companies in
6 the 124th Brigade in 1999?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And as commander were you the commander of all eight companies?
9 A. I was the commander of all those eight companies, but when only
10 some of the companies were engaged to perform a task, then I commanded
11 only those companies that were performing that task. I was not a
12 commander of the companies that were not engaged under me but were
13 engaged in tasks to be performed by other PJP detachments or the
15 PJP is a specific kind of unit because it is an ad hoc unit.
16 There is an establishment structure, but that doesn't mean that at any
17 given time all its members have to be deployed or engaged. But it
18 depends on the actual needs based on the task, the specific task. So if
19 I was designated as the person in charge of a certain task or mission,
20 then I commanded the companies that were designated as being deployed to
21 perform it. I don't know if I was clear.
22 So this was not like a standing unit in the military with the
23 permanent command and the permanent composition and everything that goes
24 with it. It was an ad hoc unit which did have its accomplishment and it
25 was used for each specific task in the strength that was necessary to
1 actually perform that task. The same went for all the PJP detachments,
2 not just the unit that was under my command.
3 Q. Okay. Let me follow-up to be sure I'm understanding. You had
4 eight companies in your brigade and say, because of the situation in
5 Kosovo in April 1999, two of your companies were requested to help the VJ
6 in Pec and two of your companies were requested to help in Suva Reka, how
7 did that work? Are you still the commander of those companies, or is
8 their command delegated to someone else? Can you explain that if you
9 understand my question.
10 A. Well, the command was transferred to whoever they were carrying
11 out the task with.
12 Q. And I understand that when there were joint operations performed
13 by the VJ and the MUP, that - according to your statement - the MUP unit
14 was subordinated for the purpose of that combat task or action; correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. But do you know who decided when two companies of your brigade
17 were going to be sent somewhere else for a task? Did you have any say in
18 that or was that done by somebody higher in the MUP or by the VJ? How
19 did that happen? Who got to choose?
20 A. Well, I did not decide. Now, I couldn't really tell you who got
21 to choose, but I assume that it was done by somebody in the staff.
22 Q. Well, how did you become aware that two of your companies were
23 going to be going to Pec next week to help the VJ? Did you receive a
24 document or did somebody from the MUP staff call you? Did somebody from
25 the company say, Hey, Boss, we're going to Pec? How do you find out?
1 A. I didn't really understand your question. Could you please
2 repeat it.
3 Q. Yes. If you're the brigade commander, the overall commander of
4 these eight companies, if it came about that two companies were going to
5 be required to go help with a specific task or action and assist the VJ,
6 for example, in Pec, how did you find out about that? Did somebody first
7 ask you, Can you loan us two units? Or did your boss say, You need to
8 send two of your companies there? Or did you find out once your two
9 companies had arrived in Pec and say, Hey Boss, the VJ needs us over
10 here? How did that work? There must have been a system in place.
11 A. Normally one company was engaged only. Only in very rare cases
12 were two companies engaged because they were distributed or present along
13 the various secretariats. So if there was need for one company to be
14 deployed to, let's say, Pec, then that one company would be dispatched
15 from the secretariat in Pec, rather than having another unit come in from
16 a different area.
17 Q. So are you telling me that your eight companies in Pristina never
18 operated outside the area of Pristina municipality?
19 A. I'm under the impression that you misunderstood me. There
20 weren't eight companies in Pristina. There were two companies in
21 Pristina only. My feeling was that you phrased your question
22 differently. I said at the outset that each secretariat had one company.
23 There's the Kosovska Mitrovica; then Pec; third, Djakovica; fourth,
24 Prizren; fifth, Urosevac; sixth, Gnjilane; and there were two companies
25 present in the secretariat in Pristina. Had there been a need to engage
1 one company for the purposes of the area of Pec, then the company
2 stationed with the Pec secretariat would have been the one to be
3 deployed. I don't know if I was clear enough this time, if you
4 understand me.
5 Q. I think I do now, and you're right, I misunderstood or I had
6 forgotten what you told me when I first asked my question. But in light
7 of what you've said just now, of those eight companies, the two in
8 Pristina, the others in the various municipalities you described, weren't
9 there times during the war, for example, where the needs were such that a
10 particular PJP company was called upon to operate outside its home
11 municipality, if you will?
12 A. Well, there probably were. However, I wouldn't be able to give
13 you a specific example. I suppose that there probably were such cases.
14 Q. But as you sit here right now, you can't remember that ever
16 A. Well, I can't recall a specific instance, but I presume that that
17 was the case.
18 Q. Okay. Maybe we'll come back to that when we look at some of the
19 documents. And I would like to look at one document right now. This is
20 65 ter number 01252.
21 And, General, for you in the binder it's the tab marked
22 number 25, if you could have a look at that. And my English translation
23 indicates this is a decision on the composition of the staff, leaders and
24 members of the staff of the MUP for Kosovo and Metohija. The date is not
25 clear on my copy. I think it's May 11th, 1998, and it appears to bear
1 the signature and stamp of General Djordjevic.
2 Have you seen this document before today?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Okay. Do you see item number 4 lists you -- I guess your grade
5 level at the time was major. It says:
6 "Major Zarko Brakovic, chief of the police department of the SUP
7 Pristina, as the assistant staff leader for police affairs."
8 Were you ever told that you had been named a member of the MUP
9 staff for Kosovo?
10 A. Nobody ever told me that. My view is that the composition of the
11 staff was somewhat different based on what I know from my work in
12 reality. Nobody informed me of me holding this position, nor did I ever
13 feel I was discharging it.
14 Q. Okay. Well, we'll come to more about that in a minute. In your
15 witness statement, which is now Exhibit P759, in paragraph 5 you said:
16 "By virtue of my position as commander of the 24th Detachment of
17 the PJP and the 124th Intervention Brigade, I was a member of the MUP
18 staff for Kosovo until June 1998 ..."
19 Is that correct?
20 A. That is correct. If the Trial Chamber is interested, I can offer
21 an explanation of the principle underlying this practice.
22 Q. Well, I -- go ahead, please.
23 A. When my predecessor, the late Milacic, was the commander of the
24 24th Detachment before my time, he was appointed assistant leader of the
25 MUP staff alongside the other position. My guess is that when I replaced
1 him I automatically became a member of the staff, and that was between
2 1997 and 1998, unless I'm mistaken. So what I said there was that I
3 was -- I held that position on paper, but I did not effectively
4 participate in the work of the staff, save for having attended several
5 meetings. I had no other role to play there. That was in 1997 and 1998.
6 Q. In your statement you say you held that position on the staff
7 until June 1998. What happened in June 1998 that changed that?
8 A. I don't know about that. I was never the one to be appointed to
9 any position. It was in somebody else's hands, and I can't give you an
11 Q. Well, how did you know that you weren't on the staff anymore?
12 Did somebody tell you, Mr. Brakovic, don't come to the staff meetings
13 anymore? How did you find out?
14 A. I found out because some other individuals appeared in the staff
15 and carried out the duties that were defined for them. I can't remember
16 whether it was somebody from the staff who told me as much. I don't
17 remember, but I suppose that that's how I learnt, somebody told me.
18 Q. Do you remember who it was that told you?
19 A. I told you in my answer there I can't remember. There's a
20 possibility that it might have happened either way, that's why I can't
21 answer your question.
22 Q. Okay. Related to that let me show you another document and we'll
23 come back to this.
24 MR. HANNIS: I think, Your Honours, I want to tender this but
25 perhaps I need to talk about the next one first.
1 Can we have a look at exhibit in evidence P57.
2 Q. And this is the next tab for you, General, it's tab 26. And this
3 is dated the 16th of June, 1998, entitled: "Decision to establish a
4 ministerial staff for the suppression of terrorism."
5 Have you seen that document before today?
6 A. Yes, I have, during the preparation for my testimony in the
7 Ministry of the Interior in Belgrade
8 testimony today.
9 Q. Was that the first time you'd ever seen it?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Do you recall who in the ministry showed that to you?
12 A. Do you mean in reference to what I said about my preparation for
13 the testimony?
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. Well, nobody showed it to me. I asked to be given access to
16 certain documents that might assist me in providing a relevant testimony
17 today. Among others, this decision was in the documents I reviewed.
18 Q. Well, how did you phrase your request? What documents did you
19 ask for?
20 A. I didn't ask for any specific documents. I asked to be given
21 access to the archives, and I was. Subsequently, I sought certain
22 documents that were relevant for me, and they were made available to me
23 in photocopies -- or rather, on a CD, and I have them. But I don't think
24 I have this particular decision. It wasn't relevant. So I don't have
25 it. I only saw it.
1 Q. Ah, okay. Well -- so you saw this one but you didn't see the
2 previous one we looked at where it has your name as being appointed to
3 the staff; is that right? Nobody showed you that one?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Okay. From what you know about the MUP staff in June 1998 and
6 in -- through the rest of the year into 1999, are the people listed here
7 in P57, the document at tab 26 in your binder, the people who were
8 members of the MUP staff based on what you saw and heard and knew?
9 A. I think so. A number of them were and a number weren't.
10 Q. Well, can you tell us which ones were to the best of your memory
11 and knowledge? General Lukic?
12 A. Yes, he was.
13 Q. David Gajic?
14 A. As for David Gajic, I saw that he be -- that he was an official
15 member of the staff, I saw that for the first time in this particular
16 document. I had seen him at meetings, but I didn't know in what capacity
17 he was present.
18 Q. And I understand he was -- he was on the state security side of
19 the MUP, right, not the public security side?
20 A. Yes, I believe so.
21 Q. Did you know Zivko Trajkovic?
22 A. Yes, I did.
23 Q. And he was the head of the SAJ
24 A. Yes, you're right.
25 Q. Okay. If you could look at the last page, item number 6, above
1 the minister's name and signature, if you could read that paragraph
2 and -- you don't have to read it out loud. Just read it to yourself.
3 Let me know when you've finished.
4 A. I read it.
5 Q. Okay. And in essence the minister seems to be saying this
6 decision, MP 57, appointing a staff for the suppression of terrorism, is
7 a decision that supersedes, overrules, takes the place of certain other
8 decisions that aren't going to be valid anymore. One of those, the last
9 one listed, is strictly confidential number 1206/98-2 of 11 June 1998
10 and I would suggest to you that that number refers to 01252 at tab 25 in
11 your binder, where you're named as being a member of a staff in -- a MUP
12 staff in Pristina. I don't know what you can see on your B/C/S copy
13 regarding the number and date. I know it's rather blurry, but would you
14 agree with me that that's what it seems to refer to?
15 A. I can't find either the number or the date here. I can only see
16 the titles. It is possible that this was the case, but ...
17 Q. I think on -- on the one from General Djordjevic in the lower
18 left near his signature do you see what appears to be a number and date
19 although part of it may be too light to read, can you see a partial
20 number or date there?
21 A. I can see that it says 206 here and then 110, which is probably a
23 Q. Okay. And that would explain perhaps why you never were told you
24 were made a member of the staff because this decision on the
25 11th of June, 1998, was overridden on the 16th of June, 1998, by the
1 minister's order; does that make sense?
2 A. Presumably so.
3 Q. Okay. Thank you.
4 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, now I would tender 1252.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic.
6 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I am absolutely in
7 agreement with the fact that this document is relevant for the trial and
8 that it has to be admitted into evidence; however, I place an objection
9 with regard to the criteria. The witness is not familiar with the
10 document. He said that he had just seen it -- he has just seen it for
11 the first time, and the document is supposed to be tendered through the
12 witness. I don't think that this should be the way it should be done,
13 but if this is indeed the case and if the document is going to be
14 introduced through the witness in this way, then I only ask that this
15 same practice be employed throughout the trial. Thank you.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, perhaps it would assist if I ask a
18 couple more questions. I don't want to be hoist by my own petard and
19 then be faced by having too low a standard for the admission of evidence
20 later on when I may be in the position of trying to object to something
21 that Mr. Djurdjic wants to put in.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Your submission briefly.
23 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I wanted to ask the witness a couple
24 more questions concerning the document I'm asking in terms of form and
25 regularity and similar to others that he may have seen of a like nature.
1 And I don't know if Your Honours have the copy of the B/C/S original to
2 look for yourself to see what parts of the number and date on that that
3 you may determine whether it could be the same document that's referred
4 to in P --
5 JUDGE PARKER: We have what is on the screen.
6 MR. HANNIS: Okay.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic.
8 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the date is
9 absolutely correct. I want to say this to my learned friend, Mr. Hannis.
10 And we do have a document in e-court which is a much better copy of this
11 one. The date is correct. The date on which this document supersedes
12 the earlier documents, referring to the staff. That's something that's
13 true. The date is definitely accurate.
14 MR. HANNIS: And what I wanted Your Honours to look at is not the
15 one that's on the screen. The one on the screen makes reference in the
16 English to number 1206/98-2 of 11 June 1998, but I need you to look at
17 1252 at the B/C/S to see if that number appears to be that same number
18 and that date of 11 June. And it's in the lower left directly across
19 from the stamp and signature.
20 And I would argue to Your Honours that given the contents of the
21 document, what's described in Minister Stojiljkovic's order about what
22 he's superseding, it makes sense. He's creating a MUP staff for
23 suppression of terrorism, and he's directing that that order supersede an
24 earlier one. This earlier one is General Djordjevic's order creating a
25 MUP staff, not particularly for the suppression of terrorism but a MUP
1 staff. Given the timing, the contents of the two documents, I think
2 logic dictates even though you cannot -- at least I cannot read every
3 single digit in the number and date, I think there's enough for you to be
4 satisfied that it can be admitted and considered with other evidence
5 throughout the course of the trial to give it whatever final weight you
6 deem appropriate.
7 JUDGE PARKER: [Microphone not activated]
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for the Judge.
9 JUDGE PARKER: We now have on the screen the electronic copy of
10 the document that you have shown to the witness I believe. Is that
12 MR. HANNIS: That is it, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Is it the case that there is another form in
14 e-court of this same order which is more legible? Which is what I
15 understand Mr. Djurdjic to be saying.
16 MR. HANNIS: Well, that's the best I've ever seen. If there's a
17 better one, I would be happy to see it.
18 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] There certainly is one in my
19 possession. I don't know if there's one in e-court. I do have one which
20 is a much better copy. We do not dispute the date. It is the
21 11th of June, 1998, and the reference number is the one that was stated
22 here, and it was signed by Mr. Djordjevic. And let me just state that I
23 do not contest the date. What I was referring to is that I wanted both
24 sides to have to follow the same criteria for admission of evidence.
25 That's what I wanted to raise.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. --
2 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I will try to locate a better
3 version of this decision. I don't know if I can do it in the next three
4 days or five days, depending on how busy I will be, but I will definitely
5 locate the copy that I have.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic, the Chamber does try to be
7 consistent with the admission of evidence. The receipt of official
8 documents is often something that can be undertaken on the basis of the
9 document's apparent regularity, its dating, its apparent signature,
10 its -- the stamp that is often on it, and so forth, or the source from
11 which the document was obtained. And those matters are weighed.
12 Sometimes they will be sufficient, sometimes they will not be.
13 As I understand Mr. Djurdjic, Mr. Hannis, he does not object to
14 the admission of this document, accepting the correctness of the date,
15 although on the copy of the screen -- that is on the screen it is
16 incomplete or indistinct. But he accepts that it is the correct
17 document. Therefore, by consent we could receive this without any
18 further ado.
19 MR. HANNIS: I would request that you do that, Your Honour, and I
20 appreciate Mr. Djurdjic's assistance.
21 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
22 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 01252, Your Honours, would be
23 assigned P00760.
24 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
25 And, Your Honours, I understand this is the time you take your
1 first break?
2 JUDGE PARKER: The second break I hope.
3 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry. First for me. Thank you.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
5 We will resume then at 6.00.
6 --- Recess taken at 5.30 p.m.
7 --- On resuming at 6.02 p.m.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Hannis.
9 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. General, I would like next to show you an exhibit, it's tab
11 number 13 in your binder.
12 MR. HANNIS: For the record, this is Exhibit P257 in evidence.
13 Q. General, you'll see that's a decision on the formation of the
14 124th Intervention Brigade of the PJP, signed by Minister Stojiljkovic on
15 the 18th of June, 1998. Have you seen that document before today?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. When was the first time you saw it?
18 A. Well, most logically it was in a time-period that followed the
19 issuing of this decision -- well, I couldn't really tell you when it was,
20 what date, but that is how it should be.
21 Q. And I see in item 1 that the 124th was to be formed by
22 integrating the 24th PJP Detachment and the Mechanised Police Brigade in
23 Pristina. Can you tell me what was the Mechanised Police Brigade in 1998
24 in Pristina? How big a unit was that and what kind of equipment did it
1 A. Well, as indicated here, this unit was set up from the mechanised
2 brigade and the 24th Detachment of the Pristina police. The mechanised
3 brigade of the police was set up in the 1980s, if my memory serves me
4 right - this is when I began my service in the police - in the joint
5 detachment of the Federal Secretariat of the Interior, if I'm not
6 mistaken. With time its strength was reduced. So in 1994 when, or
7 rather, 1995 - I am sorry, it slipped my mind temporarily - when I was
8 appointed the chief of the department of the interior in the secretariat
9 in 1995 the mechanised brigade for all intents and purposes did not exist
10 as an organised unit.
11 So before that and after it was established, it had a lower-rank
12 unit in each of the secretariats. I don't know what that unit was
13 called. So after 1995 - I can say that with certainty - it did not exist
14 as an organised unit but the equipment that was left behind that used to
15 belong to the mechanised brigade was given to the secretariats for their
16 use. And this is what happened with the element of that unit in
17 Pristina. Technically or formally this segment that was in Pristina was
18 covered by us from the secretariat, and there was a person who was the
19 commander of the brigade; he worked with me in the department of the
20 interior that I was the chief of. But that was not an active-duty unit
21 so to speak. But the secretariats were given the equipment for their
22 use, they were supposed to maintain it, and use it as they saw fit. The
23 secretariat had a certain number of armoured vehicles. There were some
24 armoured personnel carriers, tracked vehicles, and there were also some
25 wheeled armoured vehicles to be quite precise.
1 When the unit was set up - now I'm talking about the
2 124th Intervention Brigade - the mechanised unit, which was part of that
3 mechanised brigade which, as I said, was in the secretariat so it didn't
4 exist for all intents and purposes - the equipment was taken from the
5 secretariats to meet the needs of the PJP units that also belonged to
6 those secretariats. As I said, there was several armoured personnel
7 carriers, but because those armed personnel carriers were out of order
8 that they could not be used, they didn't -- they were not taken over,
9 they just remained there. And the wheeled armoured vehicles, the BOVs,
10 armoured fighting vehicles, were taken over. And in the establishment
11 list of the 124th Brigade they were included there on the list, they
12 became part of it.
13 I don't know whether I made myself clear because I was quite
14 extensive, but the mechanised brigade did not exist as an organised unit.
15 There was just the equipment that belonged to the mechanised brigade in
16 the secretariat. So when this decision was issued, the equipment was
17 taken over and given to the PJP companies and the secretariats for their
18 use. So that would be it in a nutshell.
19 Q. Okay. Thank you.
20 A. And -- I'm sorry. So it did not have a permanent composition.
21 So these were not people who were members of that unit and they performed
22 only tasks that were given to that unit. That was not the case.
23 Q. My next question has a link to your statement. In paragraph 9 of
24 your original statement you talked about the PJP increasing in size in
25 1998 to deal with the developing security crisis in Kosovo. And with
1 this increase became known as the 124th. But at the beginning today you
2 said you wanted to change that paragraph and you wanted it to reflect
3 that you didn't know why the PJP increased in size and became -- and the
4 24th became the 124th.
5 Would you look at paragraph 2. It says:
6 "The tasks and duties of the intervention brigade are focused on
7 security, the suppression of terrorism, and other special complex
8 security tasks within the jurisdiction of the MUP and protection of the
9 security of the republic and its citizens."
10 Now, remember, this document is dated the 18th of June. We saw
11 that two days before, on the 16th of June, Minister Stojiljkovic had
12 created a MUP staff in Kosovo for the suppression of terrorism. Reading
13 those two things together, doesn't that refresh your memory that this was
14 being done because the security problem in Kosovo was indeed getting
15 worse in June 1998. That's why the PJP got bigger, right, to deal with
16 this increasing problem?
17 A. I really did not draw this conclusion. That was not my
18 impression. But now when you maybe establish a link between the dates,
19 perhaps yes; but at the time, I did not.
20 Q. Okay. Have a look at the next paragraph.
21 "Putting the intervention brigade on stand-by, assembly, and
22 engagement for the task in paragraph 1 shall be done on the orders of the
23 minister and on his authorisation of the chief of the public security
25 That sounds like the people who decided about when the
1 intervention brigade was going to be put on stand-by or gathered together
2 or engaged for tasks was a decision by the minister, or if he delegated
3 it to the chief of public security, General Djordjevic. Does that
4 refresh your memory about who made the decisions about when the PJP
5 intervention brigade was going to be used?
6 A. Well, let me remind the Trial Chamber that what we talked about,
7 the readiness and the gathering of the brigade personnel, the same thing
8 went for all the PJP detachments. In the decision to form PJPs, there is
9 the same provision but it pertains to all the other PJP units. And in
10 this sense I really don't see a difference. This decision pertains only
11 to the 124th Brigade. I assume that this is why it's listed here, but
12 otherwise the same rule was valid for all the other PJP units.
13 Q. So it sounds like if there was an order from the minister or
14 General Djordjevic to you as a PJP brigade commander to stand-by or to
15 assemble or to engage, you would have had to follow that order; correct?
16 A. If you're talking about 1998 and 1999, that is true, but in that
17 period, the unit was used through the staff. It was the staff that
18 decided how to use the unit. It was not done directly by the persons
19 that were mentioned. It was only the MUP staff that could order the use
20 of the unit for tasks that were defined in the decision to establish the
21 staff. So what do I want to say? This is what it says here, but in
22 practice it was different. It was only the staff that could decide how
23 to use the unit.
24 Q. And to whom was the staff responsible, if you know?
25 A. Well, in accordance with the decision that we have just seen, it
1 was responsible to the minister, if I understood it correctly.
2 Q. And in your preparation for testimony, do you recall Mr. Stamp
3 showing you a number of documents signed by General Djordjevic deploying
4 PJP detachments or units to Kosovo in 1998 and 1999? Do you recall
5 seeing those?
6 A. Yes, I do. It was a dispatch. That's what we call it.
7 Q. There were several of those; right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Before we leave this document, could you look at paragraph 7. My
10 English translation reads:
11 "When the intervention brigade is standing by, assembled or
12 engaged for special security task as in item 2 or training in item 3 of
13 this decision, the commander and the commanders of the companies,
14 platoons, and detachments shall have the duties and powers of leaders of
15 corresponding organisational units of the ministry, that is, of the
16 police units in these organisational units."
17 Can you explain that for me. I have a hard time understanding
18 this phrase about organisational units of the ministry. What does this
19 mean about your power as a commander of this brigade? Can you explain
20 that to us?
21 A. Well, this paragraph - and I'm no lawyer - this is the way I see
22 it. Since the unit is not a permanent unit, it is not composed of people
23 who do no other job but that, it is composed of police officers who
24 are -- who have a decision assigning them to regular duties. Now,
25 members of the unit remain in the posts that they were assigned to in
1 accordance with the decisions, their regular posts, and they have the
2 duties and rights of the leaders of appropriate units of the ministry.
3 This is a reference to those decisions, which means that if a platoon in
4 a company from the secretariat in Kosovska Mitrovica, now the commander
5 of that platoon is the commander or an officer from a police station in
6 Kosovska Mitrovica. The personnel in that platoon are officers from that
7 police station. So this platoon commander is their commanding officer in
8 their regular duties and in those extraordinary duties that they have to
9 perform. So this is the reference to that.
10 So when they are deployed in the PJP doing PJP tasks, all the
11 responsibility in terms of their performance, discipline, and so on,
12 those commanding officers are duty-bound to -- they have the authority to
13 deal with their subordinates in the manner that I have already explained.
14 I don't know if I have made myself clear.
15 So the platoon commander was duty-bound to take care of his
16 members, personnel, in any way in terms of performing their tasks and
17 disciplinary measures and so on. Why? Because disciplinary
18 responsibility was not imposed at the level of the unit, but at the level
19 of their decisions assigning them to their regular posts.
20 So to give you an example -- so if somebody failed to obey an
21 order issued by the platoon commander, the platoon commander could
22 institute disciplinary proceedings against this person, but disciplinary
23 proceedings could only be instituted in the original police station, not
24 in the PJP, if you understand what I'm saying, because disciplinary
25 responsibility was something that was taken care of in the original unit.
1 So I think that all of this, what you said about authority and the
2 take-over of command, that the same applied to that. I apologise in
3 advance if I didn't make myself clear, but if I haven't made myself clear
4 perhaps you can ask some follow-up questions and then I will be able to
5 rephrase my answer.
6 Q. Thank you. I need to -- I thought I was following you and then
7 you got on the specific topic of discipline and you lost me at a turn.
8 If a PJP policeman, say Officer Markovic, in the PJP company that's part
9 of your brigade is from Pristina, he's from the Pristina SUP in a PJP
10 company, he's out doing a PJP task, and he refuses to obey an order or
11 commits some other disciplinary offence, who would have an authority to
12 discipline him? Is it only his platoon commander or could it go all the
13 way up to you as brigade commander? Or does it go to the chief of the
16 A. Well, in this specific case, the commander of the platoon where
17 police officer Markovic is serving who works together with him in the
18 police station, would file a disciplinary report to the commander of that
19 police station; and there is a disciplinary court within the secretariat,
20 it's an independent institution, so to speak, which would then deal with
21 the disciplinary report and decide how to punish this police officer
23 Q. So then you as brigade commander department have any disciplinary
24 authority over the PJP members engaged in PJP activities? It goes to the
1 A. More or less. I did not have the power to take specific
2 measures. I could tell the platoon commander to notify the commander of
3 the police station to file a disciplinary report, and then the normal
4 procedure would follow. But I couldn't punish that person because the
5 system of responsibility in the ministry was set up in that manner.
6 Q. Okay. Let me flip it around to the other end. You as a brigade
7 commander become aware of a disciplinary breach by your immediate
8 subordinate. Your immediate subordinates were those company commanders
9 or did you have detachments under you?
10 A. The company commanders.
11 Q. If a company commander had committed a breach, refused to obey an
12 order of yours, was the only thing you could do was report him to the
13 chief of the SUP
14 A. Precisely.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. To the chief of the SUP
18 Q. That last answer got translated as "chief of the department of
19 the interior." I'm not sure what that is. Chief of the Ministry of the
20 Interior or chief of the department of public security? I'm not sure
21 what you're referring to there.
22 A. I was referring to the chief of the department of the police or
23 of the interior in the Secretariat of the Interior where the company
24 commander came from, the OUP.
25 Q. Ah, okay. Thank you.
1 A. So in the chain of command, that person was lower than the chief
2 of the secretariat.
3 Q. Okay. Now related to this I'd like to show you another exhibit.
4 This is P132 in evidence. It's tab 12 in your binder. I think it's the
5 one right in front of what you're looking at now. And you'll see this is
6 the next day, the 19th of June, 1998. It's from General Djordjevic to
7 the various chiefs of the SUP
8 command of the 24th Detachment of the PJP. That's you; right? I'm
9 sorry, are you finding tab 12?
10 A. I haven't found it yet. I'm sorry. Yes, I found it.
11 Q. Okay. And you see the people it's addressed to, one of them is
12 to the commander, command of the 24th Detachment; that's you, right?
13 A. Absolutely.
14 Q. And do you recall seeing -- receiving this document in 1998?
15 A. Well, a long time has passed and there's no reason for me not to
16 believe that I saw it, so I probably saw it.
17 Q. Okay. Well, it looks like you were supposed to see it. Do you
18 agree with me about that?
19 A. Yes, yes, absolutely.
20 Q. Okay. And it's about the decision to form the 124th. The first
21 sentence says:
22 "In accordance with the proposal made by the commander of the
23 special police units, we hereby attach the decision by the minister to
24 form the 124th ..."
25 Do you know who the commander of the special police units was
1 that's referred to here in the document? Who was that person in
2 June 1998?
3 A. The commander of the special police units was, ever since their
4 inception, General Obrad Stevanovic to the best of my knowledge. He held
5 the position until such time as he took up a different position. I think
6 that was the position of the assistant minister. I am not certain,
7 though, of the position he assumed. I only know that he changed
8 positions. Whether he had any say in this or participated in this, I
9 can't tell you because the post that I held at the time would not allow
10 me to have that sort of information.
11 Q. Okay. Do you know who took Obrad Stevanovic's place as commander
12 of the special police when he moved on to another position? Do you know
13 who that person was?
14 A. I don't.
15 Q. Do you know approximately when that happened, that
16 Obrad Stevanovic moved from his position as commander of special police
17 units? Approximately.
18 A. Roughly 1996 or 1997.
19 Q. Well, then I'm confused because you said for this document issued
20 19 June 1998
21 units. So was he still in that position in 1998?
22 A. I don't think so.
23 Q. Okay. And you don't know who was?
24 A. I don't.
25 Q. And during 1998 and 1999 when you were commander of the
1 124th Intervention Brigade of the PJP, you didn't know who the commander
2 of the special police units was in the MUP?
3 A. Well, General Obrad Stevanovic was present in all the duties
4 involving uniformed police, both regular and extraordinary duties. Now,
5 did -- whether he appeared there as the commander of the PJP or as
6 assistant minister or as something else, I really can't tell. He was
7 present where duties involving the uniformed police were involved. Did I
8 perceive him as the commander at the time? It's quite possible, yes.
9 However, what formally the case was based on the documents, apparently he
10 was not the commander formally at the time.
11 Q. What document are you referring to that makes you think that?
12 A. This is my opinion because, as I said, in 1996 or 1997 he was
13 appointed assistant minister. This was general knowledge. The only
14 thing is I don't know exactly when this happened.
15 Q. And do you think that when he became an assistant minister he no
16 longer commanded the special police? Is it possible that he had both
18 MR. HANNIS: I see Mr. Djurdjic on his feet.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Djurdjic.
20 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was quite patient.
21 The witness provided his explanation, and we are going back to the same
22 question for the second or third time and this has led us to an opinion
23 now. He said, I believe that he became assistant minister at such and
24 such a date. I don't want to repeat what the witness said. And now
25 we've come -- we've gone back to the realm of opinions. Thank you.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Carry on, please, Mr. Hannis.
2 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
3 Q. Mr. -- General Brakovic, do you know of any reason why
4 Obrad Stevanovic taking up the position as an assistant minister would
5 prevent him from continuing to be the commander of the special police
7 A. I believe that the question relates to something that went beyond
8 the post I held and the possibility I had of obtaining information.
9 Could he have? Well, a PJP commander had to have been appointed to that
10 post and perform his duties on the basis of that appointment.
11 Q. Well, before you told us that you had been the commander of the
12 24th Detachment and when it grew in size and became the
13 124th Intervention Brigade you said you remained the commander and that
14 there wasn't - I understood it - anything done differently to appoint you
15 commander of this new unit. You just stayed in place. Is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Look at this document that you have in front of you. Paragraph 2
18 talks about:
19 "In accordance with item 5 of the decision based on individual
20 establishment and criteria for PJP recruitment, the selection of
21 employees and members of the reserve component shall be carried out" and
22 it says "with the prior approval or on the recommendation of the
23 appropriate PJP establishment officers as follows ..."
24 And then it says:
25 "Commander and deputy commander of the intervention brigade with
1 the approval of the PJP commander ..."
2 So who was the PJP commander who approved you as being commander
3 of the intervention brigade? Somebody must have done that, and you don't
4 know who it was?
5 A. The text you've just read out "with the prior approval or on the
6 recommendation of the appropriate PJP establishment officers as follows:
7 Commander and deputy commander of the intervention brigade with
8 the approval of the PJP commander."
9 According to this, it was not down to me to seek approval but the
10 chief of the -- it was up to the chief of the secretariat. I told you
11 who it was who nominated me. That's the way things worked. Just as the
12 appointment of the commander and deputy commander of a company is done
13 with the approval of the commander of the intervention brigade, likewise
14 it wasn't up to me to select the commander and deputy commander of the
15 company it was up to the chief of the secretariat. I was only asked an
16 opinion as to whether I agreed that Rade Jankovic should be appointed to
17 such and such a post. I could either say that I agreed or disagreed.
18 In this instant case, I'm not sure, but I assume that it was the
19 chief of the secretariat who nominated me. He must have consulted
20 someone as is stated in this text. I can't tell you who it was because I
21 wasn't there, and he must have sought approval for my appointment.
22 Let me tell you what my understanding of this process was. The
23 chief of the secretariat held a meeting with me when I was nominated to
24 be the commander of the 24th PJP Detachment. When the 24th Detachment
25 became the 124th Intervention Brigade, there were no subsequent
1 discussions. It simply played out by inertia.
2 Q. Okay. The 124th Intervention Brigade consisting of eight PJP
3 companies in June 1998 and in 1999, approximately how many men did that
4 have at its largest contingency during that time? Did you have a
5 thousand men?
6 A. I can't give you the precise figure. Approximately up to a
7 thousand at the most. The most precise figure would be around 950.
8 Since I'm not certain, let's allow for the possibility that it was a bit
9 over 950 but not more than a thousand.
10 Q. Okay. In 1998 and 1999 in Kosovo we've seen that there were PJP
11 detachments, both some that were from Kosovo and some PJP detachments
12 that were sent in from outside Kosovo, from Serbia proper. What was the
13 size of these detachments approximately? Smaller than a brigade?
14 A. In Kosovo and Metohija, if my memory serves me well, there were
15 four detachments present there and there was the
16 122nd Intervention Brigade. The detachments had some 150 to 200 men --
17 fewer men than my detachment, and I think that the 122nd Brigade had the
18 same strength as the 124th.
19 Q. The brigades were clearly the largest group of PJP. So you and
20 the 122nd -- you and the commander of the 122nd were the commanders of
21 the largest contingencies of PJPs in Kosovo in 1998 and 1999; right?
22 A. If we compared the strengths of the respective units and the
23 differences, yes.
24 Q. Okay. I've heard this term used regarding work in the MUP and it
25 talks about lines of work, and I'm trying to understand this in relation
1 to the hierarchy and the chain of command in the MUP. In your police
2 station in Pristina, you as head of the police department were
3 subordinate to the chief of the police or the chief of the SUP in
4 Pristina. Right so far?
5 A. If I understood you correctly, I was the chief of the police
6 department and my superior was the chief of the secretariat or of the SUP
7 for short.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. SUP
10 Q. But I've heard other witnesses from the MUP talk about, for
11 example, within the secretariat you said I think there were, like, 13
12 department heads. So there was a head of crime police, there was
13 probably a head of administration. You had these other departments
14 within the SUP
15 A. Absolutely.
16 Q. And all 13 of you were subordinate to the chief of the SUP?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. But I understood that the department heads also had a line of
19 work where you reported or dealt with your -- your kind of work with
20 somebody at headquarters in the MUP; is that correct? So there would be
21 somebody in the MUP who was responsible for the work of the crime police,
22 and the department head in Pristina for the crime police would report to
23 that person as well as to the chief of the SUP. Am I correct about that?
24 MR. HANNIS: I see Mr. Djurdjic on his feet.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Djurdjic.
1 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I think the question is beyond the
2 scope of the examination, and I don't think that Mr. Hannis should lead
3 the witness by presenting his own views or conclusions. I think that the
4 direct examination has now turned into viva voce.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic, the witness is a very senior
6 officer. Mr. Hannis would have no prospect of imposing his wishes and
7 thoughts on the witness. There is at times some difficulty in directing
8 the witness's attention to particular issues. I think the form of
9 questioning being used is one that in the circumstances is appropriate
10 and is not likely to lead to any improper or false or misleading
12 Carry on, please, Mr. Hannis.
13 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. General, I don't know if you remember my question or understood
15 it, or should I try and ask it again?
16 A. No, I remember it very well. All the communication in the
17 specific case you mentioned between the chief of the crime police
18 department and the police administration went through the chief of the
19 secretariat, and I'm referring to the official communication. Based on
20 my experience, I can tell you that I don't know that I ever spoke
21 directly to the chief of the police department who was my superior along
22 the line that you suggested in your question.
23 Q. Okay. Thank you. You mentioned in your statement - talking
24 about the uniforms and the insignia that the PJP wore -- I wanted to ask
25 you about ribbons that the PJP wore when they were in the field on
1 certain kinds of combat activities. You mentioned in paragraph 8 that
2 they would wear ribbons. I would like to show you 65 ter number 1191. I
3 think that's tab 7 in your binder. If you could have a look at that,
5 Have you seen that or something like that before? It's
6 instructions to the police for wearing identification bands in May 1999
7 from the secretariat in Pristina?
8 A. You are right. I may have seen that. However, as far as I can
9 see, it was not the Pristina secretariat who sent this or asked for this,
10 it was in the Pristina secretariat that this happened, but I'm familiar
11 with it, yes.
12 Q. And did the PJP wear armbands, as suggested here in this
14 A. Absolutely, just as the document reads.
15 Q. Okay. And if you could look at the next -- I'm sorry.
16 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I'd like to tender that one, if I may,
18 JUDGE PARKER: Before that happens, perhaps the witness could
19 help me with the notation at the very bottom which appears to be a
20 remark: The army "do not have identification bands." Is that saying
21 that these identification bands were only used by the police?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can read what the document says
23 there at the bottom. However, based on my knowledge dating from that
24 period, I believe that the army definitely had the same identification
25 bands as the police. This was the way in which members of the police and
1 members of the army could recognise one another out in the field in order
2 not to cause friendly fire. What lies behind this remark at the bottom
3 is something I cannot remember at this point. My memory of the events of
4 the time tells me that they did have them.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
6 The document will be received.
7 THE REGISTRAR: And that will be assigned P00761, Your Honours.
8 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
9 Q. And, General, if you could look at the next tabbed item,
10 number 8, which is 04076 is the 65 ter number. You'll see that's dated
11 the 13th of April from General Lukic, as head of the MUP staff, regarding
12 armbands for the policemen. And it has a chart showing which colours
13 should be worn on which arms on which date. Have you seen that document
14 before, do you recall?
15 A. I don't recall this document, though I suppose I did see it.
16 Q. And --
17 A. I suppose. I'm not sure.
18 Q. Okay. And you'll see I think -- it's my third page of that
19 document, there's a list and it lists various SUPs and various PJP
20 detachments and the number of -- the number of individual policemen. And
21 I guess it's a list for how many armbands need to be distributed to those
22 various units. I see the 124th is not included on this list. Would
23 your -- would members of your brigade have been included within the
24 individual SUPs? Is that why the 124th doesn't appear here separately or
25 do you know?
1 A. The only logical reason would be precisely the one that you've
3 Q. Okay. And the next page may help us understand that. It's dated
4 the 26th of May, 1999, from General Lukic and the addressees include not
5 only the secretariats but also the intervention brigade, the 122nd and
6 124th. And this is with instructions for what ribbons to wear in I think
7 June/July of 1999. Do you recall seeing this document or one like it in
9 A. As with the previous one, I don't recall seeing it, which doesn't
10 rule out the possibility that I did. It's just that I don't remember.
11 Q. I understand. It was a long time ago. But you have no reason to
12 think that this is not an authentic document. It looks regular in form
13 and you know these kind of orders or instructions were being issued at
14 that time; is that fair?
15 A. I don't doubt the authenticity of the document at all. I'm
16 merely saying that I can't be sure whether I saw this document while I
17 was reviewing other documents. I do remember seeing similar documents.
18 Q. Thank you. Understand I wasn't challenging you. I was just
19 trying to make sure that this looked to be regular in form.
20 MR. HANNIS: And with that, Your Honour, I would tender 4076.
21 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
22 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
23 THE REGISTRAR: And that will be assigned P00762, Your Honours.
24 MR. HANNIS:
25 Q. And, General, one of the reasons that the PJP was wearing these
1 ribbons out in the field was not only to avoid friendly fire but was it
2 also because sometimes the KLA were wearing police or VJ uniforms?
3 A. I think so.
4 Q. All right. Thank you.
5 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I'm about to go to a new topic. I
6 wonder if this might be an appropriate point to have recess for the
8 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. Can you give any indication,
9 Mr. Hannis, of how long you will be?
10 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I think I will take another hour and a
11 half, if I may have that long.
12 JUDGE PARKER: My worry then is whether the evidence of the
13 witness will finish tomorrow, Mr. Hannis.
14 MR. HANNIS: I understand. I know that's a problem for him. I
15 will do my best to cut down what I'm going to ask him, try to go faster
17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
18 We must adjourn overnight now. We resume tomorrow at 9.00 in the
19 morning. The court officer will give you further instructions.
20 We adjourn now for the evening.
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.59 p.m.
22 to be reconvened on Friday, the 8th day of
23 May, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.